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.

[conserv13]

Thank you!

[freetradenotfree]

Judicial Coup d'Etat







Friday, September 19, 2003
By Bill O'Reilly


This is very important and somewhat repetitive and I'm sorry about that, but again it's very important.





There is a move in the United States to change the country. The ACLU (search) is hooking up with a number of liberal judges to declare things that they don't like as unconstitutional.

Now, a judge can declare anything unconstitutional -- you can interpret the words of the founders in many different ways -- but the will of the people has always been the driving force behind policy in America.

This is changing and here's the best example I can give you. According to a Gallup Poll, 77 percent of Americans do not object to displaying the Ten Commandments in a courtroom.

However, as we know, a federal court has ruled the display unconstitutional. So it is not the will of the people that the judges are concerned about and it's also not prior history, as the Ten Commandments have been displayed in public forums for more than 200 years.

In my upcoming book, Who's Looking Out for You, I provide rock-solid proof that the Founding Fathers wanted spirituality incorporated into public policy -- that is, they wanted a definite morality right and wrong to be considered in policy matters.

Now the ACLU and some judges are hell bent -- pardon the pun -- on changing that and circumventing the will of the people.

Item: the California recall (search). Three liberal judges override the will of 2 million Californians.

Item: the San Francisco homeless initiative. One far-left judge tells citizens their votes about not providing cash to the homeless don't count.

Item: a Massachusetts judge throws out a criminal case against a man caught with two pounds of cocaine because the judge doesn't like the cop who made the arrest -- we'll deal with that story in a few moments.

Item: a liberal federal judge in San Diego says the Boy Scouts (search) are a religious organization and no town can do business with them.

I could give you hundreds of other examples, including judges taking the words "Christmas vacation" off school calendars, even though Christmas is a federal holiday, approved by Congress.



It is obvious, ladies and gentlemen, that we the people are being directly attacked by secularists who want to change this country. They know they can't do it in the voting booth, so they are going to do it using the courts.

This is no less than a potential coup d'etat and you should know about it. Next to the war on terror, this is the most important story the U.S. has seen in decades.

And that's the Memo.

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

There's a new book out called the Clinton Presidential Center Cookbook containing 250 recipes. The money earned will go to Bill Clinton's library in Arkansas. There is no truth to the rumor that Marc Rich has purchased 10,000 copies.

Anyway, included are Hillary's chocolate chip cookies, Bill's chicken enchiladas and Monica Lewinsky's… Wait, that's a mistake. There is no Monica recipe in that book.

Sorry, I was being ridiculous.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Finally a way to rid Mass of the Kennedy clan. Think about it. All those Irish Catholics must be going nuts about now.

[CatoRenasci]

I agree that it is sexual abuse, but it is recruiting as well; just as seduction by a predatory heterosexual of a runaway girl and introducing her into a life of prostitution is abuse. The two are comparable in some ways, but fundamentally different in kind: while some heterosexuals are seduced by older heterosexuals, most heterosexuals enter into their sexual relationships with their peers in a roughly appropriate age range -- at least until they are old enough to consent. On the other hand, if my anecdotal evidence and what I have read is representative, 80+% of homosexuals have their first experience not with a similarly confused peer, but with an older, experienced homosexual.

[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.
"

Doesn't sound right to me, since Paul spoke of marriage and recommended to those who could not resist sexual temptation. Of course, he also recommended against marriage, and was not married himself. Jesus also spoke of marriage and even attended a famous wedding where he supposedly converted water into wine. I think what you are saying is apocryphal, at best.

[MineralMan]

"Rest assured, I never said you couldn't show examples of plural marriage in the Old Testament. The challenge is to show an example where they worked out well."

Not the point. Since it occured in those old days, and was never condemned or forbidden, there is clearly no Biblical prohibition.

[tuesday afternoon]

LOL (took me a second or two...)

[freetradenotfree]

will the news over the story?

[blackie]

It's a sad day but a good day for GWB and the support of Marriage Act!

[freetradenotfree]

Ms. Marshall, 55, a native of South Africa,

[Marysecretary]

The slippery slope just got slippier. May God help us all.

[LTCJ]

Not the point. Since it occured in those old days, and was never condemned or forbidden, there is clearly no Biblical prohibition.

Not the point. It occured in those old days, and the Scriptures contain sufficient wisdom regarding the practice. A first century Rabbi spent several years pointing out the folly of placing too much emphasis on the letter, rather than the spirit, of the Law.

[Alter Kaker]

Homosexual marriage is brilliant way to stop homosexual sex. No sex in marriage.

[MeekOneGOP]

Wow ! Great post ! ...

I had not heard this until your ping. What a bunch of PREverts !! [sic] ...

barf alert!

MICHAEL STUPARYK/TORONTO STAR

Michael Stark, left, and Michael Lashner pop champagne
and kiss after their wedding ceremony yesterday.
Leshner called the ruling, "Day One for millions of gays
and lesbians around the world."

Gay couple married after ruling
(Toronto, Canada)

B.C. court OK's gay marriage -
first gay couple legally married in British Columbia

Gays Flock to Divorce Court

Same-sex unions in 'News' -
Dallas Morning News to publish FREE
same sex unions announcements

The Media's Gay Mafia "Queers" the News

Useful Idiot Caption-A-Rama: Special Gay Pride Edition!

Gay frat seeks approval from UT-San Antonio
(See #39 for some humor)

[HamiltonJay]

You know darn well policy is not written along the fringes, but the whole. THere is no reason at all for the government to be sanctioning any sort of relationship between same sex couples... no more than there should be to opposite sex couples living together without civil union.

You think policy should be all couples must be tested fully for fertility before government recognizes their marriage? Be real... you are stretching beyond stretching...


THe queers and dykes have been screaming for years stay out of their bedrooms, now they want the government to not only go in there, but sanction their relationships... its hypocritical its nonsense and its meaningless.

Gays and dykes want to live together, go for it, who cares? But there certainly is no government or public policy need for the governments to sanction or be involved in it.

[MeekOneGOP]

[Stop Legal Plunder]

Europe's influence on US sexual policy, which provided the justification for Lawrence v. Texas, is likely to continue, as Britain this week is expected to introduce new legislation permitting homosexual unions.

[jimt]

I think plural marriage is illegal.

You're right, it is, but in light of this ruling why should it be?

In light of this ruling, marriage must be redefined as a relationship between two or more entities. There is no logical reason to restrict it to persons, and no logical reason to restrict it to two. If we're throwing over thousands of years of historical definition by including homosexuals, which as far as I know has never been recognized, why not include plural marriages, which I know have been recognized?