Outstanding News-Mass. High Ct. Rules Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Just to clear the air on this issue: I received a tip from a friend that someone that we knew put an ad up on the match.com. I decided to investigate and coincidentally stumbled across you know who.

As to my original point, the church does not condone homosexuality, therefore it stands to reason that they will view this news as negative. Anything that promotes this unholy lifestyle will be frowned upon by the church. Not sure why this is surprising to some of you.

 

Which church are you talking about?

 

The church also considers sex before marriage unholy. They also consider the use of a rubber or any other birth control unholy, as well as sex for any purpose other than procreation. Masturbation's "unholy," too. How many righteous types have we got around here? I count one in twhy and I'm gonna go ahead and call one out of 15,000 or whatever a pretty small minority. Do we really want that kind of church legislating morality? Even if your story's true, Jorge, I think you'd probably like to maintain your right to use a rubber or your hand or get sloppy with another person (man or woman - it's really none of my business) without making a baby in the process.

 

you talked about the traditions of the institution

and where does the institution of marriage come from in our society?

you may not of mentioned the word religion, but this is the core of the issue is it not?

 

MR. BLACKITT: I mean, because we are members of the Protestant Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid- sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue.

MRS. BLACKITT: What d'you mean?

MR. BLACKITT: I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse with you,...

MRS. BLACKITT: Oh, yes, Harry.

MR. BLACKITT: ...and, by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller, I could insure... that, when I came off, you would not be impregnated.

MRS. BLACKITT: Ooh!

MR. BLACKITT: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen- seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas,... [sniff] ...and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom! Oh, no! I can wear French Ticklers if I want.

MRS. BLACKITT: You what?

MR. BLACKITT: French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.

MRS. BLACKITT: Have you got one?

MR. BLACKITT: Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'

 

got an email today from a friend in western mass. somehow it seems like it belongs in this thread:

 

Batman, I see your points, however in this case, we aren't talking about 'legalizing morality'. We are talking about a law that is currently on the books. The Church has every right to advance their opinion on this matter, as do you. This issue has much broader implications that merely was is moral or righteous in the eyes of the Church. It opens a pandora's box on how you define marriage. Can I marry my dog so that he can be covered under my dental plan at work? Can I marry several wealthy women so that I can share in their estate when they die? Where does one draw the line?

Call it whatever you want, but disagree with calling the union of a man and a man a 'marriage'. It's a partnership, and needs to be labeled as such, but the word 'marriage' is already defined and taken. Create a new term and allow insurers, companies and the like to make a decision on whether or not they would like to recognize it. Pretty simple.

 

Makes sense to me personally.

 

unfair and more prone to abuse than your stretch at a slippery slope argument

you really think people marrying dogs would be a problem, but sidestepping the one of the true reasons homosexual people want to have a legal marriage; insurance benefits etc etc, is the better answer?

your solution doesn't solve a single thing

you are still allowing for descrimination

 

Actually, if you extend the partnership benefits solely to homosexual couples (and exlude all others such as polygamists) then I don't see how it could be a slippery slope. It would properly put a clear boundary between homosexuality and other types of relationships. Those other groups would have to mount their own campaigns for similar rights.

Also, the law could force insurance companies and such to treat them the same under the law, I suppose.

 

What happened to cartoon Jorge?

I (and others) would have to start taking you seriously if you posted like that all the time.

The 'where will it end' arguments, linking homosexuality to bestiality or polygamy are tired and I promise you that similar arguments have been made against interracial relationships. The polygamy one is especially weak, as this is a case of gays and lesbians pursuing recognition of a monogamous relationship, along the lines of what the 'family values' crowd says it's for. They are in pursuit of family.

I agree: punish abuse of the system wherever it arises (as in the case of marrying a bevvy of rich women to share their loot or take advantage of tax laws or insurance policies), but that is not what this is. This is a case of people who happen to be gay wanting equal treatment under the law. I concede that marriage is currently defined as between a man and a woman. That's the basis for the debate and it is what gays, lesbians and straights who support equal rights for gays are trying to change. And events like what just went down in MA are encouraging examples of our evolving societal mores -- much like desegregation and the civil rights movement. (There was a time when many churches were against all that too.)

You're right that the Church has every right to voice their opinions. But as it has been with other issues, society has a right to tell the Church it is wrong. Of course they have a right to be "outraged." The KKK has a right to be outraged that black kids go to school with white kids, too. And I have a right to rightly tell you (and them) that they are wrong on this. And to remind them that it isn't the first time.

 

No, we're not. Churches can still choose to marry only men and women, and the government cannot force them to do otherwise. The only difference is that the government can perform civil marriages between two men or two women.

Then again, I don't see why the government should be in the business of performing marriages. Let them only perform civil unions between any two consenting adults so they can receive benefits (insurance, visitation rights, etc), while letting churches perform marriages which they can regulate at will.

 

Churches can define marriage however they want. But marriage as a legal institution should not disciminate.

That said, love is love.

 

Perhaps we need to return to Biology 101.

 

I guess you would also tell a man and a woman who love each other, make a legal commitment to each other and adopt a child that they do not constitute a family.

 

I agree 100%

I don't understand why T_J thought that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to the other abuses when those other abuses are already illegal.


I think the law should simply state that there can be a marriage between any two consenting adults. Period.

Leave it up to the Churches to decide if they want to perform same-sex marriages or not.

Live and Let Live

isn't that a Christian motto?

I thought so anyways...too bad it is rarely followed

 

It's funny that those arguments are 'tired' and 'weak', yet nobody here could explain how homosexual marriages and polygamy could be separated. If you want to "live and let live" and have equal rights, how could you discriminate against those that want to have polygamous relationships. They aren't hurting anyone else. They only want a family (what is considered normal and good in some societies/religions). If a change in the definition of marriage is to be made, why should that change not extend to polygamous relationships?

 

Perrin, no matter how well intended one cannot reduce one's discrimination to zero.

I am all for people living their lives as they see fit. I think that anyone should be able to contract a relationship with anyone else and have that contract enforcible by the Civil Courts. However, the slippery slope of this question is where the law applies to the benefits earned by one party being extended to another party. If the union of two men is rcognized for these legal purpoposes, why not three men or four. How many people would you limit the social security survivors benefits to, 5?

So we must choose some point to begin our discrimination. It is a fact of life on this planet that the act procreation requires a male and a female. It has been the traditional family unit for thousands of years so, it seems to me to be the logical unit to apply the laws of survivorship and coresponslbility to.

Should men want to enter into a contract pledgeing their fidelity and mutual support, more pwer to them. Contract two or three of them, form corporations, have the unions blessed by any religious deity you want. But when it comes to the sharing of entitlements the union of one man and one woman is probably the most logical legal entity.

 

Oops, no edit. When I said 'no one here could explain', I was referring to a previous homosexual marriage thread.

 

He would also tell heterosexual couples that adopt or pursue donated sperm that they do not constitute a family. I am

SHOCKED AND DISAPPOINTED.