# Today Mass. starts giving out gay marriage licenses! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 10, 2004, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447 "2004-05-10T13:58:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![elfbabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b782af/32.png) [@elfbabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfbabe)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2004, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/41 "2004-05-10T23:23:26Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > You should probably read ALL of Airman Doors’ posts in this thread before making that statement. Actually, just his first one would be sufficient to answer that question. Oops, I missed that “preferably in favor of them” part. My mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2004, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/42 "2004-05-10T23:54:41Z")
> [@Jurph](#): > > However, your argument got me thinking (and here it is, only Monday!): since our legal system is based on the idea of precedence, how is a flag-burning ruling “judicial fiat”? If you’d like, we can kick off a thread in GD, since it’s a total hijack. As I see it, the various “free expression” interpretations of the First Amendment include the act of burning a flag. Iit’s possible–nay, almost certain–that this case has been tried already, and since you can still burn a flag, I’m guessing the ruling was favorable to supporters of that form of expression. In this case it comes down to evolution of “Freedom of Speech”. I doubt you’d find anyone who would argue with the notion that since speech is protected, so is the written word, since that is simply speech in a different form. However, you’ll note that “Free Expression” is not mentioned anywhere in the First Amendment, and as such I object loudly to the notion that burning a flag in protest is protected. However, the courts have altered “Speech” to include non-verbal protest activities, for which I think it was never really intended. It’s also the case that punishing someone for burning the flag would be a stretch, because while it is a cherished symbol, when you get down to it it’s simply a piece of cloth being burned in a provocative manner, and thus really violates no laws (except maybe the Clean Air Act). When a judge decides in either manner he’s either making law based upon an emotional response or (what I consider to be) a tortured interpretation of the Constitution. Either way, it’s bad law. So what needs to happen is a Constitutional Amendment about that, or else we accept that the rules will remain vague and imprecise and that you do something like that at your own risk. What a way to run a railroad. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/43 "2004-05-11T01:00:57Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > “Activist judges” is just the latest euphemism for “a judicial decision not in my favor.” I’ll bet it’s on that list of Republican attack-words Newt Gingrich drafted in the early '90s… :rolleyes: This statement is trite and shallow and only shows you’d rather roll off nifty _bon mots_ than seriously consider the arguments in favor of strict constructionism (N.B.: _not_ the same thing as political conservatism). Are their folks, especially politicians, who misuse the phrase “judicial activism” in furtherance of their own agendas? Sure. But I can think of a lot of phrases that are similarly misused. That doesn’t mean that those phrases have no meaning, or that they are nothing more than cover for political opportunism. Frankly, when I use that phrase, I’m talking about a fairly discrete thing (judicial decisionmaking that is out of step with the goals of the authors of the original text). So are most other serious-minded strict constructionists. It does me, and them, a disservice to suggest we’re just secretly advocating results-driven jurisprudence, especially given that results-driven jurisprudence is the very _opposite_ of what strict constructionism is all about. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/44 "2004-05-11T01:14:46Z")
> [@Airman Doors USAF](#): > > …which was in turn an overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson and the finding in that case of the legitimacy of “separate but equal”. Technically, this is not true; the court held that separate was inherently unequal and thus segregation was unconstitutional. It did not overrule _Plessy_. The abstract notion of separate but equal is still good law – it’s just that in the real world, the two cannot simultaneously exist at the same time. But of course, I’m being hypertechnical, counting angels on the heads of pins. We live in the real world, not a world of abstract constructs. As a practical matter, _Plessy_ is overturned. Believe me, no one’s going to cite it as good precedent these days. 🙂 > [@Guinastasia](#): > > Wouldn’t the Civil Rights Amendment prevent that [future overturning of _Brown v. Board_? What “Civil Rights Amendment” are you referring to? The post-Civil War amendments to the constitution? They were in place when _Plessy_ was decided. The 1964 Civil Rights Act? OK, but that isn’t a constitutional provision – Congress could theoretically repeal it at any time. More to the point, _Brown_ wasn’t premised on the 1964 Act (seeing how it wouldn’t be written for around another decade); it was premised on the constitution. If a case arose with facts such that the 1964 Act and its progeny didn’t render the issue moot (tough to imagine, granted), the court could theoretically revisit the constitutional reasoning it applied in _Brown_. All of that is pretty damned unlikely, natch, but theoretically not impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/45 "2004-05-11T01:51:21Z")
> [@elfbabe](#): > > You’re damn right we do! I can just see it now: > **Amendment XXVIII** > _The right to marry shall not be denied or abridged on account of the sex of the individuals involved, provided all other requirements for marriage are met._ > _sniff_ > :o Ohh beauuuuutifulllll, for spaaaaacious skiiies… :o > > Wait, that’s… probably not what you meant, is it? Well, I think that Katie Bates would agree that that would be the appropriate patriotic song to celebrate the above amendment. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/46 "2004-05-11T02:33:20Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > I’ll be there. I’ll see if I can find my “Capitalist Tool” T-shirt to wear, just so nobody confuses me for (_shudder_) a leftist. Well, let’s see who’s actually sponsoring this event, so maybe you won’t feel _too_ out of place. Al-Fatiha DC American Friends Service Committee (the Quakers) Asian Pacific Islander Queer Sisters Asian Queers United for Action DC Radical Faeries [DontAmend.com](http://DontAmend.com) DC Statehood/Green Party Equality Maryland Full Page Project International Socialist Organization (this is where I come in) Marriage Equality Meetup DC Metro Teen AIDS Pride at Work DC Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League Soulforce DC Outfront DC Student Equal Rights Campaign and yes, we _did_ contact the Log Cabin Republicans and the Gertrude Stein Democrats about sponsoring the event, but I don’t believe we’ve heard back from them on this one… ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/47 "2004-05-11T02:57:43Z")
> [@GMRyujin](#): > > Oh no! Soon all those gay people will be dragging me off to get married! Why can’t everyone be more like Britney Spears and get drunkenly married as a joke, thus confirming how serious heterosexual couples are about marriage!? Oh, for crying out loud. You might want to read a little, outside your comfort zone. You might discover that most of the people who oppose gay marriage also oppose casual heterosexual marriages and quickie divorces like Britney Spears’ I’m sick of being clubbed over the head with her lovely example. If it were up to me, she wouldn’t have been married to begin with, due to the residency requirement and waiting period. Had she become married, the annulment may have been easy at the outset, but divorce later on would be considerably harder, because of the elimination of no-fault. I’m dead serious about marriage, and I want to make it stronger, not weaker, like a generations of “reforms” in family structure and law, mostly supported by liberals, have left it. For the record, while I oppose gay marriage, I do support civil unions, open to those people for whom traditional marriage isn’t a viable option for creation and maintenance of a household. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/48 "2004-05-11T03:16:00Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I’m dead serious about marriage, and I want to make it stronger, not weaker, […] Do keep in mind that there are a number of people who have lost all respect for marriage and consider it valueless because it is formulated in a discriminatory way. A number of them will argue quite vehemently that other people should not get married because the institution is morally bankrupt in their eyes. Marriage is made stronger by being the way that families get recognised. If families exist that cannot be recognised by marriage, then the value of the institution is degraded. People chuck it and come up with alternatives, and encourage other people to abandon it as well. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/49 "2004-05-11T03:21:01Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Oh, for crying out loud. > > You might want to read a little, outside your comfort zone. You might discover that most of the people who oppose gay marriage also oppose casual heterosexual marriages and quickie divorces like Britney Spears’ > > I’m sick of being clubbed over the head with her lovely example. If it were up to me, she wouldn’t have been married to begin with, due to the residency requirement and waiting period. > > Had she become married, the annulment may have been easy at the outset, but divorce later on would be considerably harder, because of the elimination of no-fault. Yeah, yeah, we know. Strengthen marriage. Get rid of no-fault divorce. Start enforcing residence requirements again. All stupid ideas, true, but here’s the thing: none of them have a goddamn thing to do with gay marriage. > [@](#): > > I’m dead serious about marriage, and I want to make it stronger, not weaker, like a generations of “reforms” in family structure and law, mostly supported by liberals, have left it. See, here’s where you’re an asshole. The idea that letting gays marry will somehow weaken marriage is bigoted, plain and simple. Unless you can provide some rationale for barring gays from marriage that is based on some sort of observable data, and not on pure ideology, of course. Can you? > [@](#): > > For the record, while I oppose gay marriage, I do support civil unions, open to those people for whom traditional marriage isn’t a viable option for creation and maintenance of a household. Thank you, Mr. Plessy. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/50 "2004-05-11T03:26:09Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m sick of being clubbed over the head with her lovely example. And I’m sick of media reports on things like gay pride parades that pull out 25 seconds of footage of freaks out of a four hour event and pretend like it’s representational, so I guess we all have our crosses to bear. > [@](#): > > I’m dead serious about marriage, and I want to make it stronger, not weaker, like a generations of “reforms” in family structure and law, mostly supported by liberals, have left it. But of course you are completely unable to explain how making more people eligible to enter into legal marriages “weakens” it in any way. Interesting. > [@](#): > > For the record, while I oppose gay marriage, I do support civil unions, open to those people for whom traditional marriage isn’t a viable option for creation and maintenance of a household. The only reason “traditional marriage” isn’t a “viable option” for gay couples is because of narrow-minded nitwits. Fortunately the narrow-minded have been roundly defeated in Massachusetts. ---
**Author:** ![Abbie\_Carmichael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/49beb7/32.png) [@Abbie\_Carmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abbie_Carmichael)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/51 "2004-05-11T05:16:59Z")
**(Really, she’s not gay. She’s just never had sex with a man. And sex with Ellen, well, that’s just like a hobby.)** So she’s not gay. She’s “Ellen gay.” Sort of like Anne Heche _runs for cover_ ---
**Author:** ![John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ccd318/32.png) [@John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Kentzel-Griffin)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/52 "2004-05-11T07:48:28Z")
I’m proud of the Mass. Supreme court. Way to go! > [@StarvingButStrong](#): > > As for why in the Pit, it’s my observation that posts about gay marriage seem to end up here eventually, so why put a mod to the hassle of moving it later. :: sigh :: You’re right. It’s a shame, but you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Amberlei](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e56c9b/32.png) [@Amberlei](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amberlei)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/53 "2004-05-11T11:40:28Z")
About a month ago, I had a recorded message on my voice mail from an organization opposing gay marriages. This group was organizing a protest, and was calling random people in Massachusetts to urge them to take part in their protest. The gist of the message was that the bible condemned homosexuality, advocated marriage between one man and one woman, and that children and the economy would be irrepairably harmed if same sex marriages were allowed to happen. All of this I’d heard before, and I almost deleted the message without hearing it through to the end. I’m glad I didn’t, or I would have missed the true gem, guaranteed to make me see the light. “Massachusetts is the birthplace of American Freedom. Let’s not let the freedom our ancestors worked so hard far be taken away from us. Come to our demonstration and show the world that Massachusetts does not want gay marriage.” :wally In general, I’m anti-marriage (in that it’s not something I personally care to try again and that I feel too many people rush into it), but I have to say it’s about time that all couples who feel a need to marry are allowed. I’ve only known two same-sex couples, but both of those have endured for many years and appear to be more solid relationships than those of many heterosexual couples I know. Way to go Massachusetts! 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![htns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ba8739/32.png) [@htns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/htns)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/54 "2004-05-11T12:21:05Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Marriage by judicial fiat. Sad day. Recognizing that basic human rights are not subject to the will of the majority. GREAT day. Glad to see this story, it really made my morning. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/55 "2004-05-11T12:51:44Z")
I feel pretty good about this overall. If you’re going to deny people certain rights, you should have to look them straight in the eye when taking it away. The way it was before allowed lawmakers to do nothing and keep gay people down. Lazyness and inertia kept things that way, now that the landscape is changed it will take a specific and considerable effort to put things back the way they were. If it was really really wrong and really really completely against the will of the people, the constitution can be changed. There’s a nicely documented process for it, go right ahead and get support for changing it. I suspect that people generally don’t give a crap one way or the other and are not going to support change one way or the other. They won’t support a law giving marriage rights to gays, and they won’t support a law taking them away. ---
**Author:** ![sperfur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9adbd/32.png) [@sperfur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sperfur)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/56 "2004-05-11T13:37:06Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > Dear Athelas, > > Get bent. > > Yours, > > Gobear Dear **Gobear** , You’re awesome. 😃 Yours, **sperfur** ---
**Author:** ![sperfur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9adbd/32.png) [@sperfur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sperfur)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/57 "2004-05-11T14:24:28Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment for gay marriage? If that’s what it takes, yes. Should we leave that right in the hands of judges? No. Should we leave that in the hands of state legislaures? Given their exemplary records on slavery ( :rolleyes: ), no, unless you like living in a country with patchwork upholding of stuff as important as marriage rights and benefits. It needs to be a Federal law, written down and set in stone. I think most of us would love a Federal mandate making gay marriage legal. Unfortunately, we’re just not there yet. Until then, we take baby steps. It sucks, but its what we’re forced to do. Then we celebrate our baby steps, like this one. Is that wrong? Absolutely not. > [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > But… to be a Libertarian, must one subscribe to the ontological proof of God’s existence? :dubious: I don’t know about **gobear** , but I consider myself politically to be a libertarian. The way I look at it is I’m a Democrat when it comes to personal freedoms and a Republican when it comes to money. In other words, keep the government out of my bedroom, personal life, and wallet. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > …most of the people who oppose gay marriage also oppose casual heterosexual marriages and quickie divorces like Britney Spears’ > > I’m sick of being clubbed over the head with her lovely example. If it were up to me, she wouldn’t have been married to begin with, due to the residency requirement and waiting period. Whether you like it or not, it _is_ a perfect example. Its concrete, recent proof that marriage is not the sacred institution the Anti-GM folks want us to believe it is. Who gives a rip that ‘most of the people who oppose gay marriage also oppose casual heterosexual marriages’? The problem is that one group has the right and the other doesn’t. One more thing - who are you to say ‘if it was up to me, she wouldn’t have been married to begin with’? What frickin’ business of yours is it what someone else does? Did it harm you in any way? Or, as my dad would say, ‘who died and made you boss?’ You need to get that string between your asshole and your eyeballs trimmed back a little. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/58 "2004-05-11T14:29:43Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I feel pretty good about this overall. If you’re going to deny people certain rights, you should have to look them straight in the eye when taking it away. The way it was before allowed lawmakers to do nothing and keep gay people down. Lazyness and inertia kept things that way, now that the landscape is changed it will take a specific and considerable effort to put things back the way they were. > > If it was really really wrong and really really completely against the will of the people, the constitution can be changed. There’s a nicely documented process for it, go right ahead and get support for changing it. > > I suspect that people generally don’t give a crap one way or the other and are not going to support change one way or the other. They won’t support a law giving marriage rights to gays, and they won’t support a law taking them away. Are you familiar with the examples of Alaska and Hawaii in this regard? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/59 "2004-05-11T14:52:36Z")
Bricker, those amendments happened long enough ago that I thought they were states where the consitutions have always prohibited gay marriage. Strange that I hadn’t heard any talk about the amendments with the news I’ve read on this. Thanks for bringing this up. Just in case anyone else is as ignorant of this as I was, Alaska and Hawaii were in (seemingly) the exact same situation Mass is in today (court saying that the ban is unconstitutional) and passed amendments prohibiting gay marriage, so it was all legal-like. So, everyone who is jumping up and down ‘mourning’ this turn of events can take heart that it’s certainly possible that gay folk won’t be ‘ruining’ your marriage thing for much longer. Hope that makes you all feel better about yourselves. Nothing quite like stepping on someone else to make your spirits rise. ---
**Author:** ![StarvingButStrong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/starvingbutstrong/32/335_2.png) [@StarvingButStrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvingButStrong)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447/60 "2004-05-11T15:06:18Z")
I refuse to be that pessimistic. What I’m hoping for is that by the time it comes up before the legislature again some significant number of gay marriages will have occured (I dunno, a couple hundred at least?) and (amazing!) the sky will not have fallen and all het marriages won’t have suddenly fallen apart and in general all those horrible things the anti-gm people claim will happen WON’T have happened. Instead, well, some people will have had nice ceremonies that made them happy and they’ll check different boxes when they file their taxes and they’ll have a convenient and understood term to use in referring to their mates – none of which will impact on the lives of anyone else to any significant degree. And the vast majority of people, those who generally find enough to do living their own lives instead of running other peoples, will shrug and ignore the anti-gm people trying to whip them into frenzies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/today-mass-starts-giving-out-gay-marriage-licenses/244447.md?page=4)