Not even in Massachusets... - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 38 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 01:23 PM Thread Starter
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
Not even in Massachusets...

Apparently the citizenry of Massachusets isn't quite as liberal as their supreme court would lead us to believe. Should this pass, I'd be willing to take back at least half the things I've said about them.

Interestingly, New York and 44 other states already figured out that same-sex marriages are an affront to society and serve no real purpose other than to be outrageous and provocative. Drama abounds.

Take that, lefties.

---------------------------------------------------------------

BOSTON (AP) _ The same court that made Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage ruled Monday that a proposed constitutional amendment to ban future same-sex marriages can be placed on the ballot, if approved by the Legislature.

The ruling was in a lawsuit brought by gay-rights supporters who argued that Attorney General Tom Reilly was wrong to approve the ballot measure because they said the state constitution bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Judicial Court said the proposed amendment is not a ``reversal'' of the court's ruling legalizing gay marriage but a proposed change to the state constitution, which can be legally done through a citizen initiative.

``The underlying substantive law is simply changed to reflect the present intentions of the people, and that new law will be applied thereafter in any subsequent case or cases,'' the court said in its ruling.

Justice John M. Greaney, in a concurring opinion, warned that approving an amendment banning gay marriage would be discriminatory because it would remove the rights of same-sex couples to the legal, social and financial benefits of marriage.

``The only effect of a positive vote will be to make same-sex couples, and their families, unequal to everyone else; this is discrimination in its rawest form,'' Greaney wrote.

With a landmark 2003 ruling, the court cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Massachusetts in May 2004. More than 8,000 gay couples have married since.

The state Legislature is expected to take up the ballot question Wednesday during a constitutional convention.

Citizen-initiated ballot questions must be certified by the attorney general and then approved by two consecutive legislative sessions. Before the marriage question could be placed on the 2008 ballot, supporters would need to win the votes of 50 lawmakers _ 25 percent of the Legislature _ in two consecutive sessions.

Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said she was disappointed but knew it would be an uphill battle. She said the fight is not over.

``So now obviously the focus is going to turn to the Legislature, which has a chance on Wednesday during the constitutional convention to do the right thing and defeat this amendment,'' said Swislow, whose organization filed the lawsuit in January.

Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.

Forty-five states have specifically barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments. Last week, justices on New York's highest court ruled gay marriage is illegal there under state law, and Georgia's high court ruled its state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was legal.

Supporters of a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts predict they will have enough votes to win the first round of approval from the Legislature. They would also need to win approval in the next legislative session.

``We are comfortably in excess of 50 votes,'' said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

``We are very, very excited, elated and pleased with the SJC ruling,'' he said. ``All I can say is justice is alive and well in Massachusetts.''
Qubes is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 38 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 02:27 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
First of, it's spelled "Massachusetts", and they've got plenty of homophobic bigots to go around just like in your own home town.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #3 of 38 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 02:52 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
What is Massachewzits gonna do about this if it passes? Maybe they can get together with Kahnittiket and Kahlifoahnia to simplify both marital arrangements and spelling.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #4 of 38 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 02:54 PM
worst mod in BW history
 
ThrillKill's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: ML CLK Iridescent Hyundai Accent lol,GoPed Freightshaker & Volvo semi's, c'mawn?
Location: Chicago
Posts: 27,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Who gives a massatwoshits?

ThrillKill is offline  
post #5 of 38 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 04:34 PM Thread Starter
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
First of, it's spelled "Massachusetts", and they've got plenty of homophobic bigots to go around just like in your own home town.
That's all you've got???

Apparently, virtually the entire country is a bunch of homophobic bigots. After all, why else would 45 states have outlawed gay marriage? Like we're all stupid enough to think that we'll "catch" homosexuality, or that if we condone it we're gay. Please...

There's no tangible benefit of marriage to which homosexuals are not legally entitled, or deserving. My health care premiums shouldn't go up because the only way Sally and Mary can have a child is through expensive fertilization procedures - if they're allowed to be married, HMO's can't discriminate against them and would need to offer the same treatments at the same rates of coverage as anyone else they insure. Concerns about passing on their wealth in the form of inheritance at time of death, etc. doesn't require them to be married - I could just as soon name a complete stranger as my beneficiary as I could my wife.

Call it whatever you want...call me whatever you want. Until there's proof to the contrary, it can only be assumed that homosexuality is not the result of a genetic disorder or disease. This means it's a lifestyle choice, and it shouldn't be treated as anything else. You can choose to be straight or not - you can choose to obey laws or not. For each choice, there are consequences - some positive, some negative. Really walking out on the limb here, but in my opinion, you invalidate your freedoms and liberties when you choose to exercise them irresponsibly...these are what our laws are for - to protect the rest of us from the lunatic fringe, wherever it may be.
Qubes is online now  
post #6 of 38 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 05:46 PM
BenzWorld Veteran
 
BackRoll23's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 99 E 320
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to BackRoll23 Send a message via MSN to BackRoll23 Send a message via Yahoo to BackRoll23
What is the government doing protecting a religous institution like marriage anyway? Technically, the government should have no part in marriage at all. Leave it in the church. For tax reasons, everyone should be classified as a Civil Union, in terms of the government.

"The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."---Hunter S. Thompson
BackRoll23 is offline  
post #7 of 38 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 05:52 PM Thread Starter
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BackRoll23
What is the government doing protecting a religous institution like marriage anyway? Technically, the government should have no part in marriage at all. Leave it in the church. For tax reasons, everyone should be classified as a Civil Union, in terms of the government.
It's a shame that the phrase "of the people, by the people, for the people" is so seldom present in our minds. I'm one of "the people", and am glad that my representatives are acting in line with not only my beliefs, but the beliefs of the majority of their constituency.

They "protect" the institution because the people have asked them to, and it's a reasonable request in the absence of a compelling argument against.
Qubes is online now  
post #8 of 38 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 06:49 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BackRoll23
What is the government doing protecting a religous institution like marriage anyway? Technically, the government should have no part in marriage at all. Leave it in the church. For tax reasons, everyone should be classified as a Civil Union, in terms of the government.
Hey, quit being rational.

Bot
Botnst is offline  
post #9 of 38 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 08:10 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
It's a shame that the phrase "of the people, by the people, for the people" is so seldom present in our minds. I'm one of "the people", and am glad that my representatives are acting in line with not only my beliefs, but the beliefs of the majority of their constituency.

They "protect" the institution because the people have asked them to, and it's a reasonable request in the absence of a compelling argument against.
Fortunately, we are not a nation ruled by the mob, which is what you are advocating. We are ruled by a constitution. The US Constitution declares that all people are equal before the law. The Declaration of Independence lists three natural rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fact these people stick their cock someplace that bugs you makes you think you have the right to deny them these most basic of human rights, even tho adults sticking their cocks wherever they feel like, as long as all parties are consenting, is no longer illegal. Bottom line: these people are no harm to you, you are the one who wishes to harm them.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #10 of 38 (permalink) Old 07-10-2006, 08:50 PM Thread Starter
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
Bottom line: these people are no harm to you, you are the one who wishes to harm them.
Don't put words in my mouth, you petulant ass. I'm not sure how not jumping on the "everyone's entitled to everything" bandwagon means I wish to do them harm - I've made no such statement, and you're even further off base than usual.

This isn't about whether or not I personally take issue with the lifestyle - I could care less. However, I absolutely refuse to endorse such an abomination by way of passively approving entitlements (i.e. government-funded and government-mandated benefits) being bestowed upon individuals who have opted to lead such a lifestyle.

You can't mask small-mindedness by being pro-everything. It is possible to both abhorr one's actions yet still respect them as individuals. However, if you think that "live and let live" societies are really victimless, you're remarkably small minded. One's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not granted unconditionally - meaning, specifically, you must obey the rules of LAW and you must exercise your rights in such a way that the rights of others are not infringed. The instant that homosexuals are granted a level of recognition by the government that entitles them to ANY right previously enjoyed only by persons married following the laws of nature and scripture (not just Christianity), their rights are infringing on everyone elses. *I* should not be made to bear the encumberance of supporting such lifestyles - the broader majority agrees, so sayeth 45 state legislatures and their supreme courts. That's not "mob rule", it's democracy - just because you find yourself in the minority doesn't mean we don't still have a democracy.

Keep in mind that marriage is primarily a religious institution. The separation of church and state is called for so that America - as a country - neither sponsors or condemns a religion. It very specifically does NOT mean that America - as a country - is devoid of religion.

Last edited by Qubes; 07-10-2006 at 08:53 PM.
Qubes is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome