Massachusetts vs. Marriage

The Weekly Standard ^ | December 1, 2003 | Maggie Gallagher

[Travis McGee]

To lose the word "marriage" is to lose the core idea any civilization needs to perpetuate itself and to protect its children.

Marriage is the basic building stone of any long lasting civilization. A judge may declare that henceforth the word "styrofoam" has the same meaning as the word "brick," but if builders are forced to include "bricks" made of stryofoam into buildings, (to be inclusive of stryofoam bricks) the building is certain to fail and collapse.

And once judges have destroyed the meaning of the word marriage, what's next? Will Gen Y believe that they are only "recycling" Granny when they drive her to the state euthanasia center? " 'Murder' is such a harsh and judgemental term, so we don't use it any more. And what is murder anyway?" they will be told.

Words have meanings. Destroy the meaning of marriage by judicial fiat, and our civilization is on the fast track to self-destruction.

[lainde]

bttt

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

Judges who rule such laughable nonsense will be despised and ignored by the general population. Excrement by any other name is still excrement. We need to start impeaching judges who hand down these kinds of preposterous rulings. Marriage is such an obvious union between a man and a woman, to say otherwise is to draw nothing but contempt from the vast majority of decent people.

[narses]

Most notably, there is now a consensus across ideological lines, based on 20 years' worth of social science research, that children do better when their mother and father are married and stay married.

Oh look, the Catholic Church is right, AGAIN!

[Holly_P]

Oh look, the Catholic Church is right, AGAIN

...and I'll bet it didn't even take a federal grant to come to that conclusion.

[narses]

No, simply 2,000 years of following the Lord of Lords.

2 And the Pharisees coming to him asked him, tempting him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?

3 But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you?

4 Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce and to put her away.

5 To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart, he wrote you that precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

7 For this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife.

8 And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

10 And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing.

11 And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her.

12 And if the wife shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

[Holly_P]

All of that without a federal grant!

[narses]

What would it read if there HAD been a Federal Grant? 6,389 pages of detailed (and meaningless) minutia?

[Lady Eileen]

BTTT!

[Deep_6]

Re:
"...Marriage is the basic building stone of any long lasting civilization. A judge may declare that henceforth the word "styrofoam" has the same meaning as the word "brick," but if builders are forced to include "bricks" made of stryofoam into buildings, (to be inclusive of stryofoam bricks) the building is certain to fail and collapse..."

Sanctimonious BS.

The marriage between two people needn't not conform to the typical
and usual man/woman combination. It can be of any two humans
that are willing to take a vow to love, support and honor each other
until death; they make a life-long commitment to each other.

You may continue to mix apples and beets all you care to, but it is
you and your "holier-than-thou" approach to life, that diminishes
your ability to see life as it is.  

To deny through legislation, any two people the right to join together 
in a life-long commitment and enjoy all the benefits afforded to
any other two people that make that very same commitment, 
is to strip our Constitutional foundation and it's intent to provide freedom
of government intrusion into personal lives.

If you don't "get" that,,... Then perhaps you aren't with the ability to
understand much else.

 

[Jacquerie]

It is one thing for an over reaching court to strike down a law. It is another for it to tell the legislature to rewrite law to the court's satisfaction.

The Mass court gave the legislature 180 days to rewrite the marriage laws. So what happens if the legislature refuses? Isn't there a separation of powers issue here?

If a freeper can explain this me, please do so.

[Jacquerie]

Since you are so wise and the rest of us are knuckle-draggers, I'm sure that you have long petitioned your state legislature and our Congress for redress of your grievances.

The left in general and the homos, abortionists and other single issue constituencies in particular have come to rely on judicial tyranny to achieve their goals, a real danger to a constitutional republic.

Had the Mass legislature passed a law to condone homo marriage I would still be opposed yet I would respect the process.

[Deep_6]

Re:
"..The Mass court gave the legislature 180 days to rewrite the marriage laws. 
So what happens if the legislature refuses? Isn't there a separation of powers
issue here?.."

The court is claiming that the law as written, is unconstitutional. It has
interpreted the law in the context it was written and it's finding [in my
opinion], is 100% correct.

A refusal to rewrite a bad piece of legislation will only push the case
into the next higher court in an effort to determine it's Constitutionality.

If our Supreme Court is faced with this issue, it will find in the same manner
as this court has.

The separation of power allows us to enjoy this guarantee of our 
Constitutional rights.

It amazes me, that so many posters to "FR" [purportedly conservatives],
support the Legislative branch versus the Judicial, when it is the
Legislative branch's function to make and pass law, however unconstitutional
that law might eventually prove to be. 

Laws restrict rights. A State's legislation can pass a gun restrictive law,
outlawing 38cal weapons. During a trial involving that law, the State's Judicial
system can find that law unconstitutional and refuse to convict on it's basis.

Yet...... Freepers support the Legislative branch univocally?

Odd.

[Jacquerie]

You did not answer my question. According to the US Constitution, all legislative power lies with the Congress, zero with the courts. Congress also has the power to remove law from appelate jurisdiction. Courts are not a super legislature and to act as such is an abuse of power.

Why don't you or activists petition the Congress?

[Jim Noble]

The Mass court gave the legislature 180 days to rewrite the marriage laws. So what happens if the legislature refuses? Isn't there a separation of powers issue here?

It's more than a separation of powers issue, unfortunately (that would be easier to resolve).

Courts cannot order the People (who act, in our system, through elected representatives) to pass laws.

To allow such an order to issue is a revolution. The government of the People is literally overthrown by such a order.

If it is allowed to stand, the state becomes as Travis McGee's styrofoam building-retaining the appearance of a Republic, while the essence is destroyed.

The problem is, we have become habituated to use of the courts to resolve issues such as this. Many have spoken or written of filing lawsuits over the Goodrich decision.

But lawsuits are tools of the courts. It is the courts that, here, are the offenders. They cannot sit in judgement of themselves.

This action will stand if it is not resisted by direct action of the executive and legislative branches of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Which, sad to say, is very unlikely.

A legislature which passes laws by order of a court is a sham legislature, with no real power at all.

[independentmind]

Bump for Maggie Gallagher--one of my favorite's.

This issue may become the real dividing line between the Right and the Left in this country.

[Jim Noble]

This issue may become the real dividing line between the Right and the Left in this country.

She's one of my faves as well.

And, as she rightly points out, this issue is not a right-left wedge issue, because many lefties are on our side on this one-if we know how to manage a one-issue coalition.

Which I doubt we do.

[moneyrunner]

What sanctimonious bigotry. Who are you to say that marriage must be between two people? What is magic about the word TWO? And about the word PEOPLE? You hateful bigots would deprive me of my right to marry more than one other person. You are numberphobes and hateful numberphobes at that. Furthermore you are speciesphobes and bigoted speciesphobes at that.

You knuckle draggers should be put through a long sensitivity training program. Away with all bigotry on this site.

[Travis McGee]

What are you, some kind of "two-ist bigot??"

What if three men are in love? Or two men and a woman, or five women?

If marriage does not mean one man and one woman any more, then what the hell is the big deal about "two?"

If any two people can be great parents, why wouldn't THREE parents be even better?

Please answer logically.

.

.

.

.

(Sound of crickets.)