Mass. Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough

FoxNews ^ | 2/4/4 | Fox News

[longtermmemmory]

This southafrican born woman judge certainly thinks she can do whatever the h*ll she pleases. Extreme black robe fever.

Fun options, what if Mass passed a law declaring homosexuality a mental illness and prohibited the mentally ill from marrying?

The state legislature can always pre-empt local gov. The state sets the standards for the issuance of licenses.

Couples would have to cross state lines, obtain a license from an non-mass jurisdiction. Then the Mass SC would have a FFC issue. The out of controll Mass court can't order the neighboring states to follow a mass order.

I have a theory, the Mass SC knows they can't force the state to pass a law. They could have overturned the Mass marriage law completly but they could not make them pass a law. This could just be the largest brass sphere bluff by the Mass SC.

[longtermmemmory]

Zot.

[Constantine XIII]

How in the heck does a court command the legislature to write a law?

If I were a member of the Mass. state house, I'd be writing up legislation that proclaims that the courts should mind their own business.

What a bunch of arrogant sum'hillarys. :p

[kingu]

I think your theory is correct, but to disregard it would create the implication that the rule of law does not matter.

The reason why I brought up the fact that county recorders record marriages is that yes, the state can forbid the issuance of licenses, but if someone from Mass. goes and gets married somewhere else, their marriage would be recorded -- since the judicial status at this moment is that the word marriage is redefined, couldn't someone get married out of country in a place that permits gay marriage, return, and then register their marriage?

It would take more than overturning or changing the requirements for an acceptable marriage to overcome this judicial fiat. Were I the legislature, I'd begin by bringing up impeachment proceedings and let these judges explain, under oath, exactly how the state constitution permits the judiciary to redefine words established by the legislature.

The liberals would love it, but the polls show that the people don't support this type of thing.

[johnmorris886]

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." Michenlangelo Signorile in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994.)

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.]

[longtermmemmory]

Sullivan is basically writing that homsexuals are titilated by the forbidden fetish.

It all just proves that homosexuality is ONLY about sex and just about sex. Nothing more.

[Ancesthntr]

The gays are seeking official government recognition that their lifstyle is acceptable. Visitation rights at hospitals is really insignificant compared to the "marriage" certificate framed and hanging on the wall.

Similar to the Equal Rights Amendment being purely symbolic.

I'm afraid that you are wrong about this - it goes WAY beyond something as trivial as hospital visitation rights. I don't know about Massachusetts, but in a community property state (of which there are a bunch in the South and West) the surviving spouse is entitled to 1/2 of all community property (i.e. all property acquired after marriage). The only exceptions are property that has retained its separate character for the duration of the marriage, gifts/inheritances from family (if the separate character is maintained), and property separated by a pre-nup or a post-nup.

Also, married folks can almost always put their spouses on their health insurance. Think about what THAT could cost us in increased premiums, esp. considering the far higher incidence of AIDS and other STD's among the homosexual population.

Finally, it is not symbolic because now those in favor of polygymous marriages, marriages to children or even animals will likely be approved, using this case and its reasoning as a precedent. This court borrowed from a Canadian decision, and it is far easier for a court in another state (esp. a neighboring state) to borrow from this decision than that of a foreign court.

The floodgates are now open.

[StonyBurk]

Oops-- I was about to suggest these unelected despots be
denied commmuion. .. but que lastima es verdad these cross
dressers allready think they are the one who give God
communion.Pardon my twisted attempt at humor-but after the
commercials and halftime show at the Superbowl this year --
I am just trying to blend in with the MTV Hollyweird crowd
The same policy me thinks President George uses about
keepin the enemies close.

[jimt]

The fact is that under the Mass SC's theory, the only relationship not to be state-approved is adult-child, as a child can't give consent, hence adult-child marriage isn't possible.

This problem does not obtain with multiple partners, animals (animals are property), or inanimate objects (property). Or cadavers, as they're also property.

The gay marriage advocates haven't a leg to stand on to prohibit (discriminate against) the outlandish "marriages" I mention, as they're no more outlandish than the one they advocate.

Besides, it really isn't about "marriage", it's about forcing other people to acknowledge their perversion as something to "celebrate", and to bring down the force of law on anybody who dares to call homosexuality for the undesirable perversion it is.

[Antique Gal]

I got out of Mass. about a year ago.Just an awful state with evil people living there.You get the government you deserve therefore alas Kennedy-Kerry what does that say for the people of Mass.

[Ohioan]

No satirist could possibly top this. These people are so far out of touch with reality, that they do not see the absurdity of their opinion, or the idiocy of the decision.

By much the same rationale, one would have the right to marry a lamp post.

This sort of thing will reduce this age of Americans to the status of a laughing stock for future generations. It is not the way most people would want their times to be remembered, but absurdity in public action always seems to be more memorable than the constructive. (For example, does any one know what productive Romans were doing at the time Caligula made his horse a Senator?)

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[BurtS188]

The real problem is the legislating by the courts. President Bush should make THAT a campaign issue. This court ruling is only a small piece of a much bigger problem.

[BluSky]

“This is a coup by the supreme court.”

Agreed . . . and what political persuasion would these supreme court justices be trying to proliferate?

Liberalism.

They can’t help it. It’s what they believe and who they are.

This article states; “Over the past decade, the Massachusetts’ high court has expanded the legal parameters of family, ruling that same-sex couples can adopt children and devising child visitation right for a former partner of a lesbian.”

‘Incremental liberalism’.

That’s how they enact policy. That’s what they do and who they are.

And today, we have court ordered ‘mainstream gay marriage’.

Straight from the liberal playbook.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping!

I just checked in - haven't read the article yet. Horrible jduges. Nazgul.

Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, ping me!

[petitfour]

As outrageous as the Superbowl half-time show was, this is even more outrageous!!!!!!!!!!!!

And we have the Senator from Massachusetts leading the RAT party. Has the Senator spoken about the events of Sunday night's boob-tube?????

[LTCJ]

The question is, what do the people of this state do? This clearly violates the will of both the people and legislature of even this almost hopelessly liberal state. Business as usual? Rely on due process (when the process is broken)? Pitchforks in the streets? Or, nothing?

Does the Spirit of '76 still live?

[jwalsh07]

Majority Decision and Dissents

May it be hung around John Kerry's Neck for all to see.

[Dr Warmoose]

Tomorrow's Weather Forecast for The People's Republic of Massachusetts:

Dark and Hot with occasional storms of Fire and Brimstone

[MHGinTN]

Ah yes, Mass a two sh!ts, the state proud to re-elect Fat Teddy and Barney Buttery Fwanks, the state that believes in taxpayer funding to teach the teens 'fisting' ... yes, would the last conservative out of MA, please turn the light off 'cause the remianders will 'feel' their way along.

[3catsanadog]

And just down the road is lowering the age of consent to 14 and then to 12 and then to 8.