Today's Topic: Massachusetts government tangled in 3-way brawl over gay marriage

I'm just enjoying both three way and gay marriage used in the title. I'm not even commenting on the article itself

I think that the matter will probably be decided in the courts. People are still too narrow minded to understand the reasons why marriage equality has become necessary. Gays and lesbians aren't living the oppressive lives that they once lived. Society has to deal with it in this day and age.

Like the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, is a living and active word. It has pushed us to expand our boundaries. Once only landed, white gentlemen were entitled to all the rights and privileges of our country. That was expanded to all white men, later to all men, and eventually to all men and women. I believe the words of the Declaration of Independence have the power to change laws, hearts, and minds because they hold a transformative vision of society. They are bigger than we are...and they hold a gentle light to where we fall short. Eventually, equal rights including marriage will be the law of the land. Our judges meditate on those transformative words more than most of us. Perhaps why that is why they have been in the forefront of extending rights to racial minorities, and now to gays.

Yes they should have forced a vote. It is not appropriate that the unelected judges in this country pas the laws that we live by.

Good one Shelley! LOL Anyway, my response to this article? You cannot ban same-sex marriage. It is not legal to legislate morality. You CAN ban same-sex marriage ceremonies from being performed in your church any time you want, if your congregation/fellowship all agrees it's not in keeping with their religious beliefs. Again, you CANNOT ban same-sex civil marriage ceremonies.
Now, for the faithful and misled followers of various evangelicals, KNOW that you are being USED by corporations who are paying your evangelicals, one way or another, in order to avoid paying benefits to spouses of same sex marriages. WHY? Because it comes out of their precious pocket! They could care less if a dog married a turtle as long as they don't have to pay benefits.
If I was one of the formerly known as moral majority, or conservation Christians, or Compassionate conservatives, I would be pretty darn mad when I woke up and realized I was being used as a pawn to destroy the Bill of Rights and the USA Constitution.

Should the Massachusetts legislature have been forced to vote on whether to put the question of same-sex marriage directly before the public?

I'm surprised that the courts didn't try to order the legislature to vote, and even more surprised that they didn't tell them how to vote. The judiciary's only power over the legislature is deciding which laws the legislature passes violate the State Constitution.

Should this issue of minority rights be decided by popular vote?

I don't know what "minority rights" you are talking about in your second question. Gay people have the same marriage rights as straight people. They can marry someone of the opposite sex. I never read anything mentioning love, or sexual preference in the legal definition of marriage. What about bisexuals, anyway? Marriage has legally been defined as between a man and woman for the duration of this nation's law. To change it by judicial fiat, saying it is a "right" that gays have always been denied, is to rewrite history. Gays have had "marriages of convenience," just as straight people have throughout history. This might not be a good thing, but there is a proper way to change the law, which brings me to your third question:

Is the public being unjustly denied their opportunity to weigh in?

Yes, the public is being thwarted of an opportunity to weigh in, though they have done so by electing a Governor who will drop the petition drive, after Romney leaves office. This should be an educating experience for the citizens of Massachusetts, as well as the rest of us who care to examine the situation.

Should gay rights advocates risk a public vote for the legitimacy it might grant their cause, or continue to hold their ground on marriage by any means necessary?

Roe v Wade should provide an example here. The immediate route made immense gains for women's "freedom," but also produced abortion mills that don't report rapes to law enforcement. It also produced a conservative backlash that will eventually overturn this flawed SCOTUS decision. The fact is that this decision by the Mass court shows a realization by the court that they have already overstepped their authority, and their unwillingness to step further over the line.

Hopefully, gays can get the rights of "civil union" that they desire without doing it through corruption of the judicial process.

"By any means necessary" is what I meant to write, where I wrote "immediate" in that last comment. I was thinking in shorthand, I guess.

Why make a big deal. If two people decide to live together let them do so. Why bring in marriage here? Why cant we call it Gayriage or any other thing.
Marriage according to dictinary.com 1.It is the social institution under which a MAN and Woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage .............
God gave freedom of choice to the first man. That choice is still availble to mankind. Let those who have ears, let them hear.

They should absolutely not allow a minority's rights be decided by popular vote that is insane. had the right to interracially mary been put to a popular vote it would have failed.
Romney should be exliled from the state for attempting to do this. Religion HAS NO PLACE IN POLITICS OR CIVIL RIGHTS. They need to be separate. how would Mitt Romney like it if the government decided that Mormons beliefs are illegal and that the right to practice that religion is now forbidden?
The court vooted and decided on the issue it IS SETTLED. Same sex marriage is allowed and legal in MASS since 2003. Done with everything we need to deal with why this issue still? God did not rain fire down on the state and our societal fabric has not ripped so much for those biggotted arguments...
We all need to move on...

All 3 parties - the governor, the courts and the legislature - followed the rules. The legislature chose not to approve the referendum. Romney sued. The courts ruled correctly that it is not its place to babysit the legislature. The voters can always vote out the legislators, but they won't, and the legislators aren't about to pick up this divisive issue when they can simply ignore it without any ill effects to their constituencies. In the end, most people won't care.

Should the issue of gay marriage be decided at the ballot box? I'm sure that some in Mass. would say no, and some in Arizona would say no as well.

Regardless of what happens, gay marriage will eventually find a place in our laws.

What would happen if a vote were put forth to determine whether or not African Americans could marry? What if a vote were put forth to determine whether or not Hispanics could go to school? What would the majority of voters want, and why would the voters have the right to decide if a minority is allowed some priviledge that the rest of the people are given? No, there should not be a ban on gay marriage, and the government should be impartial enough to recognize that legislating love and marriage is unconstitutional in spite of personal or religious biases.

Let's understand some history here. In the past, gays and lesbians lived isolated lives often without partners. Today, gays have come out of the closet and no longer accept that their lives are less than heterosexual lives. Marriage equality is just the next and right step in the evolution of gay and lesbian lives. Society can handle this.

For those who think it' s about hating homosexuality - I feel sorry for you.

If the courts have decided that forcing people to vote on initiatives that shouldnt be on the ballot in the first place more power to them.
I think people have forgotten what marriage was about in the first place. If you check out the origins, it was about determination of a womans property. Not to mention church is supposed to be seperate from state. If you remove all mention of god or religion from the argument against gay marriage there is no rational, logical arguments left.
Lets also keep in mind that if we left it up to popular vote we would probably still have "Jim Crow" laws on the books.

Again, what about bisexuals? Shouldn't they have the right to marry two people? Why are their rights being denied?

I think that, often, people who have homosexual or bisexual fantasties or urges who are Christian and of other religious backgrounds as well, repress what is a normal human curiousity/fantasty and, thus, are very afraid of homosexuals being given civil rights such as marriage. I think that, underlying their passion and hatred against gays is a fear of their own fantasies. I would like to assure those who may have this issue, that these type of fantasies are normal. You may have sadistic/masochistic fantasies, rape fantasies, etc. If you allow yourself to acknowledge that this is normal and ok, you will not have to repress these thoughts and feelings and they will lessen. Having such fantasies does not mean you are homosexual, although, if you are homosexual, it may. ALL humans have a variety of these types of fantasies. What differentiates a gay, pedophile, psychopath, sexual abberant, or predator from everyone else is that they act out and act on their fantasies. Gays do not have heterosexual feelings, attraction for the opposite sex or, if they do, they prefer same sex. Most people do have heterosexaul feelings and are attracted to the opposite sex, but may have fantasies of others kinds of sex.
I think there are many Christian men who struggle with their bi-sexuality or homosexuality, are tormented by it, act it out secretly, and suffer self-condemnation that they project onto gays who are out of the closet.
Jesus taught, "Resist not evil." In other words, quit fighting so hard! Let go! It will all be ok. "What you resist, persists." I am not labeling same sex marriage as evil, but using this quote to illustrate the principle of resistance and its effects, of which Jesus was well aware.
I am grateful that our founding fathers put protections in place to prevent us living in a religious state and allow us freedom of religion and speech. If they hadn't we'd be in the same shape as Iraq and other countried with our religious differences and diversity. What a great experiment America is! We can't let her fall due to religiousity, fear, paranoia, and human weakness. The checks and balances are there. Keep religion out of it. If gays want same sex marriage, they should be allowed to get married in civil court and have the same benefits and rights of other marital couples.
Keep religion out of it! You can kick them out of your church, ok? You can refuse to marry them in your church, ok? You can separate from your church and start a new one if your church does decide to marry them in the name of God. But they are asking from the Supreme Court the CIVIL right to marriage - not sanction from your God.

So people should be able to marry one person from each sex, if that's who they love?

So glad Romney's outta there soon!

I second the remarks made above in relation to peoples' rights NOT being put to popular vote. Sometimes the popular majority is just plain wrong on issues, as the past have shown.

Christopher, why not two people of the same sex? Shouldn't polygamy also be legal under the reasoning employed to suggest same sex marriage is a right?

The Massachusetts issue had nothing to do with having the people vote. It was to require a vote of the legislature. The court knew their ruling would be overturned so they refused to act. Blatant violation of Massachusetts law.

Gay couples are one day going to enjoy the same civil rights as the rest of us. Period.

Why are people so worried about gays being married? If it's the title of "marriage" that's the problem we can just call it a civil union. I have been married twice by a justice of the peace and I am just as "married" as anyone else, so that seems to take any religious element out of it.If everything had to be decided by voting do you think women would have been allowed to vote?or blacks? How about interacial marriages?In 1980 it was illegal to live with your lover "out of wedlock", should that have been voted on? there are some issues that have to be decided on by the judicial system. We have to have some faith in their wisdom and integrity to do whats right and just for us all, which a "vote" wouldn't always do. Equal rights for all, I say.

As a citizen of Massachusetts, I'm glad the court decided to let the legislators run their own branch of government. After too many years, this issues can (hopefully) die and we can focus on much more important social problems like poverty, drugs, poor schools, the environment, regional cooperation, and making the Commonwealth a better place to live.

shirly says:Gay marriage is the least of our worries! Rampant homosexuality is! Those who have multiple partners and pass aids from one to another! people are dying from terrible sicknesses and today you have no idea who is and who is not bi sexual, so that you are taking your life in your hands when you become sexually active with anyone!


what a joke. pretending that christians are concerned about STDs- christians of your political and moral persuasion that is! christians are afraid of rampant homosexuality because they think God doesnt like it, and thats the end of it. Christians have shown time and time again they are not interested in stopping the spread of STDS - you pretty much imply that STDs are only traceable back to homosexual behavior, as if they were some curse from god to Gay people.

Gay people may or may not be interested in having families, like heterosexual people. gay people do want equal rights. no gay person is asking for the government to somehow make them able to make babies with a gay lover, which you seem to think given your argument about the inability for gay people to make babies...

If it was left up to the Popular Vote.... Women and African-Americans would not be enjoying the equality that they share today with the rest of the Male Caucasian community. That is why we also have three branches of Government, in order to preserve the integrity of our Constitutional rights. Without legislation, equality is not granted to the GLBT community. Religious Organizations do not have to permit, grant or perform marriages to members of the GLBT community, but I think they should also lose their Tax Exempt Status should they decide not to uphold the laws of this country. Freedom was not reserved for a few and our men and women in uniform have continued to fight and die to preserve that right to freedom for all men and women, regardless of race, creed, sex, color,size or sexual orientation. Let the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, be an example of tolerance and freedom for the rest of our great nation to live up to.

Ah, the fear of "rampant homosexuality"... I cannot hear that ridiculous expression without a chuckle. Twenty years ago I would have thought that in 2006 we'd be beyond the absurdity of the battles for civil rights we are today engaged in. Why are the conservatives so afraid of all couples having the right to marry? It is my hope that someday all the hate that's built up in their hearts may dissipate. It must not be a pleasant life to put so much effort and energy into denying rights to people unlike themselves.

I agree with civil unions as well, this way they should be able to have the same benefits as a married man and woman.

This talk about "rampant homosexuality" amuses me. There already is rampant homosexuality and in very few cases is anyone getting hurt. There are good and bad in all groups and gays and lesbians are no different. For the love of God - leave homosexuals alone - if you can't do anything else.

The private lives of heterosexuals are not open to discussion. Likewise, the private lives of homosexuals are none of anyone's business. Those who make it their business under the guise of "religion" are not Christians by any stretch of the imagination. I am convinced that a person's relationship to God is intensely personal and is not open to anyone else's interpretation. The Moral Majority (which is neither), the Christian Right, or any other group that would like to insinuate their narrow and bigotted views are doing exactly what Jesus worked so hard to end, which is the view that if a group follows the "law", they are the only ones to be "saved". These people scare the heck out of me.

Finally, who really believes that a person wakes up one day and says, "I think I will be gay. That looks like fun!"? Homosexuality is NOT a choice, it is biology. And preventing a person from being him or her self (gay, bi, lesbian or straight) can only cause great harm.

While the court did not intervene, it scolded the legislature for side-stepping its constitutional duty.

When elected officials side-step their obligations, either constitutional or otherwise the public suffers. This should be not only remembered, but addressed by the voters. The issue here is not gay and lesbian marriages, it is your elected officials doing the job they were elected to do and are well paid to perform.



Should the Massachusetts legislature have been forced to vote on whether to put the question of same-sex marriage directly before the public? Should this issue of minority rights be decided by popular vote? Is the public being unjustly denied their opportunity to weigh in? Should gay rights advocates risk a public vote for the legitimacy it might grant their cause, or continue to hold their ground on marriage by any means necessary?

The private lives of heterosexuals are most certainly open to discussion, Timothy. The mayor of SF just admitted to an affair with the wife of his campaign chairman.

Don't make it so easy to dispute your opening assertion, dude.