JUST IN--- Massachusett's high court-------

[Rainband]

marriage isnt a "right". it IS foundation of a stable society

I see you ignored the main point of my post. That's okay. I didn't expect you to refute it anyway. My point, in case you missed it: If you want to protect marriage, ban divorces and annulments. How is divorce any less of an affront to such a holy institution as allowing gays to marry?

AMEN Lyle

[mf_dolphin]

I don't think your arguement makes any difference in this thread HD. Divorce is handled under both legal and religous laws. What we're talking about here is not the "protection" of marriage but the court deciding to redefine what was first a religous institution. If equal rights are the real issue then the court should not have objected to a a legal civil union. That would afford all the same rights and priveleges as a marriage without stepping on the religous aspects. When the court crossed that line they showed that they weren't interested in rights but in redefining a religous institution.

[OtherHD]

MF, I was responding to rainstorm's comment earlier in the thread where she mentioned the preservation of marriage. Sorry about the confusion.

[Rainband]

If the arguement is procreation, then should a man and women not be allowed to Marry if the can't or don't wish to conceive children?? Just curious. Marriage is about two people loving one another commiting to that love and then spending their lives together. Nothing more and nothing less.

[mf_dolphin]

Ok HD...it's a good debate but I think the Mass Court is going to be overturned before this is over. I don't support a US Constitutional Ammendment to ban gay marriages but I do at the state level.

[Rainband]

If the arguement is procreation, then should a man and women not be allowed to Marry if the can't or don't wish to conceive children?? Just curious. Marriage is about two people loving one another commiting to that love and then spending their lives together. Nothing more and nothing less.

Any comments???

[mf_dolphin]

Marriage is about a man and woman committing to a loving relationship based on God's word. The fact that our legal system adopted the same definition to describe the union does not give the courts the right to redefine the term....

btw, I don't consider a "Justice of the Peace" legal union as a marriage either even if it's between a man and a woman

[stormchazer]

If the arguement is procreation, then should a man and women not be allowed to Marry if the can't or don't wish to conceive children?? Just curious. Marriage is about two people loving one another commiting to that love and then spending their lives together. Nothing more and nothing less.

Procreation is what solidifies the definition. It is the defining difference between man/woman and same sex. It is what seperates Civil Union from marriage. Twist it all you want but it is what it is.

[Rainband]

Marriage is about a man and woman committing to a loving relationship based on God's word. The fact that our legal system adopted the same definition to describe the union does not give the courts the right to redefine the term....

Thank GOD times and ways change. Look at history "Change is the only thing that is constant" There are Many more things in "violation" of religous beliefs than Gay marriage. BTW my response was to the Procreation remarks..still waiting for replies

[mf_dolphin]

Marriage is about a man and woman committing to a loving relationship based on God's word. The fact that our legal system adopted the same definition to describe the union does not give the courts the right to redefine the term....

Thank GOD times and ways change. Look at history "Change is the only thing that is constant" There are Many more things in "violation" of religous beliefs than Gay marriage. BTW my response was to the Procreation remarks..still waiting for replies

Things may change but God's word does not... I disagree with the procreation point. reasons in a bit..

[stormchazer]

Marriage is about a man and woman committing to a loving relationship based on God's word. The fact that our legal system adopted the same definition to describe the union does not give the courts the right to redefine the term....

Thank GOD times and ways change. Look at history "Change is the only thing that is constant" There are Many more things in "violation" of religous beliefs than Gay marriage. BTW my response was to the Procreation remarks..still waiting for replies

I replied.

There are Many more things in "violation" of religous beliefs than Gay marriage.

Is this the "everyone else is doing it" defense?

[Rainband]

If the arguement is procreation, then should a man and women not be allowed to Marry if the can't or don't wish to conceive children?? Just curious. Marriage is about two people loving one another commiting to that love and then spending their lives together. Nothing more and nothing less.

Procreation is what solidifies the definition. It is the defining difference between man/woman and same sex. It is what seperates Civil Union from marriage. Twist it all you want but it is what it is.

By your defintion.. Procreation is giving life. I looked in websters. There isn't anything about Gay people. like I said still waiting for an argument to my comment. I like the dancing

[WidreMann]

What you're not acknowledging is that this is a country where the laws are supposed to be based on the majority. That's what this country was founded on. I defy you to find a majority. It's not the court's job to legislate from the bench....

Not true. The country is NOT based on the will of the majority, but rather on a set of principles we hold to be more important than the whims of the majority. That's why we have a constitution in the first place. And I certainly know that you don't really believe that there should be majority rule in this country. There are plenty of minorities that need to be, or have in the past needed to be protected despite the will of the majority. And sometimes they weren't, despite the principles. Thus there was the extermination of the Indians, slavery, Jim Crow laws in the south, the oppression of women (and women were almost a majority themselves!) and now gays. If people don't like gays, or gay marriage, they can just deal with. Principles and rights are more important than the tyranny of the majority.

[Rainband]

Marriage is about a man and woman committing to a loving relationship based on God's word. The fact that our legal system adopted the same definition to describe the union does not give the courts the right to redefine the term....

Thank GOD times and ways change. Look at history "Change is the only thing that is constant" There are Many more things in "violation" of religous beliefs than Gay marriage. BTW my response was to the Procreation remarks..still waiting for replies

[b]I replied.[b] MY COMMENT not yours

There are Many more things in "violation" of religous beliefs than Gay marriage.

Is this the "everyone else is doing it" defense?

I can't even comment because I am laughing so hard. Running ourt of good things to say??

[stormraiser]

Aaaah!!! The joys of a twisted, liberal, revisionist history.

[azskyman]

For all the ways you can define the term "marriage," I suspect a real fear within Federal government is not in re-writing the religious foundation or moral dictionary, but instead how the endorsement of same-sex marriage will impact everything from tax law to insurance coverage to education programs and social security.

Unfortunately along the way toward whatever conclusion evolves, the debate will polarize a lot of very good people. Let's be careful not to let that happen here.

[stormchazer]

Marriage is about a man and woman committing to a loving relationship based on God's word. The fact that our legal system adopted the same definition to describe the union does not give the courts the right to redefine the term....

Thank GOD times and ways change. Look at history "Change is the only thing that is constant" There are Many more things in "violation" of religous beliefs than Gay marriage. BTW my response was to the Procreation remarks..still waiting for replies

[b]I replied.[b] MY COMMENT not yours

There are Many more things in "violation" of religous beliefs than Gay marriage.

Is this the "everyone else is doing it" defense?

I can't even comment because I am laughing so hard. Running ourt of good things to say??

Lets face it...its the age old religious question and no one will win that arguement. One thing I have found at S2K is I find myself defending religious belief and I haven't been in a church in 15 years. You guys need to quit making me do that.

Once again. Since Biblical times, marriage has been for the purpose of developing the family unit, central of which is procreation. You ask what the difference is if two people love each other, man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, cat-dog? I give you PROCREATION. That is the difference, then , now, and forever at least until genetic science really screws stuff up.

[stormraiser]

I agree. This will greatly divide the country. Let's not let it destroy the board.

For all the ways you can define the term "marriage," I suspect a real fear within Federal government is not in re-writing the religious foundation or moral dictionary, but instead how the endorsement of same-sex marriage will impact everything from tax law to insurance coverage to education programs and social security.

Unfortunately along the way toward whatever conclusion evolves, the debate will polarize a lot of very good people. Let's be careful not to let that happen here.

[Rainband]

For all the ways you can define the term "marriage," I suspect a real fear within Federal government is not in re-writing the religious foundation or moral dictionary, but instead how the endorsement of same-sex marriage will impact everything from tax law to insurance coverage to education programs and social security.

Unfortunately along the way toward whatever conclusion evolves, the debate will polarize a lot of very good people. Let's be careful not to let that happen here.

For the first comment. I agree and it's wrong because the Government sends the wrong message to the people and because a LOT of people are influenced DAILY by what the Government does......IT MUST BE true... Whatever the reason some day it will change. I won't try to change anybodys mind. But I won't stop tellings my views too. This is is just a debate and not the truth The second comment speaks for itself

[chadtm80]

This is just one more case of a liberal court writting laws. I hope the state and federal legislators will push through the constitutional ammendments that will overturn this ruling.

Exactly!