Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall
On Beacon Street, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Dear Justice Marshall:
On behalf of the American Conservative Union, its Board of Directors and ACU’s one million members permit me to offer our heartiest congratulations and thanks for almost single-handedly making possible President George W. Bush’s historic election victory.
In considering the innumerable Americans who labored so hard and so long to achieve this singular electoral result – from Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman to the legions of Republican volunteers – it appears self-evident that your alone deserve the lion’s share of the credit for this truly stunning election triumph.
Were it not for you and your fellow liberal activists on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, it is doubtful that 11 states would have been compelled to put measures on their November 2nd ballots to preserve the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Had it not been for your courageous decision to ignore the will of the people of the Bay State, turn your back on 4,000 years of Judeo-Christian moral teaching, and unilaterally impose your own progressive personal opinions on the law, marriage might never have become the defining issue of the 2004 presidential election.
Yes, Justice Marshall, it was your unrestrained hubris that brought about the demise of your fellow Bay State liberal, Sen. John F. Kerry. For had you not sought to foist on your unwilling citizens a bizarre deconstruction of the law, hundreds of thousands of traditional-values voters might not have been mobilized to go to the polls in Ohio to protect marriage from such judicial depredations and to cast ballots to re-elect the President.
So please accept the undying gratitude of ACU and conservatives all across America for single-handedly delivering the election to George W. Bush.
Sincerely,
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]David A. Keene
Who, the judge?heyjoeo said:What a bastard. That sums it all up.
I'll bet you are still fighting the 2000 election, too.heyjoeo said:No, Karl Rove and the Chief Justice.
OK, I'll try. Here goes.heyjoeo said:You cannot deny Karl Rove is homophobic and a conviving bastard. Go ahead, try.
heyjoeo said:If that's what you believe, then you really must credit the man with being a 'super genius'. After all, not all of those eleven states were 'red'. Some of them were 'blue'. How in the world did he manage that?1. He "plotted" 11 states having gay amendments in state constitutions to get the wacko right wing out to vote against that and for Bush.
Your choice of words; not mine. If you wish to be more clearly understood, it would be best if you took care to write, with a greater degree of precision, whatever it is that you actually mean since I already have enough difficulty in trying to respond correctly to things that I can understand.That in it of itself is justification of his "Bastard" status. And by Bastard I don't mean the actual dictionary meaning of illegitimate child, but as an asshole.
heyjoeo said:The meaning of bastard being applied to a child ended in the 1920s and carries much more weight as an insult. Sorry, catch up with the times.
Second, you can call him super genious, I'll call him evil.
However...**Your choice of words; not mine. **
Christiaan said:The situation you describe is a perfectly legitimate situation and one that has always been recognized by the Catholic Church. In practical terms, more applicable in days gone by, but no less valid today, persons who are located in places where there is a scarcity of clergy and none can be reasonably expected to appear within the next thirty days, who are free of impediments that would prohibit them from entering into a legitimate marriage, can declare their intent to do so with the blessing of the Church, by swearing, before God, their troth for life, provided that at the very first opportunity, their marriage is solemnized by clergy. Folks who were settling the colonies and involved in the early expansion westward exercised this right and rite. Priests, in those days, traveled an extended circuit, ministering to their flock. An essential part of their duty included solemnizing marriages and baptizing the progeny thereof that had occurred since they last made their rounds.Your distinction between marriage and union is purely semantical. For instance, if a man and a woman are stranded on an island (both perfect strangers to one another before their meeting on the island) and fell in love and sealed their relationship with sexual congression and dedicated their undying love to one another, are they married, is their relationship a union? Mind you, the state and church have no dealings in this instance. I would view those two individuals as married, and then it would be up to private enterprises (Disney being a prime example) whether or not to recognize their relationships.
Do not confuse these events with what are known as common law marriages in which two people decide to conveniently shack up.
Does your question discount the presence of the ‘number one Clergyman of all eternity’ in the vicinity of the Garden of Eden?union is a "marriage-lite" term used to assuage particular groups of people. But unions possess the same romantic and sexual attributes that marriage possesses. Unions also have the same financial rights that marriages have. Again, your distinction between marriage and union is semantical. Were Adam and Eve married (there was no state, nor a ceremony conducted by a church)?
If you are asking for an opinion, who, indeed? If anyone at all, only an addle pated lunatic would dare say so.Many examples of two individuals in marriage-like unions that were not recognized by any state or church exist: Aneas and Dido, Cupid and Psyche, Romeo and Juliet. Who would dare say those relationships were inferior to Brad Pitt's and Jennifer Anniston's?
I don’t recall that any of the mythical of literary figures you mentioned considered their relationships so vacuous as to be worthy of lasting only until a cuter hunk or sexier fox ambled by. How many ‘marriages’ do the Hollywood darlings count thus far in their young lives? How many more will there be until their stars of fame set?
All discussion of semantics aside, thus far, on the subject of same-sex marriage, the electorate in twelve states, out of twelve, have spoken to their legislators in a loud and clear voice, haven’t they? And legislators, who know full well who it is that is buttering their bread, as it were, are paying close attention, aren’t they? Since the election, it would seem as if this once widely heralded issue has fallen completely off the political radar screen, wouldn’t it?P.S. If marriage is solely in the realm of the Church and not in the realm of the State (by definition, your's that is), how can the State ever deny the right of individuals to marry?
/agreed!heyjoeo said:Marriage has no place in government, and we REALLY should focus on more important issues going on in our world today.
I see. What you are advocating is that we should not apply the majority opinion simply because "the people want it!", but we should apply the minority opinion into legislation simply because "the people want it!"heyjoeo said:Sorry I made that a little too black and white for you Christiaan. There is always that third option. My bad.
Fant, twelve states out of twelve electorates. That means the majority in each state are against Gay Marraige. However, it doesn't mean we should apply the majority opinion into legislation simply because "the people want it!" Marriage has no place in government, and we REALLY should focus on more important issues going on in our world today.
And the way to do that is to leave the legislation out of the matter!heyjoeo said:We should provide legislature that doesn't restrict anyone's rights.
heyjoeo said:We should provide legislature that doesn't restrict anyone's rights. Even if the public is a bunch of homophobes, we shouldn't pass anti-homosexual legislature because "the people want it."
Who are you to say that a gay couple can't be a "family?"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?