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.

[jimt]

The thing is, the common-law definition of marriage is a union between one man and one worman. That has stood for thousands of years.

Let the 1% of the population who want to redefine the word invent their own. No matter how hard they want to pretend, their arrangment is not and will never be a marriage.

I can pretend I'm a steamboat all I want, run around insisting others call me "Steamboat", sue until I'm blue in the face, and accuse others of being "steamboatphobic", but it will not change reality.

Similarly the homosexuals.

"If they come down in favor of the plaintiffs, the word 'landmark' is an understatement."

I think "skidmark" is the proper word if they "go down" or "bend over" in favor of the plaintiffs.

[You Dirty Rats]

That's another great argument against gay marriage -- don't do it because we don't want to offend Muslims. I lie awake at night worried about all the things we do in this country that offend Muslims. I wonder if perhaps we should change our laws, practices and customs to conform to Islam.

Frankly, if I hear something will upset those folks, I'd be more inclined to do it.

If I was a caterer, I'd be counting my money after reading some of these arguments, because if there is no better arguments against gay marriages, get ready for a wedding boom.

[TheAngryClam]

That's funny- the common law hasn't been around for thousands of years.

[ohioman]

How can you be for scumbucket butt pirates who want their sickness recognized as normal. All in favor of this are as evil as the liberals.

[jhw61]

"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."......

It may not affect your or my normal marriages but it certainly will affect you in other ways. One of the big beefs they have is healthcare. Who the heck is going to pay for that? And I don't want to see their public displays of affection (gross!) and don't you think they'll yuk it up big time now that their married.

Sometimes I don't like my/your home state either. It's a shame that such great men helped begin this great country hailed from Massachusetts. How did we end up in such a cesspool?

[strider44]

I didn't say I was in favor of it, I just don't give a shit. Again, if two fags get married, how does that effect my hetero marriage in any way?

[Guillermo]

What kind of logic is that?

Who cares if someone is killed, because that won't change the fact that you drink coffee in the morning.

Point is, the very essence of marriage is that it involves a man and a woman. That's its very definition.

One cannot arbitrarily change the definition of words. If you say blue is in fact red, doesn't mean blue=red, just because you said it does.

[TheAngryClam]

One cannot arbitrarily change the definition of words. If you say blue is in fact red, doesn't mean blue=red, just because you said it does.

Actually, it does. But it's not just one person, but popular culture as a whole.

That's why Italians and Spaniards don't speak the same language anymore, but rather two different forms of hillbilly Latin.

[Guillermo]

"Marriage" in either language means the same thing.

To ask "should 2 homosexuals be allowed to marry" is not a valid question. It's like asking "should you be allowed to fly if you grew feathers down the length of your arms."

There is no law that says a homosexual man may not marry any willing single female, so when they say they aren't "allowed to marry," they're lying.

[youknow]

The Chief Justice was born in South Africa only becane a U.S citizens 5 years ago!!

[kdmhcdcfld]

Yeah...that's a sound arguement for gay marriages - caterers stand to make a shitload of money. That will only be short-lived, though, because of the initial rush by homosexuals/lesbians to get married. And given the true percentage of the population that is gay (around 4 percent rather than the 10 percent that the gay lobby attempted for many years to have us believe), the number of such marriages will level off - fast.

[7DayRepo]

Once the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court approves gay marriage, how long before it approves pedophilia? 2 years? 3 years? Personally, I'd say 5 years, tops.

[mysonsfuture]

I agree. Look for a huge backlash against the ruling from a united red America.

[elbucko]

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

So are you saying that people who are known to be biologically infertile

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

I did. You're the one adding the complexity. Personal medical history or age is not the point or the issue. The point is: Does a male and female have the potential to produce offspring? The production of offspring and their care is the reason for marriage. That offspring may or may not be produced is not the point of the standard.

What? Is that qualification so difficult? Does it really offend you? Do want a law that reads like a legal brief? A tome of 900 pages? I don't get some of you people. You don't like gay marriage and would like a durable legal standard to prevent it and at the same time uphold the institution of marriage and you want a law that has so many exceptions that it is rendered meaningless.

[elbucko]

And how would we know that?

Exactly! But we would know that a faithful, homosexual, union would not produce any natural offspring. That's the point.