Massachusetts governor wants 1913 law invoked to ban gay marriages

[dbk]

It's just a word...marriage, union, who cares? Just give them same benefits. If "marriage" was banned, I wonder how homosexuals would tell people that they're together. "We got <unionized> last May, it was beautiful."

 

[Pepsei]

It is okay to be a bigot as long as I can say that some of my friends are gay.


Ah, how times has changed when it used to be "Hey, some of my friends are black."

 

[BugsBunny1078]

We don't have to take this lying down.
Sign up today
No Gay Marriage petition

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
We don't have to take this lying down.
Sign up today
No Gay Marriage petition

Have fun with that.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Crimson
I'm not really against gay marriage, but I hate having it forced down my throat..

Who is forcing it down your throat.

Are you being forced into a gay marriage?

Sounds like there is freedom of choice. You have it, why deny it to others.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
We don't have to take this lying down.
Sign up today
No Gay Marriage petition

Take what lying down, Bugs, this vicious assault to your bigotry?

 

[BugsBunny1078]

This rebellion by our activist judges against millennia of tradition handed down by God himself.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Last I heard marriage was a public proclamation between two people who are committed to each other physically, emotionally, and spiritually in a state called marital bliss.

No one has a right to tell you that you can't commit to another person.

But the real issue isn't about people loving on another, but government approval, and forcing a tyranny ware the morality of the few is forced upon the many.

We should just do away with government recognition of marriage, leaving only comunal property contracts.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
We don't have to take this lying down.
Sign up today
No Gay Marriage petition

Take what lying down, Bugs, this vicious assault to your bigotry?

Moonbeam, it's beneath you to resort to ad-hominem arguments.

Trying to silence those who are against same-sex marriage by calling them bigots is a flawed approach, imo.

 

[Gaard]

KKK Plans to Protest 'Gay Day' at Dollywood

The company some of you guys keep. I wish my values matched those of the KKK.

 

[totalcommand]

Do y'all know what the law was originally for? So blacks and whites from the South who wanted to marry in Massachusetts could not do so. Sound racist to you? Pretty ironic that this law is being called up for a new prejudicial role.

 

[Kunzinator]

I myself am strait and think homosexuality a bit ummm.... nasty....., but I then think about the US constitution, and though I am against and dislike homosexuality, it is only rihgt that they can be married, for if we can deny the rights of one minority, then what stops us from another, the US was made to be a free nation, but if we disallow gay marriage, then we are taking away rights of the minority, besides, all you strait guys out there, its not like we are going to be forced to marry some other man or anything because of this. Damn sorry, run-on sentence. Anyway I think it would be best to just make marriage a non-governmental thing and get rid of it, and leave it to the church's, and instead somehow have a goverment union kind of thing, a non religion based union of two people who will live together, share taxes, etc. So then you and your best friend can go out and get a "Union" and live together, and have it have nothing to do with sexuality or religion, lol, then have shared ownership of the X-Box, ouch I can forsee some nasty custoidy battles over that, lol....

 

[preCRT]

letter to the Editor @ The Boston Globe:

Welcome to the Bay State

May 23, 2004

TWO WEEKS AGO a couple who had met in New York came to Massachusetts from their home in Utah, married, and left for a honeymoon in Hawaii. Hopefully, the bride's family from Arizona stayed a few days to see our beautiful state. The bridegroom's father, our governor, has meanwhile tried to block other out-of-state couples from receiving marriage licenses in Massachusetts ("Romney eyes order on licenses," Page A1, May 19).

On Cape Cod this month we have extended the same warm greeting to out-of-state couples who wish to marry here as we always have, and these couples have stayed in Massachusetts for their honeymoons. We who value the contribution of tourism to our region wouldn't have it any other way.

JOHN BURROWS
Provincetown

If Mitt truly thinks out-of-staters have no right to marry, then he dang well ought to void his son's marriage license too.

 

[acebake]

Yeah I agree with you also, Pepsei.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: preCRT
letter to the Editor @ The Boston Globe:

Welcome to the Bay State

May 23, 2004

TWO WEEKS AGO a couple who had met in New York came to Massachusetts from their home in Utah, married, and left for a honeymoon in Hawaii. Hopefully, the bride's family from Arizona stayed a few days to see our beautiful state. The bridegroom's father, our governor, has meanwhile tried to block other out-of-state couples from receiving marriage licenses in Massachusetts ("Romney eyes order on licenses," Page A1, May 19).

On Cape Cod this month we have extended the same warm greeting to out-of-state couples who wish to marry here as we always have, and these couples have stayed in Massachusetts for their honeymoons. We who value the contribution of tourism to our region wouldn't have it any other way.

JOHN BURROWS
Provincetown

If Mitt truly thinks out-of-staters have no right to marry, then he dang well ought to void his son's marriage license too.

Actually, I believe that law he's trying to get enacted doesn't prohibit out-of-staters to marry per se....it just prohibits them from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage isn't allowed in another state.

 

[CountZero]

Companies will be forced to pay for benefits for married gay couples, even if they object to this type of behavior.

This is the worst argument against it. If this was a fair argument then you could say companies shouldn't have to hire some minority since they don't like them. Or have to support interracial marriages because they don't like them.

Since homosexuality isn't illegal (unlike pedophilia which is) that slippery slope argument is pretty null. Polygamy is different since it is adults. Perhaps you could have a union but legal benefits would only be given to one couple within the group. Though if the only way to support gay marriage was to support polygamy marriages then I'd be for it, they are adults after all.

I think gay marriage is an inevitability *unless* Bush gets another four years and gets to put some supreme court justices in place in which case an amendment could be possible.

I do feel for the religous folks who have had their term for a union (marriage) turned into a secular insitution by the government, but it is no longer a religous idea in any way, not since the government recognized it with legal benefits.

 

[Painman]

Oops, nevermind

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
We don't have to take this lying down.
Sign up today
No Gay Marriage petition

Take what lying down, Bugs, this vicious assault to your bigotry?

Moonbeam, it's beneath you to resort to ad-hominem arguments.

Trying to silence those who are against same-sex marriage by calling them bigots is a flawed approach, imo.

It would also be a useless approach as well, I'd say. You know what they say. You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much. I'm not trying to silence anybody. I see bigots as a massive threat to civilization and life more generally. I think it's vital we identify and out them wherever we can. All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, and bigotry is profoundly evil. Think where the idiocy proposed by Bugs could and has lead throughout history. The stupid little bigot thinks he speaks for God. People like that can kill millions without batting an eye. Will of God, you see. Says so right here in this book which only I am qualified to interpret.

The people who flew into the towers think exactly the same.

 

[preCRT]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Actually, I believe that law he's trying to get enacted doesn't prohibit out-of-staters to marry per se....it just prohibits them from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage isn't allowed in another state.

What Mitt is really doing, is trying to cover his backside for when he eventually [2008] makes a fruitless run for the Republican nomination.

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
We don't have to take this lying down.
Sign up today
No Gay Marriage petition

Oops, I signed the petition saying you had to be neutered so you can't join the gene pool.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
This rebellion by our activist judges against millennia of tradition handed down by God himself.

God wants gay marriage to be allowed.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Pepsei, I would agree on a constitutional ban on gay marriages.

If they want to have a "union" fine, who are we to stop them? Just don't call it a marriage.

I support the government's institution of a "civil union", which would be available to couples, whether hetero or homo, that would bind them legally. Any couples so wishing a further designation of "marriage" can go to their place of worship and do it in their own way.

That is pretty much how i feel about it too, as long as the government is involved, that is one thing, if you want a religious meaning then that is something else and the goverment should not be involved in it.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Pepsei, I would agree on a constitutional ban on gay marriages.

If they want to have a "union" fine, who are we to stop them? Just don't call it a marriage.

I support the government's institution of a "civil union", which would be available to couples, whether hetero or homo, that would bind them legally. Any couples so wishing a further designation of "marriage" can go to their place of worship and do it in their own way.

That is pretty much how i feel about it too, as long as the government is involved, that is one thing, if you want a religious meaning then that is something else and the goverment should not be involved in it.

I agree....Marriage is done in a church....Civil Unions by the Govt...

That way the benefits are distributed equally....but can we have a law that sets the limits to:

2 Consenting Adults

and

Make dissolution painful enough so that it cant be broken up too easily

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Pepsei, I would agree on a constitutional ban on gay marriages.

If they want to have a "union" fine, who are we to stop them? Just don't call it a marriage.

I support the government's institution of a "civil union", which would be available to couples, whether hetero or homo, that would bind them legally. Any couples so wishing a further designation of "marriage" can go to their place of worship and do it in their own way.

That is pretty much how i feel about it too, as long as the government is involved, that is one thing, if you want a religious meaning then that is something else and the goverment should not be involved in it.

I agree....Marriage is done in a church....Civil Unions by the Govt...

That way the benefits are distributed equally....but can we have a law that sets the limits to:

2 Consenting Adults

and

Make dissolution painful enough so that it cant be broken up too easily

I disagree with making the dissolution painful, people fall out of love all the time, married or not doesn't matter much to anyone involved, especially not the kids, sometimes the kids are better off with mom and dad living separatly instead of having two miserable parents who fight all the time.

I think we need to understand that the times has changed, people getting married today don't do it for the same reasons as they used to, sure, it is romantic and all but when every day life starts to become boring, when people change (and people DO change) you can be married to someone who is not even close to the person you wanted to spend your life with.

Should you be forced to live with someone you don't even like anymore? Of course not.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Pepsei, I would agree on a constitutional ban on gay marriages.

If they want to have a "union" fine, who are we to stop them? Just don't call it a marriage.

I support the government's institution of a "civil union", which would be available to couples, whether hetero or homo, that would bind them legally. Any couples so wishing a further designation of "marriage" can go to their place of worship and do it in their own way.

That is pretty much how i feel about it too, as long as the government is involved, that is one thing, if you want a religious meaning then that is something else and the goverment should not be involved in it.

I agree....Marriage is done in a church....Civil Unions by the Govt...

That way the benefits are distributed equally....but can we have a law that sets the limits to:

2 Consenting Adults

and

Make dissolution painful enough so that it cant be broken up too easily

I disagree with making the dissolution painful, people fall out of love all the time, married or not doesn't matter much to anyone involved, especially not the kids, sometimes the kids are better off with mom and dad living separatly instead of having two miserable parents who fight all the time.

I think we need to understand that the times has changed, people getting married today don't do it for the same reasons as they used to, sure, it is romantic and all but when every day life starts to become boring, when people change (and people DO change) you can be married to someone who is not even close to the person you wanted to spend your life with.

Should you be forced to live with someone you don't even like anymore? Of course not.

So what you are saying is that we could start a Civil Union of the month club?....perhaps a legal version of wife swapping?

So you could get your civil union online and cancel it like you would your internet provider? Heck even cell phone companies charge hundreds for cancelling before end of contract.

I wasnt saying make the process painful but painful enough...you know like a fee or a waiting period or something.

Could you imagine changing your name or spouse on a weekly basis with your employer? I know I am being a bit extreme.