Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional
 

Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

I particularly like Bush's remarks:What a dolt.

Is it doltish to put out a statement that, according to polling, 60% of Americans believe is the case?

Or is it that you believe it is doltish that Bush really believes what he is saying?

If the latter, then you are of course saying that 60% of Americans are doltish. While you would get agreement from the majority at this site on that point, all polling in Canada and Europe indicates a belief in his doltishness, but a respect for the American people. That sorta' flies in the face of intellectual honesty to say the least.

However, supressing/opressing a minority in society never makes it okay because a majority wishes to do that. It doesn't matter which arguments are used when these things happens. We are all equal or not, can't be reasoned away. So say it like it is, some people are just not worth as much as I am, or shut up about it. Can't have basic rights for people and at the same time denying certain groups the very same rights.

Hooray for Massachusetts!

I already expect Bush to have the feelings he does; I'm over it. However, it pleases me that a judicial court would rule this way. It's not something I WOULDN'T expect, but it's not something I'd have been certain about either.

I'd just like to point out theres a difference between a legal marriage and a religious marriage. I think Bush is confusing the matter, which is especially wrong in a country that is supposedly secular. The issue should have nothing to do with the religious defnition of marriage at all, and merely the extension of rights gained in the legal act of marriage to anyone who wants to make that commitment. The sooner he accepts that the better for everyone.

May God Bless America.

Secular?

America, the country I'll never be able to fully understand.

That Bush guy surely is a strange man...

Britannica.com:

Some people seem to follow a set of non-existant universal World Laws to base their judgement. I doubt there's anything said in "World Law" about Gay marriages being wrong or illegal. Nor is there any such thing in the Constitution, as far as my knowledge goes.

A lot of people seem to think it says so in the bible anyway... (note: I'm not saying it does)

... don't get me started on Bush.:pan:

It is doltish not to respect the "minority".

It should be noted that the court case ruling doesn't mandate the state to marry the two "plaintiffs" (or whatever they're called). All it's doing is giving the state's legislative branch (that's funny-langue for "Congress") 180 days (I think that's the term, anywho) to come up with a semantic loophole to the legal marriage/religious marriage thing (most likely, the same "civil unions" that Vermont allows), or to amend the state's consitution, so that the court ruling becomes irrelevant. The state's governor is really opposed to letting two people of the same gender marry (and has the congress on his side, IIRC), so the latter is a lot more likely than it'd usually be (in the US, consitutional amendments are ass-harder to pass than laws).

And don't kindle the flame. :)

Yes, I know the meaning of the word. :rolleyes: My two lines are to be read as one comment.

Even then, those people seem to ignore that this is a country where there's supposed to be separation of "church and state."

Why must one religion dictate the way the country lives?

One of the points brought up by a friend of mine is that if it was/were a full-on marriage, instead of a civil marriage, then if, say, a church denied you the right to wed under their services solely based on your genders, you would be able to sue (or, hypothetically, be able to win a lawsuit). I'm not an expert, so I can't confirm or deny that statement.

Wouldn't the church be given a fine anyway?

:confused: Why?

Because it would be against the law?

What law?