Skip to comments.
Mass. Supreme Court Rules - Gay Couples have the Right to Marry
FoxNews
| 11-18-03
| FoxNews
Posted on 11/18/2003 7:02:44 AM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Mass. Supreme Court rules that illegal for state to deny marriage license to gay couples.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; aids; antifamily; gay; godsjudgement; goodridge; hiv; homos; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; judicalactivism; justdamn; legislatingsin; oligarchy; pederasty; perversion; perverts; prisoners; protectmarriage; queers; reprobates; romans1; samesexmarriage; sodomites; sodomy; tyrannyofthefew
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 561-565 next last
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Fox seems to be backing off this story a bit, saying it will not take effect immediately. Something about State legislature must act. Anyone have a clear picture on this?
61
posted on
11/18/2003 7:19:45 AM PST
by
BJungNan
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
It's time for the Marriage Amendment to the (U.S.) Constitution. End this crap once and for all.
180 days and counting.
62
posted on
11/18/2003 7:19:47 AM PST
by
B Knotts
(Go 'Nucks!)
To: TalBlack
Isn't it good to be a judge in America? You can decide for a Nation ALL right and wromg. All morality. Not morality--legality. There is a difference.
To: prairiebreeze
On the other hand, look at all the sudden tax revenues the gov't will get! After all, we all know that you get taxed more when you get married. /sarcasm
64
posted on
11/18/2003 7:20:27 AM PST
by
rintense
To: Semper Paratus
If they throw rice after a marriage ceremony symbolizing fertility, what would they throw after a gay marriage? Preparation H
To: BJungNan
See post #34
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Supreme Neanderthals! Get'm Teddy.
67
posted on
11/18/2003 7:21:02 AM PST
by
Realist
To: BJungNan
The ruling gives the Mass legislature 180 days to fix the problem which it created by denying sodomarriage.
68
posted on
11/18/2003 7:21:05 AM PST
by
Petronski
(Everybody calm down . . . eat some fruit or something.)
To: Petronski
Did I just coin a word?
"Sodomarriage!"
69
posted on
11/18/2003 7:21:40 AM PST
by
Petronski
(Everybody calm down . . . eat some fruit or something.)
To: sirchtruth
"What states will NOT allow this perversion?"
For once, California did something right. They passed Proposition 22 in 2000 stating marriage is only recognized as between man and woman.
But I know it is only a matter of time before some progressive judge declares it unconstitutional.
70
posted on
11/18/2003 7:22:00 AM PST
by
xusafflyer
(Keep paying those taxes California. Mexico thanks you.)
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
a mockery of the sacred vows of marriage
To: rintense
Good point - its obvious that there was a split opinion among these judges (4-3) and it is not obvious that this is constitutional. I am sick and tired of federal and state judges making law from nothing. This should be decided by the people - We need to start flexing our muscle and force congress and our elected politicians to make the law not the judges in this country. Even if that means we (not me) elect liberal politicians and pass these type of laws - it is at least the will of the people. We must demand that activist and unconstitutional judges be removed.
72
posted on
11/18/2003 7:22:22 AM PST
by
sasafras
(sasafras (The road to hell is paved with good intentions))
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
What better news going into the 2004 elections? Every liberal candidate will now have to either accept or repudiate this decision!
To: prairiebreeze
The glorification of the lifestyle goes on. Can you imagine the honeymoon packages that travel agencies will offer?
I'll bet dollars to donuts that the Trial Lawyers assoc. is involved in this.
Prairie
74
posted on
11/18/2003 7:22:35 AM PST
by
prairiebreeze
(My dad, a WWII veteran always said that America's best ally was...Britain. He was right.)
To: netmilsmom
How about two women and a dog? How about three men and a sheep? It could be endless! Adult humans have always been allowed to enter into binding contracts. I'm not sure that dogs and sheep have ever been recognized as being able to enter into a contract.
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh; newgeezer
This goes right along with removing the 10 commandments. God please don't bless this wretched country anymore.
76
posted on
11/18/2003 7:23:10 AM PST
by
biblewonk
(I must answer all bible questions.)
To: chachacha
Your post is vulgar.
77
posted on
11/18/2003 7:23:37 AM PST
by
cajungirl
(no)
To: B Knotts
It's time for the Marriage Amendment to the (U.S.) Constitution. End this crap once and for all. So says the party of "smaller government"
To: All
What is the legislature required to do within 180 days?
To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
But seriously, this is not a "landmark" decision as so many news reporters are saying. The "full faith and credit" that States must give to each other's laws is not tested by this any more than the states who legalized gay marriage through appropriate methods - legislative actionWe differ. The full faith and credit clause combined with the decision in Lawrence vs. Texas will shake this nation. There are now only two ways to avoid national homosexual marriage: (1) The supreme court rules that Lawrence does not apply to homosexual marriage. That could happen as O'Conner splits yet another hair that noone but her can even see; or (2) We pass the Defense of Marriage Amendment.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 561-565 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson