Author Topic: Massachusetts (Read 2368 times)

stiehl · « **Reply #45 on:** February 06, 2004, 01:01:08 AM »

What if I created the church of stiehl and started marrying 2 or more consenting adults to each other? Wouldn't that be as legitimate as having a rabbi or priest? By banning gay marriage, or not treating it as hetero marriage, you wouldn't be treating religions equally.
Maybe next we can pass an ammendment banning inter-racial marriages, I have a feeling that a lot of the same people for the anti-gay ammendment would be for that one.

Join the church of stiehl.
for the low price of $100, you Won't go to PORK,
where you will be forever chasing p51s while 190d9s BnZ you from above and LA7s rape you from behind

Sandman · « **Reply #46 on:** February 06, 2004, 01:41:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Frogman, apparently you don't understand what's happened. The SCoM has declared the assembly will construct law within 6 months providing for gay marriage, or the SCoM will do so itself. Does that sound right according to our Constitution?

Whew, for a second I thought it was judicial activists legislating from the bench. Or at least, that's what is sounds like when judges tell lawmakers to make a law, tells them exactly how to do it, and threatens to do so itself if the assembly doesn't comply.

I don't recall that the U.S. system of checks and balances necessarily applies to state legislation. Massachusetts has its own constitution.

Sandman · « **Reply #47 on:** February 06, 2004, 01:42:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by stiehl
What if I created the church of stiehl and started marrying 2 or more consenting adults to each other? Wouldn't that be as legitimate as having a rabbi or priest? By banning gay marriage, or not treating it as hetero marriage, you wouldn't be treating religions equally.
Maybe next we can pass an ammendment banning inter-racial marriages, I have a feeling that a lot of the same people for the anti-gay ammendment would be for that one.

You can be ordained here: http://www.ulc.org/

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #48 on:** February 06, 2004, 05:43:36 AM »

There is precedent for defining marriage...

Quote

Utah Trio Challenges State Laws Banning Polygamy

By Pamela Manson
The Salt Lake Tribune

Three Utahns who want to live together legally as husband and wife and wife filed suit Monday against Salt Lake County clerks for refusing to issue a marriage license, challenging prohibitions in state law and the state constitution against bigamy and polygamy.

Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen said her office was merely following a state law that prohibits issuing a marriage license to anyone who has a husband or wife who is still living when they dealt with the trio.

"The law makes it very clear that they can't be married to more than one person," Swensen said. "We're here issuing licenses according to the law."

Kieran · « **Reply #49 on:** February 06, 2004, 06:29:32 AM »

Quote

Maybe next we can pass an ammendment banning inter-racial marriages, I have a feeling that a lot of the same people for the anti-gay ammendment would be for that one.

And you would be pretty ignorant, too.

Kieran · « **Reply #50 on:** February 06, 2004, 06:33:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I don't recall that the U.S. system of checks and balances necessarily applies to state legislation. Massachusetts has its own constitution.

Well then if I understand you, you are perfectly fine with the court telling the legislature to make a law, what the law should say, and threaten the legislature to do so itself if the legislature declines? That doesn't bother you at all?

It does me- a lot. It kinda means it doesn't matter who I vote for, or what the majority of people think. It means the power of the law passes to a select few.

But that's okay? I know you can't be saying that...

Eagler · « **Reply #51 on:** February 06, 2004, 06:56:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by stiehl
By banning gay marriage, or not treating it as hetero marriage, you wouldn't be treating religions equally.
Maybe next we can pass an ammendment banning inter-racial marriages, I have a feeling that a lot of the same people for the anti-gay ammendment would be for that one.

so how long have you had the desire to marry a black man?

Toad · « **Reply #52 on:** February 06, 2004, 07:56:13 AM »

Ah, but any situation like this can be escalated to the National Constitutional level. For example, this can or might be challenged in the SC/US as "unconstitutional".

Or, if enough US Congressmen act an amendment to the US Constitution can be offered which then makes it a "national" issue.

So, there are some checks on the States at the National level. Anything can eventually work it's way to the highest court in the land or any amendment can be attempted.

Note the old guys made this amendment stuff pretty hard to do; a good thing in my opinion.

Tarmac · « **Reply #53 on:** February 06, 2004, 09:49:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Well then if I understand you, you are perfectly fine with the court telling the legislature to make a law, what the law should say, and threaten the legislature to do so itself if the legislature declines? That doesn't bother you at all?

It does me- a lot. It kinda means it doesn't matter who I vote for, or what the majority of people think. It means the power of the law passes to a select few.

But that's okay? I know you can't be saying that...

If it were the US Supreme court doing it, then it would bother me. But since it's the Mass. court, what's the big deal? If that state's constitution is written to allow judicial lawmaking, or it has been established there through precedent, it doesn't affect you in Indiana or me in Michigan. It sounds like they're playing by their rules, so let them.

If you're worried about the effect spilling over to the nation as a whole, then your problem should be with the Federal system that allows it to spill over, not with the state system that is doing things according to its rules.

Kieran · « **Reply #54 on:** February 06, 2004, 10:21:37 AM »

Absolutely right, Tarmac. Massachusetts is not part of the US, er... okay, it is. What happens there does matter to me if it has a potential impact on me in my state. In this case... it does.

Tarmac · « **Reply #55 on:** February 06, 2004, 10:53:07 AM »

I fully support your right to object if this Massachusetts issue if it affects you - I was more trying to point out that it probably shouldn't affect you, Constitutionally speaking.

That's the problem here - that it will affect you. Not that they're doing something a few hundred miles away that you don't agree with.

Kieran · « **Reply #56 on:** February 06, 2004, 11:02:31 AM »

I agree. But I think it needs to have the spotlight shown on it, and it needs to be fought every step of the way.

I wouldn't be happy with the situation if the people of Massachusetts voted for gay marriage, but at least then it would be the majority speaking. This is doubly bad when majority rule doesn't matter. Triply worse because the precedent it sets. In short, from my perspective there is nothing good coming out of this.

Tarmac · « **Reply #57 on:** February 06, 2004, 11:11:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
In short, from my perspective there is nothing good coming out of this.

Except that two consenting adults may be able to have the same rights and priveleges in the government's eyes as two other consenting adults.

Martlet · « **Reply #58 on:** February 06, 2004, 11:23:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tarmac
Except that two consenting adults may be able to have the same rights and priveleges in the government's eyes as two other consenting adults.

they already do.

stiehl · « **Reply #59 on:** February 06, 2004, 11:25:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
so how long have you had the desire to marry a black man?

Technically, I'm considered to be one.