Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MA Legislature Gives Preliminary Approval to State Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
FNC

Posted on 03/11/2004 3:01:24 PM PST by William McKinley

Another Fox News alert.


TOPICS: Breaking News; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: civilunion; cults; homosexualagenda; marriage; marriageamendment; perverts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last
To: george wythe
Thanks. I must be having a TIA, because I couldn't find that anywhere.

I'll just put on my dunce cap now...

21 posted on 03/11/2004 4:16:37 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: King Black Robe
That's like saying you can keep the title to your house but you must give up the house.

The difference appears to be that by putting them into the category of "civil unions", it immunizes them against applications of the full-faith&credit clause of the U.S. Constitution so they can't be imposed on other states.

22 posted on 03/11/2004 4:18:58 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stopem
No they didn't - they simply ruled that SanFagsisco had to stop doing them until the California Supremes were able to take up the issue in May or June. (AS reported on Fox News).
23 posted on 03/11/2004 4:19:08 PM PST by TheBattman (leadership = http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: King Black Robe
But it will still be 2006 before it is voted on I think. In the meantime marriages will take place.

Their House Speaker is looking to delay issuance of marriage licenses as long as possible. I wish him success in that.

What they really need to do is impeach 4 justices.

I wholeheartedly agree.

24 posted on 03/11/2004 4:21:45 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: inquest
No. The FFC doesn't specify marriage, it just mentions contracts. That's why congress rushed in with the DOMA after Vermont courts decreed civil unions onto their state. It doesn't make a dimes worth of difference, other than it offers cover if and when a FMA passes. MA will still have their marriage and it will be written into the constitution instead of just represented by legislation that is much easier to repeal. I don't know if the FMA would nulify existing court-ordered shotgun queer weddings or not, but it wouldn't nulify this since this is not what the court ordered. This is a stupid move. They should just impeach the justices.
25 posted on 03/11/2004 4:23:58 PM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping -

The same theme song - starting with Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah NYAAH Nyah.... ;-))))

If anyone wants on/off this ping list, you know what to do.
26 posted on 03/11/2004 4:28:23 PM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King Black Robe
The FFC doesn't specify marriage, it just mentions contracts. That's why congress rushed in with the DOMA after Vermont courts decreed civil unions onto their state.

If that's the case, then the federal DOMA is effective and not in danger of being struck down. There've so far been no cases where a civil-unioned same-sex couple from Vermont have forced other states to recognize their union, despite the fact that Vermont's law has been in place for a few years now.

27 posted on 03/11/2004 4:32:21 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: inquest
In a perfect balance of power world. But our SCOTUS might decide otherwise. You can bank on the fact that the left will sue..and sue...and sue....and sue....and sue....until they finally get what the want: Nationalized gay marriage.

Rule No. 1: Know your enemy. They are relentless.

28 posted on 03/11/2004 4:36:34 PM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: King Black Robe
"Rule No. 1: Know your enemy. They are relentless."

Exactly. They homo's are using the court to achieve what they can't through legislative acts. It's time we held the courts accountable for their actions.

29 posted on 03/11/2004 5:49:47 PM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: King Black Robe
which is why conservatives need to gradually start collateral attacks on the homosexual lifestyle as a choice. The entire homosexual rights theseis is that it is not a choice in how they get sexual gratification. We can win this.

Homosexuals don't want nationalized homosexual marriage, they want mandatory normalcy of homosexual sex taught to children.

Homosexuals are motivated by sexual gratification.
30 posted on 03/12/2004 12:18:16 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Legislators telling nine black robes where to stick it would make a welcome trend.
31 posted on 03/12/2004 6:47:38 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
It was a 5-4 decision.
32 posted on 03/12/2004 11:38:34 AM PST by Kahonek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
ouch, that is the compromise version that FORCES Mass to adopt civil unions! what about a version that simply outlaws same-sex marriage and leaves the rest to the lege???

33 posted on 03/12/2004 3:22:36 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kahonek
Mass SC was a 4-3 decision.

34 posted on 03/12/2004 3:23:26 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
ouch, that is the compromise version that FORCES Mass to adopt civil unions! what about a version that simply outlaws same-sex marriage and leaves the rest to the lege???

The chance of such narrow ban passing in Massachusetts is about the same chance of a snowball to survive in hell.

35 posted on 03/12/2004 3:25:44 PM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: King Black Robe
But also understand that 'civil unions' is de facto marriage.

It's a way for the gay rights lobby to win by losing. They 'lose' the title but get all the accoutrements.
This is what has already happened in Cali.

Then they wait 10 years for those 'families' to get more embedded and get agitating to 'full recognition'. It wont end.
36 posted on 03/12/2004 3:26:46 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
I am convinced this is a defeat for conservatives.

A victory for Conservatives would have simply said:

"It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Nothing in this Constitution can be construed to give rights of marriage to same-sex couples."
37 posted on 03/12/2004 3:28:54 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Oops. Thanks...
38 posted on 03/12/2004 3:29:03 PM PST by Kahonek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
"ouch, that is the compromise version that FORCES Mass to adopt civil unions! what about a version that simply outlaws same-sex marriage and leaves the rest to the lege???
The chance of such narrow ban passing in Massachusetts is about the same chance of a snowball to survive in hell."

Well the people would vote for it, for sure.

What is the lege really leaning towards. How many are pro-gay-marriage?
39 posted on 03/12/2004 3:32:44 PM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
This is so far from being over.. It's a pity they're gonna force civil unions onto the people as well.

Interesting site here:
http://www.liberty-ca.org/

"A domestic partnership has no civil purpose, for it can be nothing more than a recognition that two people love each other and may be in a deviant (non-procreative) sexual relationship. Neither an acknowledgement of love or deviant sexual activity has a valid governmental purpose in a secular society.

Citizens should not be encouraged with tax incentives by the government to engage in deviant sexual activity, which may bring about disease and community degradation."

40 posted on 03/12/2004 3:34:57 PM PST by Trillian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson