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 3

post #81 of 298
Thread Starter 
talkingnonsense.

who says it's blame... why should anyone have to justify loving someone of the same sex at all?

beastiality and pedophilia are completly undrelated issues.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #82 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
talkingnonsense.

who says it's blame... why should anyone have to justify loving someone of the same sex at all?

beastiality and pedophilia are completly undrelated issues.

But polygamy isn't. It's the next logical step. So why not say if you think you think it should be included in the definition of marriage as well?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #83 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
]For clairification: I don´t belong in the "God" or "evolution" category. I belong to the combined society/social construction/whatever you want category

I'm with you on that one!
post #84 of 298
I have nothing against loving anyone, if we keep love and sexual urges seperate. That is not the case. Read the earlier posts about being 'wired into being gay' and 'god made gay people'. Isn't that blame?

My definition of love is

# A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

Your defintion of love is

# A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
# 1. Sexual passion.
2. Sexual intercourse.
3. A love affair.


Both of our definitions are listed in the dictionary. You are entitled to your opinions, I am to mine. So let's not get down to personal arguments. Try and educate me into agreeing to your views because I am not 'wired' like you are. I did not grow up with gay friends, so I fail to see your viewpoint.

On a note: I have no problems with the mentioned court ruling or with gay marraiges as they really don't hurt anyone. I do think the whole concept is messed up though and that is the opinion which is shared here.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #85 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
So, regarding that concept, should the argument be made (as we all know it will) would you agree with re-defining marriage to include other kinds of relationships, polygamy, between family members etc.

After all, those would be among consenting adults as well.

Sexual relations between close family members carries a high risk of producing genetically damaged offspring. Society certainly has a compelling interest in preventing such births. An incestuous couple could legally foreswear procreation, and reproduction is not something the law requires from marriage, but having a form of marriage in which reproduction was specifically forbidden would require a new and strange legal construct.

If two closely related adults decide to have a sexual relationship, however, and make sure they don't have children, I personally don't have a problem with that. I don't expect the legal system to go out of its way to accommodate such an unusual kind of relationship either.

Allowing gay marriages carries doesn't require much at all in terms of legal changes. For most marriage-related legal matters, a couple is a couple and gender doesn't really change much. All you'd be doing is permitting same-sex couples access to existing legal structures.

Some people are so scandalized or scared or affronted by gay marriage, however, that they're willing to go as far as amending constitutions to prevent it from happening -- they're willing to place a higher demand on society to block gay marriage than gays are asking for to have gay marriage accommodated.

The dynamics of polygamous relationships would introduce whole new legal issues regarding division of property, inheritance, parental authority and child custody, medical authority in case of emergency (Spouse A is in a coma. Spouse B says try the risky operation to save A. Spouse C says don't. Who wins?), etc. Polygamists would require access to new legal structures, not merely equal access to existing structures, which is all gays are asking for.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #86 of 298
Thread Starter 
Whatever the motivations are... there's no reason to prevent TWO people from getting married.

Some societies don't care how many wives you have... it just so happens that this isn't one of them.

And are you really trying to define what my definiton of love is... for me?

Also... I'm sure there's plenty of people who marry for reasons other than love.


oh... are you SURE you didn't grow up knowing a gay person? how do you know?
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #87 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
So, regarding that concept, should the argument be made (as we all know it will) would you agree with re-defining marriage to include other kinds of relationships, polygamy, between family members etc.

After all, those would be among consenting adults as well.

Sure. There isn't a reason for family members not to get married. Genetically, you're risking some weird ass looking kids by swimming in your own gene pool. But you shouldn't ban something because of genetic risk. Otherwise, all women would have to be sterilized once they hit the age when the risk of Down's baby increases. You'd also have to sterilize all people with any sort of genetic disorder lest they pass it on. But society doesn't do this.

As far polygamy goes, why not? What consenting adults do is really of no concern of mine. If someone wants three husbands (on is brother) and four wives (including his sister) so what? Does it at all impede my personal freedom?
post #88 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by talksense101
I have nothing against loving anyone, if we keep love and sexual urges seperate. That is not the case. Read the earlier posts about being 'wired into being gay' and 'god made gay people'. Isn't that blame?

My definition of love is

# A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

Your defintion of love is

# A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
# 1. Sexual passion.
2. Sexual intercourse.
3. A love affair.


Both of our definitions are listed in the dictionary. You are entitled to your opinions, I am to mine. So let's not get down to personal arguments. Try and educate me into agreeing to your views because I am not 'wired' like you are. I did not grow up with gay friends, so I fail to see your viewpoint.

On a note: I have no problems with the mentioned court ruling or with gay marraiges as they really don't hurt anyone. I do think the whole concept is messed up though and that is the opinion which is shared here.

I actually think you make good points here with your two posts talksense101.

When I see people argue about sex of any stripe I sort of have to laugh as I have never had the priviledge to such an experience. I think society is so confused over sex that people on all sides make fools of themselves. There are the prudes on the one hand who say how dirty and sinful sex is. There are those who would have sex with any and all on the other hand. I am not saying either extreme is "wrong" but it is telling how misguided so many people are over it.

We need to treat others as people and learn to live and let live.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #89 of 298
Thread Starter 
I wanna knowhow you sucker a woman in to marrying you AFTER you've told them you're already married.

I think polygamy is illegal because the real problem is men or women marrying someone without telling them they're already married.

Unless you're from Utah. hehe
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #90 of 298
I'm curious. What is it about the word marriage that some oppose? I often hear people argue for a 'civil union' but think marriage would be wrong. What's the difference from that point of view? I'm genuinely curious and slightly confused by the subject.
"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 #91 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Some societies don't care how many wives you have... it just so happens that this isn't one of them.

So you're saying it's alright for society to dictate how many people are in a marriage, but not dictate which genders. Your rules seem quite arbitrary to me.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #92 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I wanna knowhow you sucker a woman in to marrying you AFTER you've told them you're already married.

I think polygamy is illegal because the real problem is men or women marrying someone without telling them they're already married.

Unless you're from Utah. hehe

That isn't consent.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #93 of 298
Thread Starter 
Yup.

They used to ban different races from marrying too.

Maybe mutliple wives were common and states saw the need to ban them for whatever reason. I dunno. Could be an interesting research topic. It's probably based on various religious sects... some ok with it some not...
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #94 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
So you're saying it's alright for society to dictate how many people are in a marriage, but not dictate which genders. Your rules seem quite arbitrary to me.

Look, polygamy is an interesting discussion but attacking gay marriage through an attack on polygamy just isn't the way to go about proving any point. It's just a way of dodging the issue at hand and you know it. Admit it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #95 of 298
I would also add that people need to live their lives based on what matters to them and what matters to others should really be immaterial. If people live as a gay couple so what? If it is the "children" that people are worried about teach your children what you wish to about what is important to you but in the end it is their life to live.

We need to learn to respect our differences and live a happy life not worrying about how others live their lives.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #96 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I wanna knowhow you sucker a woman in to marrying you AFTER you've told them you're already married.

I think polygamy is illegal because the real problem is men or women marrying someone without telling them they're already married.

That's nonsense. History and even the present, offer plenty of examples that people will willingly enter such arrangements.

Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I'm curious. What is it about the word marriage that some oppose? I often hear people argue for a 'civil union' but think marriage would be wrong. What's the difference from that point of view? I'm genuinely curious and slightly confused by the subject.

Marriage is a socio-religious institution, which is co-opted by the state in identifying various groups that qualify for assistance, tax breaks etc.

But its history as an enduring institution and its religious nature mean that people are relunctant to "re-define" something so close to their identity and upbringing simply to suit the social whims of the day.

I'm arguing that given its extensive history and place in our culture, shoehorning gay unions into something that was built to sustain and encourage heterosexual unions is misguided.

Come to think of it, society as a whole might be better off if the government referred to every union as a civil union and left marriage the exclusive domain of religious institutions.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #97 of 298
Thread Starter 
found this... it mght shed a little light.

Nevertheless many of Mormonism's policies subordinate women. Females are not given the priesthood, as are all "worthy males" over the age of twelve. Women therefore have never wielded much power within the church. Another now-defunct LDS policy that many see as discriminatory was polygamy. Research suggests that up to two-thirds of Mormon wives living in the Utah Territory before 1880 were in polygamous marriages. In 1894, after the U.S. Congress legislated against polygamy (thus barring Utah from statehood), prophet Wilford Woodruff announced a divine revelation that resulted in rescinding the practice.

http://college.hmco.com/history/read...00_mormons.htm
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #98 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Come to think of it, society as a whole might be better off if the government referred to every union as a civil union and left marriage the exclusive domain of religious institutions.

i'm not speaking on anyones behalf, but that would be FINE by me! As long as homosexual people have access to the same rights/privleges as their counterparts.
post #99 of 298
Thread Starter 
they would have to pass a federal law banning the states from using the term marriage...

doesn't that seem a little strange? and silly?

Some people can't deal with gay people getting married... so now the only people that are "married" will have to have done so in a church... I bet some would love that.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #100 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Look, polygamy is an interesting discussion but attacking gay marriage through an attack on polygamy just isn't the way to go about proving any point. It's just a way of dodging the issue at hand and you know it. Admit it.

I'm not dodging, just having a bit of fun with the hypocrisy of the idea.
Look BR, I know you're big on "get the gov't out of my face" and you've been consistent on that in threads whether the issue tilts right wing or left.

But many of the people who openly ridicule the idea of keeping the existing definition of marriage themselves do a double take when embracing polygamy is mentioned.

I find that hypocritical. If marriage can be re-defined for one group, then everybody gets to play. Otherwise, leave it as it is and create a new category for other types of relationships that don't have the history, not to mention the social standing of marriage.

Toying with the social underpinnings of our culture is not to be done lightly even in the best of times.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #101 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Come to think of it, society as a whole might be better off if the government referred to every union as a civil union and left marriage the exclusive domain of religious institutions.

Now I've suggested this before, but it's been met with some disdain. I don't want to cross the religious line in either direction. I don't want to dilute what a church does, but I don't think it's right (or constitutional) to limit gays in the way that we currently do.
"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 #102 of 298
Thread Starter 
Well for some polygamy was ok... but the government apparently and alot of women had a problem with it.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #103 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
found this... it mght shed a little light.

Nevertheless many of Mormonism's policies subordinate women. Females are not given the priesthood, as are all "worthy males" over the age of twelve. Women therefore have never wielded much power within the church. Another now-defunct LDS policy that many see as discriminatory was polygamy. Research suggests that up to two-thirds of Mormon wives living in the Utah Territory before 1880 were in polygamous marriages. In 1894, after the U.S. Congress legislated against polygamy (thus barring Utah from statehood), prophet Wilford Woodruff announced a divine revelation that resulted in rescinding the practice.

Be serious, Mormons aren't the only people who practice polygamy. Far from it. The Judeo-Christian value system dismisses it, and that's why it's currently against the law. If marriage can be re-defined to accomodate same-sex relationships, no amount of Mormon-bashing will save the idea we can ban polygamy.

Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
they would have to pass a federal law banning the states from using the term marriage...

Congress dictates that all state laws make reference to Civil Unions. What's the problem?


Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Well for some polygamy was ok... but the government apparently and alot of women had a problem with it.

A lot of people, including the Executive Branch, have problems with marrying gays, so I guess we should outlaw that too. End of Thread
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #104 of 298
Thread Starter 
oy.

I was referring to history.

Bush doesn't have a reason.

Hey if you wanna legalize polygamy... go for it.

But it's not the same issue.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #105 of 298
I think, and I could be completely wrong, that part of the reason why pologamy is illegal is due to the fact that with many wives usually came many children and they weren't being well cared for, since money was a bit scarce. But that might have been later justifications for keeping it illegal. I don't doubt it was originally banned due to keeping the Mormons out. But in theory, Judeo-Christian history suggest that pologamy isn't horrible: Many instances in the Bible (especially OT) of religious men (including the patriarchs) having multiple wives.

About gay marriage: I think it's fine. They're not saying we all have to enter into homosexual marriages, so I don't see what the big deal is. And I agree that we as a nation need to learn to seperate marriage as a state institution from marriage as a religious institution. It's a long shot, but who knows.
post #106 of 298
Thread Starter 
here's an article from business week on that very same issue.

http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset_of...ry_6689_1.html

While many people view polygamy as a crime without victims, Tapestry's members say the practice is fundamentally degrading and rife with rape, incest, and abuse. With Salt Lake City hosting the 2002 Winter Olympics, Utah is eager to show that it no longer tolerates the second of the twin evils, as 19th century reformers called slavery and polygamy. ''They practice all kinds of things we try to clean up in Third World countries,'' says Democratic State Senator Ronald Allen. ''Early polygamy attracted feverishly religious people. Now, it's pedophiles and abusers.''
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #107 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
here's an article from business week on that very same issue.

http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset_of...ry_6689_1.html

While many people view polygamy as a crime without victims, Tapestry's members say the practice is fundamentally degrading and rife with rape, incest, and abuse. With Salt Lake City hosting the 2002 Winter Olympics, Utah is eager to show that it no longer tolerates the second of the twin evils, as 19th century reformers called slavery and polygamy. ''They practice all kinds of things we try to clean up in Third World countries,'' says Democratic State Senator Ronald Allen. ''Early polygamy attracted feverishly religious people. Now, it's pedophiles and abusers.''

Rape, incest, and abuse are already legal no matter what the context. Banning polygamy because some people who practice it break other laws is the same kind of logic behind prohibition and we all know what a massive failure that was.

Plenty of married people beat their wives. Let's ban marriage to stop the beatings.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #108 of 298
Thread Starter 
Well maybe the people who are interested in it should be happy with "civil multi-person union"... hehe

Apparently these abuses are a big problem... and common in these plural marriages in Utah.

http://www.polygamy.org/

who would want more than one wife at a time anyway? one is plenty.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #109 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Sexual relations between close family members carries a high risk of producing genetically damaged offspring. Society certainly has a compelling interest in preventing such births. An incestuous couple could legally foreswear procreation, and reproduction is not something the law requires from marriage, but having a form of marriage in which reproduction was specifically forbidden would require a new and strange legal construct.

If two closely related adults decide to have a sexual relationship, however, and make sure they don't have children, I personally don't have a problem with that. I don't expect the legal system to go out of its way to accommodate such an unusual kind of relationship either.

Actually the risk isn't that high and screening can lower it even more. But in this age where two lesbians can use a sperm bank, two homosexual men can adopt or use a surrogate and abortion is available on demand, why couldn't they simply marry, use a sperm bank, or get pregnant and simply abort if the child is deformed and thus unwanted.

Strange how we are supposed to be so "modern" in our thinking toward homosexual marriage, yet not afford every other type of relatinship the same accomodations. For some reason they are treated like antiques.

The accomodation require nothing special. Abortion is available on demand. Sperm banks, surrogates and adoption would require no more effort than for homosexual couples.

Quote:
The dynamics of polygamous relationships would introduce whole new legal issues regarding division of property, inheritance, parental authority and child custody, medical authority in case of emergency (Spouse A is in a coma. Spouse B says try the risky operation to save A. Spouse C says don't. Who wins?), etc. Polygamists would require access to new legal structures, not merely equal access to existing structures, which is all gays are asking for.

How is this any different than the serial polygamy endorsed via divorce today? I've posted articles here where one husband was sued to provide part of his pension to the husband of his deceased ex-wife. All of these issues are already addressed in this age of multiple marriages and divorces. It requires no legal structures. If anything it would be easier to deal with since all parties would still be on the same level instead of some parties being current and others being ex, step, etc.

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 #110 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Well maybe the people who are interested in it should be happy with "civil multi-person union"... hehe

Apparently these abuses are a big problem... and common in these plural marriages in Utah.

http://www.polygamy.org/

who would want more than one wife at a time anyway? one is plenty.

Yes and before homosexuality came into vogue, it use to be considered a mental disease. The fact that some people abuse does not invalidate marriage or polygamy. It is an associative fallacy.

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 #111 of 298
I haven't been following this thread but I just wanted to add some presidential politics so this. I think this ruling is good for Kerry and bad for Bush. I believe Bush has said he would support a constitutional amendment if this happened. I don't think most people approve of an amendment, and I think it would make him look bad. Kerry also opposes gay marriage, but opposes the amendment and supports civil unions. That seems to me to be the more moderate position.
post #112 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I haven't been following this thread but I just wanted to add some presidential politics so this. I think this ruling is good for Kerry and bad for Bush. I believe Bush has said he would support a constitutional amendment if this happened. I don't think most people approve of an amendment, and I think it would make him look bad. Kerry also opposes gay marriage, but opposes the amendment and supports civil unions. That seems to me to be the more moderate position.

How does it help someone to support what the court in that state has just ruled is not legal?

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 #113 of 298
Because Kerry is now in a position to traingulate, positioning himself between the court's too-liberal-for-now decision and Bush's hateful, reactionary position. Triangulation is the key to forging a successful wedge issue.
post #114 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
Because Kerry is now in a position to traingulate, positioning himself between the court's too-liberal-for-now decision and Bush's hateful, reactionary position. Triangulation is the key to forging a successful wedge issue.

Glad to know that Democrats consider homosexual marriage a "wedge" issue meant to pit people against each other.

The text from the Bush speech.

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.

Doesn't that sound mean and hateful?!? Showing how Clinton signed legislation is being undermined and overturned by judicial fiat that which the general populace opposes, which had laws against it at the state and federal level.

As for the amendment, what is left when you have 4-3 decisions reading rights into documents and constitutions that don't exist. Not only that but the also render a judgement that prewrites the legislation as to how to remedy it by declaring that it cannot be addressed via civil unions.

You make the Bush language sound hateful when in fact it is the only course of action left thanks to the Mass court. When it overturns legislation enacted even by Democratic presidents, there is no way that it can be portrayed as mainstream and the Bush position as extreme.

Finally you talk about triangulation as if no one would ever ask Kerry how he would address this since it is obvious that civil unions wouldn't work. Do you really think he could say he was going to defend marriage via illegal civil unions and get away with that sort of answer? He would either have to go on record supporting homosexual marriage or supporting the amendment.

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 #115 of 298
All I'm saying is that Kerry's position is probably closer to most people's views than Bush's.
post #116 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Glad to know that Democrats consider homosexual marriage a "wedge" issue meant to pit people against each other.



Every major issue is a wedge issue. The war is a wedge issue. Medicare is a wedge issue. Taxes are a wedge issue. Hell, the stupid pledge of allegiance is a wedge issue.

Quote:
The text from the Bush speech.

I saw Bush's speech live, thank you. I was so hurt and upset that I vomited.

Quote:
Doesn't that sound mean and hateful?!?

Bush supports a "We Hate Gays" Amendment to the Constitution. That's mean and hateful, no matter how he says it.

Quote:
Showing how Clinton signed legislation is being undermined and overturned by judicial fiat that which the general populace opposes, which had laws against it at the state and federal level.

How? The Supreme Court of Massachusetts is doing it's job interpreting its state Constitution and overtuning laws that do not meet that muster. The Federal DOMA is not mixed into this situation at all.

I know you're a right wing fanatic who hates gays (and women), but be real. This ruling will not lead to national gay marriage. And gay marriage is not a threat to the social fabric or character of this country.

Quote:
As for the amendment, what is left when you have 4-3 decisions reading rights into documents and constitutions that don't exist.

That's your opinion. I disagree.

And what do you have left? How about federalism and states rights. Let each state define for itself what marriage is or is not. If the good people of Massachusetts want to allow gay marriage, they should be allowed to do so. If the evil people of Texas don't, they should not be required to.

Quote:
Not only that but the also render a judgement that prewrites the legislation as to how to remedy it by declaring that it cannot be addressed via civil unions.

I would prefer a civil unions route, since it would cause less backlash. As would John Kerry. But the Court is the authority here, and they say that wouldn't pass constitutional muster, so it's sadly not an option. I would hope that they would reconsider, though that's unlikely.

Quote:
You make the Bush language sound hateful when in fact it is the only course of action left thanks to the Mass court.

The only course of action left is to let each state decide on their own, through their own processes, what to do about this. Marriage has never been a federal issue, and the FFC clause has never been applied to marriage before, so there's no reason to warp the Constitution with right wing hate speech to prevent something that won't happen from happening.

Quote:
When it overturns legislation enacted even by Democratic presidents, there is no way that it can be portrayed as mainstream and the Bush position as extreme.

What Federal law has the Massachusetts Supreme Court overtuned? The Federal DOMA does not apply to this situation.

Quote:
Finally you talk about triangulation as if no one would ever ask Kerry how he would address this since it is obvious that civil unions wouldn't work. Do you really think he could say he was going to defend marriage via illegal civil unions and get away with that sort of answer? He would either have to go on record supporting homosexual marriage or supporting the amendment.

Or he could say that he disagrees with the court's decision regarding the merits of civil unions, and believes that such a course is still the best path to follow, and that the court should reconsider.
post #117 of 298
Thread Starter 
I want to know how gay people have suddenly become in vogue?

Maybe acceptance and tolerance have come in vogue...

naaahh that's crazy talk!

Perhaps younger generations are finding that it's not such a big deal. Get over it old man.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #118 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
Every major issue is a wedge issue. The war is a wedge issue. Medicare is a wedge issue. Taxes are a wedge issue. Hell, the stupid pledge of allegiance is a wedge issue.
[/B]

Ah...I see definition so broad as to be useless. Got it.

Quote:
I saw Bush's speech live, thank you. I was so hurt and upset that I vomited.

I see, so instead of actually addressing what he said, you prefer to rail on about your anecdotal reaction to the speech.

What percentage of people do you think got physically ill from those words? .0001% perhaps? Doesn't sounds like a large voting block to me.

Quote:
Bush supports a "We Hate Gays" Amendment to the Constitution. That's mean and hateful, no matter how he says it.

Oh I forgot. You are one of those... "disagreement = hate" type of guys.

Quote:
How? The Supreme Court of Massachusetts is doing it's job interpreting its state Constitution and overtuning laws that do not meet that muster. The Federal DOMA is not mixed into this situation at all.

I know you're a right wing fanatic who hates gays (and women), but be real. This ruling will not lead to national gay marriage. And gay marriage is not a threat to the social fabric or character of this country.

So the job of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts is to write legislation? Because that is what they have just done by declaring that civil unions cannot address their decision.

They are so bright they can take what is not written in the Mass Constitution (homosexual marriage) and use it to declare what should not be written into law. (civil unions)

As for your characterization of me. It is just as wrong as me calling you a flaming, cross dressing, lisping, limp wristed...etc. In other words wrong. You claim I "hate" people because I disagree with them. In this instance then you must be practicing a lot of hate yourself.

I've not declared I find homosexual marriage wrong. Rather I don't like rulings that are so broad as to render the law itself useless. The privacy right this ruling is based on basically makes it almost impossible to legislate any type of marriage as being wrong. Others here, likely yourself included, don't want to admit that because you want to squeeze through the one issue important to yourself. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. If the law becomes useless and meaningless, the alternatives are much worse. No one here has explained how homosexual marriage could be found legal under the privacy right while finding incestual, polygamous, and other marriage forms illegal. You can't do so and be legally or logically consistant. Either marriage is a social construct of which the majority can decide what that construct is, or it isn't and it is a free for all.

Quote:
That's your opinion. I disagree.

And what do you have left? How about federalism and states rights. Let each state define for itself what marriage is or is not. If the good people of Massachusetts want to allow gay marriage, they should be allowed to do so. If the evil people of Texas don't, they should not be required to.

Oh remember disagreement = hate. So I know that you now are a left wing fanatic who hates me.

States rights don't work for civil rights issues. Look at abortion. Look at minority rights. They all eventually become federalized. I'll be very happy to look into any instances of civil rights that you believe have not become federal issues, but as far as I know, they all have.

Quote:
I would prefer a civil unions route, since it would cause less backlash. As would John Kerry. But the Court is the authority here, and they say that wouldn't pass constitutional muster, so it's sadly not an option. I would hope that they would reconsider, though that's unlikely.

Well obviously these are judges have decided that the law is worthless. What I find humorous though is that you claim to support a means of addressing this that keeps homosexual seperate but equal as does Kerry. Cheney has said he would support civil unions as well. Bush has said that if painted into a corner he would support the amendment since the court would have left that as the only option available. Other then that he has only said that he would only do what is legally necessary.

Funny how you are Kerry are tolerant and kind while I'm sure Cheney and Bush are mean and hateful.

Quote:
The only course of action left is to let each state decide on their own, through their own processes, what to do about this. Marriage has never been a federal issue, and the FFC clause has never been applied to marriage before, so there's no reason to warp the Constitution with right wing hate speech to prevent something that won't happen from happening.

Actually it will easily become a federal issue since it will affect intra-state relationships. Should a custody dispute turn out differently in California than in Nevada? In one state the two are legal partners and in the other, not.

What if you are vacationing and get into an auto accident. Does your partner suddenly lose the right to consent to medical care for you if you are in a different state?

Suppose your partner takes some of your assets earned together in Massachusetts and buys a house in their own name in Texas and moves there. How can you divorce him and claim the money from that house?

Sure... this won't become federalized.... please...

Quote:
What Federal law has the Massachusetts Supreme Court overtuned? The Federal DOMA does not apply to this situation.

It will overturn it in its application. As I have mentioned it will federalize this issue because all homosexual couples who marry in Massachusetts will not stay nor live in that state forever. When you attempt to divorce and get your half of the assets, custody, etc. in another state, you will be asking that state to recogize your marriage in opposition to the DOMA. When the state refuses to do so. You sue.

You can see the process, even if it hasn't gone through it yet.

Quote:
Or he could say that he disagrees with the court's decision regarding the merits of civil unions, and believes that such a course is still the best path to follow, and that the court should reconsider.

There is this thing, it's called a follow-up question...

and Mr. Kerry, since the court will not reconsider, what would be your course of action?

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 #119 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I want to know how gay people have suddenly become in vogue?

Maybe acceptance and tolerance have come in vogue...

naaahh that's crazy talk!

Perhaps younger generations are finding that it's not such a big deal. Get over it old man.

You are a funny, funny man. Sad, but funny.

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 #120 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
All I'm saying is that Kerry's position is probably closer to most people's views than Bush's.

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

"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
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.