Keyword: goodridge

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Massachusetts same-sex marriage pioneers split up (no surprise alert!)

    07/21/2006 12:46:14 PM PDT · by NYer · 62 replies · 1,236+ views
    BOSTON (Reuters) - The lesbian couple whose landmark lawsuit helped Massachusetts become the only state in America where same-sex couples can marry legally have split up, a spokeswoman said on Friday.Julie and Hillary Goodridge and six other gay and lesbian couples sued Massachusetts for the right to marry and won when the state's highest court ruled narrowly for them in 2003.Their suit helped spark a nationwide debate on gay marriage.The women "are amicably living apart," Mary Breslauer, a spokeswoman for the couple said. "As always their number one priority is raising their daughter, and like the other plaintiff couples in...
  • After 2 years, same-sex marriage icons split up (Bush's fault)

    07/21/2006 7:32:55 AM PDT · by presidio9 · 78 replies · 2,271+ views
    Boston Globe ^ | July 21, 2006 | Michael Levenson
    They told the world that their relationship was like any other and that's why they should be allowed to marry. Now, friends say, they are showing once again that they are just like any other couple: Two years after getting married, Julie and Hillary Goodridge, lead plaintiffs in the state's landmark gay marriage case, are splitting. Mary Breslauer, a spokeswoman for the couple, confirmed the separation last night. She said the couple are focused now on trying to do what is best for their daughter, Annie, 10. ``Julie and Hillary Goodridge are amicably living apart," Breslauer said in a telephone...
  • Same-sex marriage pioneers separate

    07/20/2006 8:55:13 PM PDT · by ConservativeStatement · 41 replies · 1,053+ views
    AP ^ | July 20, 2006
    BOSTON — The lesbian couple whose lawsuit led to legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts have announced they have separated. "Julie and Hillary Goodridge are amicably living apart," Mary Breslauer, a local political consultant, said Thursday night on their behalf. Breslauer declined to comment on how long they had been separated or whether the couple planned to divorce.
  • Mass. lawmakers voting on gay marriage

    09/14/2005 10:20:33 AM PDT · by SmithL · 7 replies · 479+ views
    AP ^ | 9/14/5 | THEO EMERY
    BOSTON - Gay-marriage supporters flooded into the Statehouse on Wednesday, countered by a smaller group of opponents, for a vote by lawmakers against a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to between a man and a woman. Early arrivals lined Beacon Street holding signs and banners. Hundreds more signs leaned against the Statehouse fence, and flats of bottled water were stacked in preparation for a long day of rallying and lobbying. People gathered in front the Statehouse and in front of the House chamber, where debate was to begin later Wednesday. The turnout was significantly lower than during last...
  • Mass. Court Will Hear Arguments on Its Homosexual Marriage Decision

    02/11/2005 6:59:26 AM PST · by worldclass · 13 replies · 566+ views
    CNSNews ^ | 2/11/2005 | Susan Jones
    Opponents of same-sex marriage call it an unexpected and remarkable move: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to hear oral arguments on a request to block the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the commonwealth. Same-sex couples have been permitted to legally marry in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision.
  • Foe of gay marriage headed south

    01/09/2005 12:26:23 PM PST · by pabianice · 28 replies · 760+ views
    ‘Cesspool’ apparently loses its attraction WORCESTER, MA -- As she prepares to flee our Bay State “cesspool” for the moral purity of southern climes, Laurie A. Letourneau has clearly underestimated her impact on Central Massachusetts. “I don’t mean to be facetious,” said the head of the Life Action League of Massachusetts, when I called to ask about her moving plans. “But who really cares?” Laurie, Laurie. Lots of people care that you’re leaving the homo-loving, queer-kissing, Satanic sandpit that is Massachusetts. Just one question, though — can you take Ron Crews with you? “She’s leaving?” asked an ebullient Al Toney...
  • How Elites Impose Gay Marriage from the Top Down

    07/04/2004 12:01:46 PM PDT · by mrustow · 56 replies · 1,073+ views
    A Different Drummer/Middle American News ^ | July, 2004 | Nicholas Stix
    May 17 was, in the words of Ron Crews of the Massachusetts Family Institute, “a day of mourning.” For on that day, Massachusetts officials began marrying man to man, and woman to woman. Those who brought about this state of affairs claim to believe in “equality” and to be “democrats,” but in fact are elites who will have nothing of equality, let alone democracy. Five elite groups brought about same-sex marriage, which is however not an unalterable condition: Activist judges, the establishment media, ultraliberal elected officials, gay activist organizations and the homosexual activist, “shadow government.” In the Supreme Court’s June...
  • Massachusetts General Convention, Feb. 11 -- Defense of Marriage FIRST BATTLE (Get them to hold it!)

    02/10/2004 7:07:27 PM PST · by CaptIsaacDavis · 3 replies · 323+ views
    Family Research Council ^ | Feb. 6, 2004 | FRC
    February 6, 2004 - Friday Massachusetts (more on this state) On Nov. 18, 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts set off a time bomb that could redefine marriage for every American. By a vote of 4-3, these unelected judges ruled that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the state constitution, and ordered the state legislature to address the issue by changing Massachusetts law. State legislators have the opportunity to defuse this bomb with their vote on Feb. 11, 2004. On this day, both houses of the state legislature will convene in joint session as a Constitutional convention. On the...

    02/09/2004 1:19:07 AM PST · by kattracks · 10 replies · 164+ views
    New York Post ^ | 2/09/04 | Deborah Orin
    <p>February 9, 2004 -- Americans oppose the idea of gay marriage by a 2-1 ratio, according to a new Time magazine poll that also suggests any candidate who endorses the idea could pay a big political price.</p> <p>The poll found 62 percent don't want gay marriages recognized as legal while 30 percent are in favor. In addition, 48 percent said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports gay marriage.</p>
  • Rally for Marriage, Boston Common

    02/08/2004 3:27:47 PM PST · by Little Bill · 69 replies · 327+ views
    Self | Feb 8, 2004 | Self
    I arrived at the Rally for Marriage at 2:30 while Don Feder was speaking missing the first speaker. The crowd was impressive, best guess would be about 3000- 3500, a good draw for a twenty degree day with a wind chill of below 0. Across Tremont Street a group of sodomites, lesbians, and other off brands, about 125 or so, were cluttering up the sidewalk waving the fag flag and signs complaining about discrimination and despoiling the constitution, yeah. I met JMT576 and his uncle and we desided to walk around, take some pictures for posting, and generally get a...
  • Mass. High Court Rules for Gay Marriage

    02/04/2004 8:24:28 AM PST · by presidio9 · 592 replies · 977+ views
    Associated Press Writer ^ | Wed, Feb 04, 2004 | JENNIFER PETER
    BOSTON - The Massachusetts high court ruled Tuesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples — rather than civil unions — would meet the edict of its November decision, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages would take place in the state beginning in mid-May. AP Photo Slideshow: Same-Sex Marriage Issues The court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which conveyed the benefits — but not the title of marriage — would meet constitutional muster. The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's Constitutional...
  • Bush embraces its divisiveness

    01/31/2004 1:13:23 PM PST · by optimistically_conservative · 19 replies · 188+ views
    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 2/1/04 | Cynthia Tucker
    In Massachusetts, Karl Rove has unearthed a weapon of mass distraction-related program activity. You may recall that the state's Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling in November legalizing gay marriage. That ruling allowed Rove, President Bush's political handler, to change the subject. He didn't want to go into the presidential campaign talking about the issues that matter most in the life of the republic: the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the gargantuan (and growing) budget deficit, millions of lost jobs. He didn't want Bush to have to defend his decisions on the environment, his pandering to...
  • Massachusetts Democrats Back Gay Marriage Edict

    01/30/2004 5:55:10 AM PST · by NYer · 13 replies · 220+ views
    KATV ^ | January 30, 2004
    LOWELL, Mass. (AP) - Leaders of the Massachusetts Democratic Party voted to back a resolution supporting same-sex civil marriage, just two weeks before lawmakers are scheduled to decide on a constitutional amendment to ban it. The nonbinding voice vote Thursday by a majority of approximately 200 members of the state committee ignored deep divisions within the party on the issue. But state party chairman Philip Johnston said it sends the message that "we support protecting the rights of these individuals, and I think most of the rest of the state will support us." The committee also unanimously backed a resolution...
  • Mass. Democrats back gay marriage [” ...It's a historic day."

    01/30/2004 3:02:47 AM PST · by johnny7 · 20 replies · 153+ views
    The Boston Globe ^ | 1/30/2004 | Raphael Lewis and James Vaznis
    <p>LOWELL -- Massachusetts Democratic Party leaders last night backed a resolution advocating unambiguous support for gay civil marriage, ignoring deep divisions in the party's ranks. The resolution, approved in a nonbinding vote that left the party's official platform untouched, would appear to be only the second by a state party in the nation. It was approved by a majority voice vote by the approximately 200 members of the state committee present, less than two weeks before the Legislature is scheduled to decide on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. State Party Chairman Philip Johnston said the vote sends a clear message to the nation that "we support protecting the rights of these individuals, and I think most of the rest of the state will support us." "I think it's very important the party speak out on this issue," he said.</p>
  • Wary of Massachusetts ruling, lawmakers in several states seek tougher bans on gay marriage

    01/23/2004 3:54:13 PM PST · by witnesstothefall · 12 replies · 164+ views
    Associated Press ^ | Jan 23, 2004 | David Crary
    NEW YORK -- Despite laws already barring gay marriage, legislators in at least nine states are pushing for new, more sweeping measures in hopes of preventing any ripple effect from laws and court rulings elsewhere. In most cases, Republican lawmakers in states with existing Defense of Marriage acts seek to go a step further by amending their constitutions to specify that marriage must be heterosexual. State Rep. Bill Graves, a bill sponsor in Oklahoma, wants to stipulate that same-sex unions are "repugnant to the public policy" of the state. Supporters say the constitutional amendments are necessary to ensure that legislation...
  • Catholic bishop supports benefits for gay couples

    10/23/2003 7:01:37 PM PDT · by narses · 238 replies · 1,322+ views
    Boston-AP) -- The Catholic Church in Massachusetts may be open to extending some benefits to gay couples. That was the message of Worcester Bishop Daniel Reilly at today's Statehouse hearing on legalizing gay marriage. Reilly said the church is firmly against gay marriage and civil unions, but believes that the state should provide gay couples with certain economic and social benefits, including bereavement and hospital visitation rights. Gay rights advocates welcomed the Catholic Church to the debate, but said that denial of marriage would be a violation of same-sex couples' civil rights. The Judiciary Committee today hosted the first-ever legislative...
  • DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ALERT Call Sen Travaglini 617-722-150----Mass Constitutional Convention vote

    01/14/2004 4:53:22 PM PST · by Liz · 21 replies · 207+ views
    IMPORTANT ACTION ALERT It is crucial that every pro-family American express their opinion to Sen. Travaglini, as the outcome of this situation in Massachusetts will affect every state and every American. The Massachusetts Legislature is approaching a very important vote: the consideration of the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment (the "MA & PA," or H. 3190) at the Constitutional Convention to be held Feb. 11, 2004. It is the hope of the Coalition for Marriage that this amendment will be approved in Feb. in order for this crucial issue to advance toward a vote of the people of Massachusetts on...
  • LIBEL by New York Times (only "Bigots" oppose gay marriage, says judge)

    12/26/2003 9:49:17 AM PST · by pabianice · 33 replies · 343+ views
    Massachusetts News ^ | 12/03 | Pawlick
    Excerpt 3 - Chapter 27 Gay Marriage Was a 3-3 Tie, with Marshall Casting Deciding Vote Everyone who disagrees with Margaret Marshall is a "prejudiced bigot," according to her. When Marshall wrote that in her opinion, was she including the three Associate Justices who say she had no right to do what she did? This was a 3-3 tie with Marshall casting the deciding vote. She had been unable to convince even her three most capable associates. They say she had no power to do what she did. No wonder she was so nervous at oral argument and is now...
  • Disarming activist judges

    12/21/2003 7:00:56 AM PST · by Holly_P · 10 replies · 237+ views
    Waterbury Republican-American ^ | 12/21/03 | Editorial
    In his farewell address in 1796, George Washington cautioned his countrymen and their posterity about protecting the newly minted separation of powers established for the republic. He warned about nefarious actors who might refuse to confine themselves to their constitutional duties. Free-lancing, he advised, would lead "one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create ... a real despotism." Members of the Massachusetts legislature should consider his admonition before going through with their plan to try placate the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court with a...
  • Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution (Wedding Bell Blues)

    12/19/2003 7:49:13 AM PST · by shrinkermd · 12 replies · 311+ views
    New Republic Online ^ | 19 December 2003 | Judge Richard Posner
    This is a book review by Judge Posner of Gerstner's new book, Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution In June, the Supreme Court, in a case called Lawrence v. Texas, ruled that statutes criminalizing homosexual sodomy are unconstitutional. Immediately lawyers began wondering whether this meant that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry. (To marry persons of their sex, that is; there is no prohibition against a homosexual marrying a person of the opposite sex.) They were encouraged in their speculation by Justice Antonin Scalia's suggestion, in his dissenting opinion, that the logic of the majority opinion so dictated. Evan Gerstmann...
  • What Should We Do Now About Marriage? Should We Just Ignore Margaret Marshall?

    12/09/2003 2:28:15 PM PST · by Federalist 78 · 11 replies · 175+ views
    Massachusetts News ^ | December 9, 2003 | Attorney J. Edward Pawlick
    Some legislators on Beacon Hill say they will just ignore Margaret Marshall.After all, they say, she had no authority to make the ruling she did. In addition, they still remember what happened to the Democratic Party, and to Tom Birmingham and Shannon O'Brien, after they attacked the Protection of Marriage Amendment in 2002. As a result, we installed a Republican governor.This is a volatile issue, and any politician who doesn't understand that is going to be relegated to the dustbin. They know that over 60% of the citizens do not want gay marriage and that includes domestic partnerships and civil...
  • Splitting Up -- the Politics of Gay Marriage

    12/08/2003 6:04:19 AM PST · by Stop Legal Plunder · 8 replies · 203+ views
    National Review Online ^ | December 8, 2003 | Maggie Gallagher
    For me, the first, last and most important question about gay marriage is: Will it help or hurt marriage as a social institution? Is it, in other words, a good idea? But for political elites a second question naturally comes close behind: What are the likely political consequences of making same-sex marriage a highly visible issue, through a federal marriage amendment, or some other means? Conventional wisdom has it that this is a difficult issue for both Democrats and Republicans. This perception is probably fueled by the reality that GOP and Democratic elites live in the same zip codes and...
  • Supreme Court Opinions Not Private Enough

    12/06/2003 9:06:16 PM PST · by duckln · 25 replies · 355+ views ^ | 11/6/03 | Anne Coulter
    Supreme Court Opinions Not Private Enough December 3, 2003 THE FIRST killing of an abortion doctor by an anti-abortion activist happened in 1993. Since then, six more people have been killed in attacks on abortion clinics, which is fewer people who ended up dead by being in the vicinity of recently released Weatherman Kathy Boudin. Most of the abortionists were shot or, depending upon your point of view, had a procedure performed on them with a rifle. This brings the total to: seven abortion providers to 30 million fetuses dead, which is also a pretty good estimate of how the...
  • Gay Marriage debuts

    12/05/2003 9:28:42 AM PST · by blitzgig · 22 replies · 283+ views ^ | 12/5/03 | Mona Charen
    Gay marriage debuts Mona Charen December 5, 2003 If you are like most Americans, you know that gay marriage is coming and you don't feel that you have the power to stop it. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled (4 to 3) that the state's existing matrimonial laws are irrational and gave the legislature 180 days to revise them. President Clinton, you may recall, signed a law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which declared that same sex "marriages" recognized in one state (Hawaii was the worry back then) would not be given full faith and credit in other...
  • Finneran cites three options on SJC ruling (MA Speaker on Gay Marriage)

    12/05/2003 5:18:15 AM PST · by sr4402 · 4 replies · 250+ views
    The Bostom Globe ^ | 12/5/2003 | Raphael Lewis
    House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran said yesterday that the Supreme Judicial Court did not force the Legislature to enact gay marriage immediately, but instead sent the divisive issue into the political arena, where lawmakers will face "heartfelt" decisions based on their beliefs as much as the law. ADVERTISEMENT Finneran, who until yesterday had not spoken publicly on the historic Nov. 18 ruling, said he sees three options for the Legislature: a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a civil unions bill for same-sex couples, or doing nothing and letting the ruling stand. He has not decided which approach he prefers....
  • Conservative Confusions Working on the next step

    12/04/2003 9:40:36 AM PST · by Tumbleweed_Connection · 7 replies · 164+ views
    NRO ^ | 12/4/03
    In the weeks since the Massachusetts supreme court decided to impose gay marriage on the state, social conservatives have been losing the political debate over the issue. Already the language is changing. Democratic presidential candidates have even started referring to "non-same-sex marriage," and columnists to "op-sex marriage" — by which they mean what we all used to describe, before November, simply as "marriage." Republicans have not decided how to respond to the court. Constitutional amendments to prohibit gay marriage have been introduced in both the House and the Senate. But proponents of the amendment have not decided how broadly it...
  • Defending Marriage, After Massachusetts: What the Court Did and How We Should Respond

    12/03/2003 6:52:34 PM PST · by nickcarraway · 144 replies · 433+ views
    National Catholic Register ^ | November 30 - December 6, 2003 | EVE TUSHNET
    It's not every day a court gets to stand against all of recorded history. That's what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did Nov. 18 when, in Goodridge v. Department of Health, it ruled that marriage in Massachusetts is no longer the union of a man and a woman but the union of "two persons." The court argued that forbidding a man to marry another man constituted unlawful and irrational sex discrimination. The Bait-and-Switch The court drew on several laws and state constitutional provisions in making its case, including anti-discrimination laws, hate-crimes laws and a constitutional provision modeled on the failed...
  • Kyle Williams: Massachusetts court: Just going with the times

    12/02/2003 1:09:13 AM PST · by JohnHuang2 · 153+ views | Saturday, November 22, 2003 | Kyle Williams
    Massachusetts court: Just going with the times Posted: November 22, 20031:00 a.m. Eastern © 2003 It played a role in the turn of the century explosion of Darwinism. It marked itself in the Humanist Manifestos. It exploded in the sexual revolution of the '60s. It manifested itself in the debate of the meaning of "is" during the Clinton administration. Now, it's evident that it played a huge role in the Massachusetts Supreme Court this past week. As you have probably already heard, on Wednesday, the highest court in Massachusetts issued a decision striking down a ban on same-sex marriages in that...
  • Queer allies-alliance between gay marriage opponents, alleged terrorist sympathizers

    12/02/2003 5:27:01 AM PST · by SJackson · 20 replies · 201+ views
    Jewish World Review ^ | 11-2-03 | Evan Gahr
    The little-noticed alliance between gay marriage opponents and alleged terrorist sympathizers. What were these people thinking? The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision to legalize homosexual marriage in the Bay state re-ignited the culture wars. The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, perhaps the preeminent liberal Jewish organization in Washington, DC, applauded the ruling. Religious-minded conservatives, however, were horrified. They are determined to stop the gay rights movement in its tracks. At what price? has discovered that prominent religious conservatives — Jews, Catholics and Evangelical Christians — are allied with a radical Islamic group to stop gay marriage. Pushing a constitutional...
  • Mass. Bishops Slam Gay Marriage Ruling

    12/01/2003 6:07:08 AM PST · by NYer · 26 replies · 172+ views
    Yahoo News ^ | November 30, 2003 | STEVE LeBLANC
    In a strongly worded letter to be read at Mass this weekend, the bishops also said the Supreme Judicial Court's mid-May deadline for the Legislature to rewrite marriage laws to provide benefits for gay couples is too rushed. The bishops, among the leading opponents of the ruling, urged parishioners "to contact the governor and their state legislators to urge them to find a way to give our citizens more time to deal with this issue." Boston Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley and Bishops Thomas Dupre, Daniel P. Reilly and George Coleman also complained that the state high court ruling promotes "divisions...
  • DEBATE CLOSED? (court's homosexual marriage ruling stirs hornet's nest)

    11/30/2003 5:30:31 AM PST · by Liz · 32 replies · 87+ views
    NY POST ^ | 11/30/03 | GEORGE WILL
    <p>When Massachusetts' highest court asserted that same-sex marriage is a right protected by the state's constitution and entailed by recent U.S. Supreme Court reasoning about the U.S. Constitution, the president vowed to "do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."</p>
  • Black conservatives oppose gay marriage

    11/30/2003 1:08:31 AM PST · by nickcarraway · 11 replies · 137+ views
    Boston Globe ^ | 11/29/2003 | Jay Lindsay
    <p>Reject parallels with civil rights movement Conservative blacks are objecting to recent comparisons between the gay marriage and civil rights movements, arguing that sexual orientation is a choice.</p> <p>Lnks between the two struggles have been made since the state's highest court ruled last week that the Massachusetts Constitution guarantees gay couples the right to marry. The Supreme Judicial Court cited landmark laws that struck bans on interracial marriage.</p>
  • One Man, One Woman The case for preserving the definition of marriage

    11/29/2003 6:12:33 PM PST · by pittsburgh gop guy · 9 replies · 226+ views
    The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, November 28, 2003 | ROBERT P. GEORGE
    <p>One Man, One Woman The case for preserving the definition of marriage.</p> <p>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.</p>
  • Massachusetts Brings Thankfulness - Marriage doesn't need redefining, it needs protection...

    11/28/2003 10:28:46 AM PST · by ParsifalCA · 117+ views ^ | 11/28/03 | Eric Hogue
    Massachusetts Brings Thankfulness Marriage doesn't need redefining, it needs protection... [Eric Hogue] 11/28/03 The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, should give marriage defenders in California reason to be thankful during this thankful week of thankfulness and family celebration. Hang-on, I’ll explain in a moment, but first the gut wrenching reality that has become our rogue judiciary.  Every immoral slide created in California creeps east, swallowing the rest of the country.  From this state’s ‘belly of the beast’, to the nation’s beltway, the ‘immoral Blob’ slowly decays every pillar of common sense and foundational reference of righteousness as it...
  • Mass. won't OK nonresident gays to wed

    11/27/2003 1:57:41 AM PST · by kattracks · 10 replies · 94+ views
    AP | 11/27/03 | JENNIFER PETER
    BOSTON (AP) The shores of Cape Cod and vistas of the Berkshires have long been the backdrop for out-of-state couples exchanging "I do's." But same-sex partners who aren't from Massachusetts shouldn't pack their bags with the idea that last week's gay marriage decision means a walk down the aisle for them, too. Massachusetts law does not allow nonresidents to get married if the union would not be legal in the state where they live. Only the Bay State has legalized gay marriage. "Certainly, you couldn't just come to Massachusetts and say, 'Hey, I want to get married,'" said Paul Martinek,...
  • It's Time to Rebuke the Judicial Oligarchy

    11/26/2003 7:19:37 PM PST · by Tailgunner Joe · 41 replies · 229+ views
    HUMAN EVENTS ^ | Nov 26, 2003 | Phyllis Schlafly
    Will Massachusetts, the cradle of American liberty, let four lawyers don the robes of oligarchy, override the wishes of the majority of the people, usurp the powers of their elected representatives, and sabotage the institution of marriage? Where is the fight that manifested itself in Massachusetts men at the battles of Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord? The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-to-3 to legalize same-sex marriages. With elitist arrogance, the four-person majority bragged: "Certainly our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many...
  • Massachusetts Court Abolishes Capitalism ... Ann Coulter

    11/26/2003 4:17:57 PM PST · by Rummyfan · 38 replies · 195+ views
    World Net Daily ^ | 26 Nov 2003 | Ann Coulter
    Massachusetts Supreme Court abolishes capitalism! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: November 26, 2003 7:00 p.m. Eastern © 2003 Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court discovered that the state constitution – written in 1780 – requires the state to allow gay marriages. The court gave the legislature six months to rewrite the law to comply with the heretofore unnoticed gay marriage provision in a 223-year-old constitution, leaving countless gay couples a scant six months to select a silverware pattern. Out of respect for my gay male readers, I'll resist the temptation to characterize this ruling as "shoving gay marriage down our throats."...
  • The Religious Wars

    11/26/2003 10:15:38 AM PST · by NYer · 20 replies · 362+ views
    The American Prospect ^ | December 1, 2003 | Robert Reich
    Editor's Note: This article has been updated to reflect yesterday's ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The original version of the piece can be found in the December issue of the print magazine. Since last summer's Supreme Court decision in Lawrence vs. Texas, overturning Texas' anti-sodomy law, evangelicals have grown louder. Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has declared that gay couples have the right to marry, evangelicals are committed to making gay marriage a major issue during the upcoming presidential campaign. Their recent legislative victory over "partial-birth" abortions has emboldened them to seek additional ways to erode...
  • Doing Your Own Thing: Why Same-Sex 'Marriage' Undermines Family Stability

    11/26/2003 2:21:33 PM PST · by Mr. Silverback · 8 replies · 64+ views
    BreakPoint ^ | 26 Nov 03 | Chuck Colson
    As you heard Mark Earley report on this broadcast last week, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court called for the state legislature to endorse same-sex "marriages," the judges claimed that they were doing this in the interest of family stability. The court's decision reads, in part, "Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones. It is central to the way the Commonwealth identifies individuals, provides for the orderly distribution of property, [and] insures that children and adults are cared for and supported whenever possible from private rather than public funds." In other words, the court...
  • Marriage issue belongs to Americans, not judges

    11/25/2003 11:10:27 PM PST · by Utah Girl · 112+ views
    The Deseret News ^ | 11/23/2003 | Richard G. Wilkins
    In Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts announced that the "everyday meaning of marriage" is "arbitrary and capricious." Marriage, in short, is unconstitutional because it is irrational. According to the dictionary, "irrational" means "affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity." Apparently society has lacked normal clarity for centuries. Thankfully, we have Supreme Court justices, both state and federal, to save us from ourselves. But who will save us from them? Goodridge, at least in form, does not establish the unconstitutionality of marriage for every state of the Union. But the authority cited...
  • Echoes of Roe vs. Wade

    11/26/2003 7:24:28 AM PST · by madprof98 · 6 replies · 157+ views
    San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 11/25/03 | Jeff Jacoby
    <p>A HIGH COURT yanks a controversial social issue out of the democratic realm of politics and debate. Instead of leaving the matter for voters and legislators to wrestle with, the justices unilaterally impose a revolutionary legal change. Many people welcome the ruling -- but many more don't.</p>
  • Mark Morford: Be Thankful You're Not Dubya (because then I'd be lusting after YOU)

    11/26/2003 9:03:48 AM PST · by presidio9 · 87 replies · 472+ views
    San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Wednesday, November 26, 2003 | Mark Morford; Not Much To Be Thankful For
    <p>This Thanksgiving, as you sip the wine and hug the family and toast the friends and hoard the stuffing and curse the airport security, remember to give thanks you are not G.W. Bush. Hey, it's important.</p> <p>1) Be thankful that you do not have to suffer Dubya's massive crushing karmic burden, as wrought by inflicting heaps of environmental disaster and vicious unnecessary war and a stunning string of lies lies lies like a firehose of giblet gravy splattered all over the planet.</p>
  • The Lessons Of Vermont May Help In Massachusetts [Try Some Vaseline Dearie]

    11/26/2003 4:27:05 AM PST · by johnny7 · 6 replies · 83+ views
    The Boston Globe ^ | 11/26/2003 | David Moats
    <p>AS THE COMMONWEALTH wades into the volatile politics of gay marriage, the people of Massachusetts ought to prepare themselves for a political furor unlike anything they have experienced before. But if Vermont's experience four years ago can serve as an example, the state has a chance to grow, learn, and establish new standards of equality and understanding.</p>
  • Next: Incestuous marriage? Massachusetts courts plunging down slippery slope

    11/26/2003 2:09:19 AM PST · by JohnHuang2 · 14 replies · 209+ views ^ | Wednesday, November 26, 2003 | Next: Incestuous marriage?
    Massachusetts courts plunge down slippery slope of own creation Posted: November 26, 20031:00 a.m. Eastern By Alan Sears© 2003 "Judicial activism" is innocuous when compared to what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did last week by kicking us further down the slippery slope, when it held, "We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others." The court exercised a lack of proper judicial restraint by utterly ignoring the will of the people and the constitutionally created path to social change: legislation. Recent polls report that more than 60 percent of...
  • Hosannas for the homosexual revolution

    11/26/2003 12:05:57 AM PST · by JohnHuang2 · 2 replies · 53+ views ^ | Wednesday, November 26, 2003 | by Brent Bozell
    To those who think the endangered species known as the Liberal Republican has become extinct, please take a look at their laboratory of social engineering: the Supreme Court of the People's Republic of Massachusetts. Largely appointed by a string of constitutionally lackadaisical Republican governors, these judges have bowed their heads like puppies waiting to be petted by the national press, ruling four to three that the cramped institution of marriage as we've known it through millennia is no longer socially useful. In fact, it's downright discriminatory, Bull Connor in a bad tuxedo. Pull back the fabulous velvet curtain as they...
  • Gay marriage ruling's based on arrogance

    11/25/2003 2:05:21 AM PST · by kattracks · 14 replies · 108+ views
    New York Daily News ^ | 11/25/03 | John Leo
    Do-good judges drive new wedge into society Some admire the gay-marriage ruling in Massachusetts. Some don't. But surely the heart of the story is the stupefying arrogance of the state's Supreme Judicial Court. If you are going to stretch a state's constitution beyond all previous understanding, and impose what many people believe is a fundamental redefinition of marriage, you don't do it in a 4-to-3 vote. There is no consensus among Massachusetts voters for such dramatic change. On a liberal court, thought to be favorable to gay issues, there was not even a consensus among the seven judges who...
  • Seeing Our Foundation Uprooted

    11/25/2003 2:38:05 PM PST · by Tailgunner Joe · 9 replies · 52+ views
    HUMAN EVENTS ^ | Nov 24, 2003 | David Limbaugh
    Given the public outcry about the federal court's order for the removal of Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandments display, I'm surprised there isn't as much alarm about the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision to sanctify gay marriage. In the Moore case you have a federal court telling a state court that it can't symbolically recognize the God of the Bible as the source of our laws (or otherwise). In the Massachusetts case you have a state court ruling that the Bible can't be the source of our laws. I think the latter has even graver implications. Follow me on this. There...
  • Does Marriage Suck? Massachusetts and beyond.

    11/25/2003 11:20:49 AM PST · by .cnI redruM · 27 replies · 163+ views
    NRO ^ | November 25, 2003, 1:58 p.m. | William F. Buckley
    The swirl of opinion that came in after the ruling of the Massachusetts court tells its own story, which is that the judicial arm has achieved a moral standing not even dreamed of by Cotton Mather, or mere popes and rabbinical councils. Witness the failure of the two major political parties to take corporate positions on gay marriage. The Republicans, reflecting the 75 percent of their members who disapprove the ruling, have criticized it but have not gone so far as to call formally for a constitutional amendment. There is talk of an amendment, but talk also of the unwisdom...
  • The decline and fall of words: Humpty Dumpty on unholy matrimony -

    11/25/2003 10:27:38 AM PST · by UnklGene · 5 replies · 135+ views
    Jewish World Review ^ | November 25, 2003 | Paul Greenberg
    The decline and fall of words: Humpty Dumpty on unholy matrimony - The Book of Common Prayer stands alongside Shakespeare and the King James Bible as one of the great monuments of Elizabethan English, and therefore of the English language itself. For the Elizabethans gave us the most glorious period of the ever fecund English tongue. The prayer book's service for the Solemnization of Marriage begins with these words, whose familiarity has never dimmed their force or reverence: Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of G-d, and in the face of this company, to join...
  • Cambridge endorses same-sex marriage (Cambridge Mass = Sodom)

    11/25/2003 6:16:22 AM PST · by Lance Romance · 1 replies · 108+ views
    Boston Globe ^ | 11-25-03 | Benjamin Gedan
    <p>CAMBRIDGE -- The City Council delivered an emphatic endorsement of gay marriage last night, unanimously embracing a resolution to "remove any impediment to same-sex marriage."</p> <p>In doing so, Cambridge became the state's first municipality to officially sanction last Tuesday's Supreme Judicial Court ruling that same-sex marriage is legal under the state constitution, said City Councilor Marjorie C. Decker.</p>