YES!!!!!!!

[mangosteen]

There ain't no "separate but.." in the word "equal", boys.

Supreme Judicial Court rules civil unions aren't enough, same-sex couples entitled to marriage

This means that there will be sane marriage statutes in Mass., come May. I would like to thank the Mass. Supreme Court for injecting some desperately-needed sanity into a country gone mad.

Comments

[thespian.livejournal.com]

now good luck with the *rest* of your country.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

Of course, those may last only until 2006, if the Radical Right are allowed to continue dominating the political landscape. All the more reason to get Bush out of office.

[bluepapercup]

I am torn between wanting to hop with the happiness and sanity of it all and then wanting to sit down heavily with the thought that there's not a chance in hell the rest of the country will follow suit with GWB in the white house.

*sigh*

[marmota.livejournal.com]

Enh. I'm ecstatic they realized that "half way" isn't good enough.
On the other hand, my Idealism was really hoping that this would be the leverage needed
to define that government has no right at all to define what a marriage is, and therefore can ONLY grant civil unions, to ANY kind of couple.
Oh, well.

Re:

[eleri.livejournal.com]

It boils down to terminology. What they are saying, in effect, is that civil union and marriage are, from a governmental/legal standpoint, the same thing. You can't call one type of civil contract a 'marriage' and grant one set of rights, and call another civil contract a 'civil union' and grant a different, lesser set of rights, when the contracts are the same thing. A civil contract joining two people in a long term legal arrangement has to convey the same rights, no matter who the two people are. Since the standard for two person (and maybe someday, multiple people) contracts are legaly called "marriage" (seperate from any religious implications the word has) that's the standard that has to be lived up to.