Posted on 02/04/2004 8:24:28 AM PST by presidio9
BOSTON - The Massachusetts high court ruled Tuesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples — rather than civil unions — would meet the edict of its November decision, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages would take place in the state beginning in mid-May.
AP Photo Slideshow: Same-Sex Marriage Issues
The court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which conveyed the benefits — but not the title of marriage — would meet constitutional muster.
The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's Constitutional Convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Without the opinion, Senate President Robert Travaglini had said the vote would be delayed.
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen.
But almost immediately, the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers — and advocates on both side of the issue — uncertain if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision.
The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the advisory opinion, which was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record.
Heterosexual sodomy? Of course it can be criminalized, in principle. In practice, it isn't practical. Enforcement would create more problems than it would solve.
Since they are also members of society, they harm society, just as a single broken egg damages a dozen eggs.
How so? Nobody in a society has a duty to procreate. Do you propose requiring everyone to have X number of children during their lifetime?
Participation in unnatural acts (i.e., bulemia) harms those engaged in them. Abusing one's reproductive powers is a greater form of self-abuse than something like bulemia since it is an abuse of one of man's noblest powers, the power of procreation. A pervert diminishes himself just as a theif diminishes himself. Since a pervert is a member of society, his diminishment directly diminishes society (society is simply a collection of individuals, the welfare of which is more important than the welfare of a single individual). Moreover, someone who engages in sodomy is diminished by the act and is disposed to harm society in other ways.
Such is certainly the case regarding sodomy. This crime strikes at the heart of society, since without procreation society itself ceases to exist.
If an individual chooses no to procreate, that is no business of society.
It isn't? Without new generations, society ceases to exist. Certainly, single people aren't obligated to procreate, since fornication is an evil. But married people are obligated to procreate, within reason. (See On the Regulation of Birth)
I know, but this is the real world we're talking about here, not some fantasy land.
Judges are appointed by the Governor's Council, a relic from our days as an English colony. I'm pretty sure it's their only duty, and they're just a rubber stamp of the governor, who appoints the members of the GC.
Incidentally, you know who we have to blame for Chief Justice Marshall, the foreign-born idiot who crafted this decision? Noneother than former governor William Weld, RINO, who elevated her to the position of Chief Justice. Dukakis put her on the bench; Weld promoted her.
That's true. Their judgement is clouded by their self-absorption.
Since society is comprised of families, as the family goes, so goes society.
Raising children in homosexual households is a crime. It's a horrible form of child abuse, and will have a devastating effect on society.
I checked with our horses and they promise to serve as bodyguards and not to engage in Congress with the likes of Catherine the Great or any human male counterparts. If you are not prepared to scrupulously comply with the preservation of their virtue, I would not recommend stopping by the Elk hacienda or the Elk barn on the plains with any perversions in mind.
That's true. Their judgement is clouded by their self-absorption.
So what exactly does government add to a marriage, beyond taxes?
Are you referring to Mr. Elvis President, of 1414 Mockingbird Lane, Boston, Mass? This is a state issue. The Mass state legislature should fix their state constitution.
So, you have no problems intruding into the private sexual lives of consenting adults? That type of love of government intrusiveness is not a conservative position. In any event, whether you like it or not, the courts of this great nation have ruled that consenting adults have the right to engage in whatever private sexual activity they desire. If you don't like it, you can always move to Iran.
Since a pervert is a member of society, his diminishment directly diminishes society
Seeing as the vast majority of Americans engage or have engaged in some form of sodomy, it seems that those who do not are the perverts.
(society is simply a collection of individuals, the welfare of which is more important than the welfare of a single individual)
Thank you, Chairman Mao. The inalienable rights of the individual trump the welfare of society.
Certainly, single people aren't obligated to procreate, since fornication is an evil.
No, it isn't. Enforcing outdated notions of morality on unwilling adults is evil. But thank you for bringing us a dash of the 12th century. Maybe stonings for fornicators would be something you support?
But married people are obligated to procreate, within reason.
Would you sanction enforcing this at gunpoint? Because, at the end of the day, that is what laws do. How many children should each married couple be forced to have, in your theocratic regime?
What a terribly mean spirited thing to say. To endorse killing with AIDS by promoting homosexual behavior is horrible. We can only pray that these people, who have homosexual desires, change their lifestyle like the many thousands who have.
Chapter III, Article II of the Mass. Constitution states the following:
Article II. Each branch of the legislature, as well as the governor and council, shall have authority to require the opinions of the justices of the supreme judicial court, upon important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions.
-------------------------------------------------------
I had no idea this was in their constitution until I looked it up. It looks like the Legislature did exactly what the Constitution provides for, and the court rendered their opinion. Whether the Legislature has to follow it or not, I don't know for sure, but it would be silly to invoke Article II, Chapter III if they weren't going to follow the advice.
FYI, I disagree with the Supreme Courts ruling(based upon the Vermont Ruling), but what has occurred appears to be within the guidelines of the State Constitution. Just thought I'd put that out there.
LOL!!! You are so silly!!! So, you are in favor of one man being able to marry multiple women? And multiple women being allowed to marry multiple men? And what about the rights of people who have sex with farm animals? They are being denied the "right" to marry their sheep. If you are against them having these "rights" who are you to judge?
You are simply a firm believer in spreading and promoting sexual deviancy.
I'll tag on here cause I like that line and I'm gonna get whacked for this, maybe you can give me cover...;->
I don't think a constitution amendment is the answer. We're where we are because we've allowed the government to define marriage. We are just getting more of what we asked for, state sanctioned relationship arrangements. With the gubbermint running things in a few short decades we've gone from divorces being hard to get to allowing divorces because one spouse doesn't put the cap back on the toothpaste.
I don't know what the answer is other than your spiritual rebirth, but using gubbermint to define marriage is, I think, ill advised, as they will always define it down to what they want it to be and not what God says it is and we'll always end up in the same spot...
That's funny!
Good thing there were enough folks in Massachusetts to give that state's Electoral votes to RR twice, much to the dismay of the intellectual apparatchiks.
...and Grace's husband was RR's favorite President, ya know. :^)
I am actually in favor of the proposition that consenting adults, in whatever combination or number, be allowed to enter into whatever contract they desire (except for contract that would be otherwise illegal on other grounds, such as slavery contracts). The best solution would be for the state to simply get out of the marriage game.
Damn Ten Commandments! Adultery is cool... todays thing... happening... right? Hey, the impeached ex-president Bill did it. Moral notions against must be outdated!
What an idiot... There is no morality in your world because it's always open to change based on human desire. The Ten Commandments are from God, not man. You have a lot of Christians and Jews to argue with if you don't think so.
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.