Gay marriage more important than law in Mass.

Discussion in 'Health and Lifestyle' started by Avatar4321, Sep 29, 2006.

  1. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,529
    Thanks Received:
    8,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,148
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060929/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

    A judge ruled today that a gay couple from R.I. could marry in Mass. today. This despite the fact that Massachusetts has a long standing statute prohibiting couples from other states marrying in Massachusetts to avoid their home state law.

    So basically, gay marriage is more important to the judge then upholding the law. How many laws are judges willing to ignore and scrap to get gay marriage legal?

    And i hope the judge realizes that the political backlash to this is going to be huge.
     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    When has the law ever been important to activist judges?
     
  3. CharlestonChad
    Offline

    CharlestonChad Baller Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,845
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +128
    Seriously. Anyone remember those activist judges in Brown v. Board of Education?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Kagom
    Offline

    Kagom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,161
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vicksburg, MS
    Ratings:
    +141
    I will say that you should not ignore the law ever. If it's apart of the law, you have to either go with it or challenge it (if it's something that a majority believe to be ethically wrong).

    I do believe the judge should be reprimanded for ignoring the law.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  5. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    Indeed. This is VERY much like me sueing for the right to drive WASHINGTON's speed limit in California. :(


    That judge proves his poor, eh, judgement. He should be removed, then perhaps ritualistically beaten. :)
     
  6. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    Reversed Plessy v. Ferguson? Desegregated education? Yep, I remember. Don't see how it applies to homosexual marriage, however, since homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals.

    "Oh, but they can't marry who they want" you say? In allowing them to marry who they want, the definition of marriage would have to be changed. The judges didn't change the definition of "education" in Brown.

    Brown was about upholding the 14th amendment. This case is about creating special rights.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  7. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    You miss the point. Activit judgements were being criticized. Yet, with the example of Plessy v. Ferguson, we see that sometimes it is good for judges to be active. We are not equating homosexuality with desegregation. We are demonstrating that to use the argument that judicial activism should not be used is erroneous. This wipes out the criticism that judicial activism is always wrong.

    As for redefining marriage:
    Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures: modern understanding emphasizes the legitimacy of sexual relations in marriage, yet the universal and unique attribute of marriage is the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). Traditionally, societies encourage one to marry "out" far enough to strengthen the ties, but "close" enough so that the in-laws are "one of us" or "our kind". Exception to this rule has been found in the marriages who's aim is to strengthen concentration of wealth and power rather than through affinal ties. Even in this case, the individual was often encouraged to marry "within" close family limits.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

    Also, it was not long ago when, in America, the practical definition of marriage was stricter. Interracial marriage was not allowed. Marriage could have been defined as the union of a man and a woman provided that they are of a certain age and not of different races.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    The judges in Brown were not negating law; they were deferring to a HIGHER law: the Constitution.

    Matt... I like you... but that is a bunch of :blah2: .

    Man has an outie, Woman has an innie. Together they can make a baby/family. Nature is the basis of marriage, whether all natural functions are working or not.
     
  9. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    No. A monogamous loving and committed intimate relationship between two informed and mutually consenting adults is the basis of marriage. You do not have to be married in order to have a child and you do not have to have a child in order to be married. Still, let’s go to your definition - Your standard - and let’s make a law. You can’t get married unless and until you can prove that you can and will have a baby. Couples who choose not to have children can’t get married. Those who, for whatever reason, seem to be unable to have children can’t get married until they show that they can reproduce.

    Geee. It seems as though that is the only leg that you have left. Forget about adoption. Forget about surrogate parents. Forget the fact that some people choose not to have kids. Two people of the same sex can’t reproduce a kid on their own, so gay marriage should not be allowed. LOL. Big f***ing deal (pardon the pun).
     
  10. MissileMan
    Offline

    MissileMan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,939
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +223
    I'm not sure that this is accurate. Nature would have men mating with as many women as possible. Not that I'm advocating it, just that the drive is there.
     

Share This Page