Posted on 07/08/2009 3:02:20 PM PDT by Valpal1
Massachusetts leads the nation in the downward plunge to Sodom and Gomorrah.
I don’t think we will pull out before the fire and brimstone come.
first thank you for your other answer
to answer this,
well that is a question I have been asked many times and wondered many times.
Now I had to live there for a bit and the misses is from there,
This is my observation and maybe mass mike along with others who are up there can speculate on this.
The media are the most biased I have ever seen anywhere in this world.
I have lived around America and different countries and the media up there named channel 4,5 and 7 are a disgrace.
When the homo marriage was going through there was nothing on the media until after it was too late.
I remember being in a pub in a place called charleston and the TV was on when the local news finally reported this and not one person in there of about 25 knew about this.
There is also the view I saw of many the residents of MA.
They are typical of my mother in law who do not get the news but also are firm Dems.
The older lot still think of the Dem party of the JFK party, they ignore many of the goings on.
For instance recently there they had a vote to reduce tax but the voters said no
why you ask
well the Dem party is o much in control along with the media that they told the people if they reduced taxes then the old would be cut out of their benefits etc
Thus the voters got scared and did not vote for lower taxes.
The mindset there is I have voted Democrat all my life bla bla
Look at the state it is a mess and yet they still vote for these idiots.
My mother in law did not even know about Barney franks little homo ring because of media black out and if they do cover it then the media spin it.
The Dems have such a monopoly in that state it is scary and now they are branching out to their neighbors.
I say this with all honesty to me going up there is like another country and if anyone wants to see what America will look like in 25 years under liberal lunatic agendas then they should go there.
Unions too have a monopoly there.
Read about the Irish Italian mafia wars, bulger etc.
The Kennedy’s needed control of the unions to get their lot elected so they chased out the Italians to RI.
The FBI clamped down on the Italians while ignoring the Irish who in turn the Irish tipped off the FBI.
Once in control of the unions they then gave out these contracts in exchange for votes.
The Kennedy’s set all this up and it has got worse.
sorry to harp on but it really is a long story on how MA got to where it was, with the union, media and their Dem power.
Before the law was passed, Coakley said, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the "exclusive prerogative of the states." Now, because of the U.S. law's definition of marriage, same-sex couples are denied access to benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans' cemetery.
fell sick and every person on here and around this country should see that website
That is what America will look like if some go along with the usual “well I know a couple and they are nice who want to be left alone” course they do not see their new friends at their freak parades etc
Or the Govt should not get involved
Well this is not about marriage like on that website but a small platform to a bigger agenda, adoption, into schools to now teaching little kids fisting another man
sick sick sick
there sickos should be put back in the closet or told to seek mental help and not off another sicko perverted shrink
MA should let their voters vote on the issue before doing this crap
MA has no respect to this as they took away the right to vote.
This is a platform to overturn DOMA while Bozo is in office, surely everyone can see this except the sheep.
This is about spreading their perverted forced on agenda to the country.
send every polygamist to MA and lets see if a religious organisation can have their kind of marriage, lets see muslims have their 4 wives
What is the betting the homosexuals and their perverted friends do not accept that
look at the website mass resistance and you’ll see how sick MA has become
No it doesn't. Massachusetts has already seen fit to redefine the English word, "marriage". The state already went ahead and did it, so I can't figure out what that simple scumbag Coakley is suing for.
Why do you think the rest of thre country calls them "massholes"?
He’s sueing because the federal definition of marriage prevents gay MA citizens from getting their share of federal entitlement benefits.
The CITIZENS of MA have never had the opportunity to vote on the matter. Homosexual marriage was forced on us by judicial fiat of the Supreme Judicial Court. When the legislature, which is overwhelmingly Democrat, took the vote that would have given us the opportunity to cast our votes, the new Democrat Governor, Deval Patrick paid off, politically, the five Democrats who were on the fence. When they caved, we were screwed.
Massachusetts gets the same federal entitlement benefits that every other state gets so, actually, the scumbag is suing for MORE benefits than non-pervert states get.
I think an FMA is the only way to defend DOMA in its current form.
For example, in some states it’s legal to marry at a rather young age, and to first cousins. Other states don’t have to - and don’t - recognise such marriages. The Full Faith and Credit section of the constitution has been deemed to allow this. In this respect, the explicit provisions in DOMA dealing with same-sex marriages are redundant. No state has to recognise another state’s marriages, or birth certificates for that matter, if they can state a compelling interest why they shouldn’t. There’s lots of case law on this.
But because the marriage is valid in state X, even if not in states Y,Z and W, the Feds have to recognise it for constitutional reasons. While much of DOMA is constitutionally defensible, the bit about the Federal Government not recognizing a state’s right to say who is married or not is, well, on the face of it blatantly and obviously against the Constitution as it now stands.
The MA case is pretty compelling from a state’s rights viewpoint, and it would take a fully-fledged Constitutional change to remedy that. Those who wish the principles of DOMA to be enshrined in law have to work *now* to get a constitutional change via an FMA.
Why? Congress can make any law explicitly defining marriage, which isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I see no problem with the Federal government doing this, which they did with DOMA. Only a radical activist court could rule otherwise.
While much of DOMA is constitutionally defensible, the bit about the Federal Government not recognizing a state’s right to say who is married or not is, well, on the face of it blatantly and obviously against the Constitution as it now stands.
Who is contending that the Fed is telling any state that they can't proscribe the requirements on who may get married in that state? The Federal government is completely separate in operation from state governments, and there are many examples of Feds not recognizing state laws. If a state prescribes the death penalty for a convict, but the Federal govt. files a separate charge and convicts for life, the convicted won't be executed.
Even if the vote had been allowed and homo-"marriage" was reversed in MA, the activist leftists on the court would simply strike it down with their fairy wands - no rational argument needed.
The solution to all this is a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman.
Congress can make any law explicitly defining marriage, which isn't mentioned in the Constitution.
It's because it's not mentioned, that they can't make such a law without a constitutional amendment. Here's Amendment 10 in the Bill of Rights:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
It would take an extreme radical activist court to go against this plain wording. Before DOMA, marriage was only a matter for the individual States to define - and still is.
That's why an FMA is so crucial. Without it, the Federal provisions on marriage recognition are unconstitutional, and the provisions about states not having to recognise same-sex marriages are redundant. They wouldn't have to even without DOMA, as long as they can make a plausible (it doesn't have to be watertight) case on public policy grounds.
It's vital that those who want DOMA to be law be convinced that an FMA is necessary to allow that, or it will be anulled. Right now, many are under the same misapprehension as you - and that's a problem if you want DOMA to stay law.
A long history of skillful gerrymandering, the fact that no one runs against 95% of state reps, and the fact that the MA Republican [sic] Party actively resists and fights conservative candidates.
Yes, but some of them can’t be disbursed to gay married couples because the Federal Government doesn’t recognize the marriage for the purposes of determining eligibility for the benefit. Medicaid is specifically mentioned as one of the entitlements that is so affected.
MA claims the Fed is forcing them to discriminate and violate their state laws as a result.
This is a predictiable result of gay marriage and the only thing that would have prevented this would have been a constitutional ammendment defining marriage to one man-one woman, but our politicians didn’t want to go there and convinced many that DOMA would be enough. It isn’t and it won’t be. We’ve been sold out again.
Why does it make you cringe?
Excuse me. Mass voted to retain marriage as between men and women, the COURTS of Mass overturned that. So, they don’t have a point because the courts overturning a referendum by the people is not an upholding of the 10th amendment. Rather it is a usurpation of power by the Courts.
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.