Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

登入

记住我

初到 Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

新闻&特写

« 较新的 | 较旧的 »
5 Feb 2004

full-fledged marriage for gays: mass. court

The Massachusetts high court ruled that gay couples be allowed to marry - a full-fledged marriage and not just a Vermont-style civil union - drawing condemnation from conservative Christian groups and President George Bush.

Same-sex couples in Massachusetts may be able to be entitled to all the rights of marriage within months after the state's highest court issued an advisory on Wednesday that clarified a landmark ruling last year that said denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated the state constitution rejected the lesser possibility of civil unions, which accorded partners some benefits of marriage.

Massachusetts is the only US state close to granting same-sex couples marriage rights while proposed constitutional amendments that would ban gay marriage have been introduced in Arizona, Georgia, Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Michigan.
The advisory came after legislators requested to know whether civil unions would satisfy the court after its November ruling which had left open the possibility that civil unions might be allowed. The legislature meets February 11 to vote on the matter.

The court opinion was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record. In a four to three decision, the justices said a civil unions law "maintains an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favour of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion.

The court decided that a bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage would establish "an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," the court wrote.

"Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."

The ruling sets the stage for next Wednesday's constitutional convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment which stipulates that "only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognised as a marriage in Massachusetts. Any other relationship shall not be recognised as a marriage or its legal equivalent."

The proposed amendment has the support of President Bush as well as 100 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives, according to the Alliance for Marriage.

Massachusetts is the only US state close to granting same-sex couples marriage rights while proposed constitutional amendments that would ban gay marriage have been introduced in Arizona, Georgia, Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Michigan.
In a statement Wednesday night, President Bush condemned the ruling and called it "deeply troubling" but stopped just short of explicitly endorsing a constitutional amendment.

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

President Bush who ardently supports limiting marriage to be between a man and a woman and a proposed amendment that would nullify state decisions like the one in Massachusetts called the and vowed to "do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

Randy Thomasson, head of a lobby group in California, Campaign for California Families, told the conservative Worldnetdaily: "[T]he Massachusetts ruling "shows why some judges need to be recalled or impeached."

"When four arrogant jurists in black robes literally dream up homosexual 'marriage' and impose their subversive plan upon the people, it is cause for patriotic men, women and voters everywhere to rise up and take back their government," he said.

Observers note that as the soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 2006, so for now, same-sex couples could get married in Massachusetts as soon as May, the deadline set by the court last fall.

Currently, Vermont is the only state that allows civil unions, although other states including California allow a system of domestic partnerships that give very limited recognition to gay couples.

United States

读者回应

抢先发表第一个回应吧!

请先登入再使用此功能。

Social


请选择新闻及专栏版本

精选个人档案

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

赞好

合作伙伴

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement