Share your reaction to the gay marriage decision
Massachusetts's highest court ruled 4-3 that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution, but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the seven couples who challenged the law. The court ordered the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days. What are your thoughts on the issue?
Page 29
I'm a married straight woman & mom and I would like to say: Yaay! This is a great day for equality. It's about damn time too! I feel so sorry for people who's marriages are SO pathetic they spend their lives obsessing over what their gay neighbors call a marriage. My marriage is about me and my family, not somebody else's. Gay marriage hurts nobody but homophobes and bigots. It allows a sizable group of hardworking, taxpaying people to really care for and commit to each other if they choose to. It's an uphill battle from here with our neo-conservative legislature, sure to come up with some bigoted law to stop it. Sigh. I'll keep praying that this is not a short lived victory for human equality. As Justice Greaney said: "It's the right thing to do" Maggie
Maggie, Somerville
Consider that a 4-3 vote is not exactly a landslide and the court, even though it made it legal under the constitution, still will not permit the couples who challenged it to wed. This tells me the challenge is not quite over yet. There are a lot of folks on both sides of this issue who have very strong feelings about it. Don't start celebrating yet, either way.
Buddy, Boston
This is horrible, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I need to move now before they allow cats and dogs to marry!!!
Hershey, boston
Once again the leftist court in this state and country are going to twist the law and the Constitution until they absolutely have a demented society. Civil Union sounds nice. But it is still gay marriage. What's next? Lets see, Sodomy laws struck down,,, Gay marriage is now legal,,,, what is next on the list of issues that gay men and lesbians will push to the front? It is not normal for a man to have sex with a man or a woman to have sex with a woman ,no matter what anyone says. The decision is a disgrace.
Joe, Lynn
As a gay man who pays taxes to support your children, your projects, your welfare, your food stamps, your homeless, your sick, I'm sick of listening to the fools who quote the Bible to defend anything they disagree with. To you straight people who quote the Bible. Can you think of an intelligent reason why Gay people should not be able to have the same rights as everyone else except to quote out of something that was written 3,000.00 years ago. I thought you Bible Freaks could fill me in the the following. Firsr of all, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from all of you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Dan, Sandwich
This ruling represents yet anouther reason why I'm glad that I'm moving back down south soon. I highly doubt that Mississippi will give "full faith and credit" to any such so called "marriage."
DJ, Newton
“GAY RIGHTS” IS A MYTH which assumes homosexuality is inherited, and therefore is not a matter of choice. But, no one has ever inherited a mutated gene from their parents, forcing them to be homosexual. This would be inconsistent with the purpose of our loving and intelligent Creator, who intended for generations to propagate themselves until His appointed time, not to self-destruct. All moral and immoral behavior are matters of individual choice. God delights in giving us His guidance in His Word, and the freedom to make the right choices. There is no future in homosexual relations, neither physically nor spiritually - it is a complete dead end. There is no such thing as "gay rights." God has only given one man and one women the "right" to engage in normal marriage. Neither God nor our Founding Fathers have ever given men the “right” to have sex with other men, nor women with women, nor to anyone outside of marriage. The opposite of a “right” is a “wrong”. When two men each choose to engage in immoral sex, they are both wrong, and two wrongs have never made a right. What U.N. radical feminist and homosexual groups actually want is "Gay Wrongs," not “Gay Rights.” In America, we (and especially our children) have a right to be protected from immoral influences (especially violence and homosexuality) at home, at school, at church, at work, and in our neighborhoods. To prove that (1) God hates homosexuality and loves sinners enough to save them from that filthy, perverted, immoral life style, and that (2) homosexuality and normal sexuality are matters of choice, please read 1 Cor 6:9-11. "…And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." The words "name" and "Spirit" refer to directly back to water baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," and receiving the "gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts18:1-17 > 2:38-42. You are surrounded by a cloud of 1st century AD witnesses, and of thousands of 20th/21th century witnesses, that God’s influence is strong enough to cleanse homosexual lusts out of the hearts of repentant believers. This “Apostle’s Doctrine” still completely saves sinners who choose to believe. Furthermore, any religion that permits active homosexuality and formal same sex unions in it's membership, and especially in it's ministry, and does not have the doctrine and power of God to save sinners, is a pretend (make believe) form of Christianity, a false religion. Real Christianity saves sinners from the guilt and the influence of sin, through the ministry of God's life changing influence (New Testament meaning of "grace"). Any church can be the true church, by preaching true doctrine, like the disciples did in the 1st century AD. In our Creator's eyes, the only acceptable lifestyle that leads to eternity in heaven, begins with a complete new birth into God's Kingdom, and continues in consecrated discipleship and holiness (following Jesus through the strait gate of total commitment and the narrow way of love and holiness to eternal life).
Charles, Springville IN
It continues to disturb me when I read the comments of those opposed to this ruling. It reminds me that for as much progress as we make - and today's ruling is monumental - we still have so far to go in enlightening those who fear positive change. I would love to bring back Booker T. Washington and Susan B. Anthony to talk about the positive affects of legislative change in the face of so-called "mass" opinion. Just because a group fears change does not make their mass opinion correct - unless of course you feel blacks should still be enslaved and women unable to vote. Those were popularly held opinions that when struck down, did not "ruin the fabric of society" which many of the headlines at the time implied. In fact, as we all know, the exact opposite came to be - the fabric of our society is stronger and richer than anyone could imagine because of those forced, legislative changes. There is nothing to fear from two people promising themselves to a committed relationship. Love is love, pure and simple. A man and a woman commit to a relationship because they love each other. Gay men and lesbian woman, who chose to commit to a relationship, do so because of the exact same form of love. In any committed relationship, sex is a result of that love, but not the source of that love. I really think it is semantics if you want to call it "marriage" or "civil union" or "legally acknowledged union between two consenting adults who love each other". This is a good day in Massachusetts.
Phillip, Boston
Hooray for Massachusettes!! Basic rights such as the right to marriage should never be denied to anyone on the base of their sexual orientation. I'm sure the people who opose the ruling, including Finneran and Mitt Romney have no idea what it's like to be invisible before society, and to not even have the basic rights they take for granted. It's about time Mass. caught up to the times. Kudos to the SJC!
Veronica, Roslindale
IT IS THE FALL OF ROME ALL OVER AGAIN. HISTORY WILL REPEAT ITSELF.
Kim, Boston
