Find a lesbian couple with similar tastes, and mix ‘n’ match. Works for the figurines on top of the wedding cake, too.
I think the primary difference between those two and Massachusetts is that it was possible to ammend those constitutions before any marriages took place. Here, that cannot happen. Furthermore, the prospect of forbidding gay marriages and gay civil unions is pretty much dead, and would take at least an additional year (on top of the two years to get rid of gay marriage and replace it with gay civil unions granting the same benefits).
So, we will have thousands of married gay couples who would have their marriages taken away from them, something the electorate is probably less inclined to do. Assuming that I’m correct in predicting that there won’t in fact be two years of fire and brimstone raining from the sky, the collapse of civilization, or the failure of heterosexual marriage.
I’m proud to be a resident of the Commonwealth. I’m not surprised Cambridge is clearly trying to be first out of the gate with this, though I was hoping the first ceremony would feature a couple dressed as Pilgrims (or a Pilgrim and a Pequot) and be held at Plymouth Rock. Maybe that’s just me, though. 
Except that most who are leftists in the US ARE Capitalist. They consider themselves “social capitalists” or Social Democrats. 
Speak fer yerself, dude. :dubious:
Athelas, Airman Doors
from http://www.state.ma.us/legis/const.htm
Should the Massachusetts State Supreme Court have ruled that the people of the great state of Massachusetts didn’t really mean it when they passed this amendment?
Did the Boston Globe mean it at the time when it editorialized that Massachusetts citizens shouldn’t worry? That the amendment in question would never be used to legalize something so silly as gay marriage?
“[A proposed antidiscrimination barring sexual orientation discrimination in credit, employment, insurance, public accommodation and housing] does not legalize ‘gay marriage’ or confer any right on homosexual, lesbian or unmarried heterosexual couples to ‘domestic benefits.’ Nor does passage of the bill put Massachusetts on a ‘slippery slope’ toward such rights.”
Boston Globe* Oct. 15, 1989, p A30
This law was cited in the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in question.
So yes, it is an open question of what the people of Massachusetts meant. I think we all know what’ll happen if it’s left to a free and open vote, and that’s the last thing gay activists want.
Well, I can’t speak for what “we all” know, but I know that in all the polls I’ve seen the people here are pretty impressively in opposition to amending the Constitution of the Commonwealth for this. On the question of marriage itself, it’s been pretty consistently about fifty/fifty, and question wording makes a big difference in which way the split breaks.
D’oh, you’re right, the CR ACT.
:smack:
No, they people of the state of Massachusetts meant every word of it. Nobody is being denied anything because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin. They’re being denied because of what was then and largely is now an unacceptable social practice. They can deny drug addicts, they can deny alcoholics, and they can deny homosexuals, because they’re not covered by the clause in question here.
Sucks, doesn’t it? Sure does.
Incidentally, marriage is not an “inalienable right”, nor is it guaranteed by any part of any Constitution that I am aware of. It’s purely a religious/social custom with a certain legal status.
The clause in question was not cited in the majority opinion. It was cited in a concurring opinion, in which it was correctly noted that restricting marriage to mixed-sex couples creates a sex-based classification. The decision itself did not turn on the clause and the majority opinion does not mention it.
Incidentally, marriage is a fundamental right under the federal Constitution, per a series of SCOTUS decisions (Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safley, to name three).
As an aside, then maybe not, one of the first couples to be married is Chuck Colbert and his partner. WTF is he? He’s a free lance writer who writes for the Catholic Reporter, the Boston Globe and others. His mother, who is a devout Roman Catholic and one of our PFLAG moms, is attending the ceremony. I wish her Godspeed and a safe journey. We’ll be waiting for her report the next meeting she attends.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
I stand corrected