Strategy for Massachusetts: Legislature should pass law to not issue marriage licenses until 2006!!

vanity | February 6, 2004 | the eagle has landed

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Pass a law that will not allow anyone to be married in Massachusetts until the Constitutional question is resolved.

Either that or pass a law to really make the Supreme Court look really bad and allow statutory rape, no age limit, that you can marry your immediate relatives, be a polygomist, or marry your children.

This could really f them up

[ClearCase_guy]

Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't Gov Romney veto a same-sex marriage bill? Would two-thirds of the state legislature really vote to override that veto?

We've got checks and balances for a reason. A court can only "force" the issue if EVERYONE plays along.

[Arkinsaw]

You are assuming that there is a majority in their legislature that is not celebrating the decision.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Treats everyone equally and the heteros can go to RI, Conn, or NH and get married. The gays will have to settle for half a loaf in Vermont.

[eccentric]

I totally agree

[GeronL]

why don't they pass a statute that would forbid the court from making such orders?

[eccentric]

I totally agree

[breakem]

Let's see, people here are agreeing that this state should allow parents to marry their children and no protection for minors against statuatory rape. Great stuff.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

I called the Governors office about this, apparently the Governor is totally out of this.

I asked them about seperation of powers because the Judicial Branch is acting as legislative and executive branch and if their was any precedent for this. They said they are researching it.

I talked to the legislative Republican Leaders and asked them if they can take it to court as well. What if they do nothing, what happens then? They said the courts would order the cities to start handing out licenses.

Could they impeach the justices or 0 out their approp.

[Mike4Freedom]

Are you serious? Forbid new marriages for everyone in the whole state? Aren't you getting a little carried away?

Gay couples are pledging lifetime allegiance to each other and living together now. The legal title will make little difference except make more business for divorce lawyers.

There isn't anything that married couples do now that could not be arranged with some advance planning-wills, contracts, advanced directives, durable power of attorney for medical decisions, etc. Don't go postal over this.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

No, my point is that it would show what the liberals really want but do it now and not wait 20 years.

Can you imagine the outrage if some legislature had tried to pass gay marriage in 1984. There would have been tremendous outrage.

Since most MASS legislators are Dems, they take the hit.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

This is what the Massachusetts Supremes have set up, the only way to deal with them is to screw their order constitutionally. Your idea would be allow homo marriage and people from other states will be heading to MASS and then going back to their home states and suing in front of friendly judges to get as many states as possible.

The Republicans better get the Constitutional Amendment started because the pandoras box opens in MAY.

[breakem]

Can you imagine the outrage when someone's 15 year old has sex with a 27 year old and it's okay because you pulled the law. Get real.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

The only way to get through to people what liberalism is all about is smack them in the face with it. Subtlety aint working.

[breakem]

I think smacking them in the face with sex with their kids is a great move. Carry on, just leave the triple digit IQers out of your plan.

[supercat]

It would seem a little crazy for Masachusetts to require people seeking to get married to get their marriage licenses elsewhere, but Massachusetts is a small enough state it probably wouldn't be too hard for people seeking to get married to go to another state to do so. Still crazy, though. How does requiring that a marriage consist of one man--gay, straight, or bi--and one woman, likewise gay, straight, or bi, constitute discrimination?

[FormerLib]

My father-in-law has joked that he might just marry all of his children to evade the inheritance tax.

That'll get those leftists' attention! Lost tax revenue!

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Think of what this would do to the IRS, everyone would be married to everyone and everything.

[Unam Sanctam]

This assumes the Massachusetts legislators really care about protecting marriage.

[Unam Sanctam]

The legal title will make little difference

Exactly why this is not an issue of freedom but rather of obtaining government sanction for a behavior about which people legitimately have differing moral and religious views. The government should be neutral as regards homosexual activity, not actively promote it.