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.
Let's go back to the videotape, shall we? From your post #300, directed at me:
What an idiot...
How, again, is that not a personal insult?
So you support gay marriage?
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? … marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all." (quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit…" [Emphasis added.]
I'll explain a second time. Based on your "outdated morality" (your phrase) what I said is an insult. Based on my new, improved, hip, happening, morality, it is not. Since your morality is outdated you should stop trying to have people adhere to it. Based on your previous posts you don't want outdated morality enforced on unwilling adults. I am an unwilling adult and don't want you telling me what you think is an insult. Please stick to your beliefs.
If you really need a refresher, here is your entire quote "Enforcing outdated notions of morality on unwilling adults is evil." So, I say again, stop it. Your morality and notions of insults are outdated. Yo are doing "evil" by trying to hold me to them.
WHAT'S YOUR POINT???
What about wild animals? Could Goldilocks marry the three bears?
Oh riiiight... the "multiple partners" thing... NEVER MIND.
Actually, based on the rules of FR, which is a privately run website with its own code of conduct, calling me an "idiot" is against the rules. In this scenario, your personal code of morality is irrelevant since you've agreed to abide by FR's rules when posting here.
Nice try to turn things around, though.
LOL!!!! you said "permanent!" Please show me the statistics that prove people who perform homosexual acts stay in permanent relationships. Or is it that they don't stay in relationships because they don't have that piece of paper that says that they are just like normal, married, couples? You encourage homosexual behavior by trying to make their behavior acceptable in society. That encourages the spread of AIDS. That is mean spirited.
Do you also encourage inter-venous drug use? If not, why not?
The court did not issue an order. It issued an advisory opinion.
No. I just ignored your silly little metaphor and pointed out that you insulted me in post #300. Do you deny that calling someone an "idiot" goes against FR rules?
Stop there. Studies have shown gays cannot stick with one partner for more than about 1.5 years. They need "strange anus" as part of their sexual fetish. The average queer has 10 "affairs" a year when dedicated (whatever) to one partner. A permanant commitment is outside their fantasy world.
I think the correct word might be something like "polybesty" or something.
And you're certainly not one to talk!
(what, with your unnatural love of squirrels and groundhogs...)
Hmmm. I guess the FR front page goes against FRs rules.
I quote from the front page: "Last year, as the inevitable war against Iraq drew closer, more and more of the "useful idiots" of the left began crawling out of the woodwork, organizing so-called "anti-war" protests."
Gee the word "idiot" was used. Or is the problem that I didn't use the entire phrase "useful idiot" in regard to you?
Again, stop trying to force your outdated morality on me. Your outdated morailty is boring me. I'll stop responding now.
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.