Posted on 02/09/2004 9:40:19 PM PST by kattracks
The following is an imagined interview with the Massachusetts Supreme Court justices who ruled that Massachusetts must redefine marriage to include persons of the same sex.
Q: Every higher civilization has defined marriage as an institution joining members of the opposite sex. Did you take this into account before rendering your judgment to redefine marriage?
A: Frankly, we couldn't care less how so-called "higher civilizations" have defined marriage. They were all wrong.
Q: How do you so easily dismiss the accumulated wisdom of all higher civilization?
A: Because liberals value feelings, not wisdom. And our feelings led us to the decision to force Massachusetts to redefine marriage.
Q: And what did you feel?
A: That what the world needs is more love.
Q: But no one has challenged anyone's right to love anyone. You didn't rule on love, you ruled on the definition of marriage.
A: Marriage is an expression of love.
Q: If love is the issue, will you also rule in favor of people marrying more than one person they love? That will surely increase love in the world.
A: We chose not to address that issue in our verdict.
Q: What about an adult brother and sister who love each other and want to get married?
A: We chose not to address that issue in our verdict.
Q: But if love is the criterion, where is your logical or moral consistency in denying marriage to a person who loves two people or to two people who love each other but just happen to be in the same family?
A: As we noted earlier, we operated on feelings, and our primary feeling is compassion for gays. Feelings and compassion, not logic and reason or concern for preserving higher civilization, are what make us liberals.
Q: Where is your compassion for children?
A: What do children have to do with our decision?
Q: It will now be far easier for children to be adopted by same-sex couples. This means that in the case of two married men, children will be deprived of a mother from birth and forever; and in the marriage of two women, children will be deprived of a father from birth and forever.
A: We do not believe that a child is better off with a mother and a father. All a child is needs love.
Q: So the liberal understanding is that mothers are entirely unnecessary?
A: As we said, all a child needs is love. And we have compassion for gays.
Q: Why not leave such a civilization-changing decision to the American people or at least to their elected representatives?
A: We don't trust the American people. Half of them vote Republican, vast numbers believe in the Bible, even many Democrats are not as enlightened as we are, and most Americans do not have our compassion for gays.
Q: Doesn't it smack of hubris for four people to coerce millions of people into redefining the single most important human institution?
A: When you are more enlightened and more compassionate than others, you recognize the limitations of democracy, and you make the world better in any way you can.
Q: You consider yourselves more enlightened and more compassionate than all the wise men and women in history, than all the religions of the world, than the Bible?
A: No question about it. We went to law school, and we have compassion for gays.
Q: If your decision remains the law of your state, as little girls begin seeing women married to women in the media and in life, when they think about marriage, they will consider marrying a woman, not only a man. Does that trouble you?
A: Even if it did, we would still have compassion for gays.
Q: Are you saying, then, that you would be just as happy if young children see two women or two men kissing as you would if they saw a man and a woman kissing? That you don't care if your own children marry someone of the same sex? That you would be just as happy at your child's wedding, if your son married a man or if your daughter married a woman?
A: No, we would not say those things. But we have compassion for gays.
Q: So, because of compassion for gays, you are prepared to subvert democracy, destroy the family unit as civilization has always defined it, cause children to begin to imagine marrying a person of their own sex, and declare that mothers have nothing distinctive to give to a child that two men cannot give and vice versa?
A: Now you know how important compassion is to us liberals.
©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Had this Judge done what judicial ethics clearly require, and gotten off the case, the result would have been a 3-3 tie on the SJC. And as examples from the Supreme Court show, when the high court reaches a tie on any case, the decision of the lower court is then AFFIRMED but no majority decision is issued, of course.
Not only is this decision bad law, for violating the separation of powers by taking legislive powers into judicial hands, it also is grossly unethical. I cannot understand why the defenders of the Massachusetts law did not demand that this biased judge remove herself from the case.
Congressman Billybob
Is this for real?
Is this for real?
However, this will amount to a classic case of locking the barn door after the horse is stolen, as no discipline against the Chief Justice would straighten out the two bad decisions that are already a matter of record from that court.
Congressman Billybob
Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay.
Therefore, the Defense of Marriage Act is a political fig leaf. It will make Congress look like they are doing something, and "kick the can down the road" by making the problem go poof before the impending election. In short, the "solution" is a fraud.
Congressman Billybob
Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay.
The next big issue I see coming very soon will be people who consider themselves "polyamorous". Will the same yardstick be used to evaluate their relationships? Surely they also cannot be discriminated against for their sexual preference now can they?
The law schools are achieving leftist goals because
students are only given a lopsided socialist dogma education.
This is a excerpt from an article on the unhealty
dominance of homosexual advocates from within
the legal profession.
One of the most insightfuland disturbingwindows on the view
of the legal profession (at least some very influential members of it)
on marriage, comes through in an examination of the recently approved
Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution (Principles) put together
by the American Law Institute (ALI).332 The historic contributions of
the ALI towards legal changes have not necessarily been salutary.333
But aspects of the recent Principles are particularly troubling.
One disturbing part of the Principles is chapter 6, which recommends
the creation of certain rights to be made available to unmarried
couples on the dissolution of their relationship. This chapter defines
domestic partners as two persons of the same or opposite sex, not
married to one another, who for a significant period of time share a primary
residence and a life together as a couple.334 Later, the Principles
use the following description: In general, domestic partners are two persons
of the same or opposite sex, not married to one another, who for a
significant period of time share a primary residence and a life together as
a couple.335
Perhaps most startling in this proposal is the fact that a couple
can establish a domestic partnership with a partner even if they are
married to someone else!336 The Principles would provide to domestic
partners many of the rights associated with marriage, including concepts
analogous to marital property, property division, and alimony.337
Further, the Principles create new statuses of de facto parents and
parents by estoppel who are adults close to the child that will be given
status equal to the biological parent of the child.338 Obviously, unmarried
partners of a childs biological parent, such as same-sex partners, are the
most likely beneficiaries of such a policy.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1074970/posts?page=1
What federal grounds could there possibly be to reverse this decision on a state constitutional issue? And if you think the federal judiciary is not going to do its darnedest to impose same sex marriage on the rest of the nation in due course, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.