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?
After reading the text of the SJC's decision, I feel they made the only decision possible based on the state constitution as it is currently written. Therefore I hope that the constitution is amended as early as possible in order to preserve the institution of marriage as it always has been, a union of a man and a woman. Hopefully this will also act as a wake up call for the rest of the country, spurring on efforts for a similar amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Dan, North Attleboro
While I am happy for those gay and lesbian couples that will someday be legally married, I believe that this ruling is not good for our society. I am not religious. I am generally a libertarian. However I ask you all to consider this quote from John in Boston - "Same sex couples deserve and need equal protection because their obligations and responsibilities as citizens are the same as everyone else." and now consider a different version we may hear in the coming years - "Brother-Sister couples deserve and need equal protection because their obligations and responsibilities as citizens are the same as everyone else." "Father-daughter couples deserve and need equal protection because their obligations and responsibilities as citizens are the same as everyone else." "Polygamous couples deserve and need equal protection because their obligations and responsibilities as citizens are the same as everyone else." These can all be consenting adult relations among people that deserve equal rights. What do we say when they put some scientific or marketing label on their relationships and ask for equal rights? I didn't even get to the wacko in Maine that petitioned a court to marry his dog. Yes I am a libertarian, but that doesn't mean I believe in anarchy.
I don't understand why some married people see this as an affront to them rather than a freedom for other people. The world does not revolve around you and trying to force your morals on someone else who just wants equal treatment is abhorent. As soon as gay people are allowed to be divorced, they'll be just like half of the "traditional" married people. Or maybe they'll be better at it since they don't take it for granted.
I just read this posting: "Marriage is for heterosexual couples. Couples who can copulate and propogate the species. It [the ruling] is an abomination." What an incredibly rude thing to say. Sweeping generalizations are usually inaccurate, and this one is no exception. My husband and I do not want children and we have every intention of not having any. Does this make our marriage less valid than someone else's? And to all those invoking the name of god, well, not everyone believes in god, and those who do don't all subscribe to the same religion. Religion is a *personal* belief system, hence the need for the legal separation of church and state. My mother always said "mind your own business," and her wisdom applies here. I'm pleased the SJC ruled in favor of basic rights here. Homosexual couples aren't asking for any more than heterosexual couples attain by default. If the word "black" or "Jew" were substituted for "homosexual" in the context of this argument, there would be a firestorm, and rightfully so. We've come a long way since the days of segregation based on the color of one's skin. There's more work to do, and this ruling is one more step in the right direction. Dr. Martin Luther King said in his "I have a dream" speech, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Let's judge others on the content of their character and not on what kind of sex they have.
Patti M., Stow, MA
I commend this long-overdue, humanist ruling. The second-class citizen status they refer to is real, and, the spirit of this decision is an important blow to the foundation of this prejudice. It is a courageous stance on the parts of the SJC (I can only imagine the flak they will receive from conservative groups) and today I feel proud to be a Bostonian. Though I am not confident that the legislature will interpret this in the manner with which the SJC specified, symbolically, this a very important day for civil rights.
Tom J, Boston
Woopee, now we can all come out of our closets and find our true mates for life. I can't wait for the next singles dance to see men dancing with men and women dancing with women for a change!! Who said opposites attract, those odd-balls will be lonely like wall flowers.
Horrendous decision! Another case of trying to legislate morality when it cannot stand up to popular vote. I'm ashamed to be from Mass. Fortunately this is not the end of the line.
This is truly a great day for our society! Thank you to all who fought and will continue to fight for EQUALITY. And thank you to those opponents, for sobering me and reminding me of all the hatred and ignorance of our great country. May you one day be cast out from our accepting society. Straight but not narrow...
dreams come true. I love America.
I find it embarassing that people are so intolerant. The people that oppose gay marriage should simply not marry another person of the same sex, they have no right to restrict the behavior of others. The condition upon imposing laws is to protect someone. I've yet to see what banning gay marraige will protect. Some claim the institute of marriage is damaged, lets start with something that is really damaging marriage, divorce. Divorce terminates a marriage, its hard to argue that two people that are getting married is in anyway more damaging than ending a marriage.