Though this is not in the line of prison support, it could become so very quickly.

If same sex couples are given the rights of marriage, this could effect requlations concerning visitation., etc.

The Courts decision was supposed to be announced at 10:00 am. So far have not heard the decision.

Keep your fingers crossed for a favorable decision.

Hopefully, this will someday lead to the recognition of marriage rights for same sex couples throughout the U.S.

Patti



"Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is poised to decide a lawsuit that could extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. The case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, was filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) in April 2001 on behalf of seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage certificates solely based on their sexual orientation. The couples have all been together from six to 32 years and four of the couples are raising children.

GLAD argued that the right to choose a marriage partner is a fundamental right protected by the Massachusetts Constitution. The emotional bonds for same- and opposite-sex couples are identical, they argued, and the legal benefits that come from marriage should be, as well. In addition, GLAD argued that the rationale the government used for justifying the denial of marriage to same-sex couples is unfounded and cannot be used as a bar to a such a fundamental right.

The Human Rights Campaign signed onto a "friend of the court" brief."

They decided in favor!!! Can you believe this? I just heard it myself. They did decide in favor of it.

Ya Hooow! This is great!

Let's pray that this keeps going and the marriage rights of same-sex couples are eventually recognized nation wide!

Patti

How do I follow this action???

How do I find out if a union in one state is legally recognized in another state? I am probably jumping the gun here...

Great News!

Deb

Teb,

The court has given the Mass. legislature 180 days to correct the law banning same-sex marriage. I will try to keep up on whatever happens and send it to you.

As for the other 49 states, there is some controversy going on right now as to whether they have to recognize same sex marriage. Now mind you, the other states do not have to legalize same sex marriages within their borders. However, under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, and the Article no. escapes me, they do have to recognize the legal holding and decisions of another state.

Example, if Linda and I were to marry legally in Mass. then Virginia would be required to recognize our marriage as legal under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. However, Virginia (and it probably would) still hold that same sex couples could not marry within the borders of Virginia.

There are currently 37 states out of 50 that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Virginia is one of them.

Patti

Way to go!!! Great news!!

Wow that's great news !!!! Way to go Massachussets !!!! :)

Thanks for sharing Patti.
Phil

This is a monumental ruling!! It is one that will be a hot topic coming up in the presidential elections. I am quite happy at the ruling and I cannot wait to see what the coming days and months will bring on this issue. Even if this does not pass within the legislature in a favorable way, the topic will continue to surface across our country in some form or another. So the world might as well get ready. Every person whether you are white or black, man or woman, rich or poor should all be created equal in EVERY respect. And this ruling demonstrates the full extent of living up to that well-known statement. People always say the phrase, but many place limits on its meaning by applying it only to the social issues they want it applied to. I have nothing but great wishes and further developments on this road to equal rights across the board. :-)

Pookie

Gay marriage ruling likely will lead to challenges in other states

November 20, 2003

BY JUSTIN POPE

BOSTON -- The Massachusetts high court decision endorsing gay marriage raises a host of complex legal questions, and one of the biggest is this: If one state allows same-sex marriages, must other states recognize them?

Experts say it could take years for lawsuits challenging gay marriage to wing through state and federal courts, in Massachusetts and elsewhere, before ending up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some of the litigation may center on the ''full faith and credit'' clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says states must accept other states' judicial proceedings.

''People in very short order will move back to Alabama and Tennessee and demand that marriages will be recognized,'' said Gary Bauer, president of American Values, a conservative group. ''At that point, you have got a constitutional crisis.''

In its 4-3 decision Tuesday, Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court gave the Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples. The effects could soon reverberate across the country.

Experts, however, generally believe the ''full faith and credit'' argument favors opponents of gay marriage. What little interpretation the U.S. Supreme Court has given indicates the clause applies to legal judgments in ''adversarial proceedings'' such as lawsuits, and not such things as a marriage license.

Strangely, since divorce is an adversarial proceeding, the Massachusetts divorce of a gay couple could be recognized in other states more easily than their marriage.

The Massachusetts decision also could open the door for challenges to ''defense of marriage acts'' passed by Congress and 37 states, on the grounds that laws against the recognition of gay marriages violate the rights of gays to equal protection under the Constitution. That was the basis for the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down an anti-sodomy law in Texas.

Some legal experts and gay-rights activists say Tuesday's ruling goes further than similar decisions issued in other states, appearing to suggest that gay couples should get nothing less than marriage.

Other experts and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney say the ruling is ambiguous enough that legislators could satisfy the court by approving a rough equivalent to marriage, such as the ''civil unions'' that Vermont offers.

''I believe their decision indicates that a provision which provides that benefits, obligations, rights and responsibilities which are consistent with marriage but perhaps could be called by a different name would be in conformity with their decision,'' Romney said. ''Under that opinion, I believe a civil union-type provision would be sufficient.''

AP

Hey... my state did something good for a change! I did write my governor and tell him that if he tries to veto this he'll definately lose my vote.

Teb, this is big, because although Vermont recognizes civil unions, they aren't valid outside the state. If gay/lesbian couples are allowed to marry in Massachusetts, I believe that the marriage union will be recognized nationwide, even if the people's homestate doesn't allow them to get married there.

Whatever happens, it's a step in the right direction. My boyfriend and I were discussing this topic the other night and both agree that it's about time!!! I'll never understand why people are so against gay marriage...

Jessica :)

jessp,

One of the 'issues' that was widely discussed in Canada was removing the term 'marriage' from the mix - so to speak...

"Marriage" has for most a very religious side to it. Now I don't want to get into a debate about religion in this thread - just want to clarify for some that the word 'marriage' is not all that this is about. In some cases the word 'marriage' works against our fight!

When I talk and think of "Marriage" I think of standing in front of God. Many, many heterosexual couples get 'married' but in 'spirit' do NOT stand in front of God. Many people that get married today are not necessarily religious or if they are they are not necessarily practicing... I don't think that many would argue with me that many folks get 'married' because it is the way society works.

What gay and lesbian people want is not necessarily the right to get 'married' but to have a legally recognized union that allows us the same rights and freedoms in the country that heterosexual couples gain by getting married. We want the right to visit a Partner in prison - we want the right to visit and make medical decisions for a Partner in the Intensive Care unit of the hospital. We want to be recognized for income tax breaks, medical benefits and other 'breaks' that heterosexual couples get.

In Canada there was a lot of discussion (and still is) about taking this whole thing even one step further... Let's look at other types of 'unions' that are not romantic - non-sexual in nature... How many situations are there out there where there is a dependent parent, or sibling that is living with you - could be for the rest of their life? This is a dependent relationship - why not have the ability to add this parent or sibling to your health benefits? How many sisters are out there that have come back together after their husbands have died? How about that 'couple' being able to set up a legal 'union' that allows for the same rights and freedoms as a 'married' couple. This concept goes much deeper than the surface BUT is not as deep as the religious aspect. IMO we are not asking for the peoples permission 'in front of God' to 'marry' but for the same legal rights awarded by this 'religious' ceremony if we so choose to unite.

Teb, I understand what you're saying. With regards to the religious aspect, I never really considered the term "married" to have religious connotations... but that's just me, I think different from most people! :) I know gays and lesibians have commitment ceremonies, and I would think that some of them are done in front of God. Ultimately, I just want to see G/L couples have the same legal rights as hetero couples. I don't understand the mentality of disallowing two people who are committed to each other the rights afforded to others. It's as stupid as saying that dog owners get more rights than cat owners...

Your point of other unions is very interesting, I hadn't considered that before. That would be really something if legislation passed in support of it.

Anyways, I hope this works out in Massachusetts, and hopefully will lead the rest of the country in giving everybody equal benefits! :)