Free Republic

ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Tuesday that he could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The Massachusetts Supreme Court last month struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying it is unconstitutional and giving state lawmakers six months to craft a way for gay couples to wed. Bush has condemned the ruling before, citing his support for a federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. But though he has said he would support whatever is "legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," he and his advisers have shied away from specifically...

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? JewishWorldReview.com 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...

<p>In a recent survey of Coloradoan.com readers, more than 60 percent agreed that in light of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling directing the state to adopt legislation recognizing gay marriage, Colorado's Legislature should follow suit. Of 696 votes cast, about 40 percent said Colorado's Legislature should not follow suit.</p>

The Washington Post said it didn’t want to generate "a truckload of indignant letters," but it nevertheless tried to compare opposition to homosexual marriage to old laws against blacks getting married to whites. For the Post, opposing the gay agenda is tantamount to racism. The New York Times endorsed homosexual marriage as well, saying any attempt to amend the constitution to prohibit the practice would be an effort to deny "minority rights."

Are marriages made in heaven, or in courtrooms? Are civil laws that define "the family" man's best effort to codify his understanding of God's law, or are they merely artificial constructions conveniently pieced together by legislatures and judges to suit their passing political and ideological interests? "Simply put," the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts said this week, "the government creates civil marriage." Therefore, the court concluded, same-sex couples have a "right" to marry under the Massachusetts Constitution which "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." The court might as well have said:...

<p>BOSTON -- The long-awaited gay marriage decision will be coming down from Massachusetts' highest court today. The ruling is expected at 10 a.m.</p> <p>The case was filed by seven gay couples who were denied marriage licenses at their local town clerks' offices.</p>

Same-sex Agenda Advances in BritainQueen expected to endorse benefits for same-sex couples; bishop accused of inciting hatred. In a speech written by Prime Minister Tony Blair for delivery this week, the Queen of England will announce new legislation to allow homosexual couples to register their partnerships, granting them many of the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, while stopping short of creating "gay marriage,” according to a report by Catholic World News. Yet many critics are arguing that this meaty gesture essentially creates same-sex marriage. A family law expert told the Sunday Times: “The state is recognizing and sanctioning same-sex...

Mass. Supreme Court rules that illegal for state to deny marriage license to gay couples.

U.S. Supreme Court rewrites Constitution and 3,000 years of history WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today rewrote the U.S. Constitution and 3,000 years of legal history by striking down the Texas sodomy law in a 6-3 decision. The court overrode the Constitution, the history of American law, and its own precedent by declaring in Lawrence v. Texas that there is a right to privacy to protect private, adult consensual sexual activity. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, and only Justices Scalia and Thomas and Chief Justice Rhenquist dissented. The majority reasoned, unbelievably, that because of the trend in state...

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.