Massachusetts court rules in favour of gay marriage

[Darth Wong]

i think it is very dangerous to equate the Jim Crow laws with the current status of gay marrage. The jim crow laws banned blacks from a whole slew of activites including socializing with whites, voting, etc. They limited where blacks could eat, drink , shop etc. Are there 'No queers allowed' signs anywhere? no. Are there laws banning the gay vote? no.

There are laws saying that they can't get married, dumb-ass.

I don't see this as a civil rights issue.

Perhaps because you were dropped on your head as a child.

Are there laws against gay sex? No, not anymore thanks to a wise decision by the supreme court. Personally i support civil unions which would afford gay couples a legal status (regarding medical and death benefits, etc.) equal to that of heterosexual couples.

So separate drinking fountains for blacks were OK since they could get water from them? Isn't that precisely analogous to what you're doing here?

Flame me all you want, marrage has a specific definition and that is the traditional one.

Who gives a fuck about traditional word definitions? The instant marriage became recognized in law, it became a government institution which cannot discriminate. Even if a form of "civil union" were approved for gays, the problem would remain that there is a legal government-recognized institution which explicitly discriminates.

Just find your self a 'life partner', get your equal benefits and move on before we all kill each other.

Just grow a brain. At no point do you actually provide a shred of reasoning to support your position; you simply state your opinion as fact.

[Stormbringer]

Even if they do chnge their state constitutiion it wouldnt matter. It can(and will be) appealed to the supreme court, because such an amendment would violate the 14th amendment of the national constitution.

That presumes the Supreme Court would actually rule on the matter, that's by no means a given. In fact I do believe they've turned down a number of lower court appeals. It does indeed violate any common sense interpertation of the equal protection clause but they have to actually take the case for it to matter.

constitutional ammendments CANNOT be repealed by a court. All the courts can determine is constitutionality. If a state constitution explicitly states X , than a court cannot rule X to be unconstitutional.

You're partially right. Amendements to the national consitution cannot be overturned or repealed by the Supreme Court since they are automaticall Consitutional.

On the other hand, the state consitutions must comply with the national consitution. If a part of a state consitution is found to be in violation of the national consitution they can be struck down and as a matter of fact have been in the past.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It's an important step but's a baby step.

It's based on the state constitution, not the national consitution so there'll be a major battle, if anything meaningful is to come of it. The first hurdle being the prevention of an amendment to change the law and then of course the problems with the full faith and credit clause of the US Consitution, that last one is going to be the real challenge.

Even if they do chnge their state constitutiion it wouldnt matter. It can(and will be) appealed to the supreme court, because such an amendment would violate the 14th amendment of the national constitution.

constitutional ammendments CANNOT be repealed by a court. All the courts can determine is constitutionality. If a state constitution explicitly states X , than a court cannot rule X to be unconstitutional.

I was refering to the state constitution being ammended. If they ammendedit to infringe upon the rights of one group, then the US constitution overrides it.

[Zaia]

Personally, I think that the marriage definition should be "union between Man and Women" becuase the whole purpose of marriage is legally sanctioning what humans have been doing since we climbed dowm from the trees in Africa millions of years ago. (ie: procreation) Homosexuals should not be able to marry becuase they are incapable of producing offspring.

So infertile couples should not be allowd to marry then? what happens if a happy little infection destroys the womans Euterus? Should she never be able to marry?

Many many heterosexual couples do not have children, should their liscences be revoked?.

Thanks, Aly. That was a point I wanted to cover myself.

And what of adoption, Emperor? How does that fit into your outline of marriage?

[The Kernel]

I find it very amusing that so many people are up in arms about gay marriages "defiling the sanctity of marriage" or some such crap. Like I need Rush Limbaugh to lecture me about the sanctity of marriage when he has been married how many times? Or maybe they think the wedding chapels that dot the streets of Las Vegas aren't a defilement of marriage? Oh no, all that is fine but when two people of the same sex choose to share their lives together, all of a sudden it’s a travesty. Fuck you conservative America.

The way I see it, there are really two definitions of marriage, the civil union and the religious union. I couldn't give a flying fuck about the church keeping their religious marriage to themselves, but the state needs to recognize the union between gay couples (what, do they think gay America doesn't deserve the same rights as everyone else?). Now we have Christian fundamentalists crying for the United States Constitution to be amended to forbid gay marriage.

If they actually get their way and an amendment to the US Constitution goes through that bans gay marriage is passed, I swear to God (who I deny the existence of) that I'm packing my bags and leaving this fucking place. How's the weather up there in Toronto this time of year Mike?

[Bob McDob]

Yikes, I got a brain aneurysm after the first page... How can *anyone* be so dense? I mean you'd expect light to bend around them....

I refuse to take anyone who writes "we are living in the end times ) seriously.

Or posts in FUCKING CAPS. SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FUCKING FUCKERS. YOU THINK YOU'RE JESUS HISSELF, DO YA? WELL, YOU'RE DAMN WRONG.