Decision on Gay Marriage Creates a Thorny Issue for 2004

au, It's a big issue simply because the philosophy of gay marriage is a strongly felt issue on both sides of the isle. We will also see Roe vs Wade as an issue.

0 Replies

I do not think this should be a big issue for the election, and I hope it will not be one. I write that believing that making it a big issue would be better for Republicans than for Democrats. (In other words, I think it's an issue that would hurt Democrats, but I still don't think it deserves to be an issue.)

My reasons?

1) It's a state (not federal) issue.

2) There are far more important issues upon which we should focus. (Whether same-gender couples can marry is simply not something that has an impact on most Americans, while issues like taxation, foreign policy, the war on terrorism, healthcare, etc. do.

0 Replies

For certain there are more important issues facing the nation -- and more important issue upon which to focus...

...but my bet is that this issue WILL dominate the election process -- and probably the primary process as well.

It is a loser for the Democrats because they are on the right side of the issue -- and, unfortunately, the majority of the public are not.

0 Replies

I am not so sure this is a loser for the dems.

The dems will try to give the administration an extremist religious right label. The Republicans are going to have to be very careful with this one, especially if their extreme wing keep screeming so loudly. If this label sticks, it will cost them the election.

Remeber the US is a 50-50 nation right now. The right and the left are set. The battle is for the middle.

Anything that makes the adminstration or the republicans look more extreme is going to push moderate voters to the other side.

I don't think people in the middle are going to vote on this one issue. I do think they will vote based on an overall impression of who is more moderate and reasonable.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

0 Replies

Frank

Quote:

It is a loser for the Democrats because they are on the right side of the issue -- and, unfortunately, the majority of the public are not.

There you go again not even an IMO. Frank has decided he is correct and about 70% of the people in the US are wrong. How does it feel to be omnipotent?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I am not so sure this is a loser for the dems.

The dems will try to give the administration an extremist religious right label. The Republicans are going to have to be very careful with this one, especially if their extreme wing keep screeming so loudly. If this label sticks, it will cost them the election.

Remeber the US is a 50-50 nation right now. The right and the left are set. The battle is for the middle.

Anything that makes the adminstration or the republicans look more extreme is going to push moderate voters to the other side.

I don't think people in the middle are going to vote on this one issue. I do think they will vote based on an overall impression of who is more moderate and reasonable.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

An interesting and completely reasonable opinion. Food for thought... Cool

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Frank
Quote:

It is a loser for the Democrats because they are on the right side of the issue -- and, unfortunately, the majority of the public are not.

There you go again not even an IMO. Frank has decided he is correct and about 70% of the people in the US are wrong. How does it feel to be omnipotent?

You are correct.

I should have included an "in my opinion."

Please consider my post amended.

0 Replies

There is quite a bit being said about this decision in the press but the actual decision hasn't been released in it's entirely to the public yet (at least as of this morning anyway..).

Here in MA of course there is considerable discussion and if one of the comments stated on last nights news is accurate then this ruling is a lot farther reaching that what has been publicized thusfar.

Supposedly, one of the points in the decision is that "the MA State Constitution prohibits the creation of a second class citzen status for anyone". The local press here has said that this means that the state can't disallow gay marriage because it creates a second class citzen status for gays/lesbians because it limits their ability to access benefits available to hetrosexual couples.

What hasn't been asked yet is how that statement affects people who chose to remain single. If the same point holds for gays/lesbians why should single people still be denied those same benefits? If it holds for singles as well then almost every rule/law covering benefits, probate, etc.. are affected and we'd be at the begining of a major shift in how all of these laws are written/administered.

0 Replies

Fishin,

I don't buy that argument.

When my wife and I got married, we made a legal *commitment*. This commitment has real legal consequences include inheritance and financial responsibility to each other and our children.

People who are single don't accept this legal bond. There is a clear decision to be made. It is clear that the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage come with the *commitment*.

In several previous relationships I specifically chose not to make the commitment of marriage. I had good reasons and I did not at all mind not having the benefits.

I don't see that gender has anything to do with it.

If any couple is willing to make the *commitment* of marriage they should be able to get the rights responsibilities of marriage.

This has always been the choice for heterosexual couples. It is clear that many homosexual couple have the same level of commitment to each other and want to have this legal bond. I don't see the difference.

The point here is equality. If you are in a commited relationship and want to enter the legal bond of marriage with all of the rights and responsibilities you should be able to. Gender simply shouldn't matter.

0 Replies

It's a non-issue until some politician comes out in favor of it. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think they're all opposed (at least politically) to gay marriage.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I don't buy that argument.

Whether you "buy it" or not is irrelevant. If the courts ruling is that no second class status can be created then that is that. They didn't say "no second class can be created unless you don't meet some other standard".

Quote:

When my wife and I got married, we made a legal *commitment*. This commitment has real legal consequences include inheritance and financial responsibility to each other and our children.

People who are single don't accept this legal bond. There is a clear decision to be made. It is clear that the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage come with the *commitment*.

"People who are single don't accept this legal bond"??? Says who? I can just as easily buy a house with someone as you can with your spouse. Why should you spouse gain legal benefits from that just because you are married and I'm not? How is the financial responsibility between you and your spouse any different than someone I might jointly buy a house with?

The arguement for singles is the EXACT same argument as it's been for gays. You are denied benefits simply because of a piece of paper.

0 Replies

Fishin

Quote:

Supposedly, one of the points in the decision is that "the MA State Constitution prohibits the creation of a second class citzen status for anyone".

Would telling someone they can't steal or kill make them a second class citizen based upon the MA. state constitution?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Fishin
Quote:

Supposedly, one of the points in the decision is that "the MA State Constitution prohibits the creation of a second class citzen status for anyone".

Would telling someone they can't steal or kill make them a second class citizen based upon the MA. state constitution?

If it was only told to a portion of the people yes. If it is equeally applied to every single citzen of the state then I don't see how it would.

0 Replies

Fishin
If the law states that marriage is open to every man/ women couple in the state and it applies equally to every one in the state does that satisfy the constitution?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Fishin
If the law states that marriage is open to every man/ women couple in the state and it applies equally to every one in the state does that satisfy the constitution?

The courts wording wasn't in reference to the issue of marrige itself. They were talking about benefits derived as a result or marriage. They said "The state cannot create a second class citzen" in reference to the administration of benefits. They didn't say "You can create rules that allow you to create a second class citizen as long as those rules aren't gender specific". So if their words are being reported accurately then the ruling could have much farther reaching implications than just the issue of gay marriage.

It's the institution of marriage that ties the benefits in. If their ruling stands, the only way I can see for the state to meet the standard is to decouple any/all benefits from the institution of marriage. Treat everyone as an individual and force some sort of other legal arrangement that would be open to everyone for purpose of all government programs. (Permanent power of Atty???)

Right now the scuttle-butt here is that the Gov. and Legislature think a Civil Union law that passes the same benefits to same-sex couples as marrige does for opposite-sex couples will satisfy the court. But if the court's words aren't lived up to I can forsee singles sueing the state and using the court's own decision here as the basis for their case.

0 Replies

Btw, the decision IS now posted and can be found here:
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/18/sjc_gaymarriage_decision.pdf

It's 160 pages with tons of footnotes. I'm gonna spend the evening trying to digest it all.

0 Replies

Courts and Same-Sex Marriages

In a close 4-to-3 decision allowing same-sex marriages, the Massachusetts high court has touched off a national debate over whether other states must eventually honor the marriage license of any gay couple from the Bay State.

The debate is likely to focus in part on the balance of power between the courts and legislatures, and on whether judges can create a wholly new constitutional right just for gays while at the same time altering the tradition of civil marriage between opposite sexes that's been licensed by elected governments for centuries.
Since 1995, 37 states have passed laws affirming that civil marriage can be defined only as the union of a man and woman. Other states may now rush to enact similar measures, even as some in Congress try to amend the US Constitution to define marriage in traditional terms.
Ultimately, the US Supreme Court could be asked to decide if the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause forces states to honor any marriage license from another state. That's been untested in the high court.
In the meantime, the debate has been usefully framed by the winning and losing opinions in the Massachusetts decision, which centered on this question: Can judges challenge a legislature's authority in granting marriage licenses if there's been no discrimination based on an individual's sex?
The majority compared the rule against same-sex marriages to old laws that prevented marriages between whites and racial minorities. "The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason," in not giving gay couples - and their children - the benefits and protections of marriage, the majority wrote.
But does a state really discriminate against a gay individual by saying he or she can marry only someone of the opposite sex?
The marriage law "creates no distinction between the sexes, but applies to men and women in precisely the same way," the minority wrote. "Similarly, the marriage statutes do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation."
The two sides differed on whether civil marriage is a right that courts can define, or simply an institution created by state statute that a legislature could, if it wanted to, simply repeal (or as in Vermont's case, call by another name, civil unions).
The majority in the Massachusetts decision didn't clearly assert that marriage is a fundamental right, perhaps knowing that legislatures have created civil marriage from the outset. The minority, meanwhile, noted that the legislature's power to regulate marriage for social purposes is exercised with equal protection to both sexes.
Judges and lawmakers in the US should not get trapped into a debate over whether marriage is a state's way to protect society's interest in procreation. Clearly, that question has been settled: Legislatures do regulate marriage.
Rather, they should settle whether the issue of same-sex marriage should be decided in the public arena of legislative action or in the private chambers of a few judges.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Quote:
When my wife and I got married, we made a legal *commitment*. This commitment has real legal consequences include inheritance and financial responsibility to each other and our children.

People who are single don't accept this legal bond. There is a clear decision to be made. It is clear that the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage come with the *commitment*.

"People who are single don't accept this legal bond"??? Says who? I can just as easily buy a house with someone as you can with your spouse. Why should you spouse gain legal benefits from that just because you are married and I'm not? How is the financial responsibility between you and your spouse any different than someone I might jointly buy a house with?

The arguement for singles is the EXACT same argument as it's been for gays. You are denied benefits simply because of a piece of paper.

I don't get what you are saying.

All I am saying is that whether homosexuals have the right to marry or not will not affect heterosexual singles. In my experience, before I met my wife I had not incentive to marry. After I met my wife I was happy to get marry. Gay marriage has nothing to do with the lives of heterosexual singles.

That being said, it is clear to me (from experience) that married life is quite a bit different from single life. I would highly recommend it to anyone who has a committed relationship. I would highly recommend against it if you are not planning to be with your current partner for a long time.

There are many legal affects of marriage:
- My wife has power of attorney over me if die or am incapacitated.
- I have a financial obligation to my wife and our children.
- My wife gets my benefits including insurance.
- I can file taxes jointly.
- I have spousal priviledge to not testify against my wife in many legal situations.
- and there are more.

You seem to be making two points:
1) That if gays can get married, heterosexual couples will act differently.
2) There are no legal implications to marriages.

Both of these points are clearly false.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

You seem to be making two points:
1) That if gays can get married, heterosexual couples will act differently.
2) There are no legal implications to marriages.

Both of these points are clearly false.

I didn't attempt to make either of those points. The ONLY point I was making is that IN THIS COURT RULING the court appears to say that determining that seperating/classifying people by any means for the purpose of the administration of government and law creates second class citizen status on some and that the MA State Constitution prohibits the state from doing exactly that.

If denying the legal/social benefits that marriage brings to gays/lesbians puts them in second class citzen status then similar limitations that prevent single people from obtaining those very same benefits makes second class citzens of single people and the court stated that rendering second class citizen status on ANYONE violates the state's Constitution.

None of that has anything to do with how people will, in actuality, react with others or that there aren't legal implications to marriage. I don't see how you could have possibly gotten that out of anything I've written.

0 Replies

Decision on Gay Marriage Creates a Thorny Issue for 2004

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know