photo
commentary
Quote UnQuote
Published Thursday, 27-Nov-2003 in issue 831
“It is time for President Bush to end his alliance with homophobic bigotry once and for all and speak out against the Republican Party’s hostile election year attempt to amend the United States Constitution to include a ban on gay marriage. Throughout our history, the Constitution has been amended to afford expanded rights to disenfranchised citizens, not to unfairly single out a particular group of Americans by limiting their rights.”
Presidential candidate Dick Gephardt in a Nov. 8 statement.
“You couldn’t put this in a book — nobody would believe it.”
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg Nov. 7 after five transgender students from the Harvey Milk gay high school were arrested for impersonating undercover vice cops dressed as female prostitutes and demanding money, credit cards, ATM cards and PIN codes to let their victims go free.
“Prince Charles is in the middle of a gay-sex scandal and media frenzy that just won’t quit.... Butler-turned-biographer Paul Burrell says he has an audiotape describing a sexual encounter between Prince Charles and a male aide.”
— USA Today, Nov. 11.
“The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.”
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Nov. 18. The state legislature has 180 days to rewrite marriage law to include same-sex couples.
“We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs’ constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships.... We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.”
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Nov. 18.
“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. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.”
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Nov. 18. The state legislature has 180 days to rewrite marriage law to include same-sex couples.
E-mail

Send the story “Quote UnQuote”

Recipient's e-mail: 
Your e-mail: 
Additional note: 
(optional) 
E-mail Story     Print Print Story     Share Bookmark & Share Story
Classifieds Place a Classified Ad Business Directory Real Estate
Contact Advertise About GLT