mass SJC on civil unions...

advil

Diabloii.Net Member
mass SJC on civil unions...

new development on an old topic...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/04/supreme_judicial_court_rules_civil_unions_arent_enough_same_sex_couples_entitled_to_marriage/

here's the first para

BOSTON -- The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for *** couples -- rather than civil unions -- would meet the edict of its November decision, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages would take place in the state beginning in mid-May.
 

Underseer

Diabloii.Net Member
What? No consitutional mandate for treating a segment of the population like second-class citizens? This is going to make conservatives angry.
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Meh. I would have called them civil unions and just given them every right/priviledge that married couples have. Semantics, sure, but I think it would have been a nice gesture to those who wanted to keep the term "marriage" in the traditional sense.

Not like I'm gonna lose any sleep over it though. :yawn:
 

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
Judicial activism anybody?

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is violating thousands of years of accepted norms.
 

Akira

Member
Perhaps, i believe that particular horse has been beaten to death already however. In any case, this leaves little to no room for denial of rights via wriggling through semantics and wording.
 

Anyee

Diabloii.Net Member
Don't worry. I'm sure the federal government will find an excellent way to keep homosexuals as second-class citizens in a move that our grandchildren will look at as remarkably stupid, on the order of prohibition.

It's for the children, you know.
 

Sergeant

Diabloii.Net Member
Marriage has been and ought to remain reserved for a man/woman couple. I don't agree with *** marriage (or child adpotion/rearing) anymore than I agree with anything else that voilates long standing morals, stemming from the beginning of time.

It's not just for the children, it's to protect the central and foundational unit of society. *** marriage is just another step. What next. Maybe lower the age requirements to get married without parental consent. Hmm, what else. Oh, I know, legalize abortion and don't require doctors to notify the parents of a minor. Maybe redefine what child pornography is to allow this discpicible content on the net legally. Maybe after that we can start allowing porn to feature minors.

Can't happen you say? It already is. Child porn sites that can't be touched because they do not fit the current description of "child pornography", it's called "art". :xrollseye Abortions can be performed legally, sometimes without the parents ever knowing the girl was pregnant. Really the only one that hasn't happened yet on a nationwide scale is the marriage age. Hmm, another one involving marriage that hasn't been changed yet. Maybe there is something to this whole marriage institution.

Three cheers for moral degradation. :xeek:
 

Oldnik

Diabloii.Net Member
Sergeant said:
Marriage has been and ought to remain reserved for a man/woman couple. I don't agree with *** marriage (or child adpotion/rearing) anymore than I agree with anything else that voilates long standing morals, stemming from the beginning of time.

It's not just for the children, it's to protect the central and foundational unit of society. *** marriage is just another step. What next. Maybe lower the age requirements to get married without parental consent. Hmm, what else. Oh, I know, legalize abortion and don't require doctors to notify the parents of a minor. Maybe redefine what child pornography is to allow this discpicible content on the net legally. Maybe after that we can start allowing porn to feature minors.

Can't happen you say? It already is. Child porn sites that can't be touched because they do not fit the current description of "child pornography", it's called "art". :xrollseye Abortions can be performed legally, sometimes without the parents ever knowing the girl was pregnant. Really the only one that hasn't happened yet on a nationwide scale is the marriage age. Hmm, another one involving marriage that hasn't been changed yet. Maybe there is something to this whole marriage institution.

Three cheers for moral degradation. :xeek:
Yeah you're right! *** marriage is pretty much teh same as child pornography! [/sarcasm]
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
In the U.S. in the past it has been acceptable to own another person, keep someone from voting based on skin color or sex, and ban drinking. Those were all dumb ideas. The ban on *** marriage is up there with respect to stupid laws.

If being married will make two peopple happy, what right do any of us have to deny them that happiness? Piss and moan all you want, but stay out of people's lives. If it upsets you that much, don't send the couple a wedding present.

I foresee a 12 page thread with meltdown around post #30.
 

Munch

Diabloii.Net Member
I'm sorry Smeg, but what part of the Constitution is being revised here? (That's usually the requisite for using the term "judicial activism".)

Thousands of years of accepted norms? Yeah, that pesky 13th Amendment sure is annoying, what with throwing out the long-accepted practice of slavery. And don't get me started on the 19th!
 

Anakha1

Banned
Smeg Head said:
Judicial activism anybody?

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is violating thousands of years of accepted norms.
Well... actually the Romans and Greeks practiced homosexuality frequently. And as Munch pointed out, thousands of years of accepted norms also tells us that women are sub-human and it's our right to **** and beat them. Established norms cannot be considered morally right based on their merits of age.
 

Rocks_Off

Diabloii.Net Member
maccool said:
In the U.S. in the past it has been acceptable to own another person, keep someone from voting based on skin color or sex, and ban drinking. Those were all dumb ideas. The ban on *** marriage is up there with respect to stupid laws.
Don't forget, they used to restrict it to people that could read too! That was awful, I mean....wait, maybe that wasn't such a bad idea. ;)

Edit: Just finished reading the article, and I have a completely off topic response.

Does anyone else get annoyed by the media's tendency to confuse state courts with federal courts? Half the time you have to reread these articles just to attempt to figure out which court made what ruling.
 

Munch

Diabloii.Net Member
Rocks_Off said:
Does anyone else get annoyed by the media's tendency to confuse state courts with federal courts? Half the time you have to reread these articles just to attempt to figure out which court made what ruling.
Uh, the first four words of the article were "The Massachusetts high court".
 

Rocks_Off

Diabloii.Net Member
Munch said:
Uh, the first four words of the article were "The Massachusetts high court".
Yes, I know. I was speaking in general terms. It happened to hit me while I was reading this article.
 

SuggestiveName

Diabloii.Net Member
Sergeant said:
Marriage has been and ought to remain reserved for a man/woman couple. I don't agree with *** marriage (or child adpotion/rearing) anymore than I agree with anything else that voilates long standing morals, stemming from the beginning of time.
Let me get this straight- You think that *** couples should NOT be allowed to adopt/raise children????

What makes a *** couple any less loving parents? What makes them any less able to raise a perfectly healthy and happy child?

Or are you just worried that they might force their "*** agenda" onto the impressionable mind of a child.
 

dantose

Diabloii.Net Member
Yes! Beat that horse! beat it till it dies again! do we really need to cover this topic again? we all know that:

a. the godless infidels will burn

b. the homophobe facists will stop at nothing to repress people
 

rodigee

Diabloii.Net Member
I oppose *** marrige strongly, however, I find nothing wrong with this ruling... You know why? I don't live over there, it doesn't affect me in any way what so ever, and for once, the fed is actually allowing State's to exercise thier 10th amendment rights to control powers not levied to the federal beast... Apply this to the rest of America's controversial issues: the legalization of mary jane, abortion, etc., and you'll live in the Rodigee fantasy world... :)
 

th5418

Banned
dantose said:
Yes! Beat that horse! beat it till it dies again! do we really need to cover this topic again? we all know that:

a. the godless infidels will burn

b. the homophobe facists will stop at nothing to repress people
:clap::clap:true true.
 

Lone_C

Diabloii.Net Member
dantose said:
Yes! Beat that horse! beat it till it dies again! do we really need to cover this topic again? we all know that:

a. the godless infidels will burn

b. the homophobe facists will stop at nothing to repress people
You hit the head with the nail.
 
I really don't get the whole oppressed homosexual gimmick. Homosexuals aren't being held down by the man, slaves were. Homosexuals aren't being denied any human rights, slaves were.

Homosexuals in a shrinking majority of states just aren't allowed to participate in something that's defined in the dictionary as not being inclusive of them, that's all. Whoop-de-doo. OH NO HITLER AND ORWELL ARE BACK FROM THE GRAVE TO RULE AMERICA AS FASCIST DICTATOR AND VICE FASCIST DICTATOR.

I think I'm going to sue a sorority and force them to let me in.
 
Top