GAYS RUSH TO THE ALTAR, AT LEAST THOSE FROM IN-STATE

Miami Herald ^ | May. 21, 2004 | Jennifer Peter (AP)

[JesseHousman]

''OK, I'm ready for my next couple!'' said Harvie, 46, who married her partner of seven years, Kem Morehead, at the Unitarian Universalist Church. church.

I would never dignify a den of sin by calling it a church! I wonder if Harvie has any conception of what an eternity in hell could be like?

[sarasota]

Imagine the legal system will push for out of staters to marry there. That will bring more divorce cases into the state eventually, meaning more business for them, both coming and going.

[HarleyD]

"I wonder if Harvie has any conception of what an eternity in hell could be like?"

Give her time. It sounds like she'll find out.

[Tanniker Smith]

''It is an aggressive move that denies the validity of a marriage,''

ummm, yeah, it is. That would, like, be the point.
invalid.

TS

[StonyBurk]

By the sure testimony of two or three a thing is established. Moses(Gen.2:18-24) ;Jesus(Matt.19:3-9) and
the Apostle Paul (I Cor.6:9-16,and Ephesians5:21-31) each
define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
I dare any reprobate apostate pretender to show three witness from Scripture where homosexual behavior(Sodomy)
is declared equal to "marriage"

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

If gay activists can't push the full faith & credit issue by sending out-of-staters to marry there, they will just get in-staters to move and sue. No law, no morals, no either, nothing will stand in their way.

[Moose4]

The Rev. Kim Crawford Harvie had barely retreated down the aisle with her wife of five minutes when she donned her white robes and got back to work at Arlington Street Church, marrying gay couples in assembly-line fashion.

That would be the Arlington Street Church of Molech, if you're curious.

}:-)4

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues"

</div

[RonF]

Actually, I'm thinking the first serious Constitutional test this will present will be under the 14th Amendment. A "married" same-sex couple will file a tax return under "joint return - married". The IRS will deny it. They'll sue, stating that the 14th Amendment overrules the Federal DOMA. It'll go all the way to the Supreme Court no matter what the lower courts rule. Given the attitude shown in the Dale vs. BSA case, where although the majority upheld the BSA's right to discriminate against gays, they deplored it, the Court might well agree.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

You're right. That makes sense. Add to the BSA case the Lawrence decision which flat out said marriage was a privacy issue. As long as the courts are allowed to dictate this decision from on black-robed high, we lose.

You are also right to point out the tone of the BSA decision. It was the complete opposite tone of the Lawrence decision. In Lawrence they spoke of respect and not establishing community morals and all of that rubbish.

[muawiyah]

Has anyone bothered to take note of how many of these people are "repeats" who did it in Canada, Oregon, California, Vermont and now Massachusetts?

It really does look like most of them are into it for the ceremony and the chance to dress up ~

[kidd]

It really does look like most of them are into it for the ceremony and the chance to dress up

Of course. Gays don't want a marriage - they want a party and political activism.

[JesseHousman]

Since May 21, 2004

Gee, Carnal Ant, you signed up today just to post that imbecilic comment.

I guess they do allow computers tied to the internet in the asylums, eh? It must be good to be out of your strait-jacket and padded room.

Now off with you.

[kidd]

Sorry newbie troll. These are not marriages. Marriage is an institution initiated by God primarily for the purpose of procreation. The Massachussetts courts can call it whatever they'd like (you misspleed it as 'marring' - which is appropriate) - but it is NOT marrying.

This thing in Massachussetts is a series of parties by people who, for the most part, cannot procreate, have no intention of remaining monogomus and have no respect for the basis for the religious sacrament of marriage.

[tjwmason]

But does the US really define words in the biblical sense? I mean, we don't follow biblical justice in the US, do we?

You stated that this is about "big gov. steping out of people's private lives and leaving alone". The point is that marriage is not about people's private lives, but rather their public lives. If this was concerned with anti-sodomy laws, then you would have a case, however it is concerned with marriage, which is a public institution. Thus, your first argument fails at the first hurdle.

Taking the broader question. Marriage creates a unique state between two people, it allows special privileges and rights to be exchanged. Why does government do this? Is is simply as a recognition of the mutual love and affection that these people share (as the anarcho-leftists would tell us)? Surely not; in that case two spinster sisters sharing a house should be permitted to marry; the monks in a Monastery. The reason that government uniquely endows the sacrament of marriage with a saecular status and privilege is that marriage is about the raising of a new generation, about the furthering of humanity. Marriage is about procreation, otherwise it has no claim at all on the respect and privilege which it is afforded; and guess what, gays can't produce babies.

I do not wish to legislate against gays living together, nor against them having sex with each other; but it is a simple fact that they cannot marry.

[RonF]

Its It's about time big gov. steps out of people's private lives and leave leaves them alone.

Without government, marriage is a religious ceremony only and, while quite important in that respect, would confer no special privileges. Since government defines what privileges are granted to married couples, it makes sense that government gets to define what a marriage is. And in the U.S., the government is supposed to do the will of the people.

Now, in this case the Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court have decided that the law defining marriage as between men and women only in Massachusetts conflicted with the Commonwealth's equal protection laws, and then further decided the conflict in favor of requiring same-sex marriages. I believe they were wrong on both counts. My guess is, so will the Commonwealth's citizens.

[AppyPappy]

Uhh...big government is the group that CHANGED the law to allow gay marriages. They stepped into people's lives.