Mass. court upholds same-sex marriage

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:41 pm

Goob, here's a good overview opinion piece on the subject. You'll notice that not once does the author say one way or the other what he thinks of same-sex marriage. He doesn't have to. btw, it's from one of the editors of the WSJ. Editorials are not always signed since they are presented as the opinion of the newspaper. Take note that Reagan was pressed for the same answer you are pressing for here and he sidesteps wonderfully (is it any surprise the guy is a legend?). But more significant than him ducking the question is the wisdom in the answer he provided.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Marriage of Inconvenience
Why same-sex nuptials make Democrats nervous.

Monday, February 23, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

The Wall Street Journal's Paul Gigot likes to say that on the politics of gay rights, the loser will be whichever side raises the issue first.

For many years, Republicans came up losers because media outlets portrayed them as intolerant, as indeed many of them were. The score evened last year when a 4-3 majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court demanded the state recognize same-sex marriage. Republicans probably nudged a little ahead last week when San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom decided to throw away the rule of law and declare it was his duty to recognize marriages between gay couples, despite a 2000 voter initiative codifying the traditional definition of marriage. As courts refuse to issue injunctions to stop San Francisco from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, many Democrats are running scared. In the words of Peter Schrag, former editorial page editor of the liberal Sacramento Bee, they know Mr. Newsom has committed an act of "monumental political stupidity."

Reading media reports of the 3,000-plus gay couples who have taken out marriage certificates in San Francisco make the mayor's civil disobedience look like a cross between a civil-rights triumph and a love story. That's because the vast majority of journalists support same-sex marriage, including right-of-center pundits such as David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan and Jim Pinkerton. But Democratic politicians know better. California's Barbara Boxer, one of the Senate's most liberal members, startled her base last week when she announced she opposed changing state law to recognize same-sex marriage. A spokesman for the senator said she believes the state's domestic partnership law provides gay couples with "full rights and responsibilities."

Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the first openly gay member of Congress, says he warned Mayor Newsom that his stunt would fail legally and would also force more-mainstream politicians to support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He is aware there has been a backlash since the Massachusetts court decision, and San Francisco's civil disobedience may accelerate that. A December poll by CBS and the New York Times found that 61% of Americans opposed gay marriage, up from 55% in July. Opposition to gay rights was the highest since the survey began asking the question in 1992.

The poll found that blacks and Hispanics--core Democratic voting blocs--were especially loath to embrace same-sex marriage. Jesse Jackson told a Harvard Law School audience last week that he supports "equal protection under the law" for gays, but he did not endorse full marriage rights and questioned the analogy between gay rights and civil rights: "Gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote." He warned the issue was treacherous territory for Democrats in 2004 because it was part of a "Republican tactical strategy to distract from such issues as foreign policy and education."

Yet the GOP didn't start this fight. Mayor Newsom is a Democrat, and although three of the four justices in the Massachusetts majority were appointed by Republican governors, no one believes they were acting out of cynically partisan motives in declaring a right to same-sex marriage.

Indeed, Democrats in California are angry that Mayor Newsom's stunt will distract voters from other issues where they are on firmer ground. And they're right to worry, because marriage appears to be a dividing line for many people between tolerance for gays--which continues to grow--and official validation of the gay lifestyle.

Support for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage is surprisingly uniform across demographic and regional categories. A Zogby poll last week found that 52% of voters in states that voted for George W. Bush in 2000 backed such an amendment. But so did 50% of voters in Al Gore states. A Newsweek poll this month found that 36% of Democrats strongly supported a constitutional amendment.

In California, the ballot measure to declare marriage as a union between a man and a woman won 61% of the vote in 2000, carrying 52 out of 58 counties--even as Al Gore trounced George W. Bush in the state, 53% to 42%. Respect for the will of the voters is one reason Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, generally sympathetic to gay rights, told a convention of California Republicans on Friday night that the state will refuse to recognize San Francisco's action. He demanded that San Francisco officials obey the law.

The liberal Mr. Schrag rang the alarm bell for Democrats in his column this week. "Just when Bush's support and his poll standings are shrinking, here come San Francisco's city-county sanctioned gay marriages--almost certain to be declared invalid anyway--to rouse Bush's base," he wrote. "Bill Clinton learned painfully that wading into the gay front of the culture wars in his first days in office is not a good way to begin. . . . Couldn't Newsom have done his fellow Democrats a favor and waited a year before adding fuel to the fire?"

Republicans still have to be careful about appearing, or being, intolerant and leaving themselves open to charges of hypocrisy. David Boaz of the Cato Institute once wrote a powerful piece in the New York Times chiding family-values conservatives for criticizing gays while most social problems--abortion, divorce, latchkey kids, out-of-wedlock births--result from misbehaving heterosexuals. He noted that articles on homosexuality in conservative publications far outnumber those on, say divorce. "Scapegoating gay men and lesbians may get conservatives some votes, but it is not going to solve any of American families' real problems," he says.

Daniel Weintraub, a libertarian-leaning columnist at the Sacramento Bee, points to a possible compromise. He would prefer the government get out of the marriage business entirely, making all unions a private matter among couples and their faiths. "Our legal system already has the tools to handle the contract implicit in the ceremony, and the state needn't do much other than allow the courts to enforce those contracts like any other."

Gays are doing their cause no long-term good by pushing for official government validation of their unions as marriages at a time when public opinion is hardening against such a notion. Opponents of extending basic legal rights such as hospital visitation and insurance benefits to gays are on the losing side of history and are being sidetracked from more important moral questions.

Both sides would do well to recall Ronald Reagan, who courageously opposed a 1978 initiative in California that would have barred gays from teaching in public schools. When a small group of gays met with him after his opposition led to the measure's overwhelming defeat, he was asked his opinion of gay marriage. "Well, now," he told them, "I would just warn you that if you get in bed with the government, you'll get more than a good night's sleep."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:53 pm

Bash, that didn't answer any of the questions I asked. I agree, they are going about this all wrong. Now please find me an article, or express your own ideas

, that says why gay marriage is important to heterosexuals. Please tell me where the harm lies.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:16 pm

Perhaps now you see just how *monumentally stupid* Mr. Newsom's initiative was. He has provided opponents to gay rights with a strategy to block their incorporation without ever having to answer those questions, and risk appearing intolerant or hypocritical. If the Gay Rights Movement had simply plodded on with it's current erosive policy of winning support through putting a happy face on gays, gay *lifestyle* and gay marrriage, and portraying gays as law-abiding, patriotic and moral contributors to our society, then when the discussion was finally brought up for public debate and pressed for a ruling, the personal reasons people possess for being for or against gay marriage would also have to be examined. As it stands, now they don't.

The issue can be now framed within the context of something Americans hold much more dear than the rights of gays; their own rights. Newsom pissed away decades of goodwill built up between the gay community and the straight majority and has snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. Are opponents to gay marriage going to take advantage of it now that they find themselves handed a no-lose line of defense on a silver platter? Heh.

aldel · Post by **aldel** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:57 pm

I'm going to continue to resist the temptation to wade in and express an opinion. But while I was reading up on this subject I found a few references that people might find useful.

The following is taken straight from a footnote of http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw ... 20304.html . It lists the relevant parts of the Massachusetts constitution.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Article 1 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, as amended by art. 106 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, provides: "All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin."

Article 6 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights provides: "No . . . men, have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges, distinct from those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the public . . . ."

Article 7 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights provides, in relevant part: "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family or class of men . . . ."

Article 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights provides, in relevant part: "Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. . . ."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also there is a lot of information at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm and at sites it links to.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:57 pm

you clowns are attacking the wrong thing. you should attack the fact that people are rewarded for personal decisions. attack the "carrot" that is dangled in our FREE COUNTRY.

who gives a rats ass what people do in their personal relationships? are you molesting a kid? are you a rapist? no? then i don't care. no one has the time to care... or the energy. but you mess with my money i'm gonna be a ★■◆●. got it?

equal rights = benefits for my chosen lifestyle (in this debate)

will someone please explain why we bow and kiss the toenails of people who make a commitment legally? yea great, it's wonderful... i bought you a blender on your "registry" of pre-determined gifts you are demanding. i'm gonna make up a registry for "adam's day" because i got my shaft sucked. yahoo.

i'm sure i've typed this line of thinking 3 times in the last month... maybe i'm wrong but i think i'm turning into bash (and that's either fuqed up, or a natural progression of living).

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:01 am

BREAKING NEWS President Bush announces he supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Details soon.

Off CNN.com. Strange, because I remember reading (granted, in foreign press) that Bush was against such an amendment.

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:53 am

I remember reading that he stopped short of saying it, but never that he opposed an amendmant.

Gavotte · Post by **Gavotte** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:18 am

Heh heh heh...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095259

A Defense of Marriage Amendment would enshrine, for the first time, language of intolerance and exclusion in a document that was intended to set forth basic rights. Does President Bush really want to be remembered as the guy who first used the Constitution to codify bigotry?

Only from bush, the guy who killed 100's of US soldiers for no real reason.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:18 am

Transcript: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/ ... index.html

Lol liberal press: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/ ... index.html

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:17 pm

Wow, that was fast. Apparently recent events have convinced opponents of homosexual marriage that now is the time to act. I guess now we'll find out exactly how much damage Newsom has done. Personally, I hope something as dumb as this doesn't take centerstage during the election. I care much more deeply about where the candidates stand on less silly issues, such as national security and the economy.

Prediction! (I feel like what's-his-name) Violence will mar this election.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:37 pm

I think the constitution should be amended to ban divorce. That will do more to defend the sanctity of marriage.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:54 pm

Portland (or rather, the county Portland is in or something) started issuing marriage licenses as well.

http://www2.kval.com/x30530.xml?ParentP ... pID=x30530

Oregon state law defines marriage as a "civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age." In other words, the law does not specify that the union be between a man and a woman.

From here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ge03m.html

Mass. court upholds same-sex marriage

[