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.
LOL! You will! Ha-ha-ha!
More importantly, what would be verboten in John Kerry's American? The Bible? Sending your children to any school other than the state-run indoctrination centers? Keeping a firearm to defend yourself? Teaching your children that homosexuality is wrong? Oh no, no, no! Queer Gestapo for the once-free straight family is coming!
The judges can pretend to make an oxymoron not an oxymoron, but "same-sex marriage" is still an oxymoron. What they are doing is forcing a lying perverted definition of marriage down everyone's throats. It's still a lie even if they try to mandate a "new" truth via edict.
In the days of the judges:
Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
What does that say about this nation, if words no longer have meanings, judges can redefine words at will to suit any agenda they please, and attempts to preserve words' true meanings become Constitutional battles? It means that truth has already fallen in the streets, and therefore "justice" really means no justice. Insanity and chaos continue their march toward victory...
Did I say that?
Since a pervert is a member of society, his diminishment directly diminishes society
Seeing as the vast majority of Americans engage or have engaged in some form of sodomy,
So you judge the morality of particular actions by whether or not the majority of people engage in them?
... it seems that those who do not are the perverts.
So people who use their bodies according to their natural functions are "perverts"? Your reasoning is confused, to say the least.
per·vert ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-vûrt) tr.v. per·vert·ed, per·vert·ing, per·verts(society is simply a collection of individuals, the welfare of which is more important than the welfare of a single individual) Thank you, Chairman Mao. The inalienable rights of the individual trump the welfare of society.1) To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
2) To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse.
Then why do we send people to die in war? Because the good of the society comes before the good of the individual.
The preamble to the Constitution reads as follows (the preamble states the purpose of the document):
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.The "general welfare" is another term for the "common good."
Certainly, single people aren't obligated to procreate, since fornication is an evil.
No, it isn't.
And you know this how? Tell it to children of single mothers.
Enforcing outdated notions of morality on unwilling adults is evil.
Is morality time dependent? How do you know that your assertion isn't "outdated?" In fact, your moralizing is evil. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil." You're indifferent to the people harmed by fornication and the children created by these liaisons.
But thank you for bringing us a dash of the 12th century.
You're welcome.
Maybe stonings for fornicators would be something you support?
Why would you think that?
But married people are obligated to procreate, within reason.
Would you sanction enforcing this at gunpoint?
No. It would be imprudent.
Because, at the end of the day, that is what laws do.
Thank you for enlightening me.
How many children should each married couple be forced to have, in your theocratic regime?
Do you understand the difference between immorality and criminality? Not everything that is immoral should be criminalized, as I said before. Since you keep ignoring this distinction, I'll say it again. Not everything that is immoral should be criminalized. Why? Because the vice caused by criminalization can exceed the orignal vice.
The conjugal act has two purposes, procreation and the union of husband and wife. Absolutely considered, every act of intercourse between a husband and wife should be open to life. Use of withdrawal or artificial birth control is a perversion of the natural use of the body, and is an evil. However, intelligent use of the body's natural fertility cycle is permissible for the regulation of birth, for grave reasons. For example, if the potential birth of a child could be reasonably forseen to present such a hardship that the couple's relationship could be destroyed, then couples are permitted to regulate birth by using natural means. However, the couple should be careful to avoid adopting a "contraceptive mentality."
Now, again, should this be made a matter of law? Obviously not, since more problems would be created by policing something like this than otherwise.
Preventing sodomites from legally marrying, OTOH, is a no brainer. There is no downside.
So, tell us, where do equal rights end. Why not have plural marriages? After all, polygamy was once the norm in parts of Utah. Much of the Islam community still practice it; forwarding (a plausible) argument that Westerners marry our wives one at a time (through divorce and remarriage) while they do all at once. What's to prevent someone else to argue that they shouldn't marry their immediate kinfolk (no disrespect those of you in W.Va.). THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT!
Family law is designed to protect families, for the betterment of society. So we have laws regarding child support, divorce, bigamy, etc.
You tell us doc. With very few exceptions, homosexuality is learned behavior.
The buttsex crowd is neither disenfranchised nor enslaved. Marriage is not a "right."
"Hey but it is MY RIGHT to get married...where is my woman? Bring her here so I can down on my knee and propose, dammit!"
That's a strawman. Just because you have a certain right, doesn't mean that anyone or anything has to facilitate your enjoyment of that right. You have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you.
It is up to a woman to agree to the marriage; thus it is not a right to marry, but a distinct priveledge with conditions
Rights have nothing to do with the interactions between private individuals. When we talk about a constitutional right, we're talking about something the government cannot take away from you. In this situation, just because you can't find someone to marry you doesn't mean the government has violated your rights.
We only have the word of a couple of murdering thugs that this is what happened. In any event, any man who is secure in his own heterosexuality should not be threatened by a gay man hitting on them. The proper response in such a situation is to simply say that you are not interested.
If I went to a gay bar and hit on a lesbian, do you think I would not be physically attacked????
I've mistakenly hit on lesbians in the past and gotten nothing worse than the cold shoulder. Lesbians are, generally speaking, pacifists.
If that ends up being the case, the Mass. S. Ct. has just handed the Republican Party the 2004 elections on a silver platter.
Family law is designed to protect families, for the betterment of society. So we have laws regarding child support, divorce, bigamy, etc.
Yeah, right. Family law currently turns men into second class citizens the moment they are married and indentured servants the moment they have children (or if their wives have the child of another man).
Spare me the "betterment of society" crap. Modern family law is for the betterment of the divorce lawyers, the feminization of society via activist judges, and the enslavement of men.
Whatever family law is in practice doesn't negate its legitimacy in principle, just as the existence of crooked cops doesn't negate the legitimacy of law enforcement in principle.
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.