Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Gay Marriage Legal In Massachusetts

LGBT Same Sex Marriage Massachusetts

  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#1 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 01:17 PM

Legal gay marriage ceremony performed in Massachusetts

Quote

By Associated Press
Monday, May 17, 2004

The era of legalized gay marriage has begun in Massachusetts.

Same-sex couples around the state are tying the knot today after applying for marriage licenses and receiving waivers from the state's three-day waiting period.

Tanya McCloskey and Marcia Kadish of Malden were apparently the first to get married. They were wed at Cambridge City Hall in a brief ceremony performed by the city clerk.

Massachusetts is now the first state where gay marriage is legal, but state voters could overturn the marriages in 2006, so no one knows if this situation will last.
Per aspera ad astra

#2 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 01:33 PM

problem is that every time a state does this, even for a year or two, it becomes a little more acceptable. If another state or two follows suit, or if Mass doesn't repeal this in 2006, then i imagine popular objection to Gay marriage will go to pieces.

#3 silverwind

silverwind

    Not the only one

  • Islander
  • 3,032 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 01:48 PM

CH-- One can only hope you're right.
Proud ally and supporter of Euro-snobs and international flakes.

Signs your coworker may be able to manipulate time:  "Is this the first time you've called here before?"

Signs your coworker needs to work on their vocabularly:  A:  "It opens up in Notepad and it's just jibberish."  B:  "So you can't understand it?"

#4 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 02:42 PM

I wonder how the activest court is going to deal with the issue if the people vote to override this law?

I wonder if the people can force their elected officals impeech them.

You see my problem with this is that the courts forced the issue . And I perfer the tyranny of the ballot box over the tyranny of the appointed offical. One the people have a say into the affairs of their government the other they have no sayat all.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#5 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 02:47 PM

The courts were asked to judge based on the existing Massachusets state constitution. Their judgement was that the state constitution prohibits discrimination.

It's not as if they all got up one day and decided to interpret state law. There was a case brought before them and they did their jobs.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#6 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 02:50 PM

We'll see how this turns out. Really, this is what federalism is all about. Watching the Massachusets experiment over the next few years is going to be absolutely fascinating. I can't help but notice the apocalypse still isn't nigh... ;)

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 17 May 2004 - 02:51 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#7 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 03:37 PM

G1223, on May 17 2004, 12:40 PM, said:

You see my problem with this is that the courts forced the issue . And I perfer the tyranny of the ballot box over the tyranny of the appointed offical. One the people have a say into the affairs of their government the other they have no sayat all.
Darn those activist courts! ;)

#8 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 03:43 PM

wondered if someone would bring that up.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#9 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 03:53 PM

Rhea, on May 17 2004, 02:45 PM, said:

The courts were asked to judge based on the existing Massachusets state constitution. Their judgement was that the state constitution prohibits discrimination.
Though I think using "discrimination" as the foundation for this ruling is pretty shaky.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#10 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 03:55 PM

Discrimination from www.dictionary.com

1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice:

Isn't not allowing gay marriages all three?

#11 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 04:00 PM

Cyberhippie, on May 17 2004, 03:53 PM, said:

Isn't not allowing gay marriages all three?
Only if it can be determined that marriage is an inalienable right.

And even if that could be determined, "marriage" must have some kind of definition to prevent people from claiming a right to, for example, polygamy.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#12 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 04:06 PM

point and point,

Is heterosexual marriage considered an inaliable right in the US?

I ask because in the Netherlands they both are.

Edited by Cyberhippie, 17 May 2004 - 04:07 PM.


#13 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 04:12 PM

Cyberhippie, on May 17 2004, 04:04 PM, said:

Is heterosexual marriage considered an inaliable right in the US?
Only by inference. (e.g., "the pursuit of happiness.")
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#14 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 04:13 PM

ah, okay

and i'm guessing then that the debate is weather gays have that right to pursue happiness?

#15 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 04:25 PM

Cyberhippie, on May 17 2004, 04:11 PM, said:

and i'm guessing then that the debate is weather gays have that right to pursue happiness?
Not, not really. The debate should be about what combinations of people may enter into a marriage contract. Marriage must be defined before it can be called discriminatory. And since any definition is going to set up limits (unless the definition is "anything goes") then anyone will be able to claim discrimination if they aren't allowed to enter into a marital union combination of their choosing.

Edited by Drew, 17 May 2004 - 04:25 PM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#16 Pip

Pip

    Still a pervy hobbit fancier... all these years later

  • Islander
  • 1,269 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 07:48 PM

Cyberhippie, on May 17 2004, 04:11 PM, said:

and i'm guessing then that the debate is weather gays have that right to pursue happiness?
I like the way you put that, CH.  

I think that Rov is definitely right in that the next few years are going to be very interesting.  

Though, to a point, I agree with you, Drew.  Marriage should probably be more clearly defined but the way the issue is being handled right now, it is discrimination of a specific group based on their beliefs.  

It's all a very grey area but I commend the courts for at least addressing the issue instead of trying to bury over the years so that it's hopefully forgotten about.  I don't envy them their jobs because no matter what the ultimate decisions, there's just no way to please everyone.    :(
Dance as if no one were watching, sing as if no one were listening, and live every day as if it were your last.  --Irish Proverb

#17 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 08:24 PM

Pip, on May 17 2004, 07:46 PM, said:

Marriage should probably be more clearly defined but the way the issue is being handled right now, . . .
I think you mean "mis"handled.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#18 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 09:11 PM

Well at least for two years those people can live somewhat peacefully.

Gotta love the tyranny of the majority! :p ;)
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#19 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 09:25 PM

Yeah beats the tyranny of the minority.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#20 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 02:40 AM

Good for them. Be interesting to see how this pans out.
Yea, ere my hot youth pass, I speak to my people and say:
Ye shall be foolish as I; ye shall scatter, not save;
Ye shall venture your all, lest ye lose what is more than all;
Ye shall call for a miracle, taking Christ at His word.
And for this I will answer, O people, answer here and hereafter,
The Fool - Padraic Pearse



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Same Sex Marriage, Massachusetts

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users