DescentBB

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:00 pm**

I could've sworn we had this before, but oh well.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.m ... index.html

Opinions of the justices: http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay ... jc_020404/

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:39 pm**

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:30 pm**

Very cool.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:47 pm**

That's Gay

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 4:42 pm**

courts are supposed to uphold laws, not create them. Unfortunately, the Mass. court decided to go over the heads of the people and the legislature and create a new law. This means the legislature and the people are going to pass a counter-law to change things, which will make things worse for pretty much everybody.

You want the laws to change? Change the hearts of the people. Laws passed down by judicial fiat rarely hold up.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:43 pm**

Why is this issue "So important". A Constitutional Amendment? Is that REALLY necessary? Get the **** out of other people's lives, please.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:44 pm**

You want the laws to change? Change the hearts of the people.

While I agree with you for the most part Lothar,

...we are talking about civil liberties and the rights of a minority. Rarely when laws come down to give people in a minority equality, do the majority agree with them right from the onset. It often seems to be the case that it is only once the government grants them equality do the hearts of the people follow. As odd as that may sound.

On the other hand, I do believe the judges over stepped their boundaries, even though I am in favor of it. I'm not quite sure why I feel that way, perhaps I just don't recognize them as a valid minority to recieve this special treatment.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:03 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lothar:
This means the legislature and the people are going to pass a counter-law to change things, which will make things worse for pretty much everybody.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mass. settlement pretty much said it was against the state's constitution to not allow this, so there can be no laws added to go against that (or if there were, they'll probably get shot down since the court already said it once).

And as such nothing can be done about it until the next time Mass. can have a constitutional convention, which is 2006.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:05 pm**

yeah, its pretty much going to happen. Whether or not you agree with the ruling, it will go down as a historical one. Maybe that is why they did it

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:17 pm**

Yep, the judicial branch of our government seems to have decided we no longer need the other two. So many judges trying to enact laws through the backdoor rather than interpret existing law. Just what we need; more rules, and from persons that are often political appointees.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:39 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lothar:
courts are supposed to uphold laws, not create them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah. That's God's job.

Seems to me it's the religious right that has a gigantic problem with this violating the "holy sanctity of marriage" (whatever the hell that means when over 50% of US marriages end in divorce). I'm not one to speculate on who granted this faction the power to decide what is and isn't legal marriage.

Gays and lesbians should be allowed to get married if they want. It ain't harming you, and if it is, you've got some seriously thin skin. I hope this sends a strong message that sexual preference need be protected in this country as much as the freedom to practice whatever religion you choose.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:47 pm**

Well, I agree with you.

But on such a controversial issue, do you think it was right for a handful of people to decide it for everyone else? I am all for legalizing gay marriage....just not this way.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 7:02 pm**

Maybe, maybe not. One thing that is for certain is that it's not the first time judges have been used to deploy someone's political agenda. Administrations frequently put into place judges that uphold their beliefs - like pro-life for example. So, to be outraged at the Massachusetts ruling requires, logically, that you be outraged at all of the other things justices have passed. Of course, we all know that is a win-some-lose-some endeavor. The bills the justices pass that we enjoy aren't questioned, merely the ones that rub us the wrong way.

I almost don't like to liken the issue of gay/lesbian relationships to antebellum black America because surely there isn't slavery and hardship involved, but there is some degree of oppression. If you asked a plantation owner about freeing slaves back then, you can imagine what the response would be. And if you held an election in a stereotypical Alabama in that year, you know the majority would not have freed the slaves. That doesn't make slavery right and it doesn't mean the masses are correct. Similarly, the perception among some people in modern society is that gay and lesbian relationships are unholy and should not be legally recognized. I don't know what the majority would say about granting this right, but I would assert the same premise could very well hold true.

If that is the case, then who is to step in and say "Wait, this isn't right"? The people? The masses already made their decision against it. The politicians? They are elected by the people are score votes by appealing to their beliefs and the critics will deadlock the matter whenever possible. Alas, who is left to right the wrong and create change? The justices.

Do I think it's the right way? Not really. Do I sometimes believe it is the only option? Yes. Furthermore, the justices were put in place to interpret our Constitution. Much like how the Bible has so many interpretations, so too does this ruling document of our nation. I do not believe that judges make claims of unconstitutionality on a whim to get into the limelight. If there is a significant concern over an interpretation, it needs to be addressed intelligently and logically, not shot down at face value merely because it collides with the beliefs of a few.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 7:07 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bash:
Just what we need; more rules, and from persons that are often political appointees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More like removing existing limitations.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 7:38 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lothar:
courts are supposed to uphold laws...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And in the case of supreme courts both federal and state, their job is to interpret constitutions. Which is what they did in this case I believe.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:12 pm**

yahoo...
more people to give away money to because they made a personal decision. what a bunch of bs. why do we reward people for their personal relationships? i mean why are people getting tax breaks for orgasms they have?

don't sound like the land of the free to me... sounds like the land of the way we want you to be.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:22 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by TheCops:
 yahoo...
more people to give away money to because they made a personal decision. what a bunch of bs. why do we reward people for their personal relationships? i mean why are people getting tax breaks for orgasms they have?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Giving money to people in the form of tax breaks? More like not taking money away in the first place. Nobody is 'giving' them anything.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:27 pm**

bullfrog.
they want their insurance to be cheaper. that's the long and short of it. the tax break remark was directed at the $1,000 per child... like its my problem someone has a baby.

this whole argument is dollars man... not equal rights.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:38 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by TheCops:
this whole argument is dollars man... not equal rights.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proof?

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 9:44 pm**

This is strictly a money issue, he agrees with Beefis.

The pensions and benefits, etc. that are not now extended to *partners* will be provided to them. So when Reggie Rearend dies of AIDs, his government pension goes to his *lover/murderer/life partner*. Also, his *partner* gets to ride (no pun intended) on Reggie for things like health insurance, etc, no questions asked. Considering most insurance companies won't even insure high-risk groups except at a higher premium (gays being probably the highest risk group in our society), it means gay healthcare and retirement benefits (assuming they life to a ripe old age) that were once handled on a personal basis (you need it, buy it yourself) will now be open to government subsidy. As well as insurance companies will undoubtedly raise rates across the board to pay for the additional high-risk can't-be-refused-because-of-legal-spousal-relationship Constitutional rights (heh, Tetrad, you really think they thought about gays when framing the Constitution?). Guess where the money from the transferred retirement benefits and raised healthcare insurance cost is going to come from? From taxpayers and the healthcare subscrivers that aren't dying from an easily-avoided fatal desease.

Having lived for more than ten years in a gay community, I have no homophobia in me but those guys are the biggest bunch of bed-hoppers I've ever witnessed. Marriage is supposed to be about family (as in having BLOOD relatives) and fidelity (hahaha), something gays are unable (former) and seemingly unwilling (latter) to do.

I'm of the mind that it really doesn't *add* to the mix. If anything, it cheapens the concept of marriage (hell, can I marry my cat so she gets my death benefits?) and consdering marriage and family are the basic building blocks of society (a moral one, hopefully), then anything that lessens the importance of marriage to community can't be good for society. I'd say that for the courts to consider financial gain as a legitimate motive for marriage tends to cheapen the concept a wee bit.

Prediction: No way, no how, not in this generation. A few activist judges can abuse their authority and try to do to us what gays like to do to each other but I just don't see it happening. It will not be accepted by the majority. These special interests know this and that's why (like abortion) the government attempts to regulate morality through the courts beause these issues wouldn't stand a chance if brought to a general vote.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 9:52 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bash:
(heh, Tetrad, you really think they thought about gays when framing the Constitution?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course not. That doesn't matter though. I could just as easily say "do you really think the framers were thinking about automatic machineguns" when talking about the second amendment, but I won't. Or the world-wide aspect of the internet when talking about freedom of speech. Or any of hundreds of different things. That's why we have courts to interpret the constitutions for today's standards and issues.

A few judges can try to do to us what gays like to do to each other but I just don't see it happening. It will not be accepted by the majority. These special interests know this and that's why (like abortion) the government attempts to regulate morality through the courts beause these issues wouldn't stand a chance if brought to a general vote.

I wouldn't want things like that to be brought to a general vote anyway. This isn't a democracy. I'd much rather the threat of majority tyranny be handled by people outside of the whole political circle instead of by people trying to stay in office by catering to whatever anti-special-interest there happens to be. There's a reason the framers made judges appointed rather than voted in (at least on a federal level, I don't know about state judges), and I am sure that they were thinking about that particular aspect of it.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:01 pm**

Gay couple are able to have families, either through adoption, surrogate mothers, or in the case of lesbians, donor insemination. One of the videos that I watched during my senior year of high school (shown in one of my classes) looked at families headed by same-sex couples. The children didn't really think much about it (except for those who were adopted relatively late in their childhood).

It cheapens the concept of marriage? I've seen this comment mentioned elsewhere, but I will repeat it: Don't call it marriage if this is so bad. Call it civil union if you like. We allow heterosexual couples to enter into a union legally, why are same-sex couples not granted this same right? As far as I can tell, it is simply discrimination against them, simply because their sexual preference differs against the norm.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:20 pm**

Ultimately, the value marriage contributes to society is not in happy loving couples but in well-adjusted, next-generation citizens. Gays cannot have children so the point is moot. Adoption doesn't negate their lack of ability to produce next-generation citizens. Also, gay singles and couples raising children isn't conquered ground for the gay community by any stretch of the imagination. That reality ranks up there with gay marriage with regards to still being generally discouraged by the rest of society. Silly as it sounds, there are still a few dinosaurs around that feel a child needs both a real mother and a real father, not substitutes. Just because a few gays strike out and play *family* encompasses just a small part of an already-small special interest group. I'm all for having the tail wag the dog (the tyranny of the majority! :rolleyes

but it better be a fairly large tail to allow it. The number of gay *families* containing adoptive children is simply too small to point to as saying gays fulfill the value society places on marriage in the first place. So if there is no real value to society of a gay marriage, why should society condone it, especially when it's going to end up costing the rest of us?

Gays are not some noble race of elves that are being oppressed, they are a genetic mistake. Maybe they can have a *special* marriage certificate (like the Special Olympics) that says they are married but stops there, no rights to tax breaks, extended family healthcare, etc. How many gays would be clambering to be declared officially *married* (with all the legal complications that can bring) do you suppose, if the financial incentive was withheld? Not many, I'd warrant. It's a total scam. The rest of society gets these breaks because they are out there raising, sheltering and keeping alive the next-generation citizens. Why should a group that doesn't share that societal responsibility get the benefits of those that do? It's like those idiots below the tax-paying level that sue the government because they didn't get a tax refund.

Posted: **Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:21 pm**

So what say you to working husband and wife couples that don't produce children? Are they also scourges of your marriage system? Should they not be subject to benefits either? Explain.

Posted: **Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:26 am**

Bash, if you think gays are nothing more than a bunch of sluts looking to spend a little less cash by having their healthcare and insurance as an arbitrary household, then I'm not going to even try to argue with you.

How many gays would be clambering to be declared officially *married* (with all the legal complications that can bring) do you suppose, if the financial incentive was withheld?

That's an assumption and a half. I'd say the answer is the same amount, if not a lot more than, the number of gays looking to get a civil union license nowadays.

Posted: **Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:05 am**

Courts should only strike down laws based on consitutionality, so the people will be prompted to reconsider the law struck down. Else you wind up with a legislature that is fundementally neutred.

Mind you, SJC of Mass. issued a legal opinion asked for by Massachusetts' Senate; it didn't actually strike anything down.

the actual opinion:

4. Conclusion. We are of the opinion that Senate No. 2175 violates the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Further, the particular provisions that render the pending bill unconstitutional, Â§Â§ 2 and 3 of proposed G. L. c. 207A, are not severable from the remainder. The bill maintains an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples, and the bill's remaining provisions are too entwined with this purpose to stand independently. See Murphy v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Indus. Accs., 418 Mass. 165, 169 (1994).

the only sane solution is to offend everyone, and drop marriage in favour of civil unions for everyone.

Posted: **Thu Feb 05, 2004 7:05 am**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by fliptw:
Mind you, SJC of Mass. issued a legal opinion asked for by Massachusetts' Senate; it didn't actually strike anything down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was my point.

Posted: **Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:59 pm**

Good for them. If two people really love eachother that much, then they should be allowed to get married if they choose to. Seriously, is it really the end of the world just because a gay couple decided they want to get married? Ohh I know, the real reason Babylon and Ceasar fell was because they allowed same-sex marriages.

Does it really affect you just because two people of the same sex got married? Get real.

What a loving couple does in their own bedroom is their own business and the nobody should be able to interfere with that.

Posted: **Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:41 pm**

Cheapens marriage? LOL. Look around, man. Marriage is already pretty much worthless. Been so for a while now.

Posted: **Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:02 pm**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Testiculese:
Cheapens marriage? LOL. Look around, man. Marriage is already pretty much worthless. Been so for a while now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To some people, it doesn't have to be that way.

B-

Posted: **Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:57 pm**

The governor of Massachusetts weighs in (with an opinion surprisingly close to mine

)...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>One Man, One Woman
A citizen's guide to protecting marriage.

BY MITT ROMNEY
Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

No matter how you feel about gay marriage, we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage. There are lessons from my state's experience that may help other states preserve the rightful participation of their legislatures and citizens, and avoid the confusion now facing Massachusetts.

In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts detected a previously unrecognized right in our 200-year-old state constitution that permits same-sex couples to wed. I believe that 4-3 decision was wrongly decided and is deeply mistaken.

Contrary to the court's opinion, marriage is not "an evolving paradigm." It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.

Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.

Because of marriage's pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation.

It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on gays, on singles or on nontraditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in the manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships.
So, what to do?

â?¢ Act now to protect marriage in your state. Thirty-seven states--38 with recent actions by Ohio--have a Defense of Marriage Act. Twelve states, including Massachusetts, do not. I urge my fellow governors and all state legislators to review and, if necessary, strengthen the laws concerning marriage. Look to carefully delineate in the acts themselves the underlying, compelling state purposes. Explore, as well, amendments to the state constitution. In Massachusetts, gay rights advocates in years past successfully thwarted attempts to call a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This cannot happen again. It is imperative that we proceed with the legitimate process of amending our state constitution.

â?¢ Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature's job to pass laws. As governor, it is my job to carry out the laws. The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution. This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers: One branch is not to do the work of the other. It is not the job of judges to make laws, the job of legislators to command the National Guard, or my job to resolve litigation between citizens. If the powers were not separated this way, an official could make the laws, enforce them, and stop court challenges to them. No one branch or person should have that kind of power. It is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power to control their government.

With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That's wrong.

â?¢ Act at the federal level. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage. Sometimes we forget that the ultimate power in our democracy is not in the Supreme Court but rather in the voice of the people. And the people have the exclusive right to protect their nation and constitution from judicial overreaching.

People of differing views must remember that real lives and real people are deeply affected by this issue: traditional couples, gay couples and children. We should conduct our discourse with decency and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is not a matter of semantics; it will have lasting impact on society however it is ultimately resolved. This issue was seized by a one-vote majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect.

Mr. Romney is governor of Massachusetts.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Posted: **Thu Feb 05, 2004 4:29 pm**

There is conslusive proof that the make-up of parental couples have no bearing on the "stability" of the generation the aforemnetioned couples have raised.

Look around you.

if by stability one means maintence of the status quo.

Posted: **Thu Feb 05, 2004 8:10 pm**

Bash passes over my question on the second page. Typical.

Posted: **Thu Feb 05, 2004 9:03 pm**

Thank you Bash, that was a truly great letter you posted. The governor of Massachusetts pretty much summed up my opinion as well. No need to reiterate it in my own bumbling fashion.

Posted: **Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:37 pm**

Sol, your question is better posted in a thread about gay marriage. This one is about an activist court pre-empting a national debate and deciding on its own it's OK to redefine an institution that's flawed but not broken. There's your arrogance in government, not sitting in the White House.

Why explore the significance of childless hetero couples when the important aspect in the article is more court-ordered morality (or lack thereof)? This is another case of someone grabbing for the cake before we've finished singing Happy Birthday, and that will bite the issue in the ass and possibly distribute resentment onto gays when it should be reserved for this court.

This quote (from the above editorial) goes to the heart of the matter.

This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers: One branch is not to do the work of the other.

When the national debate (which is really only gearing up now) concludes about whether gay marriages might be a good thing or a bad thing for our society, there will be no course for the citizenry to let its opinion be known because a few self-important folks in Massachusetts have already decided your opinion doesn't count and they know better than you what is best in such an important proposed alteration to the social fabric.

Besides, I still think it's a money grab hiding inside a moral issue so the only morality I'm interested in at the moment is that which is *shoved down my throat*, as you Christian-bashers are fond of saying.

Childless couples? Smart folks, probably have lots of extra cash. There, that's my opinion on childless hetero couples that don't fulfill society's hope that they help grow the society. Personally, I see no purpose in marriage if one doesn't intend to raise a family. Either way, there's not enough childless couples for me to even pretend they're relevant to the discussion and wander off topic with you because you think you've found a loophole. I'm not a big fan of letting the exceptions define the rules or endlessly chasing our tails over insipid comparisons between things that have only one aspect in common but because of that one thing they MUST be viewed equally in all matters under the sun. And, of course, we should all defer meaningful discourse in favor of that overly-simplistic and naive outlook or risk being labeled a hypocrite by that champion of gays and Christian-haters everywhere, SolarRazor.

Typical.

Posted: **Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:28 am**

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bash:
Sol, your question is better posted in a thread about gay marriage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh! I'm terribly sorry, am I in the wrong thread? Silly me, I saw the title "Mass. court upholds same-sex marriage" and I thought that's what it was about!

Posted: **Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:14 am**

As I read Gov. Romneyâ??s opinion I am most struck by two themes: marriage is a fundamental institution, and activist judges.

Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution.

I completely agree with this statement. Marriage is fundamental to our society. As such, I donâ??t see how Gov. Romney, or anyone else for that matter, has the right or would even want to exclude a significant portion of our population from engaging in such a Universal institution.

Beware of activist judges.

The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature's job to pass laws.

The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution.

I have to ask myself, if the Mass SJC decided in favor of a ban on abortion, would Gov. Romney call the Judges activist? It seems to me that the word â??activistâ?

Posted: **Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:18 pm**

Bash, your conservative is showing.

Posted: **Fri Feb 06, 2004 2:43 pm**

That's why I wear it on my sleeve.

Funny thing is the nerve this touches harkens back to when I was a liberal. I simply don't like government overstepping the limits of the authority WE THE PEOPLE entrusted it with. I'm a little incredulous that so many of you applaud losing your right to have a say in this national debate (a say that actually means something). Consider seriously what you are willingly giving up because you agree with the sentiment of the decision. Winds change direction. The precedent this court is setting is not only about the rights of gays to marry. Next time morality is being legislated by the courts you might not find the decision to your liking but you may be powerless to stop whatever decision is being rendered because your time to object to a judiciary assuming more authority than is safe was now.

Posted: **Fri Feb 06, 2004 3:31 pm**

Bash,

The Mass SJC is not overstepping itâ??s authority. Its entire authority lays in interpreting the Mass. constitution and that is exactly what it did. The people of Mass. still have a say. They are welcome to push their representatives to amend the constitution then ratify it themselves.

I donâ??t see that â??We the Peopleâ?