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

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, February 6, 2004

[kittymyrib]

The next amendment to the Constitution should make it possible for a vote of 60% of the states to be able to expel any state that is deemed a threat to the liberty of said states. Our founding fathers really screwed up when they didn't leave us a mechanism for throwing out states that have no business belonging to "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
And now there are actually people thinking that this cesspool that gave us Ted Kennedy all these years should give us a president too. It boggles the mind.

[tuesday afternoon]

Folks who are engaged in immoral choices have little tolerance for hearing about how their choices are indeed immoral.

Ah, but if a state were to give "sanctity" to an otherwise "immoral" activity then there is no need to worry about what that church says anymore. In fact, if the right hate-crime laws are passed then maybe ... just perhaps ... we can shut down those voices who say such things all together.

Bump.

[White Eagle]

Incest may not be allowed now, but the basic purpose of marriage as we know it today (knew it before this Mass. thing got started) is to bring children into the world and provide a stable environment for raising them.

A same-sex marriage does not allow for the two people to have their own child naturally. So, once marriage becomes about the parents and not the children, all the old rules can be eliminated. If you're not going to have children, who cares if you marry your sister, or parent, or child?

I'm not planning anything like that myself, but I can see this as a primary unintended consequence. And wait until you can marry your clone, so you can pass along your wealth with lower taxes....

[DMZFrank]

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Massachuttsetts does not have the right to redefine marriage for 49 other states.

This amendment should not be necessary. The Massachuttsetts officials should do their duty, ignore this ruling and impeach the justices who enacted it and ordered this extra-constitutional legislation. That would render this brohaha about a constitutional amendment unnecessary.

[Bubba_Leroy]

I don't disagree with you at all, but the court decisions promoting homosexual marriage have nothing to do with law, logic or morality. It is nothing but raw politics. The homosexual activists have political power - enough to get what they want imposed by judicial fiat when they have no possibility of getting it through majority vote. The advocates of incest and polygamy have no political power.