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

Skip to comments.

One Man, One Woman The case for preserving the definition of marriage
The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, November 28, 2003 | ROBERT P. GEORGE

Posted on 11/29/2003 6:12:33 PM PST by pittsburgh gop guy

Edited on 04/23/2004 12:06:11 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

One Man, One Woman The case for preserving the definition of marriage.

Last week, in its ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts by a vote of 4-3 struck down that state's marriage law as "failing to meet the rational basis test for either due process or equal protection." The court gave the Legislature 180 days to revise the law in line with the judges' redefinition of marriage as "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others." If the Legislature fails within that time frame to direct Massachusetts public officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the court will do it for them.


(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: goodridge; homosexualagenda; marriage; perversion; prisoners
I searched on here and no one posted this article. It is right-on!
1 posted on 11/29/2003 6:12:34 PM PST by pittsburgh gop guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
the citizens of Massachusetts could amend their constitution to define marriage as union of man and woman. The trouble is that in a state so liberal, an amendment to overturn Goodridge may not be politically feasible.

We should nuke Boston. That would change the political scene in Massachussets. While we're at it we should also nuke Vermont.

2 posted on 11/29/2003 6:17:28 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
The title of the article is misleading. It is much more about HOW to preserve the definition of marriage than WHY.
3 posted on 11/29/2003 6:29:17 PM PST by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
We all know damn well that the writers of the MA Constitution in 1780 couldn't even fathom the existence of butt-f***ing gays or carpet munching lesbos. I hope we amend the US Constitution [which supercedes all state constitutions] to put an end to this immoral, silly crap once and for all!
4 posted on 11/29/2003 6:32:07 PM PST by hillary's_fat_a**
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomcrusader
It is much more about HOW to preserve the definition of marriage than WHY.

Because it's RIGHT!

That's why!

5 posted on 11/29/2003 6:33:18 PM PST by Itzlzha (The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
What a lot of folks don't realize is that the pursuit of gay marriage has nothing to do with marriage. The pursuit of it is to gain an "equal protection clause" violation by the Supreme Court. The argument in the Massachusetts case was exactly that. The same precedences that were use to overturn miscegenation laws as being unconstitutional was used in this case i.e. a state can't prevent interracial marriage. Those laws were overturned as a violation of the "equal protection clause." This is basically their aim, if they can get the Supreme Court to find an "equal protection clause" violation in the prohibition of gay marriage they end up establishing that "sexual orientation" constitutes a "protected class" as defined by the 14th amendment.

They've manage to succeed in this approach in lower courts but never in the Supreme Court. A constitutional decision disallowing states a ban on gay-marriage can only succeed if the Supreme Court decides that "sexual orientation" is implicitly protected by the 14th amendment. Such a finding would be the equivalent of writing it into the constitution. I don't need to tell you the floodgates that this would open up, but it's probably the reason the Supreme Court has never decided a gay-rights case on these grounds.

6 posted on 11/29/2003 7:41:19 PM PST by Coeur de Lion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy; scripter; EdReform; *Homosexual Agenda
What next?


7 posted on 11/29/2003 7:44:08 PM PST by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
SPOTREP - SOCIOLOGY - FAMILY - MARRIAGE
8 posted on 11/29/2003 11:01:27 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
What is a Man or Woman?
These days you need to ask and define these questions.
When I lived in CA Bay area. One co. I worked for. We had this little joke. “ slowly piece by piece Were getting the best looking woman in the Co.”
9 posted on 11/29/2003 11:48:02 PM PST by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Thanks for the ping. This article will be in the next database listing under category: Marriage.

We've seen so many of these lately I'm going to pass on pinging the group this time.

10 posted on 11/30/2003 12:53:05 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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