Top Court in Massachusetts Says State Can't Deny Gays Right to Marry

[acropolis]

i'm now taking bets on how long until the right wing types bring out the ANTI-FAG AMENDMENT

"Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by acropolis

i'm now taking bets on how long until the right wing types bring out the ANTI-FAG AMENDMENT

Allow me to edit that slightly:

Originally Posted by acropolis

i'm now taking bets on how long until the right wing types bring out yet another ANTI-FAG AMENDMENT

[Nicole]

They're doing it right now actually. Congress is working on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that says marriage is only between a man and a woman. If I can find a link I'll post it.

[AllFather|away]

finaly !

[Nicole]

This one's a few months old but here it is

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...08/13/GAYS.TMP

[acropolis]

see y'all later, I'm off to have a menage a quatre with a small boy, a goat, and a traffic cone.

[NEWSBOT3]

Too many people do not understand what marriage is, which is why the divorce rates in the uk and us are so high in recent years.

marriage is the joining of a man and a woman, not a man and a man nor a woman and a woman.

marriage is not 'what people who have been a relationship for a while do'
nor is it , as many people choose to abuse it these days, just a way of showing commitment to one another because you've been together a while (how many people do you know that got 'engaged' but had no intention to marry ?)

Legally, marriage is a contract with certain rights and responsibilities, but it is not just that.

Its about love, commitment, responsiblities to one another. Its a long term decision, and not one which should be so easily entered into as it is today.

sorry if that happens to offend anyone, but thats my beliefs, so there.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Webster's defines a wedding as the process of removing weeds from ones garden.

[Phang]

NB3: I'm sure they are, and they're the beliefs of plenty of others. Does that mean that homosexuals should be discriminated against? Do you know who else discriminated against a large group of people due to popular opinion?

THAT'S RIGHT

[Nodrog]

I stopped reading at "Marriage is a vital social institution"

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

marriage is the joining of a man and a woman.

not a man and a man nor a woman and a woman.

sorry if that happens to offend anyone, but thats my beliefs.

I had a different dictionary when I was growing up. We could make it the exact same thing with the exact same privileges and responsibilities but just called a sasquatch if you're that worried over semantics though.

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally Posted by Phang

NB3: I'm sure they are, and they're the beliefs of plenty of others. Does that mean that homosexuals should be discriminated against? Do you know who else discriminated against a large group of people due to popular opinion?

THAT'S RIGHT

stop trolling before you make my ignore list.

You assume my views are due to popular opinion, you would be incorrect in this assumption.

i did not say that i disagreed with same sex relationships, i do however feel that marriage is only for male-female relationships, and not any other kind.

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I had a different dictionary when I was growing up. We could make it the exact same thing with the exact same privileges and responsibilities but just called a sasquatch if you're that worried over semantics though.

i didnt think semantics entered into it till you brought it up actually.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

i didnt think semantics entered into it till you brought it up actually.

So can you explain yourself rather than throwing out a statement that can be interpreted in many different ways?

[Aryn]

it's just a word :\

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So can you explain yourself rather than throwing out a statement that can be interpreted in many different ways?

certainly.

marriage = for a man and a woman, and for no other combination and/or partnership.

that do ?

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

certainly.

marriage = for a man and a woman, and for no other combination and/or partnership.

that do ?

so you don't oppose the government changing all appearances of the word 'marriage' to 'civil union' and opening it up to all possible combinations of humans?

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally Posted by acropolis

so you don't oppose the government changing all appearances of the word 'marriage' to 'civil union' and opening it up to all possible combinations of humans?

indeed i would oppose such a thing, but your hardly likely to see me protesting in the streets, thats not my style.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

certainly.

marriage = for a man and a woman, and for no other combination and/or partnership.

that do ?

What logic do you base that on? (I assume you're talking about civil marriages.)

Oh and "Marriage is only for a man and a woman" isn't an argument; it's a statement, and one with very little validity, I might add.

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

What logic do you base that on? (I assume you're talking about civil marriages.)

Oh and "Marriage is only for a man and a woman" isn't an argument; it's a statement, and one with very little validity, I might add.

its an opinion, and how is it not valid ?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

its an opinion, and how is it not valid ?

If you can't give any reasoning to support the statement, then it is likely based on nothing more substantial than prejudice, and therefore I would say it was not valid.

[Nicole]

Well it isn't valid because in several countries men + men, and women + women do in fact get married. So to say that marriage isn't for them when they're walking around being all married is kind of a lie. Because obviously they were granted the marriage, thus making the marriage for them. Unless of course we're going to ignore facts. I understand that you don't "feel" that it is for them. But this doesn't change the fact that there's a bunch of married Danish queers.

It may seem like I'm just being pedantic but your statements are leading to confusion and I think it would be appreciated by all of us contributing to the thread what exactly you stance is on gay marriage and why feel that way. Otherwise you might be attacked for something you didn't exactly say. Assumption is what happens as the result of you being vague.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

certainly.

marriage = for a man and a woman, and for no other combination and/or partnership.

that do ?

So do you think a man and a man who got married somewhere have failed to fulfilled the definition of the term and are in fact something else (not married)? Do you have an objection to same sex couples living together and declaring their love for each other and all the other associated events that marriage implies?

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Nicole

Well it isn't valid because in several countries men + men, and women + women do in fact get married.

Not in English speaking countries?

How do you know they aren't getting sasquatched?

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by acropolis

Not in English speaking countries?

How do you know they aren't getting sasquatched?

I'm pretty sure Canada speaks English. As far as I know homosexuals there can get married, not just have civil unions. But maybe I'm lying for attention.

[Bunga]

Probably because "giftermål" means "marriage" and not "sasquatch". You can look it up.

[pablissimo]

Depends what you're classing as marriage.

'Married under God' can't apply to gay couples simply because the Church says they're not valid unions. And what with it being a religious ceremony they do kinda have a right to say yay or nay.

Civil unions, which most people would call marriage anyway, should of course be open to all couples regardless of sex. The only difference is that the religious element of a 'traditional' marriage isn't a necessity.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nicole

I'm pretty sure Canada speaks English. As far as I know homosexuals there can get married, not just have civil unions. But maybe I'm lying for attention.

If I say you can fly and Canada agrees with me it still doesn't mean you can fly. My point regarded the fact that possibly some elements of the idea of marriage can only occur between a man and a woman depending on definition. A sasquatch would be a marriage without these elements thus removing any objections on the grounds of this sort of union only being possible between a man and a woman due to the inherent nature of marriage or whatever.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Probably because "giftermål" means "marriage" and not "sasquatch". You can look it up.

if 'marriage' is defined to be between a man and a woman, and 'giftermål' can include man/man, then logically giftermål does not mean marriage.

those translation dictionaries make more mistakes than probably any other books of reference.

[Aryn]

this is why religion is stupid.

[W]

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

Too many people do not understand what marriage is, which is why the divorce rates in the uk and us are so high in recent years.

marriage is the joining of a man and a woman, not a man and a man nor a woman and a woman.

marriage is not 'what people who have been a relationship for a while do'
nor is it , as many people choose to abuse it these days, just a way of showing commitment to one another because you've been together a while (how many people do you know that got 'engaged' but had no intention to marry ?)

Legally, marriage is a contract with certain rights and responsibilities, but it is not just that.

Its about love, commitment, responsiblities to one another. Its a long term decision, and not one which should be so easily entered into as it is today.

sorry if that happens to offend anyone, but thats my beliefs, so there.

Apart from the underlined statement I agree completely.

You're overlooking the vital fact that being married in most states convey certain priviledges. Once one kind of people can arbitrarilly get some priviledges and others not, that's prejudice in action. I do not care whether you consider two men or two women or even group marriages as "marriages", as long as everyone gets the same priviledges for the same obligations.


IMO, a marriage is only useful if you have children; that's the only gain society gets out of this stability, that children have better conditions to grow up under. Whether the children is genetically of the married couple, of one of the parners, adopted, or grown in an artificial womb, I do not care.

[Vermillion]

There are two kinds of marriage. Civil and religious.

The gay marriage debate has NOTHING to do with religious marriages, I say again, Nothing. If a nation like Canada passed gay marriage laws, Churches still have the right not to allow gays to get married by them. Just as they can forbid divorced people from getting married in them, just as they can forbid non-believers or other faiths from getting married in them. They can forbid anyone they like from getting a religious marriage in their church, and then spend all day sitting around wondering why the world is becoming more and more secular.

In Canada, and Denmark and two other western countries I cannot be bothered to look up, homosexuals of both genders are allowed to get married in a civil union. They are married under the law, and enjoy all the privileges (and disadvantages) of a married couple, up to an including the word married.

Civil marriage has LONG been separate from religious marriage, and has entirely different laws and regulations. There is a clear separation of church and state in most western countries, and this is the perfect example of it.

So, now that we have established that religious arguments have NOTHING AT ALL to do with this debate, please feel free to try and provide any non-religious argument why homosexuals should not be allowed to get married.

Further, if you believe marriage is about children, then I assume you will wish to pass laws preventing post menopausal women or infertile men from getting married?

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

If I say you can fly and Canada agrees with me it still doesn't mean you can fly. My point regarded the fact that possibly some elements of the idea of marriage can only occur between a man and a woman depending on definition. A sasquatch would be a marriage without these elements thus removing any objections on the grounds of this sort of union only being possible between a man and a woman due to the inherent nature of marriage or whatever.

Yes, and I agree. I wasn't arguing against removing the semantic obstacle to getting homosexuals the rights of marriage. My point was that in other countries there are gay couples who for all intents and purposes are in fact married. And when I say that I mean legally since I guess in Ontario and in B.C. the term they use is marriage and it affords them the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual marriage. As for it not being equal to a U.S. marriage (and that's what I was referring to since the topic discussed gay marriage in a US state) the US has always considered Canadian marriages to be valid in the states as well. So I felt the two definitions of marriage in each country were comparable. Obviously now things have changed since a homosexual marriage in Canada doesn't give you any rights if you live in the states.

I think I'm getting off track from your point, but what I'm trying to say is that I absolutely agree. I don't think it matters what it's called as long as it's equal. As far as I'm concerned they could call it the "****ing Dyke box-chowing union" and I wouldn't care.

[Bunga]

Originally Posted by acropolis

if 'marriage' is defined to be between a man and a woman, and 'giftermål' can include man/man, then logically giftermål does not mean marriage.

those translation dictionaries make more mistakes than probably any other books of reference.

As a fluent speak of both languages, I can tell you that gifternål does in fact mean marriage. Logically then, mearriage is not exclusive to a woman / man relationship.

And Pab, it could still be a marriage "Under God" as there are churches which allow man / man or woman / woman marriages. It just depends what "God" you use.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Civil marriage has LONG been separate from religious marriage, and has entirely different laws and regulations. There is a clear separation of church and state in most western countries, and this is the perfect example of it.

What's the universally accepted definition of civil marriage then?

[Aryn]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

What's the universally accepted definition of civil marriage then?

legal marriage outside of the church?


nicole's right.. same sex marriages are allowed here in BC... ofc we're also on teh verge of having marijauana legalized
we like to have open minds here :P

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

What's the universally accepted definition of civil marriage then?

A civil marriage is defined as a marriage administered and legislated by the civil authorities.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Bunga

As a fluent speak of both languages, I can tell you that gifternål does in fact mean marriage. Logically then, mearriage is not exclusive to a woman / man relationship.

And Pab, it could still be a marriage "Under God" as there are churches which allow man / man or woman / woman marriages. It just depends what "God" you use.

That's why I left it as 'The Church' since most sub-sets of the major religions don't allow same-sex marriages to be recognised, and to be honest I couldn't think of any major ones that were 'ok' with the whole idea.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

A civil marriage is defined as a marriage administered and legislated by the civil authorities.

That's a tautology. I mean what is the definition of marriage?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

That's a tautology. I mean what is the definition of marriage?

I think there's tax benefits and the like which refer to the institution.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

That's a tautology. I mean what is the definition of marriage?

It may be a tautology, but its what we have. Civil authorities define marriage, then administer it. In most states, the Churches are allowed to hold religious marriages which are respected by the civil authorities. There is no universal definition, as by definition marriage in this context is defined by the civil authorities. In the west, there is a large degree of commonality among nations about the efinition of a civil marriage, with gay marriages being a notable exception.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

It may be a tautology, but its what we have. Civil authorities define marriage, then administer it. In most states, the Churches are allowed to hold religious marriages which are respected by the civil authorities. There is no universal definition, as by definition marriage in this context is defined by the civil authorities. In the west, there is a large degree of commonality among nations about the efinition of a civil marriage, with gay marriages being a notable exception.

So could a society who changed/retained (as i'm not sure if they're not already like this) their definition of it, presumably by some sort of democratic referendum, to exclude same-sex marriages would that be justifiable?

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So could a society who changed/retained (as i'm not sure if they're not already like this) their definition of it, presumably by some sort of democratic referendum, to exclude same-sex marriages would that be justifiable?

Good question. Depends on the nation I suppose. Canada should not be able to, as in this case the will of the people would go directly against our Charter of Rghts and freedome. The people cannot (or should not be able to) vote to violate such a matter.

Nations which do not have such bills of rights may of course vote to opress whomever they wish, and while this is (to my mind) unfortunate, it is their right, just as it is the right to oppress women, religions or other minorities.

But does the ability to do something in a justifiable manner make it 'right'? In most cases I will bet that the vote against would be taken out of religious belief or out of intolerance. (Isnt it funny how often those two amount to the same thing?)

I am not in the mood to get into social relativism here. Lets keep it to a logical debate, and in that vein, have still not hear a single non-religious argument against same-sex marriages.

[Radical Edward]

God Made Adam And Eve Not Adam And Steve

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by idimmu

No i dont think gays should be allowed to marry, as it will be a deterrent against being gay and thus install a decent moral structure back in to the world.

<3 idi

[Marilyn Manson]

i dont think idimmu should be allowed to post, as it will be a deterrent against being twatish and thus install a decent moral structure back in to the forums.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by idimmu

No i dont think gays should be allowed to marry, as it will be a deterrent against being gay and thus install a decent moral structure back in to the world.

exactly, since the gay adgenda started, the world has been going to pot. I am looking forward to the day when Jesus descents from the clouds and takes all us good people with him. it's gonna be awesome.

[W]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So could a society who changed/retained (as i'm not sure if they're not already like this) their definition of it, presumably by some sort of democratic referendum, to exclude same-sex marriages would that be justifiable?

Democracy is a dangerous thing.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

God Made Adam And Eve Not Adam And Steve

Ah, but in the Bible, Christ consistently says, "get thee behind me satan".

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

exactly, since the gay adgenda started, the world has been going to pot. I am looking forward to the day when Jesus descents from the clouds and takes all us good people with him. it's gonna be awesome.

Dude, that's already happened.