The Supremes should be found in contempt of court and impeached.
I wonder if the same people that always gripe about state's rights come out on this thread.
I read a long analysis of the state of judicial affairs concerning the homo agenda. It was written by an attorney/author who has done a lot of research on the issue. He goes into detail about cases that are never mentioned in this issue, yet have already set devastating precedent. The bottom line of his analysis was a prediction that within a year or two, SCOTUS will have given the homos virtually everything they want, that the foundations for these moves have already been laid, some very visibly, some very quietly. The prognosis is dark indeed.
To say the least, our current era looks a little more like "the days of Lot" with each passing day.
MM
— George Mason
This is the principle that we need to follow. What the Homosexuals want more than anything is public acceptance of their lifestyle. When they come asking for their fake certificates to be accepted, we need to stand up and say "NO, We don't Care what your Certificate Says, Marriage by Definition Can't Include two people of the same sex, Sorry, We don't consider you married."
I am sure they will go on and on about following the law, but they don't do it, so neither should we. We need to show these judges that their immoral edicts carry no force with us AND WILL NOT BE OBEYED. They can't arrest all of us.
Until we fight this like we mean it, we won't win.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I will not accept nor acknowledge any fake "marriage" In anything that I do that might require such acknowledgement I will simply refuse to comply.
sad day for kerry not america,
His state will known for gay marriages = bad news for him in LA, AK , PA, OH,WI and WV, and somewhat in FL
sad day for kerry not america,
His state from monday will known for gay marriages
= bad news for him in LA, AK , PA, OH,WI and WV, and somewhat in FL.
For good for the goose is not always good fro teh geese !
I need coffee.
---
This is a sad day for kerry not america,
His state from monday will be known for gay marriages
= bad news for Kerry in LA, AK , PA, OH,WI WV, and somewhat in FL.
For good for the goose is not always good fro teh geese !
Disappointing the marriages will not cease, but not too upsetting thte court stayed out of the issue since the issue was the state Constitution, not the federal.
The SCOTUS deals with the federal Constitution.
Quite frankly, it would have been judicial activism if they took the case.
A strict reading of the Constitution leaves the Supremes no choice....States have this right
One less star in the crown of the leader of the free world.
War in Iraq, beheadings, prisoner abuses, terrorism and murder....solution? Gay Marriage!
Of course they have. They probably have the decision framed on their office walls. They are largely to credit for it with their appalling Lawrence decision.
Saying this is an issue of a state constitution is a joke. The decision was based on phrases included in the U.S. Constitution and pretty much every state constitution -- "Equal Protection" and "Due Process" It cited many federal cases, especially Lawrence vs. Texas. It even mentioned Canada's legalization of gay marriage. It was an in-your-face decision that was a clear violation of the guarantee clause. The people of Mass. cannot respond for two years. They are unrepresented. Gay marriage supporters are getting it both ways, they are arguing on constitutional grounds -- wording in the US Constitution -- yet they are claiming marriage a state issue. It can't be both.
3. Remedy. The remedy that the court has fashioned both in the name of equal protection and due process exceeds the bounds of judicial restraint mandated by art. 30. The remedy that construes gender specific language as gender neutral amounts to a statutory revision that replaces the intent of the Legislature with that of the court. Article 30 permits the court to apply principles of equal protection and to modify statutory language only if legislative intent is preserved. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Chou, 433 Mass. 229, 238-239 (2001) (judicial rewriting of gender language permissible only when Legislature intended to include both men and women). See also Lowell v. Kowalski, 380 Mass. 663, 670 (1980). Here, the alteration of the gender- specific language alters precisely what the Legislature unambiguously intended to preserve, the marital rights of single men and women. Such a dramatic change in social institutions must remain at the behest of the people through the democratic process.
Where the application of equal protection principles do not permit rewriting a statute in a manner that preserves the intent of the Legislature, we do not rewrite the statute. In Dalli v. Board of Educ., 358 Mass. 753 (1971), the court refused to rewrite a statute in a manner that would include unintended individuals. "To attempt to interpret this [statute] as including those in the category of the plaintiff would be to engage in a judicial enlargement of the clear statutory language beyond the limit of our judicial function. We have traditionally and consistently declined to trespass on legislative territory in deference to the time tested wisdom of the separation of powers as expressed in art. [30] of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Massachusetts even when it appeared that a highly desirable and just result might thus be achieved." Id. at 759. Recently, in Connors v. Boston, 430 Mass. 31 (1999), we refused to expand health insurance coverage to include domestic partners because such an expansion was within the province of the Legislature, where policy affecting family relationships is most appropriate and frequently considered. Id. at 42-43. Principles of equal protection do not permit the marriage statutes to be changed in the manner that we have seen today.
This court has previously exercised the judicial restraint mandated by art. 30 and declined to extend due process protection to rights not traditionally coveted, despite recognition of their social importance. See Tobin's Case, 424 Mass. 250, 252-253 (1997) (receiving workers' compensation benefits not fundamental right); Doe v. Superintendent of Schs. of Worcester, 421 Mass. 117, 129 (1995) (declaring education not fundamental right); Williams v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Human Servs., 414 Mass. 551, 565 (1993) (no fundamental right to receive mental health services); Matter of Tocci, 413 Mass. 542, 548 n. 4 (1992) (no fundamental right to practice law); Commonwealth v. Henry's Drywall Co., 366 Mass. 539, 542 (1974) (no fundamental right to pursue one's business). Courts have authority to recognize rights that are supported by the Constitution and history, but the power to create novel rights is reserved for the people through the democratic and legislative processes.
Likewise, the Supreme Court exercises restraint in the application of substantive due process " 'because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.' [Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992).] By extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action. We must therefore 'exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field,' [id.], lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of this Court, Moore [v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 502 (1977) ] (plurality opinion)." Washington v. Glucksberg, supra at 720.
The court has extruded a new right from principles of substantive due process, and in doing so it has distorted the meaning and purpose of due process. The purpose of substantive due process is to protect existing rights, not to create new rights. Its aim is to thwart government intrusion, not invite it. The court asserts that the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights serves to guard against government intrusion into each individual's sphere of privacy. Ante at. Similarly, the Supreme Court has called for increased due process protection when individual privacy and intimacy are threatened by unnecessary government imposition. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003) (private nature of sexual behavior implicates increased due process protection);
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) (privacy protection extended to procreation decisions within nonmarital context); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (due process invoked because of intimate nature of procreation decisions). These cases, along with the Moe case, focus on the threat to privacy when government seeks to regulate the most intimate activity behind bedroom doors. The statute in question does not seek to regulate intimate activity within an intimate relationship, but merely gives formal recognition to a particular marriage. The State has respected the private lives of the plaintiffs, and has done nothing to intrude in the relationships that each of the plaintiff couples enjoy. Cf. Lawrence v. Texas, supra at 2484 (case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter"). Ironically, by extending the marriage laws to same-sex couples the court has turned substantive due process on its head and used it to interject government into the plaintiffs' lives.
States rights not a good thing in this case?
Not hearing the case at this point in time should not be equated as an opinion from the court.
As homos try to get their marriages accepted in southern states they will run into a solid wall of opposition from religious groups.
The SCOTUS will not step in as they have not in Massachusetts.
I can see a resurrection of the KKK, governors on the courthouse steps blocking homos admission etc.
As somebody else stated recently where is the next Ft Sumter ?
BUMP
Crowds Gather for Gay Weddings in Mass.
By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer
BOSTON - Like fans anxious for concert tickets, same-sex couples waited for line for hours Sunday outside Cambridge's City Hall for an event they once thought they'd never get to experience: marriage.
Marcia Hams, 56, and her partner, Susan Shepherd, 52, of Cambridge, showed up at midnight Saturday — a full 24 hours ahead of time — to stake out the first spot in line where the city clerk was to hand out the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage applications.
"People do this for Red Sox tickets, concert tickets," said Hams, a health care advocate who has been with Shepherd, a graduate student, for 27 years. "Certainly we can do it for this."
The couple, one of five stationed outside city hall by mid-afternoon, sat in lawn chairs, donned rain jackets to protect themselves from a light drizzle and drank plenty of coffee. Sunday morning, a young man approached them and gave them a large red flower, saying, "I wish you a long and happy marriage."
Cambridge, across the Charles River from Boston and home to Harvard University, decided to seize the earliest moment to begin the process of granting same-sex couples the historic right that gay-rights advocates are seeking in dozens of states. Mayor Michael Sullivan planned to help cut a three-tiered wedding cake to mark the occasion, and people around the state also held celebrations.
Alex Fennel, 27, and her partner, Sasha Hartman, 29, were in line at Cambridge, happy they didn't have to wait until later Monday morning to begin the marriage process.
"We came here because I've been waiting seven years and I don't want to wait another day, another second," said Fennel, a lawyer from Boston. "For me, it's excitement and gratitude. It's nothing I ever thought we would be able to do."
Massachusetts was thrust into the center of the nationwide debate on gay marriage when the state's Supreme Judicial Court issued its 4-3 ruling in November that gays and lesbians had a right under the state constitution to wed.
In the days leading up to Monday's deadline for same-sex weddings to begin, opponents looked to the federal courts for help in overturning the ruling. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene.
The Massachusetts ruling touched off a frenzy of gay marriages across the country earlier this year, emboldening officials in San Francisco, upstate New York and Portland, Ore., to issue marriage licenses as acts of civil disobedience. Even though courts ordered a halt to the wedding march, opponents pushed for a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage, which President Bush has endorsed.
The ruling also galvanized opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts, prompting lawmakers in this heavily Democratic, Roman Catholic state to adopt a state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but legalize Vermont-style civil unions. The earliest it could wind up on the ballot is 2006 — possibly casting a shadow on the legality of thousands of gay marriages that could take place in the intervening years.
As of Monday, Massachusetts joins the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada's three most populous provinces as the only places worldwide where gays can marry, though the rest of Canada is expected to follow soon.
Across the state on Sunday, gay-rights advocates held "Countdown to Equality" parties to celebrate the impending nuptials and to keep attention focused on the political fights ahead.
"I have a younger crowd of friends and I wanted to create some awareness," said Josiah Richards, who was hosting a barbecue for about 35 people in Boston's West Roxbury neighborhood on Sunday.
Several churches held ceremonies honoring gay parishioners and recognizing the fight they've waged for marriage rights.
Robert Compton and David Wilson — one of the seven plaintiff couples in the lawsuit that led to the state court's landmark ruling — attended services at Arlington Street Church in Boston a day before they will exchange vows in the church.
Monday marks the culmination of a legal battle by the couples that began in April 2001 after they were denied marriage licenses. Clerks in the state's 351 cities and towns have made plans to bring in volunteers and expand their work space in anticipation of a deluge of couples.
Opponents of gay marriage have no organized protests planned Monday, although they promise to continue to fight the state high court ruling and to pursue state and federal amendments banning gay marriage.
Out-of-state gay couples, meanwhile are likely to challenge the state's 1913 marriage statute, which Gov. Mitt Romney, a gay-marriage opponent, has cited to limit marriages to only Massachusetts residents. The law, which gay-rights advocates have labeled discriminatory, bars out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the union would be illegal in their home state.
Several local officials, including those in Provincetown, Worcester and Somerville, have said they will not enforce Romney's order and will give licenses to any couples who ask, as long as they sign the customary affidavit attesting that they know of no impediment to their marriage.
In Provincetown, visitors were greeted with a sign that read "Congratulations, newlyweds!"
"It's the next evolution in the history of marriage," said John Yarbrough of Minnesota, who traveled to Provincetown to marry his partner, Cody Rogahn. "The idea of who you love shouldn't be dictated by the government."
What did you expect them to do?