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.

[Aquinasfan]

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)?

[MineralMan]

"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?

[Aquinasfan]

It is silly to pretend that recreation equals procreation.

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

[ampat]

And what happens 1.5 years later when they are divorced?

[TheAngryClam]

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.

[Salman]

And what happens 1.5 years later when they are divorced?

More money for lawyers.

[You Dirty Rats]

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.

[You Dirty Rats]

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).

[JMS]

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.

[No Dems 2004]

If this happens, I'm sure praying that President Bush will wake up and realize that we need the Federal Marriage Amendment.

[You Dirty Rats]

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.

[ClearCase_guy]

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!

[kkindt]

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.

[TheAngryClam]

Then you agree with Bill Clinton that he never had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky?

[goldstategop]

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.

[JMS]

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.

[strider44]

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.

[TheAngryClam]

opposite sex.

Gender is a grammatical term being abused by the lefties and conservatives who are afraid of saying the word "sex" on television.

[kdmhcdcfld]

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.

[You Dirty Rats]

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.