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 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 561-565 next last
To: MineralMan
Someone was telling me last night that Christians weren't allowed to marry at all until about 900 AD, when some Pope decided that the only way he could fight Crusades was to have his followers making babies.
I haven't found a good link on it, but I thought it was interesting, and something I didn't know before.
401
posted on
11/18/2003 9:49:44 AM PST
by
Quick1
To: HamiltonJay
THe only reason the state has any interest in heterosexual marriage is because offspring can be produced through normal and natural activity.. this is not the case with homosexual relationships so there is absolutely no reason for the state to sanction or care about these individual relationshipsSo why should states sanction any heterosexual marriage involving a couple who demonstrably cannot reproduce, such as one in which the woman is post-menopausal or the man infertile?
402
posted on
11/18/2003 9:51:10 AM PST
by
pogo101
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
who are they Mass. Supreme Court names please
To: freetradenotfree
See post #336
To: freetradenotfree
I suggest we focus our attention on the Federal Marriage Amendment. This will take the issue of marriage OUT of the courts hands.
Amending the Constitution is a valid tool to correct the actions of the courts. This is no longer a state issue, this is now a federal issue. See above link for members of Amendment subcommittee. at
http://www.house.gov
To: Quick1
don't think that is correct.
To: Quick1
Someone was telling me last night that Christians weren't allowed to marry at all until about 900 AD...Were you at a bar?
To: freetradenotfree
He cited an incident in which Ms. Marshall, while at Harvard, chastised a professor who had used university stationery for a personal note with an anti-abortion message. The professor referred to, IIRC, was Mary Anne Glendon (writes for and is, I think, on the editorial board of First Things).
408
posted on
11/18/2003 10:07:06 AM PST
by
maryz
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Statistically, Homosexual couples have the highest rates of domestic violence in the household. But doesn't 100% of all domestic violence occur in the household? Because otherwise, it wouldn't be domestic.
409
posted on
11/18/2003 10:09:34 AM PST
by
Koblenz
(There's usually a free market solution)
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Good news! The politicians will not have to take a stand on marriage and the family. The Bay State Supremes are singing O Canada!
410
posted on
11/18/2003 10:13:26 AM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: goldstategop
"I now pronounce you, man and horse..."
To: cajungirl
This MA Supreme Court decision allows domestic partnerships a la Vermont. Even liberals know going Canada all the way now would backfire on them big time.
412
posted on
11/18/2003 10:16:21 AM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: jwalsh07
I see your point, but men and women are going to get married, live together, and raise children together whether the government recognizes it or not. I don't think gay marriage trivializes the institution of marriage, but I think divorce does.
A lot of people in general and especially on FR get SO worked up over gay 'marriage', and I honestly can't see why, when I think divorce and single parent (or no parent) families are a much bigger problem.
To: AmericanMade1776
I left Mass. in 1976.....never looked back. Good luck wherever you are going, it can only get better:)
IA
To: conserv13
I see your point, but men and women are going to get married, live together, and raise children together whether the government recognizes it or not. I don't think gay marriage trivializes the institution of marriage, but I think divorce does. Amen.
415
posted on
11/18/2003 10:22:12 AM PST
by
Celtjew Libertarian
(Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
To: aristeides
Marriage shouldn't be a legal term at all.. The state shouldn't be in the business of deciding who is married and who isn't. And it shouldn't offer benefits or penalties to married couples.
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
To: longtermmemmory
Yeah, I've been looking and I've found absolutely nothing on that. I think I'll call him a dumbass when I see him today. ;)
I did find out that having multiple wives and mistresses was quite a common practice in the early Catholic church, however. Interesting.
418
posted on
11/18/2003 10:29:55 AM PST
by
Quick1
To: CatoRenasci
I think you are right that many gays were confused about their sexualtiy at an early age, and I think that many were sexually abused by older men and women. I don't think that is recruiting, though, I think it is sexual abuse.
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Also in their ruling: Up is down, less is more!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 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