queer and loathing in the nation's capital
From NOLA.com: Gay marriage opponents regroup
I’m not going to say anything, but check this quote out:
“These aren’t real marriages,” Camenker said. “The state may call them marriages. But I don’t think the average person in Massachusetts believes that two men can be married legally. The mayor of Boston may think so. The liberal elite may think so, and the law may think so. But that’s not real at all.”
If it quacks like a duck…
This deserves so much more than just a mere sideblog entry.
Veteran rocker Cyndi Lauper was left red-faced during a concert in Massachusetts recently – when a bird excreted in her mouth.
I’m sure it was a beautiful solo, too… FOR ME TO POOP ON!!
Mass. court: State can’t block same-sex marriages
(From USA Today)
Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Tuesday 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 couples who challenged the law.
MARSHALL, C.J.: Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. 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.
Another good quote:
We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2480 (2003) (Lawrence), quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992).