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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-294 next last
To: c-b 1
"We should believe activist judges who disregard the Constitution would have any regard for a Constitutional Ammendment because?

In order for an Ammendment to be effective, some judges will have to be removed from the bench."

Possibly, but we can't just go finding things in the Constitution to fit our beliefs. That's the liberal way of doing things.
21 posted on 05/14/2004 5:01:50 PM PDT by zencat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Revel

Once the first marrige happens its too late.


22 posted on 05/14/2004 5:02:40 PM PDT by marbren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: pollywog
WOW! Anthony Lewis, Margaret Marshall and the New York Times (mother of the pornographic Boston Globe)
are the Fourth branch of American government, after all.
24 posted on 05/14/2004 5:07:34 PM PDT by Diogenesis (We do what we are meant to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zencat

Forget it. Won't happen and it shouldn't. If the states want it....it's their choice.


25 posted on 05/14/2004 5:07:44 PM PDT by zarf (..where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pollywog

Unelected Judges just wiped out a 1000 years of human practice and culture and REDIFINED a WORD that now has NO MEANING whatsoever.


26 posted on 05/14/2004 5:07:51 PM PDT by PISANO (NEVER FORGET 911 !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pollywog

Thank Bush Sr. for Souter.

This is what happens when you suppport "moderates".


27 posted on 05/14/2004 5:08:23 PM PDT by Finalapproach29er (" Permitting homosexuality didn't work out very well for the Roman Empire")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alfred_Bluey

There is a chance we will all get killed.


28 posted on 05/14/2004 5:09:31 PM PDT by marbren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PISANO

4000 years since sodom and gomorrah.


29 posted on 05/14/2004 5:13:33 PM PDT by marbren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
When these "married" homosexual "couples" start filing joint Federal tax returns (as they will), when these same couples demand "full faith and credit" from other states (as the homosexual lobby has already said they will do), and when they demand full "married" rights in all matters ranging from the "right" to adopt (and molest) children to the "right" of transsexuals to play in the WNBA, then perhaps the paleo-cretins out there will realize that this is not about "state's rights", it's a matter that should have been disposed of at the Federal level years ago. 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).
30 posted on 05/14/2004 5:14:26 PM PDT by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marbren

"Maybe Provincetown will be destroyed by a meteor."

The Portuguese where the largest population in Provincetown...driven out by the queer nation. Sad. Love Portuguese people!



31 posted on 05/14/2004 5:15:28 PM PDT by jhw61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pollywog

I find it very ironic and telling that Kerry represents these people.


32 posted on 05/14/2004 5:18:32 PM PDT by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zencat

The FMA, federal marriage amendment, is not a ban on homosexual marriage. It defines marriage and likewise prohibits the courts from monkeying with the defenition.

Remeber it is the ABA's model divorce code which is facilitating judicial thought into legal gaming of marriage based on adult recreational sex rather than as an institution which rases the future generations of society.


33 posted on 05/14/2004 5:19:12 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pollywog

Bawney Fwank is one happy dude right about now!


34 posted on 05/14/2004 5:19:59 PM PDT by b4its2late (Liberals are good examples of why some animals eat their young.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie

It depends on which SC justice has "jurisdiction" over this particular area. If it was ginsberg, they would have had zero chance of getting the petition heard because she supports homosexual marriage as a means of ending marriage as an institution.


35 posted on 05/14/2004 5:21:59 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: zencat
That's why we need a Constitutional ban on gay marriage.

......and I hope every Freeper is writing their senators, etc and encouraging the constitutional ban . In my opinion, if in the next few months a constitutional ban becomes a reality, it will help President Bush greatly in the polls and re-election. Most Americans do NOT want the gay marriage.!!!

36 posted on 05/14/2004 5:24:43 PM PDT by pollywog (Psalm 121;1 I Lift mine eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: pollywog

any chance of getting the massachusetts supreme judicial court to undertaske the sideline of cellphone tower installation in iraq?


38 posted on 05/14/2004 5:35:20 PM PDT by dep (Ense Petit Placidam Sub Libertate Qvietem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

This is no surprise. Using the Guarantee Clause is about as pointless as can be. The Supreme Court has rarely taken a case based on it and I don't think they've ever ruled in favor of those using the Guarantee Clause to support their case.


39 posted on 05/14/2004 5:38:37 PM PDT by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: pollywog

Its too late


40 posted on 05/14/2004 5:39:05 PM PDT by marbren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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