Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[SpencerH]

IMO, there are no valid reasons for preventing the state from recognizing gay marriage as the equal to hetero marriage.

That doesnt change the fact that it aint gonna happen here in the US for many many years.

[gunkulator]

On the whole, the ruling is a good thing, however the state does have one compelling interest that applies only to heteros: The state has an interest in curbing the natural male impulse to copulate with as many different females as possible. Children who grow up in fatherless families tend to be more costly to the state so societal pressures should be exerted to prevent it. Long before love became an important prerequisite for marriage the vow of "Forsaking all others" meant sexual responsibility. Even in today's world of birth control and abortion, there are still millions of children born with no fatherly support: finacial, emotional or otherwise.

Contrast this to gay sexuality where the state has no interests whatsoever.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
The rise of the Metrosexual is at hand!!!

YEAH!!!

[GePap]

While Ben may be in the minority here, he represent the more popular point in the population on the whole, and I do think the Reps. will use this ruling to their adavntage, simply by harping on it and getting the right to come out in dorves and vote for them, while the Dems will be very tepid in their support and thus turn off the left who will demand they come out full force for this.

So good decision, but very ahead of it's time.

[Ramo]

LORIZAEL

Wrong name again.

Excellent point. However, to address such change, all we would need to do is compensate all those who are willing to adopt children. No need to change the marriage laws.

You didn't read the previous sentence. There are tax breaks you get for having kids. Why isn't that good enough? If you think they're too low, why not increase the level of these tax breaks?

And why should straight married people automatically get these marriage-related benefits?

It looks like you're making logically poor excuses to justify your medieval policies.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
YEAH!!!

Why do you care a metrosexuals? They don't want to have sex with you. Or do you just want to see more better dressed, well kept men aroun?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Metrosexuals suck (or Mr Fun wishes ). Heterosexual men should be super casual, dressed like they are about to sit on the couch, put their feet up, and watch the game!

[monolith94]

Hoooooraaaaaaay! I can finally get married!!!

...

oh wait, I have to be gay to get married now..

god dammit!

[Guynemer]

The Dems are, not surprisingly, BLOWING THIS.

The Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right are massing, and Republicans in Congress and the White House are issuing strong statements against the ruling.

The Dems? Instead of firing back and trying to take control of this debate, trying to shift the debate back towards the middle (let alone the left), they say nothing, or they play to the current polls and say they are "against gay marriage" and leave it at that.

I'm so sick of the ****ing incompetence of the Democratic party. It was exactly things like this--pussyfooting around issues for fear of appearing (gasp!) liberal--that caused me to vote Nader in '96 and '00.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Why do you care a metrosexuals? They don't want to have sex with you. Or do you just want to see more better dressed, well kept men aroun?

No -- I care because it shows the powerful influences that some of the culture of homosexuals can spread among heterosexuals.

[monolith94]

mr. fun, metrosexuals have been around for ages... plus homosexual culture spreading is not a big deal - just look at oscar wilde, or earlier, sappho.

[Ned]

Is MJ considered to be a homosexual? He likes young boys, but he has been married.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ned
Is MJ considered to be a homosexual? He likes young boys, but he has been married.

No, he's a weirdo.

[Shi Huangdi]

Ya, it seems the Democratic Party is trying to be politcally expedient here. Perhaps the Massachustes ruling will be thwarted with an amendment to the state constitution.

This won''t save them. The Republicans can continue to press forward with their Federal Constitutional Amendment. That would require 3/4 of the state legislatures, meaning it would involve a long, protracted fight over the issue giving it lots of media attention, thus allowing the GOP to fry the Democrats over this issue.

[Ned]

Shi, I think the primary difficulty would be getting that amendment out of the Senate. Most of the Democratic Party have announced that they are against such a constitutional amendment.

Besides, I understand that most of the states have already passed "Defensive Marriage Acts." This, combined with the federal Defensive Marriage Act should confine the damage done by Massachusetts to that state as such marriages need not be recognized by other states, nor by the federal government for tax or other Federal purposes.

However, one never knows how to Supreme Court rule on the issue of federal benefits if the issue were squarely presented to them. They might say that the issue of who is a "married person" is a matter of state law and that the federal law could not override the state law based on principles of federalism.