Mass. Supreme Court says "No" to Civil Unions.
Seperate but equal does not cut it.
The State government asked if the State Constitution allows for a "Civil Union" law that would give same sex couples apparently the same rights as a Civil Marriage...
The state government couldn't come up with any reasons for a seperate law. Or why a Civil Marriage would not apply to same sex couples.
Basically the Court says "if they have the same inherent rights why would they need a seperate law that applies only to them?"
A rose by any other name would not smell as sweet.
So of course they're going to be ridiculed as an ACTIVIST court by the President and conservatives. Even though the court was responding to a request from the state government on the legality of a civil union's law. Doing their job to preserve the sancitity of the constitution and bill of rights.
http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs...20304.html#fn5
"Does Senate, No. 2175, which prohibits same-sex couples from entering into marriage but allows them to form civil unions with all 'benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities' of marriage, comply with the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth and articles 1, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 16 of the Declaration of Rights?"
4. Conclusion. We are of the opinion that Senate No. 2175 violates the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Further, the particular provisions that render the pending bill unconstitutional, ¤ 2 and 3 of proposed G.L. c.207A, are not severable from the remainder. The bill maintains an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples, and the bill's remaining provisions are too entwined with this purpose to stand independently. See Murphy v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Indus. Accs., 418 Mass. 165, 169 (1994).
The answer to the question is "No."
The State government asked if the State Constitution allows for a "Civil Union" law that would give same sex couples apparently the same rights as a Civil Marriage...
The state government couldn't come up with any reasons for a seperate law. Or why a Civil Marriage would not apply to same sex couples.
Basically the Court says "if they have the same inherent rights why would they need a seperate law that applies only to them?"
A rose by any other name would not smell as sweet.
So of course they're going to be ridiculed as an ACTIVIST court by the President and conservatives. Even though the court was responding to a request from the state government on the legality of a civil union's law. Doing their job to preserve the sancitity of the constitution and bill of rights.
http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs...20304.html#fn5
"Does Senate, No. 2175, which prohibits same-sex couples from entering into marriage but allows them to form civil unions with all 'benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities' of marriage, comply with the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth and articles 1, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 16 of the Declaration of Rights?"
4. Conclusion. We are of the opinion that Senate No. 2175 violates the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Further, the particular provisions that render the pending bill unconstitutional, ¤ 2 and 3 of proposed G.L. c.207A, are not severable from the remainder. The bill maintains an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples, and the bill's remaining provisions are too entwined with this purpose to stand independently. See Murphy v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Indus. Accs., 418 Mass. 165, 169 (1994).
The answer to the question is "No."
Comments
Thank you very much.
so, with all that said, the government both has a right to and needs to step in and stop this allowance of gay marriage/civil union.
fire away.
Maybe homosexuality has been hardwired into the human genome for natural reasons... Prehaps it serves a purpose that natural selection fulfilled.
Homosexuality crosses all cultures and societies... in every corner of the world... I don't see how that is going against nature... or god's will...
When you come down to it... there's two people who are making a commitment to each other... why is that commitment less than that of two people who's sexual organs happen to fit? And why does that commitment have anything to do with a heterosexual couple's commitment?
Gay people are positively contributing to the society; why should they be treated as 2nd class citizens?
And no one ever comes up with a better argument than... well IT'S NOT NATURAL! or IT'S NOT MORAL!
tell that to Britney. hehe.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
So if you are genetically predisposed to be attracted to the same sex... how are you going against nature?
Maybe homosexuality has been hardwired into the human genome for natural reasons... Prehaps it serves a purpose that natural selection fulfilled.
Homosexuality crosses all cultures and societies... in every corner of the world... I don't see how that is going against nature... or god's will...
When you come down to it... there's two people who are making a commitment to each other... why is that commitment less than that of two people who's sexual organs happen to fit? And why does that commitment have anything to do with a heterosexual couple's commitment?
The genetic predisposition argument is some seriously shoddy science.
Maybe homosexuality..blah....blah....
Last time I checked, I wasn't inclined to grant something off maybe.
Two people and commitment. Why two? If it has nothing to do with sex organs, then it has even less to do with a number. The age argument, or polygamy have even less basis than homosexuality and yet we uphold them. (for now)
Nick
Originally posted by ipodandimac
aside from all religious debate, you cant deny that male/female relationships are the way either nature or God (whichever you believe) intended.
Oh, one can deny this idea for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if you (as I do) reject the idea of a "god", it doesn't cut it just to substitute nature for it but leave the interpretation. Nature does not "intent", things, species, behavior just are as they are.
It always puzzles me why moralists of all ages try to bend nature to be their crown-witnes for any kind of more or less intelligent of prejudices. In our times, where we have left the constraints of nature behind on many areas ("if nature intended us to fly..."), it even makes less sense. Everyone of us who has suffered a serious illness would not be among us if we allowed "nature to have its way" - are we going to abolish modern medicine thus?
Homosexuals tend to have less children than hets, but if you look at the pill, this can hardly be a reason for discrimination unless you ban birth control (fundamentalism, here we come!).
State should not interfere with personal liberties, choices and freedom unless they are violating another person's - which is clearly not the case with gays and lesbians. Denying them full rights is in no way better than denying full rights to blacks or any other racial minority.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
but i also believe that the govt has the right to step in and make moral decisions b/c the government both represents "the people" and is made up of citizens.
The government is also supposed to represent minorities of citizens, and to protect them from what is referred to as "the tyranny of the majority."
The US Constitution isn't always clear on where the line should be drawn between individual rights and majority rule, but one principle often applied by judges is the notion of compelling interest. (That's not exactly the right terminology, but the correct phrase is eluding me right now.)
So, you don't like men being married to men, or women to women. But what actual harm comes to you from people of the same gender marrying? Is your being offended by this in-and-of-itself enough to make majority rule trump individual freedom? Does a man marrying a man stop you from marrying the gender you'd prefer to marry? If you're worried about your children thinking that gay marriage is okay (horrors!) just because it's legal, does it make sense that others be denied something they want just to force them into being a better example of your beliefs, contrary to their own beliefs?
Beyond this, the Massachusetts State Constitution is also involved. I don't know that constitution well enough to comment on it, but it, and a history of judicial precedent based upon it, may grant broader rights than the US Constitution, rights which are the duty of Massachusetts judges to upheld without regard to popular opinion.
being gay is just a mental thing that people do to themselves because they want attention (oops... did i say that out loud?).
That's one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time. If you know my posting style, it's very rare that I'll be so blunt as to flat-out call something someone else said dumb.
so, with all that said, the government both has a right to and needs to step in and stop this allowance of gay marriage/civil union.
Again, the above comment shows no appreciation for what Constitutional government should and shouldn't do.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
aside from all religious debate, you cant deny that male/female relationships are the way either nature or God (whichever you believe) intended.
Nature didn´t intent anything.
10 people can live in a commune and enjoy all the free love and lasagna they want... doesn't make it a marriage.
Don't most states have their own age requirements? There isn't a national standard... minors can marry in some states with parental consent. Not sure how young... 14?
People used to get married at very young ages... as society has become the modern one that it is, the need for marrying off the girls to lessen the burden on the family has gone away.
Originally posted by Anders
Nature didn´t intent anything.
so the fact that reproduction requires a male and a female is purely chance? either you believe in the nature theory or you believe in God. if there is no god and nature didnt intend anything, then why cant two members of the same sex reproduce?
and let me clarify my stance on things. in all honestly, i dont mind that people are gay. i cant change it, so i might as well accept it. wont i dont like are the fundamental values of our society being ripped apart because some people feel mistreated by the law. surely there must be some reason that there isnt already gay marriage. did the late 90's cause more people to be gay or something????? thats why i say that being gay is a mental thing. if there was this much debate from the beginning, this issue would have been solved before the civil war.
So who we love is purely determined by what is or isn't hanging between our legs... is that it?
Originally posted by ipodandimac
if there is no god and nature didnt intend anything, then why cant two members of the same sex reproduce?
I can honestly say I don´t understand that question.
If the earth isn´t mad at us why does it create earthquakes?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Why can some species reporduce without the presence of a male or female?
So who we love is purely determined by what is or isn't hanging between our legs... is that it?
so gay people arent of the same species as heterosexuals?
Originally posted by Anders
I can honestly say I don´t understand that question.
If the earth isn´t mad at us why does it create earthquakes?
the laws of physics cause earthquakes in the same way that the laws of biology cause males and females to have their respective "parts."
refer my 2nd post which is couple replies above this one for more of my case.
There are many reasons why evolution might produce a species with a small minority which is homosexual. Perhaps the genetic content of human DNA which allows for the possible predisposition towards homosexuality has some other affect which is evolutionarily valuable. Perhaps the presence of homosexuality once served as a sort of population growth cap ? by removing certain persons from the reproductive pool, it inherently limits, to a greater or lesser degree depending on technology and culture, the rate at which a population might grow, perhaps preventing dangerous explosive growth of an organism.
There is no logical, valid reason to oppose homosexual equality or gay marriage, and those who try to clothe such opposition in religious proclamations or appeals to natural law are merely seeking shelter for their own vicious bigotry.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
if there is no god and nature didnt intend anything, then why cant two members of the same sex reproduce?
And what has the ability to reproduce to do with whom you love and wish to share your live with? Gays can reproduce if they choose so - the same way subfertile hets can. Should infertile hets be excluded from marriage?
surely there must be some reason that there isnt already gay marriage. did the late 90's cause more people to be gay or something
Being gay was considered either a crime or a mental disorder throughout much of our christian history. Only now that the influcence of christianity on society is waning is there a chance for them to demand equal rights.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
so the fact that reproduction requires a male and a female is purely chance?
Everything is purely chance. Welcome to evolution. By the way, most forms of life on the earth do not have separate genders, and seem to reproduce just fine.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
so, with all that said, the government both has a right to and needs to step in and stop this allowance of gay marriage/civil union.
fire away.
I'll join you in that trench... this gay marraige thing is absurd.