Mass. Lawmakers Mull Gay Marriage Ruling

MyWay News ^

[Happy2BMe]

"How about having the Massachusettes legislature simply impeach the judges who affirmed the ruling as an unwarranted and unconstituitional excercise in legislating from the bench? The court isn't the only insitution that can determine what the state's constitution means. The legislature and governor also have roles."

Right. It's a sure bet the Mass. controllers of Barney Franks, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry (who put these vomit bags into power) will most assuredly now impeach them.

Oh boy . . .

[Happy2BMe]

"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."

The measures necessary to accomplish such legislation must occur at the federal leve. Who ever thought the next Constitutional Amendment would be over whether or not a man has the right to be socially and legally recognized for having "married" another man.

Family under attack.

[sr4402]

The Massachusetts legislature should move to amend the Massachusetts constitution.

Sorry, too late. A MA constitution amendment would take effect in 2006. By then dozens of these types of "marriages" would take place and they would fan out across our nation demanding "recognition" in all other states. Similar judges then would overturn those states marriage laws and marital anarchy would prevail.

In an attempt to quell the legal anarchy, the U.S. Supreme court would use the same premise as the MA court and legislate their view onto America.

No, the answer is Impeachment . Call your State Representative and Demand the impeachment of those four judges.

America needs to stand up and say No More!

[Aquinasfan]

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

Was there ever? Isn't it "marriage" by another name?

[angkor]

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

What I'm reading in the Mass. Constitution is that only the guv and legislature have a verdict in the matter, and that the judiciary has none whatsoever.

[longtermmemmory]

You are correct. However politicians were able to use civil unions to hide behind their finger. If you ever heard Dr. Dean speak, you will hear him basically say that he would make all marraige civil unions.

It is useful for conservatives because it has painted Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Dean into a corner. The now must state how they will actually vote. No more "personally" opposed BS.

[angkor]

What will be discrimination, assuming the homosexuals get their way, is any restrictions other than age on who gets to be marriage partners.

Why stop at age? It's all relative. /sarcasm

[Happy2BMe]

"Constitution is that only the guv and legislature have a verdict in the matter, and that the judiciary has none whatsoever."

Are Ted Kennedy and Barney Franks involved?

[swarthyguy]

Opens the door to other combos; Triages of various kinds, and, some may call me paranoid, but what's to stop a Muslim man demanding 4 wives, or a gay pakistani wanting.....

[expatpat]

It's time for Legislatures to put the courts back in their place, and regain their pre-eminence in making laws. They should ignore any new law sent down from the courts. It would be ironic and sweet if the first place this happened was Massachusetts!

[jimt]

Why stop at age? It's all relative. /sarcasm

Because most people naturally recoil at children being treated as adults, but lots wouldn't care if some numbskull wanted to "marry" a rock.

Also, because it's a convenient spot to use to pick apart the homosexuals' ridiculous "discrimination" ploy.

[jimt]

Opens the door to other combos;

I agree with you. I maintain it's ANY combo, including fish and fowl. The only reasonable exclusion is children, if this ridiculous ruling stands.

[N. Theknow]

If it comes down to a Constitutional ammendment that marriage should be between a man and a woman, it better have a clause in it that it refers to a genetic man and woman.
Otherwise the lawyers are gonna have a field day defining "Man" and "Woman."

Also the crowd that thinks you can walk into a garden and take an axe to a prickly pear(pair?) and make it a rose bush will have to be taken into account.

[Happy2BMe]

"Also the crowd that thinks you can walk into a garden and take an axe to a prickly pear(pair?) and make it a rose bush will have to be taken into account."

Would be funny if it weren't sooooo sad.

[longtermmemmory]

This is what the left is always about

feeeeeeeeeelings. (hello Rush?!)

Listen to Barney frank or the HRC or any other homosexual group. When two homosexuals feeeeeeeeeeeeel love then they should be married. It is not about standards, it is not about any right or wrong just feeeeeeeeeelings.

Marriage has three requirements

1. Age of consent
2. Not closer related than first cousin
3. One exclusive male one exclusiv female (a breeding pair)

You could add not still married to another but the exclusive takes care of that.

Homosexuasl want to remove all of the above and repace the only criteria with feeeeeeeeeeeelings.

Same leftist liberal cr*p they have been spouting from day 1 of the commie revolution. No profiles at security points because it hurts feeeeeeeeelings. No grades in school because feeeeeeeelings are going to be hurt. No scoring at children's games because feeeeeeelings will be hurt. Words are prohibited because the make people feeeeeeel bad.

If nothing else the lefts is consistently ridiculous.

at least that is how I feeeeeeeeel.

[longtermmemmory]

I am certian the Human rights coalition is planning that next strategy. Back in 1996 when only 15 states had domas, they were shopping for a state to impose marriage via FFC.

The good news is statory construction can be used. As an incorporation of a common law concept. The definition of what is a man and what is a woman will have to be given the broadest protection. This happens sometimes in divorce courts where one of the people has had a sex change. Generally the court treats the gender confused as whatever they were born as.

I am unfamiliar with the various state laws on the subject of sex change and ability to marry. I am aware the many states go by your birth. Birth defects like xxy or xxxy usually do not live that long.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for the post and ping. This article answers my previous question/comment to you.

Apparently the Legislature asked about Civil Unions and the Lib MassSC came out with their ruling.

The advisory opinion was issued about three months after the court's original ruling that same-sex couples were entitled to all the benefits of marriage. That ruling prompted the Senate to ask if civil unions would satisfy the court.

Wednesday's opinion left no doubt.

[randita]

It will take until 2006 for the MA Constitution to be amended. In the meantime, hundreds, if not thousands of gay couples will be married in MA. Those from DOMA states will go home and challenge their state's laws. This will end up before the SCOTUS before the MA Constitution is amended, I believe.

[dr_lew]

No, the answer is Impeachment .

This was my thought, but can this happen? Is it too late? It really seems so.

On the other hand, I can imagine various forms of mass revolt. This ruling seems like it crossed some kind of line, but did it?

[longtermmemmory]

not if mass suspends the issuance of all marriage licenses.