Let's hope so...
Posted on 05/16/2004 10:00:06 PM PDT by Cracker72
(05-16) 21:43 PDT CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) --
City clerks began handing out marriage-license applications to gay couples just after midnight Monday, making Massachusetts the first state in the nation to legalize same-sex unions and the United States just one of four countries in the world where homosexuals can legally wed.
The first couple to begin filling out the paperwork was Marcia Hams, 56, and her partner, Susan Shepherd, 52, of Cambridge. They showed up a full 24 hours ahead of time to stake out the first spot in line to get the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage applications.
"I'm shaking so much," Hams said as she filled out the application while sitting at a table across from a city official. "I could collapse at this point."
Outside, throughout the day and into the night, the atmosphere was festive -- complete with a giant wedding cake -- as officials in the liberal bastion of Cambridge seized the earliest possible moment to begin the process of granting same-sex couples the historic right at the center of legal battles nationwide.
By late Sunday night, police estimated that more than 5,000 people had descended outside city hall, cheering and clapping as it opened its doors to let more than 260 couples inside just ahead of the midnight deadline. Many in the crowd were family and friends who wanted to join in the festive atmosphere. There were also scores of reporters, and a few protesters stood across the street.
The state's highest court had ruled gays and lesbians must be allowed to marry beginning Monday, and some of the couples in line planned to head to the courts as soon as they opened later in the morning to seek waivers allowing them to wed before the usual three-day waiting period.
Massachusetts was thrust into the center of a nationwide debate on gay marriage when the state's Supreme Judicial Court issued its narrow 4-3 ruling in November that gays and lesbians had a right under the state constitution to wed.
In the days leading up to Monday's deadline, opponents looked to the federal courts for help in overturning the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Murder, rape, theft, incest, promiscuity, nudity, cannibalism...all occur within biological life forms in nature also. Shouldn't they receive public sanction too, according your theory?
Provided other states are not forced to recognize these abominations, look at it positively; we know where they will all be. Right next door to Teddy and Mr. Kerry. If the invasion of same sex couples is intense enough, the remaining 49 states stand to gain some fine upstanding citizens and business.
I sure hope they enjoy seeing them hugging and kissing in public in front of their children.
You just don't want to get it.
Just do a search on the articles about the death of marriage in countries in Europe that have legalized "gay marriage". Not that "gay marriage" is the sole cause - but it is certainly one of the final blows of the death of marriage and therefore the natural family as a stable foundation of society and the best place to raise children.
If you don't want to get it, you won't.
Back to the "natural" issue, if it is so natural, why don't gays and lesbians have body parts and physiological systems that match their desires? Why can't lesbians have intercourse? Why do they ovulate? Menstruate? Why do gay men have sperm? There is nothing actually "natural" about their behavior. Some people beat their heads against walls, cut or mutilate themselves....all behavior does not fall into the "natural" category as the previous poster used the term.
By the way, should nudity be legal? It's certainly natural. Who does it offend. Or, WHAT does it offend other than the moral sense of the public?
He gets it. He just doesn't care.
Damn it! That was my last hope. Well, either that or kidnapping Rupert Murdoch and torturing him until he agrees to an extension.
So sexual orientation has nothing to do with biology and human physiology? It not, then it is not "natural."
I am really saddened. What I am missing? A spirited debate on the 'merits homosexuality'?
So sexual orientation has nothing to do with biology and human physiology? IF not, then it is not "natural." You proved my point.
Homosexuality does not occur in nature.
Homosexuality is more than the bare act of sodomy: what is it we are constantly told--it's a "lifestyle"? So drawing a parallel between it and, say, a male wolf mounting another male wolf, is a total perversion of the term.
Homosexuality is a pair-bond relationship between two men or women that includes sexual intercourse. Basically, it is supposedly everything that marriage is, just with same-sex partners.
So if you want to find a true animal equivalent of human homosexuality you have to find me a MATING pair-bond relationship between two male or two female animals. Where two male wolves, foxes, birds, or anything else, go off and live alone together AND mate while doing so. This occurs precisely nowhere in the animal kingdom that I know of.
Well, at least not married by the state, hopefully. If not married by the state, the state will have no future claim or title to the children. Without that claim, the government will be unable to pledge the future labor of those children to borrow money needed to run government today.
No money to run government means no money to continue its socialistic programs and the perps will have done nothing but subjugate itself to the state for no financial benefit after all. It could be said that by allowing the perps to hijack the word, 'marriage,' the government invested in the wrong 'stock' -- stock with no yield, no return. There is just no way that THAT stock could have a vested interest in the future.
From the perps point of view, it would make no difference because it really wasn't about tapping into financial benefits to begin with. It was about having government approve their sin, believing if the government approved and sanctioned the behavior, God would too, as governments are instituted of God. Well, I'm not pretending to speak for God, of course, but I now understand the psycho-genesis of the golden calf. The state has now become the golden calf, the lesser 'god' for the perp set. And sadly, the state has accepted the position.
I suspect the government will begin the process of self-regulation when its coffers run dry and it recognizes its error. It has just elected to become a closed system and its energy will dissipate quickly. Who knows? Maybe even self-implode.
In the meantime, men and women of good will (God's will) will continue to do what they've been doing before governments existed. And hopefully re-construct the framework for a government of the people, by the people and for the people. One that cannot be assailed or transformed by worshippers of the golden calf.
In case anyone is confused here, I am merely suggesting that it is time to refuse to register the birth of your children with the government of the golden calf. Birth certificates are like car titles. It's a contract which binds your children to the government and is used as surety for the continuing debt.
The least we can do is not pledge the future labor of our children (sell them into involuntary slavery through forced taxation) just for the purpose of having the calf-worshippers, those who do not have a vested interest in the future of our country (or in civilization itself) to enjoy some simple financial benefit today.
A railing accusation against you, Massachusettes. That state which deserves to have it's name mis-spelled and mis-pronounced. That state which I will be ashamed to say is the place of my birth. That state whose soil contains the blood of our founders and patriots. And perhaps the first state which shall be judged by that blood.
No. You can argue against homosexuality without spouting off terms like "faggots". It makes us look like a bunch of backwards idiots.
The same blood tests that every couple in Massachusetts has to take--I know syphillis is in the mix, I forget what else. I'm sure it's on the web even if it hasn't been updated to reflect the inclusion of same-sex couples.
If so, other than for being convicted of a felony, under what conditions is it okay to deny an American citizen a civil right?
"My Big Fat Greek Wedding"
"Massachusetts joins the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada's three most populous provinces as the only places in the world where gays can marry."
Glad we're in such good company.
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.