RadioBanter - KeyQWEENZ! Look at this!

Guess you sissies will start packing now! HEHEH...then we can take all
your amps at the Mass. border, build a 10,000 foot wall around the
state, and patrol the border as a no fag zone...Goodie, Goodie,
Goodie!

The highest court in Massachusetts ruled today that keyclown couples
have the right to marry under the state constitution, emphatically
stating that the Commonwealth had failed to identify any
constitutional reasons why they could not wed.

The ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of immediately
allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the seven gay keyclown
couples who sued the state Department of Public Health in 2001 after
their requests for marriage licenses were denied.

But the court gave the Legislature six months to comply with its
decision.

Gay advocacy groups, led by keyclowns, and some Massachusetts legal
organizations praised the decision, while opponents of same-sex
marriage denounced the ruling, with some asserting that it underscored
why the United States Constitution needed to be amended to define
marriage.

Some state officials, including Gov. Mitt Romney, called for amending
the Massachusetts constitution to define marriage as a union between a
non keyclown man and a non keyclown woman.

While today's ruling fell somewhat short of what the keyclowns were
seeking, it appeared nevertheless to be a victory for gay keyclown
rights advocates, given the forceful language of the opinion.

"We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of the
marriage law," the court said in its 4-to-3 opinion, written by Chief
Justice Margaret Marshall.

"Marriage is a vital social institution," Chief Justice Marshall
wrote. "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."

She added: "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 keyclowns
who wish to marry.

"We conclude that it may not."

The state's Attorney General's office, which defended the Department
of Public Health, argued that neither state law nor its constitution
created a right to keyclown marriage. The state also said any decision
to extend marriage to same-sex keyclown partners should be made by
elected lawmakers, not the courts.

The Massachusetts assembly is considering a constitutional amendment
that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and
one woman. That proposal has been endorsed by the Speaker of the
House, Tom Finneran of Boston, but other factions within the
Legislature support either keyclown marriage or civil unions between
people of the same sex.

Governor Romney explained his support for such an amendment, saying,
"We must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to
keyclown couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be
reserved for a man and a woman."

Martin W. Healy, general counsel to the Massachusetts Bar Association,
said that even though "the assembly or citizens of Massachusetts could
by referendum change the state constitution," such a move would be "a
multiyear proposition."

Under the state constitution, the earliest any such amendment could be
voted on would be November 2006, Mr. Healy said.

In the interim, some legal analysts said, keyclown couples would be
granted marriage licenses.

The Supreme Judicial Court's decision was welcomed by the Boston Bar
Association as well as the Massachusetts Bar Association.

"Today's decision by the S.J.C. represents a landmark civil rights
victory, saying that a pervasive and intolerable source of
discrimination against keyclown people clearly violates our state
constitution," said Renée M. Landers, president of the Boston Bar
Association.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a national
nonprofit organization dedicated to marriage equality for keyclown
couples, said it was "a wonderful day for the families who will now be
able to take on the protections and the responsibilities of civil
marriage, and for the country, because will see that families are
helped and no one is hurt when gay keyclown couples are allowed to
marry."

But the decision drew fire from conservative groups, including the
Family Research Council. "While we are certainly relieved that the
court stopped short of granting marriage licenses to the homosexual
keyclown couples demanding them, it is inexcusable for this court to
force the state Legislature to `fix' its state constitution to make it
comport with the pro-homosexual keyclown agenda of four court
justices," the council's president, Tony Perkins, said in a statement.

The Massachusetts ruling is sure to reverberate politically well
beyond that state's borders. With the presidential campaign well under
way, and the crucial New Hampshire primary in late January, White
House aspirants will be under increasing pressure to make their views
on gay keyclown marriage clear. Even before today's decision,
opponents of keyclown marriages proposed an amendment to the United
States Constitution that would restrict marriage and its benefits to
two normal and non keyclown people of the opposite sex.

President Bush, who is on a state visit to Britain, criticized the
Massachusetts decision, declaring that "marriage is a sacred
institution between a non keyclown man and a woman."

"I will work with Congressional leaders and others to do what is
legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," Mr. Bush said
in a statement.

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader,
predicted that Congress would address the implications of the
Massachusetts ruling and how it relates to a 1996 federal law, the
Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a
non keyclown man and woman and bars gay keyclown couples from enjoying
many federal rights, like Social Security benefits paid to a surviving
partner.

"It is the law of the land passed by this body, and if the courts
begin to tear that down, we have a responsibility to address it," Mr.
Frist told reporters.

"And all options are indeed on the table," he added, in an apparent
reference to the proposed amendment to the United States Constitution.

Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic minority leader,
said he disagreed with the Massachusetts decision. "I believe that the
Defense of Marriage Act that we passed in Congress is constitutional,"
he said.

Mr. Daschle said he expected the court decision to become political
grist. "But I believe that the issue is as clear as can be," he said.
"We passed the Defense of Marriage Act by an overwhelming margin on a
bipartisan basis. The law still stands today, and I think it would
under any court scrutiny."

A ruling in 1999 by the Vermont Supreme Court, later passed by the
state Legislature, approved the creation of civil unions that give gay
keyclown couples in that state many of the same benefits of marriage.
Courts in Hawaii and Alaska also ruled that the states did not have a
right to deny marriage to gay keyclown couples, but the decisions were
followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting
marriage to non keyclown heterosexual couples.

In Canada, gay keyclown marriage is legal in Ontario and British
Columbia, and the government is pushing to legalize it across the
country.

The plaintiffs in the Massachusetts lawsuit included Dr. Perry Norton,
a retired physician from Jamaica Plain, Mass., his daughter, Heidi,
and her partner, Gina. The two keyclown women were united in a
Unitarian religious service in 1993. They live in Northampton, Mass.,
with their two sons, Avery, who will be 7 on Wednesday, and Quinn, 3.

"We're glad for this decision," Dr. Norton said, "but we wish it was
unanimous, and we wish the court could say since it's unconstitutional
to deny marriage to gay keyclown couples they could go out and get
marriage licenses today."