Massachusetts High Court rules same-sex couples entitled to marry

[Guynemer]

I agree with Mindseye. My words exactly.



indeed.



And bfg9000--funniest joke I've seen all day.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
It'll take two years before they can vote on an amendment to ban gay marriage? State procedural rule?

Dunno, but that's what it said in the article.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Che

It's gonna be two years before they can vote on it. That's enough time to bring a case to the SCOTUS. A couple gets married, crosses state lines, and forces another state to recognize the marriage or go to court. WOOT!

WOOOT!

(accidentally spills champagne on Che's sneakers as he kisses him)

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I agree with Mindseye. My words exactly.



indeed.



And bfg9000--funniest joke I've seen all day.

You mean that there is no ficking smilie limit?

[Shi Huangdi]

Ah, I see, missed that. Looks as though Massachustes has herself in a bind.

This is very bad news for the Democrats. The public, which overwhelmingly opposes marriages for gays, is likely to see this issue explose in the national spotlight and move gay rights front and center. People will soon find out that gay marriage is not only in Massachustes, but also in every state without a DOMA law, and I suspect even in some states with DOMA some Federal District Judges in DOMA states will declare DOMA unconstitutional. The Democratic Candidates will then have to choose between betraying gay rights and outraging their base, likely leading to lower turnout and more defections to third parties, or it could choose to not back action against the tide of gay rights and gretly anger swing voters.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
It'll take two years before they can vote on an amendment to ban gay marriage? State procedural rule?

From the above...

The soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 2006, meaning that until then, the high court's decision will be Massachusetts law no matter what is decided at the constitutional convention.

While the state may have been leaning towards an amendment earlier, the language used in the majority opinion will make it a LOT harder to pass such an amendment. In any event, a step in the right direction.

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. A bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

Pretty strong stuff there, pally.

btw:

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

It'll take two years before they can vote on an amendment to ban gay marriage? State procedural rule?

From the quoted article:

The soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 2006, meaning that until then, the high court's decision will be Massachusetts law no matter what is decided at the constitutional convention.

WOOOOT!
(pours champagne over Shi Huangdi's head

[chequita guevara]

DOMA is unconstitutional. It's just that no one has any standing to challenge it yet. First you have to have a married gay couple.

People were against Blacks and whites marrying, but eventually they were forced to accept it. They'll accept this too, especially once a major church accepts it (I'm looking at the Episcopalians).

[mindseye]

Cross-post!

(clinks champagne glasses with Theben)

[Guynemer]

Can I get some love, mindseye?

...er... you know what I mean.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, given the wording of their decision (which seems to be relying on Brown v Board of Education) an amendment to the Massachussetts Constitution might still be deemded unconstitutional by the Mass SC.

[Shi Huangdi]

I also predict that this will eventually become in the long run the greatest disaster for gay civil rights. Think of this as the equivalent if the 1960's civil rights SCOTUS descriminations had come about in the 19th century when we were still very racist; a constitutional amendment would have backed segregation.

I think public demand will be enough, that, unless SCOTUS affirms the Constitutionality of DOMA, a Constitutional Amendment will pass to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The result of this will be unequal status constitutional affirmed, which would take a constitutional amendment and 3/4 of the states to approve in order to repeal it. Because there are more conservative States then liberal states(Conservative states usually have much fewer population then liberal states such as California or New York, but there are alot more of Conservative States). This will mean that not only will we have to wait until the country as a whole has had a change of heart on this issue, but until States such as Alabama, Wyoming, Tennesse, Kansas, South Carolina, Etc. have a change of heart on this issue, thus denying gays the right to marry for 100 years or more so, probably long after the rest of the world has already accepted it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Good!

Another liberty upheld.

Now to see the SCOTUS showdown.

I'ld bet on UCC allowing it before Episcopalians, if I were a betting man.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, given the wording of their decision (which seems to be relying on Brown v Board of Education) an amendment to the Massachussetts Constitution might still be deemded unconstitutional by the Mass SC.

I find that doubtful.

[chequita guevara]

They can't affirm the consttutionality of the DOMA. It violates the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. The only way to get around that is a Constitutional amendment, and while a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, enough people are in favor to possibly block such an amendment being passed.