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?

I'm not sure you could sue the church for this... Well, you could try, but I don't know if you'd have much of a case. I mean, if a Baptist church (just picking a random one) doesn't allow same-sex marriages under religious reasons, how can you challenge that? If they do allow it, great, but it's not like you can sue a Christian church for not recognizing Buddha or something even if you do. If it's not part of their strictures, they have no obligation to recognize it. As far as CIVIL marriages go, though, it's absurd not to allow same-sex marriages.

I agree. Civil unions are the companion to religious marriages in various states (at least Vermont and maybe others). Bush is speaking only about the latter. However, he has never faced up to the question of civil unions and has ducked it. I would hope he would favor them, but am unsure if he does or not. Likewise, all the Dems running for president with the exception of Sharpton, have never faced up to the question of religious marriages and have ducked it. That is a much closer call I think.

Depends on the minority. Poor white trash is regularly disrespected in this county, along with child pornographers, serial killers and so on.

Isn't that what this thread is about? Making it a law to allow same-sex marriages? :confused:

No, it's on whether or not a ban would be considered Constitutional.

But if same-sex marriage was established as Constitutional, wouldn't that make it illegal not to allow it?

Go back and read your post that Twif was referring to when he said "What law?" You said something to the effect of "Wouldn't a church get fined if they didn't allow same-sex marriages?" and then when Twif asked why you said because that's the law. There's no such law, though.

I quoted twifs post where he was talking hypothetically... So I was too. Note that I wrote "because it would be the law", not "because it is the law". Sorry if I didn't convey this properly.

Ah, ok. Though I still don't think it would be possible to fine churches for this type of thing. See my above post. I think it's within the scope of a church to determine whether marriages conducted under their authority can be same-sex. That's different from legal (non-religious) marriages, which should absolutely allow same-sex unions. Of course, I'd think its great if a church allowed it as well, but if they don't that's their perogative.

Yes well, as far as I know, a religion wedding is not a wedding at all as far as laws are concerned, so obviously a law about same-sex weddings wouldn't apply to the church.
I guess they'll have to change their way of thinking all by themselves... jeez, that's gonna be hard.
(they meaning priests and the like)

Point taken, you can stop triple posting now. j/k ;)

ME?????
Did no such thing! :p

Yeah, I didn't realize you were speaking hypo, Garyos.

The 1st amendment definitely works in favor of churches, but keep in mind that religion doesn't get free reign. They may have sacred confessionals and all that, but just because there's a Church of Smoking Weed doesn't make it legal.* So, as always, I admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough to make a rational decision on gay marriages.

*That was also hypothetical. Sorry to disappoint.

Actually there *was* one. It wasn't actually called the church of smoking weed, but it did claim that that was necessary to their religious procedures. They got busted tho :P

No, they just moved to Canada.

I thought it was an American Indian tribe whose religious ceremonies included Peyote.

there must have been two different groups, the one I read about was nothing like that .. it was on the ridiculous side .. fark had linked to the story.

Yes, but 40% of the population doesn't support serial killers. Hell, about 40% of people supported Bush around election time.

"Close your eyes, give me your hand, darling.
Do you feel my heart beating?
Do you understand?
Do you feel the same?
Am I only dreaming?
Is this burning an eternal flame?

I believe it's meant to be, darling.
I watch you when you are sleeping.
You belong with me.
Do you feel the same?
Am I only dreaming,
Or is this burning an eternal flame?"
--The Bangles

Nah, you're just dreaming. Pinch yourself.