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, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 561-565 next last
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Yet another disgrace from the cradle of America... coming soon to a state near you.
I must assume this throws the doors open to nationwide lawsuits.
To: prairiebreeze
I'm just wondering where this ends. I mean, what if two women and one man wanted to 'get married'. Two men and a woman... four women and two guys... it just seems like a slippery slope disguised under the cry of 'it's our right!'. *SIGH*
22
posted on
11/18/2003 7:11:12 AM PST
by
rintense
To: prairiebreeze
Yes, but no God allowed anywhere....... That is why all of these situations are happening! We've taken God out of everything! (Gorgiboy's Wife)
23
posted on
11/18/2003 7:11:25 AM PST
by
gorgiboy
To: William McKinley
It was just a matter of time after Lawrence v. Texas.
But I think this court's ruling will backfire on the left, as the proposed heterosexual marriage only amendment to the Constitution becomes the winning conservative issue of the 2004 campaign.
24
posted on
11/18/2003 7:11:25 AM PST
by
Law
To: Semper Paratus
To: TalBlack
The problem is that our constitution clearly makes provisions for controlling the judiciary. But our ELECTED leaders won't sholder this responsibility.
26
posted on
11/18/2003 7:11:59 AM PST
by
kjam22
To: Semper Paratus
LOL they probably throw AZT tablets.
But seriously, this is not a "landmark" decision as so many news reporters are saying. The "full faith and credit" that States must give to each other's laws is not tested by this any more than the states who legalized gay marriage through appropriate methods - legislative action. Don't Hawaii and Vermont have gay marriage?
To: AppyPappy
LOL!
How about three women or four men? Two men and a woman?
How about two women and a dog? How about three men and a sheep? It could be endless!
On a series note...I would like to see the stats on drug use in gays. I had Lesbian friends who smoked pot as much as they breathed. My sister has become a big pothead since coming out as well.
28
posted on
11/18/2003 7:12:32 AM PST
by
netmilsmom
(Lost my 4th E-Bay auction, Kid's sick, Dad in CA & out of coffee - Just shoot me now!)
To: Semper Paratus
Rubbers; condoms; prophylactics?
29
posted on
11/18/2003 7:12:37 AM PST
by
hardhead
("Curly, if you say its a fine morning, I'll shoot you." John Wayne, 'McLintock, 1963')
To: Semper Paratus
If they throw rice after a marriage ceremony symbolizing fertility, what would they throw after a gay marriage?Probably some of that Monsanto GE corn that yields infertile seed crops.
30
posted on
11/18/2003 7:12:41 AM PST
by
Petronski
(Everybody calm down . . . eat some fruit or something.)
To: Law
But I think this court's ruling will backfire on the left, as the proposed heterosexual marriage only amendment to the Constitution becomes the winning conservative issue of the 2004 campaign. Yep, and I think there will be a US Constitutional Amendment passed on this very subject. It is time to get the ball rolling.
To: AppyPappy
Why just couples?Exactly. Someone should immediately push the "courts" for two or three people, and why not animals? Surely there's nothing in the constitution that you can't marry your pet.
32
posted on
11/18/2003 7:13:06 AM PST
by
stevio
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Sigh. I hope we don't start getting snowed under with Honeymoons up here in Maine.
33
posted on
11/18/2003 7:13:21 AM PST
by
armymarinemom
(I Rocked the Cradle of Death from Above)
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional
By Associated Press, 11/18/2003
BOSTON -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution, but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law.
The court ruled 4-3, ordering the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days.
The Supreme Judicial Court's ruling closely matches the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision, which led there to the Legislature's approval in 2000 of civil unions that give couples many of the same benefits of marriage.
The decision is the latest in a series of victories for gay rights advocates, but fell short of what the seven couples who sued the state had hoped to receive: the right to marry their longtime companion.
The Massachusetts question will now return to the Legislature, which already is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal.
A similar initiative, launched by citizens, was defeated by the Legislature last year on a procedural vote.
Developing
34
posted on
11/18/2003 7:13:33 AM PST
by
Geronimo
Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it. Next up - suits for palimony, alienation of affection, "marriage penalty" taxes, etc. Is Mass. a community property state?
35
posted on
11/18/2003 7:13:39 AM PST
by
vollmond
To: Rutles4Ever
I must assume this throws the doors open to nationwide lawsuits. It will, but it will ultimately come down to either Congress or the SCOTUS. The laws can't be different from state-to-state (at least that's what the gay lobby will say). This is going to be another Roe v. Wade decision. In this case, however, I think the American people should be asked to decide- not the SCOTUS. It needs to be the will of the people if gay marriage should be legal or not- not the decision of the courts.
36
posted on
11/18/2003 7:13:45 AM PST
by
rintense
To: Protagoras
They may have government approval of queer sex, but they ain't marriedNot in the eyes of GOD. However it is just a matter of time now before EVERY STATE in the UNION will HAVE to recognize GAY marriage. The only thing that can stop it is a Constitutional Amendment.
37
posted on
11/18/2003 7:13:56 AM PST
by
PISANO
(God Bless our Troops........They will not TIRE-They will not falter-They will NOT FAIL)
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Rosie's moving to P-town.
38
posted on
11/18/2003 7:14:10 AM PST
by
Catspaw
To: netmilsmom
Very tolerant. You get a gold star.
39
posted on
11/18/2003 7:14:12 AM PST
by
AppyPappy
(Pittsburgh beat Virginia Tech 31-28. Panthers rule!!".)
To: Geronimo
What an interesting dilemma for the Dem Dwarfs on the campaign trail.
40
posted on
11/18/2003 7:14:20 AM PST
by
Timeout
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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