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

FoxNews | 11-18-03 | FoxNews

[Torie]

Somehow I think we have strayed off topic. I did not suggest that the ACLU would lose on all issues, about anything. :)

[chuckwalla]

That's a big fat roger on that degradation.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I can prove all of what both of have said with two words;

MICHAEL JACKSON!

[chuckwalla]

Not off topic at all. Give them an inch and they take a light year.
Who'd ever thought that Christmas would be offensive or that the ten commandments were illegal in a courthouse where the laws are based on them and on and on.

[lockeliberty]

Actually, I'm quite ambivalent regarding the free associations between faggots. If they want to "play house" and pretend like a heterosexual couple that is their business. I don't expect individuals who engage in homosexual activity to carry any sort of regenerative qualities thus I expect them to try to portray themselves as morally regenerative individuals to soothe their aching consciences.

In one respect I have no problem with the government recognizing the right of free association. If two individuals wish to form a social contract between themselves the government is obligated to respect that contract unless it violates some other law.

The problem becomes if the government wishes to give some special rights to a class. In fact, marriage and civil unions or any other social contract between two individuals is really no business of the government except in their role as arbitrator in those cases in which the contract is broken. Their sphere of influence is, or I should say, should be relegated strictly to the protection of it's citizens from harm ~ physical, financial, contractual.

If we are to protest, our protest should be the States intrusion into social contracts in which the parties do not wish the governments involvement. Specifically, as Christians, we should work toward the goal of marriage covenants being under the direct authority of the Church without the interference of the government. If two persons wish to enter a marriage covenant under the authority of a local Church and wish the Church to settle any disputes that may arise from the breaking of the covenant then the government should respect those wishes.

The real battle is against those so called "Christian" Churches that officiate homosexual unions.

[jethropalerobber]

Since the average male homosexual "coupling" lasts about 1.5 years, and even monogamy with them generally includes an understanding that outside sex is ok, why will a law change that? The average homosexual has a HUGE number of partners - many solely for sex, anonymous even - how will some law change that? Most homosexuals do not want to get "married" - it would cramp their style.

i thought it was funny how you accused the other poster of "parroting" pro-gay "talking points" and then summed up your post by spewing this list of oft repeated but factually suspect anti-gay talking points.

[freetradenotfree]

Affirmative-action case rigged?
Memos urge Sen. Kennedy to slow judicial confirmation to affect ruling

Posted: November 18, 2003
6:29 p.m. Eastern





Newly discovered internal Democratic staff memos raise the question of whether one of the most significant rulings on affirmative action in a quarter-century was rigged.

According to the memos obtained by the Washington Times, staffers for Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, who is a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sought to delay one of President Bush's nominees to the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals specifically to affect the outcome of the then-pending affirmative-action case involving admissions at the University of Michigan.

Three white students filed a reverse discrimination case against the university's law school where some minority students are admitted to meet percentage targets, while other applicants with higher grades and better scores get passed over. Under the school's affirmative-action program, African American, some Hispanic students and Native American students applying for admission receive 20 points out of a maximum 150, soley based on race. In comparison, applicants earning perfect scores on standardized tests such as the SAT get only 12 points.

"The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able, under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it," staffers wrote in an April 17, 2002, memo to Kennedy advising him to slow the confirmation process for Tennessee Judge Julia S. Gibbons, reports the Washington Times.

If Kennedy followed the advice, it appears he was successful. The court ruled 5-4 to uphold the university's admissions program at the law school.

Gibbons was confirmed weeks later, despite having been nominated eight months earlier.

"The case was fixed," Tom Fitton, president of the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, told the Times, upon learning about the memos. "It ought to be examined by the Ethics Committee."

Last July, the United States Supreme Court upheld the court's decision but restricted the affirmative-action plan to the law school, eliminating preferences in undergraduate admissions.

A relieved University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman insisted "racial diversity" was important for classroom discussion and argued that doing away with their system would have meant "turning back the clock on civil rights." Writing in the majority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor forecast such preferences would likely be unnecessary in 25 years, but they're needed now.

The contentious 5-4 ruling sparked nationwide debate over affirmative action. President Bush even waded into the controversy, slamming the use of "quotas."

"At their core, the Michigan policies amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students based solely on their race," Bush said. "Our Constitution makes it clear that people of all races must be treated equally under the law."

The revelation of the memos deepens suspicions over the pivotal appeals-court ruling that paved the way for the justices to weigh in on the hot-button issue. The Times reports then-6th Circuit Chief Judge Boyce Martin has been accused of judicial misconduct for manipulating the makeup of the panel that heard the case. The allegations arose in the dissenting opinion written for the ruling. Judge Danny Boggs said Martin violated court rules by naming himself to the panel hearing the case.

"Under this court's rules, these cases generally would have been assigned to a panel chosen at random," Boggs wrote in his May 2002 dissent. "This was not done."

Other evidence suggested Martin – who was appointed to the bench in 1979 by President Carter – further stacked the deck by postponing the affirmative-action case until two Republican-appointed judges had retired from active duty.

According to the Times, Fitton questions whether there were communications between Kennedy staffers and Martin.

"It raises questions about whether Kennedy's staffers were in cahoots with Judge Martin," the paper quotes Fitton as saying. "This brings the misconduct case back to the Senate in terms of investigative leads."

Six other internal memos leaked to the Times were written by staffers to Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois.

One was written following a meeting with liberal special-interest groups convened to discuss which Bush nominees should be blocked.

"They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment," the staffer wrote, referring to the Washington lawyer nominated by Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Estrada withdrew his nomination after being filibustered for eight months.

Durbin has called for an investigation into how the documents were released, according to the Times.

The revelation of possible Democratic political shenanigans underlying the confirmation of Judge Gibbons follows the showdown over three other Bush judicial nominees in the Senate last week. Republicans staged an unsuccessful 39-hour talkathon to counter Democratic filibusters and force a vote on the nominations of Texas judge Priscilla Owen and California judges Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown.

Following the conclusion of the round-the-clock debate, Republicans and Democrats traded barbs over the tactic of blocking nominees. Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., accused Democrats of using Senate rules "in an unconstitutional manner" because all three nominees were approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and had enough bipartisan support to get the simple majority in a full-Senate vote needed to be confirmed.

Democrats countered this was just business as usual and argued Republicans had blocked far more of President Clinton's judicial nominations.

During a post-debate press conference, Kennedy referenced Bush's outstanding judicial nominees as "right-wing turkeys" and "Neanderthals."

He told reporters the Republicans' efforts to highlight Democrat obstructionism failed and said Democrats would "continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president."

[little jeremiah]

I did not get a set of talking points that I memorized - just been lurking for a very long time, and studied much. FR is a veritable mine of information, and to tell you the truth, my eyes have been opened on a lot of different topics. Do you read articles here or just post your own opinion?

PS - I read scripter's information that he's got up on his homepage. I wouldn't call them talking points, I'd call it an encyclopedia.

[COURAGE]

Luke 11:45-52

One of the lawyers answered him, "Teacher, in saying this you insult us also."

He said, "Woe to you lawyers also! For you load men with burdens that are difficult to carry, and you yourselves won't even lift one finger to help carry those burdens. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. So you testify and consent to the works of your fathers. For they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles; and some of them they will kill and persecute, that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.' Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. Woe to you lawyers! For you took away the key of knowledge. You didn't enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in, you hindered."

[richtig_faust]

Noone has been able to say how this will "destroy marriage",,for goodness sakes


IT REDEFINES the meaning of husband/wife/father/mother perverting the lines of responsibility, it opens the door to beastiality, incest and a whole host of other ills. Homosexuals are mentally confused, it's not genetic, we don't let men marry sheep. And last but not least sectarian institutions that disagree with it will be the first target of these pereverts and they'll use the "discrimination" ploy.

[richtig_faust]

I also read a study that stated that children of queers tend to be more sexually active and more into drugs than children of non queers, and in countries like Holland, queers that are "married" still have almost 100 "partners" a year. It's a total sham.

[little jeremiah]

I remember a few years ago seeing all those bumper stickers (and letters to the editor) with the slogan "love makes a family" and variations on the theme. So logically, allowing only two people in a marriage is also an unreasonable limitation. And intergeneration "love" is in the chutes, already being touted as the next barrier to be broken down. Academicians and many psychologists have written books in the last few years saying that "mutual sexual relationships" between children and adults are beneficial for the children.

It's got to stop - and we have to stop it.

[Argus]

Statistically, Homosexual couples have the highest rates of domestic violence in the household

But I believe they call it foreplay.

I take this opportunity to repeat what should be our offer to the libertines - we'll agree to make gay marriage legal if you agree to make adultery illegal again, and punishable by death.

[jethropalerobber]

i suggest that you take a more critical look at the materials scripter and others like him collect and disiminate.

here's one example:
some months ago another anti-gay poster repeated the "gay unions only last 1.5 years" talking point and i challenged him on it.

here is the link he produced to justify his claim:
http://dynamic.washtimes.com/print_story.cfm?StoryID=20030711-121254-3711r

the only problem is that the study upon which this slander was based was not a study of gay unions in vermont, or gay unions in ontario, or any other set of gay unions. in fact, it was not even a study of _unmarried_ gay relationships in the US, or say Canada. it was actually a study of only *young*, *unmarried*, *male* homosexuals in *amsterdam*.

btw, gay marriage is legal in the amsterdam (netherlands). just how dishonest is it to use a study of _unmarried_ gays (from a country where marriage is an option) to try to convince people how long gay _unions_ last?

on top of that, how much more dishonest is it to use not just an _unmarried_ sample, but one which is taken exclusively from young males living in one of the most hedonistic cities in the world?

[jethropalerobber]

...in countries like Holland, queers that are "married" still have almost 100 "partners" a year...

care to back up that assertion?

[BikerNYC]

I agree. Diplomats are not subject to our laws unless their countries waive their immunity. That is why I am saying that their children might not be citizens even if these children are born here.

If the amendment says anyone born here is a citizen, the words speak for themselves and I don't care what the intent was. If the drafters of that amendement meant to deny citizenship to those who are born here and who are subject to our jurisdiction, they did a lousy job expressing their intent and all we have to go by are the words they used.

[richtig_faust]

It was in a national review magazine about a year ago. It would be almost impossible for me to find it now. It was about the time Fortayun (sp?) got whacked

[scripter]

i suggest that you take a more critical look at the materials scripter and others like him collect and disiminate.

How about if you take a critical look at the materials I've collected and post rebuttals? I keep asking folks to do that and they never respond. I'm sure you can imagine it gets really old typing the same thing to folks like you over and over. If you have any rebuttals, post 'em and I'll take a look. One thing to be careful of, though, is to make sure your rebuttal wasn't discredited within hours of it's realease. That's a common problem for the pro-homosexual crowd.

here's one example:
some months ago another anti-gay poster repeated the "gay unions only last 1.5 years" talking point and i challenged him on it. here is the link he produced to justify his claim: Study finds gay unions brief

the only problem is that the study upon which this slander was based...

Slander? That's a pretty bold statement considering you don't have the supporting documents from the study. You should take this up with Amy Fagin of the Washington Times who said the study "mirrors findings of past research".

According to the Washington Times, the study by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, [was] published in May in the journal AIDS.

Or maybe you can take it up with Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Services. Do you consider this is a junk study? Do you think it's possible you don't understand the study?

If it's a junk study then by all means, it shouldn't be used and I'll be sure not to list it in my database. Until then, I'm going to join many others and list the study as accurate as I have no reason to believe otherwise at this time. There's just too much information that mirrors exactly what this article states.

[chuckwalla]

Being here illegally does not make someone subject to anything other than deportation. So a baby born of someone subject to deportation somehow becomes a citizen?
Sounds like a rape of the goodness of this country.

[BikerNYC]

Certainly being here subjects someone to the jurisdiction of this country. If an illegal person commits murder, he is subject to the jurisdiction of our laws. Diplomats are not.