Massachusetts Gay marriage decision met with optism, dismay

AP Wire (breaking on direct feed) | November 18, 2003 | MARTIN FINUCANE

[NYer]

``I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,'' Republican Gov. Mitt Romney said.

[NYer]

``It is alarming that the Supreme Judicial Court in this ruling has cast aside ... the very definition of marriage held by peoples for thousands of years,'' O'Malley said in a statement. ``My hope is that legislators will have the courage and common sense to redress the situation for the good of society.''

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[speedy]

Maybe Barney Frank should marry Ted Kennedy. Actually, in the long run, idiotic decisions like this should play into our hands politically, the same way the radicals of the 60s helped create GOP converts. If it gets to be an election issue, it's all to the good. Unfortunately, in the short term, these sad sick people get to pretend they are married.

[Maeve]

Bump, ping

[tessalu]

The sad truth is that the people of the United States are being led down the path to Sodom, and I do not want to go there. I hate it as much as God hates it, and I think that I would understand if God chose to get rid of me along with the rest of the perverts. God forgive us! As it was in the days of Noah, when God chose to destroy all but 8 people by a flood.

[longtermmemmory]

This is what I see in Mass. The Mass SC saw that a ruling which simply allowed homosexual marriage would immediatly been overruled by the legislature and they would have been reviled. This solution puts all the pressure on the legislature. The Mass SC did not say yea or nay, just the legislature has to make a decision.

The deadline however seems a suckers bet. Can the mass legislature move the process up faster?

[armadale]

Which is a bigger threat to marriage: gay marriage or serial marriage (Liza & David, about 3/4ths of our elected representatives, etc.)?

I argue the latter.

[SuziQ]

But for some supporters, there was lingering concern that the Legislature would somehow derail that victory.

Oh yeah, God Forbid that the CITIZENS of the Commonwealth, through their legislators, should have any say in the way decisions are made on their behalf!

[Reactionary]

I think he's talking about marriage as it's been practiced by nearly every civilization throughout human history.

Do try to follow along...

[jimt]

Can you cite any historical recognition of "gay marriage"?

I can't think of any, myself.

[SuziQ]

There is no concern that homosexuals have in the way of property rights, visitation in hospitals, health care, decisions for each other, etc, that cannot be addressed by simple existing legal documents.

There is absolutely NO reason to up-end civilization to accomodate the particular sexual desires of a tiny minority of people in this country.

[longtermmemmory]

(s) therefore we should support polygamy. This would allow the woman and the man to continue the ecconomic and parental relationships under the same roof and still allow the man to have an additional sex partner. Thus a solution is found. After all, its only about a private contractual agreement between parties. Marriage has nothing to do with the public. (/s)

[longtermmemmory]

BTW: The Mass ruling does NOT allow a virginia civil union compromise. It is all or nothing according to the ruling.

[longtermmemmory]

oops virginia should be vermont. Dean country.

[NYer]

God Forbid that the CITIZENS of the Commonwealth, through their legislators, should have any say in the way decisions are made on their behalf!

Have you noticed that the Gay Advocacy Groups have intentionally bypassed state legislators and gone directly to the courts. Most of these judges are appointed - not elected!

HOMOSEXUAL MANIFESTO

[Semper Paratus]

The Mass SC did not say yea or nay, just the legislature has to make a decision.

Wish that was so but the ruling ordered the legislature to change the current statue to strike out 'between man and a woman' saying the only constitutional phrase is between 2 people.

Need a constitutional amedndment and that won't get to the voter for 3 years.

Can't wait to see the Boston Globe marriages page in 6 months.

[Ohioan]

``It's a historic day because finally all families in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will have the opportunity to be equal families under the law,'' said Mary Bonauto, the lead attorney in the case.

One can draw one of several conclusions from this remark. But only two of those conclusions have any reasonable degree of probability:

1. That Miss Bonauto is a sociopath, mocking the normal use of English, to rub salt in the wounds of decent, family oriented Massachusians. (I have never been quite sure how to spell the word.)

2. Miss Bonauto is suffering from a serious mental derangement, and is unable to comprehend to what the English word "family" refers.

The sad truth is that some of us can still remember a time, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was a respected body. They may have been more Liberal than some other Courts, but they were still respected. It is difficult to believe that they still will be. This is right out of Gulliver's Travels--and Dean Swift has been dead for centuries.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[NYer]

By 3,000 years of recorded history , I am referring to the natural truths about marriage! Since homosexuals cannot "naturally" reproduce, marriage for them is nothing more than a legal contract. As such, there is NO need to alter the definition of marriage to accomodate their wants. A lawyer can arrange that through a living will.

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

[longtermmemmory]

Do they HAVE to change that law or do they have to "address the issue"? Can the mass constitution be amended before then?

The 180 days seems arbitrary, I wonder if the state can appeal on that issue alone since the Constitution is going to be ammended in 2006. (seperation of powers, the courts can't order the legislature to write laws, only rule on the ones there. Well that is the theory)