Defending Marriage, After Massachusetts: What the Court Did and How We Should Respond

National Catholic Register ^ | November 30 - December 6, 2003 | EVE TUSHNET

[scripter]

Bump and ping.

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1), (Version 1.0)

Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

Would you like to be part of the solution? To stay informed of the issues? A simple freepmail is all it takes to join the homosexual agenda ping list, and you can cancel at anytime.

[Alberta's Child]

I've got a perfect way to push the limits on same-sex marriage in a manner that will make a statement.

I need to find a 90+ year old single person who is willing to get "married" to one of his or her own grandchildren or great-grandchildren. Once the Court's own ruling in this case is used to justify a marriage between family members, we can hasten the demise of Social Security and other pension funds by providing widows' survivor benefits to someone who may very well collect them for 70+ years.

[eternity]

Gov Romney of Mass simply stated (concerning marriage), "I believe 3000 years of recorded history and not the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts." My self, living in Massachusetts its nice not having a pagen for a governor.

[scripter]

Now there's an angle I hadn't yet heard. Criminals can marry each other and claim spousal privilege is another. Perhaps somebody should start compiling a list of all the issues folks have raised.

[ClearCase_guy]

It's not a bad idea. Not that it matters, but do you know that there are still some widows of Confederate Veterans? I believe they receive a pension of some kind.

A kindly grandfather might want to marry his granddaughter just so she can have his social security benefits, starting at, I dunno, age 20? Who could it hurt???

[Alberta's Child]

Not just two criminals, mind you.

Laws against polygamy should also be challenged, because if the Massachusetts law restricting marriage to a man and a woman is "arbitrary" according to the Supreme Judicial Court of Masschusetts, then any law restricting marriage to only two people is also arbitrary.

Law enforcement will never be the same once the entire Soprano crime family gets married to each other and can claim spousal immunity for everyone they do business with.

[Miss Maam]

If the Federal Marriage Amendment is enacted, will that negate any same-sex marriage that occur in MA?

[longtermmemmory]

Perhaps but it will positivly definitly preclude it from spreading to other states and having ANY impact on federal law. No joint tax returns. No immigration tricks using homosexual marriages.

[scripter]

Not just two criminals, mind you.

Good point.

[scripter]

If the Federal Marriage Amendment is enacted, will that negate any same-sex marriage that occur in MA?

I thought I read something about that recently. I'm not sure but it could be discussed in this Weekly Standard article: Massachusetts vs. Marriage. I gotta run and can't check at the moment.

[Sneer]

If the legislature needs more that 180 for a constitutional referendum they should just ban all marriage in Mass. until this is accomplished. No licenses for anyone is equal protection under the law. Let the courts chew on that.

[Melas]

If the Federal Marriage Amendment is enacted, will that negate any same-sex marriage that occur in MA?

No, only marriages subsequent to the passage of the federal act. Ex post facto laws are constitutionally proscribed, so all marriages that occured before legal remedy would stand.

[Fee]

Do not count on it. Courts can acknowledge an Admendment to the Constitution but ignore it by pointing out a "compelling national interest" to do otherwise. Example, look what happened to affirmative action. The judges acknowledged that the law does not allow the usage of race, creed or national origin as a basis for college admissions, but points out that there is a "national compelling interest" (not even discussed in the US Constitution) to maintain diversity. Only way to solve this is give the GOP 60+ Senators so we can put the right types of judges in the federal courts.

[TKDietz]

I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. I don't see how letting gays marry each other is so detrimental to the institution of marriage. I say live and let live. I don't give a crap who anybody marries. It's none of my business. I certainly do understand though why gays would want to marry, and it's not all about recognition of their lifestyle (which I personally find creepy). Mainly it's about money and protecting assets. It's about having the same protections that other couples who make the life long commitment to each enjoy. For instance, if two gays split up after being together for years, they have a really hard time getting equitable property division by the courts. Problems pop up in estate planning and other areas for gay couples that really can't be adequately addressed by contracts.

I'm totally opposed to a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. I suggest what the rest of you do is just wait and see how this works out in the countries and states that allow it. Sooner or later you'll all see that the sky is not going to fall. This isn't going to effect normal families. It's not going to lead to our society turning into one giant Sodom and Gomorrah.

Man I just wish people would live and let live. I can't believe what busybodies so many supposed conservatives are. You guys are turning our nation into the worst kind of nanny state that micromanages every aspect of our lives.

[ClearCase_guy]

Some things are right and some things are wrong. Because murder is wrong, there are laws against it. Homosexuality is either right or wrong. If we pass a law recognizing it, then the government is saying it's "right".

Homosexuals make up only 2% of the population
Anf they have:
Much shorter life expectancies
Much higher incidence of substance abuse problems
Much high incidence of domestic abuse
Much higher incidence of child sexual abuse
Much higher incidence of mental illness.

I think homosexuality is merely a form of mental illness (and it used to be categorized as such). It's not so much a question of "Why do Conservatives think it's wrong? All of the above show why it's wrong. The real question is: Why would we want our government to declare it "right"?

[Miss Maam]

Man I just wish people would live and let live. I can't believe what busybodies so many supposed conservatives are. You guys are turning our nation into the worst kind of nanny state that micromanages every aspect of our lives

TKDietz, just wait and see, is not an option anymore. It's here NOW. . It's not going to lead to our society turning into one giant Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yes, my friend, it will.

[eternity]

Good points ClearCase but the fellow you are addressing has already made up his mind.

[little jeremiah]

I can't believe what busybodies so many supposed conservatives are. You guys are turning our nation into the worst kind of nanny state that micromanages every aspect of our lives.

I can't believe the pinpoint vision your opinion evidences. The only reason conservatives are pushing for a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage is because the gay activists are trying to destroy marriage. Conservatives are not busybodies trying to poke their noses in other peoples' business. They're trying to prevent others from doing just that. You must not have read much about the gay activists' poking their noses into, for instance, classrooms here in California - since, I think, 2001. (Mandatory gay-positive sex-ed, courtesy of Planned Parenthood and others, paid for by MY and others' tax dollars).

Or the gay activists and their handmaidens in the legislature creating crazy laws that force businesses to hire cross dressers, for instance.

Or the gay activists trying to destroy the Boy Scouts? Is that the act of conservative busybodies? People trying to protect adolescent boys from homosexuals are being nosy busybodies? They're just trying to maintain the moral standards which have, up until now, been the accepted norm.

What about in England, Canada and other countries which now enjoy "hatespeech" laws - is that conservatives nannying what other people say, or is it the gay activists minding other peoples' business, what they can say and what they can't say?

Give me a break. Conservatives are not the ones trying to poke their noses into other peoples' business, it's the gay activists and their assistants who are poking noses and who knows what else into OUR business.

If homosexuals did what they do in the privacy of their own homes, I could give a flying big f. But they are intent on making their business MY business, and I resent that. They have no right to re-make the world into one that suits their strange sexual desires.