Posted on 02/04/2004 8:24:28 AM PST by presidio9
BOSTON - The Massachusetts high court ruled Tuesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples rather than civil unions would meet the edict of its November decision, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages would take place in the state beginning in mid-May.
AP Photo Slideshow: Same-Sex Marriage Issues
The court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which conveyed the benefits but not the title of marriage would meet constitutional muster.
The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's Constitutional Convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Without the opinion, Senate President Robert Travaglini had said the vote would be delayed.
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen.
But almost immediately, the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers and advocates on both side of the issue uncertain if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision.
The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the advisory opinion, which was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record.
Note to ignorant poster. Sodomy is no longer illegal. We've moved on to gay marriage. Please try to keep up, won't you? Thanks so much!
But you're wrong
In 2002, there were 31,089 incident AIDS cases, and 4,937 of them arose from heterosexual transmission.
That's 15%.
Table 1: Known routes of HIV infections U.S. men (June 1999 June 2000 a) |
|||||
HIV Infection route |
White |
African-American |
Hispanic |
Asian |
Am. Indian |
Via homosexual contact |
86.5% |
54.5% |
71.2% |
90.8% |
74.4% |
Via drug injection only |
9.5% |
20% |
18.2% |
4.6% |
15.9% |
Via heterosexual contact |
4.1% |
25.5% |
10.6% |
4.6% |
9.8% |
% Recently infected men |
54.2% |
30.6% |
13.3% |
0.9% |
1.0% |
% American male population b |
75.1% |
12.3% |
12.5% |
3.7% |
0.9% |
Notes: a CDC. Table 10. HIV/AIDS Surv Report 2000;12(1) (Data from 34 states with confidential reporting), b Census 2000, U.S. Census Bureau (number of men and women assumed to be equal). |
Dear God, I should certainly hope so! Gay men make up 1.5% of our population. It would be statistically impossible for them to make up the majority of all new AIDs cases. Especially since so many are infected already.
Average life expectancy of a gay man in the US: 42.
Sorry...nice try though
Don't make any more attempts at sarcasm. You have yet to master the concept.
Actually, it's less than 3%.
EQUAL RIGHTS?????? Any man and any woman, not already married to a member of the opposite sex, are EQUALLY entitled to marry a member of the OPPOSITE sex. The inherently disordered and perverted desire of one lavender in heat for another carried out by putting things where they do not belong and by nefarious whoring after societal approval of lavender canoodling, is no reason for language abuse. Marriage is an exclusive heterosexual relationship between two people, one male and one female. Government did NOT institute marriage.
If we have reached the point where that is not judicially enforceable, we have reached the point where we need a new constitution and one which will pre-empt the states' respective authorities and laws, in favor of traditional Judaeo-Christian morality, on such questions as to the nature of marriage, and the right to life from the moment of conception to natural death. Would this impose morality? You bet it would and it is about time.
Meanwhile, let's see ballot initiatives on wedge issues designed to intimidate these libertinarian courts once and for all. If they want to overturn referenda and initiatives, let's party. It will ease the task of pulling the malicious and impious fangs of the judiciary in Massachusetts and elsewhere, to say nothing of breaking the impudent back of such courts. If it is necessary to stripmine normal attitudes of normal members of the public early on to prevent the customary societal softening by relentless leftist propaganda, so be it.
Make this the central wedge issue of the 2004 elections and it will be a landmark election returning record numbers of civilized legislators, prepared to enforce morality in this minimal way, and the landslide destruction of Kerry who will spend the entire campaign tripping over his feet defending lavender canoodling to Democrats of modest means who go to church.
EQUAL RIGHTS?????? Any man and any woman, not already married to a member of the opposite sex, are EQUALLY entitled to marry a member of the OPPOSITE sex. The inherently disordered and perverted desire of one lavender in heat for another carried out by putting things where they do not belong and by nefarious whoring after societal approval of lavender canoodling, is no reason for language abuse. Marriage is an exclusive heterosexual relationship between two people, one male and one female. Government did NOT institute marriage.
If we have reached the point where that is not judicially enforceable, we have reached the point where we need a new constitution and one which will pre-empt the states' respective authorities and laws, in favor of traditional Judaeo-Christian morality, on such questions as to the nature of marriage, and the right to life from the moment of conception to natural death. Would this impose morality? You bet it would and it is about time.
Meanwhile, let's see ballot initiatives on wedge issues designed to intimidate these libertinarian courts once and for all. If they want to overturn referenda and initiatives, let's party. It will ease the task of pulling the malicious and impious fangs of the judiciary in Massachusetts and elsewhere, to say nothing of breaking the impudent back of such courts. If it is necessary to stripmine normal attitudes of normal members of the public early on to prevent the customary societal softening by relentless leftist propaganda, so be it.
Make this the central wedge issue of the 2004 elections and it will be a landmark election returning record numbers of civilized legislators, prepared to enforce morality in this minimal way, and the landslide destruction of Kerry who will spend the entire campaign tripping over his feet defending lavender canoodling to Democrats of modest means who go to church.
NO, it is you who is ignoring reality. There is more scientific research supporting the lower range (1-5%) than the higher (5-10%+) of those predisposed to homosexuality, and in fact many gay groups have quietly backed off their 10% claim. Now if you want to lump in peer pressure type experimentation in the face of a huge media market campaign on impressionable teens, you might, might reach that 10%. But that doesn't tell us what percent has gay tendencies, it just inflates that number by combining a segment of exhibitionists, those who are easily manipulated/influence, and those who are morally confused.
Of course that last sentence is colored by moral interpretations, but you get my point, and the math still stands. The gay lobby certainly hasn't hesitated in offering widely inflated claims and junk science colored by their views.
I DO have a major problem with
1. Judicial activist tyrants in black robes.
2. My money paying for benefits.
3. This stuff around the kids.
Can you IMAGINE the kind of judges Kerry would appoint to the USSC?
Now I'm gonna have nightmares."
presidio9: "Anybody who says that they will not vote for President Bush's reelection needs to think long and hard about what our country will look like if THIS happens. Under the Senators from Mass and NY, not only will gay marriage be legalized, but gay couples will be given privelidged status."
Thankfully some people get it. More than anything, keeping more left wing wackos off the courts is the most important reason to reelect Bush.
Seems pretty easy to tie a presidential canidate from such a liberal state to these type of liberal rulings.
Measure Number: H.R. 3396 (Defense of Marriage Act) Kerry (D-MA), Nay
"I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism.
SC Dem Debate 01/29/04
Kerry opposed the death penalty until 2002 , voted against military action in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and voted to freeze defense spending.
Bank records would later show that Kerry's Chinese campaign cash came from $300,000 in overseas wire transfers sent to Chung on orders from the chief of Chinese military intelligence, Newsweek reports.
NewsMax 02/02/04
U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday said Pope John Paul II ``crossed the line'' by instructing pols to block legalization of gay marriage.
Boston Herald 08/02/03
During the height of the Cold War, Kerry opposed the entire strategic modernization effort proposed by President Reagan the Peacekeeper, B-1 and B-2 bombers, the Trident submarine and D-5 missile, opposed the non-strategic modernization of the defense budget as well, and the deployment of the INF missiles in Europe.
Washington Times 01/04
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.