Page: 1

Same-sex Marriage in Massachusetts

ckeaton Profile Photockeaton Profile Photo
ckeaton
Broadway Legend
joined:11/11/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
11/11/03
Same-sex Marriage in Massachusetts#0
Posted: 2/4/04 at 3:38pm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/index.html

"Because the proposed law by its express terms forbids same-sex couples entry into civil marriage, it continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status. ... The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."

This is a very potent, and well written opinion from the Mass. Supreme Court...

"Front-runner Sen. John Kerry is from Massachusetts and supports civil unions, but not gay marriage."

Do people feel passionately about the difference, I'm just curious?



Hamlet's father.
broadwayguy2
Broadway Legend
joined:5/18/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/18/03
re: Same-sex Marriage in Massachusetts#1
Posted: 2/4/04 at 3:47pm
To be honest, for me, it is ultimately about the rights you recieve.. however, I DO think that the name is a part of it.. calling one marriage and one civil unions is still "seperate but equal"... which as we know, doesn't fly....

I think teh issue is not fully explained.. civil and ceremonial/religious marriage are two totally different institutions, yet the "conservatives" AKA &^%(&^%$(^$)&^_& do not make a distinction in their biggoted rants... they blur the lines and treat them as one when they aren't. Civil Marriage is teh issue. Not religious marriage. I don't want a bigot performing my ceremony, so why should I have to deal with southern baptists in deciding if I can marry or not?
jrb_actor Profile Photojrb_actor Profile Photo
jrb_actor
Broadway Legend
joined:5/16/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/16/03
I think it will be more difficult to attack gay marriage when the first American gay marriages take place this summer--and people see that it doesn't affect their lives. In fact, I'm hoping people will finally see that this strengthens family values.

As for Kerry, it upsets me that he is not for gay marriage, but only civil unions. However, I would rather take the baby step of civil unions than to go backwards with antigay measures. Kerry is otherwise, very supportive of gays and lesbians. I just hope Kerry doesn't speak out against his state's decision. I hope he is merely choosing a middle of the road stance to ward off conservatives.

But, I think that it is deeply insulting to give all of the same rights to gays and lesbians, but call it a different word. And, that will become a separate is not equal issue when one is prejudiced in society.
bwguyhottie
Featured Actor
joined:10/23/03
Featured Actor
joined:
10/23/03
I have no prob with civil unions, so long as we remember this is a step towards not marriage, not an end unto itself.
broadwayguy2
Broadway Legend
joined:5/18/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/18/03
I agree.. one step at a time, yes, but ultimately it is still second class and equality must be obtained.
Mister Matt Profile PhotoMister Matt Profile Photo
Mister Matt
Broadway Legend
joined:5/17/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/17/03
I'm not so sure it's really a step forward. It depends on the goal. My goal is equality, not seperatism. It's like saying, "OK. We'll allow gays the right to eat. The heteros get Le Cirque and the homos can have Taco Bell. After all, they're both food." They're just barely hinting at throwing us a proverbial bone and even that is iffy at best.

Let 'em eat cake...
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
broadwayguy2
Broadway Legend
joined:5/18/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/18/03
well said Mister Matt...
I am just happy that the issue is being discussed at all and we are not being swept under a rug
FindingNamo
Broadway Legend
joined:7/22/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
7/22/03
MMMMMMMMMM Taco Bell!

Richard Goldstein's excellent analysis in a recent Village Voice pointed out that Civil Unions would be the more radical option and would actually do the thing that the people freaking out that gay marraige will "weaken" the institution will do: weaken the institution of marriage as more hetero couples end up opting for the all of the rights without the yolk of "marriage."
Chat with the groan-ups: https://twitter.com/NamoInExile
innocentchoirboy Profile Photoinnocentchoirboy Profile Photo
innocentchoirboy
Stand-by
joined:1/28/04
Stand-by
joined:
1/28/04
i would accept a civil union if it meant we got the same rights, but i do feel strongly that whatever name is decided, it needs to be for hetero and homo alike. it needs to be all marriage, or all civil union, because otherwise, we really are second class citizens. afro-americans went through this years ago. isn't a ruling about same rights, different name ultimately a comeback of good ol' jim crow laws? we spend so much time trying to assert our normality that sometimes we over do it. i feel the gay community needs to strive for equality, for we've gotten the recognition we've been desperately craving. we've said "hello, here i am!" but now we need to get off the Queer Eye "we're better than you" train, because as we all know, the different kid never gets to play with the others.
"We ought to make the pie higher." --George W. Bush, South Carolina Republican Debate; February 15, 2000
Auggie27 Profile PhotoAuggie27 Profile Photo
Auggie27
Broadway Legend
joined:10/13/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
10/13/03
Thanks Namo. We all posted on this in a big way, shortly after the new year. Some of us who are more troubled by the extremist positions of the Bush regime on most civil rights issues think this is not the time to make gay marriage the litmus test for any democratic candidate. As I posted then, let's get a man in the white house who uses gay in a non-pejorative way. Who uses the word gay ... at all. Who attends gay events. Who honors the Matthew Shephard foundation, and perhaps meets with his parents about ending hate crime. An all or nothing gay agenda --marriage or nothing, I'm sorry -- in an era where we have right wing fascism to worry about, feels rarified and not pragmatic enough. We need kind, empathetidc (straight but sensitive) democrats in office again, gays coming to dinner again (remember Ellen and Anne at the Clinton White House? A photo op for everyone, the Clintons included?) and civil unions, per the Namo-cited piece, given the front burner status they need. Marriage is a end, not a means. In this divided and hate-driven country. Now. I fear that making gay marriage the only gay goal ... we risk more backlash, we risk turning back progress in the post-Stonewall gay movement many of us weathered ... that serves no one.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Updated On: 2/4/04 at 10:11 PM
jrb_actor Profile Photojrb_actor Profile Photo
jrb_actor
Broadway Legend
joined:5/16/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/16/03
I agree with many of the different thoughts here, but this is no longer an issue like that of Clinton's gays in the military promise. The Mass. decision means that action will have to be taken--either for gays or against.

And what is going to happen to the marriages that WILL (unless somehow thwarted) take place this summer if a new law one day takes it all back? I suspect hell is going to break loose.

My hope is that Bush is kicked out and that the Democratic President is able to find a fair resolution (well--fair would be gay marriage, but I digress).
Updated On: 2/5/04 at 01:38 AM
Auggie27 Profile PhotoAuggie27 Profile Photo
Auggie27
Broadway Legend
joined:10/13/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
10/13/03
Idealism, and long-range goals are critical. Yet political expediency is the issue in our immediate future. No Democrat who says "I'm for Gay marriage" will be elected in 04. To those of us who want Bush gone, getting a Democrat in is more important than one stand. Supporting gay rights, helping the gay community be treated with respect and dignity -- and a "little" buried thing like stopping hating crime (and getting rid of gay teen suicide--still a major problem in this society) ... those are far more important stands in a President than him or her supporting gay marriage.

It's truly a question of wnning the point, losing the game. The game for many of us is about ousting one of the least gay-friendly presidents in the history of this country. Folks, that's the rallying point.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
jrb_actor Profile Photojrb_actor Profile Photo
jrb_actor
Broadway Legend
joined:5/16/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/16/03
I agree completely, Auggie, I'm just saying that there is no way to sweep this issue under the rug. It will have to be dealt with.

To marry both of our thoughts here (didn't actually mean that pun lol), I think this means that Kerry and Edwards (or Clark and Dean if they actually make it longer) will have to take some stance (likely not in favor of gay marriage). I can live with that as long as they get elected.

All I pray is that neither support the inevitable attempt at a Constitutional Amendment.

But, aside from the elections, the crap is about to hit the fan. Conservatives are going to fight this one hard both statewide and federally.
papalovesmambo Profile Photopapalovesmambo Profile Photo
papalovesmambo
Broadway Legend
joined:11/4/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
11/4/03
re: same-sex marriage in massachusetts#13
Posted: 2/5/04 at 1:40pm
this could all be averted if they would just take a word that has no business in any lawbook out and left it in the churches where it belongs. let everybody file for civil union or domestic union or whatever they'd like to call it licenses. then if they wanna have a "marriage" they can go to a church. if they wanna make the license binding and official and secure the rights and respnsibilities inherent in such and arranegment without the guy in the dress and the choir (hmmmm, something sounds wrong about that), let 'em go to the clerk of courts and set up civil ceremony.

but until some bright soul offers such a solution, i must take up my conservative armor and begin researching countries that have adopted civil unions and or gay marriage and see how it affected their marriage rates and such.
r.i.p. marco, my guardian angel.

...global warming can manifest itself as heat, cool, precipitation, storms, drought, wind, or any other phenomenon, much like a shapeshifter. -- jim geraghty

pray to st. jude

i'm a sonic reducer

he was the gimmicky sort

fenchurch=mejusthavingfun=magwildwood=mmousefan=bkcollector=bradmajors=somethingtotalkabout: the fenchurch mpd collective
jrb_actor Profile Photojrb_actor Profile Photo
jrb_actor
Broadway Legend
joined:5/16/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/16/03
papa--I agree (shock). we need to use a non-religious word if the word marriage is too precious.

Please do (fair) research. I think this like the gays in the military issue will show that other countries have done just fine treating gays as equals. It's laughable that two of the most powerful countries in the world are so behind in these matters: USA and Great Britain.
papalovesmambo Profile Photopapalovesmambo Profile Photo
papalovesmambo
Broadway Legend
joined:11/4/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
11/4/03
r.i.p. marco, my guardian angel.

...global warming can manifest itself as heat, cool, precipitation, storms, drought, wind, or any other phenomenon, much like a shapeshifter. -- jim geraghty

pray to st. jude

i'm a sonic reducer

he was the gimmicky sort

fenchurch=mejusthavingfun=magwildwood=mmousefan=bkcollector=bradmajors=somethingtotalkabout: the fenchurch mpd collective
jrb_actor Profile Photojrb_actor Profile Photo
jrb_actor
Broadway Legend
joined:5/16/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/16/03
Oh, come on! It's gay marriage's fault what heterosexuals do? Our country, which doesn't have gay marriage yet, has a huge divorce rate and growing number of people who do not have a desire to marry. There are growing numbers of kids born out of wedlock. How can anyone suppose that gays being allowed to marry--which increases the number of marriages--is responsible for heterosexual's views on their marriages. I was always told that if your faith can be swayed, you faith wasn't that strong to begin with.

Furthermore, I am tired of people declaring that marriage is only about raising children:

1. People marry people they love, children comes after.
2. What about married couples who can't have children?
3. What about married couple who don't even want children?
4. What about gay couple who are raising or want to raise children?

There is no reason for gays not to marry except for bigotry in all of this hypocrisy.
jrb_actor Profile Photojrb_actor Profile Photo
jrb_actor
Broadway Legend
joined:5/16/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/16/03
Show me what really counts and matters in this country:

Is gay marriage going to screw up the economy?
papalovesmambo Profile Photopapalovesmambo Profile Photo
papalovesmambo
Broadway Legend
joined:11/4/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
11/4/03
that was just the first thing i found, jrb. but i cannot believe that you read the whole thing that quickly, you're amazing!
r.i.p. marco, my guardian angel.

...global warming can manifest itself as heat, cool, precipitation, storms, drought, wind, or any other phenomenon, much like a shapeshifter. -- jim geraghty

pray to st. jude

i'm a sonic reducer

he was the gimmicky sort

fenchurch=mejusthavingfun=magwildwood=mmousefan=bkcollector=bradmajors=somethingtotalkabout: the fenchurch mpd collective
jrb_actor Profile Photojrb_actor Profile Photo
jrb_actor
Broadway Legend
joined:5/16/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/16/03
I'm waiting on my laundry lol

The article is from a conservative POV. So, of course, he is only going to report the bad stuff as he sees it. But, if marriage is so strong worldwide, why does Bush feel the need for $1.5 billion to strengthen marriage in this country. No way gay marriage could ever be blamed in this country. The "decline of marriage" is a recent cultural trend that began in the 90s and has nothing to do with what gay people are doing.
Updated On: 2/5/04 at 02:30 PM
robbiej Profile Photorobbiej Profile Photo
robbiej
Broadway Legend
joined:5/20/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/20/03
Let's not assume all conservatives are against same-sex marriage. Iraq hawk William Safire has given considerable thought and space to the issue, weighing on the 'pro' side.

I believe, in the end, what will happen (in my lifetime or not), is that most Americans will eventually come to realize that if two people of the same gender wish to get married, it won't effect their daily lives in any way whatsoever.
"I'm so looking forward to a time when all the Reagan Democrats are dead."
LA Guy Profile PhotoLA Guy Profile Photo
LA Guy
Stand-by
joined:12/1/03
Stand-by
joined:
12/1/03
Feel like I am coming to the party late, but here are my thoughts...

First, (not that this is my strongest point) Gay Marriage would HELP the economy! Gay couples would be rushing off to get married, renting halls and hotels, hiring caterers, bands, DJ's etc. It would have a huge impact on the eocnomy. Not to mention signing up for every wedding registry to get back atall those straight couples wedding you have gone to and had to spend $100 on a gift!

Secondly, the whole notion that we need to "protect the sanctity" of marriage is ridiculous. If you REALLY want to protect the sanctity of marriage, should they pass a law which makes adultery illegal? I mean adultery goes against the sanctity of marriage, does it not? Also, what if someone were to say that working women were the reason behind the growing divorce rate? Should we force women (or one spouse) to stay home to protect the sanctity of marriage? Please.

Lastly, while I would never equate racial issues with what is going on here, some states used to say that a marriage was between a WHITE MAN and a WHITE WOMAN or a BLACK MAN and a BLACK WOMAN. But we all know that is illegal, not to mention just not right.

Finally, the reason why marriage is essential for equality and not just "civil unions" is, I believe, more about having your marriage recognized by other states under the whole notion of federalistm. While we are technically a loose collection of individual states, states must recognize other states conferring of certain kinds of status on individuals. IT seems dangerous to me to have "civil unions" as some states could simply say they only recognize marriage and NOT civil unions. Again, the seperate but equal does not mean equality.