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.

[pogo101]

You didn't respond logically to the argument, except with some rhetoric about fringes and wholes.

THere is no reason at all for the government to be sanctioning any sort of relationship between same sex couples

This is circular reasoning: starting with the point you supposedly are trying to prove with argument. Won't wash.

YOU said that the only reason for state sanction of heterosexual marriages was reproductive capacity of said marriages.

I asked, then, how the state can sanction demonstrably -- that is to say, no testing is needed, because it's obvious or admitted by the couple -- infertile couples from marrying. A typical woman who's sixty should be ineligible for marriage, by your reasoning.

You come back with a straw man about fertility testing. Not persuasive, particularly considering that it was YOU who posited the notion that fertility and only fertility justified state sanction of marriages. Don't blame me for applying your own test.

If you have nothing more than circular reasoning and howls about how your OWN rationale might actually be put into actual use, then don't waste more of my time by replying again.

[little jeremiah]

I think it is a Live and let live attitude, besides it seems perverted to me to be overly invested in others private lives.

You are lipsynching the "gay" activist talking points again - and accusing ArGee, and others of being (for some mysterious reason) "overly intvested" [did you mean "interested"?] in others' sex lives. This is exactly like Orwell's Doublespeak - you and others promoting the homosexual agenda want to shove, push and cram the pan-sexual policy down everyone else's throat via media of every description, government laws, judical decisions from on high, lawsuits galore, hate speech codes, and sex education and gay clubs in schools - and you want us to shut up about it. What MotherBear said is my position, and many others here - if homosexuals take what they do INTO THEIR HOMES and keep it there - without trying to change the world's moral climate to suit them - that would suit us just fine.

But they (you?) want to change the world into an "anything goes" whorehouse. So those of us who want to adhere to traditional moral values will have to cower in our houses, hoping we don't offend someone and be dragged to court, having to blindfold our children's eyes in case a "Gay Pride" Parade passes by on the public street.

[microgood]

Of course, the sheep in the legislature and executive branch are too dumb to just ignore the court.

I fear you are right about this.

[cajungirl]

I think you are overreacting to what I said.

[little jeremiah]

I've been lurking a long time and feel right at home, sorry if I offended anyone - !

[little jeremiah]

They will make is a required course in public high school.

Not too long ago on FR there were some articles about colleges - and one college or university (in WI or MI?) has a mandatory freshman orientation week chock full of homosexual positive training - a whole week of it. One student who was attending the college added to the thread and verified it, IIRC.

[little jeremiah]

this will be the "welcome mat" to introduce this agenda into the public schools, and other areas.

Not will, already is. Check Scripter's home page for a list of articles that will curl you hair (or straighten it, if it's alreayd curly). Since 2001, it has been mandatory in CA to teach homosexual promotion in grades K-12.

[HamiltonJay]

Nice attempt at spin, but it doesn't wash.... you can ignore reality and pretend like you have a meaning argument... most activists do that all the time.

Policies are not made by fringes but by the whole. Heterosexual marriage is an institution that creates the next generation of citizens and as such there is an argument that can be made for government having any sort of role in the relationship... homosexual activity NEVER can do to that and as such there is absolutely no reason for government to ever sanction, sanctify or codify the relationships.

Two gays want to "union" they can do it all day long... they want to set out how the relationship should work, they can sit down and write a binding contract... there is absolutely no reason at all for the government to ever have a interest or a reason to be involved in homosexual relationships.

Period. Spin away, but that's the truth.

[little jeremiah]

. If they chose to lie in front of the tv eating high fat food, smoking cigarets and polishing their guns while reading right wing literature, well I don't care

Like, those are most horrendous things you can imagine anyone doing? Especially "reading right wing literature?

I wonder why you are on a conservative website....Are you in favor of the right to keep and bear arms, for instance?

[puroresu]

Hey, didn't you know that our nation was founded by Cultural Marxists?

When Jefferson wrote of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, he was endorsing the practice of appointed judges redefining the institution of marriage to include gay couplings.

When Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty, or give me death!", what he meant was, "Give my teen daughters a right to a taxpayer financed abortion, federally enforced by judicial decrees, or give me death."

And when Madison drafted our Constitution, he only intended for it to serve as sort of a rough idea or recommendation, to be tossed aside if it ever conflicted with rulings of European judicial tribunals or the exotic sexual desires of certain "libertarians".

Why, the Federalist Papers are practically a blueprint for the idea that judges, not the voters, should decide issues like abortion, sodomy laws, and marriage traditions.

And when leftist Senators like Schumer, Hillary, Boxer, and Kennedy filibuster against strict constructionist judges, it's because those leftist Senators are big proponents of freedom. They're protecting America from dangerous tyrants who would turn our nation into a totalitarian right-wing religious despotism, like it was from its founding up until the past few decades, when heroic pro-freedom judges like Blackmun, Brennan, Breyer, and Ginzburg began "liberating" us from our hideous heritage and traditions.

[little jeremiah]

Excellent overview of history. You must be a university professor!

[cajungirl]

My dear man, I do all of those things except for the cigarets. Keep your guns, I really don't care as long as you don't shoot me or wave it around toward my house. I was merely mentioning the things that get most criticized in this country,,smoking, eating, being conservative and having a gun. You leaped to a conclusion about me that was erroneous. I also don't care if one sits around giving money to tom daschl, reads gore vidal, worships the Clintons and is a vegan in one's home. If you are in doubt about a poster, click on the name and anyone who has been here for a couple of years, posts regularly and endures some of the people on these threads, is not a closet liberal. Maybe a libertarian.

[fortunecookie]

Well the Mass Catholic Church certainly had a powerful pedophile contingent in the priesthood and I say that as a Catholic from Ct. Massachusetts is also overwhelmingly pro choice despite the number of Catholics. Of course, how one can be a practicing Catholic and pro choice at the same time flies right over my feeble head.

I agree. And not so feeble. It's a liberal, dissenting but still wanting to be Catholic, or should that be CINO, Kennedy style Catholicism, mutating and using Catholicism to one's own advantage, as a political tool for social change rather than the faith it once was. Of course, you can't usually say that to these kinds of Catholics, or former Catholics. It seems to have a life of its own and seeks to minimalize those Catholics who dare disagree. Just the musings of a PA Catholic with friends and relatives who are or were Catholics in Mass.

[fortunecookie]

For a lot of europeans, marriage is just like long term dating, it has no special meaning anymore. Its getting like that here too.

Indeed. Now it's more 'inclusive' since it includes people of all sexual persuasions (with wee bit of sarcasm). And it's starting younger, more teens are starting these long-term serially monogamous relationships. How long then till marriage is legal between children? Or between an adult and a child? Even related adults and children? Could Woody & Soon yi be a taste of what's to come? (No pun). Nambla is working overtime to show us how normal pedophiles can be. (Eeewwww....) After all the long years of our country and the laws enacted presumably to protect people, all is being undone. It's a brave new world.

[BurbankKarl]

I am not going to read through all the responses...but didn
't John Adams write the Mass. constitution? it is the oldest surviving constitution in the world, and the US constitution is based on it.

[fortunecookie]

Frankly other adults sex lives don't give me much interest unless of course they scream in the nite and disturb my sleep.

That's a pretty broad brush. Adult activities can show you how mentally disturbed they are, even sexual activities. Shalom.

Indeed. Jeffrey Dahmer's neighbors thought he was a quiet, polite young man...

Nambla members consider themselves normal as well...

I guess some (more) re-writing of the DSM-IV is needed to normalize more previously irregular behaviors...

[fortunecookie]

Exactly! Where does it end?

How long, even, until groups individuals petition for marriage simply for the perceived, real and legal benefits such as Soc Sec benefits? Even groups of people with no real sexual interest in one another? Imagine the 3 dads from Full House or the 2 moms from Kate and Allie. For real life people in those shared living situations, why not get the legal and tax benefits since they are living together as a family?

[fortunecookie]

Well, I demand to be addressed as "Doctor" now.

I am henceforth to be addressed as "Royal Majesty" seeing as I have now declared myself Emperor of the United States and Autocrat of all the Americas for Life.

The Skooz dynasty has begun. Bask in the presence of the new Sun King.

Give alms, and stuff.

LOL! That might be a problem for me for I've joked for a while that I would like to be queen, so I am now to be addressed as Tsarina (as Queen has other connotations...).

[fortunecookie]

You may want to include the legal stipulation in Catholic Church Law that a marriage, to be sacramental, must also be consumated. No consumation, automatic annulment.

That would work for some, but for others (pedophiles and such) that would be working as designed. They would be happy to comply.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So those of us who want to adhere to traditional moral values will have to cower in our houses...

Good - stay there cowering in your hysteria. We don't care.