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.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

I might have to skip lunch

You were having weasels marinated in olive oil too?

[little jeremiah]

Check scripter's home page - he's got tons of factual information about stuff like that - correlating homosexuality with pedolphila (and you are correct on that one).

[dagnabbit]

My wife and I are very fond of our washing machine. The ol' Maytag (we call it "May") has been part of our family from the very beginning.

The three of us are going to Massachusetts this weekend to make our relationship official.

[PISANO]

Before long we may be pushing for a constitutional amendment banning sex between adults and children--If Nambla and the ACLU has their way

You are exactly right!! The left BELIEVES the constitution is a living a breathing document something to be altered at the will of the Judiciary and it's interpertation of socially accepted standards both national and international. That is why WE as strict constructionists have a nearly impossible task before us. We can't seat conservative judges and with constitutional amendments being virtually impossible to attain........... WE are in trouble.

[cajungirl]

Again I am with you on this. But I don't think anyone will support us. I just wonder if this would be a loser for Bush. Everyone, or nearly everyone, knows a gay person who is kind, decent, a nice person. Most of us don't want to spend time thinking of others sex acts whether the other is gay or straight. I think that the frantic worries about debasement of marriage are misplaced. Gays won't do that. Married people themselves, heterosexuals, make a mockery of marriage the way they view it. And the way they bail out on it. It is odd that Massachusetts with the powerful Catholic church did this, I would have expected it from another state sooner.

[Protagoras]

However it is just a matter of time now before EVERY STATE in the UNION will HAVE to recognize GAY marriage.

The state is irrelevant in real marriage. They can use laws to grant certain privileges to certain people, but it has nothing to do with marriage.

A piece of paper issued by some government employee doesn't make you married. Promises made before and to God make you married. The rest is just politics.

[af_vet_1981]

It is past time to impeach and remove judges and restore the Republic our ancestors died to give us.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

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

Unfortunately science will get there soon.
I am sorry they will...but they will.

[Petronski]

You were having weasels marinated in olive oil too?

LOL Excellent.

[CatoRenasci]

Well, queers don't have kids (except in the ordinary heterosexual way or by test tube) and the only way they keep their numbers up is to recruit children and young adults into their wicked ways. Those "normal" gays you see, or at least a significant number of them, want to bugger your boy or turn your daughter into a carpet muncher.

I have always been in favor of toleration of homosexuals whose public behavior did not openly deviate significantly from the norm -- i.e. don't be a chickenhawk, and don't be offensive in public, and you can do what you want with other adults in your bedroom.

If that's not good enough for them, if they have to be in our face about it, we should just make homosexual recruiting, or homosexual sex with a minor an capital offense. Better yet, just brand them as homosexuals and deport them to Moslem country under shaira law.

[jwalsh07]

The slippery slope argument is dumb.

No, you're reply is dumb. In fact it is the height of stupidity.

I asked you fro a rational basis for denying marriage to those involved in platonic relationships and you went off on a rant about bestiality and crack.

Evidently there is no rational basis for answering the question I posed or you don't have the mental capacity to wrestle with an honest question when one is posed to you.

Of course those possibilites are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the possibility exists that there is no rational basis for denying marriage in platonic relationships and that you are, indeed, an idiot.

[PhiKapMom]

ALL -- We need to press this issue -- Kerry is from MA and we want to know what he thinks about this. If anyone hears what Kerry's stand is on this, please post on here. In the meantime, please use the Get Active section on Bush-Cheney '04 to voice your outrage at:

Bush Cheney '04 Action Center

You will find all the info you need to write letters and call your local talk radio with your outrage on the Bush-Cheney '04 website. Don't forget that Dean is in favor of civil unions -- let's see what he has to say as well as Kerry and the other Dem candidates especially Lieberman.

Want another reason to vote for Bush-Cheney -- you have one to tell your friends and family about -- Pres Bush and Republicans support the Marriage Act -- can the Democrat candidates and DNC say the same?

Don't forget to visit Dean's Blog to see when and if this ruling is talked about on Dean's Blog website. It is not there now which is telling. If it gets put up, please put your comments on his blog.

[RetiredArmy]

Does this mean that Fat Ted can now marry John Kerry? Those two would make a lovely couple. Ted would play the dominant male roll.

[af_vet_1981]

It will, but it will ultimately come down to either Congress or the SCOTUS.

Neither can be trusted if left to their own devices. We need to impeach and remove judges and put a solid conservative majority in power to restore and preserve the Republic.

[jwalsh07]

It is odd that Massachusetts with the powerful Catholic church did this, I would have expected it from another state sooner.

That's the oddest statement I have seen on this thread. Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the union, bar none.

[kingu]

If this stands, it's a Pandora's Box. If there's no constitutional prohibition of queer marriage, what about other unions, or multiple unions?

Or what about children being able to marry? I can just see it now.. Six year olds going down to the county clerk to show that they're best buds.

[Rutles4Ever]

[snore....]

Marriage is not about the "quality" of the person. It's about the -- hold your breath -- plan of God.

You can compare/contrast, bring into the "21st century", cajole, legislate, and spread it throughout the popular culture -- it has zero -- ZERO -- impact on the plan of God (man and woman).

Your "gay" marriage is nothing but a piece of paper. My heterosexual marriage is recognized by heaven.

This ruling only tangibly impacts the corporate benefits industry, and may require new tax filings. Intangibly, it's further evidence of the rot of civilization...

[Viva Le Dissention]

Even if you do that, it won't change. If you take the concept of stare decisis seriously, the judges are bound by the action of previous courts. Unless a new wave of judges comes in and over-rules like a string of 15 cases, you're stuck.

Moreover, you really don't want the judges coming in and overruling wholesale portions of law because it undermines the credibility of the Court AND makes for an inconsistent policy.

Besides, if Congress was REALLY serious about getting rid of Roe and Lawrence and the like, they'd vote tomorrow to add 10 Supreme Court justices and then pack the court with conservatives. Poof, Roe is gone. No constitutional amendment, no headaches.

they're not serious, and it's because stability is more important than these issue.s

[cajungirl]

mass also has a powerful Catholic contingent, so what is a liberal Catholic to do? That was my point.