Supreme Court Won't Bar Start Of Mass. Gay Marriages

NBC 4 news ^ | May 14,2004 | NBC News

[pollywog]

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to intervene in the same-sex marriages law in Mass. Truly a sad day for America.

[zencat]

"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.

[marbren]

Once the first marrige happens its too late.

[Diogenesis]

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.

[zarf]

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

[PISANO]

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

[Finalapproach29er]

Thank Bush Sr. for Souter.

This is what happens when you suppport "moderates".

[marbren]

There is a chance we will all get killed.

[marbren]

4000 years since sodom and gomorrah.

[pawdoggie]

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).

[jhw61]

"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!

[TheLion]

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

[longtermmemmory]

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.

[b4its2late]

Bawney Fwank is one happy dude right about now!

[longtermmemmory]

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.

[pollywog]

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.!!!

[dep]

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

[COEXERJ145]

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.

[marbren]

Its too late