Kerry Backs Ban on Homosexual marriage in MA

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We should leave it up to the states to determine of blacks are 3/5th human I guess.

What Kerry whould do is call for a Constitutional ammendment that says everybody is entitled to a job since it's basic human rights anyway.

hello communism

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We should leave it up to the states to determine of blacks are 3/5th human I guess.

What Kerry whould do is call for a Constitutional ammendment that says everybody is entitled to a job since it's basic human rights anyway.

hello communism

Hey..that's Jane Fonda's Line!!!

 

[wkabel23]

Kerry is simply playing the the center of the nation...he lost my vote with his support of a constitutional ban on gay marriage, EVEN with civil unions having the same benefits as marriage.

Also, shut up with the hypocritical talk. Seriously. It's foolish. Republicans and Democrats are hypocrites. Get over it. So next time one party does something hypocritical don't **** your pants.

And I just found out that I'm "pathetic" and a "retard." Thanks Ultra Quiet. Also, thanks for letting me know my hatred for Bush drives me to be a liberal. It couldn't be because of the other things he has done? Right?

 

[GoPackGo]

I think we need a "free beverage of your choice" ammendment

 

[Piano Man]

F*ck him. I know that he probably doesn't give a sh!t about gay marriage, but this wedge issue can end him, and he knows it. I wish he'd grow some balls, though.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Ah but the intent isn't the same. If the US Constitution is ammended to outlaw gay marriages then it takes away the states rights to decide whether to allow it or not on their own. Good Old Boy Congressman from the Bible Belt should not be voting on whether to allow Gay Marriages in places like MASS or CA , that should be left up to the voters of those states!

Just as appointed Mass Justices should not be given the right to decide the matter for everyone in the state, but they are....

Why not? They were appointed by a Representitve elected by the people of that state!

They have no legislative power.(or atleast aren't supposed to have that power)

CkG

they have all the power the mass const grants them, and unless you're an expert on the mass const you can't say.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Ah but the intent isn't the same. If the US Constitution is ammended to outlaw gay marriages then it takes away the states rights to decide whether to allow it or not on their own. Good Old Boy Congressman from the Bible Belt should not be voting on whether to allow Gay Marriages in places like MASS or CA , that should be left up to the voters of those states!

Just as appointed Mass Justices should not be given the right to decide the matter for everyone in the state, but they are....

Why not? They were appointed by a Representitve elected by the people of that state!

They have no legislative power.(or atleast aren't supposed to have that power)

CkG

they have all the power the mass const grants them, and unless you're an expert on the mass const you can't say.

Ummm.... Do you have any idea what the judicial branch is supposed to do? If they can legislate - why do we have a LEGISLATURE? I know it's been a few years for some of us since we've been in civics class but I don't think we've had any changes lately that grant legislative powers to the courts.

CkG

 

[digitalsm]

In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.

Thats exactly what amendment proposel will be. America seems to have a hang up on the word marriage.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Ummm.... Do you have any idea what the judicial branch is supposed to do? If they can legislate - why do we have a LEGISLATURE? I know it's been a few years for some of us since we've been in civics class but I don't think we've had any changes lately that grant legislative powers to the courts.

CkG

the judicial branch may be empowered by the mass const to read the const very broadly. your profile says you live in iowa, so what is this "we have a legislature" BS? unless you explicitly know that the mass const does not allow very broad interpretation of what the mass const means then stfu already.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Breaking News ! from the Onion

 

[Jhhnn]

While I personally support gay marriage, I suspect that the "civil union" compromise is about the best that mainstream America is willing to offer at the present time. Nor is that much of one, it's merely a matter of semantics.

I kinda like bozack's idea, eliminating the "M" word entirely form the legal lexicon. The requirements have been loosening up a lot over the years, anyway- at one time it was illegal to marry outside one's faith, not to mention race, divorce was unheard of, and women didn't need suffrage- their husbands voted for them. Today, the mere representation of marriage is, in fact, marriage- in Colorado, anyway. Sign in at the no-tell motel as mr. &.mrs., and you are, with everything that entails.

To label Kerry as a bigot in this matter is not exactly honest, given the examples of true bigotry from the other side. He's a realist, and a candidate who doesn't want to get sidetracked into a no-win irrational red herring issue.

The next thing I'd expect from the Bushies is an attempt to link gays, terrarists, taxes and gun-grabbers into a vast liberal conspiracy.... against God, True Believers, and their anointed worldly leader, GWB... I can see it now, Dubya in his flightsuit, spouting thinly veiled hate, old glory waving behind him, the chorus from "Onward Christian Soldiers" coming up in the background.... stirs my heart, brings tears to my eyes that we could have been blessed with such a wonderful leader, I'll tell ya...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Ummm.... Do you have any idea what the judicial branch is supposed to do? If they can legislate - why do we have a LEGISLATURE? I know it's been a few years for some of us since we've been in civics class but I don't think we've had any changes lately that grant legislative powers to the courts.

CkG

the judicial branch may be empowered by the mass const to read the const very broadly. your profile says you live in iowa, so what is this "we have a legislature" BS? unless you explicitly know that the mass const does not allow very broad interpretation of what the mass const means then stfu already.

It's OK, Cad often forgets that the duty of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws including the constitution (of the states for state courts) and for the nation as a whole (for the USSC). Any decision Cad doesn't like and/or agree with is automatically labeled "judicial activism" and/or he accuses them of legislating. Perhaps YOU need a civics refresher course, eh Cad?

 

[Jhhnn]

Sometimes "Judicial Activism" is just the result of the law of unintended consequences and fortuitous timing by various advocates. I doub that the framers of the Mass. Constitution intended to allow gay marriage, but left that option open in the way the document is worded. Enter activist lawyers, who reference the words themselves, rather than what one might think was the "intended" meaning, and presto... gay marriage.

It's not like the courts are actually legislating- they can only rule on matters presented to them, whereas the legislature has the power to seek out issues, legislate accordingly, within the framework of existing law and the applicable constitution, which is subject to interpretation by the courts as cases brought before them might demand...

Sometimes democracy and separation of powers falls into the "careful what you wish for" category- I detest GWB, for example, but I don't claim his presidency is illegitimate or the result of an activist supreme court...

 

[Zephyr106]

How many years did prohibition last? I seem to recall the amendment that initiated it was in response to a great moral crisis of drinking and dancing in this country. Anyone want to take bets on how long any "Gay marriage prohibition Amendment" might last?

Zephyr

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sometimes "Judicial Activism" is just the result of the law of unintended consequences and fortuitous timing by various advocates. I doub that the framers of the Mass. Constitution intended to allow gay marriage, but left that option open in the way the document is worded. Enter activist lawyers, who reference the words themselves, rather than what one might think was the "intended" meaning, and presto... gay marriage.

It's not like the courts are actually legislating- they can only rule on matters presented to them, whereas the legislature has the power to seek out issues, legislate accordingly, within the framework of existing law and the applicable constitution, which is subject to interpretation by the courts as cases brought before them might demand...

Sometimes democracy and separation of powers falls into the "careful what you wish for" category- I detest GWB, for example, but I don't claim his presidency is illegitimate or the result of an activist supreme court...

like i said, it really depends on what is in the mass const. the candian const, for example, has a provision in it requiring it to be read very broadly.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Ummm.... Do you have any idea what the judicial branch is supposed to do? If they can legislate - why do we have a LEGISLATURE? I know it's been a few years for some of us since we've been in civics class but I don't think we've had any changes lately that grant legislative powers to the courts.

CkG

the judicial branch may be empowered by the mass const to read the const very broadly. your profile says you live in iowa, so what is this "we have a legislature" BS? unless you explicitly know that the mass const does not allow very broad interpretation of what the mass const means then stfu already.

It's OK, Cad often forgets that the duty of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws including the constitution (of the states for state courts) and for the nation as a whole (for the USSC). Any decision Cad doesn't like and/or agree with is automatically labeled "judicial activism" and/or he accuses them of legislating. Perhaps YOU need a civics refresher course, eh Cad?

Nope - no need for a civics lesson.

Article XX. The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for.

Oh, and to address the two amendments to that article:

Article XLVIII. Definition.
Legislative power shall continue to be vested in the general court; but the people reserve to themselves the popular initiative, which is the power of a specified number of voters to submit constitutional amendments and laws to the people for approval or rejection; and the popular referendum, which is the power of a specified number of voters to submit laws, enacted by the general court, to the people for their ratification or rejection.

Now before you jump up and down screaming about how it says "general court". General court means both branches of the legislative branch - not the judicial branch.
The other amendment has to do with the procedures for becoming a city and such(charter).

But I guess I am wrong to say that courts have no legislative power though - huh?

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

meh

 

[DealMonkey]

No Cad, you missed my point: The duty of the courts is to interpret the laws. When they do so, it does NOT mean they are legislating.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No Cad, you missed my point: The duty of the courts is to interpret the laws. When they do so, it does NOT mean they are legislating.

No, I didn't miss your "point". I fully understand that by ruling things unconstitutional it will affect legislation, but that doesn't change the fact that they can't(or aren't supposed to) legislate from the bench.

CkG

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: conjur
I think Kerry is trying to curry more conservative votes. It's a mistake.

I just don't understand this hangup people have on the word marriage. Mind-boggling.

the reason people [Me] have this hangup on the word marriage is that it
(A) already has a definition
(B) has a long standing tradition in this country and other countries as to what marriage is

we do not need to be meddling with the definition of words just to satisfy a bunch of activists. what i dont understand is why the hangup on the opposite end to call it by some other word? most of us are perfectly willing to give gays the same protections under the law as marriage, but we just want it called by some other term.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur
I think Kerry is trying to curry more conservative votes. It's a mistake.

I just don't understand this hangup people have on the word marriage. Mind-boggling.

the reason people [Me] have this hangup on the word marriage is that it
(A) already has a definition
(B) has a long standing tradition in this country and other countries as to what marriage is

we do not need to be meddling with the definition of words just to satisfy a bunch of activists. what i dont understand is why the hangup on the opposite end to call it by some other word? most of us are perfectly willing to give gays the same protections under the law as marriage, but we just want it called by some other term.

You just want to call it by some other term. It already has a definition. We do not need to be meddling with definitions. Aside from these irrational and baseless excuses for reasons, what's the hang up. Lets just use the word we got since it's what those horrible activists are seeking. Dear dear, you poor thing. Such an imposition they put on you. Take an aspirin, maybe you'll feel better in the morning. Can you see there's not a shred of rationality to your complaints?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No Cad, you missed my point: The duty of the courts is to interpret the laws. When they do so, it does NOT mean they are legislating.

No, I didn't miss your "point". I fully understand that by ruling things unconstitutional it will affect legislation, but that doesn't change the fact that they can't(or aren't supposed to) legislate from the bench.

CkG

Yes, that's often your accusation. But who ARE these judges legislating from the bench? Or are you simply confusing "interpreting the laws" with "legislating?" Specifics please.

 

[EXman]

Don't worry Kerry will change his mind on this as he changes his mind on everything else. It is a matter of time.

Yes, that's often your accusation. But who ARE these judges legislating from the bench? Or are you simply confusing "interpreting the laws" with "legislating?" Specifics please.

Homosexual SF judge who did not recuse himself from this issue. He just changed the law that has been voted on by the people. Prop22.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No Cad, you missed my point: The duty of the courts is to interpret the laws. When they do so, it does NOT mean they are legislating.

No, I didn't miss your "point". I fully understand that by ruling things unconstitutional it will affect legislation, but that doesn't change the fact that they can't(or aren't supposed to) legislate from the bench.

CkG

Yes, that's often your accusation. But who ARE these judges legislating from the bench? Or are you simply confusing "interpreting the laws" with "legislating?" Specifics please.

Specific to Mass IMO, the courts mandating a timetable for the legislature to act or else, is "legislating from the bench". And even if you hold a differing opinion it does not change my point.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
No Cad, you missed my point: The duty of the courts is to interpret the laws. When they do so, it does NOT mean they are legislating.

No, I didn't miss your "point". I fully understand that by ruling things unconstitutional it will affect legislation, but that doesn't change the fact that they can't(or aren't supposed to) legislate from the bench.

CkG

Yes, that's often your accusation. But who ARE these judges legislating from the bench? Or are you simply confusing "interpreting the laws" with "legislating?" Specifics please.

Specific to Mass IMO, the courts mandating a timetable for the legislature to act or else, is "legislating from the bench". And even if you hold a differing opinion it does not change my point.

CkG

Well Cad, it would only be "legislating" if they were actually passing legislation. Providing a timeline for something to happen (in this case, remedying an unconstitutional law) is most definitely the jurisdiction of the courts and is in no way "legislating." Are you sure you understand what you're talking about?