 영어토론방 | Home>영어토론방 |
Homosexual marriage
페이지 정보
본문
(CNN) -- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling Tuesday that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right. In a 4-3 ruling, the court gave the Massachusetts state Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples.
The ruling by the court on the Massachusetts Constitution could set new legal ground, and drew quick reaction from advocates on both sides of the issue. Massachusetts' governor immediately denounced Tuesday's decision and said he would work for a constitutional amendment to overturn it. But an openly gay U.S. congressman from the state said the amendment couldn't come before the voters before 2006, and by that time same-sex marriages will be law.
President Bush waded into the debate with a statement criticizing the ruling. "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "Today's decision violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." Bush stopped short of saying he would support an effort by some Republicans in Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, which would trump the Massachusetts court.
Legal observers said the Massachusetts case took a significant step beyond the 1999 Vermont state Supreme Court decision that led to civil unions in that state.
The Associated Press reported that many lawyers believe Tuesday's ruling applies strictly to marriage and that creating a separate class of domestic union -- such as civil unions -- would not be acceptable.
Attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented the seven gay couples who sued the state, said the only task assigned to the Legislature is to come up with changes in the law that will allow gay couples to marry at the end of the 180-day period, the AP reported.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the state Legislature would comply with the court's ruling "even if we don't agree with it." The governor said he would ask lawmakers to initiate a constitutional amendment process "that will be consistent with what I think the feelings are of the commonwealth" about marriage.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, an openly gay congressman, said the process for doing so would delay a vote until 2006.
"My prediction is that when we in Massachusetts vote on this -- and we almost certainly will in 2006 -- the reality will have overtaken the fears," he said.
In a paper statement he released immediately after the ruling was released, Romney left the door open for some other way of recognizing same-sex couples.
"Of course," he said, "we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."
Connie Mackey of the Family Research Council criticized the ruling, saying it was "a clear case of the courts overruling the majority opinion of the people."
"If the will of the people has anything to do with it, the people will throw out any legislator that upholds this ruling," she told CNN. "The culture has seen the family unit for thousands of years as one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children." Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced their ruling Tuesday. Mackey also urged passage of a federal constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages.
Elizabeth Birch, director of the gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign, said that the courts are not obliged to support a majority of the people.
"If not for courts, African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote," she said. "The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority."
Both supporters and opponents of the right of same-sex couples to marry had waited months for the decision.
Gay activists say the American judicial system is beginning to catch up with modern society. In June the Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. On June 10, an appeals court in the Canadian province of Ontario struck down a ban on same-sex marriage. But a majority of people surveyed in late October said gay marriages should not be legally recognized, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. According to the survey, 61 percent said no when asked whether gay marriages should be recognized as valid by law. Thirty-five percent said yes.
Question
1. Have you heard about gay or lesbian or even met these people?
If you have heard or met, how do you think about them?
2. Do you agree on homosexual marriage?
How would you react if your children or family say they'll have a homosexual marriage?
3. What change do you think will happen by homosexual marriage and by the new family shape?
4. How do you think about the minority homosexual being treated unfairly and disregarded?
이 글은「대학연합영어토론동아리」www.pioneerclub.com에서 제공하는 영어토론 정보입니다.
thingsgon: 1.i have heard about them,
2. no i do not agree with homosexual marriage, if any of my family wants to have a homosexual marriage , i would never allow it,
3. what chages? homosexual marriage is a thing they dose not comply to nature's law,
it is just such upsetting thing
4 -[04/09]-
k7s2k: test -[05/25]-
The ruling by the court on the Massachusetts Constitution could set new legal ground, and drew quick reaction from advocates on both sides of the issue. Massachusetts' governor immediately denounced Tuesday's decision and said he would work for a constitutional amendment to overturn it. But an openly gay U.S. congressman from the state said the amendment couldn't come before the voters before 2006, and by that time same-sex marriages will be law.
President Bush waded into the debate with a statement criticizing the ruling. "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "Today's decision violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." Bush stopped short of saying he would support an effort by some Republicans in Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, which would trump the Massachusetts court.
Legal observers said the Massachusetts case took a significant step beyond the 1999 Vermont state Supreme Court decision that led to civil unions in that state.
The Associated Press reported that many lawyers believe Tuesday's ruling applies strictly to marriage and that creating a separate class of domestic union -- such as civil unions -- would not be acceptable.
Attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented the seven gay couples who sued the state, said the only task assigned to the Legislature is to come up with changes in the law that will allow gay couples to marry at the end of the 180-day period, the AP reported.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the state Legislature would comply with the court's ruling "even if we don't agree with it." The governor said he would ask lawmakers to initiate a constitutional amendment process "that will be consistent with what I think the feelings are of the commonwealth" about marriage.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, an openly gay congressman, said the process for doing so would delay a vote until 2006.
"My prediction is that when we in Massachusetts vote on this -- and we almost certainly will in 2006 -- the reality will have overtaken the fears," he said.
In a paper statement he released immediately after the ruling was released, Romney left the door open for some other way of recognizing same-sex couples.
"Of course," he said, "we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."
Connie Mackey of the Family Research Council criticized the ruling, saying it was "a clear case of the courts overruling the majority opinion of the people."
"If the will of the people has anything to do with it, the people will throw out any legislator that upholds this ruling," she told CNN. "The culture has seen the family unit for thousands of years as one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children." Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced their ruling Tuesday. Mackey also urged passage of a federal constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages.
Elizabeth Birch, director of the gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign, said that the courts are not obliged to support a majority of the people.
"If not for courts, African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote," she said. "The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority."
Both supporters and opponents of the right of same-sex couples to marry had waited months for the decision.
Gay activists say the American judicial system is beginning to catch up with modern society. In June the Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. On June 10, an appeals court in the Canadian province of Ontario struck down a ban on same-sex marriage. But a majority of people surveyed in late October said gay marriages should not be legally recognized, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. According to the survey, 61 percent said no when asked whether gay marriages should be recognized as valid by law. Thirty-five percent said yes.
Question
1. Have you heard about gay or lesbian or even met these people?
If you have heard or met, how do you think about them?
2. Do you agree on homosexual marriage?
How would you react if your children or family say they'll have a homosexual marriage?
3. What change do you think will happen by homosexual marriage and by the new family shape?
4. How do you think about the minority homosexual being treated unfairly and disregarded?
이 글은「대학연합영어토론동아리」www.pioneerclub.com에서 제공하는 영어토론 정보입니다.
thingsgon: 1.i have heard about them,2. no i do not agree with homosexual marriage, if any of my family wants to have a homosexual marriage , i would never allow it,
3. what chages? homosexual marriage is a thing they dose not comply to nature's law,
it is just such upsetting thing
4 -[04/09]-
k7s2k: test -[05/25]- 댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.