The Massachusetts supreme court has ruled that "civil union" ceremonies are unconstitutional and that gays are allowed to have the benefit of marriage. Read more from CBS News at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/04/...ain597863.shtml

To read the ruling, visit:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/gaymarriagemass.pdf

Questions for debate.

1.)In ruling as they did, the chief of the court stated: Do civil unions represent a "separate but equal" doctrine??

2.)White House press secretary Scott McClellan has stated that the administration is disappointed that the courts have gone ahead of individuals and society in their ruling. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030731-9.html Is this a valid constitutional concern?
3.)Should the courts ever weigh popular opinion of the public when making controversial decisions????

1. Yes
2. I don't know
3. Not really. Popular opinion is usually flawed. Much of the time, people really are manipulated like sheep and their opinions are mindless.

I feel that the court over-stepped its authority. A court can only rule on the validity of a particular law. It does NOT have the authority to force a Legislative body to create a law.
What the Mass. Assembly should do now is make marriage unlawful across the board. That would solve the problem of un-equal protection. See what happens then.

Thanks to Jaime, I would just like to add.....


I fear that you have not visited the URL outlining the case. The justices were seeking to answer the following question: Whether the Commonwealth may use its formidable regulatory authority to bar same sex couples from civil marriage. Quoting word for word from the decision, they went on: The court concluded that it(the commonwealth of Massachusetts) may not do so, determining that the Commonwealth had failed to articulate a rational basis for denying civil marriages to same sex couples. The court stated that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second class citizens." The court concluded that in "limiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples, the marriage licensing law, "violates the basic premise premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution."

The court did precisely what you said it was to do-to review the law. You will not find anywhere in that document the words "the legislative branch shall..." In no way does the court command a new law to be created, it just ruled on the above valid constitutional question. You could perhaps argue that it did so in a de facto way, but that is not a constitutional argument, that is a political/religious one. I'm seeking feedback on whether or not the court's reasoning behind the decision was a constitutional one.

Hence, why I posted question #1 which reads...

Do civil unions represent a "separate but equal" doctrine??

Yes, I read both links and tend to agree with the descent in the case.

From the CBS News link:


Also from that link:


When the 180 day time limit runs out, the Court will have made Law.

P.S. How does one copy and paste from a PDF document? I would have liked to use some of the text from the Court's decenter.

Only by invalidating the term "marriage", or by leaving the term exclusively in the hands of religion, can the government avoid the "separate but equal" stigma associated with gay marriage, separate drinking fountains and rest rooms, separate schools, etc.

And then all those who wish to receive government benefits (such as they are) must apply for a "civil union license."

Either that or the government must take responsibility for its ownership of the term "marriage" and ensure its equal application. Anyone who has ever read Loving v. Virginia should be astonished at the parallels.

Good evening everyone

Well, first, the Mass. Court's decision is not the federal case everyone seems to be making it out to be - they have simply attempted to interpret the law in terms of the state constitution of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. If the state legislature wished to clarify that - in fact - the stated position of equality did not apply in this case they had six months to do so - they may yet (for all we know)

But then we all know how Team Bush is in favour of states rights unless it has nothing to do with messy matters like the Florida Supreme Court interpreting state election law, the California Supreme Court deciding things like referendums approving medical marijuana and, in this case, the validity of recognizing that gay citizens are entitled to equality under the law even when it comes to marriage.....

At any rate, if the citizens of Massachusetts feel this is an act of judicial activism and are unhappy with it they simply can amend their state constitution - it need not be tied into some grander scheme ----

The claim that gay unions have never been recognised is flat out bogus (I think my own good friend WERTZ has addressed the history of same sex unions)

That anyone should think it a good thing that the Constitution should be amended to prevent this horrible debauchery of stable and committed relationships from occurring is tragic.

Oddly enough I don't think most gay people were really pushing for this sweeping recognition - most simply wanted certain guarantees - especially in relation to medical and legal issues - rights that would validate the reality of long term relationships in the eyes of the courts should tragedy occur.

I recall as a young man reading about Gertrude Stein and Alice B Toklas and how when Gertrude died the Stein family came in and grabbed all the Picasssos and the Cezannes leaving Toklas to live the remainder of her life in virtual poverty. It seemed very cruel and unfair...it still seems that way.....

But surely, the greater question is - how bold would such a legislative move make the extreme right? Would they then get laws to take children away from gay parents? How far beyond that can be rulings to once again outlaw abortion (a crime that only existed after the civil war when civic minded nativists became worried at the number of Catholic babies....

However, behind every "moral" assertion in American history has lurked intolerance and bigotry....

I suspect that on any given day a majority of Americans would never have objected - but once the question is phrased - "Should these perverts be given special treatment" - lots of reasonable people can be swayed.....The Immaturity of the response to the Court's ruling is discouraging ---

If they ruled against divorce or adultery I wonder how quickly everyone would be applauding them for strengthing the sanctity of marriage?????

It's too easy to defend heterosexual marriage by attacking homosexuals, isn't it?

O.K., it is not uncommon for the courts to provide a timeline to the legislatve branch as to when the problem should be remedied. Remember Brown vs. Board of Ed. and the "with all due speed" order?? The debate on that one was not does the court have the right to order the legislative branch to act(in order to correct a constitutional problem) but rather, what timeline did the court specifically mean? When is all due speed?

No, you can't cut and paste from a pdf document. With that one, I just memorized every three words and so and just hopped back and forth between windows. You can tell that because I wrote one word twice in a row. I would print it out, but I don't have paper today.

The dissent's case can be found on a general google search. I would post it here, but it has an impressive "tail" that is just too big to include. Darn it!

Dohk-

-I can completely understand your comments. I'm not sure that religion owns marriage exclusively. I was married in a "chapel" in Vegas. How religious was that?? And yet, my marriage is just as valid as any ceremony that took place in even the most esteemed church.