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.

[William Terrell]

I don't know if this has been brought up or not.

Chances are that their constitution does not require homosexual marriage. If anything it would merely not prohibit it by the wording.

Number one; I would doubt the judicial branch of a state can order the legislative branch to do anything unless there is positive requirement in the constitution. Their constitution created both branches.

Number two: the above being so, and I would be sure it is because their constitution was written when homosexuality was not a politically condoned custom, the legislature does not have to do anything, no constitutional amendment, nothing. They can pass legislation that a marriage is limited to the union between man and woman because that is the norm under their constitution.

Plus, even if the supreme court had some modicum of authority to order the legislative branch, what can they do if the legialature did not act? Turn it into a pumpkin? Don't let 'em get off with some weasel excuse that their supreme court ordered them so they have to comply.

I say malarkey. Why they would pander to 3% of the population is beyond me anyway.

[pogo101]

I told you not to waste my time. You first set out an "only for procreation" test for marriage. Then, when your (ludicrous) test is shown to threaten some heterosexual marriages that no sane person should want barred, you change the subject and avoid explaining by referring to "fringes" and "wholes."

I think you mean "hole," as in, the Mack-truck-sized one in your, uh, "argument." Nice whipping you.

[Graybeard58]

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

Certainly didn't offend me. I noticed you joined yesterday. Must have been here with a different screen name.

[BriarBey]

I feel extremely grieved. Where will it all end. I feel like I am sitting in Jeruselum when God sent Babylon to destroy that city as judgement. THAT makes me wonder if it is possible for Al-Queda to defeat and destroy this nation.
Judgement by the hand of God, by a nation worse than we are,
because its what we've asked for. Otherwise He is going to have to dig up Sodom and Gomorrah and apologize.

[lockeliberty]

When in the course of human events.....

A fine little tea party, You say?

[ArGee]

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

You've probably already been flamed for daring to compare a cannibal with a queer, but your point is spot-on. People always act normal except when they're acting abnormal. If I had neighbors who liked to dress each other up like horses then ride each other around the house like cowboys, I'd worry about them even if they never did that "in public."

In all the conversation, we've forgotten that homosexuals are sick people. They need treatment, not tolerance.

Shalom.

[Maigrey]

Oh (bleep)!

I need to reserve my seat in the handcart. Who can I call?

[LizardQueen]

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

I agree wholeheartedly. Divorce, and the "serial monogamy" mindset that divorce springs from, are what's killing marriage. The institution is treated like either something disposable or an excuse for a big party and lots of presents by an alarmingly large portion of the hetero population.

LQ

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

First we were worried about getting competent judges to serve on the bench and properly interpret the law.

Then came the era of judicial activism, when the concern was that jurists rulings from the bench usurped the normal functioning of the legislature by imposing judicial fiat from the bench. Then the cry was to install judges who did not try to make law, but properly interpret the law.

Well, we have moved beyond that.

From Websters Third International Dictionary:

marriage ... [ME mariage, fr. MF, fr. marier "to marry" +age--more at MARRY] 1a: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife. b: the mutual relation of husband and wife: WEDLOCK c: the instution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.

[Let's dispatch first of all with the notion that, for definition 1.c above, it can be argued then that it is possible to marry to the state and receive welfare as such is a community of men and women are joined together for the purpose of a family. No "it takes a village" here; can we all agree on that?]

The judges on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts are not content with simply rewriting the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, no that is no longer sufficient.

A new approach is needed in the assault upon the institutions of America - it is time to invoke George Orwell at his best!

It is time for the judiciary to actually reach in and REWRITE THE DICTIONARY!

NEWSPEAK has arrived!

War is peace! Famine is Feast! Sodomy is Marriage!

Move over Mr. Orwell, you have nothing on these guys, the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

[And we're still waiting on a bunch of guys who will judge the law as interpreters. Justice Scalia was right - we are descencing the slippery slope on this one. Fast!]

[jwalsh07]

I appreciate your posts on this forum, jwalsh07.

Thanks, that makes 2 of us. :-}

[winker]

Judges! Un-Elected and Un-accountable .......except to Jehovah Gira! Even with all this outrage he is not mocked and neither does he sit in the heavenlies wringing his hands because of their sinful acts. Its still an abomination and he will have the last say on the matter.

[jwalsh07]

The Constitution makes no provision for "controlling" the judiciary.

You my friend need to reread the Constitution. Start at Article 2, Section 2 and proceed from there.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

The decision was based on Massachusett's state Constitution and didn't arise under any federal law. Scalia and friends might like to consider the issue, but are forbidden from doing so.

I agree with you on your reasoning, but consider this...

The decision of the Supreme Judithal Circus of Massachusetts will be used as the foundation for a lawsuit - probably quite soon - on the Defense of Marriage Act.

I predict the suit will go along these lines:

The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to determine the manner in which the public Acts, records and judicial activities of one state may be proven to occur to the satisfaction of all of the other states, but that there is NOTHING in the Full Faith and Credit clause that allows Congress to opt out of this recognition on the behalf of itself or any other state.

The liberal swine have kicked in the door to obliterating marriage.

It's coming.

We need the Constitutional Amendment to stop it. I think it may be the only way.

[The Mayor]

I am so glad I moved out of that state..

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

The Constitution makes no provision for "controlling" the judiciary

Consider the following:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. [United States Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2., cl. 2. Emphasis added.]