so why bother having a Supreme Court then?

"The purpose of the [180-day] stay was to afford the Legislature an opportunity to conform the existing statutes to the provisions of the decision," the majority wrote.
Click to expand...
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=100893DA7A4E149E&p_docnum=4

In Massachusetts, however, the Supreme Judicial Court has done the heavy lifting: Gay marriage will be allowed May 17 without any action on Beacon Hill. The Supreme Judicial Court made that clear yesterday, telling the Senate that creating civil unions - even with all the benefits, rights, and responsibilities of marriage - didn't meet the constitutional requirements of its Nov. 18 ruling on gay marriage. The court noted that the 180-day delay it included in its Nov. 18 decision was designed to "afford the Legislature an opportunity to conform the existing statutes to the provisions," not to give legislators time to craft a civil union-type alternative.
Click to expand...

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=100893DA89719121&p_docnum=2
 
Shadowfax said:
because herr bush doesn't like gay marriages because of his damned pure christian point of view, it needs to be banned....right.

some people just happen to love somebody from their own sex, big deal. if the love is true, and they want to seal that by marriage, then it should be possible.

even though bush' fragile little mind can't understand it.
Click to expand...
I truly don't think he cares one way or the other. I think that half of what he does isn't out of personal conviction, but out of political necessity in keeping those who vote for him happy and continuing to vote for him. Politics is a thin razor edge to walk upon at best. If Bush started to stray too far from the religious ideologies, even the dumb ones, a healthy chunk of the population would vote for one of the more extremeist candidates... not that that candidate would win; it would just sap enough votes away to hand the victory to the left centrist front runner. Its a delicate game and I think hes smarter than than most of you give him credit for.
 
unclehobart said:
I truly don't think he cares one way or the other. I think that half of what he does isn't out of personal conviction, but out of political necessity in keeping those who vote for him happy and continuing to vote for him. Politics is a thin razor edge to walk upon at best. If Bush started to stray too far from the religious ideologies, even the dumb ones, a healthy chunk of the population would vote for one of the more extremeist candidates... not that that candidate would win; it would just sap enough votes away to hand the victory to the left centrist front runner. Its a delicate game and I think hes smarter than than most of you give him credit for.
Click to expand...

I disagree unc. I think he devoutly believes his religious ideologies, especially the dumb ones. I fear your kidding yourself if you believe otherwise. After all, he has said in public that god told him to attack Afghhanistan and Iraq. This just doesn't sound like someone paying lip service to me.
 
Can someone find a quote of him saying the part with "gold told [me] to attack" that's not translated out of arabic first?

Dammit. Perhaps this issue needs to be on the ballot this year and then we'll see if Americans do or don't want (or care about) gay marriages.
 
I would really like someone to explain to me how it affects them in the least. I mean, if you're not gay, but the couple next door is and they get married, why does that matter to you at all? Does it hurt you in some way? Do you think your marraige is somehow not as meaningful then? Explain this to me please.
 
It's probably another we hate Bush myth.

I'd be all for a full public vote. However, as was shown in California (re: the immigrants) the people are morons & the court knows best.
 
chcr said:
I disagree unc. I think he devoutly believes his religious ideologies, especially the dumb ones. I fear your kidding yourself if you believe otherwise. After all, he has said in public that god told him to attack Afghhanistan and Iraq. This just doesn't sound like someone paying lip service to me.
Click to expand...
If that is true, then I would suggest prozac and a thai hooker to help him vent his stress. After all, a happy president makes happy decisions.
 
PuterTutor said:
I would really like someone to explain to me how it affects them in the least. I mean, if you're not gay, but the couple next door is and they get married, why does that matter to you at all? Does it hurt you in some way? Do you think your marraige is somehow not as meaningful then? Explain this to me please.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!!!!!!!
 
PT, it's not the persons involved, it's the institution of marriage.AFter 1,3,5,10 thousand years, suddenly we're going to redefine it because somebody has their feelings tied in a knot?
 
unclehobart said:
If that is true, then I would suggest prozac and a thai hooker to help him vent his stress. After all, a happy president makes happy decisions.
Click to expand...

:rofl: Part of his campaign boiled down to (as Bill Mahr Says) "We only fuck our wives."
 
PuterTutor said:
I would really like someone to explain to me how it affects them in the least. I mean, if you're not gay, but the couple next door is and they get married, why does that matter to you at all? Does it hurt you in some way? Do you think your marraige is somehow not as meaningful then? Explain this to me please.
Click to expand...
So long as the government and the courts are intertwined with th very fabric of marriages, its going to be their business to regulate it just as much as they would booze and gambling. There are rights of spousal inheritance, it modifies tax returns, all kids of subtle goodies... but its all just smoke and mirrors to cover up that they find homosexual unions to be distasteful to themselves. Laws aren't meant to regulate how you run your own life... laws are meant to force your neighbor into compying with your ideology.
 
Gonz said:
PT, it's not the persons involved, it's the institution of marriage.AFter 1,3,5,10 thousand years, suddenly we're going to redefine it because somebody has their feelings tied in a knot?
Click to expand...

why shouldn't the institution of marriage be changed? just because conservative people can't imagine that gay people want to be able to marriage just as easily as heterosexual ones? is the love they feel any less? i don't think so.

it should be redefined because time and places change. it's pretty shortsighted to say "it's been this way all this long, so why change it?"

the world changes, and the 'rules' set 2,000 yrs ago aren't as valid as they were back then. wake up.
 
Expanding on Unc's bit a little.

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Click to expand...

Say Mass okays gay marriage & Oklahoma doesn't. When the married gay couple moves to OK, how do they file their tax returns in OK? They aren't married...wait, are they?

IV, 1....is now going to force other states to change their laws?
 
Thousands of years sticking our collective noses in people's private lives Shadow. Some of us evidently think it's our divine right.
 
Force what? It's not taking a huge fucking leap here, Gonz. It's getting married. Jesus fucking christ I am so goddam tired of stupid fucking people. No, I'm not talking about you Gonz.
 
Shadowfax said:
why shouldn't the institution of marriage be changed? just because conservative people can't imagine that gay people want to be able to marriage just as easily as heterosexual ones? is the love they feel any less? i don't think so.

it should be redefined because time and places change. it's pretty shortsighted to say "it's been this way all this long, so why change it?"

the world changes, and the 'rules' set 2,000 yrs ago aren't as valid as they were back then. wake up.
Click to expand...


When something has worked for so long, who are the liberals to fuck it up? (look how well no fault divorce has worked) wake up...


if it ain't broke don't fix it
 
PuterTutor said:
Force what? It's not taking a huge fucking leap here, Gonz. It's getting married. Jesus fucking christ I am so goddam tired of stupid fucking people. No, I'm not talking about you Gonz.
Click to expand...


By getting married in MA, OK would be forced to change their laws if/when a gay couple moves there due to the Constitution.
 
Gonz said:
When something has worked for so long, who are the liberals to fuck it up? (look how well no fault divorce has worked) wake up...


if it ain't broke don't fix it
Click to expand...

worked great huh, marriage? any idea how many people get DIVORCED per year? so far for the illusional glamour of marriage.

it ain't broke, but it ain't complete either. there is a demand from gay people, who want to be able to get married. so what. it doesn't affect, or harm you in any way does it? does it make your marriage any less precious?

no. it's those damned conservatives who can't get their head out of their ass. disagreeing with that statement? probably. then stop whining about those liberals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top