[JohnHuang2]

Friday, February 6, 2004

Quote of the Day by river rat

[counterpunch]

[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?

[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

[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.

[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

[Chances Are]

While I agree something must be done, we have to be very careful about this Constitutional amendment thing. Not the amendment per se, but the fact that to enact it, a Constitutional Convention must be held.

There is nothing in constitutional law, or case law (to the best of my knowledge), that can restrict a ConCon to one issue. Unless great care is taken, and mighty political force brought to bear constantly and consistently, this could end up a disasterous Trojan horse.

As we all know, there are a great many forces out there that would salivate (uncontrollably!) at the prospect of a ConCon that they could hijack for their own nefarious purposes.

If we do go down this road, then now, more than ever, will eternal vigilance be required.

Be careful, my friends. We are entering dangerous times...

CA....

[A. Patriot]

Question: If the States have to recognize Massachusetts homosexual marriages because of the "full faith and credit" provision of the U.S. Constitution, then does Massachusetts have to recognize my state issued permit to carry a concealed weapon?

[jla]

^

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

More on the state of Massachusetts.

Reminds me of Paul Revere.

[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.

[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.