You seem to be stuck in place by your inability to separate the definition of marriage from the governmental restrictions on licensing.
Marriage means the same in Massachuttes today, than it did before the Court's ruling; the State was found to be in violation of their own Constitution when they refuse to issue some couples marriage licenses based on a State-sponsored dissapproval of their choice of partner via the gender make up of the couple in question, thus creating a second-class citizen.
"To peddle the lie that marriage is rightfully about the satisfaction of adults and not the begetting and raising of children in stable families embraces the rot which is slowly destroying Western Europe."
No one required me to sign a contract forcing my wife and I to have children prior to being issued a marriage license, and stability is exactly what the likely end-result of same-sex couples marrying will bring about.
"But she uses the most intellectual dishonesty on the other path: describing an illusory "evolution" of civil marriage. In fact, civil marriage has not changed in definition, purpose, or in its main legal structures."
You want claptrap?
There's pure, unadulterated claptrap.
We have seen marriage go from a time when a woman was not allowed to charge a husband with rape because marriage took away her rights as an individual to say "no", where couples could not buy birth control, where blacks and whites could not marry, and right into no-fault divorce.
If those things did not change the definition of marriage, neither did this.
One interesting think about the Mass situation, is whether the law will trigger social security survivor benefits for gay marrieds, and whether if it is called "civil unions," and the Mass Supremes allow that, it will not. There is quite a bit of state money potentially riding on, well, terminology.
All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.
This is what the Massachusetts Constitution says Luis. But to judicial activists, the words contained in constitutions are meaningless as witnessed by the majority opinion in McConnell V FEC.
Your statement is flat false.
Did you read the exact words of Ellen Goodman's column? She said the SJC wrote the definition of marriage.. In the Massachusetts Constitution it is defined as a union of a man and a woman.
The State was found to be in violation of their own Constitution when they refuse to issue some couples marriage licenses based on a State-sponsored dissapproval of their choice of partner via the gender make up of the couple in question, thus creating a second-class citizen.
Your statement is correct.
However, the dissents seem to be much more convincing than the majority opinion.
No one required me to sign a contract forcing my wife and I to have children prior to being issued a marriage license.
Right, but here I am talking about what marriage is all about in the general sense. Can you honestly ponder life in Western Civilization over generations and not see the purpose of marriage as being about children and families and generations?,If not, I do not know what planet you are living on.
Stability is exactly what the likely end-result of same-sex couples marrying will bring about.
I am in favor of better stability for same-sex couples. That stability, if it does come about, will be good for the people among us who are gay. A little tweaking of existing civil contract law may do the trick.
Looked at that way, the issues of gay couples do not seem to have much impact on stability of the American family. It is only when these issues impact marriage law that I get concerned.