BOSTON (AP) - The Massachusetts high court declared Wednesday that gays are entitled to nothing less than marriage and that Vermont-style civil unions will not suffice, setting the stage for the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings by the spring.
The court issued the advisory opinion at the request of legislators who wanted to know whether civil unions would be enough to satisfy the court after its November ruling that said gay couples are entitled to all the rights of marriage. That decision had been written in such a way that it left open the possibility that civil unions might be allowed.
But Wednesday's opinion by the Supreme Judicial Court left no doubt: Only marriage would pass constitutional muster.
"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," four justices wrote. "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. The (civil unions) bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits."
posted on February 4, 2004 07:08:06 PM new
I don't see how this is damaging to the religeous institution of marriage.
All they are saying is that the secular institution of marraiage is like every other contract under law with the same standards and rules.
If a religion even wants to accept a state wedding is entirely up to them. If they choose they can refuse to honor the sactity of a civil marriage. In that case the church would not accept the couple as married in a religeous sense until they met all the requirements of the church and went through all the required rites.
The reverse has always been true that the state does not have to recognize any religeous marriage if the preacher has not registered and been properly licensed by the state. And many religions likewise will not accept any civil divorice without going through the same process with the church.
They are two seperate systems. Neither should be required to dilute their own standards for the other. And nobody should have to decide which they will seek - a civil validation or a religeous one. Neither the church or the state should poke their nose into the other's business.
Plenty of people are deciding to do without either the state or any religion's blessing and if either the state or the church makes it too difficult to deal with them they may find that they have damaged the institution of marriage more by their administrative choices than any choices of partner the public makes.
posted on February 4, 2004 09:21:06 PM new
Well, here's a pregnant question for y'all: Since we do have a separation between church (law) and state (law) in this country, why are weddings conducted in churches in the first place? I would think that such a choice would be determined by individual couples, and not be de rigueuer, given the civil authority vested in Justices of the Peace...
posted on February 5, 2004 03:59:43 AM new
The state licenses the clergy to perform the civil contract. Most people want the religeous ceremony but just don't think about the fact they are indeed getting two ceremonies - the clergy acting for both their church and the state. They seem to forget the papers they witness as an unimportant little formality. I've been to weddings and heard the minister say - "By the authority confurred upon me by God - AND THE STATE OF OHIO - I pronounce you man and wife." That apparently just flies right over most heads.
But if you just go to the park and say your vows before friends and don't record it lots a luck later forcing the state to recognize it.
Not to mention the state has decided to take an interest in things like if the people wedding are diseased or not that religions don't address.
But as you mentioned Smith a justice of the peace or a mayor or town clerk some places is just fine. But talking about the sanctity of such a marriage is silly. The state and the church are not in the same business. The state gives you no religeous approval of your union. Indeed to help people who have trouble thinking clearly ALL contracts done by the state should be labeled civil unions so some dufus doesn't think they have just made some contract with God just because the license from the state says it is for marriage.
And if a same sex couple want a non-religeous unsactified legel contract before the state what does it have to do with religion at all?
If they want a religeous wedding too well that is also between THEIR religion and them. If your religion is agast at it well you probably are offended by sacrificing goats and other things other religions allow or even require too. But we made a rule here that the state will not decide which religion is ok and which is not. So if a religion decides that homosexuality is no problem for them it is really not the states business. If the church approves of homosexuality perhaps it is good for the members to know what sort of church they belong to....If they need to they can make adjustments or leave.
Now if YOU don't ever want to speak to such people or have anything to do with them that is certainly your choice. And if you want to announce to the world they are going to hell to burn for eternity knock yourself out.
But if you want to tell the state to lock one of them out of a hospital room so they can't visit when the other is sick that's none of your business.
Hard as it is to understand it just doesn't matter if it offends you. Even if you consider yourself an expert or important (or President). If you are a Bishop or something and think you define the terms of the civil marraige you perform for the state better talk to the legislature. They will set you straight on that.
I'm starting to think they should require two seperate ceremonies one for the church and a completely seperate one for the state so these people who can't think very well see they are two seperate things.
Or if the state decides marriage really is just a religeous matter then maybe it should not get involved with it at all.
Then people can write up the terms of their marriage in a contract and make it anything they want. They can have more than one mate or set the contract for a limited term or a continuing association like a club or anything they can imagine.
posted on February 5, 2004 12:49:17 PM new
"What is everyone's definition of marriage? "
The first thing that leaps to my mind is a husband-and-wife team. I'm not at all opposed to wife-and-wife teams or husband-and-husband teams. I think any two people who are willing to make a lifelong commitment should be able to do so, without interference from the State.
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled interracial marriage laws unconstitutional in 1967, an overwhelming proportion of Americans thought such unions "immoral". In fact, such southern states as South Carolina and Alabama still had laws on the books banning interracial marriage well into the 1990's.
Times change. People's sensibilities ultimately change with them, albeit slowly. Gay marriages will one day be recognized, probably through a lawsuit that makes it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (as was the case in its decision to strike down laws banning interracial marriage) . Until then, there'll be plenty of yelling and frustration on both sides of the issue.
