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

vanity | February 6, 2004 | the eagle has landed

[LWalk18]

1)Scandinavian's low marriage rate and 2) The legalization of gay marriage are two separate events, that may or may not be related. You are arguing that they legalized gay marriage and as a result Scandinavians stopped getting married. I am arguing that Scandinavians were already turning away from marriage prior to gay marriage. Just because two things happen at the same time, it doesn't mean they are related or one is caused by the other. Here, it is not even clear that they happened at the same time.

[RobbyS]

Look at your priests. Many of them don't accept the moral teachgings of the Church. TIP O'Neill one addressed a gathering of priests and commented that 2/3 of them accepted the abortion law. The sheep are led astray by the silence of their shepards.

[RobbyS]

Gay marriage is simply the reduction ad absurdem of the Sexual Revolution's hostility to traditional sexual morality.
Given the pornographic explosion of the past decade, many people have a hard time condemning gays for doing what they do themselves. After all, the original meaning of "y" as applied to sexual practice was "libertine." Our sexual morality is now "libertine." Anything goes.

[Mike4Freedom]

The statistics from Scandinavia also indicate that their societies are on the verge of total collapse following the institution of gay marriage. The number of people relying on socialist handouts has gone through the roof. Marriage is the foundation of Western society and this is its destruction.

Excuse me, but it is the socialism that is destroying the Scandanavians. What does hetero or homo sex have to do with the willingness to take from others politically. We seem to have plenty of hetero takers here already. It is the welfare state and the organized theft that supports it that will be our downfall. You should worry more about the compassionate conservative in the White House.

[hunter112]

Imagine a supreme court decision which a president refuses to enforce. Andrew Jackson did it.

I don't recall that one, please enlighten me.

Another thought occurs, MA is having a Constitutional Convention next week, perhaps ending lifetime tenure for state Supreme Court judges is, or could be, put on the agenda? Many states require their highest court judges to stand for re-election, often the contests are real yawners, but I doubt it would be the case in MA. It would confer more legitimacy on the court's decisions.