What a novel concept the court has now handed the people. The black robed ones will allow the people of Massachuesetts to decide the issue. What issue you might ask? Good question. The issue is being framed by the liberals like they framed the abortion issue.
Massachusetts Court Clears Way to Ban Same-Sex Marriage
BOSTON, July 10 — The same court that made Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriage ruled Monday that the state legislature and voters can decide whether to ban such unions in the future through a constitutional amendment.
Supporters of gay rights tried to block the proposal by arguing in a lawsuit that the state constitution bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.
The issue has already been framed as a ‘ban’ on gay marriage. Instead it is an attempt by the culture to define what marriage will be. Will it be what marriage has been historically? Or will marriage’s definition become so non-descript that it could mean any two (or more) people who share more than just a house?
No matter what, the ruling will not really reverse anything. And with a number of ‘wed’ same sex couples already on the books it seems unikely that any permanent solution will be found. For example. If the national definition of marriage is achieved and defined as one man - one woman then how will the courts (the way they rule now) accept permanent ‘discrimination’ against their lifestyles?
The next step?
The Supreme Judicial Court rejected that argument, ruling unanimously that the measure is not a reversal of its earlier ruling legalizing same-sex marriage because it would leave intact the marriages of same-sex couples who already had wed.
The state legislature will now take up the question in a constitutional convention Wednesday. Two consecutive legislative sessions have to approve the proposal, which would restrict marriage to between one man and one woman, before it could be placed on the 2008 ballot. Supporters need to win the votes of 50 lawmakers — 25 percent of the legislature — in both sessions.
Well, the liberals have succeeded in framing the issue once again. You might ask who framed Roger Rabbit when he was caught getting married to Peter Cottentail. Ahhh… when will they begin re-writting history and the childrens’ books? Lets watch and see how this unfolds.
6 Responses
Some things to think about:
1. No church or other religious institution will ever have to perform a gay wedding if it chooses not to. civil marriage and religious ceremonies are two diffrent things. Take divorce, for example. The Catholic church doesn’t recognize it, but it’s still legal. No one is forcing the Catholic church to allow divorces.
2. Ther are now millions of gay couples living together in the U.S., but even if there were only a few, why deny these people the right to marry who they choose? In no way will men who want to marry women, and vice versa, be denied that right. This is not radically changing the definition of marriage, it’s adding to it. There are people whose lives are diminished by not being able to marry the person they love. That’s what it all comes down to.
3. Orthodox Jews do not eat pork because of a Biblical prohibition, specifically in the book of Leviticus. Shall we outlaw pork because it violates the Word of God, according to Orthodox Jews? Since when do we enact laws based on religious beliefs?
Posted on July 11th, 2006 at 9:44 am
THERE IS GREAT JOY IN HEAVEN RIGHT NOW AMONG THE ENGLISH-AMERICAN PILGRIM & PURITAN FOREFATHERS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
THERE IS ALSO GREAT JOY IN HEAVEN IN GENERAL:
AND GREAT MISERY AND DEFEAT IN HELL ITSELF. . . . . .
AND IN THE SATANIC VATICAN ! ! ! ! ! !
Posted on July 11th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Yes, what a novel idea. Even though Mass would probably be the only state to vote for it, let them make the decision.
Posted on July 13th, 2006 at 12:32 am
Steve,
Your comments were well-reasoned, but there were several serious flaws.
Concerning point 1: You said, \”No church or other religious institution will ever have to perform a gay wedding if it chooses not to.\” That is not a guarantee. Gays are pushing for equal \”rights\” everywhere else, and churches are probably next.
Concerning point 2: You said, \”In no way will men who want to marry women, and vice versa, be denied that right.\” You added: \”There are people whose lives are diminished by not being able to marry the person they love. That’s what it all comes down to.\”
Actually, men are sometimes denied the right to marry women. Under the law, they cannot marry first cousins, sisters, or other immediate family members. That\’s even if they love each other. So much for that argument.
Daniel J. Mount
Posted on July 14th, 2006 at 6:54 am
Nicely done Daniel.
Posted on July 14th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Thanks!
Posted on July 15th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Add A Comment