Posted on 05/21/2004 9:09:47 AM PDT by JesseHousman
BOSTON - Dozens of gay couples rushed to tie the knot at chapels, parks and beaches across Massachusetts on Thursday as the end of the three-day waiting period under state matrimonial law led to a marathon of same-sex weddings.
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.
''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. The church in Boston's Back Bay planned to marry nearly 50 couples on Thursday.
Massachusetts law requires a three-day wait between applying for a marriage license and getting married. However, dozens of couples obtained a court waiver of the waiting period and got married promptly after Massachusetts on Monday became the first state to allow same-sex couples to wed.
The new round of nuptials came as Gov. Mitt Romney took the first steps toward blocking town clerks from issuing licenses to out-of-state gay couples, which the Republican governor says is prohibited by state law.
Romney referred the applications of 10 out-of-state couples to Attorney General Tom Reilly. The applications were submitted in either Provincetown or Springfield. Reilly would not say whether he planned to prosecute the couples or the clerks.
Romney said licenses would not be recorded for non-resident gay couples -- an action that a gay rights attorney said could trigger a lawsuit.
''It is an aggressive move that denies the validity of a marriage,'' said attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented seven gay couples in the landmark lawsuit that led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
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?
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.
Give her time. It sounds like she'll find out.
ummm, yeah, it is. That would, like, be the point.
invalid.
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"
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.
That would be the Arlington Street Church of Molech, if you're curious.
}:-)4
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" |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Uhh...big government is the group that CHANGED the law to allow gay marriages. They stepped into people's lives.
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.