Mass. Lawmakers Mull Gay Marriage Ruling

MyWay News ^

[Happy2BMe]

From the land of Barney Franks, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy . .

[Happy2BMe]

This PING brought to you by Barney Franks, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the Mass. Supreme Court . .

[swarthyguy]

The court has dropped a bomb in the lap of the Democrat Party.

Bush can use this single issue to win. Run a cultural campaign on this one issue.

Kerry will dance all over this, satisfying no-one.

Funny, I can't smoke a fag in a bar but can marry one in MA.

[DuncanWaring]

Would marriages in Massachusetts have to be recognized legally in other states or by the federal government?

Well, lessee now.

Under the "Full Faith and Credit" provision of the Federal Constitution, if I've got a driver's license from Kentucky, I can legally drive in Massachusetts.

If I've got a driver's license from Vermont, I can legally drive in Massachusetts.

If I've got a Concealed Carry permit from Kentucky, I CAN'T legally carry concealed in Massachusetts.

If Massachusetts refuses to recognize self-defense provisions of other states, even though they are Constitutionally obligated to, then the rest of the states have no obligation to recognize said "marriages" outside of MA.

[Happy2BMe]

"Bush can use this single issue to win. Run a cultural campaign on this one issue."

Here's hoping Karl Rove stays far, far, far away from Bush on this (and all others) issue.

It just may be enough to win back the conservatives he's lost over border control.

Keep your fingers crossed.

[randita]

If I've got a Concealed Carry permit from Kentucky, I CAN'T legally carry concealed in Massachusetts.

Following your logic, the SCOTUS should never have ruled that the Texas sodomy law was unconstitutional, but they did.

The next logical step in the gay marriage ladder is for a challenge in one of the 37 states that have a DOMA on the books (MA did not). With the decision of the SCOTUS overturning the Texas sodomy law, it would certainly seem that there would be precedent for them to overturn the DOMA in the 37 states that have them.

When marriage is no longer narrowly defined, then it can mean anything to anyone. That is what Scalia warned about.

[longtermmemmory]

here is the unspoken bomb. The activist Mass court has made this an all or nothing for homosexuals. For the debate, homosexual civil unions are off the table as irrelevant per the Mass SC.

There is no longer a middle "civi union" ground to hide upon.

[CaptainK]

Oh, to be a divorce lawyer in Massachusetts. These should be bountiful years.

[swarthyguy]

Exactly. A quick perusal of videotaped reactions showed the civil unions compromise is dead.

Kerry can still saying that, as he did on TV last night, but the gay lobby won't be satisfied with that and he'll be forced to come out progaymarriage to satisfy the party constituency.

Won't hurt him in the NE or the WestCoast states, but in the heartland, it will.

The mechanics at the garage this morning were cracking jokes about it.

Bush just got handed a sledgehammer for the election.

[Happy2BMe]

"For the debate, homosexual civil unions are off the table as irrelevant per the Mass SC."

Homosexual civil unions, courteousy of that Democratic hero Howard (idiot) Dean . .

Howard Dean

Howard Dean says he's running for President, and on paper he's quite a candidate. He's the longest-serving Democratic governor. He signed the first law in the country to allow gay unions. And, he's got the endorsement of America's favorite president-that-isn't: Martin Sheen.

Google Search for Metrosexual

HELP!

metrosexual (aka Male Democrat) (MET.roh.sek.shoo.ul) n. A dandyish narcissist in love with not only himself, but also his urban lifestyle; a straight man who is in touch with his feminine side. —metrosexuality n. Example Citation: The only problem facing the metrosexual in an otherwise carefree existence is the inescapable effects of ageing. If 30 is 45 in gay years, then 26 is retirement age for the metrosexual — and no amount of biotechnological, rehydrating, whale sperm dermo-care can alter that. —Jonathan Trew, "I love me so much," The Scotsman, July 24, 2002

---

[longtermmemmory]

No it will not be, homosexuals are usually together less than 2 years. As a rule of thumb that means no alimony or much property.

Homosexuals and homosexual marriage is just a "useful idot" for those who supported the great society. They are being used the same way hitler used the homosexuals to help him get into power.

Most non-children, non-property divorce cases are do-it-yourself matters.

[longtermmemmory]

as long we have god and gays here, lets add guns. (howdy Dr. Dean.)

Diane finstein has added a rider to a bill to abolish the sunset clause on the Assault Weapons ban in the senate.

[Happy2BMe]

"Bush just got handed a sledgehammer for the election."

Maybe. He's been handed a whole truckload of them.

Keep Karl Rove away from the truck.

[angkor]

Massachusetts Constitution:

Chapter III. JUDICIARY POWER.

Article V. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.

[Happy2BMe]

"Article V. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision."

Are you trying to say the Mass gubner and legislature will get the last verdict in the matter?

[WOSG]

"Following your logic, the SCOTUS should never have ruled that the Texas sodomy law was unconstitutional, but they did."

There is no doubt that they made a mistaken ruling not based on the text of the US Constitution. And there is no doubt it has opened a pandora's box here.

It seems the FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS is to fix the Massachusetts Constitution. If not a single state in the union has gay marriage, then the federal issue is moot.

[jimt]

"Whatever your view is of marriage, it's my belief that fair-minded people oppose writing discrimination into the constitution," said Barrios, who is gay.

It is not discrimination to retain the millenia-old definition of marriage, which to my knowledge has never included "same sex marriage".

What will be discrimination, assuming the homosexuals get their way, is any restrictions other than age on who gets to be marriage partners. Multiple partners, human-animal partners (animals are property), inanimate object partners, including cadavers (property) - none of these can be "discriminated" against in light of this looney-tunes decision.

If the homosexuals are successful, and I lived in Mass, I'd immediately file suit for a multiple partner marriage. Next I'd file to include my sister - or brother. Then my dog. Then my car...

[Redmen4ever]

The Massachusetts legislature should move to amend the Massachusetts constitution. The ruling is not based on the federal constitution, but on one of those penumbras that the liberal judges of that state found in the state constitution. If the ruling were based on the federal constitution's equal protection clause, or some other part of the federal constitution, then the state court's interpretation of the federal constitution could be appealed to a federal court. As it is, this is a state issue.

Regarding full faith and credit, I believe a fair rendering of full faith and credit is this: If person who is married under the laws of one state is traveling through another state, then the laws of that person's state of domicile should apply. For example, if a person married under the laws of Massachusetts were to be in a car accident while driving through Virginia, Virginia should respect the next of kin as determined by that person's domicile. But, if that person takes up residence in another state, the laws of the new state apply.

[jimt]

BTW, it never hurts to keep in mind that real desire here seems to be force-fed personal and legal acceptance (and celebration) of what has been considered perversion for thousands of years.

"My 'relationship' is as good as your 'marriage' and you have to acknowledge that under penalty of law ! Neener, neener, neener !"