|
|
Jordana
|
 |
Getting started |
Registered: November 2003
Messages: 2
|
|
|
HRC Breaking News - Mass. Court will rule today
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is scheduled to release its ruling at 10:00am EDT today in the case of Goodridge et al. vs. Department of Public Health. This much anticipated ruling could make Massachusetts the first state to issue civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
We will bring you the latest news when the ruling is issued - including what it means for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples in the state of Massachusetts and the nation.
(I just read this on crzyhouse and wanted to share it with everyone everywhere. i got chills when i read it. omg... this is so ... INTENSE.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then again, gay marriages have been legal in Sweden for years, so I'm a little blasé about this I guess... Though, I admit it IS a big step for a morally constipated nation like the US. (No offense intended.  )
-L
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts First State in Nation to Grant Same-Sex Couples the Right to a Civil Marriage
WASHINGTON - The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that same- and opposite-sex couples must be given equal civil marriage rights under the state constitution. The ruling in Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health makes the state the first in the nation to grant same-sex couples the right to a civil marriage license. Ruling that civil marriage in Massachusetts means "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others," the Court allowed the Legislature 180 days to change the civil marriage statutes accordingly.
"Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Court made history," said Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign. "This ruling will never interfere with the right of religious institutions - churches, synagogues and mosques - to determine who will be married within the context of their respective religious faiths. This is about whether gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships will be afforded the benefits, rights and protections afforded other citizens to best care for their partners and children. This is good for gay couples and it is good for America."
Key results from the ruling:
1. Same sex couples in Massachusetts who choose to obtain a civil marriage license will now be able to:
-Visit each other in the hospital, without question;
-Make important health care and financial decisions for each other;
-Have mutual obligations to provide support for each other;
-File joint state tax returns, and have the burden and advantages of the state tax law for married couples; and
-Receive hundreds of other protections under state law.
2. Churches and other religious institutions will not have to recognize or perform ceremonies for these civil marriages. This ruling is not about religion; it’s about the civil responsibilities and protections afforded through a government-issued civil marriage license.
3. By operation of law, all married couples should be extended the more than 1,000 federal protections and responsibilities administered at the federal level. Because no state has recognized civil marriage for same-sex couples in the past, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act has not yet been challenged in court.
4. Other states and some businesses may legally recognize the civil marriages of same-sex couples performed in Massachusetts the same way they treat those of opposite-sex couples.
The Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) brought the case on behalf of seven gay and lesbian couples after they were denied civil marriage certificates solely because they were same-sex couples.
"GLAD and Mary Bonauto, its leading lawyer, did an outstanding job arguing this case with professionalism and passion. This tremendous victory would not have been possible without their exemplary efforts," said Birch.
The Human Rights Campaign signed onto a "friend of the court" brief in Goodridge to support and further explain the case for extending civil marriage rights to same-sex couples under the state constitution. A variety of other civil rights organizations, religious groups, child welfare experts, family and legal historians and others also either signed or filed briefs of their own in favor of extending civil marriage laws to same-sex couples.
For the full text of HRC's press release, please visit: http://www.hrc.org/newsreleases/2003/031118marriage.asp
SWEET!
;-D  ::-)
"Be excellent to each other, and, party on dudes"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Things are looking promising
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
omg. O. M. G!!! that is AMAZING!!! i hope and pray that the other states will now follow example .... it's 2003 and this has been a long time coming, and it needs to KEEP coming.
my void does not want.
-- 2.13.61.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But wait and see what the legislature does with those 180 days.
The supreme court allowed the 180 in order to give the legislature opportunity to fine tune the statutes so as to close the gaps which forced the court to rule as it did.
I may be wrong. We'll see.
One is the lonliest number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is my understanding of the wording of the Supreme Courts (state of Mass. that is) decision gives the state legislsture 180 days to enact a constitutional law. The big problem for those that oppose this is that the new law would at it's most conservative definition have to be at least what the the state of Vermont enacted under Gov. Howard Dean.
Now I am not a lawyer, but I do study law.
In the estimation of people I have talked to say it would take from 100 days to several years to change the sate constitution to ban gay marriage. That seems unlikely.
We will feel a backlash from the Christian right in this country. Let em bitch. (excuse my french ... hehe) It shows that "these times are a changin"
Be happy, the world is a little better than yesterday.
the drop of water,
Kevin
"Be excellent to each other, and, party on dudes"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While it would take years to change the US constitution, changes at the state level do not take as long. People in Mass. have a lot of work ahead.
"Courts in Hawaii and Alaska have also ruled that states do not have a right to deny marriage to gay couples. In those two states, the decisions were followed by the adoption of state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."
This decision has also brought out the right wingers at the federal level.
This is only the beginning....
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Les petits riseaux forment les grands riviêres.
Little creeks make big rivers.
You said when you'd die that you'd walk with me every day
And I'd start to cry and say please don't talk that way
With the blink of an eye the Lord came and asked you to meet
You went to a better place but He stole you away from me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this one doesn't seem as promising, or hope-filled as i felt earlier. here's the link to it. to show how utterly clueless i am about politics (which stems from the fact that i lose sight of the issues in all the mudslinging that usually goes on, to the point i don't know who is REALLY supporting/advocating what, and then i stay away), i was unaware until now, that dick cheney has an openly lesbian daughter.
at which point my friend and i decided HE should run for president, with slogans like, "gay men like dick!" and, "the only dick lesbians want!" and .. no, i'm not funny. HAHA. sorry.
anyway, here's the article. i swear if this constitutional amendment thing goes down, like, EVER, i am so out of america. my list of reasons to move out of this country grows almost 2 points per year, and this would totally top it off. i'd move and be poverty-ridden in canada or elsewhere, rather than live in a country that not only fucks with me because i'm NOT rich, therefore taking away HALF my healthcare that was already shitty to begin with, but also tells me i can't marry someone i love, if they are a woman.
/soapbox. here's the link. for real:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/politics/campaigns/19ASSE.html?ex=1070514000&en=7099e5f546d07400&ei=5004&partner=UNTD
my void does not want.
-- 2.13.61.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And little creeks dry up and leave stone beds.
One is the lonliest number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm at the point of leaving, too.
I'm luckier than most, because I am a European National,
so I can live anywhere in the EU. I'm at the brink of leaving ASAP.
You said when you'd die that you'd walk with me every day
And I'd start to cry and say please don't talk that way
With the blink of an eye the Lord came and asked you to meet
You went to a better place but He stole you away from me
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Hehehe, coool. 
An amendment is already in the works. 
another article ... 