Massachusetts court rules in favour of gay marriage

[Sir Sirius]

Speaking of RR, advice w/ <snip> would be appreciated.

Hawk the Fundy Asshat is either illiterate or he is being intentionaly dishonest. Check the post he made on the second page containing this:

The first words:

Congress shall make no law regarding

This means none FOR OR AGAINST. Anyone should have the right to say anything anywhere or they are in violation.

It does not say anything about right not to hear.

Other areas cover unlawful imprisonment which would be for this sort of thing if it were a MANDATORY assembly where nobody could leave.

The freedom of speech, in that case, AGAIN, is still independent of the issue

See the bolded and underlined part? Your constitution says respecting, not regarding. Linky

Never underestimate a fundy's willingness to lie for jesus.

[Wicked Pilot]

I will have to check the status of the Democatic parties Filibuster...

I'm no fan of the Democrats, but I'm glad of what they are doing here. Of course, if they were to get into power and start nominating extremist lefties, then I'd have to give encouragement to the Republicans.

The good thing is... that Amendment will never pass.

I probably will not pass, but there is no guarantee that it never will. That is why it is still up to us as the informed voting populace to see that it doesn't.

[Wild Karrde]

What is their obsession with slippery slopes, anyway?

Cause wide eyed rantings and logical fallacies are so much more convincing then objective arguments.

And if he said that it was just as bad as when slavery was legalized, wouldn't that make it a good thing?

To clarify he was saying that legalizing gay marriges would be just like having slavery still legal; that it's 'morally wrong' to allow what the courts ruled today.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I will have to check the status of the Democatic parties Filibuster...

I'm no fan of the Democrats, but I'm glad of what they are doing here. Of course, if they were to get into power and start nominating extremist lefties, then I'd have to give encouragement to the Republicans.

The good thing is... that Amendment will never pass.

I probably will not pass, but there is no guarantee that it never will. That is why it is still up to us as the informed voting populace to see that it doesn't.

Well... I would liketo see more civil libertarian judges....

Oh, that much is certain. But it requires a supermajority, and the Democrats just wont give them one... Unless they are on lots and lots of crack that day.

[EmperorSolo51]

Note the langauge of the ruling give the legislature somewhere around 180 (legislative?)days to do something to correct it.

There is alot of things the Massachusett's Legislature could do.

For Starters they could enact a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between a man and woman. (they almost enacted it last year. Both Republican Governor Romney and Democratic House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran are for this. To reverse a MA Constutional Amendment, it Takes 2/3 of the state Legislature and 3/4's of the population to confirm.) They could go the Vt route and give them Civil Unions but not open marriage. There is also a question on wether or not the SCOTUS will get involved.

[z020898]

Frank Hipper

z020898 wrote:
Courts 1, Democracy 0

Majority sentiment does not overule minority rights.

When the majority is high enough it has to. When a minority of a few percent can overule a majority of over 70% as Col. Crackpot said it is in Mass. the issue is not only minority rights but also rather or not the United States is a democracy. With a majority of this size, yes it does rule, especially when a new right is being created not an old one restated.

Alyrium Denryle

What you dont seem to understand about the United States, is that we are a cnstitutional republic. The rights of the minority, are protected from the mob rule of a tyranical majority. These include the rights of an individual to be recognized equally by the government. 14th ammendment fucktard!

One, the Mass. supreme court can't apply the U.S. constitution if it is doing so that it clearly a violation of basic legal principles.
Two, the U.S. is a constitutional republic, that means that the rights of the minority are also limited by the will of the majority. In this case 70% of Mass. voters (who are the only people with imput in this case) oppose this right and thus it is should not be granted by the court, the court can wait for the legislature to do so especially in cases like this when a new right is being created.

And before someone starts using segregation as an example when the courts overuled the majority and it turned out right. The relevant voters in this case were the voters in the entire U.S. and the passage of the Civil Rights Act clearly indicates majority or near majority support for the decision.

[Darth Wong]

When the majority is high enough it has to. When a minority of a few percent can overule a majority of over 70% as Col. Crackpot said it is in Mass. the issue is not only minority rights but also rather or not the United States is a democracy. With a majority of this size, yes it does rule, especially when a new right is being created not an old one restated.

Gender equality is not a new right. And gay-marriage prohibition is gender discrimination.

Let me draw you a picture:

Code: Select all

Man + woman = OK
Man +   man = Not OK?

What is the difference between row 1 and row 2? One person's gender. If that person were of a different gender, it would be OK. Ergo, it's gender discrimination.

One, the Mass. supreme court can't apply the U.S. constitution if it is doing so that it clearly a violation of basic legal principles.
Two, the U.S. is a constitutional republic, that means that the rights of the minority are also limited by the will of the majority. In this case 70% of Mass. voters (who are the only people with imput in this case) oppose this right and thus it is should not be granted by the court, the court can wait for the legislature to do so especially in cases like this when a new right is being created.

The Constitution is not dependent upon the will of the majority. These judges are simply interpreting the constitution which already exists.

And before someone starts using segregation as an example when the courts overuled the majority and it turned out right. The relevant voters in this case were the voters in the entire U.S. and the passage of the Civil Rights Act clearly indicates majority or near majority support for the decision.

You may feel free to petition your local government representatives to alter the Constitution so that it no longer supports gender equality if this so bothers you. But the fact is that people oppose gay marriage only for ignorant, bigoted reasons of religious stupidity and are perfectly willing to engage in blatant hypocrisy to get it done.

[Darth Wong]

Note the langauge of the ruling give the legislature somewhere around 180 (legislative?)days to do something to correct it.

What do you mean "correct" it? Are you suggesting that it's wrong?

They could go the Vt route and give them Civil Unions but not open marriage.

Then they should stop recognizing all marriages under the law. The law is part of the secular state, and if it's going to be defined in a discriminatory or religious way, then it has no place in law.

[EmperorSolo51]

What do you mean "correct" it? Are you suggesting that it's wrong?

Putting My personal reservations about this ruling aside; I meant as in to correct the law to the court's ruling.

Then they should stop recognizing all marriages under the law. The law is part of the secular state, and if it's going to be defined in a discriminatory or religious way, then it has no place in law.

I agree that in a secular society we do not need laws based on religious ideals. However, I believe there should be such laws to premote the common welfare and morality of the people.

[Darth Wong]

I agree that in a secular society we do not need laws based on religious ideals. However, I believe there should be such laws to premote the common welfare and morality of the people.

Of course, which is why so many laws are written to safeguard things like public health. However, "morality" can only be upheld in law if it is a secular form of morality, such as the UN declaration of human rights (but that's what the Bill of Rights was for). Simply defining religious beliefs as "morality" and then arguing that they should be upheld in law is nothing more than a dishonest shell game.

[EmperorSolo51]

Of course, which is why so many laws are written to safeguard things like public health. However, "morality" can only be upheld in law if it is a secular form of morality, such as the UN declaration of human rights (but that's what the Bill of Rights was for). Simply defining religious beliefs as "morality" and then arguing that they should be upheld in law is nothing more than a dishonest shell game.

Very True.

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.

[Darth Wong]

Of course, which is why so many laws are written to safeguard things like public health. However, "morality" can only be upheld in law if it is a secular form of morality, such as the UN declaration of human rights (but that's what the Bill of Rights was for). Simply defining religious beliefs as "morality" and then arguing that they should be upheld in law is nothing more than a dishonest shell game.

Very True.

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 are elderly post-menopausal couples; should they be prohibited from marrying as well?

[SirNitram]

Of course, which is why so many laws are written to safeguard things like public health. However, "morality" can only be upheld in law if it is a secular form of morality, such as the UN declaration of human rights (but that's what the Bill of Rights was for). Simply defining religious beliefs as "morality" and then arguing that they should be upheld in law is nothing more than a dishonest shell game.

Very True.

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.

Remarkably, the majority of humanity has past it's 'eat sleep fuck shit' phase. It is capable of relationships more complex than mating partners, parents and children, and hunting parties.

[Aeolus]

Of course, which is why so many laws are written to safeguard things like public health. However, "morality" can only be upheld in law if it is a secular form of morality, such as the UN declaration of human rights (but that's what the Bill of Rights was for). Simply defining religious beliefs as "morality" and then arguing that they should be upheld in law is nothing more than a dishonest shell game.

Very True.

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.

If that were the only purpose to marrige then infertile couples should not be permitted to marry either.

[Frank Hipper]

When the majority is high enough it has to. When a minority of a few percent can overule a majority of over 70% as Col. Crackpot said it is in Mass. the issue is not only minority rights but also rather or not the United States is a democracy. With a majority of this size, yes it does rule, especially when a new right is being created not an old one restated.

Democracy is not mob rule. This country operates under a Bill of Rights for the express purpose of preventing a "Tyranny of the Majority" from depriving minority groups of the rights laid out in it.
I'm very curious what "new right" you think is being created here, BTW.

[Utsanomiko]

Remarkably, the majority of humanity has past it's 'eat sleep fuck shit' phase. It is capable of relationships more complex than mating partners, parents and children, and hunting parties.

I guess that makes Spanky and DarkPrimus part of my 'hunting party', though the only thing I can ever recal us hunting was DVDs and action figures.

*Tries to categorize all other relationships into Neolithic terminology*

[SirNitram]

Remarkably, the majority of humanity has past it's 'eat sleep fuck shit' phase. It is capable of relationships more complex than mating partners, parents and children, and hunting parties.

I guess that makes Spanky and DarkPrimus part of my 'hunting party', though the only thing I can ever recal us hunting was DVDs and action figures.

*Tries to categorize all other relationships into Neolithic terminology*

Here we see Homo Domesticus, as he ponders his primitive, hunter-gatherer society and it's place in a rapidly changing world. Will he be successful in hunting the wild Arby's combo? Will his party disintigrate into arguments over who pays? Will he be out-evolved by the dust bunny infestation in his sock drawer?

[Utsanomiko]

Here we see Homo Domesticus, as he ponders his primitive, hunter-gatherer society and it's place in a rapidly changing world. Will he be successful in hunting the wild Arby's combo? Will his party disintigrate into arguments over who pays? Will he be out-evolved by the dust bunny infestation in his sock drawer?

Grok no like Arby's Combo. Grok smach with rock. Female tells Grock she love Grok, but no 'in love' with Grok. Me Grock hit female and drag to cave. Grok want Transformers Alternator Smokescreen. Hlj.com out of stock. Now Grok get mad and go forraging for cold soda. Rrrargh!

[Stormbringer]

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.

[Patrick Degan]

One, the Mass. supreme court can't apply the U.S. constitution if it is doing so that it clearly a violation of basic legal principles.

Wrong. State courts apply the United States Constitution to matters regarding the constitutionality of state and local laws all the time.

Two, the U.S. is a constitutional republic, that means that the rights of the minority are also limited by the will of the majority.

Wrong. Basic rights are not subject to the will of the majority. The constitutional protection skews the opposite of the way you perceive it. The principle you've outlined here is in fact is Tyranny of the Majority.

In this case 70% of Mass. voters (who are the only people with input in this case) oppose this right and thus it is should not be granted by the court, the court can wait for the legislature to do so especially in cases like this when a new right is being created.

Wrong. No state law can legally trump basic freedoms protected under the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, which applies those rights as well as equal protection under the law to all American citizens.

And before someone starts using segregation as an example when the courts overuled the majority and it turned out right. The relevant voters in this case were the voters in the entire U.S. and the passage of the Civil Rights Act clearly indicates majority or near majority support for the decision.

Wrong. The primary desegregation decisions of the United States Supreme Court handed down in the 50s predated the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts —which were acts of congress and not the subject of any national plebicite on the matter. And all those acts did was to add further support in Federal law to enforce the basic protections of the 14th Amendment, which was the primary instrument employed by the courts in striking down Jim Crow laws.

[Col. Crackpot]

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. I don't see this as a civil rights issue. 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. Flame me all you want, marrage has a specific definition and that is the traditional one. Just find your self a 'life partner', get your equal benefits and move on before we all kill each other.

[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.

[Col. Crackpot]

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.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Of course, which is why so many laws are written to safeguard things like public health. However, "morality" can only be upheld in law if it is a secular form of morality, such as the UN declaration of human rights (but that's what the Bill of Rights was for). Simply defining religious beliefs as "morality" and then arguing that they should be upheld in law is nothing more than a dishonest shell game.

Very True.

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?

We have progressed beyond that stage in our human development. If you check your history, the practice of marrying for love was a foreign concept to everyone but the por, until after 1916. Only then did we start moving away from the arranged marriages and "courtship" rituals that only ensured the female could tolerate the males presense. These marriages were for procreation and for forging alliances between families.

After the 1910s we started branching off and marrying for love, once that happened, emotions became involved and we have no right as a ulture to say that "One persons love and feeling for one another is any less valid as another" And under the 14th amendment, despite your "states rights" bullshit... It is law.

[Darth Wong]

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.

And the federal constitution does not override the state constitution? Do you feel that the stipulation in the Texas state constitution that atheists may not hold public office would seriously withstand challenge, or could not be ruled unconstitutional?