Massachusetts High Court Rules In Favor of Gay Marriage

Wait, you're marrying a donkey too?

 

The answer is still, of course not. Churches that want no part in it will have no part in it. Gay couples will have no problem finding judges and priests who would be happy to marry them.

 

Sam, that's not helping. This is a serious discussion. In this thread, at least, he is not being a jackass at all and I'm the one arguing with him. Please retract this assinine statement.

 

Sorry I know you didn't say I hated gay people but others have in the past, and I think when people call us bigots for this stance that implies that we hate gay people at some level.

What is to keep a gay couple from suing the Catholic Church for discrimination if they do not allow a couple to marry? Isn't that the next logical step in this process? MAybe not today, maybe not tommorow but at some point?

 

We have a thing called "freedom of religion", twhy77. You don't have to spend sleepless nights on that score. The Catholic Church already refuses to marry divorced couples and no one is making them stop that practice. A lot of Catholics wish they would, but that's another topic.

 

When am I ever a jackass? Good use of the word assinine! Very pertinent to the discussion.

His words don't really hurt anybody though because we all know he's a big softie bleeding heart liberal deep down.

 

No worries about this, see my example of divorced people and Deckard's post.

 

But divorced people aren't saying they are losing out on equal rights, whereas gay people are pretty militant about this.

 

I was just protecting myself because one time I asked people to back off TJ when they jumped on him, but I wasn't aware of the spillover from another thread (he deserved it that time).

 

Where to begin? First, there are - of course - various levels of r****dation and other mental illnesses. Those that fall in the different functional ranges are treated - guess what - differently. I assume you are speaking of severely r****ded, etc. Well, the answer is fairly simple. Those people usually have a guardian of some sort, whether it be family or private or state agency. They pretty much determine what can happen to their dependent...similar to a child. Additionally, I doubt they could be married off because they cannot give consent and, generally, have no idea what marriage even is. Often, people who try to do such things (marry severely r****ded) are those who just want bodies to molest, etc. so the situation would be suspicious regardless. Generally not safe, in other words.

Are you suggesting that homosexuals are like animals and r****ded people in that they have no control or idea about what they are doing?

If you are speaking of functionally r****ded...well, of course they get married. Happens all of the time.

 

In the context of the Catholic Church, plenty of them have. But not in the context of this thread. It just depends on your point of view.

 

As far as the Church is concerned, it's equivalent. Neither can marry the person they want to (they can, of course marry heterosexually or stay in the first marriage).

As far as the law is concerned, divorced people don't say that because the law already gives them equal rights. If Bush suggested an amendment saying divorced people, when being remarried, didn't get tax considerations, marriage certificate, etc. then yes, they would be militant about it.

 

.... but I saw it on "The Love Boat..."

I'm still not clear: how are a civil union and a marriage different from a legal standpoint? Isn't a civil union just a marriage-lite?

Are bamaslammer and I (and our siblings) bastards or not?

 

I going to play the incest card, since someone played the polygamy card.

Should a man be able to marry his daughter, son, sister, brother, father or mother?

My reaction to an incestuous marriage is that it is sick and wrong. This clashes with my opinion that consenting adults (including gay people) should be able to marry whomever they want. I can also see how people who share my disgust for incestuous mariages may have a very similar reaction to a gay marriage (while I do not).

I think the bottom line is that the states have some responsibilites in setting the boundaries of marriages. These boundaries are open to debate.

 

Seriously, I'm more concerned about people staying married in this country than people getting married. Gay or straight.

 

That is truly the point. A civil union IS marriage-lite and if we are to equally protect our citizens' rights, ALL of them deserve equal protection. Marriage-lite isn't good enough under the Massachusetts Constitution, which requires that all citizens be afforded EQUAL protection, not marriage-lite.

Or at least that is how this layman sees this decision.

 

Great point.

 

I don't. His reluctance to support gay marriage pisses me off. But his name isn't George, so I'm voting for him.

 

Very interesting points. Consider my eyebrows raised.

 

The difference here is that incest directly affects more than the people getting married. Laws and court decisions generally use the logic that incestuous marriage can be a genetic disaster for children. The thing that shocked me when I was researching this topic (a nightmare unto itself...nasty websites if not given good search paramters) was that incestuous marriage is legal if the couple is sterile or incapable of having kids. It may be disgusting to you and me, but that is what the law allows. The price of freedom is that the good gets scooped up with the bad, and vice versa.