Replies

I apologize for coming off smug and believe me I don't consider myself too good or in anyway immune from marital problems. I've had my share of rocky moments in the last two decades.

I agree that this is a matter of gay couples expecting equal rights under the law - that they as committed couples should be entitled to the same rights as married couples when it comes to civil law.

You state:

"The societal trend of allowing random sex partners being 'married' and having the same rights as those who consider marriage as a sacred duty aimed towards the creation and development of a family."

Lets take the last part first. That sister of mine who just celebrated her 31 year anniversary. No Kids. Never intended to have kids. Argue with that decision of you want, but should that nullify their marriage?

I'm sorry but in civil law, marriage is not defined as an institution designed for the creation of children. Civil law recognizes certain rights that pertain to couples who have stated a life-long commitment to another- and in the law it is called “Marriage.”

Now the “random sex partners” reference.

I think the whole point here is that these are not random sex partners. These are two people who have decided to make a life long commitment to one another. Now they may not be any more successful at achieving that commitment than hetro couples, but that is not the point. I know of several gay couples who have been together for decades. Just as our civil system recognizes the difference between a married couple and two people that just happen to be dating at the moment, these long term gay couple are looking for the same recognition when it comes to civil matters. They are trying to draw a line between themselves and "random sex partners" as you refer to it.
You seem to think there is no difference. If your thinking is bible-rooted, perhaps there isn't any difference to you. And you are free to insist that no such union can occur in your church. That is the right of you and your church.

Civil law is different. What these judges (most of them appointed by republicans, by the way) recognize is that when it comes to matters of civil law, there is no standing to discriminate between gender in the rights allowed to committed couples. I don’t see how this is Judicial tyranny at all. Perhaps you define Judicial tyranny as a ruling that pisses you and a lot of people like you off.

Generously, they are giving the MA legislature time to work something out. Personally, I hope this comes to a legal standing for the concept of civil union. Its not that I care if they can consider them selves married or not. I just think that if by recognizing the concept of a civil union (or some other term) and documenting it much as we do with marriage licenses. Commited gay couples get all the rights afforded by law to heterosexual couples, Than I think the government has done its job. And we can let marraige be purely a non-secular term that refers to religious recognition of said commitment. What would be your problem with that? Oh that’s right:

“When choices are made that don’t accord with moral sense, we pay for that. We will pay likewise for the benefits given to gay "married" couples. It will affect us fiscally as well as further dividing and harming our culture.”

Of course “moral sense” is highly subjective. And the government has no business relying on any particular religious belief to define it for them. Yes this country is made up of mostly Christians. But it is also made up of mostly whites, fortunately we have set up a system so that non-whites (minorities) at least in theory have the same rights as the majority. “Rule of the majority with respect to the rights of the minority.” was how it was put in my civics class.

Plus, I have already asked how granting the rights accorded by marriage to gay couples would specifically harm your, my, or any other hetro-marriage or family produced from thereof And I am still waiting for an answer.

As for Nutcracker boy:
I think the defination of prejudice as a verb pretty much takes care of its use as a nown. It is pre-judging without adequate knowledge or the act of pre-judging without adequate knowledge. Either way, the specter of ignorance remains and it is something reasoned people should avoid.

Lets take the last part first. That sister of mine who just celebrated her 31 year anniversary. No Kids. Never intended to have kids. Argue with that decision of you want, but should that nullify their marriage? The fruits of freedom and the results of freedom are 2 different things. The benefits of marriage to individuals and the reason for marriage as an institution worthy of Govt protection are 2 different things too. A good reason to have lower tax rates for married couples is to help those who are raising the next generation of taxpayers (like me, with 2 kids), other married taxpayers benefit as "free riders". There is nothing particular wrong with that unless we as a society allow some negative social trend occur as a consequence of this 'free rider' phenomenon. The examples I've given previously on this point have to do with divorce. Some people need to divorce, but we've made it easy enough that parents with kids divorce in large numbers in many cases where they perhaps need not, kids get hurt, and it shows up in crime and educational result statistics. Abuse is statistically most common from non-biological 'boyfriends' and least common from biological fathers, for example (something like a 33-to-1 ratio). Result? We *all* pay, in taxes/welfare-costs/crime/social-problems for the 'free choices' of others. It is folly to think this is not so. And it is so even if you cited anecdote after anecdote of people who really 'benefitted' from divorce.

I understand the motivation for the 'gay riders' to hop on board the marriage bandwagon and get the benefit of something that they wont really contribute to in a social sense. I feel their hopping on board will even degrade it (as now the possibility of harming children through the large-scale 'adoption' of kids in homosexual and lesbian couples gathers force.) But whether good or bad to allow this, it is wrong to pretend it is in any sense a 'reason' for marriage. Some have argued that Govt get out of the marriage business entirely and IMHO that is the right approach to take wrt homosexual couples. If such a couple wants to call themselves partners married whatever, find a church or write up a contract, whatever. that's their choice.

Or we can go the Louisiana route - make it a choice: the "serious marriage"; and the "floozy/easy marriage" (easy in, easy out).

Civil law is different. What these judges (most of them appointed by republicans, by the way) recognize is that when it comes to matters of civil law, there is no standing to discriminate between gender in the rights allowed to committed couples.

There is "no standing"? Where is that written? Where is the law that says that? And note this is not at all a discrimination against either gender.

I don’t see how this is Judicial tyranny at all.

Because you have fallen for the trap that because this is a result you dont mind, you think therefore no matter how the Judges invented the ruling to 'justify' it, it must be okay. WRONG!

Judicial tyranny are when Judges wilfully issue rulings that have no basis in law. This ruling has no basis in law. None! It was an invention on the bench. And the foolish idea that (liberal) Republicans are immune to Judicial tyranny shows how uninformed you are at how deep this Judicial rot goes. Even the Republicans on the supreme court (Souter for one, and OConnor and Kennedy at times) engage in it.

Judicial tyranny is specifically related to how liberal "Judicial activism" works. The Judges have replaced the laws of the legislature with their own interpretation of 'what is right', ignoring the text of the laws and the constitution. This is not the first time. Calling "under God" in the pledge unconstitutional is Judicial tyranny. So was the removal of the 10 commandments; the ruling defies the understanding of the 1st amendment and the plain meaning of it There is a Rehnquist dissent from the 1980s on a famous church v state ruling that makes PERFECTLY CLEAR to the whole court that no a single Jurist prior to 1970s would accept this absurd result. That is why they are removing 10 commandments in courts left and right, and yet the same kind of display sits in the Supreme Court building - as it has FOR NEARLY 200 YEARS.

Judicial tyranny is masked by the soft yet lying line about "a living Constitution". No, the rule of law is DEAD when you pretend it can mean what the Judge wants it to mean. Any Conservative has to belief in limited GOvernment. When it comes to the legisltaure, that means passing fewer laws, lower taxes, and less regulation. For the executive, it means not abusing the powers of investigation and working within the limits granted you. For the 3rd branch, it is best described by the term 'judicial restraint', which means using the powers of the judge to minimally intrude on the powers of the other branches, following the rule of law, and following a strict interpretation of laws and constitutions that considers the text and original intent Interpet the law, dont INVENT the law.

The Massachusetts Constitution is clear: Matters regarding the civil institution of marriage are subject to regulation by the Governor and the legislature. It's written in the Constitution itself. In this 4-3 ruling, 4 of the 7 justices wholly ignored the text of the Massachusetts constitution and threw in their own viewpoint on this matter. Where in the Mass. Constitution is it written that this extreme and false form of 'egalitarianism' must be in defiance of the will of the people and legislature and laws of the State of Massachusetts? Why not fight the particular out in law, in the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS?!?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE dont get fooled by the inane contention that this about 'letting gays live their life'. They've been doing it already, single or couples. You yourself say as much. Folks living their lives for years, doing what they do. Yet they dont get a tax writeoff and have the 'disadvantage' of not being considered as exactly suitable for adopting kids as a man-and-woman couple. Just ask yourself if you were a kid, would you want that for yourself.

Just as our civil system recognizes the difference between a married couple and two people that just happen to be dating at the moment, these long term gay couple are looking for the same recognition when it comes to civil matters. This is a perfect illustration of the fable of 'gay marriage' as equal. Just as "married" and "dating" are different, there IS a difference, isnt there, between homosexual unions and the traditional marriage between a man and a woman. And as I said previously on this thread, it's a nutty idea to insist 'gay marriage' and traditional marriage HAVE to be treated IDENTICALLY in law. It is like calling a bicycle a '4 wheeled motor vehicle' and having bicycle riders get driver's licenses. Why does it have to be exactly, totally the same?

And the government has no business relying on any particular religious belief to define it for them. Nobody is insisting belief defines anything, but ... Why would you discriminate against religious belief and forbid the wisdom derived from faith in informing public policy choices? This is not about enforcing any belief system, this is about letting the wisdom of the ages mean something in our country rather than wiping away traditionalism simply because cultural socialists want to build a 'brave new world'.

At a MINIMUM, let this issue be decided in the legislatures and not through the imperial dictatorship of the courts!

"Generously, they are giving the MA legislature time to work something out."

BTW, another point regarding Judicial tyranny ... *anytime* the court *orders* the legislature to do anything it is a sure tipoff to Judicial over-reach. They are meddling where they ought not be meddling, and they cover their tracks by getting the legislature to do their bidding. This is not 'generous' it is "arrogant".

Do you like Government functionaries meddling in other people's business beyond the scope of their designated powers?

We saw extreme Judicial tyranny in Missouri when a Judge went hog-wild and ordered tax raises for a desegregation case (more money for school system means higher results). In the end, it was a disaster, as a Judge is wholly unfit to be a legislator nor a school board official.

As for Nutcracker boy:
I think the defination of prejudice as a verb pretty much takes care of its use as a nown. It is pre-judging without adequate knowledge or the act of pre-judging without adequate knowledge. Either way, the specter of ignorance remains and it is something reasoned people should avoid.

I will take it as a newbie error that you failed to ping me while responding to my post.

No big loss, your response is a complete nothing. If you are interested in learning more about this insight on prejudice, may I suggest you read the works of Edmund Burke?

By the way, WOSG, are you aware that Typesbad signed up that very same day to engage you on the topic of "gay marriage" ?