YAY!!!!!!!!! For Massachusetts...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by _dmp_, Mar 29, 2004.

  1. _dmp_
    Offline

    _dmp_ Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    BOSTON — The Massachusetts Legislature adopted a new version of a state constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, eliminating consideration of any other proposed changes.



    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115474,00.html
     
  2. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    My viewpoint on the issue notwithstanding, is this really allowed under our original Constitution?

    Our Constitution would seem through a few statements of "all men are created equal" and our freedom of religion, and others would indicate government favoritism to any marriage or union would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    If this is the case, then giving tax breaks or any real benefit outside of just a "Hi, how ya doin Mrs. Smith" would be favoritism and against singles.

    I would think this victory would be a slippery slope that will see a problem in this regard at warp speed.

    -Or maybe I have taken to many hallucinogens.
     
  3. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    Just coming to post this very thing myself, EXCELLENT NEWS! No it is not unconstitutional as it is a simple choice between right and wrong and the good of society.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4624659/
     
  4. _dmp_
    Offline

    _dmp_ Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    where are tax breaks for married people???? Why haven't I gotten any simply for being married?

    Ever heard of the "Marriage Penalty" when it comes to taxes? :)
     
  5. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I knew I should have put that in quotes....:p:
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I have no problem with this and hope many other states follow suit. I think this looks out for all parties involved.

    :dance:
     
  7. badfish
    Online

    badfish Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    :mad: ... I hate that this issue is in politics at all...

    We now have the government telling the Church who they can and can not Marry... I love Dubya to death but this does not seem right. It should be the congregation's choice to marry or not marry whomever they want.

    This is a pointless limitation that benefits no one. It offends the Christian Right?! F that. I'm Christian, I'm Republican... I'm not offended by a couple gals that want to marry each other. All good people have the right to live free no matter what they believe, look like, or act. That is fundamental! This is a civil rights issue.

    Their personal actions well be dealt with when they die... You can't force a church not to marry someone just like you can't force them TO marry someone.

    BAH I say! BAH!
     
  8. _dmp_
    Offline

    _dmp_ Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    Marriage is NOT just a religous union...and one can't be Christian and support homosexuality, as the two are not compatable. But this goes beyond religion...homosexuality is destructive.
     
  9. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    destructive to what?
     
  10. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I always love to point out the logical conclusion of homosexuality.

    If it is ok or "right", then what happens if everyone does it for 150 years?

    POOF!

    No more people.

    :D

    Somehow, it makes the whole argument rather senseless.
     

Share This Page