Zardon

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Reuters) - Hundreds of gay couples on Monday began untying the final strands of red tape separating them from something they never thought possible -- the right to legally marry in the United States.

After months of anticipation, debate and protest, Massachusetts on Monday became the first and only U.S. state to allow same-sex marriage, an election-year milestone likely to fuel legal and political battles nationwide.

At the stroke of midnight, cheers erupted among hundreds of gay and lesbian couples waiting to apply first thing in the morning for marriage licenses at City Hall in the famously liberal community of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

It is expected the first legal gay weddings will take place after courthouses open across the state.

Several of those waiting to fill out forms expressed a mix of giddiness and anxiety as they contemplated the new rights and responsibilities they will face as married couples.

"I've always thought it was not just about the rights but the rightness. It legitimizes who I am," said Tod Davis of Somerville, Massachusetts, who intends to marry his partner of nine years, Joseph Winkley. "Until I get married, I'm just a second-class citizen."

Passing cars honked their horns and a throng of onlookers choked the sidewalks outside the 19th-century building. Across the street, about a half-dozen anti-gay demonstrators held signs like "God Hates Fags."

"If they're going to allow this, then why not incest? Why not have people marry animals? Why not polygamy?" asked protester Ben Phelps of Topeka, Kansas.

Thousands of same-sex couples were married at San Francisco City Hall earlier this year, but the marriages were not recognized by the state of California. A mayor in New York state is being prosecuted after performing gay marriages in February.

reuters

untweaked1

I think gays don't know what they are getting themselves into.
having a legal relationship isn't all it's cracked up to be, but I guess
they are just trying to be "normal" (what ever that is) personally
I could care less.

Judas

it's a start...... btw..... it's not completely about legality... it just simply being "married"...

__________________

Alistair

Well straight people have attempted marraige and brought it to a crumbling failure in most cases. Lets let them see if they can have better luck.

__________________
- Alistair

zerodamage

Doesn't suprise me really. Mass is a cest pool for liberalism and this type of thing isn't at all surprising if you look at the state's senators. You have Ted Kennedy, one of the top 3 most liberal members of the senate. And you have John Kerry, who probably voted against it before he voted for it as the other senator.

Homosexuality is not normal and never will be. No matter how much the homesexual lobby tries, no matter how many "Will and Grace's" they put on the air, no matter what, it will never be considered as normal.

PoopyTheJ

Interestingly no one wants to talk about the Social Security side of it. Perhaps if they get married they can finally decide who will get their benefits that the gov't has been taking for years. If only to get back some of their stolen money I think they oughta be allowed to marry.

__________________

ToshiroOC

Unlikely - Mass. doesn't run Social Security, the federal government does, and its Mass. that's issuing the licenses that aren't going to be recognized by the federal government.

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

The_Neon_Cowboy

BUt the WHOL DEAL WITH THIS IT NOT THAT THE WANT THE TITLE OF BEING MARRIED THIER AFTER THE LEGAL BENIFIETS LIKE SOCIAL SECURTY! FHA ALL KINDS OF ASISTANCE! THATS WAT THIER AFTER AND THEY EVEN HAVE SAID SO COUNTLESS TIMES.....

THEY ALLREADY HAVE CIVIL UNIONS...

WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT MARRAGE IS NOT A LEGAL BOND BUT A RELIGOUS ONE LATER TURNED LEGAL AND GAY IS A SIN AND IS UNWELCOME BY THE CHURCH....


iIF YOU SAID OK YOU CAN GET MARRIED BUT YOU GET NO STATE OR FEDRAL BENIFITS WHAT SO EVER! MOST OF THEM WOUNLT WANT IT .. WHY? COUSE THAT NOT WHAT THIER AFTER

__________________

The_Neon_Cowboy

NOPE ONE STATE REGINISES IT IT WILL LEAD TO ALL 50 STATES BEING FORCED TO
AS WELL AS PERFORM GAY MARRAGES EVEN THOUGH THE MAGOITY OF THIER POPULS IS AGAINST IT

total bull i tell you total bulll

__________________

mainman

Really...i could care less...

__________________

Judas

the system requires a super overhaul

__________________

krazy1

Why can't people just leave the "homosexuals" alone and let them live their lives. I am so tired of the world reporting every little thing that happens with them. This world is so worried about what the other person is doing. If we would worry about ourselves as much as we worry about everyone else a lot of things would be better.

__________________

raid517

Hey TC, if your watching this thread - I see both our inboxes were full.

GJ

Proper Gander

exactly. people should mind their own business

ToshiroOC

Quite so, quite so.

I'm not sure I understand what you just said.

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Judas

he's saying he believes in majoriy dictatorship.....

__________________

JavaFox

Hi guys. Good to see this forum is going strong.

You need to brush up on your history, man. We Americans have an ugly history of trying to make "seperate but equal" laws work. I think we settled this fifty years ago -- "seperate but equal" is inherently unequal.

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton, guarantees that no state will be forced to recognize the gay marriage of any other state. So I guess you don't have to worry about those evil gays destroying the sanctity of marriage in your state, Neon. That said, the Defense of Marriage Act is so blatantly unconstitutional that it takes my breath away. I can't wait until our Supreme Court strikes it down, and we can finally restore some decency and dignity to American social values. Until then, we should all be ashamed.

The_Neon_Cowboy

you'll care more when you get a little older and have to pay double or triple the taxes you pay now
to pay for the government to suport these people ...

consider the fact it will insure the death or siocoal secrity... so plan to save 10 million for when you retire or work the rest of your life

__________________

GOG

Funny, I thought homosexuality was blessed by the catholic church, or does that only apply to priests and boys below the age of 13?

bird chest

Its not seperate but equal!! They could get a marriage but they choose not to. Now the question is are we willing to give all of us the right to gay marriage. They are not excluded from marriage they choose not to. So a civil union is for everyone also. I do not want to give society the option to gay marriage but like I have said before it is not a big thing to me and will go along with the masses.

JavaFox

The only state in America that gays can get married in is Massachusetts. Other states do not have to recognize that marriage. Heterosexual couples can get married in any state and will have their marriages recognized by all states.

How's that "equal protection under the law," again? Oh, that's right -- it isn't.

zerodamage

Hey Java. I am not quite sure where you stand on this. Are you for or against gay marriage?

JavaFox

I think I made my position pretty clear. I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from.

I think this Massachusetts business is a beacon of hope and the sooner the Supreme Court makes it the law of the land --or at least gets rids of the unbelievably unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act-- the sooner some decency is injected into American social values. We should all be ashamed that we're trying this "seperate but equal" crap yet again.

Haven't we learned?

zerodamage

So you are for Gay Marriage. That is interesting. I have nothing against homosexuals to be completely honest. I have something against their lifestyle being shoved into my face on a daily basis. Homosexuality is not a normal. I see this as a step by the homosexual extremists to make their abnormal lifestyle normal.

JavaFox

Nobody likes it when anyone is in-your-face about anything. But that's neither here nor there. The point of the American Constitution is, in part, to protect the few from the many. Whether or not you think homosexuality is biologically determined or psychologically created isn't really relevant. I think that the point is, our Consitution says things like "[the government shall not deny] equal protection of the laws." The government is supposed to make it so the law is enforced fairly, for all people. Now explain to me how the fact that heterosexuals can get married anywhere and have their marriage respected anywhere whereas homosexuals can get married only in Massachusetts and only have their marriage recognized in Massachusettes is fair. Does that represent an equal enforcement of the law? Would you say that homosexuals and heterosexuals are both affording, in this case, the same amount of protection from our government?

The answer has to be no.

zerodamage

Let me try to explain quickly. Anyone has the right to marry. Any man can marry any woman given they both consent. Even a homosexual man can marry a woman if he wants. To twist these rights to support an abnormal activity such as a man marrying another man is where the line needs to be drawn. So to say that homosexuals do not have the same rights are not true. We can not let any abnormal behavior be supported by the constitution. If 100 men want to mary sheep, who is to say at that time it isn't right. It after all is violating their right to "marry". I am not against civil unions. I am against a potential pandora's box being opened.

Billy Toaster

me, because ive a brain.

bluelight

Paranooooia.....

Bluelight

Mata

The right to marriage is not really a right if you can’t choose who you marry. And you who are worried about paying out benefits for people that are married should oppose that and not who marries who. I mean why give benefits to a man and women that have chosen to marry and not a man and a woman that have chosen to live together? Why does a married couple without kids get more benefits then non married couple with kids? Why should you pay less tax just because you are married? Makes no sense to me.

Marriage should be a strictly religious thing and the state should have nothing to do with it. If the states just took there hands off and stopped supporting there religion of choice this would not be a problem and we would all live in a freer world. And pay less tax that goes to subsidising already wealthy people.

Proper Gander

Now, try to see it this way: marrying your love.

Only heteros have the right to marry their loves. Any hetero can marry his love given they both consent. But a homosexual man cannot marry his love if he wants. To enable laws to support a normal activity such as a gay marrying his love is what needs to be done to equalize the right to marry your love. So to say that homosexuals do not have the same rights currently is true. We can not let any rights which heteros have be denied to gays by the constitution.
a sheep is obviously not a human. (I do hope you don't argue against this one )
really, why don't you state exactly what you are afraid might happen, and I'll try to explain why they won't, to set you at ease from this paranoia.