Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Won't Bar Start Of Mass. Gay Marriages
NBC 4 news ^
| May 14,2004
| NBC News
Posted on 05/14/2004 4:42:47 PM PDT by pollywog
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to intervene in the same-sex marriages law in Mass. Truly a sad day for America.
TOPICS: Breaking News; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: articleiv; constitution; coupdetat; gay; homosexual; homosexualagenda; marriage; massachusetts; samesex; samesexmarriage; scotus; supremejudicialcourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 281-294 next last
To: My Dog Likes Me
I heard on a local talk show how the state is going to verify that the couples are residents of Massachusetts for these marriages. The state is going to take their word for it. I'm sure these couples wont lie. /sarcasm
I'm almost glad to see this happen. The only way to wake people up to the Gaystapo's agenda is a fire hose of cold water in the face. I tried to explain fistgate to people here in the South. Every politically aware person I know are just as horrified as I am, but the masses are not only unaware, but don't believe such a thing can happen when told. Their reaction is about the same as if I told them the plot of a far fetched science fiction movie.
101
posted on
05/15/2004 1:42:06 AM PDT
by
Hillarys Gate Cult
(Proud member of the right wing extremist Neanderthals.)
To: Lunatic Fringe
The Supreme Court should have NO jurisdiction in how a state issues licenses. Niether should the MA Supreme Judicial Court.
102
posted on
05/15/2004 2:16:14 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: Lurking Libertarian
That's why not even Scalia or Rehnquist voted to intervene. It was unanimous? I only heard the brief squib on the radio.
103
posted on
05/15/2004 2:17:55 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: PISANO
Unelected Judges just wiped out a 1000 years of human practice and culture and REDIFINED a WORD that now has NO MEANING whatsoever. I think it's more like 5,000 or 6,000 years. Polygamy has a much better claim historically to acceptance.
104
posted on
05/15/2004 2:20:08 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: pawdoggie
P.S. as to why Scalia and Rehnquist chose not to involve themselves in this matter: while it's possible that their Republicanism has made them shortsighted in this matter, it's more likely that they simply recognize that the majority of their "brothers" and "sisters" on the court are too far to the Left PC to rule against the Mass Supreme Court (especially in light of the recent Texas sodomy case). Didn't Scalia point out in his dissent to the TX sodomy case that it left no obstacle to gay marriage? The majority opinion, I believe, discounted this as scaremongering.
105
posted on
05/15/2004 2:22:42 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: seamole
Massachusetts no longer has a government, but a junta of demons. No kidding! What exactly is the point (or practice) of "representative government" if the courts trump the executive and the legislature (and now the dictionary)? Not that the MA legislature is anything to brag about.
106
posted on
05/15/2004 2:25:59 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: dep
any chance of getting the massachusetts supreme judicial court to undertaske the sideline of cellphone tower installation in iraq? Good one! Maybe the MA legislature could go too, as apprentices!
107
posted on
05/15/2004 2:27:12 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: marbren
Next they will try to destroy Christianity. Next? I think they've been working busily on it; the marriage thing is one element.
108
posted on
05/15/2004 2:28:41 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: marbren
Has barney seen the Iraq homo pictures? Howie Carr said something yesterday about how "There's a reason why Barney Frank was the first into the room to look at them," but I had just gotten home; I didn't hear the context and don't know whether he was serious or sardonic.
109
posted on
05/15/2004 2:30:38 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: Hillarys Gate Cult
This has been an exhausting & horrifying week for news that, for me, has placed this gay marriage issue in proper perspective.
I just don't care. If two people, of any sex, love each other and commit - they should have the right to get married. There is too much hate in the world for me to be concerned about people of a different ilk wanting to have their love for one another formally recognized by the government.
I say this as a Catholic. My Christ would frown on the sin but rejoice at the love. I can't explain it any further, as I'm not very bright.
And, folks, this ain't liberal, rather, it is very libertarian. See the movie "Sling Blade" and tell me I'm wrong. John Ritter's best performance!
To: oceanview
we won't be able to get one of the liberal SCOTUS justices replaced in time to prevent a 5-4 ruling tossing the Federal defense of marriage act. Don't shoot the messenger. Where do you see 5-4? I see 6-3.
111
posted on
05/15/2004 2:35:54 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: MississippiMan
To say the least, our current era looks a little more like "the days of Lot" with each passing day. Lots of periods have thought that they were in the end days; I learned in a literature class that architecture in Europe pretty much ground to halt in the 50 years or so preceding AD 1000; no point in building anything that won't last.
One thing keeps coming back to me, however. When I was in college in the late 60s, there was a spurt of enthusiasm for Nostradamus -- no tin foil hat flames, please.
I read a bit (very little), and was bemused by Nostradamus' notion that the the final battle would be against Islam; I sort of assumed at the time that Islam was a thing of nomads still wandering in the desert and wondered if it was meant symbolically (e.g., for the Soviet Union or Red China). As I say, it was a passing and casual interest, and I don't recall anything else; but for some reason, that stuck.
112
posted on
05/15/2004 2:45:39 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
Thereafter, only a contitutional amendment will set things right. Would a new amendment have to pass Supreme Court muster? We really have come to the point where the courts trump the executive and legislative. Lots of stuff on how we got here, but I don't seem to see anything about how to get out.
113
posted on
05/15/2004 2:47:28 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: rwfromkansas
the issue was the state Constitution, not the federal. From what I hear, the MA constitution explicitly reserves marriage to the legislature, except as delegated.
114
posted on
05/15/2004 2:54:27 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: My Dog Likes Me
If you drive to Mass. from Alabama and manage to get married, your marriage can't be legally recognized in any of the other 49 states, There's a 1913 law on the books in MA that no marriage can be performed that would be invalid in the home state of the participants. Mitt wants it enforced, but several town clerks have already announced publicly that they will disregard it.
115
posted on
05/15/2004 2:57:19 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: pollywog
A strict reading of the Constitution leaves the Supremes no choice....States have this right
116
posted on
05/15/2004 4:25:36 AM PDT
by
The Raven
(<<----Click Screen name to see why I vote the way I do.)
To: k2blader
Gay marriage may bring about defeat in the WOT.
117
posted on
05/15/2004 4:31:31 AM PDT
by
marbren
To: pollywog
I am a Christian also, I think It is too late to save America.
118
posted on
05/15/2004 4:32:48 AM PDT
by
marbren
To: PISANO
Unelected Judges just wiped out a 1000 5000 years of human practice and culture and REDIFINED a WORD that now has NO MEANING whatsoever.
119
posted on
05/15/2004 4:36:00 AM PDT
by
reg45
To: rwfromkansas
Here is a question for those of you who think Gay people are "born that way". Sodom and Gomarrah was 100% gay. Were the all "born that way"?
120
posted on
05/15/2004 4:40:08 AM PDT
by
marbren
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 281-294 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