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 44
I think this is a step in the right direction but more work still needs to be done to ensure that homosexuals get the same marriage rights that heterosexuals have and may take for granted
Jasmine, Boston
Finally a step in the right direction! I'm straight but I support gay marriages all the way and will fight to make them legal!
Denise, Brighton
To those of you who are against this decision: The Supreme Court must interpret the constitution as it is. There is no mandate for heterosexual marriage in the constitution, but again and again, the courts have recognized individual rights as constitutional despite these rights being specifically laid out in the consititution or not. I have questions for those of you who feel that this decision is wrong: Who does it hurt if gay marriage is legal? How can you deny rights to a couple, such as hospital visits, benefits and tax-relief, because that couple is of the same sex? Was this country founded on freedom or on a specific religion? Some argue that "separation of church and state" means keeping the state out of church, not keeping the church out of the state. How can we exist as a semi-democracy/republic/whatever if we are basing laws in a particular religious belief? I say "FINALLY!" to the MA SC ruling. We have denied parity for far too long and it is time we recognize it.
Melissa, Jamaica Plain
About time! I am so proud to live in this state!
Kathleen, Wakefield, MA
THIS IS NOT AT ALL SURPRIZING FROM A STATE THAT REPATEDLY SENTS TED KENNEDY AND BARNEY FRANK TO CONGRESS. WHAT ELSE IS NEW? GREAT NEWS FOR REPUBLICANS!!!!!
TED, KINGSTON
Marriage is a holy state and should only be between opposite sex couples. Saying that, I do believe that we should provide the same secular benefits to same-sex couples as we do to opposite sex couples. The right to inherit The right to act in agency The right to make medical decisions The right to be protected should the union break up The right to raise children The right to file jointly for tax purposes The right to be covered under the spouses medical insurance The right to visit in medical and other institutions There is no religious or ethical reason to deny same sex couples these things. Just don't call it holy matrimony or marriage, please.
Alicia, Buchanan, MI
I have always questioned why I, as a gay person, am expected to pay full freight to a government that that not only treats me like a second class citizen but does so on the basis of religion. If the government wants to regulate relationships between consenting adults (and why it should is another question entirely), it should do so equitably, regardless of gender. We have all heard the horror stories about life partners denied hospital visitation, health benefits, legal residency status, etc. – arbitrarily denied access to a “marriage support system” that we too fund with our tax dollars. Today's SJC decision is a TERRIFIC first step toward true equality, and how appropriate that it comes from John Adams (better his birthday, and not Kennedy’s, be declared a state holiday!) and Massachusetts. No taxation with representation! I am so proud of the Commonwealth today – let’s make it in Massachusetts!
Louise, Cambridge
Massachusetts is in a moral decline. If two homosexuals want to stay together to sodomize each other it SHOULD NOT be called marriage. Simply put, it is NOT a marriage. It is an immoral union that has brought about the decline of prior civilizations in history. The Massachusetts Legislature on Beacon does NOT listen to the majority of its constituents, rather they listen to the groups (GLAD, NAMBLA, etc. etc.) that keep the money flowing into their treasure chests. Shame on them!!!! The Judicial branch is a joke. They require people to put their left hand on the Bible and make a pledge to tell the truth during a trial. It is a travesty at the expedient use of this holy book within the walls of the the courts. I recommend that all of us NORMAL people head for hills and other places where morality is part of the rule of law.
Peter, Waltham
I applaud the decision of the Massachusetts court that same-sex couples be legally entitled to wed. Any opposition against this is based on prejudice and unfounded fears. Civil marriages are secular ceremonies, and secular rights of citizens should be protected under secular laws of parity. A position against same-sex marriage is similar to a position against interracial marriage. Both positions are unethical, and even immoral, in terms of consitutional rights. For the governor and certain members of the legislature to threaten an amendment to the constitution to bar same-sex marriage is infuriating. Will being gay now relegate a person to the status of two-thirds of a person? It's ridiculous.
Supporter, Arlington
THANK YOU!!!! its about time we are seen as humans with rights... love can never be defined and i think by allowing this law we essentially are proving such notions
Katie, Acton
