URGENT: they're voting on the marriage amendment!

[AdamSmith]

>How are things doing in the Massachusetts legislature in

>terms of getting rid of the ancient racist law that Gov.

>Romney is using to not allow out-of-state same-sex couples to

>marry, by the way?

 

Two lawsuits were filed on June 17 challenging the constitutionality of the law as Romney is applying it to gay and lesbian couples. One was filed by 12 MA cities and towns, the other by GLAD on behalf of eight out-of-state couples. Awaiting further developments.

 

http://www.glad.org/marriage/

[Guest ReturnOfS]

Thinks alot for the info, Adam.

If they manage to remove that law, just imagine what it can mean for the rest of the country! :-)

[Guest ReturnOfS]

Thinks alot for the info, Adam.

If they manage to remove that law, just imagine what it can mean for the rest of the country! :-)

[AdamSmith]

>If they manage to remove that law, just imagine what it can

>mean for the rest of the country! :-)

 

We can hope. The legal challenge is based on the Massachusetts constitution and the interpretation of it in the state Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision, not the federal constitution. So the effect in/on other states will have to be that of example and the pressure of conscience. (The Mass. decision in fact took care to note that the state constitution is more protective of individual liberties than the federal constitution. But it also made sure to ground itself in U.S. Supreme Court precedent.)

 

The SJC's opinion was a deeply moving text. If we're lucky, and persistent, we may see it become the same kind of touchstone as Brown v. Board, the Thirteenth Amendment, or the Civil Rights Act of '64. Somehow, despite Washington's resistance, that this sea change is being driven at the state and local level seems profoundly hopeful.

 

440 Mass. 309

SJC-08860

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

 

Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

 

We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2480 (2003) (Lawrence), quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992).

 

Whether the Commonwealth may use its formidable regulatory authority to bar same-sex couples from civil marriage is a question not previously addressed by a Massachusetts appellate court.[3] It is a question the United States Supreme Court left open as a matter of Federal law in Lawrence, supra at 2484, where it was not an issue. There, the Court affirmed that the core concept of common human dignity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and one's choice of an intimate partner. The Court also reaffirmed the central role that decisions whether to marry or have children bear in shaping one's identity. Id. at 2481. The Massachusetts Constitution is, if anything, more protective of individual liberty and equality than the Federal Constitution; it may demand broader protection for fundamental rights; and it is less tolerant of government intrusion into the protected spheres of private life.

 

Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law...

 

http://www.masslaw.com/signup/gtwFulltext.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm

[AdamSmith]

>If they manage to remove that law, just imagine what it can

>mean for the rest of the country! :-)

 

We can hope. The legal challenge is based on the Massachusetts constitution and the interpretation of it in the state Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision, not the federal constitution. So the effect in/on other states will have to be that of example and the pressure of conscience. (The Mass. decision in fact took care to note that the state constitution is more protective of individual liberties than the federal constitution. But it also made sure to ground itself in U.S. Supreme Court precedent.)

 

The SJC's opinion was a deeply moving text. If we're lucky, and persistent, we may see it become the same kind of touchstone as Brown v. Board, the Thirteenth Amendment, or the Civil Rights Act of '64. Somehow, despite Washington's resistance, that this sea change is being driven at the state and local level seems profoundly hopeful.

 

440 Mass. 309

SJC-08860

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

 

Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

 

We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2480 (2003) (Lawrence), quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992).

 

Whether the Commonwealth may use its formidable regulatory authority to bar same-sex couples from civil marriage is a question not previously addressed by a Massachusetts appellate court.[3] It is a question the United States Supreme Court left open as a matter of Federal law in Lawrence, supra at 2484, where it was not an issue. There, the Court affirmed that the core concept of common human dignity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and one's choice of an intimate partner. The Court also reaffirmed the central role that decisions whether to marry or have children bear in shaping one's identity. Id. at 2481. The Massachusetts Constitution is, if anything, more protective of individual liberty and equality than the Federal Constitution; it may demand broader protection for fundamental rights; and it is less tolerant of government intrusion into the protected spheres of private life.

 

Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law...

 

http://www.masslaw.com/signup/gtwFulltext.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm

[Guest coololdguy]

Even if you hate politics this is the time to get involved. We owe it to ourselves and to our brothers and sisters and to Matthew Shepard and the others who went before us.....who never had this opportunity to speak out and actually make a difference ....and if you do get involved you will feel very good, I promise.

 

Thanks Rick, for once again beating the drums. Your are the best.

Peace to everyone

coololdguy

[Guest coololdguy]

Even if you hate politics this is the time to get involved. We owe it to ourselves and to our brothers and sisters and to Matthew Shepard and the others who went before us.....who never had this opportunity to speak out and actually make a difference ....and if you do get involved you will feel very good, I promise.

 

Thanks Rick, for once again beating the drums. Your are the best.

Peace to everyone

coololdguy

[VaHawk]

Okay, I did it, but I doubt it will do any good at all, as I live in the land of gay oppression, known as Virginia. I'm sure, I'll get the standard crapola reply from my two enlightened Republican senators.

 

Thanks to all the brouhaha from the Massachusettes actions, all gay Virginians are now facing even less rights than before via the pending bill in the state senate, that has already passed the state house. A bill that will deny two gays from exercising the rights of contractual law in matters as basic as health care decisions, burial rights and property rights. Jerry, Pat and all their far right Christian bretheren are having a ball!

 

Personally, imo, the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, banning gay marriage, has about as much chance of surviving as a snowball in Hell. How many years did the Equal Rights Amendment for women float around before it died? As such, what is all the HYSTERIA about? Nothing, except hysteria would be my guess.

 

In the meantime, individual states, such as Virginia continue to propose/enact laws suppressing the rights of gays even further, as a reaction to Massachusettes laws. And yeah, NO ONE in Virginia government gives a RAT'S ASS about what MA says, as the citizens of MA don't have any RIGHT to dictate what is acceptable in VA! Just an example of the concept of states rights - didn't they have a war over that very issue 143 years ago??

 

So, I sent the damn letters, and I KNOW from doing the same on other issues, that I will get the same party line responses from my Republican senators! In other words, imo, a waste of the little time that it took to send the protests, as politicians are ALWAYS going to follow party lines!

:-(

[VaHawk]

Okay, I did it, but I doubt it will do any good at all, as I live in the land of gay oppression, known as Virginia. I'm sure, I'll get the standard crapola reply from my two enlightened Republican senators.

 

Thanks to all the brouhaha from the Massachusettes actions, all gay Virginians are now facing even less rights than before via the pending bill in the state senate, that has already passed the state house. A bill that will deny two gays from exercising the rights of contractual law in matters as basic as health care decisions, burial rights and property rights. Jerry, Pat and all their far right Christian bretheren are having a ball!

 

Personally, imo, the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, banning gay marriage, has about as much chance of surviving as a snowball in Hell. How many years did the Equal Rights Amendment for women float around before it died? As such, what is all the HYSTERIA about? Nothing, except hysteria would be my guess.

 

In the meantime, individual states, such as Virginia continue to propose/enact laws suppressing the rights of gays even further, as a reaction to Massachusettes laws. And yeah, NO ONE in Virginia government gives a RAT'S ASS about what MA says, as the citizens of MA don't have any RIGHT to dictate what is acceptable in VA! Just an example of the concept of states rights - didn't they have a war over that very issue 143 years ago??

 

So, I sent the damn letters, and I KNOW from doing the same on other issues, that I will get the same party line responses from my Republican senators! In other words, imo, a waste of the little time that it took to send the protests, as politicians are ALWAYS going to follow party lines!

:-(

[TotallyOz]

>Okay, I did it, but I doubt it will do any good at all

 

VA: It did do a great deal of good. It revived my hope in humanity!

 

You know what you did was a good thing but like many good things, you realize that most of them will not make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

 

I love that Rick and others have the passion to fight the fight and to keep enthusiastic about things going on and moving things forward for us all. I too, signed the petition and I have donated to the organization for years as well as many that fight for gay rights. It is important to me. I will admit that I don't have the passion that Rick and others have for the battles that rage, but I am glad they do and if going to a website and sending a letter to congress is all I need to do today, I can always find the time and energy for that. On that note, I appreciate Rick for bringing this to the open for us!

[TotallyOz]

>Okay, I did it, but I doubt it will do any good at all

 

VA: It did do a great deal of good. It revived my hope in humanity!

 

You know what you did was a good thing but like many good things, you realize that most of them will not make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

 

I love that Rick and others have the passion to fight the fight and to keep enthusiastic about things going on and moving things forward for us all. I too, signed the petition and I have donated to the organization for years as well as many that fight for gay rights. It is important to me. I will admit that I don't have the passion that Rick and others have for the battles that rage, but I am glad they do and if going to a website and sending a letter to congress is all I need to do today, I can always find the time and energy for that. On that note, I appreciate Rick for bringing this to the open for us!

[Rick Munroe]

Thanks to all of you who have thanked me for posting this info. As I hope you know, I didn't post it to make myself look good, but because it's something in which I passionately believe, and hoped you would, too. And I'm glad you all took the few seconds it takes to send the message to your senators. It's never a waste of time to make your voice heard. Progress is made in small steps and all of our small voices put together can get pretty loud.

 

Moderators: thank you for pinning this to the top! I have never had that happen to something I started. Well, actually, I've been pinned to a top (Derek) for quite some time, but we still can't get married (see how I made it all come back on topic?).

[Rick Munroe]

>some-Anonymous-soon-to-be-19-year-old is all about it =)

 

Good boy. I didn't mean what I wrote above as a slur against you, because as I said, it's fun to read about your 19th birthday. You were just a good example to use.

[VaHawk]

"Thanks to all of you who have thanked me for posting this info. As I hope you know, I didn't post it to make myself look good, but because it's something in which I passionately believe, and hoped you would, too."

 

Speaking only for myself, I NEVER thought that you posted this to make yourself look good! OBVIOUSLY it is a topic that you consider, rightly so, to be important to all gays in America! Most of us gays, I'd venture to say, feel the same way!

 

"And I'm glad you all took the few seconds it takes to send the message to your senators. It's never a waste of time to make your voice heard. Progress is made in small steps and all of our small voices put together can get pretty loud.

 

God, I wish I could express the same optimism! I'm not trying to be intentionally pessimistic, but just trying to be realistic. But Oz is right, I do feel better making my voice heard, even though it is a voice lost in the wilderness.

[Guest]

>I hardly think this marriage will amendment will ever become

>constitutional.

Oh, for God's sake, how can someone be so unclear on the concept? A Constitutional Ammendment is part of the Constitution. That's the whole point. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. A Constitutional Ammendment can't be unconstitutional because it IS the Constitution. Neither the executive nor the judicial branches have anything to do with the passage of a Constitutional Ammendment. It's probably best not to comment about something when one has absolutely no idea what one is talking about.

[KY_TOP]

I received an e-mail from HRC they says they have gotten 560,000 messages sent to Congress but still need many more. Keep those cards letters and e-mails a coming.

[Rick Munroe]

>I received an e-mail from HRC they says they have gotten

>560,000 messages sent to Congress but still need many more.

 

That is so cool when you consider that their goal was 250,000. You're right; let's not stop now. Keep passing on the link to anyone you can think of.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Thank you for both your phone calls. Back atcha.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

But what about my hangnail?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Okay, I did it, but I doubt it will do any good at all, as I

>live in the land of gay oppression, known as Virginia.

 

You're right, dear. It IS for lovers. I may just have to stay put here. You like-a incalls? tee-hee-hee-hee!!!

 

>So, I sent the damn letters, and I KNOW from doing the same on

>other issues, that I will get the same party line responses

>from my Republican senators! In other words, imo, a waste of

>the little time that it took to send the protests, as

>politicians are ALWAYS going to follow party lines!

> :-(

 

Uh-yeah. Mmmkay. Just as soon as we both remember to launch the subcommittee to remember where we misplaced the Benjamin Nicholas Memorial Thingamajigger.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

It's good to be the king of a cult of (im)personality -- uh, er, or lack thereof.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

> Matthew Shepard

 

That BITCH!!!!!!!!!! Did you see how HOT!!!!!!! his attackers were?

 

Oh, wait a minute. They didn't show their cocks on the Today show, nor mention whether they were uncut or 45,000,001.23 meters long.

 

Well, whatever, nevermind.

[trilingual]

Just e-mailed my two Senators from Kansas. I'd done this earlier in the year, and got back a mealy-mouthed reply from Roberts and one proudly proclaiming his support for the amendment from Brownback. But I let them know again, for whatever it's worth, so at least they're reminded that they have gay constituents, too! I also reminded them that the Kansas Legislature voted down a similar amendment to the state constitution TWICE during this past session, and that it would be unseemly in the extreme for the Congressional delegation to make an end-run of the legislature by trying to put this hateful amendment into the U.S. Constitution. Who knows if it will persuade them (I doubt it) but they need to know at least a few voters are paying attention!

 

Keep those e-mails and phone calls and visits to your Senators and Representatives going. It's critical that they see and hear directly from real live constituents, and understand how our lives are affected by our inability to marry, and how no one else's marriage will be affected should we gain the right to marry.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Okay, okay, enough PRESSURE!!!!! We got all bazillion of your SCARY! faxes to all 47 of our Brazil satellite offices (thanks to redistricting, which passed without anybody having to bother to pretend not to notice), and we'll reluctantly take Benjamin Nicholas's dick out of our mouths to...what was that you wanted?

[Bilbo]

Devin - Thank you for bumping this post back up towards the top of the pile. - Blade