Again, I gotta ask, A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT? REALLY?

[billvon 2,470]

>They object to the institution of marriage being hijacked.

Yep! And we all know what's next:

MASSACHUSETTS ORDERS ALL CITIZENS TO GAY MARRY
The Onion
2/20/04

BOSTON—Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15.

"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage to co-exist," Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said. "Our ruling in November was just the first step toward creating an all-gay Massachusetts."

Marshall added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions altogether."

Marshall said the court's action will put a swift end to the mounting debate.

"Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth, we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to allow gay marriages," Marshall said. "Clearly, this is where this all was headed anyway."

The justices then congratulated the state's 4.8 million marriage-age residents on their legally mandated engagements.

The court issued the surprise order in response to a query from the Massachusetts Senate over whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage but not the title, are constitutional.

"If the history of our nation has demonstrated anything, it's that separate is never equal," Marshall said. "Therefore, any measure short of dismantling conventional matrimony and mandating the immediate homosexual marriage of all residents of Massachusetts would dishonor same-sex unions. I'm confident that this measure will be seen by all right-thinking people as the only solution to our state's, and indeed America's, ongoing marriage controversy."

Marshall then announced her engagement to Holyoke kindergarten teacher Betsy Peterson, a pairing that had been randomly generated by computers in the census office earlier that day.

Those who don't choose to marry in private will be married in concurrent mass ceremonies at Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, and the Boston Convention and Exposition Center. Any citizen who is not gay-married or is still in an illegal heterosexual relationship after that date will be arrested and tried for non-support.

Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants, which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is fucked up" and "Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy." Others held signs that read, "On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise."

According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly.

"The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a woman," 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. "Me and my new partner Helene are going to fry in hell."

The much-anticipated order sets the stage for Massachusetts' upcoming constitutional convention, where the state legislature will consider an amendment to legally define marriage as a union between two members of the same gender. Without the order, Rep. Michael Festa said the vote, and his personally dreaded wedding to House Speaker and longtime political opponent Thomas Finneran, would be delayed.

"This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America," Festa said. "Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we're setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in due time, the legalization of bestiality."

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country, at 1.3 percent, according to the 2000 census. Under the new laws, the figure is expected to increase by approximately 98.7 percentage points.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

His old man was big on a Constitutional Amendment having something or another to do with the flag. I thought that was stupid then, and I think this is stupid now.

I can't bring myself to believe that anyone is dumb enough to care all that much one way or another. As long as everything is voluntary and above the age of consent, what difference does it make?

Why does it seem that anyone running for office in this country is a national embarrassment? Is it that nobody with the tiniest bit of integrity would be caught dead with their name listed amongst the others on the ballot?

Blue skies,

Winsor

That's exactly what I've been thinking. I mean, you know that a person like the President doesn't say or do shit without it being scripted and reviewed and approved by those who are in his cadre... So you have to figure that THIS passed muster when they were deciding on something that should be said in front of the entire fuckin' WORLD!

I believe there is ultimate truth in the statement, "The people who WANT to hold political power are EXACTLY the ones we should PREVENT from holding political power."

Why is it that these fuckin' holy-roller religious idiots keep insisting that it is THEIR country to shape and mold? What is it about gay marriage (two people who happen to be of the same sex, wanting to commit to each other for life, rather than fuck around promiscuously which is exactly what religious people dislike about "them gay folk"!) that the find threatening? What is it about gays being allowed to marry that would somehow ruin THEIR ability to be married?! It's not like once gays can marry, heteros will not be able to continue doing what they've been doing all this time.

Man, our leadership is truly fucked up. Let's watch what Kerry does with this, though. If he's true to form, he'll lambaste Bush for his position, but then vote in favor of the amendment. He doesn't seem able to do ANYTHING without contradicting himself later.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Hey Turtle -

Give me a Yes or No answer: Does every citizen in this country deserve equal rights?

NO!
Criminals: Felons, murderers, and such do not.
It it a right to be able to be married?
I have never seen that in the bill of rights.

Our rights are not enumerated. Those in the Bill of Rights are singled out for protection, and the rest that are not listed are presumed to belong to the states and to the people, respectively.

Your thinking is backward. The government has very limited power -- only that which is apportioned to it by the Constitution. What this means is that:
1) If you don't see it in the Constitution, that doesn't mean the people can't do it.
2) If you don't see it in the Constitution, that DOES mean that the government CAN'T do it.

Of course, they have already just about flushed this very true fact right down the toilet. Technically, there's no basis for the FCC or the FAA to have any authority whatsoever!

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[jose 0]

Quote

A society is not judged by how it treats the majority of its members, but rather by how it treats the minority.

In some instances, the majority opinion is simply wrong.

That has to be one of the most self-serving, pathetic excuses for ones own beliefs that I have ever seen. No matter the topic. I can't even believe that you even support such absolute BULLSHIT.

[jose 0]

[reply
Here in the US, we have a bill of rights that protects the rights of the minority; it even protects the rights of a single person even if everyone else is against him. It's one of the things that makes me proud to live here, that we defend even those we disagree with because we value individual freedom very highly.

[SkydiverRick 0]

- in fact, it's mostly declared heteros who are the most severely sexually disordered.

[SkydiverRick 0]

We should have leaders that inspire us to follow them.

[gary350 0]

Quote

How about backing that statement up with some facts.

Doesn't really do that, but I will file this timely news item under Irony and GOP Hypocrisy:

Oklahoma City, 2/25/04
State Representative Mike O'Neal charged with (felony) sexual battery. . . http://www.kotv.com/pages/viewpage.asp?id=58518

Hmmm, Mike O'Neal. . . why does that name sound familiar? Hmmmm. . . could it be that he was the GOP SPONSER of the Oklahoma DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT?

Edited to add: He's only been charged. Innocent until proven guilty. Still ironic. . . Must go to bed.

[gary350 0]

Quote

A society is not judged by how it treats the majority of its members, but rather by how it treats the minority.

In some instances, the majority opinion is simply wrong.

That has to be one of the most self-serving, pathetic excuses for ones own beliefs that I have ever seen. No matter the topic. I can't even believe that you even support such absolute BULLSHIT.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You know, people keep saying the law and the state constitution are contradictory.

OK, I can't find it in the constitution

I may have been mistaken about the constitution part, but this is clearly a contradiction.

Quote

Someone tell me where this has anything to do with government services?

What Businesses Are Covered?
• Public Agencies

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

>But if the goal is to "protect the sanctimony of marriage" . . .

This had me laughing. Sanctimony means fake righteousness or hypocritical devotion. I figure it's a typo, but it's a perfect word to describe someone who defends Britney Spears' version of marriage over a gay couple that's wanted to marry for ten years and has been waiting for it to become legal.

Hah...that's pretty funny. Yeah, I meant to word it that way. Obviously I meant sanctity....but I like it better this way.

[storm1977 0]

I have stayed out of this thread for obvious reasons, but I figured now I would add my $.02.

Like someone already stated, 38 states (that IS 2/3) already ban Same Sex marriage. In this country Majority rules..

Anyway, I was watching crossfire last night and the same agruement came up that keeps coming up. And like always, those supporting Gay marriage had no acceptable answer.

Question to those supporting Gay marriage:
Since you surrort alternative lifestyles and you think that you have a "Right" to marriage (even though it is a privledge) What if I want to marry 2 other men. Why can't I. Why can't I have a loving 3 way gay relationship and raise a family and have the same rights as 2 way marriages?

Answer from the Gay woman:
Because you can't ... I don't agree with that. It is not right and it is not a stable family?

Oh... I see, because you don't agree with it. That is not a valid arguement for you to make if I can't make it.

And don't think for a second that "THAT WON'T HAPPEN!!!" It has! Three suits are pending for polygamist rights under equal protection!
Next thing we will be able to marry our Brother or Sister, able to marry children, able to marry animals!!!!

If you are in an alternative lifestyle you are not nessesarily entitled to all the institutions and privledges of others. You have the same rights, and civil Unions can allow that.

Let Me ask you this:
Would a state issue a drivers license to a blind Man?
No, not intentionally.



As far as the San Fran fiasco goes....... This is stupid and a definate waste of Califoria tax payers money. There is no difference between this Mayor and the judge who would not take the 10 commandments out of the court. They are both violating the law and should be arrested!!!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

Personally I have a couple things to say about Bush but I'll narrow it down:

I predicted when he was elected the USA would be at war within two years. Our country elected "Republican George W. Bush" to carry our country, the largest superpower, the only superpower in the world, through a four year period. I can see why; at the time, I think America wanted a strong figure representing us in a very uncertain time with foreign relations.

However, in my opinion I think GWB is leading us down a very bad path. I didn't vote for him but once he was elected I had an open mind and would give him a fair chance. At first, things seemed a little shady with the whole Florida vote issue and whether or not he really had the votes. Then a period went by when I was impressed by him and his administration. Then it just takes a little bit of time to get comfortable before a person or leader of a country with extreme power wants more.

Like Lord Acton said: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," and that has been time tested and approved in my book. The US is the only major superpower and we are misusing that power. Eventually, that will weaken us and more people will want to take us out who aren't "with us" as GWB has given the rest of the world "it's" ultimatum. This in turn just breeds more terrorism.

The cycle of violence is very damning, it is energy, cost and life fueling. My prediction is that it is likely to continue for a very long time.

Just to wrap this up, any President or President's Administration who actively and knowingly lies to the American People in cahutz (sp?) with the media for the purpose of imperializing other countries for personal gain is not okay with me

It is not all Bush's fault, he was led along a string to respond the way any arrogant, person in power coming from a family of arrogant, powerful people would.

There may have been semen on Monica Lewinsky's dress, but I'd much rather deal with that any day.

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[Deuce 1]

Quote

MASSACHUSETTS ORDERS ALL CITIZENS TO GAY MARRY

Crap. You have a FutureCam. Earlier in a different thread you warned me this was going to happen.

I'm pitching.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

There may have been semen on Monica Lewinsky's dress, but I'd much rather deal with that any day.

I'm assuming that you are now getting a ton of PMs from the single male contingient?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[storm1977 0]

AS an add on to the SAN FRAN thing:

THe Mayor of San Fran has offically told the Country... Break the law! They won't do anything to you.

Hypothetical situation:
The Mayor of San Diego dissagrees with Cali gun laws, so he issues gun licences to anyone and everyone who wants one in the City.

Gee can you guess how quick he would be arrested?

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

And just to comment on the gay marriage issue ... Why can't we just give Gays whatever equal rights they want as far as benefits of marriage like insurance coverage, tax deductions, whatever. But leave the social norm of "marriage" separate.

I just moved from San Francisco and I love that city but I think it is getting a little far out of control too. Seeing the pictures of all these gay women getting married just doesn't sit well with me. Now, I would consider myself very liberal but I also am trying to raise my three year old daughter in a time and a world that is confusing enough?

Can't we just preserve nature's order in our society by keeping the more "sacred" word of marriage for a man and a woman? Maybe I am just a little conservative and closed minded about it but there is something to be said for social tradition and it just seems like a misuse of the Constitution to me.

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[Deuce 1]

San Francisco is very unique in that it is both a City and a County. For example, it has both a police department and a sheriff's department.

15 square miles of fun! fun! fun!

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

Huh???

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[storm1977 0]

So!!!! GO to Cape Cod MA... Same thing!!!!! I don't see your point.

Suffolk county NY has a police and a sherriffs dept, but no local police in 95% of the county.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[Muenkel 0]

I'm against this ammendment because I want the doors to be flung wide open. I want Clay to be able to marry his beloved sheep.

BTW Storm, the village I grew up in in Suffolk County had its own police. They were totally useless.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[storm1977 0]

Where did you grow up???? East Hapmton where the Police are run and owned by the Elite Wealthy Population?

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[tkhayes 146]

what did you expect? 10000 constitutional amendments proposed to date, but only 21 adopted. It is a waste of tax dollars and time, but this argument will probably be won over time, just like women's rights, black rights, voting rights, etc

Need more judges to defy the higher-ups - and more civil disobedience to make things change.

But for what it's worth, write your congress people, senators and president. It certainly will not hurt.
TK

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Where did you grow up???? East Hapmton where the Police are run and owned by the Elite Wealthy Population?

No, I grew up in Northport.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[karenmeal 0]

Quote

Quote

Anyway, I was watching crossfire last night and the same agruement came up that keeps coming up. And like always, those supporting Gay marriage had no acceptable answer.

You think that gay rights advocates can't answer questions? Thats absolutely hilarious because everytime I watch someone try to defend the "sanctity" of marriage they have no clue what they are defending.

So, What exactly do straight people lose if gays are allowed to marry?

This bit here is from a press conference held yesterday by Scott McClellan. The full document can be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-5.html

Q Hold on -- what specifically would happen to society if same-sex couples were allowed to marry?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why I talked about the values that we should stand up and defend. The President made it very clear in his remarks that this is an enduring institution of our civilization. It goes to the very fabric of our society when he talks about this issue.

Q So the fabric of society would break down if men were allowed to marry other men and women other women?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why the President believes that this is an important value and enduring institution to defend. And that's what -- so he's looking at this --

Q What would happen to marriage if same-sex couples were allowed to marry? I just don't -- I'm trying to understand the President's thinking. Is this purely based on his religious faith? How does he arrive at this?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is based on principle, it's based on his long-held belief. And I would remind you that this is something that enjoys -- that protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage enjoys widespread support in this country.



----You will notice how no actual question is answered... the whole press conference involves McClellan talking in stuttered circles.

"Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham