Gay marriage more important than law in Mass.

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[5stringJeff]

When has the law ever been important to activist judges?

 

[CharlestonChad]

When has the law ever been important to activist judges?

Seriously. Anyone remember those activist judges in Brown v. Board of Education?

 

[Kagom]

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.

 

[dmp]

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.

 

[Nienna]

Seriously. Anyone remember those activist judges in Brown v. Board of Education?

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.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

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.

 

[Nienna]

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.

The judges in Brown were not negating law; they were deferring to a HIGHER law: the Constitution.

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

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.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

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).

 

[MissileMan]

Nature is the basis of marriage, whether all natural functions are working or not.

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.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural
The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar:

"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."

 

[MissileMan]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural
The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar:

"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/malesexualresponse.htm

And even though many guys succeed in being faithful to their partners, the scientific truth is that males are really 'programmed' to inseminate as many attractive females as possible.

You can STFU now.

 

[Kagom]

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/malesexualresponse.htm



You can STFU now.

Men have the need to be randy because it helps the white blood count stay high. Or something like that, I forgot what it was, but I learned it from some science channel.

 

[mattskramer]

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/malesexualresponse.htm

It further supports my argument that what is natural is not necessarily what is good. What is not natural is not necessarily what is bad. We control our natural impulses.

 

[MissileMan]

It further supports my argument that what is natural is not necessarily what is good. What is not natural is not necessarily what is bad. We control our natural impulses.

Why would you want to support your argument with a fallacy?

 

[Kagom]

Why would you want to support your argument with a fallacy?

Shhh...just let him think he's got nothing fallacious.

 

[Nienna]

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).

You are misrepresenting "my" standard. I said that sexual reproduction forms the BASIS of marriage, whether all the functions are working or not. The drive to have sex creates the attraction, the bond, to bring two people together. The fact that the parts "fit," that reproduction CAN occur, shows that things are working correctly. This is the model. I never claimed that one MUST reproduce in order to be allowed to marry.

 

[mattskramer]

Why would you want to support your argument with a fallacy?

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relat...alresponse.htm

Okay. I’m confused. I thought that the article was talking about man’s seemingly insatiable sex drive – wanting sex so often. My point was that if such a drive exists, it is good that men, to some degree, tame the savage beast. Perhaps it was a poor example. Anyway, my point is that what is natural is not necessarily always what is good and what is not natural does not mean that it is bad.

 

[mattskramer]

You are misrepresenting "my" standard. I said that sexual reproduction forms the BASIS of marriage, whether all the functions are working or not. The drive to have sex creates the attraction, the bond, to bring two people together. The fact that the parts "fit," that reproduction CAN occur, shows that things are working correctly. This is the model. I never claimed that one MUST reproduce in order to be allowed to marry.

Okay. I still disagree that sexual reproduction forms the basis of marriage. I'm glad that you never claimed that one must reproduce in order to be allowed to marry. Do we agree, therefore, that the inability to have children should not, in and of itself, be a reason to not allow gay marriage?

 

[Nienna]

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.

That's only one side of the story. Nature also equipped women with the desire to "hold onto" a man in order to secure her and her children's protection. It's a complementary relationship. Man wants sex; he must protect & provide. Woman wants protection and provision; she must put out. This limits the number of women a man can have.

When you add the psychological element, it limits the scenario to one-on-one.