Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mass. Supreme Court Rules - Gay Couples have the Right to Marry
FoxNews | 11-18-03 | FoxNews

Posted on 11/18/2003 7:02:44 AM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

Mass. Supreme Court rules that illegal for state to deny marriage license to gay couples.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; aids; antifamily; gay; godsjudgement; goodridge; hiv; homos; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; judicalactivism; justdamn; legislatingsin; oligarchy; pederasty; perversion; perverts; prisoners; protectmarriage; queers; reprobates; romans1; samesexmarriage; sodomites; sodomy; tyrannyofthefew
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-565 next last
To: PISANO
The only thing that can stop it is a Constitutional Amendment.

And I think there will be. The GOP needs to get this going now and make it a huge campaign issue. This will put the Dems in a huge bind. Support it and lose their base, or oppose it and show just how far out of the mainstream they are.

51 posted on 11/18/2003 7:17:09 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: not-alone
better news no effect for 180 days
52 posted on 11/18/2003 7:17:14 AM PST by not-alone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
Ping Me
53 posted on 11/18/2003 7:17:31 AM PST by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
What states will NOT allow this perversion?
54 posted on 11/18/2003 7:17:35 AM PST by sirchtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
How can this be!? I thought overturning sodomy laws earlier this year would never lead to sodomites getting married. Just remember boys and girls - there's no such thing as s slippery slope - it's all in your right-wing imagination. Here's a cookie now go play.
55 posted on 11/18/2003 7:17:35 AM PST by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
This is the leftist state whose benighted citizens consistently ignore reality and re-elect the likes of an unpunished criminal to the US Senate---The Chappaquidic Kid himself, Teddy Kennedy.
56 posted on 11/18/2003 7:18:10 AM PST by Paulus Invictus (RATS are traitors!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
ROTFLMAO!!!
Did this court of jack-in-the-box liberal clowns rule on what constitutes consummation of the marriage? I would make them, lol.
57 posted on 11/18/2003 7:18:40 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Don't Hawaii and Vermont have gay marriage?

No, Hawaii voted it down and Vermont has "Domestic Partner" that is not part of their marriage law.

58 posted on 11/18/2003 7:18:41 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Vermont has civil partnerships, not marriage.
59 posted on 11/18/2003 7:18:43 AM PST by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
four cats, a dog and a pharmacist . .

FOFL!

Prairie

60 posted on 11/18/2003 7:19:12 AM PST by prairiebreeze (My dad, a WWII veteran always said that America's best ally was...Britain. He was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Fox seems to be backing off this story a bit, saying it will not take effect immediately. Something about State legislature must act. Anyone have a clear picture on this?
61 posted on 11/18/2003 7:19:45 AM PST by BJungNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
It's time for the Marriage Amendment to the (U.S.) Constitution. End this crap once and for all.

180 days and counting.

62 posted on 11/18/2003 7:19:47 AM PST by B Knotts (Go 'Nucks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
Isn't it good to be a judge in America? You can decide for a Nation ALL right and wromg. All morality.

Not morality--legality. There is a difference.

63 posted on 11/18/2003 7:19:51 AM PST by MissMillie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
On the other hand, look at all the sudden tax revenues the gov't will get! After all, we all know that you get taxed more when you get married. /sarcasm
64 posted on 11/18/2003 7:20:27 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
If they throw rice after a marriage ceremony symbolizing fertility, what would they throw after a gay marriage?

Preparation H

65 posted on 11/18/2003 7:20:27 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan
See post #34
66 posted on 11/18/2003 7:20:45 AM PST by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Supreme Neanderthals! Get'm Teddy.
67 posted on 11/18/2003 7:21:02 AM PST by Realist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan
The ruling gives the Mass legislature 180 days to fix the problem which it created by denying sodomarriage.
68 posted on 11/18/2003 7:21:05 AM PST by Petronski (Everybody calm down . . . eat some fruit or something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Did I just coin a word?

"Sodomarriage!"

69 posted on 11/18/2003 7:21:40 AM PST by Petronski (Everybody calm down . . . eat some fruit or something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
"What states will NOT allow this perversion?"

For once, California did something right. They passed Proposition 22 in 2000 stating marriage is only recognized as between man and woman.

But I know it is only a matter of time before some progressive judge declares it unconstitutional.
70 posted on 11/18/2003 7:22:00 AM PST by xusafflyer (Keep paying those taxes California. Mexico thanks you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
a mockery of the sacred vows of marriage
71 posted on 11/18/2003 7:22:13 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Good point - its obvious that there was a split opinion among these judges (4-3) and it is not obvious that this is constitutional. I am sick and tired of federal and state judges making law from nothing. This should be decided by the people - We need to start flexing our muscle and force congress and our elected politicians to make the law not the judges in this country. Even if that means we (not me) elect liberal politicians and pass these type of laws - it is at least the will of the people. We must demand that activist and unconstitutional judges be removed.
72 posted on 11/18/2003 7:22:22 AM PST by sasafras (sasafras (The road to hell is paved with good intentions))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
What better news going into the 2004 elections? Every liberal candidate will now have to either accept or repudiate this decision!
73 posted on 11/18/2003 7:22:31 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
The glorification of the lifestyle goes on. Can you imagine the honeymoon packages that travel agencies will offer?

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the Trial Lawyers assoc. is involved in this.

Prairie
74 posted on 11/18/2003 7:22:35 AM PST by prairiebreeze (My dad, a WWII veteran always said that America's best ally was...Britain. He was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
How about two women and a dog? How about three men and a sheep? It could be endless!

Adult humans have always been allowed to enter into binding contracts. I'm not sure that dogs and sheep have ever been recognized as being able to enter into a contract.

75 posted on 11/18/2003 7:22:37 AM PST by MissMillie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh; newgeezer
This goes right along with removing the 10 commandments. God please don't bless this wretched country anymore.
76 posted on 11/18/2003 7:23:10 AM PST by biblewonk (I must answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chachacha
Your post is vulgar.
77 posted on 11/18/2003 7:23:37 AM PST by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
It's time for the Marriage Amendment to the (U.S.) Constitution. End this crap once and for all.

So says the party of "smaller government"

78 posted on 11/18/2003 7:23:44 AM PST by MissMillie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: All
What is the legislature required to do within 180 days?
79 posted on 11/18/2003 7:23:50 AM PST by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
But seriously, this is not a "landmark" decision as so many news reporters are saying. The "full faith and credit" that States must give to each other's laws is not tested by this any more than the states who legalized gay marriage through appropriate methods - legislative action

We differ. The full faith and credit clause combined with the decision in Lawrence vs. Texas will shake this nation. There are now only two ways to avoid national homosexual marriage: (1) The supreme court rules that Lawrence does not apply to homosexual marriage. That could happen as O'Conner splits yet another hair that noone but her can even see; or (2) We pass the Defense of Marriage Amendment.

80 posted on 11/18/2003 7:23:50 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MissMillie
I'm not sure that dogs and sheep have ever been recognized as being able to enter into a contract.

Well, that's obviously unfair and unconstitutional.</judge>

81 posted on 11/18/2003 7:24:09 AM PST by B Knotts (Go 'Nucks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
When will conservatives see the rule of law to handle sodomy is already in the Constitution?

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Just because SCOTUS and every other part of the national government ignores it, as they have for 140+ years doesn't change the fact that it's there. You want an amendment? Fine, pass an amendment clarifying the Tenth for all the muddleheaded conservative and liberals alike. Something to the effect of: If it's not covered in the Constitution, the right to pass laws as seen fit by the states to handle their internal affairs, be it social or fiscal, is covered by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Else 100 years from now you're going to have a document a mile long. But don't worry politicians will still ignore it

82 posted on 11/18/2003 7:24:23 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
If this stands, it's a Pandora's Box. If there's no constitutional prohibition of queer marriage, what about other unions, or multiple unions?
83 posted on 11/18/2003 7:24:30 AM PST by Tree of Liberty (Here comes the science)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
Thanks.
84 posted on 11/18/2003 7:24:57 AM PST by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: MissMillie
"A Klingon, and Ferrengi and a gorilla go to the town clerk..."
85 posted on 11/18/2003 7:25:18 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
"A Klingon, and Ferrengi and a gorilla go to the town clerk..."

You left out the Episcopalian bishop.

86 posted on 11/18/2003 7:26:30 AM PST by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
How about if all of the big 10% of gays in this country

Where are you getting that number?

87 posted on 11/18/2003 7:26:34 AM PST by Sir Gawain (The Koran...when you're out of toilet paper, Allah is there for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley; Revelation 911; The Grammarian; SpookBrat; Dust in the Wind; JesseShurun; ...
I am thoroughly disgusted.

If they can't see the uniqueness of a male/female marriage and what its potentialities are, then I'm ready......

When in the course of human events.....

88 posted on 11/18/2003 7:27:03 AM PST by xzins (Proud to be Army!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MissMillie
Yeah, whatever. I'm not even a gung-ho GOP guy, having been a Libertarian until 2000.

I'm against a elitocracy run by judges, though, and that's what we are rapidly falling into.

Furthermore, no one has a right to redefine terms willy-nilly. Marriage has a specific meaning; these judges are trying to change that meaning.

89 posted on 11/18/2003 7:27:26 AM PST by B Knotts (Go 'Nucks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: MissMillie
It's probably on PETA's agenda right now.
90 posted on 11/18/2003 7:27:37 AM PST by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

Judge said marriage can be 4 men and 2 dogs!!


91 posted on 11/18/2003 7:27:57 AM PST by GeronL (Visit www.geocities.com/geronl.....and.....www.returnoftheprimitive.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CygnusXI
And I want a judicial ruling that says I can fly, and that I am to be addressed as "Emperor" from now on.
92 posted on 11/18/2003 7:28:35 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Why just couples?

Bump ... darn good question, given the reasoning this court used. Now polygamists are second-class citizens. Sodom, Gomorrah, and Massachusetts.

93 posted on 11/18/2003 7:29:23 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Judge said marriage can be 4 men and 2 dogs!!

Are you guys going hunting or eloping?

94 posted on 11/18/2003 7:29:36 AM PST by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Your right, why just couples?? Thats descrimination!!

Marriage can be 4 guys and a mule! /sarcasm (I hope)

95 posted on 11/18/2003 7:30:00 AM PST by GeronL (Visit www.geocities.com/geronl.....and.....www.returnoftheprimitive.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
God please don't bless this wretched country anymore.

 "God Bless America" 

America, Bless God


96 posted on 11/18/2003 7:30:02 AM PST by newgeezer (Admit it. Amendment XIX is very much to blame (and yes, I'm married to one who agrees).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Well, that's obviously unfair and unconstitutional.

I'm not sure I've ever seen wording in the constitution that offers protection to anything other than "persons".

97 posted on 11/18/2003 7:30:06 AM PST by MissMillie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Fox News is misreporting this story, and I assume that other news outlets are doing the same.

Alison Camerada (sp. ?) on Fox just claimed repeatedly that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution will require all other states to recognize homosexual couples who were "married" in Massachusetts. A 50-year-old set of US Supreme Court decisions has held that one state is NOT required to recognize a decision from a second state which is "against public policy" in the first state.

The issue then was between two states where one had legal gambling but the other did not. The Full Faith and Credit Clause, however, was the link between those cases and this one.

As usual, the lamestream media have not done their homework.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, " 'Preserving' the Constitution by Spitting on It," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

98 posted on 11/18/2003 7:30:26 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
How about three men and a sheep?


Hey leave the aggies out of this.
99 posted on 11/18/2003 7:30:50 AM PST by john316 (JOSHUA 24:15 ...choose you this day whom ye will serve...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: billbears
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

The problem is the Courts are usurping the power of the people. The only way to stop this non-sense is through a Constitutional Amendment.

100 posted on 11/18/2003 7:31:24 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-565 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson