Mass. Court Allows Legislature to Consider Placing Gay Marriage Ban on Ballot

[Geekybrunette]

No... it like saying that since only a certian set of people should have guns, then people not within that set should not have guns.

Marriage is defined as a union betwen a man and woman; a man and a man is not a man and a woman, and so cannot marry.

Fundamentally, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Change any of those fundamentals (a, man, woman), and its not a marriage.

Marriage was also once defined as a union between a virgin woman and her rapist. (deuteronomy 22:28-29) (whether she liked it or not)

It was also defined as the union of a male soldier and a female prisoner of war (whether she liked it or not)

It was also defined as the union of a widow would did not bear her dead husband any children and her brother in law (whether she liked it or not)

Why change the definition then if you're unwilling to change the definition now?

Also, some religions do allow two people of the same sex to have a marriage. I guess those religions shouldn't get to use the word marriage either (even if just within their own walls).

 

[Geekybrunette]

I know a lot of African Americans that would be offended by their 600 year fight for equality as a race to a class of people who are defined by their sexual preference.........

Read my double post (which has an edit in it). I could probably dig up examples that don't include African Americans, but it's midnight and I need to get to bed. If I play your game and find some other examples will that make you happy?

 

[RightinNYC]

And people who supported segregation were just of a different culture. That doesn't mean that they weren't also racist.

And I think it's despicable that there are those in our country who still support wholesale discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action, but I don't wander the countryside calling them all racists.

 

[Geekybrunette]

I know a lot of African Americans that would be offended by their 600 year fight for equality as a race to a class of people who are defined by their sexual preference.........

Ok. Fine. Played your stupid game. Adultery used to be a crime. Go back far enough and it was punishable by death. Most people agreed with this. Does that make it right? If it was right back then, what makes it not right today?

 

[RightinNYC]

I think the issue is more about why are those who are against gay marriage against it? What are you afraid of? What will happen to society? What will happen to the "family" as we now know it?

For people like me, I just don't see how anyone else's family situation has any impact on my marriage. If my neighbor beats his wife, how does that impact me (aside from calling the police if I witness the abuse)? Does that lessen my morals, my husband's morals, etc?

Not to correlate spousal abuse with gay marriage, but your comment leaves me with a question...

You may be correct in saying that if your neighbor beats his wife, it doesnt not impact your marriage or your morals.

But do you want to live in a society where spousal abuse is endorsed legally, or even tacitly approved?

 

[aps]

Not to correlate spousal abuse with gay marriage, but your comment leaves me with a question...

You may be correct in saying that if your neighbor beats his wife, it doesnt not impact your marriage or your morals.

But do you want to live in a society where spousal abuse is endorsed legally, or even tacitly approved?

You know, I realize what a bad example I provided because there is no way that spousal abuse can be equivalent to gay marriage in my eyes.

 

[RightinNYC]

We will see. The conservative movement is dead, Navy Pride, and Massachusetts is leading the way to better days of true freedom.

Hahahahaaahahah, you're joking, right?

I mean, you are kind of right though. I remember back in 1993 when the Republicans controlled the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Court. But now, just 13 years later, the Democrats have taken control of everything.

Oh whatever will us poor marginalized conservatives do?

 

[Goobieman]

Marriage was also once defined as a union between a virgin woman and her rapist. (deuteronomy 22:28-29) (whether she liked it or not)

It was also defined as the union of a male soldier and a female prisoner of war (whether she liked it or not)

It was also defined as the union of a widow would did not bear her dead husband any children and her brother in law (whether she liked it or not)

Why change the definition then if you're unwilling to change the definition now?

What's changed?
Each of these have one thing in common:
A man, A woman.

Also, some religions do allow two people of the same sex to have a marriage.

Like...?

 

[Geekybrunette]

What's changed?
Each of these have one thing in common:
A man, A woman.

Why not support them then? They were tradition after all. In any case, in the past Christian men were allowed to have multiple wives, one wife and some concubines, or multiple wives and multiple concubines. Also, if a woman owned a female slave and was unable to have children, she could give her slave to her husband as a special type of wife so that he would have an heir.

Like...?

Some ministers in the United Church of Canada. Reform Judaism and The Anglican Diocese of New Westminster in British Columbia allow their rabbis and churches to bless same sex unions (but they don't call them marriage). Unitarian Universalist Churches, some Quaker congregations, and the Metropolitan Community Church all allow same sex marriage. There are probably many smaller religions and cultures that have allowed it throughout history as well. I may research this further later.

 

[Goobieman]

Why not support them then?

Unless you REALLY want to argue that "Marrige" has not been, over the last several thousand years, defined as a union of a man and a woman, there isnt much more for me to say here. You might be able to find -some- examples of this not being the case, but that doesnt in any way invalidate the fundamental condition that is marriage.

 

[Geekybrunette]

Unless you REALLY want to argue that "Marrige" has not been, over the last several thousand years, defined as a union of a man and a woman, there isnt much more for me to say here. You might be able to find -some- examples of this not being the case, but that doesnt in any way invalidate the fundamental condition that is marriage.

All you want to debate is that marriage has been largely recognized in the Western world as the union between one man and one woman over the past few hundred or thousand years? :rofl Talk about only wanting to pick fights with ten year olds.

Look, both definitions and traditions do change. I showed you at one point there were marriages where one or more parties involved were not willing and there were marriages where men had multiple wives and concubines.

If the current definition and tradition is so important to you that it can never change (or at least not change now), why did we ever change it in the first place? Would you be happy if they had never changed it to this day? That's all I'm asking.

If you're happy with the way the definition is today, fine, you're entitled to that - but would you also be happy if the definition stayed like those in ancient times?

 

[Goobieman]

All you want to debate is that marriage has been largely recognized in the Western world as the union between one man and one woman over the past few hundred or thousand years?

The point here is that there IS no debate on this issue.
Marriage has -clearly- been held as a union between a man and a woman.
And to change that is to make a fundamental change to marriage -- changing it from marriage to something else.

:rofl Talk about only wanting to pick fights with ten year olds.

That's the feeling I have, yes.

 

[Kandahar]

And I think it's despicable that there are those in our country who still support wholesale discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action, but I don't wander the countryside calling them all racists.

Good for you. You're more tolerant of intolerance than I am. That doesn't mean I'm wrong.

 

[TheNextEra]

Marriage has -clearly- been held as a union between a man and a woman.

Actually it hasn't. There used to be polygamy. So marriage HAS NOT always been defined as a union between a man and a woman.

 

[southern_liberal]

Can you give me and example of where conservatives wnet to activist judges to turn back the will of the people?

- 2000 presidential election. Federal courts should not have gotten involved with a state's election. Conservatives complain about federal interference unless it's to their benefit. So much for states rights.:blowup:

 

[Goobieman]

- 2000 presidential election. Federal courts should not have gotten involved with a state's election. Conservatives complain about federal interference unless it's to their benefit. So much for states rights.:blowup:

States do not have the right to violate federal law of the US Constitution -- the issues at hand in the 2000 election.

Given those issues, the Supreme Court had every "right" to get involved -- never mind that the Supreme Court has appelate jusirdiction from any and all appeals from any State Supreme Court.

 

[drobforever]

Actually it hasn't. There used to be polygamy. So marriage HAS NOT always been defined as a union between a man and a woman.

But but....

don't tell anyone! :lol:

 

[southern_liberal]

States do not have the right to violate federal law of the US Constitution -- the issues at hand in the 2000 election.

Given those issues, the Supreme Court had every "right" to get involved -- never mind that the Supreme Court has appelate jusirdiction from any and all appeals from any State Supreme Court.

Okay. are you saying Five justices of the Supreme Court had the right to decide who would get Florida's electoral votes? My understanding is that was for the people of the state of Florida to decide not a federal court.

What federal constitutional law was the State of Florida violating? Their state supreme court was handling what was clearly a state problem, not a federal one

No one is disputing that The Supreme Court doesn't trump state courts. The original question was along the lines of when have a federal court defied the will of the people. The federal court clearly defied the will of the people of Florida by getting involved something was definitely a state matter.

 

[Deegan]

Actually it hasn't. There used to be polygamy. So marriage HAS NOT always been defined as a union between a man and a woman.

And hence the reason they called it "polygamy" and not "marriage":doh

 

[Goobieman]

Okay. are you saying Five justices of the Supreme Court had the right to decide who would get Florida's electoral votes? My understanding is that was for the people of the state of Florida to decide not a federal court.

5 justices are enough to decide anything that goes before the court.

But in this case, 7 (not 5) of the justices decided that the means through which the state of FL was to evaluate the ballots in the FL election, and some of the court decisions surrounding those means, violate the US Constitution.

What federal constitutional law was the State of Florida violating? Their state supreme court was handling what was clearly a state problem, not a federal one

Not one, but three:
-Federal law dictates that you cannot change election law during an election. The FLSC changed election law during the election
-The US Constitution dictates that the state legislatures determine the means theu which the electors are chose. The FLSC changed FL election law, threby creating election law, and therefore acted against this provision
-The 14th Aemdnemtn requires that states provide equal protection in its laws; FL election law violated the EP clause by failing to specify a consistent standard of manually evaluating ballots

The original question was along the lines of when have a federal court defied the will of the people.

That's what courts do when laws violate the Constitution.
And lets not forget -- the people dont have a right to vote for President, as the peopel don't elect the President.

The federal court clearly defied the will of the people of Florida by getting involved something was definitely a state matter.

Becuse FL state law and the FLSC violated the US Constitutuion and US law.

 

[TheNextEra]

And hence the reason they called it "polygamy" and not "marriage":doh

It was still known as marriage.

 

[Alex]

Hahahahaaahahah, you're joking, right?

I mean, you are kind of right though. I remember back in 1993 when the Republicans controlled the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Court. But now, just 13 years later, the Democrats have taken control of everything.

Oh whatever will us poor marginalized conservatives do?

Saying that the conservative movement is dead was a stretch on my part, I actually do not believe this. I probably should have said it is seriously losing ground. Better?

 

[Alex]

And I think it's despicable that there are those in our country who still support wholesale discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action, but I don't wander the countryside calling them all racists.

So you approve of the equality of race but not sexuality? What is the difference?

 

[RightinNYC]

Good for you. You're more tolerant of intolerance than I am. That doesn't mean I'm wrong.

No, it means you're closeminded and abrasive in your intolerane of other people's beliefs. Arguments phrased the way you have phrased yours in this entire thread are what those who are opposed to legislative legalization of gay marriage will dredge up to use as fuel for the fire.

 

[RightinNYC]

Saying that the conservative movement is dead was a stretch on my part, I actually do not believe this. I probably should have said it is seriously losing ground. Better?

No, because its still incredibly factually untrue.

If you ask people for political identification, the general US public considers itself to be 35% conservative, 18% liberal, and 47% independent.