or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Mass. Supreme Court says "No" to Civil Unions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mass. Supreme Court says "No" to Civil Unions. - Page 4

post #121 of 298
Thread Starter 
They are interpreting their states constitution... they are not trying to write new laws or force anything down anyones throat.

Gay couples were coming forward to get married to test the laws and constitution of the state... they ruled on that... the State government wrote a bill trying to stop it... the court said the constitution didn't support it... and now the State Senate is ASKING them if they think the Civil Union law would fly... and they say they don't think the constitution allows for seperate but equal... and that there's no credible reason for it.

The Court is saying... you either have to amend the constitution or let gay people marry.

The Defense of marriage act was a law stating that one state didn't have to recognize another states gay marriage/civil unions laws...

Banning same sex marriage is a completely different thing.

One is about states rights and the other is individual rights.

And I still haven't heard a reason for banning gay marriage.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #122 of 298
Perhaps some historical editing is needed.

Original:
Quote:
A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight

Edited:
Quote:
A strong America must also value the institution of segregation. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of a Separate America, signed in 1956 by President Eisenhower. That statute protects segregation under Federal law as the separation of Negroes and whites, and declares that one state may not redefine segregation for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining segregation by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of segregation.

The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines segregation also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight

Hmmm
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
Reply
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
Reply
post #123 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by HOM
Perhaps some historical editing is needed.

Original:

Edited:

Hmmm

You are so convincing when you argue against made up nonsense.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #124 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Bush has only said that he would do what is legally necessary. If other options are left available, I'm sure he would prefer them. It doesn't appear this court cares to give anyone an option of how to deal with this. They've not not only ruled on the rights, but what legislation could be written to address those rights. They have clearly radically overstepped their role.

Nick

Bush wants to do "what is legally necessary..." for what? You have a clause missing from that sentence. "... to prevent states from interpreting their own Constitutions?" So much for the supposedly conservative belief in freedom and States' rights.

The Mass. court overstepped their role? Let's see, they struck down a statute that violated their state Constitution, and provided guidance on what types of laws would be constitutional. What in the world is the role of the Mass. court if not that? Or do you just disagree with their conclusion, not their "role."
post #125 of 298
Thread Starter 
I think his point is valid.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #126 of 298
[deleting crud]
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
Reply
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
Reply
post #127 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Bush wants to do "what is legally necessary..." for what? You have a clause missing from that sentence. "... to prevent states from interpreting their own Constitutions?" So much for the supposedly conservative belief in freedom and States' rights.

The Mass. court overstepped their role? Let's see, they struck down a statute that violated their state Constitution, and provided guidance on what types of laws would be constitutional. What in the world is the role of the Mass. court if not that? Or do you just disagree with their conclusion, not their "role."

....to protect the sanctity of marriage. I don't think he hid that at all.

As for states rights, obviously the federal government does serve some purpose, does it not? To claim that this ruling would have no fall out in other states is just nonsense. If states rule on issues that end up affecting many other legal provisions in other states, the federal government does hav to resolve those. That is one of the Constitutional roles assigned the federal government.

I suppose if the Massachussetts Supreme Court ruled it was okay to create a toxic waste dump that just happened to leak into the surrounding water tables of other states, that would be a state issue with no federal intervention?!?


Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #128 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by tmp
Right back atcha buddy.

Me and my pet pig are picking out a china pattern as I speak.


I wanted to throw rice after the wedding, but your invitation said something about the bride stopping and eating it.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #129 of 298
[deleting crud]
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
Reply
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
Reply
post #130 of 298
Here's the nice language from the actual Mass ruling relating to why they made their decision as they did.

Quote:
We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983).

Can anyone think of a "rational" basis for leaving it at two persons, excluding family members, etc. that allows for homosexual marriage?

If one person is less stable and conserving than two people. Then aren't 3,4 or 5 marriage partners even more stable and conserving?

(Should we even get into suing to stop no fault divorce based off the fact that it appears to add to the state obligation?)

With incest, heck they are blood so that is pretty stable with regard to insuring family continuity. Is there a rational basis to believe that two cousins being married are any less stable or conserving than two homosexuals marrying?

The court considers marriage a licensing issue and that the state should have great leeway to decide who should be allowed to be married. They then give a great big BUT, and say homosexual marriage should be allowed unless the legislature can give what the court will accept as a rational reason to exclude it.

The two reasons cited above allow the licensing of many different family forms in my opinion. I cannot see how it would allow homosexual marriage, but exclude others from being licensed.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #131 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by tmp
You must have been invited by the brides family.

Maybe by the bride.

She did mention that what you don't know won't hurt you.

Her snout is so cute and what an energetic tongue as well.

She has quite an appetite.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #132 of 298
[deleting crud]
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
Reply
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
Reply
post #133 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by tmp
Yes, she has does have an unfortunate taste for swill...

Well I know that... look at the groom.

But she does have an occasional sweet tooth.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #134 of 298
[deleting crud]
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
Reply
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
Reply
post #135 of 298
Thread Starter 
But what is the Sanctity of Marriage? I don't get it... how does it protect it?

The most important thing about a marriage is that it only occurs between a man and a woman?

50% of marriages end in divorce. Why aren't we banning that? Maybe there should be a 30 day waiting period before you can marry... you know... to protect the sanctity.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #136 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Lets try stir up more debate. Why are people straight or gay? The "right" thing to say is that thats the way people are and nothing can change that or that the genes deside that. I disagree. I believe its a social thing with a lot of factors with the genes playing a minor role.

I think its a combination of things...I believe that the majority of people definitely have a 'hardwired' predisposition to be physically attracted to people of the opposite sex / the same sex / both. However, I don't believe that these predispositions are necessarily 100% one way or the other...nor do I believe that they will necessarily remain constant over time. Some people may tend to be attracted to the opposite sex, but still also feel attraction to the same sex (and vice-versa). I know gay men who say they have never found themselves physically attracted to women and I know gay men who one day realized (sometimes after years of dating women) that they preferred men. I know hetro women who 'experimented in college' but have only dated men since and I know gay women who have only ever been interested in dating women. I also know one or two people who genuinely can't seem to decide what they prefer.

To the extent that societal factors come into play, it is when the (internal) cost to an individual of suppressing or denying his or her physical attraction to the same sex is weighed against the (social) cost of acting on this attraction. I imagine that it is generally a lot easier for someone born and raised in Manhattan to come out than it is for someone born and raised in a small town in Alabama. If the person born and raised in Manhattan has deeply homophobic parents and the person born and raised in small town Alabama has parents who place their childs happiness above all else the opposite would probably be true.

....

I'm still interested in knowing how allowing same-sex marriages will cause damage to the institution of marriage though (specious 'gateway drug to people marrying multiple underage pigs' argument aside).
post #137 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by tmp
Well, then I should just step aside and leave you two love birds to take advantage of that loophole that you are so desperately trying to find.

Naw, it was only an occasional thing. Plus you two were picking out china already.

I'm going to go after Ann Coulter. She's better than a pig. She's a boozy blond tramp.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #138 of 298
Sigh. I´ll close this even if I think its a good topic and people have posted relevant posts up untill now. But even the best beer is ruined if people piss in it.

Why oh why do people feel the urge to go down to the level of others when the personal attacks start?

EDIT: As explained here:

Quote:
Even if it was just goofing around it makes it very difficult to read. And "friendly insults" have a tendency to turn unfriendly rather quickly here.

We are trying to get a "cleaner" AO where you don´t have to wade thorugh a lot of irrelevant stuff to get to the interesting stuff. If you read a heading you are to expect that the posts inside at least some minimal way relate to it.

In short we are trying to keep the noise/signal ration as low as possible.

I´ll reopen the thread now since everybody seems commited to get it on track again.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #139 of 298
Maybe the crud could be deleted.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
....to protect the sanctity of marriage. I don't think he hid that at all.

As for states rights, obviously the federal government does serve some purpose, does it not? To claim that this ruling would have no fall out in other states is just nonsense. If states rule on issues that end up affecting many other legal provisions in other states, the federal government does hav to resolve those. That is one of the Constitutional roles assigned the federal government.

I suppose if the Massachussetts Supreme Court ruled it was okay to create a toxic waste dump that just happened to leak into the surrounding water tables of other states, that would be a state issue with no federal intervention?!?


Nick

"To protect the sanctity of marriage," sure. But I think we'd both agree that that's vague rhetoric. I'm simply trying to understand, specifically, what Bush wants to do, and I think what it comes down to is that he wants to prevent states from interpreting their own constitutions in a way that makes gay marriage legal. The issue of states recognizing other states' gay marriages was already dealt with by the Defense of Marriage Act. And of course he can choose to veto any federal law that wanted to make gay marriage legal. So we're left with what states, on their own, are allowed to do.

The amendment (or at least the only one I found, there may be others) states:
Quote:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, no state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

It also appears to outlaw civil unions. But apparently it doesn't outlaw bad grammar.

Nice analogy with toxic waste. But again, states already are not required to recognize other states' gay marriages, so the analogy doesn't apply.

Yet another nail in the coffin for Bush among the libertarian-leaning conservatives. George W. Bush: Social conservative fiscal liberal anti-states' rights international interventionist.
post #140 of 298
My posts are now crud free.



P.S.

It isn't up to government to protect the "sanctity" of anything.

Quote:
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

sanctity

SYLLABICATION: sanc·ti·ty
PRONUNCIATION: sngkt-t
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. sanc·ti·ties
1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness. 2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability. 3. Something considered sacred.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English saunctite, from Old French sainctite, from Latin snctits, from snctus, sacred. See sanctify.

Government is concerned with the validity or legality. Sanctity is for the church.
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
Reply
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
Reply
post #141 of 298
Thread Starter 
State recognized marriage provides privileges to those who participate.

Barring people from the ability to marry excludes them from those privleges.

State recognized marriage is not a religious act.
It is a state requirement to receive certain privileges.

Therefor barring someone from participating is denying them equal protection under the law.

It is not the states responsibilty to protect the sanctity of anything... their job is to protect its citizen's rights.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #142 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Maybe the crud could be deleted.

"To protect the sanctity of marriage," sure. But I think we'd both agree that that's vague rhetoric. I'm simply trying to understand, specifically, what Bush wants to do, and I think what it comes down to is that he wants to prevent states from interpreting their own constitutions in a way that makes gay marriage legal. The issue of states recognizing other states' gay marriages was already dealt with by the Defense of Marriage Act. And of course he can choose to veto any federal law that wanted to make gay marriage legal. So we're left with what states, on their own, are allowed to do.

The amendment (or at least the only one I found, there may be others) states:
It also appears to outlaw civil unions. But apparently it doesn't outlaw bad grammar.

Nice analogy with toxic waste. But again, states already are not required to recognize other states' gay marriages, so the analogy doesn't apply.

Yet another nail in the coffin for Bush among the libertarian-leaning conservatives. George W. Bush: Social conservative fiscal liberal anti-states' rights international interventionist.

I think what Bush and many others want is two-fold. First he nor do many others want a legal system where a few judges at the state level can change the laws and legal dealings for the rest of the country. If the Supreme Court takes up the issue and decides it, that is something we all have to live with, but state courts deciding how the whole country must live is more unnerving.

The second issue simply has to do with traditional definitions of words and how far will people go to win an argument. Marriage has always been understood to be between a man and a woman in this society. Many tolerant people, myself included, have said that civil unions would be just fine in addressing the legal issues associated with homosexual pairing while avoiding the historical and religious baggage. However that isn't enough. People want everyone's understanding and definitions to change basically against their beliefs or will.

Suppose I wanted to argue that judges should read viability or what born means in a manner different from historical understanding in order to advance an abortion argument. I don't think that would fly too well.

This isn't about rights because pretty much everyone, be they right or left have been willing to cough up the legal rights. This is about rights going past the end of my nose. This is about telling me what words had better mean to me.

Word switching has been used very well in the past to alter attitudes and opinions about a subject. Someone discussing immigration might use "undocumented worker" instead of "illegal immigrant." However at least they don't tell you that the constitution of your state has an entirely different understanding of what illegal and immigrant mean from the commonly understood definitions.

Laws and language are important things with regard to maintaining society. When they become meaningless, people have to resort to much less enjoyable means of hashing out their arguments. (Like say wars and violence)

I prefer to not let definitions and laws be twisted past the breaking point just to win a forced understanding of a word, not even the rights because those have been offered up, but to dictate what words mean to people.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #143 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
State recognized marriage provides privileges to those who participate.

Barring people from the ability to marry excludes them from those privleges.

State recognized marriage is not a religious act.
It is a state requirement to receive certain privileges.

Therefor barring someone from participating is denying them equal protection under the law.

It is not the states responsibilty to protect the sanctity of anything... their job is to protect its citizen's rights.

State recognized drivers licenses provides privileges to those who participate.

Barring people from the ability to drive excludes them from those privleges.

State recognized drivers licenses is not a religious act.
It is a state requirement to receive certain privileges.

Therefor barring someone from participating is denying them equal protection under the law.

It is not the states responsibilty to protect the sanctity of anything... their job is to protect its citizen's rights.

The state denies the right to drive for any number of reasons. Much like they deny the ability to marry for any number of reasons.

No one would ever suggest that being denied a drivers license is a civil rights violation.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #144 of 298
Thread Starter 
You can't be barred from getting a drivers license for being gay.

nice try.

It's not like gay people have been beating on the doors trying to get married for hundreds of years either.

traditions change.

Marriage used to be only for people of the same race too.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #145 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
You can't be barred from getting a drivers license for being gay.

nice try.

It's not like gay people have been beating on the doors trying to get married for hundreds of years either.

traditions change.

Marriage used to be only for people of the same race too.

Gays haven't been beating on doors for years? What next, suggesting it is in vogue?

You can't be denied from getting a license for being gay. But you can for any number of other reasons including some that are completely arbitrary. Additionally they can withhold your license from you for something as mundane as a parking ticket.

So the government can deny you the right to drive to work and earn a living for a parking ticket, but we have to somehow believe they don't have the right to decide if marriage is between a man and a woman.

Hysterical....

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #146 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
State recognized drivers licenses provides privileges to those who participate.

Barring people from the ability to drive excludes them from those privleges.



The state denies these rights based upon either abuse of the privilege or inability to safely operate a motor vehicle. If the government wants to codify marriage in the same way, fine.

Miss Gabor, your license to marry has been revoked.

Quote:

It is not the states responsibilty to protect the sanctity of anything... their job is to protect its citizen's rights.

Nick

Which is exactly what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is doing.

"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
Reply
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
Reply
post #147 of 298
Thread Starter 
No longer living in fear and being out is different than being in vogue.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #148 of 298
As I have posted most persuasively (ha!) before, marriage is a state of mind. Whether or not the government or anyone else recognizes it, people get married. There have been gay marriages forever.

Relax. Get used to it.

And since most everybody does not object to at least recognizing the civil aspects, clearly, I think that there is a good argument that homosexuals should get the civil benefits as well.

I am a typical liberal government interventionist on many issues, but I feel that the state should get out of the marriage business. Anyone should be able to get married before their Church (as their Church deem fit) or otherwise , privately (as they deem fit). All, whether married in a Church or not, could then register a civil union as an entirely separate matter.

I think that marriage is extremly important. It is the central aspect of my own life. But it is a private matter. Why is everyone wasting so much time and mental energy on this issue? (Me included, I guess )
tribalfusion?
Reply
tribalfusion?
Reply
post #149 of 298
Double post. Sorry
tribalfusion?
Reply
tribalfusion?
Reply
post #150 of 298
Nick, trumptman,

You've eluded to the fact that this ruling will directly effect other states. How is that possible?

It's the basis for one of your main points, but I think it's faulty. This ruling is for Massachusetts, but doesn't effect any other state. Why do you think it does?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #151 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You've eluded to the fact that this ruling will directly effect other states. How is that possible?


Terri on Fresh Air laid it out pretty clearly today. You get a license in one state (even gays from Canada are coming to MA.) and then you go sue in another state---or federal court, I forget....anyway you get the point.

This is activism, by the numbers. 2-5% of the populace shoving their lifestyle down the the majorities' throat. Oh joy.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #152 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Chinney
.....marriage is a state of mind...................Relax. Get used to it.



The only reason you can make that kind statement is because you operate in the intellectual vacuum of existentialism. You live in terms of what you see on TV and understand little of history and the importance of cultures whose underpinnings answer the demands of reality and the centuries that go with them.

Janet's breast.....who cares.......gays want marriage..........who cares...........sportfuc.k across town.........who cares.


You are a dead intellect---as dead and diseased as the "culture" that promotes your ideals. Simplistic base desires destroy cultures; pandering to sexual deviants will do the same. Get used to it.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #153 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Terri on Fresh Air laid it out pretty clearly today. You get a license in one state (even gays from Canada are coming to MA.) and then you go sue in another state---or federal court, I forget....anyway you get the point.

This is activism, by the numbers. 2-5% of the populace shoving their lifestyle down the the majorities' throat. Oh joy.

Bush, trumptman and now you have all used the word 'activism' without supporting your claim. I have only heard arguments as to why it's not activism. Please explain your accusation. I think the problem is that conservatives consider any liberal judgement to be activism. In this case though, the court was specifically asked to make a ruling, and they kept within the confines of the question that was asked.

As for the idea that someone will move and sue, that's not a concern of a court. What you're asking is that the the Massachusettes Court go against their own Constitution because the Constitutions of neighboring states are potentially in conflict. That doesn't make sense.

IF the MA Constitution says gays can marry, then the court HAS to uphold that law until the Feds say no. MA doesn't give a crap what Oregon thinks.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #154 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
No longer living in fear and being out is different than being in vogue.



Again, a dizzingly narrow understanding of the foundations of social order.


Cultures are traditionally dominated by active minorities. A comment such as "no longer living in fear" is almost too stupid to be commented on---unless it was a disingenuous, partisan ploy to cloud the conversation (which I could actually respect).

This is about a small minority with DEEP judicial pockets using sophistry to gain what they themselves decry. Out of one side there mouth they cry "Equal Rights" out the other they orchestrate rulings in the judiciary that place the ethics they are fighting beyond cultural expectance.

You people are throwing rocks and clubs at each other and are calling it a discussion.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #155 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
You are a dead intellect---as dead and diseased as the "culture" that promotes your ideals. Simplistic base desires destroy cultures; pandering to sexual deviants will do the same. Get used to it.

This statement looks to be deserving of a banning.

Hunger destroys cultures? No. Fascism destroys cultures, just like it did the Roman Empire. Just as it will Catholicism. Just as it will many others.

The ruling isn't pandering. If the constitution supports the ruling, then you need to change the constitution.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #156 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
You people are throwing rocks and clubs at each other and are calling it a discussion.

Your feverish irrational claims are becoming more and more difficult to follow. I'm all for an open discussion on this topic. I really want to understand the mind of those opposed to gay marriage. But I think your anger is clouding your ability to discuss.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #157 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
IF the MA Constitution says gays can marry, then the court HAS to uphold that law until the Feds say no. MA doesn't give a crap what Oregon thinks.


....this is exactly how the game is to be played---If it gets into court in Oregon and starts getting coverage....it is EXACTLY what is needed. You don't get to where the gays have in the last 10-15 years except by the shrewd use of the media, legislature, and courts.


Don't any of you guys have acitivist backgrounds?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #158 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge

No. Fascism destroys cultures


Tell that to the Chinese. (and King Fahd).

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #159 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
....this is exactly how the game is to be played---If it gets into court in Oregon and starts getting coverage....it is EXACTLY what is needed. You don't get to where the gays have in the last 10-15 years except by the shrewd use of the media, legislature, and courts.


Don't any of you guys have acitivist backgrounds?

But it doesn't matter if it's legal. You want the courts to bend against what the Constitution supports. THAT'S a problem. If other courts follow this decision, that doesn't mean the decision is activisim. It could be activism even if no other court followed suit. It's not activism just because all 49 other states do follow suit.

The court was asked to make a judgement. They did. They didn't overreach their authority.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #160 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Tell that to the Chinese. (and King Fahd).

Are you insinuating that the historical culture of the Chinese hasn't been lost and/or destroyed?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Mass. Supreme Court says "No" to Civil Unions.