MA Legislature Gives Preliminary Approval to State Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

FNC

[inquest]

Thanks. I must be having a TIA, because I couldn't find that anywhere.

I'll just put on my dunce cap now...

[inquest]

That's like saying you can keep the title to your house but you must give up the house.

The difference appears to be that by putting them into the category of "civil unions", it immunizes them against applications of the full-faith&credit clause of the U.S. Constitution so they can't be imposed on other states.

[TheBattman]

No they didn't - they simply ruled that SanFagsisco had to stop doing them until the California Supremes were able to take up the issue in May or June. (AS reported on Fox News).

[inquest]

But it will still be 2006 before it is voted on I think. In the meantime marriages will take place.

Their House Speaker is looking to delay issuance of marriage licenses as long as possible. I wish him success in that.

What they really need to do is impeach 4 justices.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[King Black Robe]

No. The FFC doesn't specify marriage, it just mentions contracts. That's why congress rushed in with the DOMA after Vermont courts decreed civil unions onto their state. It doesn't make a dimes worth of difference, other than it offers cover if and when a FMA passes. MA will still have their marriage and it will be written into the constitution instead of just represented by legislation that is much easier to repeal. I don't know if the FMA would nulify existing court-ordered shotgun queer weddings or not, but it wouldn't nulify this since this is not what the court ordered. This is a stupid move. They should just impeach the justices.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping -

The same theme song - starting with Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah NYAAH Nyah.... ;-))))

If anyone wants on/off this ping list, you know what to do.

[inquest]

The FFC doesn't specify marriage, it just mentions contracts. That's why congress rushed in with the DOMA after Vermont courts decreed civil unions onto their state.

If that's the case, then the federal DOMA is effective and not in danger of being struck down. There've so far been no cases where a civil-unioned same-sex couple from Vermont have forced other states to recognize their union, despite the fact that Vermont's law has been in place for a few years now.

[King Black Robe]

In a perfect balance of power world. But our SCOTUS might decide otherwise. You can bank on the fact that the left will sue..and sue...and sue....and sue....and sue....until they finally get what the want: Nationalized gay marriage.

Rule No. 1: Know your enemy. They are relentless.

[truthandjustice1]

"Rule No. 1: Know your enemy. They are relentless."

Exactly. They homo's are using the court to achieve what they can't through legislative acts. It's time we held the courts accountable for their actions.

[longtermmemmory]

which is why conservatives need to gradually start collateral attacks on the homosexual lifestyle as a choice. The entire homosexual rights theseis is that it is not a choice in how they get sexual gratification. We can win this.

Homosexuals don't want nationalized homosexual marriage, they want mandatory normalcy of homosexual sex taught to children.

Homosexuals are motivated by sexual gratification.

[Carry_Okie]

Legislators telling nine black robes where to stick it would make a welcome trend.

[Kahonek]

It was a 5-4 decision.

[WOSG]

ouch, that is the compromise version that FORCES Mass to adopt civil unions! what about a version that simply outlaws same-sex marriage and leaves the rest to the lege???

[WOSG]

Mass SC was a 4-3 decision.

[george wythe]

ouch, that is the compromise version that FORCES Mass to adopt civil unions! what about a version that simply outlaws same-sex marriage and leaves the rest to the lege???

The chance of such narrow ban passing in Massachusetts is about the same chance of a snowball to survive in hell.

[WOSG]

But also understand that 'civil unions' is de facto marriage.

It's a way for the gay rights lobby to win by losing. They 'lose' the title but get all the accoutrements.
This is what has already happened in Cali.

Then they wait 10 years for those 'families' to get more embedded and get agitating to 'full recognition'. It wont end.

[WOSG]

I am convinced this is a defeat for conservatives.

A victory for Conservatives would have simply said:

"It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Nothing in this Constitution can be construed to give rights of marriage to same-sex couples."

[Kahonek]

Oops. Thanks...

[WOSG]

"ouch, that is the compromise version that FORCES Mass to adopt civil unions! what about a version that simply outlaws same-sex marriage and leaves the rest to the lege???
The chance of such narrow ban passing in Massachusetts is about the same chance of a snowball to survive in hell."

Well the people would vote for it, for sure.

What is the lege really leaning towards. How many are pro-gay-marriage?

[Trillian]

This is so far from being over.. It's a pity they're gonna force civil unions onto the people as well.

Interesting site here:
http://www.liberty-ca.org/

"A domestic partnership has no civil purpose, for it can be nothing more than a recognition that two people love each other and may be in a deviant (non-procreative) sexual relationship. Neither an acknowledgement of love or deviant sexual activity has a valid governmental purpose in a secular society.

Citizens should not be encouraged with tax incentives by the government to engage in deviant sexual activity, which may bring about disease and community degradation."