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

Perhaps some historical editing is needed.

Original:
Edited:
Hmmm

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

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."

[deleting crud]

....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

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

Nick

[deleting crud]

Here's the nice language from the actual Mass ruling relating to why they made their decision as they did.


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

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

[deleting crud]

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

But she does have an occasional sweet tooth.

Nick

[deleting crud]

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).

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

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:

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.

My posts are now crud free.



P.S.

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


Government is concerned with the validity or legality. Sanctity is for the church.

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

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

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

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.


Which is exactly what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is doing.

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 )

Double post. Sorry

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

....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?

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

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.

Are you insinuating that the historical culture of the Chinese hasn't been lost and/or destroyed?