Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
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
Is there a mechanism that allows the people of MA to decide? And what would they decide? The constitutionality of a particular Massachusetts law? Are the people really qualified to do that?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: 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.
No, I am against "gay marriage" for other reasons also, but those get into other areas besides just the "marriage" issue. <- I'm going to leave it at that

Kerry has stated what he is for and against. His repeating this was in response to a question about how it could be used as an issue to diferentiate between him and Bush. He has also said that he takes the same stance as Cheney does. Meaning that He does not support gay "marriage". He has had to clarify this to the press on numerous occations.
Here is an example from today:
Leading Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., said in a statement that he supported full rights for gay couples but not marriage.

"I believe the right answer is civil unions,? he said. ?I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court?s decision.?
linky

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
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.
Could you please provide where it states that a constitutional amendment has to be deemed "constitutional" before it can be ratified by the constituents of the state?
If it does(and I've seen no evidence that it would) then IMO the courts have been allowed too much power over legislation and it must be corrected.

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
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
Is there a mechanism that allows the people of MA to decide? And what would they decide? The constitutionality of a particular Massachusetts law? Are the people really qualified to do that?
Yes, a Constitutional amendment would be one way to let the people decide. From what I've read - this is possible.
"Are the people really qualified to do that?" -eh? Are you saying that the Chappaquiddickians are not qualified to amend their own Constitution?;):p

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: 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"...
Ooops - skipped one:p

Yes, the State court deemed it unconstitutional. However, they have ZERO legislative responsibilities. By them putting a timetable on this forced legislation - I believe they have overstepped their bounds. The legislature writes the laws and enacts the laws - the Courts in this case can say if they are then "constitutional". By the court stepping in and telling them what the legislation had to include - they again(IMO) overstepped their reach.

So, Mass has no "marriage" laws - isn't that what some here wish for? Getting the gov't out of marriage? Sure it'd really mess up tax situations both Federally and state wise but what happens if they don't do what the court is trying to force them to do? Who is going to write the law? Surely not the courts -they have no legislative power at all. The Governor could step in an declare something but the legislature would still ultimately have a say somewhere along the line.

This will be interesting to see play out though. I just don't see how the Court can always have the final say when they are supposed to be following the Constitution of the people.

CkG
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
81
You know what I hope is next?

Cousins...because I really do have some very attractive cousins ;)

I mean, we wouldn't be hurting anyone outside our home and any children we produce would at least be as genetically viable as any a homosexual couple could produce.

Heh heh...just kidding. Good for them. It's about time gays got something or other :beer:
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
I don't see what the big deal is. If they want to get married, let them. What's the biggie? I have a hard time understanding why anyone who, like me, is neither gay nor religious would have an objection to this.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
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.
Could you please provide where it states that a constitutional amendment has to be deemed "constitutional" before it can be ratified by the constituents of the state?
If it does(and I've seen no evidence that it would) then IMO the courts have been allowed too much power over legislation and it must be corrected.

CkG
CAD

A proposed ballot issue that is ruled to be illegal will not be placed out for the public to vote on it.

I am operating on the theory that a court challenge to any anti-gay ammendment (one that tries to validate the law that was just struck down) would have the ammendment ruled to be illegal and thereby prevent the ammendment from even being on the ballot.
Aslo, the people of Mass apparently can not have a chance to vote on an ammendment until 2006 (caught this tibit on the news).

The court must have felt that they had the authority to order a correction be made by the legislature in regards to the voided law. Also, they must have had a legal standing to dictate the original time frame of six months for the legislature to act.

/update edit after reading the original ruling
The court declared the law to be invalid, however, they statyed the judgement for 180 days to allow the legislature to fix the problem.

The Senate wanted an advisory opinion on what would be acceptable.
They must have been working on a solution as ordered by the court, and wanted to know how far they could waffle.
The court stated in this last opinion that there was no grey area.


 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
The date of 6 months is to allow the legislature to fix the problem, before the complete law becomes invalid.

Here are the key sections of the Nov ruling.

The Supreme Judicial Court held today that "barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and
obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the
Massachusetts Constitution." The court stayed the entry of judgment for 180 days "to permit the
Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
In ruling that the Commonwealth could not do so, the court observed that the Massachusetts Constitution
"affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals," and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." It
reaches its conclusion, the court said, giving "full deference to the arguments made by the
Commonwealth." The Commonwealth, the court ruled, "has failed to identify any constitutionality
adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."
The "marriage ban" the court held, "works a deep and scarring
hardship" on same-sex families "for no rational reason." It prevents children of same-sex couples "from
enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of 'a stable family structure in which
children will be reared, educated, and socialized."' "It cannot be rational under our laws," the court held,
"to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits" because of their parents' sexual orientation.
The court rejected the Commonwealth's claim that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation.
Rather, the history of the marriage laws in the Commonwealth demonstrates that "it is the exclusive and
permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the
sine qua non of marriage."
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
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.
Could you please provide where it states that a constitutional amendment has to be deemed "constitutional" before it can be ratified by the constituents of the state?
If it does(and I've seen no evidence that it would) then IMO the courts have been allowed too much power over legislation and it must be corrected.

CkG
CAD

A proposed ballot issue that is ruled to be illegal will not be placed out for the public to vote on it.

I am operating on the theory that a court challenge to any anti-gay ammendment (one that tries to validate the law that was just struck down) would have the ammendment ruled to be illegal and thereby prevent the ammendment from even being on the ballot.
Aslo, the people of Mass apparently can not have a chance to vote on an ammendment until 2006 (caught this tibit on the news).

The court must have felt that they had the authority to order a correction be made by the legislature in regards to the voided law. Also, they must have had a legal standing to dictate the original time frame of six months for the legislature to act.

the Senate wanted an advisory opinion on what would be acceptable.
They must have been working on a solution as ordered by the court, and wanted to know how far they could waffle.
The court stated in this last opinion that there was no grey area.
Yes, I know this last thing was an advisory opinion as I stated before. A court "feeling" they had the authority doesn't sit too well with me - no matter what "issue we are talking about. Now as towards the amending of the state Constitution. I don't believe I've seen it anywhere that an amendment has to pass some court review. The point of which would be rediculous - no? Wouldn't amending the Constitution by definition be "unconstitutional" since what ever may be amended would be considered "unconstitutional"?
I haven't been able to parse all the documents on the proceedures required to amend the Mass. Constitution but the idea of having an amendment be subject to Constitutional review strikes me as odd. I hope the people and legislature find a way to have a voice in this.

Whatever - it really only affects the land of the Chappaquiddickians.:)

CkG
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Gaard
I don't see what the big deal is. If they want to get married, let them. What's the biggie? I have a hard time understanding why anyone who, like me, is neither gay nor religious would have an objection to this.
there are a few problems, the most publicised is that for many the term *marriage* is both legal and religious with the latter supporters being the most vocal...an easy solution would be to totally seperate and disolve the term *marrage* from any legal areas and replace it with the word *union* leaving *marriage* only for the religous aspects.

the second and not as mentioned issue is now with this mandate health insurance companies long with other benefits providers will now have to supply benefits to a whole bunch of people who in the past had to pay their own way, sure some companies offer significant other benefits but they are few and far between here in MA...this will cause insurance companies in the start to lose alot of money, eventually it will be transfereed to the companies in a higher cost per/policy which will ultimately get down to the employee level in the form of either higher co-payments, higher costs or other fees....

Not to mention all of the additional litigation of trying to settle divorce issues of same sex partners (alimony, child custody, inheritance...etc etc) so while it doesn't seem like anything major in reality there is alot more at issue here than what the media brings to light.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Whatever - it really only affects the land of the Chappaquiddickians.:)

CkG
The situation will affect everyone. That is why the religious bigots are so terrified.

A legal union in Mass will have to be accepted through out the US by other states and US territories.

It will be no different than people with hormones running out here to LV to get hitched.
When they get back home they are legal, even though it was performed in a different state.

Bigots may not allow it to happen in their state, but they will have to legally accept those unions created in Mass.


 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,732
5,167
126
Originally posted by: 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.
Of all those opposed to gay marriage posting here, SNC, you seem the most honest and direct in your bigotry. The other bigots are all pretending to themselves that logic and rational thought are behind them. You at least have identified that your motive is in how you feel. And you are absolutely right. You are emotionally repelled by the notion of sex, in your case, with a man and extrapolate from that feeling that gay marriage should not happen. You ask for science to back up either position. Personally I think the burden of proof should be on you. What scientific reason can you give to prevent gays from marriage. You are asking for a limitation on some for rights others have. Shouldn't you have to scientifically justify your reasoning? Furthermore, the preponderance of science leans against you. There is no evidence that homosexuality is by choice and some that it is genetic or endocrinologically developmental.

So the question comes down to whether how we feel corresponds to some abstract external reality, to some overarching moral law. In this, I'm afraid, I can only offer what will look like opinion:

How did we come to feel about things the way we feel about things. The answer belongs only to those who remember by feeling what they feel. The data from those who remember is this:

We all feel like the worst person in the world. We have all been through worse that a concentration camp, don't remember and don't want to remember and don't want to know we don't remember. We were all put down as children and made to hate ourselves. The open pain from that was too much to consciously bare and remain alive and functioning. We walled off the part of ourselves that was put down, the part of us that was real, and tried to become what would garner us love. Of course nothing worked so the pain only deepened our resolve. We hold our true selves, our tiny trusting loving undeveloped true selves in contempt and project out on the world that inner self hate. We now run the concentration camp and condemn other young souls.

There is always the hope that you will see that what you feel is sick. There is and was nothing wrong with you except you were born into a mentally ill world. If you can remember the lie you can remember who you really are. I think somebody who did died up on a cross. Imagine that man crucifying gays if you can. For a real man there is only love. Choose your ideals carefully.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Whatever - it really only affects the land of the Chappaquiddickians.:)

CkG
The situation will affect everyone. That is why the religious bigots are so terrified.

A legal union in Mass will have to be accepted through out the US by other states and US territories.

It will be no different than people with hormones running out here to LV to get hitched.
When they get back home they are legal, even though it was performed in a different state.

Bigots may not allow it to happen in their state, but they will have to legally accept those unions created in Mass.
No, actually what happens in Mass. can't be forced on a different state. There was a bit of legislation signed by Clinton Called the Defense of Marriage Act. Infact, right now in Iowa we have a case where a gay couple wanted a divorce - it was granted by a judge who only saw the paperwork and where gender was not know. The original ruling has been changed due to the state of Iowa not recognizing "gay marriage" or even "gay unions". There still is some court crap going on over this mistake by the judge.

CkG
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Whatever - it really only affects the land of the Chappaquiddickians.:)

CkG
The situation will affect everyone. That is why the religious bigots are so terrified.

A legal union in Mass will have to be accepted through out the US by other states and US territories.

It will be no different than people with hormones running out here to LV to get hitched.
When they get back home they are legal, even though it was performed in a different state.

Bigots may not allow it to happen in their state, but they will have to legally accept those unions created in Mass.
No, actually what happens in Mass. can't be forced on a different state. There was a bit of legislation signed by Clinton Called the Defense of Marriage Act. Infact, right now in Iowa we have a case where a gay couple wanted a divorce - it was granted by a judge who only saw the paperwork and where gender was not know. The original ruling has been changed due to the state of Iowa not recognizing "gay marriage" or even "gay unions". There still is some court crap going on over this mistake by the judge.

CkG
I did not know about the "Defense of Marriage Act".

Because it was triggered by the fear of Hawaii allowing same-sex marriages and Hawaii never followed through, the law has never been tested in a court of law.

If Mass follows through and makes same-sex unions legal, then some-one very quickly will go to one of the bigot states and force a challenge that will bubble it up to the US Supreme Court using the Mass Supremee Court ruling as a backing for the challenge.

Prediction:
Within 3-6 months of it passing the Mass Legislature, some activist will force a challenge in another state.
They may choose a liberal state (Vermont/Hawaii) to ensure an easy challenge or they may go straight for a bastion of bigots.


It also seems hypocritcal of Clinton to have signed such a law.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Whatever - it really only affects the land of the Chappaquiddickians.:)

CkG
The situation will affect everyone. That is why the religious bigots are so terrified.

A legal union in Mass will have to be accepted through out the US by other states and US territories.

It will be no different than people with hormones running out here to LV to get hitched.
When they get back home they are legal, even though it was performed in a different state.

Bigots may not allow it to happen in their state, but they will have to legally accept those unions created in Mass.
No, actually what happens in Mass. can't be forced on a different state. There was a bit of legislation signed by Clinton Called the Defense of Marriage Act. Infact, right now in Iowa we have a case where a gay couple wanted a divorce - it was granted by a judge who only saw the paperwork and where gender was not know. The original ruling has been changed due to the state of Iowa not recognizing "gay marriage" or even "gay unions". There still is some court crap going on over this mistake by the judge.

CkG
I did not know about the "Defense of Marriage Act".

Because it was triggered by the fear of Hawaii allowing same-sex marriages and Hawaii never followed through, the law has never been tested in a court of law.

If Mass follows through and makes same-sex unions legal, then some-one very quickly will go to one of the bigot states and force a challenge that will bubble it up to the US Supreme Court using the Mass Supremee Court ruling as a backing for the challenge.

Prediction:
Within 3-6 months of it passing the Mass Legislature, some activist will force a challenge in another state.
They may choose a liberal state (Vermont/Hawaii) to ensure an easy challenge or they may go straight for a bastion of bigots.
It all started again with the Texas sodomy issue. Yes it's been an issue for years, but that was one of the biggest things to trigger this wave of things. Someday people will stand up and actually have a say on this. I hope it's sooner than later for everone's sake.

Now if it does stay in the news because of challenges and the like - I guess it'll be pretty tough for the Dems to call this a "wedge issue"(meaning something they don't think people should vote on).

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yes, I know this last thing was an advisory opinion as I stated before. A court "feeling" they had the authority doesn't sit too well with me - no matter what "issue we are talking about.
Right, you'd much prefer robots sitting on the bench that merely handed down maximum sentences for every case that crossed their scanners. The judicial branch of our government plays an important role by deciding arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution. That's their job, Cad, as much as you apparently don't like it when it doesn't go your way.

Now as towards the amending of the state Constitution. I don't believe I've seen it anywhere that an amendment has to pass some court review. The point of which would be rediculous - no? Wouldn't amending the Constitution by definition be "unconstitutional" since what ever may be amended would be considered "unconstitutional"?
Constitutional amendments are difficult to pass, at least the federal level. Supermajority in both houses of Congress plus approval by 3/4 majority of the states. That's why Bush faces an uphill battle with his threatened constitutional amendment banning gays. I would imagine there's a pretty high hurdle at the state level as well. Regardless, any amendment to a state constitution would have to pass constitutional muster under the U.S. constitution. That's why the judicial branch is involved.
I haven't been able to parse all the documents on the proceedures required to amend the Mass. Constitution but the idea of having an amendment be subject to Constitutional review strikes me as odd. I hope the people and legislature find a way to have a voice in this.
I'd be willing to bet that the legislature of Massachusetts would propose the amendment and would vote it in subject to judicial oversight. I don't think the people would directly get involved in that -- however, I could be wrong on this point . . .


 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,732
5,167
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Whatever - it really only affects the land of the Chappaquiddickians.:)

CkG
The situation will affect everyone. That is why the religious bigots are so terrified.

A legal union in Mass will have to be accepted through out the US by other states and US territories.

It will be no different than people with hormones running out here to LV to get hitched.
When they get back home they are legal, even though it was performed in a different state.

Bigots may not allow it to happen in their state, but they will have to legally accept those unions created in Mass.
No, actually what happens in Mass. can't be forced on a different state. There was a bit of legislation signed by Clinton Called the Defense of Marriage Act. Infact, right now in Iowa we have a case where a gay couple wanted a divorce - it was granted by a judge who only saw the paperwork and where gender was not know. The original ruling has been changed due to the state of Iowa not recognizing "gay marriage" or even "gay unions". There still is some court crap going on over this mistake by the judge.

CkG
I did not know about the "Defense of Marriage Act".

Because it was triggered by the fear of Hawaii allowing same-sex marriages and Hawaii never followed through, the law has never been tested in a court of law.

If Mass follows through and makes same-sex unions legal, then some-one very quickly will go to one of the bigot states and force a challenge that will bubble it up to the US Supreme Court using the Mass Supremee Court ruling as a backing for the challenge.

Prediction:
Within 3-6 months of it passing the Mass Legislature, some activist will force a challenge in another state.
They may choose a liberal state (Vermont/Hawaii) to ensure an easy challenge or they may go straight for a bastion of bigots.
It all started again with the Texas sodomy issue. Yes it's been an issue for years, but that was one of the biggest things to trigger this wave of things. Someday people will stand up and actually have a say on this. I hope it's sooner than later for everone's sake.

CkG
You want to codify bigotry? We had that once as somebody already astutely pointed out when we counted black people as fractions of white. You are as bigoted on this point as the founding fathers were on slaves. Codifying evil is evil.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You want to codify bigotry? We had that once as somebody already astutely pointed out when we counted black people as fractions of white. You are as bigoted on this point as the founding fathers were on slaves. Codifying evil is evil.
Yeah, someone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot. Nice. I am not a bigot - never have been. I'm not seeking to say gay people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the opposite sex as the rest of us.

CkG
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the opposite sex as the rest of us.

CkG
Marriage does not have to be changed.

Just allow the same legal rights.

Seperate but equal does not cut it. Did not pass the
test for it for the blacks or females. Should not apply to gays either.

Let marriage belong to religion and enforce the seperation of church and state as defined in the constitution.

A legal union of two people should be just that, a union of two equal people.
Equal responsibility, rights, liabilities and equal punishment.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You want to codify bigotry? We had that once as somebody already astutely pointed out when we counted black people as fractions of white. You are as bigoted on this point as the founding fathers were on slaves. Codifying evil is evil.
Yeah, someone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot. Nice. I am not a bigot - never have been. I'm not seeking to say gay people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the opposite sex as the rest of us.

CkG
Separate but equal, eh Cad? Gays do not have the same rights as straights. Civil unions, where they exist (of course not all states offer this), do not offer the same rights as marriage. Further, claiming that gays have the right to only marry those you approve of (based on gender or whatever) is just another way of discriminating.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,732
5,167
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You want to codify bigotry? We had that once as somebody already astutely pointed out when we counted black people as fractions of white. You are as bigoted on this point as the founding fathers were on slaves. Codifying evil is evil.
Yeah, someone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot. Nice. I am not a bigot - never have been. I'm not seeking to say gay people are less human - they are every bit as human as I am and already have all the rights I do. I just don't think marriage should be changed just to allow for "alternative" lifestyles. They have just as much right to marry one person of the opposite sex as the rest of us.

CkG
I don't know too many bigots that will tell you they are bigots. Bigots are blind to their bigotry. But you are a bigot none the less. You cling to the horribly bigoted notion that the definition of marriage shouldn't change even though it prevents gays from having the same rights as others simply because you are insane. The rights of others is not for a man to marry a woman. It is for straight people to marry whom they wish in the way of consenting adults. Gays should also be able to marry consenting adults whom they love. You are a bigot because you would deny others the same sacred expression as you just because that's how you feel. The way you feel is sick. It expresses itself in bigotry. It's really very simple. Too simple for you to see. But others can see it and call it what it is. So sad to be a bigot. You keep the best part of yourself in prison. And what you give us is that worthless, self-rationalizing, ego maniac.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Separate but equal, eh Cad? Gays do not have the same rights as straights. Civil unions, where they exist (of course not all states offer this), do not offer the same rights as marriage. Further, claiming that gays have the right to only marry those you approve of (based on gender or whatever) is just another way of discriminating.

Isn't the easy solution for this then to take the term marriage out of government??, nullify all legal aspects of current hetero marriages and mandate that everyone file paperwork for legal "unions" and then let the church or whatever religious org use the term marriage??

Why are people so insistant on using the term marriage in the government?? if anything the differentiation of terms would further seperate church and state!
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Separate but equal, eh Cad? Gays do not have the same rights as straights. Civil unions, where they exist (of course not all states offer this), do not offer the same rights as marriage. Further, claiming that gays have the right to only marry those you approve of (based on gender or whatever) is just another way of discriminating.

Isn't the easy solution for this then to take the term marriage out of government??, nullify all legal aspects of current hetero marriages and mandate that everyone file paperwork for legal "unions" and then let the church or whatever religious org use the term marriage??

Why are people so insistant on using the term marriage in the government?? if anything the differentiation of terms would further seperate church and state!
As stated in my post above. Seperate the legal aspects from the religious aspects.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Separate but equal, eh Cad? Gays do not have the same rights as straights. Civil unions, where they exist (of course not all states offer this), do not offer the same rights as marriage. Further, claiming that gays have the right to only marry those you approve of (based on gender or whatever) is just another way of discriminating.

Isn't the easy solution for this then to take the term marriage out of government??, nullify all legal aspects of current hetero marriages and mandate that everyone file paperwork for legal "unions" and then let the church or whatever religious org use the term marriage??

Why are people so insistant on using the term marriage in the government?? if anything the differentiation of terms would further seperate church and state!
As stated in my post above. Seperate the legal aspects from the religious aspects.
So if a Man and Women decide to get hitched without some Priest of a Mythical Belief like Christianity doing the service it wouldn't be called a Marriage?

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY