清华大学美国社会与文化课程阅读材料Controversy in America_934607268_.doc

清华大学美国社会与文化课程阅读材料Controversy in America_934607268_.doc

  1. 1、本文档共14页,可阅读全部内容。
  2. 2、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。
  3. 3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载
  4. 4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
查看更多
清华大学美国社会与文化课程阅读材料Controversy in America_934607268_

SJC: Gay marriage legal in Mass. Court gives the state six months to comply with ruling By Kathleen Burge, Globe Staff, 11/18/2003 The Supreme Judicial Court today became the nations first state supreme court to rule that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts constitution, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in the 4-3 decision. The ruling wont take effect for 180 days in order to allow the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion, the court ruled in its 50decision. Since the SJC is the ultimate authority on the state constitution, however, the Legislature cannot overturn todays decision -- nor would the US Supreme Court agree to interpret a states constitution. Opponents could fight for a constitutional amendment, but the soonest that could be placed on the ballot is 2006. The Legislature has already been considering several bills, including one that would allow gay marriage, that would grant benefits to same-sex couples. The SJC ruling held that the Massachusetts constitution forbids the creation of second-class citizens. The state Attorney Generals office, which argued to the court that state law doesnt allow gay couples to marry, has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marraige to same-sex couples, Marshall wrote. The court rejected the claim of a lower court judge that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Marshall was joined in the majority opinion by Justices John Greaney, Roderick Ireland, and Judith Cowin. Justices Francis Spina, Martha Sosman, and Robert Cordy opposed the decision. In the dissent, Cordy wrote that the states marriage statute historically described the union of one man and one woman. The law did not violate the Massachusetts constitution because th

文档评论(0)

xy88118 + 关注
实名认证
内容提供者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档