Skip to comments.
Poll shows growing opposition to gay marriage in MA
Capital News 9 ^
| 22 February 2004
| Capital News 9 web staff, Associated Press
Posted on 02/22/2004 1:11:22 PM PST by MegaSilver
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
To: MegaSilver
I guess the gays shot the wad so to speak. Now to remove the activist judges from the court.
2
posted on
02/22/2004 1:15:05 PM PST
by
CzarNicky
(The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
To: CzarNicky
How? The Massachusetts "electorate" is not allowed to vote.
3
posted on
02/22/2004 1:25:04 PM PST
by
Diogenesis
(If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
To: CzarNicky; MegaSilver
Gay marriage is a weapon of Mass destruction!
Gay marriage is a weapon of Mass. destruction!
Gay marriage is a weapon of Mass. destruction!
Gay marriage is a weapon of Mass. destruction!
Gay marriage is a weapon of Mass. destruction!
Gay marriage is a weapon of Mass. destruction!
4
posted on
02/22/2004 1:27:43 PM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: Diogenesis
"How? The Massachusetts "electorate" is not allowed to vote."
there are other ways to skin a cat.
5
posted on
02/22/2004 1:31:18 PM PST
by
CzarNicky
(The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
To: CzarNicky
there are other ways to skin a cat.Are any of them legal?
6
posted on
02/22/2004 1:37:55 PM PST
by
MegaSilver
(Coulter/Harris 2008)
To: Paleo Conservative
I have questions. How long do you think we can assume there will be two people in a marriage? Or that a marriage partner must be human? Or animate? Or alive?
7
posted on
02/22/2004 1:38:11 PM PST
by
esquirette
(Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there.)
To: esquirette
I have questions. How long do you think we can assume there will be two people in a marriage? Or that a marriage partner must be human? Or animate? Or alive? If current trends continue... gays get to "marry"; and marriage becomes less desirable because of the way husbands and fathers are treated in divorce... eventually it will be mainly gays that "marry" (whatever it comes to mean then), and everyone else will co-habit. Marriage will lose its meaning and common law marriage will become more commonplace.
To: esquirette
That may explain why Gov. Romney (MA) is mute vs. Gov. Arnold (CA).
Romney supports polygamy or must be tolerant of such so has done NOTHING.
If hypothesis is true, then watch for Utah to support this, too.
9
posted on
02/22/2004 1:49:33 PM PST
by
Diogenesis
(If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
To: MegaSilver
Gee! They're starting to wake up--even in Taxachusetts.
To: esquirette
We can't!
11
posted on
02/22/2004 1:53:11 PM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: Paleo Conservative
12
posted on
02/22/2004 1:53:56 PM PST
by
Grig
To: CzarNicky
Let me explain something to you non-Massachusians...
MOST OF US are not lefty nutcases.
We are just at the mercy of Bostonian cronyism.
To: MegaSilver
last I heard impeachment was still legal. In the end I don't particularly care what the means are.
14
posted on
02/22/2004 2:05:05 PM PST
by
CzarNicky
(The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
To: Diogenesis
How? The Massachusetts "electorate" is not allowed to vote.We don't have a direct democracy here in Mass. The rulers take polls, and if it is going their way, we get to vote. If it looks like they might not get the results they want, we don't get to vote. -Tom
15
posted on
02/22/2004 2:05:40 PM PST
by
Capt. Tom
(Don't confuse the Bushies with the dumb republicans. - Capt. Tom)
To: MegaSilver
Only in Massachusetts could this be considered news.
To: MegaSilver
And I'll bet if they took a REAL poll, the answer would be closer to 65% against. This is going to be interesting. Maybe there's going to be another Boston Tea Party.
17
posted on
02/22/2004 2:12:25 PM PST
by
McGavin999
(Evil thrives when good men do nothing!)
To: esquirette
I have questions. How long do you think we can assume there will be two people in a marriage? Or that a marriage partner must be human? Or animate? Or alive?Too late! A woman in France just married her fiancee who has been dead for over a year. Viva la France, eh?! And kerry is an internationalist who thinks they are so much smarter than us dumb Americans.
TC
18
posted on
02/22/2004 2:31:36 PM PST
by
I_be_tc
To: Diogenesis
Romney supports POLYGAMY!!! I find that hard to believe.
19
posted on
02/22/2004 2:34:33 PM PST
by
Chris Talk
(What Earth now is, Mars once was. What Mars now is, Earth will become.)
To: CzarNicky
We are lead to believe that the legal definition of marriage discriminates and denies equal protection of the law. But does it really discriminate and deny equal protection of the law?
Does it prevent a women from marrying? No! Does it prohibit a black women from marrying? Of course not. How about a black man, does it prohibit a black man from marrying? Surely not. Then what specific individual can claim the legal definition of marriage discriminates so as to not allow them to marry? Seems to me the legal definition of marriage is open to all.
The only identifiable individual who might cry discrimination is one who may be sexually challenged i.e.; a male who believes he is a female, or a female who believes she is a male, but even so, the definition of marriage is in fact equally applicable to all, even to homosexuals as a homosexual male may marry a homosexual female and live happily ever after.
The truth is, the sexually challenged who now cry want something other than marriage and the question is, should the state support whatever it is and license it?
In addition, it is also claimed there is a wanting of proof that a compelling state interest exists for the statutory definition of marriage to prevail. But no one under our system of law is required to prove a compelling state interest exists for a legislative act to be constitutional, and, our judges are not their to engage in activism and second guess the wisdom of a state legislature by requiring a compelling state interest to be shown to them to give their judicial blessing to a legislative act .
On the other hand, those who now cry that equal protection of the law is denied them by the legal definition of marriage and attack a statute as being unconstitutional, do carry the burden of proving the act is unconstitutional: seeBALDWIN v. STATE OF MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586 (1930)
The burden is not on the state to establish the constitutionality of its laws, nor are we limited in supporting their constitutionality to the reasons assigned by the state court . I do not assume, from anything that has been said in this or the earlier cases, that constitutional power to tax the transfer of notes and bonds at their business situs, no longer exists. As this Court has often held, the burden rests upon him who assails a statute to [281 U.S. 586, 599] establish its unconstitutionality. Upon this ambiguous record it is for the appellant to show that the stock and bonds subjected to the tax had no business situs within the taxing jurisdiction. See No. 454, Corporation Commission of Oklahoma v. Lowe, 281 U.S. 431 , 50 S. Ct. 397, 74 L. Ed. -, decided May 19, 1930, No. 485, Toombs v. Citizens Bank of Waynesboro, 281 U.S. 643 , 50 S. Ct. 434, 74 L. Ed. -, decided this day. Mr. Justice HOLMES and Mr. Justice BRANDEIS join in this opinion .
JWK
ACRS
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness."___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
20
posted on
02/22/2004 2:44:05 PM PST
by
JOHN W K
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson