This is gay

[American]

Mass. Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough


They had 95% of what they wanted within reach, and they were going to get it.... but it wasn't enough. Now, they will not only get 0% of that, but they are likely to go into the negative with a constitutional amendment against their agenda (the gay agenda, that is).

Not only that, they have handed the right wing a virtual nuke to use in the next election.

95% just wasn't good enough...... If they had taken that and then held out another 10 years or so, they likely would have had the last little bit of their program eventually granted.

Oh well!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Does this mean you'll be moving to Massachusetts and getting hitched?

 

[Checkmite]

95% just wasn't good enough......

When it comes to basic civil rights such as these, nothing less than 100% is enough, ever.

 

[shemp]

100% isn't enough! You gotta give 110%! Now get out on the field and pinch some butt!

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: This is gay

When it comes to basic civil rights such as these, nothing less than 100% is enough, ever.

Agreed.

I'm just waiting for Christians to propose a constitutional amendment protecting the sanctity of the word "God".

Yew fellers can't call yewr gawds "God". Thas whut we call our God. It's sacrid. Yewr infringin on our constitutional rites wit yewr diffren't beliefs.

Or something to that effect.

 

[Tmy]

Is the court basing the decison on gender rights? or gay rights?


Im thinking about the slippery slope argument. When can you limit marriage. Is there a legit reason to say yes to gay marriage and no to incest or poligamy.

 

[WildCat]

What does it take to amend the Constitution in Mass.? I know it must pass both houses and then a public vote, but does it require each vote to be a simple majority? 3/5? What happens to already-married gay couples if it does pass? The press is doing a poor job reporting on this.

American - a civil union is a poor substitute for marriage. Marriage conveys many legal rights that a civil union doesn't. All the anti-gay marriage rhetoric is eerily reminiscent of the anti-civil rights folks back in the 60's. "Jeez, we allowed you to vote and ride in the front of the bus, now you want to drink out of our fountains and attend our schools also? You already had 95% of what you wanted."

 

[Upchurch]

Im thinking about the slippery slope argument.

"slippery slope argument".... *sigh* Why let anyone have the right to marry, then? That'd fix the problem right there.

 

[Upchurch]

All the anti-gay marriage rhetoric is eerily reminiscent of the anti-civil rights folks back in the 60's.

Why, the next thing you know, women will want to go to school and vote too. It's a slippery slope, I say.

 

[Random]

What does it take to amend the Constitution in Mass.? I know it must pass both houses and then a public vote, but does it require each vote to be a simple majority? 3/5? What happens to already-married gay couples if it does pass? The press is doing a poor job reporting on this.

There are only two ways to stop gay marriage now. An amendment to the Massachusetts State Constitution, or an amendment to the US Constitution.
An amendment to the MSC isn’t gonna happen. In order for it to happen, the legislature would have to approve the amendment in their upcoming convention, wait two years, approve the amendment again, then put it before the people of Massachusetts in a general vote (simple majority I believe). In the meantime, homosexuals would be getting married. Currently, public opinion in Massachusetts is against amending the MSC. It will not get any more likely over the next two years as people realize that an amendment to the MSC will not only mean preventing homosexual couples from getting married, but would almost certainly render currently existing marriages null and void.
Conservatives might be able to convince the people of Massachusetts to do nothing and deny a certain minority certain civil rights. There is no way in heck they are going to convince the people of Massachusetts to actively eliminate pre-existing civil rights.
That just leaves amending the US Constitution. Not sure what’s gonna happen there.

 

[Michael Redman]

Is the court basing the decison on gender rights? or gay rights?

Im thinking about the slippery slope argument. When can you limit marriage. Is there a legit reason to say yes to gay marriage and no to incest or poligamy.

The state already allows homosexual couples to enter into unions. It does not allow relatives or groups of more than two people to enter into unions. The "slippery slope" argument may have worked for allowing gays into civil unions, but it does not work here, where the issue is the distinction between civil unions and marriage.

As gay couples are already allowed to unite and form a union, limiting them to "civil unions" while allowing straight couples to be "married" serves no legitimate purpose. It's simply discrimination.

 

[toddjh]

That just leaves amending the US Constitution. Not sure what’s gonna happen there.

I really doubt that's going to happen, either. It's doesn't sound as difficult as amending the Massachusetts comstitution, but there's just not enough popular support for it. A lot of people are against gay marriages, but not 75% of the states. My prediction is that the U.S. Supreme Court will say substantially the same thing as Massachusetts, and that's where it'll end.

American is right about one thing, though. This will give the right wing some ammunition in the upcoming election. As happy as I am about the outcome, I'm worried about the timing.

Jeremy

 

[Luke T.]

What is the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage?" A tax break? What?

If you have a civil union and then break up, does one have to pay the other alimony? If you have a civil union, and one of them sleeps with someone else, is that grounds for adultery? Can they get the family rate on insurance?

What do people who are married get that civil unions don't get?

 

[Graham]

What is the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage?" A tax break? What?

Seems to me that the less differences there are, the less reason you have to deny it to one type of person and not another.

Graham

 

[Luke T.]

Seems to me that the less differences there are, the less reason you have to deny it to one type of person and not another.

Graham

Sorry. I was editing my post while you were responding to it. I need more specifics.

 

[WildCat]

What do people who are married get that civil unions don't get?

A big one is Social Security survivor payments. Depending on the states definition of civil unions, it could also impact inheritance rights, ability to see a loved one in the hospital (and make treatment decisions), etc.

 

[Thanz]

Is the court basing the decison on gender rights? or gay rights?

Im thinking about the slippery slope argument. When can you limit marriage. Is there a legit reason to say yes to gay marriage and no to incest or poligamy.

I haven't rread the Mass. judgment, but I have read the Ontario Court of Appeal judgment on gay marriage. It was based on equality rights. Denying gay people the right to marriage is considered discrinmination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is analogous to race or religion.

The same cannot be said of incest. There is no "incest community", not even in Alabama. All people have restrictions on incest - whether straight or gay. In short, there is no discrimination with respect to incest, so it is a big red herring.

Polygamy is a bit of a different issue, as an argument could be made that it is discrimination based on religious grounds. However, the law does not prohibit Mormons from getting married - just from getting married to more than one person at a time. That may be a distinction without a difference for some people, but it is a separate issue from whether gays can get married. There are also other issues inherent in polygamy that are unique: What happens on relationship break down? What if a husband with two wives gets sick and is in a coma, and one wife wants to "pull the plug" and the other doesn't?

In any event, if someone wants to challenge laws against polygamy, they are free to do so. And if they do, the issue will be decided on its own merits - with the issues addressed head on. And in challenging the law, a polygamist should have a better argument than "But the gays can get married!" because that has nothing to do with polygamy.

 

[Tmy]

I took a quick look at the story. I think your right about the sexual oreintation thing. Im sure thats a listed class under the mass constitution.

I still suprised how poligamy has managed to be illeagle. The arguments against it are pretty week and ,unlike the gay issue, you have freedom of religion protections.



"However, the law does not prohibit Mormons from getting married - just from getting married to more than one person at a time. That may be a distinction without a difference for some people, but it is a separate issue from whether gays can get married"

Isnt that the same as saying gays can marry too. They only have to marry soemone of the opposite sex.

 

[toddjh]

That just leaves amending the US Constitution. Not sure what’s gonna happen there.

I really doubt that's going to happen, either. It's doesn't sound as difficult as amending the Massachusetts comstitution, but there's just not enough popular support for it. A lot of people are against gay marriages, but not 75% of the states. My prediction is that the U.S. Supreme Court will say substantially the same thing as Massachusetts, and that's where it'll end.

American is right about one thing, though. This will give the right wing some ammunition in the upcoming election. As happy as I am about the outcome, I'm worried about the timing.

Jeremy

 

[toddjh]

I still suprised how poligamy has managed to be illeagle. The arguments against it are pretty week and ,unlike the gay issue, you have freedom of religion protections.

There are good practical reasons not to allow polygamy. When you can have an arbitrary number of partners, the recordkeeping and tax complications pile up pretty quick. Especially since divorces would probably stay high (or go even higher), it would be a nightmare for the the census bureau, not to mention the IRS (how do you file jointly when your two wives are each also married to two other men, not to mention their additional spouses? That's a lot of exemptions!)

Jeremy