Skip to comments.
Mass. Supreme Court Rules - Gay Couples have the Right to Marry
FoxNews
| 11-18-03
| FoxNews
Posted on 11/18/2003 7:02:44 AM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Mass. Supreme Court rules that illegal for state to deny marriage license to gay couples.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; aids; antifamily; gay; godsjudgement; goodridge; hiv; homos; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; judicalactivism; justdamn; legislatingsin; oligarchy; pederasty; perversion; perverts; prisoners; protectmarriage; queers; reprobates; romans1; samesexmarriage; sodomites; sodomy; tyrannyofthefew
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 561-565 next last
To: netmilsmom
It's closer to 2% to 4%. The 10% number was debunked as pro-gay propaganda. That's the way I remember it anyway.
121
posted on
11/18/2003 7:40:46 AM PST
by
Sir Gawain
(The Koran...when you're out of toilet paper, Allah is there for you.)
To: kdmhcdcfld
>>The gay lobby in this country wanted everyone to believe that 10 percent of the population was either gay or lesbian.
Try about 4 to 5 percent... <<
I stand corrected and greatly relieved!
122
posted on
11/18/2003 7:41:29 AM PST
by
netmilsmom
(Lost my 4th E-Bay auction, Kid's sick, Dad in CA & out of coffee - Just shoot me now!)
To: xzins; Salem; Geist Krieger
123
posted on
11/18/2003 7:41:49 AM PST
by
Happy2BMe
(2004 - Who WILL the TERRORISTS vote for? - - Not George W. Bush, THAT'S for sure!)
To: cajungirl
Let me add. Just as vulgar as the act itself. Agreed???????????????????????
To: PBRSTREETGANG
hunting or eloping? LOL
Maybe in the mountains of Arkansas a new kind of Hillbilly is being born!
125
posted on
11/18/2003 7:42:23 AM PST
by
GeronL
(Visit www.geocities.com/geronl.....and.....www.returnoftheprimitive.com)
To: Semper Paratus
If they throw rice after a marriage ceremony symbolizing fertility, what would they throw after a gay marriage? Gerbil turds
126
posted on
11/18/2003 7:42:37 AM PST
by
kidd
To: Always Right
Which is why you need one (if you need one at all) that clearly outlines the power of the states. Else you're going to end up with Constitutional Amendment CXXXIV, the right of the national government to make sure we're all wearing our seat belts..
127
posted on
11/18/2003 7:43:00 AM PST
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: AmericanMade1776
Check your six O'clock until Jan 1
128
posted on
11/18/2003 7:44:09 AM PST
by
Not now, Not ever!
(/o/o//oo (Oh Nooooooooo... It looks like somebody ran over it!!))
To: MeeknMing
ping on post #123
129
posted on
11/18/2003 7:44:23 AM PST
by
Happy2BMe
(2004 - Who WILL the TERRORISTS vote for? - - Not George W. Bush, THAT'S for sure!)
To: Happy2BMe
Nice pic of Rep Gerrald Nadler...
130
posted on
11/18/2003 7:44:32 AM PST
by
ken5050
To: chachacha
I thought we were done with this. I said my comment, you said yours. I don't think we need to get into the rest of it. Frankly other adults sex lives don't give me much interest unless of course they scream in the nite and disturb my sleep. To get preoccupied with whether what people do who are grown ups seems to me to be some perversion in and of itself. But that is just my opinion.
To: Congressman Billybob
Well I hate to disagree with you BillyBob but stare decisis plays no role in American courts when the lefts agenda is at stake. I offer you Bowers as non precedent for Lawrence v Texas as proof of that assertion.
It is time for Congress to act because Kennedy's "transcendent liberty" penumbral thesis garnered from European precedent and mores is now the law of the land.
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
From what I understand, IF this holds and gay couples are sanctioned in Massachusettes, and IF the gay couple is from, say, Florida....
...Florida has to recognize the marriage....UNLESS...
...Florida is one of the 37 states that has already passed the Defense of Marriage Act...and therefore, would NOT recognize, nor under law have to recognize, these marriages.
Does anyone know which are the 37 states that has passed this law?
133
posted on
11/18/2003 7:45:18 AM PST
by
Guenevere
(..., .a long time Florida resident and voter!)
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
It's funny how so many people in the east, where so much thinking went on at the founding of this nation, have now lost their minds.
134
posted on
11/18/2003 7:45:35 AM PST
by
Terriergal
(Psalm 11: 3 "When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?")
To: netmilsmom
How about two women and a dog? How about three men and a sheep? It could be endless! How about an adult and a child? I think that is the ultimate goal of the homosexual agenda.The ACLU is also part of this agenda, hence their support of NAMBLA.
I'd like to see a comparative study of the incidence of pedophilia between straight and homosexual men. Since it is predominately a "man" crime I wonder if it's also more of a crime among the homosexuals.
To: chachacha
Now you are just being judgemental. /sarc off/
136
posted on
11/18/2003 7:45:36 AM PST
by
Dr.Zoidberg
(I've been making fine jewelry for years, apparently.)
To: cajungirl
That's why I ignored that remark. Some act as though oral/anal sex is something strictly for gays.
To: cajungirl
It amazes me that some people simply don't understand that combining male/female is a unique arrangement unlike any other combination.
Woe to those who call good evil and evil good.
138
posted on
11/18/2003 7:46:00 AM PST
by
xzins
(Proud to be Army!)
To: oopimrehs
>>Just ordinary young professionals, not your crazy Gay Pride types<<
Sounds good, but the problem is this.
When I was in my twenties, I lived with my widowed mom. I wanted to put her on my health insurance. I could not. If all the gays wanted was the ability to share insurance and the right to say what happens in a health crisis, I would say ok. They want a marriage. That offends me. The gays have the money behind them to be in my face. And my kids' face.
139
posted on
11/18/2003 7:47:21 AM PST
by
netmilsmom
(Lost my 4th E-Bay auction, Kid's sick, Dad in CA & out of coffee - Just shoot me now!)
To: oopimrehs
What is the rational basis for denying any two or more people the right to "marry" under your notion of marriage? Why can't two sisters, a mother and daughter, two friends or a group of friend in platonic relationships marry under this system of jurisprudence?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 561-565 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson