[azemt]

The article goes on to present various gays' views on the ruling, but, regardless where one stands on the gay marriage issue, does it bother anyone else that this judge thinks "fundamental rights" are subject to being "recast" over time?
I thought the whole idea of "fundamental rights" was that they are immutable.

[Saundra Duffy]

This is good news.

[Support Free Republic]

I would like to take a moment to ask for donations.

It should be clear to all conservatives by now that the left intends to demonize us. They don't just disagree with us, they hate us. And worse, they want to get other people to hate us.

Places like Free Republic drive the left batty.

Please donate. Thanks for your consideration.

[aristeides]

When is the Massachusetts court going to rule?

[Texas_Jarhead]

Yes. That quote jumped off the screen at me.

[Irene Adler]

"....does it bother anyone else that this judge thinks "fundamental rights" are subject to being "recast" over time? I thought the whole idea of "fundamental rights" was that they are immutable."

Yes. It bothers me plenty. This judge clearly thinks society isn't "ready" for this, yet, but we will be, in time. And yes, fundamental rights were described in the Declaration as coming from God. If you're postmodern, however, they are just whatever the "privileged" dream up at any given time.

The judge is a clintonista jerk.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[tahiti]

"The state has a reasonable interest in seeing that procreation happens in a marriage between a man and a woman, the court wrote..."

This is not the remark of people who believe in liberty.

This is the language that tyrannts, such as Hitler, used to validate laws to prevent the marriage of Jews to Arians.