So long, tradition: Gay marriage in Massachusetts

Manchester Union Leader ^ | November 19, 2003 | Editorial

[billorites]

WELL, WE knew it would happen sooner or later. The Massachusetts Supreme Legislature, er, we mean Supreme Judicial Court, has searched its conscience, if not the state constitution, and determined that the Bay State’s prohibition on same-sex marriage is a violation of fundamental human rights.

Saying that the “Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals,” three of the court’s seven justices decided that the “core concept of human dignity . . . precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and one’s choice of an intimate partner.” A fourth justice concurred with the result of the decision, though not with its reasoning, and one of mankind’s most ancient institutions was instantly redefined.

All of the majority’s logic is just poppycock and gobbledygook. It is a meaningless diversion that only gives the feeling that something noteworthy has just been accomplished.

In ruling that “a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community’s most rewarding and cherished institutions,” the court deemed as “arbitrary” a millenia-old tradition shared by virtually every human culture and rooted in nature.

If reserving the benefits of legal marriage to heterosexual couples is arbitrary, then so is every other tradition, law, rule, regulation and guideline set down by every legislature, parliament, congress, council and assembly in the world. No other social institution in human history is less arbitrary.

As Justice Francis Spina wrote in his dissent, “(W)hat is at stake in this case is not the unequal treatment of individuals or whether individuals rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts, pursuant to art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.”

When Justice Spina wrote that the “power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary,” he was defending another centuries-old tradition, that of the separation of powers, which the Massachusetts court, like so many others, also has discarded.

[billorites]

People were offering bumper sticker ideas yesterday on the radio in Boston. Things like...

Homophobic and Proud!

My Mate is Straight!

[Ff--150]

ONE PERSON!!!!!!!!! THIS WAS 4-3!!!! One individual, a judge.....made homosexuality LEGAL!!

We live in a constitutional repubic, or democracy, right???!!! One person has made a law for 280 million people

[goldstategop]

Isn't Heterophobia Bigotry?

[novacation]

"core concept of human dignity" And how does what homsexuals do fall under that umbrella? Maybe the people of Massachusetts can appeal the the drunk who let a woman drown for help. "Dignity" doesn't seem to mean much to that states officals.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

I can picture the ceremony now'

"Pitcher, do you take this this person to be your lawfully wedded catcher....

....who wants fudge?"

[johnny7]

We used to live in a Democratic Republic but we've thrown that away for a progressive oligarchy.

[Agnes Heep]

Some people are now referring to the "right" to be slowly starved and dehydrated to death as a "core concept of human dignity." How much longer will it be before the courts legislate that upon us? I smell a huge crisis in the air.

[Ff--150]

We used to live in a Democratic Republic but we've thrown that away for a progressive oligarchy

Thank you! Thank you! Now then who is in this oligarchy? And when you find out it's gonna s*ck HUGH because nobody will listen. </pouting]

[tbpiper]

In the light of judicial activism and rule by fiat, I'm growing increasingly in favor to the 'Ceaucescu Gambit' as a method of corrective action.

[Ff--150]

Some people are now referring to the "right" to be slowly starved and dehydrated to death as a "core concept of human dignity." How much longer will it be before the courts legislate that upon us?

Three, THREE people are deciding to murder her. Now, judges are NOT royalty, that is closer to God than we commoners?? Sure? OK... ?

[Evil Inc]

Many people are feeling the same way. They have violated the Constitutional protections and are conducting a bloodless coup. History is rep[lete with examples of what happens to despots that ignore the majority will.

[friendly]

We used to live in a Democratic Republic but we've thrown that away for a progressive oligarchy.

Trial Lawyer, Inc. and the corrupt, oops I meant "activist," judiciary is rapidly eliminating our freedoms and our democracy.

[LTCJ]

one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions

When the court was later asked why marriage was one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions, only the sound of crickets could be heard ...

[wearredcaps]

Instead of "My Mate is Straight!" It should say, :My STATE is Straight"

[Ole Okie]

And what happens when some guy wants to marry his dog?

Equal protection should and must extend to dogs!

But does equal protection extend to squirrels? Or chickens?

Will the new marriage licensing bill extend to chickens and squirrels?

And what of the fellow who wants to marry human twins of whatever gender persuasion? Equal protection has to extend to twins!

Right?

It's a strange, strange world.

[Vaduz]

The reason it's strange is because people are to lazy to vote this is how the left will win.

[Little Bill]

This is going to last only as long as it takes us to get it on the ballot. I think that it is time for the people to ammend our constitution to provide for the recall of judges, than God for the initive petition.

[Ssrn53]

What is it about a penis caked with feces that turns gay men on? Disgusting.

[YamYam]

Has anyone of you actually read the Supreme Court's decision?
You guys have to read before you scream. There is no "dis-favor" of hetero-sexual marriage. And if you start thinking, in a resonable fashion, you will find out that there is an actual NEED (!) to equalize gay partnerships with straight marriages.
Consider this: A same-sex couple splits up leaving their children in kegal limbo. Who gets custody for those children? If there is a marriage you have standards written in statutes. If you have a partnership you don't have anything but equity law. Doesn't it actually make sense to apply the law made for married parents? Or do you want to keep the children in legal jeopardy just because their parents were homosexual and were not allowed to get married?

Oh and forget the crap that this decision is all about immoral sexuality. Many of the plaintiffs were in their partnership for more than a decade. One lesbian couple were in a partnership for 30 years. That's probably longer than most of your parent's marriage. You can hardly call this mutual partnership immoral. Two partners who care for each other for 30 years, emotionally and financially, that's something!

[billorites]

"Will the new marriage licensing bill extend to chickens and squirrels? "

Oh George, not the livestock!