[kennedy]

Your attempt to equate opposition to same sex marriages with racism is just plain offensive. Hitler and Stalin imposed their beliefs on their citizens. Does that mean I can equate the Massachusetts Supreme Court with the Nazis and Communists?

Let's say I decide I want to marry my mother. Maybe I decide that I want to marry my mother and my sister. Do I have a constitutional right to do so? Why not, because most people find the idea disgusting? At least there is plenty of historical support for incestuous marriages and polygamy, unlike same sex marriages, which until a few years ago had never been recognized by any culture anywhere on the face of the earth.

In a republic such as the United States, if a majority of the citizens want to overrule thousands of years of custom and history and rewrite the concept to marriage to include same sex marriages, then they are free to do so through their duly elected representatives. It should not be imposed upon us by a few ultra liberal judges.

[jde1953]

"Your attempt to equate opposition to same sex marriages with racism is just plain offensive. Hitler and Stalin imposed their beliefs on their citizens. Does that mean I can equate the Massachusetts Supreme Court with the Nazis and Communists?"

I was attempting to do nothing of the sort. I was pointing out that the definition of marriage HAS changed over the centuries. Do you deny that?

As for "liberal judges imposing beliefs," consider the following scenario. In Berkeley, California, the duly elected representatives rewrite the definition of restricted firearms to include ALL armaments, including all handguns, shotguns, and rifles(not just bazookas, mortars, grenades, etc.) This overrules some 200 years of constitutional definitions according to the second amendment. The resulting law is put to a vote of the people of Berkeley, and, "liberal" folk that they are, they approve it by a resounding majority. The law is appealed to a court, and the judges rule it to be unconstitutional. Am I correct in presuming that you would be enraged that the judges had gone in direct contradiction to the expressed wishes of the people and their duly elected representatives?

Or are you really saying that state judges should do their job evaluating laws in terms of the state's constitutions only when the result would be one that pleases you?