Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

No it's not. Let me tell you why. Even IF a person is "born gay" that still does not exclude them from being "married". They still can marry a woman if they are a man, and vice-versa.

"born gay" in quotations seems to indicate that you think gays can just "stop being silly faggots", or that the word of the Lord can convert them. IIRC this has been scientifically disproved. So if a social institution based on a biological fact of heterosexuality does not allow for the biological fact of homosexuality, it returns to my previous example. Based on your comment, if the red haired guy wants to run for office when red heads are not allowed by law, sure, he can just dye his hair black and enter the race. A silly example, that can be extrapolated to the marriage debate. Should not society allow for biological traits that do not harm bystanders?

Zephyr

Talk about your pre-conceived Bowfin..vine excrement. "born gay" was in response to the "biology" assertion, but if you think they are "silly faggots" then I suppose we should probably end this conversion - no? Society already "allows for biological traits". I didn't see anyone here say gays should be killed or quarantined. They can function in society just like the rest of us to - they are human you know The fact that they don't marry someone of the opposite sex does not mean that they can redefine marriage to fit them. They have every opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else regardless of their "biology".

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

The word "marriage" means whatever we want it to mean. It's simply a union between two people. It doesn't matter whether the two people are the same sex or different, it's the same principal. Two people are committing themselves to each other. The argument that somehow gay marriage will dilute the meaning of straight marriage is about as silly as saying allowing blacks to vote post civil-rights era somehow dilutes the white vote. And to be honest, it's about as antiquated too . . .

 

[markuskidd]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

No it's not. Let me tell you why. Even IF a person is "born gay" that still does not exclude them from being "married". They still can marry a woman if they are a man, and vice-versa.

"born gay" in quotations seems to indicate that you think gays can just "stop being silly faggots", or that the word of the Lord can convert them. IIRC this has been scientifically disproved. So if a social institution based on a biological fact of heterosexuality does not allow for the biological fact of homosexuality, it returns to my previous example. Based on your comment, if the red haired guy wants to run for office when red heads are not allowed by law, sure, he can just dye his hair black and enter the race. A silly example, that can be extrapolated to the marriage debate. Should not society allow for biological traits that do not harm bystanders?

Zephyr

Talk about your pre-conceived Bowfin..vine excrement. "born gay" was in response to the "biology" assertion, but if you think they are "silly faggots" then I suppose we should probably end this conversion - no? Society already "allows for biological traits". I didn't see anyone here say gays should be killed or quarantined. They can function in society just like the rest of us to - they are human you know The fact that they don't marry someone of the opposite sex does not mean that they can redefine marriage to fit them. They have every opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else regardless of their "biology".

CkG

yeah, and if we let them redefine marriage, then next thing you'll know they'll want us redfining colored people to be more than 3/5 of a person! hell -- will be there no end to the changes????

 

[Gaard]

They shouldn't be allowed to marry because of a dictionary definition?

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Gaard
They shouldn't be allowed to marry because of a dictionary definition?

Sound reasoning eh?

 

[abaez]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The word "marriage" means whatever we want it to mean. It's simply a union between two people. It doesn't matter whether the two people are the same sex or different, it's the same principal. Two people are committing themselves to each other. The argument that somehow gay marriage will dilute the meaning of straight marriage is about as silly as saying allowing blacks to vote post civil-rights era somehow dilutes the white vote. And to be honest, it's about as antiquated too . . .

:beer:

 

[chowderhead]

Please, won't someone think about the sanctity of marriage.

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: Piano Man

Originally posted by: SNC
Just because I cant resist putting in my $0.02. I think that homosexuality is a defense system. So that people that are defective in some way shape or form, don?t reproduce. Sort of natures own gene pool maintenance.

I dont want what I have with my wife mistaken for a couple pecker puffing bone dancers. Thats why.


Ill edit later

I know you are trying to be cute, but that line is very far from cute, and is actually much closer to hate speech.

No. I was not trying to be cute. It is how I feel. Please tell me how what I said could be hate speach?

If you are going to make a charge like that, back it up! How is what I said hate speach???
To copy and paste from what I said in a different thread:

What other description would you give for an uncontrollable condition that would cause someone to be attracted to a member of the human race that they can not reproduce with. Are you saying that my thoughts on homosexuality are completely wrong and fact less? If so, prove the opposite. If there is no way to prove or disprove your feelings/thoughts on the subject. Who is right and who is wrong. Where is the science to back any of ether of our positions? There is NONE! So it boils down to nothing more than what you feel and believe. Will you condemn me for my thoughts, and call it hate speach, and justify that because you feel differently.

 

[Corn]

The word "marriage" means whatever we want it to mean.

Just like the word "imminent" can mean whatever you want it to mean, right DM? Same thing with "is".

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
This is a bad judgement, and I think very few on either side of this argument want. The exact same rights under a different title isn't seperate, it's just that - different. Saying it has to be called 'marriage' is just going to feed all the hard-core people on both sides.

Why the hell should the word marriage matter?? Is marriage anywhere near sacred anymore? What is it, 50+% fail? Who knows, maybe they'll do better at it then straight people do.

Who cares; let gay people marry if they want.

because the word marriage has a definition. and that definition states man and woman ONLY. yes, to some people, marriage is sacred. Im not exactly the religious type, but I do view marriage as one of the few sacred institutions that we have left.
Its all the liberal thinking that has driven marriage down into the sh|tter and back. This 'live and let live' and 'do what makes ya happy' attitude destroys values and institutions that most Americans hold dear. There used to be a thing called public decency. you would try to be a good person in public and not cause a scene. or embarass yourself or those you were with. Thats gone. There used to be a time when if a woman had an illegimate child, she was shamed and was ashamed because she would be labeled a whore. This is no more. And now, were trying to break down the walls of marriage. When does it stop?

Wow, you people really admire Mr Webster, huh?

"Sorry, you can't marry because the definition of marriage states man and woman. That's the only reason, honest."

 

[Corn]

That's right Gaard. The constraints of the literal definitions of words are far too stringent. Why should Webster pigeonhole me as a caucasion male. From now on, I wish to be recognized as an african-american female!

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Corn
That's right Gaard. The constraints of the literal definitions of words are far too stringent. Why should Webster pigeonhole me as a caucasion male. From now on, I wish to be recognized as an african-american female!

Just for the record Corn, are you just playing d/a or do you agree with those who say 'no' due to the dictionary's definition?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Corn

The word "marriage" means whatever we want it to mean.

Just like the word "imminent" can mean whatever you want it to mean, right DM? Same thing with "is".

Bite me Niblet!

 

[Corn]

I believe "marriage" to be a religious concept. Even though I am not religious, I believe that "marriage" should remain as it is, the union of a man and a women.

This does not mean that I disagree with the concept of the civil union. I believe that gays have the same legal rights as non-gays.

Is it simple semantics? Yes, it sure is. But I see nothing wrong will allowing those traditions to remain true to their intent--and their definitions.

I am not a cat simply because I emulate the behavior of one when I'm playing with my kitty.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Corn
I believe "marriage" to be a religious concept. Even though I am not religious, I believe that "marriage" should remain as it is, the union of a man and a women.

If you truly believe that, then why should our government be in the business of defining marriage, promoting marriage and/or creating constitutional amendments to defend marriage? Why not have the gov't simply defer to the religious community and the parties involved to decide for themselves what marriage is and how it should be applied?

I am not a cat simply because I emulate the behavior of one when I'm playing with my kitty.

So I can't call you "pussy" now?

 

[Gaard]

Even though I am not religious, I believe that "marriage" should remain as it is, the union of a man and a women.

Any specific reason why? You're not a religious man, but you want religious traditions to remain? Odd, no?

Is it simple semantics? Yes, it sure is. But I see nothing wrong will allowing those traditions to remain true to their intent--and their definitions.

Would you be upset if those traditions are changed? You state that you see nothing wrong with keeping them, do you see anything wrong with changing them?

I am not a cat simply because I emulate the behavior of one when I'm playing with my kitty.

Now there's something I'd like to see. Corn, with his rep as a trash talker, on the floor rolling around with his kitty.

 

[Corn]

Any specific reason why? You're not a religious man, but you want religious traditions to remain? Odd, no?

Why is it odd that even though I'm not religious I still respect it's traditions as well as those who are?

Would you be upset if those traditions are changed? You state that you see nothing wrong with keeping them, do you see anything wrong with changing them?

"change" a "tradition"? Doesn't make sense. What makes a tradition a tradition?

To answer your question, I don't much care. It would seem to me that those religious institutions that administer these traditions are free to change and amend them as they see fit. If, say, the Vatican decides not to sanctify the unions of gay persons then they have that right, they should not be forced to change their theological beliefs simply to fit the mores of those who do not share their faith.

Now there's something I'd like to see. Corn, with his rep as a trash talker, on the floor rolling around with his kitty.

I don't "roll", I hunt.

 

[Corn]

If you truly believe that, then why should our government be in the business of defining marriage, promoting marriage and/or creating constitutional amendments to defend marriage?

I don't think marriage is the business of the government, other than to enforce the contractural obligations of unions and protect familial estates--something that I think all people have the right to enjoy. These "constitutional amendments" are petty, IMHO.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

OK, enough of this same old same old marriage/civil-union banter, lets go a different direction with this.

This "ruling" which is actually just an advisory opinion, means what exactly? What is the court going to do if the Mass. Legislature does not pass any law? Can the State Supreme Court actually make law? The article tries to state that gay marriage would be legal because of the ruling, but there is no legislation which actually does allow for that. Would that not in effect be the courts making law? Where are all the populists on this? Where are the "voice of the people" on this? Since when can a court force a Legislature to pass a law and if they don't - what then? What consequences are there if they just don't do anything?

IMO the Legislature should just sit on their hands until the people of Mass can vote on an amendment. That seems to be the way our system is set up. The courts have ZERO authority to write/make law...or atleast they aren't supposed to.

Any thoughts on the legal part of this?

CkG

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK, enough of this same old same old marriage/civil-union banter, lets go a different direction with this.

This "ruling" which is actually just an advisory opinion, means what exactly? What is the court going to do if the Mass. Legislature does not pass any law? Can the State Supreme Court actually make law? The article tries to state that gay marriage would be legal because of the ruling, but there is no legislation which actually does allow for that. Would that not in effect be the courts making law? Where are all the populists on this? Where are the "voice of the people" on this? Since when can a court force a Legislature to pass a law and if they don't - what then? What consequences are there if they just don't do anything?

IMO the Legislature should just sit on their hands until the people of Mass can vote on an amendment. That seems to be the way our system is set up. The courts have ZERO authority to write/make law...or atleast they aren't supposed to.

Any thoughts on the legal part of this?

CkG

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen. (Full story)

But almost immediately, the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers -- and advocates on both side of the issue -- uncertain if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision. (More on the Massachusetts ruling)

The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the advisory opinion, which was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record.

Cliff Notes:
The state laws were declared unconstitutional back in Nov.
The Supreme Judicial Court ordered the Legislature to fix the problem.
The Senate asked the Court for clarification on what would sufice.
The Court said seperate but equal does not cover it.

Since when can a court force a Legislature to pass a law and if they don't - what then? What consequences are there if they just don't do anything?

IMO the Legislature should just sit on their hands until the people of Mass can vote on an amendment. That seems to be the way our system is set up. The courts have ZERO authority to write/make law...or atleast they aren't supposed to.

The court can not force the Legislature to pass a law. They can declare a law to be unconstitutional, thereby voiding the law.


Now:
The Legislature is already working on the revision to the laws.
If they fail to comply with the Nov court order, they (Legislature) could be held in contempt.
I do not know what allows the court to order the correction - that is beyond my scope of knowledge.

The problem is that the people of Mass can generate an ammendment to a law, however it must still past constitutional muster.
At present the court is saying that the relevant law fails this test.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK, enough of this same old same old marriage/civil-union banter, lets go a different direction with this.

This "ruling" which is actually just an advisory opinion, means what exactly? What is the court going to do if the Mass. Legislature does not pass any law? Can the State Supreme Court actually make law? The article tries to state that gay marriage would be legal because of the ruling, but there is no legislation which actually does allow for that. Would that not in effect be the courts making law? Where are all the populists on this? Where are the "voice of the people" on this? Since when can a court force a Legislature to pass a law and if they don't - what then? What consequences are there if they just don't do anything?

IMO the Legislature should just sit on their hands until the people of Mass can vote on an amendment. That seems to be the way our system is set up. The courts have ZERO authority to write/make law...or atleast they aren't supposed to.

Any thoughts on the legal part of this?

CkG

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen. (Full story)

But almost immediately, the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers -- and advocates on both side of the issue -- uncertain if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision. (More on the Massachusetts ruling)

The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the advisory opinion, which was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record.

Cliff Notes:
The state laws were declared unconstitutional back in Nov.
The Supreme Judicial Court ordered the Legislature to fix the problem.
The Senate asked the Court for clarification on what would sufice.
The Court said seperate but equal does not cover it.

Since when can a court force a Legislature to pass a law and if they don't - what then? What consequences are there if they just don't do anything?

IMO the Legislature should just sit on their hands until the people of Mass can vote on an amendment. That seems to be the way our system is set up. The courts have ZERO authority to write/make law...or atleast they aren't supposed to.

The court can not force the Legislature to pass a law. They can declare a law to be unconstitutional, thereby voiding the law.


Now:
The Legislature is already working on the revision to the laws.
If they fail to comply with the Nov court order, they (Legislature) could be held in contempt.
I do not know what allows the court to order the correction - that is beyond my scope of knowledge.

The problem is that the people of Mass can generate an ammendment to a law, however it must still past constitutional muster.
At present the court is saying that the relevant law fails this test.

Exactly - IMO the legislature should sit on it's hands and let the people of the state decide. It wouldn't be an ammendment to the law - it'd be an amendment to the state constitution. The courts would have to uphold the constitution of the state - regardless of what they ruled in the past.

Also, where does the court gain the power to set a time table for legislation or what that legislation has to be? I didn't know that anyone could tell the legislature they "HAD" to pass a law. IMO the court has tripped on it's dick on this issue, they totally overstepped their bounds and the people of Mass should have the ultimate say in this matter.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

CAD, is the major reason you are against gay marriages strictly because of the dictionary's definition?



Also...

That's great but nothing was taken out of context - his intent was to state he did not support gay marriage.

Could you explain to me what quoting out of context is?
And how do you know what Kerry's intent was? He was asked how he would respond to attacks by Republicans.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen. (Full story)

But almost immediately, the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers -- and advocates on both side of the issue -- uncertain if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision. (More on the Massachusetts ruling)

The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the advisory opinion, which was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record.

Cliff Notes:
The state laws were declared unconstitutional back in Nov.
The Supreme Judicial Court ordered the Legislature to fix the problem.
The Senate asked the Court for clarification on what would sufice.
The Court said seperate but equal does not cover it.

Since when can a court force a Legislature to pass a law and if they don't - what then? What consequences are there if they just don't do anything?

IMO the Legislature should just sit on their hands until the people of Mass can vote on an amendment. That seems to be the way our system is set up. The courts have ZERO authority to write/make law...or atleast they aren't supposed to.

The court can not force the Legislature to pass a law. They can declare a law to be unconstitutional, thereby voiding the law.


Now:
The Legislature is already working on the revision to the laws.
If they fail to comply with the Nov court order, they (Legislature) could be held in contempt.
I do not know what allows the court to order the correction - that is beyond my scope of knowledge.

The problem is that the people of Mass can generate an ammendment to a law, however it must still past constitutional muster.
At present the court is saying that the relevant law fails this test.

Exactly - IMO the legislature should sit on it's hands and let the people of the state decide. It wouldn't be an ammendment to the law - it'd be an amendment to the state constitution. The courts would have to uphold the constitution of the state - regardless of what they ruled in the past.

Also, where does the court gain the power to set a time table for legislation or what that legislation has to be? I didn't know that anyone could tell the legislature they "HAD" to pass a law. IMO the court has tripped on it's dick on this issue, they totally overstepped their bounds and the people of Mass should have the ultimate say in this matter.

CkG

The court would not have directed the legislature to fix the problem unless the state constitution allowed them to do so.
They could have easily voided part of the law that was being challenged, however, they felt that something had to be corrected and they had the power to prevent procrastination by the legislature.
The people can attempt to vote on an ammendment, however, if it is considered unconstitutional, then it will not be put on the ballot.

 

[Insane3D]

Cad-

The law as it was on the books was judged unconstitutional. The law is now void, and the legislature must write a new law now that passes constitutional muster. They can't just "sit on their hands" or Mass will no marriage law to replace it.

IMO, the court in no way over stepped their bounds. The exisiting law was not constitutional, so it was ruled as much....how is this over stepping their bounds?

I love when courts follow the letter of the law, and people call them "activists"...

 

[DealMonkey]

Right, they're only "activists" when they're not doing what you want. Conservatism 101.