You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front
Marriage under attack in Massachusetts
2003-11-18
Score another for the perversion crowd.
AP) - Massachusetts’ highest court ruled 4-3 Tuesday that the state’s ban on same- sex marriage is unconstitutional and gave lawmakers 180 days to come up with a solution that would allow gay couples to wed. The court did not issue marriage licenses to the seven couples who sued and left the details to the Legislature. "Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family — these are among the most basic of every individual’s liberty and due process rights," the majority opinion said.
right before four sets of lips fell off

I actually have nothing against gay matrimony, other than esthetics. But I know these people. What's permissible today becomes mandatory tomorrow...
Posted by:Atrus

#14  I'd be alot more supportive of gay marriage if all the couples weren't so DAMN ugly. EEEEHHWWW! It's not like the movies at all, is it?
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-11-18 8:36:44 PM  

#13  The ruling was made in the summer and announced in November to prevent any type of voter feedback in the polls. Nice democratic touch.
Posted by: Super Hose   2003-11-18 8:10:32 PM  

#12  What this all boils down to is exhibitionism. Apparently the legal profession regards sexual exhibitionism as a constitutional right.

The best part about this is: (paraphrasing Jeb Bush) "At least they can't increase their numbers through marriage." ;o)
Posted by: badanov   2003-11-18 7:44:49 PM  

#11  "Marriage under attack" ?

Actually it seems to me that the only people attacking marriage are the people attacking gay marriages. I've certainly never seen any supporters of gay marriages attacking hetero marriages or the institution in general.

"Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples,"

Pfft. Idiots. When society recognizes the lifelong bond between a couple (whether "traditional" or "non-traditional") that's what marriage *is*.

So the moron in question says that he opposes to the word "marriage" being used, but he doesn't oppose the essense of recognizing homosexual unions.

That's what in Greece is called "hiding behind one's finger".

Cowardly chicken.

JFM> No society has ever accepted sterile unions? I assure you that sterile people are indeed allowed to marry.

Sorry, kiddo, but the "can't reproduce" argument is as weak one as you can find, and derives back from the days when a husband could divorce or even kill his wife if she was barren.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2003-11-18 7:12:59 PM  

#10  Get a life. Someone who is in a long-term relationship with someone has some legitimate claims that shouldn't be preempted by the goofball members of their respective families. We'll call it civil union if you're really that hot under the collar on this issue.

Agreed Civil Union.

Last line "Asscroft" was best left out.
Posted by: Shipman   2003-11-18 5:55:53 PM  

#9  Get a life. Someone who is in a long-term relationship with someone has some legitimate claims that shouldn't be preempted by the goofball members of their respective families.

We'll call it civil union if you're really that hot under the collar on this issue.

It's not like we're a theocracy yet, no thanks to Asscroft.
Posted by: Hiryu   2003-11-18 5:41:03 PM  

#8  Seing how this is Massachusetts, I'm surprised they didn't make it mandatory.
Posted by: tu3031   2003-11-18 5:32:27 PM  

#7  Finally, the principle of separation of powers means that judges cannot make the law, only interpret it.

Haven't been following the "Schumer" line, huh JFM? The left never fails to invent law from the bench when they can't win at the polls. That's why they're filibustering qualified judges that aren't willing to "read" intent into common language
Posted by: Frank G   2003-11-18 5:21:08 PM  

#6  It seems some judges need some refresher courses on law: the matter of who or what is your sex partner is a private matter (with some restrictions like minors) and is basically out of bounds for regulation.


But marriage is a social institution and thus a PUBLIC matter. The reason a society creates marriage in the first place is because society needs children to survive and the more stable the form of union the more childreen it produces on average (ie women having one night adventures have less children than women living with a man these less on average than married women). That is the reason the society spends resources on creating a legal cadre, keeping records and reducing the taxes paid by married couples.

No society I know about has ever accepted gay marriage and other sterile unions: in Doric regions of ancient Greece men were encouraged to have homosexual relationships as a way to increase army's cohesion but AFAIK even at Thebes or Sparta marriage was a thing who happenned between a man a woman.

Finally, the principle of separation of powers means that judges cannot make the law, only interpret it. And extending marriage is definitely a legislative (ie out of bounds for judges) issue since decisions of a judge don't bind him or bind other judges for other cases.

As I said people can have sex or live with whoever they like, it is their business. But marriage is society's business.

Posted by: JFM   2003-11-18 5:14:46 PM  

#5  "People were wondering if this would also allow pediphiles from marrying their victims, people from marrying their pets or cows or rocks. Fathers or Mothers from marrying their Sons or Daughters, etc."

So they think gay people are like cows or rocks?
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-11-18 3:34:07 PM  

#4  Short for "what's that got to do with the price of kalishnikovs in Peshawar?"

Itself a modification of the old "whats that got to do with the price of eggs?" used to respond to an irrelevant statement. Implication of being off topic.

Note well: of course its up to Fred Pruitt to determine what is or is not off topic here. He doesnt seem to mind the rest of us venturing our opinions on that question, though.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-11-18 3:30:49 PM  

#3  I've heard about this this morning on KVI Radio (Seattle). People were wondering if this would also allow pediphiles from marrying their victims, people from marrying their pets or cows or rocks. Fathers or Mothers from marrying their Sons or Daughters, etc...

And since when can the Court direct the Legislature to do anything? Lets hope the Legislature gives the court a big 'Bugger Off' on this one.

From the linked article:

But the issue may find a hostile audience in the Massachusetts Legislature, which has been considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal.

And Republican Gov. Mitt Romney criticizing the ruling, saying: "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that makes that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."
Posted by: CrazyFool   2003-11-18 2:53:41 PM  

#2  I've never been able to understand what "Peshawar" means in this context. Could someone please explain?
Posted by: Atrus   2003-11-18 2:49:22 PM  

#1  Peshawar.

Go read Andy Sullivan.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-11-18 2:45:49 PM  

00:00