Massachusetts High Court rules same-sex couples entitled to marry

[Whoha]

ha

[Whoha]

son of a *****, damn you you other posters!

[Whoha]

work damn you!

[Ned]

Adam Smith, so a Democrat newspaper comes out and condemns a Republican state Supreme Court for being arrogant and extreme in its defense a civil rights. This is a twist!

[Ned]

And, btw, I personally agree with the Republican Massachuettes Supreme court on the law. Separate but equal is not equal.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That part was too easy considering you said within the context of a relationship and I wished to skip the obvious answers.

Okay, now I see what you meant.

Anyway, regarding the other (male) half of gay people, gay men can (and do) sire children.

I suppose. This requires extending the definition of the word relationship a small bit esp. in light of the last otion you alluded to.

Perhaps my meaning wasn't clear. The birth mother isn't part of the relationship, she simply agrees to carry the child. I have heard of guys who used this technique with one partner's sister. That way the offspring was genetically related to both of the guys in the relationship.

Personally, I'd go with adoption, but that's just my feeling. Others feel more strongly about their offspring being genetically related to them.

[mindseye]

At the same time, we are skeptical that American society will come to formally recognize gay relationships as a result of judicial fiats

Adam Smith, I will only point out that in our society in 1967 (the time of Loving v. Virginia), support for inter-racial marriage was far lower than current support for gay marriage.

My question for you: do you think legal inter-racial marriage should have been post-poned until our society was better ready to recognize it?

Personally, I feel that fundamental human rights should never be granted through popularity polls. What do you think?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Personally, I feel that fundamental human rights should never be granted through popularity polls. What do you think?

The problem is if the public is so against it when an unelected court decides it should be law, you will have major problems, such as what is going on with all 38 states banning gay marriage. The big problem is that there is a fairly decent chance that a Constitutional admendment banning gay marriage could pass.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Personally, I feel that fundamental human rights should never be granted through popularity polls. What do you think?

The problem is if the public is so against it when an unelected court decides it should be law, you will have major problems, such as what is going on with all 38 states banning gay marriage. The big problem is that there is a fairly decent chance that a Constitutional admendment banning gay marriage could pass.

Oh, if only....

A constitution that openly discriminates against gays, insane gun laws, imprisonment without trial or representation, a concentration camp, bent elections, insane tax policy, pre-emptive wars based on lies and/or faulty intelligence, widespread religious mania, etc. etc.

Man, that will get those anti-Americans on side.

[gamenaught]

Born again adults are more likely to experience a divorce than are non-born again adults (27% vs. 24%).

Source: Barna Research Group (Barna.org)

So much for sanctity.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by mindseye
My question for you: do you think legal inter-racial marriage should have been post-poned until our society was better ready to recognize it?

Its not a matter of delay or rights. Those are already stipulated to in the editorial, and I agree. The point is that the court precluded a specific nomenclature which might well have been acceptable to all parties involved. By doing so we are likely to wind up with something far worse.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


Oh, if only....

A constitution that openly discriminates against gays, insane gun laws, imprisonment without trial or representation, a concentration camp, bent elections, insane tax policy, pre-emptive wars based on lies and/or faulty intelligence, widespread religious mania, etc. etc.

Man, that will get those anti-Americans on side.

Agathon, if you want to criticized America for being socially conservative, I suggest you get a real dose. Take your ideas of communal women and gay rights to the Ayatollahs of Iran and see how you are received.

By life insurance first.

[Az]

Good call on the choromosome thingee, che.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned


Agathon, if you want to criticized America for being socially conservative, I suggest you get a real dose. Take your ideas of communal women and gay rights to the Ayatollahs of Iran and see how you are received.

The Iranians may be conservative, but they aren't stupid. They've had a successful birth control program for years. A pity that barbaric nations like the US can't get past their religious prejudices when it comes to programs to curb world population growth.

America is not socially conservative, it's reactionary and postiviely mediaeval. No wonder everyone laughs at you.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


The Iranians may be conservative, but they aren't stupid. They've had a successful birth control program for years. A pity that barbaric nations like the US can't get past their religious prejudices when it comes to programs to curb world population growth.

America is not socially conservative, it's reactionary and postiviely mediaeval. No wonder everyone laughs at you.

Why of course we are positively Medieval! We have Lords and Ladies all over the place, just like in England!