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

It should not be called a Marriage. It can never be a Marriage ,because both of the particpants are of the same sex. It could be a Civil Union with the same legal rights as a Marriage.If Gays go this way they have a chance, if they want it to 'Married'they are asking for the impossible.The Christian Church already accepts two Gay Men living together leading chaste lives and obtaining the rights of a Civil Union.

 

My answer is contingent upon you meeting *all* of the following criteria:

You must be:
1) A woman with a complete set of genitalia
2) Hot
3) A sexual predator
4) Obedient
5) Inclined to wear thongs
6) Inclined to wear plunging necklines that accentuate your monstrous jugs
7) Very flexible
8) Fragrant

I TAKE THEE TO BE MY LAWFULLY WEDDED WIFE

 

This is one of those topics I usually don't even bother to debate, because it seems so completely self-evident, and I can't ascribe the contrary position any merit at all, as much as I've tried.


It would be akin to saying that only right-handed people should be allowed to vote.

 

LOL

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

 

The only thing concerning Homosexuality that the Christian Church is against is Gay Sex. Sorry but there is no other way of putting it!
This does lead to the big Question are they Homosexual if they are living a chase life?Or are they Homosexuals because of having sex with their own sex?

 

9) Patient
10) Deaf
11) Slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun, politically speaking.
12) Table-balanced
13) Able to find the gold thread among the brass...

 

Dude, you are making me laugh .

 

If your church doesn't believe in same-sex marriages, they shouldn't have to perform them. Their house, their rules.

But, outside a chapel, marriage is a legal institution and should not discriminate against two consenting adults who are in love. There's more to marriage than (gasp!) sex. Who cares about their genitals? If you don't agree with it, don't do it --but let others live their lives.

And, as many of you older married guys already know, genitalia doesn't play a role after a few years anyway!

 

I'll never forget the story in the Chronicle about the Houston city council members' marriages. Most of them were divorced and only one had a relationship that had lasted more than 3 years. That, of course, was (and still is) Annise Parker who, at the time, had been with the her same-sex partner for more than 10 years.

During that same time, her fellow council member, Rob Todd, a married, right-wing conservative, was racking up $2000 PER MONTH of cell phone charges on the phone provided to him by the city and paid for with taxpayer dollars.

Did I mention that most of the calls he was making were to his mistress?

Oh, and his mistress was the wife of HIS BEST FRIEND.

Oh, yeah, almost forgot, his best friend was fellow council member and staunch conservative Bert Keller.

Hilarious!

 

Funny thing is that the vast majority of the history of marriage it has been a contract - between the two fathers, mostly. We really owe modern conceptions of marriage to the Victorians (although even they often were only contracts between fathers). So, if we want to stay true to the history of marriage and to how the founders ould have seen it marriage should really only be about money and social status (and only as a one-way stream from the wife's family to the husband's).

I would marry my dog if I could.

 

Jeff, did you just close all these other threads? I was going to e-mail you through the board to ask if I could open a new thread addressing the question what a "contribution" is, but you don't want to receive e-mails through the board...

 

Bush denounces Massachusetts gay marriage ruling

London-AP -- President Bush is denouncing the decision by Massachusetts' highest court that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
From London, Bush released a statement declaring that "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman." He says the Massachusetts ruling "violates this important principle."

The president also says he'll "work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

A proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman has been introduced in the House, where it has about 100 co-sponsors. Several senators also have announced support for the proposed amendment.

Copyright 2003 Associated Press

http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=1530856

 

Doesn't the Congess have more pressing things to concern themselves with... like fixing the BCS?

 

Just to be clear this case deals with the Massacusetts Constitution not the U.S. Consititution.

If marriage "clearly was defined back then" why is it not mentioned in the document itself? you are making assumptions of the Founding Fathers' beliefs.

 

I would think that even though the Founding Fathers may not have conceived of gay marriage, they very well could have supported the notion that the government not get involved in such matters. The Founding Fathers seemed to largely be of the belief that such issues would be left to the states or to the people.

And beyond that, they might well have considered marriage to be a religious issue rather than a governmental one at any level.

But since they didn't write about it, I guess we'll never know.

 

Saw this on MSNBC's website

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 — More Americans are opposed to gay marriage, according to a new poll that also found the public is evenly divided on whether gays and lesbians can change their sexual orientation. White evangelicals are the most likely to think homosexuals can change their ways, according to the poll examining attitudes about homosexuality.

Most Americans, 55 percent, say they feel that homosexuality is a sin, while 33 percent disagree.

“EVANGELICALS ARE far more likely to say homosexuals can change, Catholics and mainline Protestants fall in the middle and more secular people are most likely to say they cannot change,” said Scott Keeter, a pollster with the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
The survey reinforced the finding that religious attitudes sharply affect feelings on gays and gay behavior.

Those with a high level of religious commitment oppose gay marriage by 80 percent to 12 percent.
The poll also found that:
Opposition to gay marriage has grown since midsummer, with 32 percent favoring it and 59 percent opposing it. In July, 53 percent said they opposed gay marriage.
Political attitudes sharply affected beliefs about gay marriage. Four in five of those who say they would vote to re-elect President Bush oppose gay marriage, while those who prefer that a Democrat win the presidency are evenly split on the question.
Younger adults were far more likely to say they favor gay marriage, and those between ages 20 and 30 were about evenly split on favoring or opposing it. Opposition grew steadily as people’s age increased. Among those in their 60s and 70s, opponents outnumber supporters by more than four to one.
Americans with college degrees were closely divided on the question of gay marriage, with 49 percent opposed and 44 percent in favor of allowing that option.
The public has moved toward widespread opposition against discrimination generally against homosexuals, despite the opposition to gay marriage.
Most Americans, 55 percent, say they feel that homosexuality is a sin, while 33 percent disagree. Nine in 10 highly committed white evangelicals and nearly three-quarters of black Protestants say homosexual behavior is sinful.
The poll of 1,515 adults was taken Oct. 15-19 by the Pew Research Center on behalf of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The full results are online at www.pewforum.org.

 

IMO
from what I have heard from the Gay side
The benefits are fine .. . but i think they like the Legitimization via Law
alot more.
But hey . . i could be wrong

As for Jesus. . . .well Jesus hates the sin . . not the Sinner.

Rocket River

 

I think I understand what you mean.

By the way, just to avoid a misunderstanding, I don't think that homosexuals are sinners just because they are homosexual. I think consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they don't bother others. If they should be allowed to get "married" is another question, I am not sure about it.

 

I don't know if that is a fair assessment. Isn't the belief that one's views are so "self-evident" the problem you have with those that say that marriage should be kept how it is?

In previous threads I was unsure about gay marriage due to the polygamy thing (which, BTW, no one has yet really addressed). For those that cannot accept polygamy being legal, it can be a legitimate stumbling block. Until I searched around and could not find any firm legal standing as to why polygamy is outlawed - it was pretty much outlawed to suppress Mormons and other smaller sects, from everything I've seen. After that, I could see no fair legal reason why homosexual marriage or polygamy could be outlawed. These are not things which any church should have to accept due to their own definitions of marriage, but I cannot find any legal reason to deny marriage to the minority.

 

Last night on "Special Report" Fred Barnes (who I really don't like most of the time) made a valid point as he was getting pummled by Mort Kondrake. Kondrake said Barnes was basically homophobic because he opposed gay marriage. Barnes said why? So my question is, can you oppose gay marriage on religious, philosophical, traditional, or other grounds, and not be homophobic by extension?

i need to add that I'm in favor of allowing gay/lesbian couples to marry.