Mass. Supreme Court Rules - Gay Couples have the Right to Marry

FoxNews | 11-18-03 | FoxNews

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

Mass. Supreme Court rules that illegal for state to deny marriage license to gay couples.

[prairiebreeze]

I believe Gov. Arnold S. took a stance against this too if I remember correctly.

Prairie

[GeronL]

Or three weasels, a man and a bottle of extra virgin olive oil

I might have to skip lunch

[Gopher Broke]

This is an outrage. We need to contact our Senators and Congressman and demand that they push the FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.....it has many co-sponsors but must now be a TOP PRIORITY.....

[cajungirl]

Given your argument, should childless heterosexual couples have tax incentives you refer to, say a marital deduction or should they forego that until they have children. And should unmarried parents have a childcare deduction, social security benefits for their minor children? I think the gate on that has already opened in terms of the kids, illegitimate kids are able to claim benefits under social security if parents, fathers, die.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Nothing as dangerous as a greased weasel.

[GeronL]

I think this could be a big thing for Bush if he plays it right and he will help our cause to save marriage.

[maryz]

Actually it will be the divorce lawyers.

They already handle "domestic relations," including gay (or otherwise unmarried) breakups, custody and visitation, etc.

[chachacha]

I repeat! Do we agree it's a perverse act? I couldn't tell from your Epistle of panic!

[little jeremiah]

Man, you parroted every single pro-gay talking point there is! Please permit me to demolish all of them, one by one:

Gays are not going to go away.

That's just a polite re-phrasing of "We're here, we're queer, we're in your face!" First of all, the "gay" activists have lied for years that "they" are 10%, when they knew dam' well that figure was a lie invented by the pervert Kinsey for propoganda purposes. The real number is something like 1.5% to 2.5%, although more young people are inspired by media and school sex ed to "try" anything. Homosexuals used to be in the closet, ashamed of what they did, and often tried - sometimes with success! to over come such inclinations.

What's wrong with giving them privileges that will allow them to be functioning members of society just like everyone else?

There's nothing preventing someone with same-sex desires from being a functioning member of society right now. They have ADMITTED, darling, that they don't want marriage per se, what their STATED goal is, is this: they want to change the moral atmosphere of society from a family man/woman oriented one to "anything goes" - which means, transgendered, bisexual, gay, lesbian, etc etc. They don't want marriage, they want to destroy marriage by re-defining it.

. Just ordinary young professionals, not your crazy Gay Pride types.

You must be a shill for the "gay" agenda - your statements are so full of nonsense. Just because a homosexual person goes to work and looks normal has nothing to do with whether they go to a "Gay Pride" parade dressed up like a nun on a float humping other "nuns" in leather thongs! You mean to say that you personally know all the gay residents around, and you know for a fact that they all lead buttoned-down lives after work???

You have to be nuts to think that, for all the ill spoken of gay people, that someone would CHOOSE to be gay and deal with all the crap they get.

Another talking point - you trot out all of them! You've got a good memory. There was an article the other day here on FR by Michael Signorile (or however it's spelled) where he (one of the most outrageous "gay" activists there are) directly stated that many people who are otherwise straight are starting to "experiment" with "gay" sex because it's easy to find anonymous sex partners on the internet. Many "gay" people themselves admit they chose to be "gay".

Frankly, I sometimes think the biggest homophobes are people who are secretly gay themselves, and think they can contain it by being super anti gay.

Ah, you saved the best for (almost) the last! What an old, discredited chestnut - the only purpose "gay" activists use this lie is to shut up any opposition to their arguments. "If you disagree with me, you must BE one!"

To carry this argument further, those who want to take everyone's gun away secretly want to have a gun themselves?

Besides, it's a bit hypocritical to complain that they live licentious lives and then deny them civil union privileges that would help correct such defects.

Since the average male homosexual "coupling" lasts about 1.5 years, and even monogamy with them generally includes an understanding that outside sex is ok, why will a law change that? The average homosexual has a HUGE number of partners - many solely for sex, anonymous even - how will some law change that? Most homosexuals do not want to get "married" - it would cramp their style.

[ken5050]

enjoyed your comments....Riddle me this, if you please......and this is a true story...many years ago I was at a Christmas time dinner where Francis Cardinal Spellman, then the Archbishop of NY, was the guest...he was a cousin of the family of the lady I was dating....at the time, there had been a series of articles about why shouldn't RC priests be allowed to marry, so naturally, after dinner, Spellman was asked what his thoughts were..I'll never forget his comments..he took a swig from his brandy snifter, and with a twinkle in his eye, asked.."Well, what would I do if they want to get divorced?".....see my point....

[cajungirl]

Noone has been able to say how this will "destroy marriage",,for goodness sakes. I think that is a false argument. Now there is an interesting dilemma here as the age of consent for marriage is pretty low in some states. I don't know the ages but it is certainly below that which would be applicable in pedophile cases. So if a 40 y/o male married a 15 y/o male, assuming the age of consent for marriage is 15 in Mississippi I guess, would he be committing a crime?

[Centurion2000]

I think it's time for bean town to get wiped off the map ..... disgusting.

[little jeremiah]

Considering that you agreed with all the "gay" activist talking points just parroted by oopimrehs, I think your objection may be a little deeper than what you say.

[Rutles4Ever]

If it goes to the Supreme Court, I only count three votes to support the ban (Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist)

[xzins]

Given my argument, neither you nor any doctor can tell when someone will be childless or continue to be so.

I do not pay taxes for someone's style of coitus. I pay taxes on male/female relationships because they are the ONLY means of producing the next generation, AND because I want that couple strengthened to raise those kids. I want to encourage families that stick together.

There is no way that a same-sex couple will EVER be the couple that produced a child. EVER.

Whereas any random couple gets consideration as having the potentiality of being that possible nest OR having BEEN that possible nest.

[kingu]

But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. - Massachusetts Supreme Court decision

Marriage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Hey! If the courts can re-write our language, can't we as well? How about

unconstitutional: n. a) The ignored opinion of a court which is butting into wishes of the people without the benefit of asking the people their desires. See judicial fiat and tyranny for more information.

[maryz]

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 thought most serious researchers put it at 2%-3% for men, somewhat lower for women.

[Normandy]

Does Governor Mitt Romney have to sign off on any agreement. As a believing, practicing Mormon he may have major objections.