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

[mf_dolphin]

As too the procreation arguement I would say that children are the reflection of a loving relationship between a man and a woman not the sole reason for marriage. Widremann, I do believe that this is a country ruled by the majority view. Where do you think the COnstitution came from, the elected (appointed) representatives of the people. They were there to put into writing the views of the majority of the country. The laws are so based and that's the way it should be. The constitution and the courts are there to make sure that the laws do not infringe on the rights of the minority. Marriage is not a right and therefore they should stay out of the issue. The question of legal protection is within their perview and they should have stuck to that boundry.

[chadtm80]

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??

Why ya laughing? That is exactly the argument you were using there isnt it?

[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

I replied. 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.

Exactly. So if Procreation is the defense of why gays marrying shouldn't be allowed What happens If a Man and Women CANT or choose not to have a child isn't it the same difference I mean with Procreation and all. Gays just like anyone else on this earth, are only a precentage of the population. They won't ever take over. Kids will still be born and life will go on

[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??

Why ya laughing? That is exactly the argument you were using there isnt it?

Thats why violation is in quotes "violation" it was meant to be used in a humorous way

[stormchazer]

I said it is the defining difference...not a requirement. That is why the man/woman relationship defines marriage. You ask what the difference between mna/woman or same sex and that is it.

[Rainband]

Just wanted to add. Anything I say is my opinion and I am not trying to piss anyone off. I truly mean that. Even though I don't always agree with everyone. I still have respect for their opinions

[stormchazer]

Same here....total respect for everyone, even though I know I am right ....j/k

[Rainband]

Same here....total respect for everyone, even though I know I am right ....j/k

[Rainband]

With all seriousness. I do RESPECT AND LOVE each and everyone of you from the bottom of my heart. My word is bond Peace

[stormchazer]

As my daughter says...and I hate it.

Peace Out!

[Rainband]

As my daughter says...and I hate it.

Peace Out!

What does she say . I am confusid (spelled wrong on purpose)

[stormchazer]

Peace Out!!!

[Lindaloo]

LOL Jara!! I have one of them to.

[rainstorm]

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

again, marriage is not a right. states can define it anyway they want, as they can with drivers licenes. your argument is nonsensical. i am in favor of parents being the custodians of a child. but when a parent abuses a child, i dont favor a law forcing that child to remain with that parent. gay marriage is simply a futher degrading of traditional values, which liberal activist judges hate, as they do christianity.

[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

again, marriage is not a right. states can define it anyway they want, as they can with drivers licenes. your argument is nonsensical. i am in favor of parents being the custodians of a child. but when a parent abuses a child, i dont favor a law forcing that child to remain with that parent. gay marriage is simply a futher degrading of traditional values, which liberal activist judges hate, as they do christianity.

Take a deep breath I respect your opinion.

[streetsoldier]

Kerry, Edwards, Dean and...George Bush (!) are on record as confirming marriage as between a man and a woman, but they are also in favor of "civil unions".

John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), being the front-runner and presumptive standard bearer, is in a real bind here...he wants and needs the "middle class" votes (which oppose this MA Supreme Court measure), but Kerry also has to keep the liberal coffers flowing...and they support it.

Watch this become a HUGE thorn in Kerry's side during the campaign process...and add more fuel to a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage legally as man-woman only.

[j]

I still fail to see why anybody cares whether gays get married or not. The real problem, and I know it, is homophobia. And whether you guys will admit it or not, that's what is underlying this movement to ban gay marriage. Because in reality, it just doesn't matter.

Right you are Widremann! I'm a full blown Homophobic! So what?

[Stephanie]

Again, it is good to have these discussions, and it is obvious that there are many people with different beliefs. It's good to see that an effort has been made to remind one another that even though you may not agree with what is said, that you do respect their opinion.

[timNms]

That's what I like about S2k. We can disagree, but in the end, we still respect each other's views and get along like a family should.

[rainstorm]

The Massachusetts muddle




The decision Wednesday by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-3 ruling, that civil unions for same-sex couples would be unconstitutional is unfortunate, but not surprising. In November, the court legalized same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts and gave lawmakers until May 17 to react to the decision. The court now says that nothing short of full marriage rights for same-sex couples would be considered constitutional.
State lawmakers are scrambling to find some loophole in the court's decision to avert the need to amend the state constitution. It's highly unlikely one will be found before the legislature meets Feb. 11 for a constitutional convention. Yet even if an amendment passes the legislature, the state constitution could not be amended until 2006.
Starting May 17, however, same-sex couples presumably may start filing for marriage licenses from city and town officials. But only the state government has the authority to recognize marriage licenses. The high court has no authority to force the legislature to pass a same-sex marriage bill, and city and town officials are answerable to the governor. This presents a problem if the governor disregards the high court. It gets more confusing. If a certain city or town refuses to grant a marriage license, a same-sex couple could presumably appeal the matter to the courts. This option would make the courts the sole arbiter on the same-sex marriage question. Perhaps this was the goal all along.
More importantly, starting on May 17, Massachusetts can expect a flood of out-of-state same-sex couples coming to take advantage of the legal muddle. Currently, 38 states have passed the Defense of Marriage Act. The states that haven't, and the District as well, should expect a similar challenge in their legal systems when the "married" couples return. Even in states where same-sex marriage is illegal, the obvious goal would be to challenge the law in the courts.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has exposed as naive the idea that same-sex marriage should be left entirely to the states. We have argued before that given current judicial trends, same-sex marriage is likely to become the law of the land without an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We hope that President Bush, making good on his State of the Union Address, will see the Massachusetts example for what it is: Judicial activists tampering with the founding institution of humanity regardless of the will of the people.