Massachusetts High Court to Rule on Same-Sex Marriage( potential to be revolutionary)

boston.com ^ | July 9, 2003 | boston.com

[youknow]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will rule shortly on whether the state should grant marriage licences to seven same-sex couples.

Court rulings in Ontario and British Columbia have lent momentum to the push for homosexual marriage, but in the U.S., 37 states and the federal government have passed legislation in defence of marriage.

[youknow]

"This case has the potential to be revolutionary," said David Garrow, a law professor at Emory University in Atlanta. "If they come down in favor of the plaintiffs, the word 'landmark' is an understatement." The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will rule shortly on whether the state should grant marriage licences to seven same-sex couples.

[Support Free Republic]

---

GOD BLESS OUR MILITARY THANK A VET! MAKE A DONATION TODAY
	Keep Our Republic Free Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER It' s in the Breaking News Sidebar

[youknow]

Check on each Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and its will surprise you. One is from Africa ,has only been here in the U.S for 10 Years.

[MineralMan]

"One is from Africa ,has only been here in the U.S for 10 Years."

The Chief Justice was born in South Africa, and came to the USA in 1968. Attended Harvard and Yale. She's been here a lot more than 10 years.

[elbucko]

The "test" for marriage should be can, not will, but can, it result in off-spring from the union of the principle partners. If the answer is no, it's a civil contract, nothing more.

[MineralMan]

You can read the biographies of the Justices here, so you won't make mistakes:


http://www.state.ma.us/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/justices.html

[TheAngryClam]

So if someone's sterile, without possibility of conception, say, with a hysterectomy, then they can't get married?

I think you ought to think things through a little harder first.

[Dimensio]

So are you saying that people who are known to be biologically infertile (low sperm count, problem with the ovaries) should not be allowed to enter a marriage?

[ModelBreaker]

That doesn't work at all. What if the wife has had a historectomy? Childbearing is impossible.

[youknow]

she a Socialist

[TheAngryClam]

That was my point.

[jmaroneps37]

Since things have to keep falling til they get to rock bottom, this will be a shock but; it will also serve as the cattle prod on America's ash that is absolutely necessary to change things. Hang on gang but; don't get discouraged. We will win. This will be looked back at as a turning point.

[jmaroneps37]

Since things have to keep falling til they get to rock bottom, this will be a shock but; it will also serve as the cattle prod on America's ash that is absolutely necessary to change things. Hang on gang but; don't get discouraged. We will win. This will be looked back at as a turning point.

[harrowup]

The "test" for marriage should be can, not will, but can, it result in off-spring from the union of the principle partners.

Agreed. The purpose of marriage is to procreate and legitimize the issue. It is silly to pretend that recreation equals procreation.

[MineralMan]

"she a Socialist"

Shouldn't that be:

She _be_ a Socialist?" [grin]

If you're going to post information about someone, why not try to get it right? She's been in the country since 1968. Now, she may well be left-leaning, but that's another issue.

[oceanview]

to be honest, I hope the gays win the case. its time to force this issue down people throats and make them decide. since the supreme court decision, the republicans seem frozen on this issue, not able to give a direct answer as to whether they are against gay marriage (Santorum aside), as if somehow a decision by 6 blacked robed feeble senior citizens gives credence to the idea of gay marriage and prevents people from saying its wrong. let the courts force this issue on a public unwilling to accept it, and lets see what happens at the ballot box.

[ClearCase_guy]

The "test" for marriage should be can, not will, but can, it result in off-spring from the union of the principle partners.

Well-meant attempts like this are usually the result of someone trying to say "We should ban homosexual marriage" without actually using the word "homosexual". The fact is it's difficult to get that point across without using language that will upset some people. Here's the way to do it:

We should ban homosexual marriage.

[MineralMan]

"The "test" for marriage should be can, not will, but can, it result in off-spring from the union of the principle partners. If the answer is no, it's a civil contract, nothing more."

And how would we know that? Perhaps a couple should have to be one where the woman is already pregnant before marriage.

What about older men and women? What about a young couple where one person knows he/she is infertile?

[caisson71]

"Massachusetts High Court" ruling. Now, there's a no-brainer. I wonder what the odds are on this pending decision?

[TheAngryClam]

Bill Lockyer (the 60s something Attorney General here in CA) and his wife, who's less than half his age and expecting their first child, come to mind.