Bush Bashing / Shrub Slamming
Two news articles:
- Gay Marriage Is a Right, Massachusetts Court Rules (WP)
By David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 19, 2003; Page A01
A divided Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that same-sex couples have a right to civil marriages under the nation's oldest state constitution, declaring that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice."
Never has a state's high court ruled so conclusively on same-sex marriage. The Massachusetts decision went further than the 1993 finding by Hawaii's high court that marriage laws were discriminatory, in that yesterday's decision directly redefined the meaning of "civil marriage" in Massachusetts law. And it exceeded the 1999 action by Vermont's highest court that required marriage-like benefits and protections for same-sex couples but did not entitle them to marriage licenses.
The court delayed its order for 180 days to allow the state legislature to react.
Critics of the ruling predicted it will drive same-sex marriage to the center ring of next year's presidential election and will add momentum to an effort, now simmering in Congress, to amend the U.S. Constitution to forbid those unions.
Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall wrote the 4 to 3 majority opinion, which acknowledged that it was finding in the words of John Adams a meaning that he could hardly have foreseen when he wrote the Massachusetts Constitution 223 years ago. The longstanding definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman "deprives individuals of access to an institution of fundamental legal, personal, and social significance . . . because of a single trait," namely their sexual orientation, Marshall wrote.
Therefore, the court promulgated a new definition for the purposes of Massachusetts law: "We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
It was not immediately clear what the state legislature could do if it wished to prevent the order from taking effect. Similar court findings in Hawaii and Alaska in the 1990s were overturned by changes to state constitutions. But amending the Massachusetts Constitution is a multi-year process, requiring a majority vote by two successive legislatures, followed by a vote of the public. The earliest those steps could be completed is 2006.
In Vermont, the legislature created a parallel structure of "civil unions" for same-sex couples, but that result was clearly contemplated in the ruling of that state's high court. The Massachusetts justices gave no direct encouragement to a "civil unions" compromise.
One veteran of Massachusetts politics, former Boston mayor Raymond L. Flynn, called the 180-day delay "kind of deceitful" because it is not enough time to amend the constitution. Outraged by the decision, Flynn called for public protest. "There needs to be a petition drive to get politicians to understand that the largest number of families and concerned Americans don't agree with this," said Flynn, who heads a group called Your Catholic Voice. "And it must become a major issue in the presidential campaign."
President Bush denounced the ruling and vowed to "do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," though he did not specifically call on Congress to bring the proposed constitutional amendment to a vote.
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said. "Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle."
The leading Democratic candidates seeking to oppose Bush next year moved cautiously around the Massachusetts ruling, extolling progress toward equality but, in most cases, voicing opposition to same-sex marriage. For former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who signed his state's civil unions bill into law, the issue is familiar -- it nearly cost him his reelection. Among the other candidates faring best in early polls, retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark appeared to go the furthest in support of the court, saying that "as someone who supports the legal rights of all Americans regardless of sexual orientation, I appreciate today's decision." Clark said he would leave it to each state to decide which marriages to recognize.
A nationwide poll on religion and homosexuality released yesterday suggests that the marriage issue could be a powerful lever for Republicans to pry away some Democratic-leaning voters in next year's election.
The poll, by the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum, found that Bush's supporters are unified in opposing same-sex marriage by a ratio of more than 5 to 1.
But likely Democratic voters are deeply divided on the issue, with 46 percent supporting marriage rights for gays and lesbians and 48 percent opposed.
Moreover, a quarter of all Democratic-leaning voters said they "strongly" oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry, a potential trove of swing voters that includes a high concentration of Southerners, blacks, seniors and people without a college education, said pollster Scott Teeter.
Overall the Pew poll, which surveyed 1,515 people Oct. 15 to 19 and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, found that opposition to same-sex marriage has grown slightly since summer, even as the U.S. Supreme Court overturned all anti-sodomy laws and Canada moved to recognize gay unions. Six in 10 Americans are now opposed, up from 53 percent in July. Much of the rising opposition is among evangelical Protestants, a majority of whom said they have heard their clergy speak on the subject.
Gay and lesbian leaders, aware of those numbers, were careful to point out that the Massachusetts ruling does not touch religious authority over church weddings.
Praising the decision as being "in the best tradition of our nation," Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the nation's largest gay advocate, the Human Rights Campaign, said it "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," Birch said.
The Massachusetts case was brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a New England group that also prevailed in the Vermont case. The plaintiffs were seven same-sex couples whose partnerships have endured at least seven years -- one couple has been together for 30 years; several couples are raising children.
They "volunteer in our schools, worship beside us in our religious houses, and have children who play with our children," Justice John M. Greaney wrote in a concurring opinion.
Their lawyers argued that they were barred from hundreds of rights, obligations and protections triggered by civil marriage, for no reason but their sexual orientation. The court's majority found that the state's justifications for this barrier -- including procreation and support for traditional families -- were irrational.
Justice Francis X. Spina, writing for the three dissenters, rebuked the majority for overstepping the court's authority.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) denounced the ruling, as did the leaders of conservative values organizations such as Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition. "If the Massachusetts legislature goes along, we could have same-sex marriage pretty quickly," said Gary Bauer, an adviser to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) on the issue. "This points to the need for a [constitutional] amendment defining marriage for the whole country."
But Evan Wolfson, director of Freedom to Marry, which supports marriage equality, accused the critics of scaremongering. "They will make the same gloom-and-doom cries as they did when America ended race discrimination in marriage, and women's subordination in marriage, and got the government out of the business of deciding when people can use contraception. But the majority is going to see that no one is hurt by allowing gay people to marry."
Staff writer Alan Cooperman contributed to this report.
(btw. nice to see that things have progressed since the witch trials)
- President Defends Sanctity of Marriage (Bush Shrub)
Statement by the President
November 18, 2003
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
Having read those, please grab your torch / axes, find the Shrub, and start burning / hacking.
To be honest, the democratic system owes Bush A LOT.
My apolitical peers who have been not-voting for most of their lives are kicking themselves for not having voted against him.
- Gay Marriage Is a Right, Massachusetts Court Rules (WP)
By David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 19, 2003; Page A01
A divided Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that same-sex couples have a right to civil marriages under the nation's oldest state constitution, declaring that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice."
Never has a state's high court ruled so conclusively on same-sex marriage. The Massachusetts decision went further than the 1993 finding by Hawaii's high court that marriage laws were discriminatory, in that yesterday's decision directly redefined the meaning of "civil marriage" in Massachusetts law. And it exceeded the 1999 action by Vermont's highest court that required marriage-like benefits and protections for same-sex couples but did not entitle them to marriage licenses.
The court delayed its order for 180 days to allow the state legislature to react.
Critics of the ruling predicted it will drive same-sex marriage to the center ring of next year's presidential election and will add momentum to an effort, now simmering in Congress, to amend the U.S. Constitution to forbid those unions.
Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall wrote the 4 to 3 majority opinion, which acknowledged that it was finding in the words of John Adams a meaning that he could hardly have foreseen when he wrote the Massachusetts Constitution 223 years ago. The longstanding definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman "deprives individuals of access to an institution of fundamental legal, personal, and social significance . . . because of a single trait," namely their sexual orientation, Marshall wrote.
Therefore, the court promulgated a new definition for the purposes of Massachusetts law: "We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
It was not immediately clear what the state legislature could do if it wished to prevent the order from taking effect. Similar court findings in Hawaii and Alaska in the 1990s were overturned by changes to state constitutions. But amending the Massachusetts Constitution is a multi-year process, requiring a majority vote by two successive legislatures, followed by a vote of the public. The earliest those steps could be completed is 2006.
In Vermont, the legislature created a parallel structure of "civil unions" for same-sex couples, but that result was clearly contemplated in the ruling of that state's high court. The Massachusetts justices gave no direct encouragement to a "civil unions" compromise.
One veteran of Massachusetts politics, former Boston mayor Raymond L. Flynn, called the 180-day delay "kind of deceitful" because it is not enough time to amend the constitution. Outraged by the decision, Flynn called for public protest. "There needs to be a petition drive to get politicians to understand that the largest number of families and concerned Americans don't agree with this," said Flynn, who heads a group called Your Catholic Voice. "And it must become a major issue in the presidential campaign."
President Bush denounced the ruling and vowed to "do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," though he did not specifically call on Congress to bring the proposed constitutional amendment to a vote.
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said. "Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle."
The leading Democratic candidates seeking to oppose Bush next year moved cautiously around the Massachusetts ruling, extolling progress toward equality but, in most cases, voicing opposition to same-sex marriage. For former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who signed his state's civil unions bill into law, the issue is familiar -- it nearly cost him his reelection. Among the other candidates faring best in early polls, retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark appeared to go the furthest in support of the court, saying that "as someone who supports the legal rights of all Americans regardless of sexual orientation, I appreciate today's decision." Clark said he would leave it to each state to decide which marriages to recognize.
A nationwide poll on religion and homosexuality released yesterday suggests that the marriage issue could be a powerful lever for Republicans to pry away some Democratic-leaning voters in next year's election.
The poll, by the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum, found that Bush's supporters are unified in opposing same-sex marriage by a ratio of more than 5 to 1.
But likely Democratic voters are deeply divided on the issue, with 46 percent supporting marriage rights for gays and lesbians and 48 percent opposed.
Moreover, a quarter of all Democratic-leaning voters said they "strongly" oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry, a potential trove of swing voters that includes a high concentration of Southerners, blacks, seniors and people without a college education, said pollster Scott Teeter.
Overall the Pew poll, which surveyed 1,515 people Oct. 15 to 19 and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, found that opposition to same-sex marriage has grown slightly since summer, even as the U.S. Supreme Court overturned all anti-sodomy laws and Canada moved to recognize gay unions. Six in 10 Americans are now opposed, up from 53 percent in July. Much of the rising opposition is among evangelical Protestants, a majority of whom said they have heard their clergy speak on the subject.
Gay and lesbian leaders, aware of those numbers, were careful to point out that the Massachusetts ruling does not touch religious authority over church weddings.
Praising the decision as being "in the best tradition of our nation," Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the nation's largest gay advocate, the Human Rights Campaign, said it "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," Birch said.
The Massachusetts case was brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a New England group that also prevailed in the Vermont case. The plaintiffs were seven same-sex couples whose partnerships have endured at least seven years -- one couple has been together for 30 years; several couples are raising children.
They "volunteer in our schools, worship beside us in our religious houses, and have children who play with our children," Justice John M. Greaney wrote in a concurring opinion.
Their lawyers argued that they were barred from hundreds of rights, obligations and protections triggered by civil marriage, for no reason but their sexual orientation. The court's majority found that the state's justifications for this barrier -- including procreation and support for traditional families -- were irrational.
Justice Francis X. Spina, writing for the three dissenters, rebuked the majority for overstepping the court's authority.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) denounced the ruling, as did the leaders of conservative values organizations such as Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition. "If the Massachusetts legislature goes along, we could have same-sex marriage pretty quickly," said Gary Bauer, an adviser to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) on the issue. "This points to the need for a [constitutional] amendment defining marriage for the whole country."
But Evan Wolfson, director of Freedom to Marry, which supports marriage equality, accused the critics of scaremongering. "They will make the same gloom-and-doom cries as they did when America ended race discrimination in marriage, and women's subordination in marriage, and got the government out of the business of deciding when people can use contraception. But the majority is going to see that no one is hurt by allowing gay people to marry."
Staff writer Alan Cooperman contributed to this report.
(btw. nice to see that things have progressed since the witch trials)
- President Defends Sanctity of Marriage (Bush Shrub)
Statement by the President
November 18, 2003
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
Having read those, please grab your torch / axes, find the Shrub, and start burning / hacking.
To be honest, the democratic system owes Bush A LOT.
My apolitical peers who have been not-voting for most of their lives are kicking themselves for not having voted against him.