States to Massachusetts court: We don't think so!

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, February 6, 2004

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, February 6, 2004

Quote of the Day by river rat

[counterpunch]

[usurper]

Man, warn us before you do that. I spilled my coffie.

[Dalan]

Hilarious! Gawd, how awful it is to be a Massachusetts resident. Those two pieces of scum are "my" Senators!

Oh, the humiliation.

[2banana]

Since the State Judicial Supreme Court of Massachusetts does not follow the law what obligation does the legislative branch and executive branch have to follow their made up laws?

[StonyBurk]

I believe this marriage issue will be debated. I also believe the Mass. Judiciary is just as political as that
down in Al. Judge Moore took his stand on the Rule of Law
and was removed for purely political purpose.(got to get
the President's pick [Pryor] confirmed. The Rule of Law was
violated in Al . As it probably will be in Mass. In Al. they
said it was about the Ten Commandments, and Roy Moore defying a Federal Court mandate.But like Ed Carnes said it
was about how th ecourts have interpeted the constitution
for years. In Mass. they claim it's about civil rights--but
it is about the power of unelected officials there just like it was in Al.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

With attorneys in tow, anyone can arrange almost anything in terms of a civil agreement as to how one's property, finances, even hospital visitation or inheritance is to be allocated. Hence "civil unions" have always existed.

So why does the court in Massachusetts insist on "marriage" for gay couples?

Obviously, to destroy the word "marriage" as it has traditionally been known.

It is an exercise in Newspeak, like much of socialist liberal moderate rhetoric.

And as such it is not a special case, and should not be addressed by a constitutional amendment. Any more than you would use a sledge hammer on a fly, even if you could be sure of hitting it. This must be dispatched with a flyswatter, ordinary legislative/executive process.

Pass a law expressing the sense of the Congress that the first federal judge who supports this con will be impeached. Then do it. And if the Senate vote fails to convict, repeat the process; impeach the next one. Don't take no for an answer.

[agitator]

This is a state where the SJC says if you get drunk in your living room, walk out into your backyard and get behind the wheel of a car parked in your back yard then fall asleep there, you can be charged and convicted of DUI even though the engine never started and the car never moved an inch off the grass of your back yard.

Is anybody really surprised at what happens here when the inmates are in charge of the asylum?

[JohnHuang2]

Good question.

[Sacajaweau]

Hate to one up but I have the ultimate immoral Senator here in New York.

[JohnHuang2]

Is anybody really surprised at what happens here when the inmates are in charge of the asylum?

Bears repeating...

[White Eagle]

Take the whole thing a step further. As long as there are estate taxes, would new laws regarding same-sex marriage also allow legal incest, so that children could marry a parent just before the parent passes on? That would allow the spouse exemption to the child which does not apply under current law. Inquiring minds want to know...

[Gefreiter]

"...John Kerry is the "favored son" of his home state that is strongly advancing the homosexual marriage march"

No, no, and no.

In perpetually impoverished western MA, Kerry is not particularly well liked. Nor Kennedy, who once described Springfield as on the NY border... no one in charge on Boston has any clue what people need out here, let alone,as in Kennedy's case, where "here" is.

As for the SJC decision. I'm not opposed to civil union, and I'm not opposed to homosexual couples trying to be happy and do the best they can like everyone else. It's applying the word "marriage" to their relationship that I don't like, and the fact that the SJC just declared a new law. That cannot stand. Or we can just dispense with the representative legislative body in toto, if the appointed SJC is going to start writing new laws.

[Saundra Duffy]

BUMP

[ejo]

"Awful".. As a new jersyite, I acknowledge your pain!

[TheOldSchool]

If the state of Alabama is forced to accept this kind of "marriage", then the state of Massachusetts should be forced to accept my permit to carry a gun.

[Bubba_Leroy]

Incestuous marriages will still not be allowed, even though every argument for allowing two men to marry applies equally to allowing a man to marry his mother. Same thing with polygamy. The incest and polygamy proponents just don't have nearly the political pull as the homosexuals.

[rface]

then the state of Massachusetts should be forced to accept my permit to carry a gun.....<

maybe they do.....(but probably not)

[drc43]

I doubt whether any amendment to the Constitution will protect marriage. We already have one providing for the right to bear arms, but it is widely disputed and in the case of Illinois, out right defied.

What will make this any different?

[EdReform]

Ping

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.0)

Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search