Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 561-565 next last
To: Semper Paratus
I believe Gov. Arnold S. took a stance against this too if I remember correctly.

Prairie
161 posted on 11/18/2003 7:57:46 AM PST by prairiebreeze (My dad, a WWII veteran always said that America's best ally was...Britain. He was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg
Or three weasels, a man and a bottle of extra virgin olive oil

I might have to skip lunch

162 posted on 11/18/2003 7:57:47 AM PST by GeronL (Visit www.geocities.com/geronl.....and.....www.returnoftheprimitive.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

Comment #163 Removed by Moderator

To: GeronL
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.....
164 posted on 11/18/2003 7:59:27 AM PST by Gopher Broke (Abortion: Big people killing little people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: xzins
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.
165 posted on 11/18/2003 8:00:48 AM PST by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Nothing as dangerous as a greased weasel.
166 posted on 11/18/2003 8:00:57 AM PST by Dr.Zoidberg (I've been making fine jewelry for years, apparently.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke
I think this could be a big thing for Bush if he plays it right and he will help our cause to save marriage.
167 posted on 11/18/2003 8:01:16 AM PST by GeronL (Visit www.geocities.com/geronl.....and.....www.returnoftheprimitive.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: stevio
Actually it will be the divorce lawyers.

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

168 posted on 11/18/2003 8:02:16 AM PST by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
I repeat! Do we agree it's a perverse act? I couldn't tell from your Epistle of panic!
169 posted on 11/18/2003 8:02:19 AM PST by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: oopimrehs
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.

170 posted on 11/18/2003 8:02:52 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

Comment #171 Removed by Moderator

To: cajungirl
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....
172 posted on 11/18/2003 8:03:19 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
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?
173 posted on 11/18/2003 8:03:54 AM PST by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
I think it's time for bean town to get wiped off the map ..... disgusting.
174 posted on 11/18/2003 8:05:25 AM PST by Centurion2000 (Resolve to perform what you ought, perform without fail what you resolve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
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.
175 posted on 11/18/2003 8:05:35 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: rintense
If it goes to the Supreme Court, I only count three votes to support the ban (Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist)
176 posted on 11/18/2003 8:06:33 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
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.

177 posted on 11/18/2003 8:07:12 AM PST by xzins (Proud to be Army!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
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.
178 posted on 11/18/2003 8:07:14 AM PST by kingu (Just helping...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kdmhcdcfld; netmilsmom
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.

179 posted on 11/18/2003 8:07:27 AM PST by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
Does Governor Mitt Romney have to sign off on any agreement. As a believing, practicing Mormon he may have major objections.
180 posted on 11/18/2003 8:07:43 AM PST by Normandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson