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

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 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-294 next last
To: KQQL

1. The USSC does indeed have appellate jurisdiction over the rulings of a state supreme court. That does not mean that it made the right or wrong decision here; but to suggest that the USSC has no jurisdiction over a state supreme court is constitutionally wrong per Article III of the US Constitution.

2. I agree that the real danger is that the USSC will ultimately rule the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional.

3. Politically, this is great for Bush and the GOP and, as gay couples come back to their respective states this summer and demand recognition, support for the amendment will mushroom.

4. Those whining about Bush not exercising sufficient political capital on this are wrong. He is way out in front on this matter and, frankly, his role is finished. it is now up to the Congress and the state legislatures. The president has no further constitutional role in an amendment to the US Constitution.


141 posted on 05/15/2004 8:13:30 AM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
"The sanctity of my marriage is not impacted by the actions of either heterosexual or homosexual individuals."

"Impacted"??

No, merely obliterated into little pieces the way ALL past and honorable tradition is being obliterated.

What we are surrendering to is the paving of way for the "new, improved sanctity" of Secular Humanism's 'New World Order.'

142 posted on 05/15/2004 8:18:48 AM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: marbren

I've never really been able to get behind the Falwell, Robertson line of thinking. With all due respect, that's what your post sounds like.


143 posted on 05/15/2004 8:23:56 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: maryz

Yes, lots of periods have thought they were in the end days. For some reason, though, they felt comfortable ignoring certain prophecies that could not have been in play at the time, or else had some pretty bizarre interpretations on prophecies and their fulfillment.

There are many elements in play, of course, but the KEY one that sets our era apart is the re-formation of Israel nearly sixty years ago. That's a cornerstone of endtime prophecy that was always missing in past watches, and the one IMO that set the clock ticking.

Very interesting on the Nostradamus Islam thing. I didn't know that. Very interesting. I must look into that. Thanks for sharing.

MM


144 posted on 05/15/2004 8:36:05 AM PDT by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: dmz

There is absolute truth out there, we have to find it. I would rather have the truth than political correctness.


145 posted on 05/15/2004 8:44:24 AM PDT by marbren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: marbren

The truth is, marriage is between a man and a woman. God set it up this way.


146 posted on 05/15/2004 8:46:15 AM PDT by marbren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
"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.

Your handle; "My Dog Likes Me". Maybe your Dog "Loves" you.

This has nothing to do with love. I love my daughter. I love my mother, I love my neighbor. I love my cat. I love my dog.

This has to do with perverted sex and wanting the government to recognize it.

147 posted on 05/15/2004 8:51:52 AM PDT by Spunky ("Everyone has a freedom of choice, but not of consequences.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
"And thanks to the full faith and credit clause, if I understand this correctly, can't MA use that to shove their definition of marriage down the rest of the nation's colective throat?

"Despite the basic rule that a marriage valid where contracted is valid everywhere, the courts and validation statutes have universally recognized a number of exceptions, which may be condensed and simply stated as follows: A marriage valid where contracted will nevertheless not be recognized as valid in the forum state if such recognition would be contrary to a strong public policy of the forum state. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 283(2) comment f (1971) (marriage valid where contracted will be recognized as valid everywhere unless it violates the strong public policy of another state which has the most significant relationship to the spouses of the marriage); e.g., Fattibene v. Fattibene, 183 Conn. 433, 441 A.2d 3 (1981) (Connecticut need not recognize marriage that violates strong public policy of state); In re Estate of Loughmiller, 229 Kan. 584, 629 P.2d 156 (1981) (listing exceptions to validation statute, including marriage that is polygamous, incestuous, or prohibited by the state for public policy reason); K. v. K., 90 Misc. 2d 183, 393 N.Y.S.2d 534 (Fam. Ct. 1977) (court called upon to decide whether law of Poland, which requires civil ceremony in addition to religious ceremony, was repugnant to law of New York); Kelderhaus v. Kelderhaus, 21 Va. App. 721, 467 S.E.2d 303 (1996) (general statement that marriage's validity is to be determined by law of state where marriage took place, unless result would be repugnant to Virginia public policy).

There are three commonly recognized categories of marriages contracted in another state that will not be recognized in the forum state. First, marriages that are contracted by domiciliaries of the forum state in another state for the express purpose of evading the law of the forum state are deemed invalid. E.g., Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216 (1934) (marriage entered into in Florida, in violation of D.C. prohibition against remarriage within certain amount of time after prior divorce, invalid in D.C.); Barbosa-Johnson v. Johnson, 174 Ariz. 567, 851 P.2d 866 (Ct. App. 1993) (appellate court holding that evidence did not sustain finding that parties had married in Puerto Rico for the purpose of evading the law of Arizona). See generally Uniform Marriage Evasion Act, 9 U.L.A. 480 (1942) (N.B.: The Uniform Marriage Evasion Act is superseded by the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, and was officially withdrawn from consideration by the drafters in 1943).

Second, states have refused to recognize marriages that are solemnized in sister states when the parties are of a level of sanguinity that is forbidden in the forum state. E.g., McMorrow v. Schweiker, 561 F. Supp. 584 (D.N.J. 1982) (rule recognizing foreign marriages does not apply to incestuous marriages); Catalano v. Catalano, 148 Conn. 288, 170 A.2d 726 (1961); In re May's Estate, 305 N.Y. 486, 114 N.E.2d 14 (1953).

Third, states have refused to recognize marriages that are solemnized in sister states when the parties are not deemed of sufficient age to marry, as determined in the forum state. E.g., Wilkins v. Zelchowski, 26 N.J. 370, 140 A.2d 65 (1958).

Source

The first thing we need to do, is to prepare our defenses. The first line of defense is a Marriage Amewndment in each and every State defining marriage as one man, one woman.

148 posted on 05/15/2004 8:53:14 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Sin Pátria, pero sin amo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: marbren
"God set it up this way."

The problem is that government is conducting the ceremony.

149 posted on 05/15/2004 8:54:18 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Sin Pátria, pero sin amo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
"Obliterate" is what we (heterosexuals) have nearly done to it.
150 posted on 05/15/2004 8:55:21 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Sin Pátria, pero sin amo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
The Supreme Court should have NO jurisdiction in how a state issues licenses.

While I tend to agree, what then is the recourse when the process to give the Massholes, (er people of Massachussetts) a vote on this issue requires a 2 year wait? A activist court and far left Atty. General (who told the Governor to pack sand, I ain't doing anything to stop this) leaves no recourse for what I will bet a paycheck is against the majority opinion of the voters. Seems like equal protection could produce a stay until a vote on a State Constitution amendment could be processed and voted upon. No?

151 posted on 05/15/2004 9:01:58 AM PDT by j_tull ("I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: joonbug
If Mass wants to become the "gay state", let them

I do not believe this to be the majority opinion of the voters. This is being shoved up their @ss by the State Supreme court. A State Constitutional ban is passed the first hurdle, but requires two years before a vote can be taken.

152 posted on 05/15/2004 9:06:35 AM PDT by j_tull ("I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: marbren

GOD created my fingers. Anything I do with them can only honor His creation.


153 posted on 05/15/2004 9:17:58 AM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Just wait until they try to force the "RED" states to recognize these marriages, especially the Southern states. I hope there is one helluva fight against this. If not, a positive future is lost.


154 posted on 05/15/2004 9:23:06 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: j_tull

The majority of the people in Massachusetts do NOT support this. It was shoved down our throats by the State Supreme Court, most notably Maggie Marshall, the African born Chief Justice. The legislature has totally caved on the issue. Our representatives don't have the courage to vote against the gay agenda. It's a mess.


155 posted on 05/15/2004 9:24:52 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me

That's baloney. I grew up in Bama and we always called them queers. Bama is not tolerant to gays at all. Bush will carry the state by at least 80%.


156 posted on 05/15/2004 9:29:45 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

No kidding. Maybe I should go into the floral business.


157 posted on 05/15/2004 9:53:47 AM PDT by jhw61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory

Homosexuality is not something someone is it is something someone does.


158 posted on 05/15/2004 9:54:42 AM PDT by marbren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: zencat
I certainly don't agree with gay marriage, but I'm not sure there's anything in the Constitution that prohibits it. That's why we need a Constitutional ban on gay marriage

Perhaps because even though homosexuality existed then, they never envisioned that they'd want to marry....

159 posted on 05/15/2004 10:08:06 AM PDT by Aut Pax Aut Bellum (Miles to go before I can sleep...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Aut Pax Aut Bellum

People in the past knew it was a perversion.


160 posted on 05/15/2004 10:25:07 AM PDT by marbren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 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.

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