SUPREME COURT WON'T ANNUL GAY-MARRIAGE OKAY IN MASSACHUSETTS!

NY Daily News ^ | 11/28/04

[HostileTerritory]

I just read the post above your reply to me, and I see I explained to you stuff you already understood. My apologies.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

This would not have been a ruling on homosexual marriage. It would have been a ruling on the restraints of government, specifically the judicial branch of government. They don't get to do the legislating. That's all this was about.

[Luis Gonzalez]

SUPREME COURT WON'T ANNUL GAY-MARRIAGE OKAY IN MASSACHUSETTS!

Nice bit of journalism here.

The actual news is that the SCOTUS won't hear the case, but this rag already jumped to the conclusion that had they heard it, they would have overturned the Massachusetts SCOTUS.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Yeah, but I enjoyed reading your post anyway. You're exactly right.

[Luis Gonzalez]

BINGO!

[COEXERJ145]

Don't forget who we're talking about right now. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to see this Court simply decide to rule that homosexual marriage is legal in all 50 states. We know there are already enough Justices on the Court to do just that. Better to keep the issue out of the hands of the 6 black robed tyrants that made sodomy a "right".

[ClintonBeGone]

My headline: SCOTUS Cops-Out on Mass Gay-Coupling

My Headline:

SCOTUS DECLINES TO ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE POLICY:

Freepers Old Professer & The Ghost of FReepers Past Vow To Fight Decision

[pawdoggie]

The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over gay marriages, rejecting a challenge to the nation’s only law sanctioning such unions.

This first sentence is misleading; there is no "law" or act that sanctions homosexual or Lesbian marriage. There is an state supreme court "opinion" that the state constitution (by not expressly forbidding gay unions) cannot deny homosexuals and Lesbians the opportunity to marry. It infuriates me when "journalists" invest court opinions with the same authority and legitimacy as (properly construed) legislative acts.

[gidget7]

You may be right, however the amendment currently written, allows for civil union, and many of us don't want that either. They crafted a plan to not let people vote till 2006 in the hopes that we would be desensitized on the issue.

Their words "they will see the sky hasn't fallen, and the opposition will go away" Wishful thinking.

[rintense]

It will be interesting because at the heart of this are federal benefits, ie. leaving social security to a gay partner. The gay friends I have said this is the over riding issue for them- the ability to provide for their loved ones when they are gone.

Let the states decide, but it will ultimately become a federal issue.

I say let the American people decide.

[ClintonBeGone]

The court was being asked to restore the constitutional order in Massachusetts. Article IV section 4 of the US Constition guarantees to every state a republican form of government. That means that the people's representatives make the laws, not the courts.

Its rather amusing that you cite the constitution, yet completely ignore the 11th amendment, which is suppose to prohibit states from being sued in federal court.

[gidget7]

Which is why the POTUS must get the original amendment passed, forbidding courts to rule where the legislature and the people clearly have the power.

Shouldn't have to be that way, however, Judges are overstepping the separation of powers, put in place as a system of checks and balances, carefully crafted to prevent this kind of tyranny

[ClintonBeGone]

It will be interesting because at the heart of this are federal benefits, ie. leaving social security to a gay partner. The gay friends I have said this is the over riding issue for them- the ability to provide for their loved ones when they are gone.

Yes indeed. What it will allow is some AIDs infested person to marry a young stud while on his deathbed and allow the young stud to obtain federal benefits for the rest of his life.

[Dan from Michigan]

It should be a state issue. Other states shouldn't have to recognize it however. If Taxachusetts wants it, that's their business.

Just don't bring it here. Michiganders spoke on it.

[ladyjane]

You're right. The people of Massachusetts had no say in this. Maggie Marshall (champion of the gay lesbian alliance)and her supreme court crew dictated this. The politicians on Beacon Hill don't have the backbone to bring the real issues to a vote. We can thank Maggie for bringing this to a head. It actually helped W get elected.

[gidget7]

BUT Massachusetts DOESN"T want it. foolishly they allowed gay legislators, who's sole purpose was to enact gay marriage as well as other things here, into office. It's those activists in the legislature and the courts that want it, not Massachusetts.

[BikerNYC]

Yes, it's about benefits at the federal level. That's all the feds have to offer since they are not in the marriage business.

I remember in law school reading about Social Security cases that struck down rules which granted, for example, benefits to certain widows but not widowers in the same circumstances. I think it's going to be difficult for SCOTUS to uphold a rule which discriminates against some kinds of lawful marriages for the purpose of awarding benefits.

[HostileTerritory]

Yes indeed. What it will allow is some AIDs infested person to marry a young stud while on his deathbed and allow the young stud to obtain federal benefits for the rest of his life.

Does Anna Nicole Smith get her late husband's Social Security benefits? If so, what should be done about marriage laws to change that?

[TheGeezer]

This is a states' sovereignty issue. What we need is a federal constitutional amendment preventing states from being forced to recognize homosexual marriages from other states. That is the important issue.

[Nathan Zachary]

Just wait until the issue of gay divorce court starts rearing it's head. Gay marriage, the joke that it is, will eventually end up there. These sexually deviant lust based marriages don't last long. I'm sure they will be demanding special government support for their "uniqueness" before long as well, further bankrupting programs designed for the purpose of familly. The government trough can only feed so many.