Log in

View Full Version : Massachusetts recognises gay marriages



The Feral Underclass
18th May 2004, 10:51
Massachusetts becomes first US state to recognise gay marriages

By David Usborne in New York
18 May 2004

Scores of jubilant same-sex couples began exchanging wedding vows in Massachusetts yesterday as the state became the first in America to recognise gay marriage.

The stampede began in the liberal-dominated town of Cambridge, just across the Charles River from Boston, where officials at the town hall began taking applications for marriage licenses at one minute past midnight. As many as 250 couples had queued up to begin filling in the paper work. Outside the town hall, an estimated 5,000 people, many gays and lesbians, celebrated in the street.

Other communities waited to open their town-hall doors at the normal hour of 8am for the expected rush of same-sex couples taking advantage of a change in state law that was ordered by the state's Supreme Court last November and formally came into effect yesterday.

Thus began a day that catapults America - somewhat to its consternation - into the forefront of those few countries around the world that allow same-sex couples to wed. Previously, gays could only get married officially in Belgium, the Netherlands and some provinces of Canada.

Last minute manoeuvres by conservative groups opposed to gay marriage hit the buffers only last Friday evening when the US Supreme Court rejected a request to intervene. However, a federal appeals court in Massachusetts has agreed to hear the case in early June. By then, however, many hundreds of gay couples are expected to have been joined in marriage in Massachusetts.

Among the very first to tie the knot were Tanya McCloskey, 52, and Marcia Kadish, 56, of Malden, Massachusetts. They were waiting to pick up licenses in the wee hours yesterday in Cambridge and then worked fast to win a legal waiver from a judge that allowed them to short-circuit a provision that would have required them to wait three days before actually exchanging vows.

Their marriage thus took place at 9.15am with Cambridge City Clerk Margaret Drury officiating. "Now by the power vested in me by the state of Massachusetts as a justice of the peace, and most of all by the power of your own love, I now pronounce you married under the laws of Massachusetts," Ms Drury said. "You may seal this marriage with a kiss."

"I feel all tingly and wonderful," a beaming Ms Kadish, who works in personnel, gushed after the brief ceremony. "So much love, can't you see it is just bursting out of me?"

In Boston, among those requesting marriage licenses were Hillary and Julie Goodridge, who, three years ago, were turned away by City Hall. Their rejection spurred them to bring before the state Supreme Court the case that resulted in the legalisation of gay marriage. When they returned to City Hall yesterday, they were welcomed by the Mayor, Thomas Menino. They were planning to hold their ceremony later last night.

"Once again, we've broken down a barrier in the city of Boston and the state of Massachusetts," the Mayor declared. "That's what it's all about."

"Next to the birth of our daughter, this is the happiest day of our lives," Julie Goodridge told reporters. "It's absolutely thrilling, it's overwhelming, I'm so happy," Hillary Goodridge added.

While the day's events marked a stinging setback for opponents of gay marriage, there were few protests yesterday to mar the new day. Those celebrating on the streets of Cambridge overnight, blowing bubbles and singing the national anthem, massively outnumbered a lonely group of anti-gay activists, most from a single church in Kansas. They waved banners with slogans like "God Hates Fags".

Ray McNulty, spokesman for the Massachusetts Family Institute that has lobbied against same-sex marriage, criticized some of the protesters, saying there was no need for hateful speech: "What's going on down there is legal, give those people their happiness for the day."

Several Massachusetts communities, including Provincetown, a gay Mecca on the tip of Cape Cod, set about ignoring warnings from the state's Governor, that they should not issue licenses to couples resident in other states. Large numbers of out-of-state couples flocked to the resort town hoping to wed and now face new hurdles trying to persuade their own states to recognise them as legally married.

Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=522380)

RedAnarchist
18th May 2004, 10:55
Massachusetts has hopefully opened the floodgates and encouraged other US states to legalize gay and lesbian marriages. Why should they be forbidden from consecrating their love for one another just because they happen to be of the same sex?

SittingBull47
18th May 2004, 13:30
the question in pennsylvania is "will PA recognize the marriages". This is another obstacle. You may be legally wed in Mass., but will other states recognize the legitamacy.

RevoltNOW
18th May 2004, 16:07
MA will not wed out of state couples because these other states of course will not see these marriages as legitimate.

Sloth
18th May 2004, 16:38
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 04:07 PM
MA will not wed out of state couples because these other states of course will not see these marriages as legitimate.
Yes...they will.

mEds
18th May 2004, 16:39
All I can say is that America is one of the most hypocritical, racist, blasphemous, idiotic, lazy, corrupt, evil, retarded, obese, ignorant, war-mongering, anal-retentive countries. :/

RevoltNOW
18th May 2004, 16:48
I second this with a raised fist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RevoltNOW
18th May 2004, 18:48
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18 2004, 10:51 AM
Massachusetts becomes first US state to recognise gay marriages

By David Usborne in New York
18 May 2004

Scores of jubilant same-sex couples began exchanging wedding vows in Massachusetts yesterday as the state became the first in America to recognise gay marriage.

The stampede began in the liberal-dominated town of Cambridge, just across the Charles River from Boston, where officials at the town hall began taking applications for marriage licenses at one minute past midnight. As many as 250 couples had queued up to begin filling in the paper work. Outside the town hall, an estimated 5,000 people, many gays and lesbians, celebrated in the street.

Other communities waited to open their town-hall doors at the normal hour of 8am for the expected rush of same-sex couples taking advantage of a change in state law that was ordered by the state's Supreme Court last November and formally came into effect yesterday.

Thus began a day that catapults America - somewhat to its consternation - into the forefront of those few countries around the world that allow same-sex couples to wed. Previously, gays could only get married officially in Belgium, the Netherlands and some provinces of Canada.

Last minute manoeuvres by conservative groups opposed to gay marriage hit the buffers only last Friday evening when the US Supreme Court rejected a request to intervene. However, a federal appeals court in Massachusetts has agreed to hear the case in early June. By then, however, many hundreds of gay couples are expected to have been joined in marriage in Massachusetts.

Among the very first to tie the knot were Tanya McCloskey, 52, and Marcia Kadish, 56, of Malden, Massachusetts. They were waiting to pick up licenses in the wee hours yesterday in Cambridge and then worked fast to win a legal waiver from a judge that allowed them to short-circuit a provision that would have required them to wait three days before actually exchanging vows.

Their marriage thus took place at 9.15am with Cambridge City Clerk Margaret Drury officiating. "Now by the power vested in me by the state of Massachusetts as a justice of the peace, and most of all by the power of your own love, I now pronounce you married under the laws of Massachusetts," Ms Drury said. "You may seal this marriage with a kiss."

"I feel all tingly and wonderful," a beaming Ms Kadish, who works in personnel, gushed after the brief ceremony. "So much love, can't you see it is just bursting out of me?"

In Boston, among those requesting marriage licenses were Hillary and Julie Goodridge, who, three years ago, were turned away by City Hall. Their rejection spurred them to bring before the state Supreme Court the case that resulted in the legalisation of gay marriage. When they returned to City Hall yesterday, they were welcomed by the Mayor, Thomas Menino. They were planning to hold their ceremony later last night.

"Once again, we've broken down a barrier in the city of Boston and the state of Massachusetts," the Mayor declared. "That's what it's all about."

"Next to the birth of our daughter, this is the happiest day of our lives," Julie Goodridge told reporters. "It's absolutely thrilling, it's overwhelming, I'm so happy," Hillary Goodridge added.

While the day's events marked a stinging setback for opponents of gay marriage, there were few protests yesterday to mar the new day. Those celebrating on the streets of Cambridge overnight, blowing bubbles and singing the national anthem, massively outnumbered a lonely group of anti-gay activists, most from a single church in Kansas. They waved banners with slogans like "God Hates Fags".

Ray McNulty, spokesman for the Massachusetts Family Institute that has lobbied against same-sex marriage, criticized some of the protesters, saying there was no need for hateful speech: "What's going on down there is legal, give those people their happiness for the day."

Several Massachusetts communities, including Provincetown, a gay Mecca on the tip of Cape Cod, set about ignoring warnings from the state's Governor, that they should not issue licenses to couples resident in other states. Large numbers of out-of-state couples flocked to the resort town hoping to wed and now face new hurdles trying to persuade their own states to recognise them as legally married.

Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=522380)
[QUOTE] If they actually knew what they were talking about god hates no one screw christian hypocracy

Pawn Power
20th May 2004, 00:07
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 01:30 PM
the question in pennsylvania is "will PA recognize the marriages". This is another obstacle. You may be legally wed in Mass., but will other states recognize the legitamacy.
i belive other states will have to reconize the marriages because of the clause that makes other states respect other states laws.
i think if their is not a constitutional amendment eventually most of the states will allow gay marriages but this could take a very long time

Frederick_Engles
22nd May 2004, 22:23
marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a women, anything else is an affront agaisnt nature

The idealist
23rd May 2004, 13:17
I beg your pardon? Do you meen to say that you live in a tree and eat your bananas raw?

Sorry I couldn't help it.

Since when is love against nature? The only change is the inability to have babies. Science may "give" them one (by borrowing a female gamate (egg)), but prices would still make it difficult.

If I didn't like the colour of my neighbors house i might say it, but in the end it is a matter of taste.

live and let love, eh?

Besides, isn't rebelling against the prejudice, taboos and restrictions of the capitalist society what we are here for?

M_Rawlins
23rd May 2004, 14:57
marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a women, anything else is an affront agaisnt nature

Our comrade is a Christian Marxist, if such thing can exist.

I remember reading a part of a biography of Lenin, when he was in London and could not accept the idea of the English Christian-Marxists as the two ideals contradicted themselves.... or something like that.

Freedom for all I say, regardless of gender, sexuality or race... down with capitalist opression.

Frederick_Engles
23rd May 2004, 15:18
ok let them, but please don't hang the clergy!!!

h&s
24th May 2004, 09:28
How can a country which claims to be the "land of the free" discriminate against people marrying just because of their sexuality?

Bolshevist
24th May 2004, 10:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 10:23 PM
marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a women, anything else is an affront agaisnt nature
I'd say marriage is a sacret bond between to people loving eachother very much ;)

h&s
24th May 2004, 12:15
Yeah, to bring religous views into politics is completly against Marxism, and should be banned.:hammer:

DaCuBaN
24th May 2004, 20:21
marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a women, anything else is an affront agaisnt nature

Marriage is a legal and binding contract between two persons
A contract is for those who do not trust each other - yet I'm told that a marriage that is not founded on trust is no marriage at all

This seems a contradiction in terms to me - hence marriage is a sham.

fuerzasocialista
25th May 2004, 00:32
I wonder what Marx or Lenin would have thought of this?

DaCuBaN
25th May 2004, 00:38
Not a lot I'd reckong ;)

I'm sure on of them said something about treating every man as your brother... or was that Ghandi.... :unsure: :lol:

Edward Norton
27th May 2004, 22:36
Why do people see any need to marry at all?

I have no intetnion of ever getting married, as I am happy with the current state of relationship I have with my partner. I consider marriage to have too many religious connections and symbolism to mean anything to me.

As long as a relationship has trust and love, what difference will pieces of paper and two bland gold rings make?

I can understand homosexuals wanting reconigition on a legal basis in case thier relationship fails and there are disputes over property and housing etc...

h&s
28th May 2004, 11:09
You could marry at a registry office. People also marry so that they have rights if their partner has an accident and dies or something.

Sammi87
28th May 2004, 11:22
its not like there's different types of love. love is love no matter whether its between a man and a man, a woman and a woman or a man and a woman. personally i can see no reason for gay couples to be prevented from marrying if they wish to do so. its time governments opened their eyes and gave everyone the same rights.

Edward Norton
28th May 2004, 12:29
[QUOTE]You could marry at a registry office. People also marry so that they have rights if their partner has an accident and dies or something.[QUOTE]

I made that point at the end of my last post.

But a lot of gays/lesbians also like the 'ritualistic' apect of marriage. That does not personally appeal to me, like I said a relationship can survive anything if you love and trust your other half.

h&s
28th May 2004, 14:08
Anyway, anyone who is against homosexual marriages is nothing more than a bigotted homophobe, and I don't know why people can't see this.

Deathb4Dishonor
28th May 2004, 19:12
a common misinterpitation is that the usa is trying to stop gay marriage for religious reasons thats not it i wish that were the argument because then it could be easly settled the argument is this since the purpose of marriage its self is to produce more offspring in an enviorment that will help them prosper they argue that the gays will recieve the benifits of marriage such as reduced taxes death benifits and other such things with out providing an enviroment for a child because many wont adopt children and will just sit around collecting benifits weather you agree with this argument or not you have to admit its a much better argument then the common though that its for religious reasons my argument against this is that many modern wedded couples dont bare children any ways because both work and they just dont have time to raise them and you could sort of say there just collecting the benifits

Sabocat
28th May 2004, 20:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 02:12 PM
a common misinterpitation is that the usa is trying to stop gay marriage for religious reasons thats not it i wish that were the argument because then it could be easly settled the argument is this since the purpose of marriage its self is to produce more offspring in an enviorment that will help them prosper they argue that the gays will recieve the benifits of marriage such as reduced taxes death benifits and other such things with out providing an enviroment for a child because many wont adopt children and will just sit around collecting benifits weather you agree with this argument or not you have to admit its a much better argument then the common though that its for religious reasons my argument against this is that many modern wedded couples dont bare children any ways because both work and they just dont have time to raise them and you could sort of say there just collecting the benifits
First. Without punctuation and capitalization your post is almost unintelligible.

Second. If you think that people are fighting gay marriage over the $500-$1000 dollar tax break you get at the end of the year for being married, you're crazy. I live in Massachusetts, and I assure you that the religious fundamentalists are the ones fighting it. All you had to do is watch the news to see who was protesting against it. I even received a voice message at work from some chrisitian fundamentalists asking for support to have the State Supreme Court Justice's removed over their decision that it was un-constitutional to bar same sex marriage.

"Sitting around collecting benefits" :lol: You must be joking. Ask a tax accountant to explain to you who has the highest tax rate. Two incomes, married with no kids is one of the highest taxed rates there is. By far the biggest beneficiaries of tax breaks are the large families with 4+ children. They get almost all of their tax paid in back. Kind of a government incentive to overpopulate the planet.

The purpose of marriage is to produce offspring? Says who? I've been married 10 years and neither my wife or I want children. Does that mean we shouldn't have gotten married? Yeah, we're just sittin' around collectin' all those benefits.

:lol:

DaCuBaN
29th May 2004, 10:15
Kind of a government incentive to overpopulate the planet
:lol: I've never looked at it like that before. Quite an accurate depiction :)

So not only are we subsidising our industries, but we subsidise our population itself.

As if we need more assholes :rolleyes: :lol: