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

That's a good sign. There will probably be temporary backlash against this and equal rights for homosexuals, then people will grow to live with it. Slowly but surely progress will be made.

 

It's only a matter of time. If you look at polling data of those under the age of 30, something like 80+% support equal marriage rights for homosexuals.

 

What steps has Canada taken lately to legalize gay marriage? I hadn't heard of that one.

 

The courts are making up crap as they go along, as usual. This ruling makes no sense. It is not unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.

If you want gay marriage legal, then pass a law.

 

I have not read the court's decision, but I think the court could reasonably find that such a ban would violate people's rights to not be discriminated against based on gender.

 

Exactly. Mr. C what exactly did you mean? It is clearly discriminatory to say these people over here can join together, enjoy all the priveleges of being legally joined, while those people over there cannot.

 

Explain.

 

i guess it begins and ends with the legal definition of "marriage."

 

Simply because marriage is between man and a woman. That is how the state has always defined marriage. So I don't see how denying that to 2 men or 2 women is unconstitutional.

Also, we are talking about the constitution. I don't see where it says there is a right of marriage under any circumstances.

 

That's in the Constitution?

 

no..it doesn't have to be. neither is there a definition in the constitution prescribing a right to homosexual marriage. it's all caught up in the 14th amendment due process, equal protection stuff. that's the battleground for the argument.

the definition of marriage is left up to the states...or at least it has been traditionally.

 

Well did the Founding Fathers ever envision gay marriage? No, they thought of marriage as between a man and a woman. So it is wrong to now read the Constitution as if marriage is not defined, because it clearly was defined back then.

So if you want gay marriage, the appropriate way to do it is to pass a law. Of course, some may not want to do this because it is more difficult and requires actually building a consensus with those you disagree with.

 

the definition of marriage is left up to the states...or at least it has been traditionally.
So I take it you're not a supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment?

Exactly right on the 14th Amendment, and that it should be left up to the states. I particularly liked this:

Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

I fail to see any faults whatsoever with this arguement.

 

Mr. C,

How do you feel about it? I have friends here who, for instance, cannot share health benefits. In one case, a guy I work with has our great benefits plan, but his boyfriend of 20 years is dieing of cancer right now. The boyfriend has no health coverage. If they were married, as they very much have wanted to be for the last 15 years, then the health benefits would extend to the cancer-ridden loved one.

What the heck would be the harm in letting any two committed people be married? Why does it have to be some sort of country club? I have never understood the threat.

 

No, they thought of marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race. Times change.

 

Buck -- I haven't taken a side on this...I'm not arguing with you. Just setting up the framework for how the argument was had.

 

Us heterosexuals have done more damage to the "Institution of Marriage" than homosexuals could ever achieve in a million years. I don't get it either.

 

I know, Max, nor I with you. You're one of the most thoughtful conservatives I've ever encountered.

 

the only reason any one could be against gay marriage is because of their own insecurities and irrational homophobic fears.

any other reason cited is just a cover because there is no rational basis to deny it.

banning it, as Mr Clutch as cited, because of tradition is ignorant (Compassionate Conservative at work)