To what end?
Nice troll.
Wrong lure.
This is why the terrorists want us all dead.
There will not be a more devisive issue in this year's presidential race.
This trumps Iraq by a mile.
No, a victory for political correctness.
There is no "right" to redefine a word that has for millenia meant one thing.
If the judges are allowed to do this, suit should be immediately filed to really change the definition. There's absolutely no logical grounds to restrict the new "marriage" to "two" "persons".
Multiple partners should be fine, animals should be fine, inanimate objects should be fine, etc.
It's a ludicrous, but politically correct position, for the Mass SC to pander to homosexuals, as they're the cause de jure.
Every American is endowed with the same rights and privileges. Anybody can enjoy the privileges and responsibilities afforded to those who are married as long as they satisfy the requirements of marriage, to wit, one man and one woman.
As are yours.
Now tell us exactly how you see a nation that condones homo-marriage as one that would be 'moving forward'.
The right to sodomy?
A proponent of the "Progressive" movement, are we?
A victory for human rights...
Entirely wrong, my friend. This is an attack on a religious sacrament. Marriage was around looong before Massachusetts. Imagine if that court demanded that the Legislature pass laws forbidding a Muslim sacrament, like the hajj (trip to Mecca), or, more on point, forbidding them from asking women to wear head-dresses of whatever kind.
If the court truly cared about Equal Protection (which is the issue here), they would tell government to create legislation forming "Civil Unions", and requiring that they be treated the same as marriages in the eyes of the State. That would respect the religious institution, yet provide equal rights for all citizens. Henceforth, every marriage certificate would have an accompanying form, titled Civil Union certificate. Then government could continue to legislate as they always have, merely addressingcivil unions rather than married couples.
The Court VERY INTENTIONALLY went another way, expressing a preference for one lifestyle, and demanding that another accept the intentional defiling of a few thousand years of tradition.
The other major problem here, aside from the religious attack and the moral implications, is that budgetary allocations are going to get one HELL of a shock next year... not that any moron (like myself! LOL) could see it coming or anything.
Forward, right.... straight to Hell. Marriage - betwen a man and a woman - is not a form of oppression. It is a fundamental precondition for an orderly society, and the basis for all other social insitutions - churches & synagogues, neighborhoods & communities, businesses & organizations. Marriage, in addition to providing for the propagation of the species, serves to impose obligations upon rights and duties upon liberty, and that is what properly regulates a free society, and inhibits bad and destructive behaviors.
Sodomy is both a right and progressive? Interesting. And you base this upon what grounds?
What a terribly mean spirited thing to say. To endorse killing with AIDS by promoting homosexual behavior is horrible. We can only pray that these people, who have homosexual desires, change their lifestyle like the many thousands who have.
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? … marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all." (quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit…" [Emphasis added.]
Sounds more like a victory for a mental disorder...
So, tell us, where do equal rights end. Why not have plural marriages? After all, polygamy was once the norm in parts of Utah. Much of the Islam community still practice it; forwarding (a plausible) argument that Westerners marry our wives one at a time (through divorce and remarriage) while they do all at once. What's to prevent someone else to argue that they shouldn't marry their immediate kinfolk (no disrespect those of you in W.Va.). THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT!