Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Massachusetts High Court to Rule on Same-Sex Marriage( potential to be revolutionary)
boston.com ^ | July 9, 2003 | boston.com

Posted on 07/11/2003 11:41:18 AM PDT by youknow

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:10:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: marriage; perverts; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
To: youknow
The Boston Globe officially endorsed homosexual marriage

Well, I guess that does it then. Besides, what judge wouldn't want to be on the cutting edge of social change (destruction)?

21 posted on 07/11/2003 12:07:31 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.
"

I'm not sure I take your point? It's not at all uncommon for men in their 60's to father children. It's a lot more uncommon for women of that age to bear children. What does this tale have to do with what's under discussion?
22 posted on 07/11/2003 12:08:23 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: harrowup
It is silly to pretend that recreation equals procreation.

Silly, yes. But when has that ever stopped a libertine?

23 posted on 07/11/2003 12:09:26 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Support Free Republic
And what happens 1.5 years later when they are divorced?
24 posted on 07/11/2003 12:10:12 PM PDT by ampat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
It was an illustration of your "how are we supposed to tell ahead of time" point.

Plus, I don't like Lockyer, so I like to point out things that make him look shady.
25 posted on 07/11/2003 12:10:19 PM PDT by TheAngryClam (NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ampat
And what happens 1.5 years later when they are divorced?

More money for lawyers.

26 posted on 07/11/2003 12:23:17 PM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
So by your logic, my wife and I could not get married three years ago, since we were both sterilized.

I guess your logic would also ban post-menopausal women from getting married.

I really don't want to have reversal surgery just to meet this test. I had complications from the initial surgery and needed a second operation. Still hurts to think about it.
27 posted on 07/11/2003 12:40:37 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: youknow
Here's the real kicker. If the SJC of Massachusetts rules that gay marriage is legal, then the other 49 states most likely will have to recognize the marriage (Article IV).
28 posted on 07/11/2003 12:43:13 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
Seems to me that gays already have the right to marry just like everyone else. Men can marry women and women can marry men. They have exactly the same rights as every other adult.
29 posted on 07/11/2003 12:43:34 PM PDT by JMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: youknow
If this happens, I'm sure praying that President Bush will wake up and realize that we need the Federal Marriage Amendment.
30 posted on 07/11/2003 12:46:24 PM PDT by No Dems 2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JMS
You thought that up all by yourself?

Every adult DOESN'T have the same rights.

Men can marry women, but women can't marry women. Discrimination on the basis of gender -- illegal under the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Congratulations, you just made the case for gay marriage.
31 posted on 07/11/2003 12:48:46 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
It's not discrimiantion based on gender. Every American has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. This is a universal right, and all Americans are treated equally.

Now, if men had the right to marry men, but women were not allowed to marry women -- then we'd have a case of gender discrimination. But thank God, we don't live in that kind of country!

32 posted on 07/11/2003 12:52:42 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam

It is impossible for two men or two women to have true sexual intercourse.

Have you ever read the book "Study in Words" by C. S. Lewis? He writes about how the enemies of precision commit what he calls 'verbicide' - killing a word that has precision by making a word mean more than it has meant thereby robbing society of clearer thinking and rationality.

Hence the effort to make the word marriage mean something that can happen between two men (or two women) is an effort to destroy the precise meaning of the word and make sure that no word is used to replace it.

For example - once marriage is defined legally to incorporate agreements between men to have some kind of sexual contract with each other what word do we use to refer to the sexual contract between a man and a woman?

Now what happens is we use adjectives in front of a word that didn't need adjectives before - now we will have to say 'heterosexual marriage" and use two words where before we only needed one word.

If the courts rule that sexual agreements between men ought to be considered 'marriage' then we need to push for a new word for the union between a man and a woman. Lets call that kind of sexual agreement 'heterounion" and then create the word "homounion" instead of using the word marriage at all. Now we could push in the law for "heterounions" to have more rights than "homounions" because the society recognizes that such unions encourage a crossing over from one side of humanity to the other a reaching out to more deeply understand the other half of humanity. Hence the society can call "homounions" something less desireable for society and less to be encouraged.
33 posted on 07/11/2003 1:02:39 PM PDT by kkindt (knightforhire.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kkindt
Then you agree with Bill Clinton that he never had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky?
34 posted on 07/11/2003 1:11:31 PM PDT by TheAngryClam (NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: youknow
The smart money is the Massachusetts Supremes will say YES to same sex marriage. After all look at what the SCON in Nevada got away with. And why not? Its precisely the move elite opinion favors.
35 posted on 07/11/2003 1:11:32 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
I'm not sure if you caught my point - what I'm sayng is that adults can marry the opposite gender regardless of sexual orientation - therefore all adults have the same rights.
36 posted on 07/11/2003 1:28:01 PM PDT by JMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JMS
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. If a couple of fags want to get hitched, how does that affect my normal heterosexual marriage one iota? That's the issue. It's much ado about nothing. Who gives a crap.
37 posted on 07/11/2003 1:28:24 PM PDT by strider44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JMS
opposite sex.

Gender is a grammatical term being abused by the lefties and conservatives who are afraid of saying the word "sex" on television.
38 posted on 07/11/2003 1:29:47 PM PDT by TheAngryClam (NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: youknow
If the ruling is in favor of homosexual marriage (which I fully expect, being from this shit-hole of a state), then you can add this to the long list of why the Islam religion hates America and its culture.
39 posted on 07/11/2003 1:39:12 PM PDT by kdmhcdcfld (Any rebroadcast of this tagline without the express written consent of FreeRepublic is prohibited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JMS
All adults would also have the same rights if you had a law that banned interracial marriages. Since all adults can marry within their own race, they all have the same rights.

It's a ridiculous argument. It cut no ice with SCOTUS in the Sixties. A better argument will be needed to avoid gay marriage being declared a right by the Courts.
40 posted on 07/11/2003 1:46:50 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson