Mass. Supreme Court Rules - Gay Couples have the Right to Marry

FoxNews | 11-18-03 | FoxNews

[Torie]

"The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society

This is the key lynchpin to the ruling, and for the rationale for gay marriage in general, which addresses a fair number of your other rhetorical queries. Of course, the Court is making a policy choice. Courts love doing that. Cheers.

By the way, having gay marriage legal in some states and not others is not long sustainable. I can think of so many legal levers to stop the disparity, it almost makes one's mind dizzy.

[chuckwalla]

"The exclusive commitment of two individuals". Does that mean father and daughter, mother and son, mother and daughter, etc.
That's my question. Where does it stop? Does it stop where the gays want it to?

[Torie]

Even assuming you are referring to consenting adults, incest raises other public policy issues, a lot of them, almost all of them demonstrably and empirically bad, including issues of exploitation that also attend poligamy..

[jwalsh07]

This is the key lynchpin to the ruling, and for the rationale for gay marriage in general, which addresses a fair number of your other rhetorical queries. Of course, the Court is making a policy choice. Courts love doing that. Cheers.

Policy choice? Is that a euphemism for law?

What is the rational basis contained in this decision for denying Aunt Dolly and Aunt Irene, who live together quite platonically, from marrying?

What is the rational basis for denying bigamy?

I read it, I don't see it. Oh of course they paid tribute to the number two but that's how these things work. Homosexual marriage and bigamy in one decision would be too much for even Massachusetts to take standing up. But how would a court that has rendered this decision deny marriage between multiple parties who claimed that their commitment to nurture each others love and mutually support each other would bring stability to our society?

[BikerNYC]

Sure they are...if they break a law, they are subject to the court's jurisdiction. If they are here, they are subject to the service of process. Perhaps the children of foreign diplomats are nto subject to our jurisdiction so they would not be citizens if they are born here.

[chuckwalla]

Wholeheartedly agree that this issue is a true pandora's box.
If the criteria is to be what suits the gays, i.e., two people who love each other and are commited, doesn't that mean anyone?

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

SPOT-ON Chuckie!

My point exactly. Where does it all stop?

Are we going to rationalize immorality based upon current levels of acceptance which somehow makes such behavior tollerable?

If someone wishes to commit suicide in public then we should allow it? It is their right to do so. How about men who love little boys? They have an organized group. (NAMBLA)

Where do we draw the line? Or do any of them even have the courage to do so these days?

[Torie]

Actually, there is nothing preventing those in a platonic relationship from marrying now, assuming they are of different genders. Assuming the aunts are not related biologically, I assume they could marry under this decision. Bigamy raises other public policy issues, just read Banner Under Heaven, and you will find out why in vivad and arresting detail. Of course, courts make public policy choices. Let me assure you that the elite legal community will until the sun cools continue to make a public policy distinction between gay marriage and poligamy.

Of course, I don't agree courts should be making this public policy choice. I want to kick your butt at the ballot box on this issue, and only at the ballot box. Of course, for the near term forseeable future, in that regard, you would be kicking mine. And so it goes.

[Torie]

Anyone who is not biologically related and are consenting adults, and only two are involved, yup.

[chuckwalla]

I don't think you are correct. Many diplomats and/or their children have been deported and not subject to our laws after breaking a law of some kind. This is a perversion of the 14th.
I'm sure you are aware that many illegals wait to the last minute before crossing the border assuring that the baby is a citizen. Not the intent of the ammendment.

[chuckwalla]

Haven't heard that biologically related is part of the criteria.
If two people are commited and in love they should not be discriminated against.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Have you ever learned about a once great society called the Roman Empire?

It was founded upon basic moral principles; Family, honesty, respect etc.. but it gradually deteriorated moraly.

Apathy set in because there were no longer moral standards from which to live by. Anything-goes lifestyles became the established form of their society.

The empire crumbled rapidly from within itself as has countless other societies that have fallen to similar fates.

Our society is no different from those of the past and will soon fall apart thanks to "Tolerance".

Just refer to your history books if you think I am off track.

[Frank_2001]

Chocolate Fudge, of course!;)

[Torie]

Judicial decisions often don't address every combination or permutation under the sun, nor should they. Sure, a later this court could expand the rationale to anything. But will it? No. Different public policy issues attend, and will prove dispositive, at least until Michael Jackson clones himself five times, and all five sit on SCOTUS, or something like that. The slippery slope argument into the abyss simply lacks verisimilitude. It is a rhetorical argument not grounded in what in fact are the moral sensibilities of the elite legal community in this nation, and will be as far out over the horizon as I can see.

[geege]

Please.....we went to "P" Town last year and I thought my sweetie was going to puke.....that's all we need now is the spoil the viewing in Maine....

[chuckwalla]

That's right. Tolerance and discrimination.
We discriminate all the time. We had better be discriminating or as you say our society will fall from within.
Is it alright to discriminate against the person that wants my car?

[chuckwalla]

One acronyml ACLU.
They will twist this every way but normal according to their own whim.
Why give them the room?

[Torie]

What I am trying to tell you, is that if the ACLU goes there, which it will not, it will lose. Litigants are a dime a dozen in any event in this land. It is part and parcel of what makes this nation rather different from all others, for better or worse, and sometimes both.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Take a look at "Reality TV" for instance. It went from simple documentary to such PIG SLOP as MTV, "JACKASS".

It won't be long before we see straight out PORNO and SNUFF-Films. (Where people are actually killed and filmed while they die)

[chuckwalla]

Please tell Judge Roy Moore that the ACLU will lose.