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

FoxNews | 11-18-03 | FoxNews

[BJungNan]

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?

[B Knotts]

It's time for the Marriage Amendment to the (U.S.) Constitution. End this crap once and for all.

180 days and counting.

[MissMillie]

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.

[rintense]

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

[pabianice]

If they throw rice after a marriage ceremony symbolizing fertility, what would they throw after a gay marriage?

Preparation H

[PBRSTREETGANG]

See post #34

[Realist]

Supreme Neanderthals! Get'm Teddy.

[Petronski]

The ruling gives the Mass legislature 180 days to fix the problem which it created by denying sodomarriage.

[Petronski]

Did I just coin a word?

"Sodomarriage!"

[xusafflyer]

"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.

[stainlessbanner]

a mockery of the sacred vows of marriage

[sasafras]

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.

[pabianice]

What better news going into the 2004 elections? Every liberal candidate will now have to either accept or repudiate this decision!

[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

[MissMillie]

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.

[biblewonk]

This goes right along with removing the 10 commandments. God please don't bless this wretched country anymore.

[cajungirl]

Your post is vulgar.

[MissMillie]

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"

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

What is the legislature required to do within 180 days?

[ModelBreaker]

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 action

We 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.