American Court Rules for Same-Sex Marriage

[Yaw]

Article from the Toronto Star copied in below.

Gay marriage ban unconstitutional: U.S. court

ASSOCIATED PRESS

BOSTON — The highest state court in Massachusetts ruled today that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution, but stopped short of allowing marriage licences to be issued to the couples who challenged the law.

The Supreme Judicial Court's 4-3 ruling ordered the legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days.

The ruling closely matches the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision. That decision led to the Vermont legislature giving approval in 2000 to civil unions that give couples many of the same benefits of marriage.

The decision is the latest in a spate of victories for gay rights advocates, but fell short of what the seven couples who sued the state had hoped to receive: the right to marry their long-time companions.

The Massachusetts question will now return to the legislature, which already is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful speaker of the house, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal.

A similar initiative, launched by citizens, was defeated by the legislature last year on a procedural vote.

[KEvb0]

If it weren't for religious opposition, I don't see why gay-marriage would even be an issue. Why the hell should people care? Damn people... need to mind their own damn business. I don't see how constitutionally you could stop two people from getting married.

Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness... as is seen fit by the religious powers that be.

[Mistwalker]

If you asked someone who opposes gay marriage why they oppose it, they would tell you it "damages" the institution of marriage.

I'm not sure what that even means, but I don't hold a lot of respect for the "institution of marriage" in the first place, which makes me care even less.

Another argument I heard was that it would open the doors to incest and pedophilia, which is utter nonsense. Incest and pedophilia are illegal themselves. Just because we can't tell gay people they cannot marry, doesn't mean we can't stop the molestation of children. It just doesn't follow. As far as incest goes, the general claim I heard was that fathers and sons and cousins of the same sex would be getting married. If this was so, then why doesn't standard marriage mean fathers and daughters and cousins of opposite sex get married? The answer is, because incest is illegal, regardless if you make it legal for homosexuals to marry.

If you aren't homosexual, then this doesn't affect you. Not even a little bit. Stop whining.

[pieisgood]

Mistwalker:

I strongly disagree with that statement.

By your logic, nobody should ever donate to charities, because the money doesn't affect them. They should never do anything nice for somebody else because it doesn't affect them. Just because it isn't you doesn't mean that you can't help out in the world once in awhile.

Rest of the convo:

I personally find this all ridiculous that it would be illegal. When somebody first asked me what I thought of gay rights, I said "No, people who are gay shouldn't have any more rights then the rest of us." It's not other people's buisness, like you said Mistwalker. If it goes against their religion.... so what, are they going to make Atheism illegal since it goes against Christianity?

-pieisgood