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

Skip to comments.

With These Words (Gay-marriage court ruling is a hit at straight weddings.)
New York Magazine ^ | Jul 27, 2012 | Sasha Issenberg

Posted on 08/04/2012 7:06:57 PM PDT by nickcarraway

Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family … Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.”

The words above come from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ­decision that made the state the first to authorize gay marriage. They are also part of a longer passage read last month at the Newport, Rhode Island, wedding ceremony of Gretchen Sisson and founding Facebook employee Andrew McCollum, who were among a growing number of straight couples turning to ­Goodridge v. Department of Public Health for a definition of matrimony that advances a philosophical, resonant, secular ­rationale for their heterosexual union.

The journey of Goodridge from law books to wedding programs likely began shortly after the case was resolved. In this first phase, couples included the ruling in their weddings to make an ideological statement. Conservatives had responded to the outcome in Massachusetts by placing anti-gay-marriage referenda on over a dozen state ballots. In the Kvetch forum of the now-defunct website Indiebride, lefty brides mulled “a way to include guests who were gay and couldn’t get married and show ­respect for them,” recalls Nina Callaway, who started as About.com’s weddings expert around the time. “It was about sending a message.” Someone suggested reading from the majority opinion by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, the most bracing passages of which—such as one assessing what it means for some citizens to go “without the right to marry”—did not wear their political objective lightly.

But other parts of Marshall’s opinion offered no such defiance. With a little deftediting

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: civilunions; contracts; homophiles; homosexualagenda; marriage

1 posted on 08/04/2012 7:07:06 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; scottjewell

I’ve been wondering about something from a legal standpoint:

If a gay couple had their wedding, and then afterward they sit down with a lawyer and signed papers giving each other power-of-attorney, wouldn’t that essentially give them most of the legal benefits of a straight married couple?

I’m not that well-versed in the law, so maybe some FreeperLegals can help me out with this....


2 posted on 08/04/2012 7:14:12 PM PDT by TheRobb7 (Remember, JimRob called a truce....not a surrender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7

I think the big problem is hospitals. I think this is the one thing that created this entire disaster. Hospitals refused to allow a partner to go into the hospital to say goodbye or hold the hand during last breath, etc. They still cannot give any direction at all on the health of the person...it has to be a sibling or parent. I just don’t see what the hospitals can’t lift their crazy rules....If they did, gay marriage would be out the window. That is what this is all about.


3 posted on 08/04/2012 7:23:17 PM PDT by napscoordinator (GO TO CHIC-FIL-A 1 AUGUST FOR BREAKFAST, LUNCH OR DINNER (OR ALL))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7

Because mutual powers-of-attorney doesn’t enlist the power of law to force the rest of us to participate in their little farce.


4 posted on 08/04/2012 7:23:35 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows (You can't have IngSoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

poo poo. civil marriage is a contract, period. no?


5 posted on 08/04/2012 7:23:35 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (Woe to them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7
There is no reason for marriage to receive MOST benefits of marriage,. All can be rectified with simple contract law. The one thing that can't be is SS and survivor benefits, which are there ONLY for the foundation of family continuity and support of a surviving child or spouse.

It is all BS. Homosexuals can not consummate a marriage. It like all things Leftist, is a fraud.

6 posted on 08/04/2012 7:24:45 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7

I am not an attorney but I would assume it would. Although in the case of one of them dying the power of attorney might no longer be durable. Certainly you can name someone on the deed of your home, your business, and many other things which would allow for sharing and transfer of assests.

In addition, civil unions in some states seem to solve many of the techinical and legal problems which gays claim they need marriage for.

Therefore I am of the belief that what they really are attempting with “marriage equality” is :

1. To fully normalize homosexuality in the minds of the public - not to be tolerated, but to be fully accepted is the goal.

2. To transform the very basis of civilization so as to invert the meaning of many aspects of society. A “revaluation of all values” - a Trojan Horse under the banner of “Equality”.


7 posted on 08/04/2012 7:26:37 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Wrong. you can designate ANYONE as a proxy or next of POA with simple legal documents. Much easier and less expensive than a wedding. They want us to condone their deviant behavior as if it was natural. And if we do not, we are the bigots.
8 posted on 08/04/2012 7:28:21 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

I had been thinking of hospitals, too.

There is something to the effect with ICU units that only family - through blood or marriage - can visit or make medical decisions.

I still believe gay marriage is a smokescreen for something beyond itself, though.


9 posted on 08/04/2012 7:29:37 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

Marriage belongs to Church’s . The Government got into the marriage business to make a buck on licenses.

Civil marriage means nothing except that the Government accepts it as a marriage.

Establish two diferent marriages, The Civil and the one by God. Any Church that engages in same sex marriage is merely going against the Bible and the marriage is meaningless.


10 posted on 08/04/2012 7:30:48 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

And if we do not, we are the bigots.

That was proved this week for sure.


11 posted on 08/04/2012 7:34:34 PM PDT by napscoordinator (GO TO CHIC-FIL-A 1 AUGUST FOR BREAKFAST, LUNCH OR DINNER (OR ALL))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
A normal couple's honeymoon can result in a beautiful baby girl or boy.One who cries,giggles,spits,poops,smiles,falls off a bike,has their first boy/girlfriend...etc.The typical result from the “honeymoon” of male perverts,at least,is a huge syphilis canker around an orifice into which only medical instruments should be introduced.
12 posted on 08/04/2012 7:45:13 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Poor Barack.If He's Reelected,Think Of The Mess He'll Inherit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

I don’t think that’s true. The activists keep using it as an excuse, but I spent last year in and out of the hospital. As a patient, all I had to do was fill out a form designating the people with whom medical staff could share my medical information. There was no requirement that the person or persons must be family or a spouse.

I even know someone who designated someone instead of her husband to make decisions for her.

I’ve been wondering if, maybe, the activists just want automatic control over their partner in a medical emergency. That is, if the patient has not drawn up documents in advance and can no longer speak for himself/herself, maybe the other partner wants to be the default go-to for all decisions. If that’s what they want, that’s not necessarily a good thing (for example, the Terri Schiavo case).


13 posted on 08/04/2012 7:59:58 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes
You are right especially the end of your post. I don't know but even if now they allow people to sign forms to allow people to visit that certainly wasn't the case 20-30 years ago. I am so pissed off at the hospitals to even get us to this disastrous situation. I blame them totally. They may not have cause the explosion but they definitely started the spark.
14 posted on 08/04/2012 8:04:08 PM PDT by napscoordinator (GO TO CHIC-FIL-A 1 AUGUST FOR BREAKFAST, LUNCH OR DINNER (OR ALL))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7
Many gay lawyers out there - gay judges - liberal elites who will do whatever they can to help gays...

If gays wanted to come up with a domestic partnership agreement that met their needs - something creative and dignified, they could do it. I suspect gays would rather fight us because they have a low threshold for handling boredom... Time will tell...

15 posted on 08/04/2012 8:12:40 PM PDT by GOPJ (Political correctness is simply George Orwell's Newspeak by a non-threatening name. FR- Bernard Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

I use to buy into that argument from the left because I saw it happen many moons ago with an old college friend and his ‘companion’. However looking back..it really wasn’t quite that way..at least at the end of my friends life. His companion was there and consulted every step of the way. I stumbled unto the scene quite by accident because my mom was in the hospital and I ran into him. We were both sleeping in the ICU waiting room for days at a time. He for my old friend and me for my mother. II saw the doctors come in at all hours of the night to keep him fully abreast of everything. I do know that he could not make health decisions for him though. My old friends sister had to be called in. It does seem that a simple legal document would suffice.

I don’t think this is the whole true argument though and there is a lot of validity to the argument that they really want us to condone their lifestyle choice. It is an impossibility for those of us that believe in God’s teaching.

The homosexual activists though are abhorrent and we have to stand up to them. We cannot condone them running around half dressed in the streets corrupting young minds. It is truly grotesque. I am sick of their in your face deviance.


16 posted on 08/04/2012 8:16:28 PM PDT by penelopesire (TIME FOR A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

BS. I work in a hospital every day. You can designate anyone of your choice you durable power of attorney for healthcare decisions. I have never seen a partner turned away. The only place difficulty might come in is if the I’ll person did not designate anyone power of attorney. In that case family is consulted. If family does not know and accept the gay partner, then there is a chance they could be shut out. That is the only way it could happen. I’m so tired of hearing the hospital argument I could scream! It’s totally untrue


17 posted on 08/04/2012 8:18:53 PM PDT by Mom MD (T he country needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

Again, BS. The durable power of attorney for healthcare trumps all. You can name anyone you want and file the papers


18 posted on 08/04/2012 8:20:46 PM PDT by Mom MD (T he country needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Hippa...with its $10,000 fine for one occurance of devulging info to people who are not legally connected or named as confidents by the patient...

blaming hospitals for following the nutty Congressional rulings?......ridiculous....

19 posted on 08/04/2012 8:23:52 PM PDT by cherry (/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

I’m not sure if every hospital has the same policy now, but I think so... At least, around here, it seems to be true.


20 posted on 08/04/2012 8:24:08 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
Marriage belongs to Church’s . The Government got into the marriage business to make a buck on licenses.

Civil marriage means nothing except that the Government accepts it as a marriage.

Establish two diferent marriages, The Civil and the one by God. Any Church that engages in same sex marriage is merely going against the Bible and the marriage is meaningless.

Yes, yes, yes.

Except - take the word "marriage" out of what the government does. Civil "union," okay. Not marriage. Marriage is a spiritual joining, connected with a church or a spiritual tradition or spiritual ceremony - not government. Period.

Then, let anyone "marry" anyone under their faith. So you're not just married - you're married under the Catholic Church, or the Unitarian Church, or the Jewish faith, or the Hindu faith.

But civil union is government, as an administrative function.

You know what this does? It not only ends the gay marriage argument - it returns marriage to its proper place in society: before God, rather than before government.

That's why it can't be resolved as it is - it's being argued wrongly by BOTH sides.

21 posted on 08/04/2012 9:39:25 PM PDT by Talisker (Isaiah 41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Good points. The marriage debate is not about marriage. It is about destroying the power of faith and the church. These will then be replaced by a secular progressive order in which the state alone will be worshiped. For an example look to the Episcopal Church. For decades the Gays preached tolerance. Once they gained power they crushed anyone who opposed them. A similar fate awaits our country.


22 posted on 08/04/2012 10:09:46 PM PDT by Judge Kovitzky (Eat more chicken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

” Marriage belongs to Church’s . The Government got into the marriage business to make a buck on licenses.”

I think you would find that it started with Henry VIII wanting to get a divorce. But it really got popular with the eugenics movement.


23 posted on 08/05/2012 2:46:00 AM PDT by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good-Pope Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Leave it to the homo-Nazis to make even a wedding a political event.


24 posted on 08/05/2012 6:15:38 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Civil marriage

There's an interesting oxymoron ... Can it be a "marriage" if it has only a secular dimension? Isn't that just another name for "contract?"

25 posted on 08/05/2012 7:36:11 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Judge Kovitzky
The marriage debate is not about marriage. It is about destroying the power of faith and the church.... For ... example look to the Episcopal Church. For decades the Gays preached tolerance. Once they gained power they crushed anyone who opposed them.

You're right on this Judge - 'tolerance' wasn't a belief system with them, it was a tool to use against us. Once they got the power, they tossed the tool.

I fear we've all been played for fools. The good thing about this Chich'fil'A thing, is it forced leftists to show us their true colors. They don't care about prejudice based on creed - they care about 'advantage' for their side. It's an eye-opener...

26 posted on 08/05/2012 9:25:57 AM PDT by GOPJ (Political correctness is simply George Orwell's Newspeak by a non-threatening name. FR- Bernard Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

How would Sasha Issenberg write about the ‘love’ shared by a man and 50 potential ‘immigrants’ to the United States who all ‘love’ each other...

There was a time when people wouldn’t let blacks vote - and that was wrong so THEREFORE when people don’t like a man wanting to marry 50 men who want to be citizens of the United States, it’s a ‘Civil Rights’ issue, right?

Only haters could deny that ‘love’ right?


27 posted on 08/05/2012 9:30:14 AM PDT by GOPJ (Political correctness is simply George Orwell's Newspeak by a non-threatening name. FR- Bernard Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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