Replies

I'll be married 20 years this May. My sister just celebrated her 31st anniversary yesterday, and my parents will celebrate their 60th next month. In fact, as I look back through my family tree, I haven't found so much as one instance of divorce. This isn’t to brag (not too much anyway). My point is to simply establish some raw credentials that I come from a family that takes marriage pretty seriously. "

Maybe those who have had such problems in the family may have a better perspective. There is certainly alot of smugness coming from the "I'm too good to have marital problems, so why be worried about its redefinition" camp. But as I explained to another poster - as long as you went to the COURTHOUSE to get your marriage contract affirmed in LAW, you too think marriage needs GOVERNMENT PROTECTION.

" Certainly a gay person referring to themselves as "married" doesn't have any direct effect on us whether we approve or not. "

Calling themselves married is something they can do today without Govt recognition per se. The Govt and societal recognition is about demanding an 'equality' of two separate things that should not be considered equal. The societal trend of allowing random sex partners being 'married' and having the same rights as those who consider marriage as a sacred duty aimed towards the creation and development of a family. This trend has large negative social consequences. To wit, children in single-parent / broken homes do worse in life (highercrime rates, worse school performance, lower future income) than children in 2 parent homes.

The life choices people make - good or bad, right or wrong - are their choices, but they affect others - families, children, communities, the whole society. When choices are made that dont accord with moral sense, we pay for that. We will pay likewise for the benefits given to gay "married" couples. It will affect us fiscally as well as further dividing and harming our culture.

This error of granting a privilige as if it were a "right" is compounded by it being done at variance with the rule of law. An elitist Judicial imperium ditated their cultural view and abused the rule of law and our democracy by over-ruling the will of the people and pretending this non-existent equality must be made law.There is nothing in the Massachusetts constitution nor in any state or Federal constitution or law justifying this extreme view. This is yet another example of judicial tyranny.

Lastly, I agree that our political system has better things to do. That is however the fault of the gay activists pushing it and the liberal judicial activists putting their agenda above the rule of law. One thing we definitely need to do is clean out the judicial tyrants (through impeachment) and get believers in judicial restraint on the court bench!

I apologize for coming off smug and believe me I don't consider myself too good or in anyway immune from marital problems. I've had my share of rocky moments in the last two decades.

I agree that this is a matter of gay couples expecting equal rights under the law - that they as committed couples should be entitled to the same rights as married couples when it comes to civil law.

You state:

"The societal trend of allowing random sex partners being 'married' and having the same rights as those who consider marriage as a sacred duty aimed towards the creation and development of a family."

Lets take the last part first. That sister of mine who just celebrated her 31 year anniversary. No Kids. Never intended to have kids. Argue with that decision of you want, but should that nullify their marriage?

I'm sorry but in civil law, marriage is not defined as an institution designed for the creation of children. Civil law recognizes certain rights that pertain to couples who have stated a life-long commitment to another- and in the law it is called “Marriage.”

Now the “random sex partners” reference.

I think the whole point here is that these are not random sex partners. These are two people who have decided to make a life long commitment to one another. Now they may not be any more successful at achieving that commitment than hetro couples, but that is not the point. I know of several gay couples who have been together for decades. Just as our civil system recognizes the difference between a married couple and two people that just happen to be dating at the moment, these long term gay couple are looking for the same recognition when it comes to civil matters. They are trying to draw a line between themselves and "random sex partners" as you refer to it.
You seem to think there is no difference. If your thinking is bible-rooted, perhaps there isn't any difference to you. And you are free to insist that no such union can occur in your church. That is the right of you and your church.

Civil law is different. What these judges (most of them appointed by republicans, by the way) recognize is that when it comes to matters of civil law, there is no standing to discriminate between gender in the rights allowed to committed couples. I don’t see how this is Judicial tyranny at all. Perhaps you define Judicial tyranny as a ruling that pisses you and a lot of people like you off.

Generously, they are giving the MA legislature time to work something out. Personally, I hope this comes to a legal standing for the concept of civil union. Its not that I care if they can consider them selves married or not. I just think that if by recognizing the concept of a civil union (or some other term) and documenting it much as we do with marriage licenses. Commited gay couples get all the rights afforded by law to heterosexual couples, Than I think the government has done its job. And we can let marraige be purely a non-secular term that refers to religious recognition of said commitment. What would be your problem with that? Oh that’s right:

“When choices are made that don’t accord with moral sense, we pay for that. We will pay likewise for the benefits given to gay "married" couples. It will affect us fiscally as well as further dividing and harming our culture.”

Of course “moral sense” is highly subjective. And the government has no business relying on any particular religious belief to define it for them. Yes this country is made up of mostly Christians. But it is also made up of mostly whites, fortunately we have set up a system so that non-whites (minorities) at least in theory have the same rights as the majority. “Rule of the majority with respect to the rights of the minority.” was how it was put in my civics class.

Plus, I have already asked how granting the rights accorded by marriage to gay couples would specifically harm your, my, or any other hetro-marriage or family produced from thereof And I am still waiting for an answer.

As for Nutcracker boy:
I think the defination of prejudice as a verb pretty much takes care of its use as a nown. It is pre-judging without adequate knowledge or the act of pre-judging without adequate knowledge. Either way, the specter of ignorance remains and it is something reasoned people should avoid.