The W
Views: 97647783
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.7.14 1804
The W - Current Events & Politics - Gay Marriage In MA
This thread has 50 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.76
Pages: 1 2 Next
(1649 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (39 total)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.87
I am surprised no one has started a thread regarding the MA Supreme Court and their ruling regarding gay marriages. My two cents. I have no problem with people living a gay lifestyle, however, I don't know as I favor granting these "unions" the same legal status as heterosexual marriage. I would assume they could obtain some legal standing without this. Maye I am getting conservative in my old age, but I don't think it is good for society to promote same sex unions. having said that, I don't favor discrimination based on sexual preference and have no problem with responsible gay or lesbian couples adopting since homosexualtiy is primarily genetic and not a lifestyle choice.

Of course if the MA legislature changes the constitution of the state, they could out law same sex marriages.



Perception is reality
Promote this thread!
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.58
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    I am surprised no one has started a thread regarding the MA Supreme Court and their ruling regarding gay marriages. My two cents. I have no problem with people living a gay lifestyle, however, I don't know as I favor granting these "unions" the same legal status as heterosexual marriage. I would assume they could obtain some legal standing without this. Maye I am getting conservative in my old age, but I don't think it is good for society to promote same sex unions. having said that, I don't favor discrimination based on sexual preference and have no problem with responsible gay or lesbian couples adopting since homosexualtiy is primarily genetic and not a lifestyle choice.

    Of course if the MA legislature changes the constitution of the state, they could out law same sex marriages.


I'm personally for states getting out of the marriage business. If my church or the MCC or any other church wants to marry a couple, no matter who they are fine. They and their friends and their God can live with it. And then people can choose, or not choose to support the sanctioning body. And no preacher, judge, JP, county clerk or other person will have to marry, or refuse to marry, anyone they don't want to.

But the state gets out. That means no tax breaks, no exemptions, no nothing. They act as though everyone is single and treat all people equally. But there couldn't be any laws against polygamy, bigamy or anything of the like. Laws associated with health risks (incest might be a good example) would remain on the books.

Then the insurance companies can choose, or not choose to recognize homosexual marriages and provide "spouse" benefits and I can choose, or not choose, to do business with them. They may just decide to have the covered person pay a flat rate to add a certain number of people to his or her insurance rather than make a decision on what a "spouse" is. Again, that's fine and it then becomes a decision I make with the insurance business owner.

Regarding the MA legislature amending MA's constitution - we're talking a couple years here, minimum, while they have 6 months as a stay. No time. Tyrantical judges. I hope they force MAs hand on this.

Of course, this might



We'll be back as soon as order is restored.....
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 108 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.07
Of course, it would've been helpful if you stated what the ruling by the MA Supreme Court was, but I can go look that up in a minute I guess. Anyway, my question for AWA is this: What happens to divorce court after the government gets out of marriage?

-Jag



To Make Jeb Feel Better: ;)

Note to self:

The less I post, the fewer chances I have to look like an ass.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.11
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Of course, it would've been helpful if you stated what the ruling by the MA Supreme Court was, but I can go look that up in a minute I guess. Anyway, my question for AWA is this: What happens to divorce court after the government gets out of marriage?

    -Jag


Jag, I apologize. I have heard, seen, and read it everywhere and made the erronious assumption that everyone had. The court ruled that under the MA constitution the state did not have the authority to prohibit same sex marriages. That's the Reader's Digest version.

To keep AWA and my streak intact of not agreeing. It is in the best interests of our country to promote marriage and family, within reason. Married couples producing future contributing members of society, IMO, need a break.

There are also two things I would like our society to do, make divorce harder and make people getting married have to go through some process to help them clarify their decision. Not easy, maybe not even doable. My wife and I have been married over 23 years while well over half of our friends are on their second or third. Love isn't enough for a marriage to work. I am not saying miserable or abused people should stay in a relationship but they should find this out before they get married. Don't tell me you can't know because normally the signs are they but we choose to ignore them because we are in love.



Perception is reality
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.95
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    I have no problem with people living a gay lifestyle, however, I don't know as I favor granting these "unions" the same legal status as heterosexual marriage.

How does it affect you and why do you care?

    Originally posted by DrDirt
    I would assume they could obtain some legal standing without this.

Maybe you should read this:
Testimony of Keith A. Bradkowski
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution
September 4, 2003


Good afternoon Honorable Chairman and Members of the subcommittee.

My name is Keith Bradkowski and I am a resident of California. I've been a registered nurse since 1983 and have worked for many years in hospital administration.

It was on a Tuesday, almost exactly two years ago, that I received a call from American Airlines notifying me that I had lost my life partner, Jeff Collman. Jeff was an American Airlines flight attendant who volunteered to work an extra trip on September 11th. His flight was the first of four planes hijacked by terrorists that day. I know in my heart Jeff died with courage, trying to protect the passengers and crew.

The last time I spoke with Jeff - who was my soul mate of 11 years - was at about at 2 a.m. Boston time on the morning of the 11th. He had awoken in the middle of the night and uncharacteristically called me to say "I love you and can't wait to get home." I believe he must have had some premonition of the events to come, and I feel blessed to have had that last moment with him.

Jeff was the ultimate caregiver -- I experienced his caring by the trail of post-it notes he left for me every time he went on a trip. His last note, still on my bathroom mirror, greets me every morning with a "Guess who loves you?"

Jeff and I had exchanged rings and we were married in our hearts. Legally, it was another matter entirely.

After his death, I was faced not only with my grief over losing Jeff - who was indeed my better half - but with the painful task of proving the authenticity of our relationship over and over again. With no marriage license to prove our relationship existed, even something as fundamental as obtaining his death certificate became a monumental task.

And that was just the beginning.

During the years we were together, Jeff paid taxes and had social security deducted from his paycheck like all other Americans do. But without a civil marriage license, I am denied benefits that married couples and their families receive as a matter of routine.

Jeff died without a will, which meant that while I dealt with losing him, I also had huge anxiety about maintaining the home we shared together. Without a marriage license to prove I was Jeff's next of kin, even inheriting basic household possessions became a legal nightmare.

Married couples have a legal safety net of rights and protections that gay Americans are currently denied. Until Jeff died, I had no idea just how vulnerable we were - where married couples have security and protection, gay couples are left without a net.

Like so many other gay Americans, my mourning and grief were compounded by the stress and anxiety of horrific legal uncertainty and confusion.

The terrorists who attacked this country killed people not because they were gay or straight - but because they were Americans. It is heart wrenching that our own government does not protect its citizens equally, gay and straight, simply because they are Americans.

Two years ago we were all united against the common threat of terrorism. Now, less than two years later I am sitting here and being told that my relationship was a threat to our country.

Jeff and I only sought to love and take care of each other. I do not understand why that is a threat to some people, and I cannot understand why the leaders of this country would hold a hearing on the best way to prevent that from happening.

In closing, I would like to read an excerpt from a letter that Jeff wrote to me on our last anniversary:

"Keith, we've been through much the past 11 years. Our lives haven't always been easy, but through it all, our undeniable love for each other has carried us through! I love you - don't ever forget that! When you're feeling lonely and I'm not home with you, just pull out this letter and read my words to you once again and know how much you will always mean to me! With loving thoughts of you now and forever, Jeff."

I truly believe I have learned the meaning of the phrase - Love is Eternal.

Thank you. I am honored to have had this chance to appear before you.


(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 19.11.03 1602)


AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.58
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Of course, it would've been helpful if you stated what the ruling by the MA Supreme Court was, but I can go look that up in a minute I guess. Anyway, my question for AWA is this: What happens to divorce court after the government gets out of marriage?

    -Jag


Very simple. If people choose to make a contract with each other, as many do every day, either verbally or written, the contracts are valid. Then, depending on the size of the claim, the contract dispute (or disolution) will be handled in either small claims or civil court.

Hey, I am for marriage, but I am not for some other person-to-person contract being called a marriage. Marriage is between a man person and a woman person. Contracts happen between all sorts of parties and I would be happier if government did not define what a marriage was. Should government promote marriage? Of course. It honors children and all that.

But our society (Libs and Greens and the rest) wants to move away from it into an anything goes is a marriage.

Today it's homosexuals. Tomorrow, it may be polygamy. Next week, incestuous. Where does it end??




We'll be back as soon as order is restored.....
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 108 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.07
I guess I can agree with that, wheeee... contract law. Anyway, marriage to me is an all or nothing thing. Either we let everybody in, or we stop making the government involved. Because man-person and woman-person don't work. Why is it legal to deny gays marriage if a married man can go get a sex change and still be married?

-Jag



To Make Jeb Feel Better: ;)

Note to self:

The less I post, the fewer chances I have to look like an ass.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.41
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by Jaguar
      Of course, it would've been helpful if you stated what the ruling by the MA Supreme Court was, but I can go look that up in a minute I guess. Anyway, my question for AWA is this: What happens to divorce court after the government gets out of marriage?

      -Jag


    Very simple. If people choose to make a contract with each other, as many do every day, either verbally or written, the contracts are valid. Then, depending on the size of the claim, the contract dispute (or disolution) will be handled in either small claims or civil court.

    Hey, I am for marriage, but I am not for some other person-to-person contract being called a marriage. Marriage is between a man person and a woman person. Contracts happen between all sorts of parties and I would be happier if government did not define what a marriage was. Should government promote marriage? Of course. It honors children and all that.

    But our society (Libs and Greens and the rest) wants to move away from it into an anything goes is a marriage.

    Today it's homosexuals. Tomorrow, it may be polygamy. Next week, incestuous. Where does it end??



Yes, it's an automatic march that will happen without any discussion or reasoning.

Just so you know, not everyone wants the sexual habits of consenting adults regulated by law. There are quite a few people who believe that the government doesn't have any place in the bedroom.

If a homosexual has to pay the same taxes and follow the same laws, shouldn't they expect fair treatment under the laws?

It's ok to work with a homosexual. It's ok to be taught by a homosexual. It's ok to live next to a homosexual. It's ok to collect taxes from a homosexual.

Apparently, it's just not ok to love a homosexual.



Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.11
Fuzzy, I wish I could give you a good answer about why I care. One of the founding premises of our country was the protection of the rights of the minority over the rule of the majority which is why we have the system we have. I don't question that homosexual couples can have loving, life long commitments as stated in the article. I in no way want them to be discriminated against. I want the damn goverment out of our personal lives and bedrooms. I just have a problems with an official government sanction of it. Perhaps, if it would be called somethng other than marriage. As with AWA, marriage is between a man and woman IMO. IMO the main purpose of mariage is for the protection of children. I know I'm archaic, but it's the way I feel. My head says why not, but my heart can't go there.

If companies want to grant the same right to same sex couples as man-woman fine. If a given religion or denomination wants to, fine. I just don't thinks we shouild recognize it as a civil institution.

I may have to turn in my lifetime liberal card.



Perception is reality
ShotGunShep
Frankfurter








Since: 20.2.03

Since last post: 2447 days
Last activity: 2333 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.04
So, those who want gay marriages.....are you for the legalization of polygamy? Why should we then discriminate against polygamists? Don't they have the right to do what they want in their homes and bedrooms?



You Samoans are all the same. You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 108 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.07
    Originally posted by ShotGunShep
    So, those who want gay marriages.....are you for the legalization of polygamy? Why should we then discriminate against polygamists? Don't they have the right to do what they want in their homes and bedrooms?


Yes, they do have that right. And until I hear a reason as how polygamy hurts you personally (or hell, even society as a whole) I don't see any reason why we have these laws on the books.

-Jag

And if you want to bring God into it, there here's my opinion - Let God punish his children for their choices. I don't have to. I'm all for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Because I'm a goddamned freedom loving American.



To Make Jeb Feel Better: ;)

Note to self:

The less I post, the fewer chances I have to look like an ass.
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3815 days
Last activity: 3760 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.31
I see that the President is going to work to "defend the sanctity of marriage" to overturn the decision.

Remember, kids - Republicans are the party of states' rights!
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 108 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.07
I can see it now:

Massachusets Supreme Court: Awwww, man. They're gonna overrule us.

Florida Supreme Court: We told you not to mess with him!

-Jag

I kid, I kid.

edited because I'm dumb

(edited by Jaguar on 19.11.03 2038)


To Make Jeb Feel Better: ;)

Note to self:

The less I post, the fewer chances I have to look like an ass.
Joseph Ryder
Head cheese








Since: 19.3.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1108 days
Last activity: 641 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.05
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Fuzzy, I wish I could give you a good answer about why I care.


You should have just stopped right there, because everything that followed read a bit "fuzzy."

    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Today it's homosexuals. Tomorrow, it may be polygamy. Next week, incestuous. Where does it end??


The fiery pits of HELL, that's where!!!
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.58
    Originally posted by Guru Zim

    Just so you know, not everyone wants the sexual habits of consenting adults regulated by law. There are quite a few people who believe that the government doesn't have any place in the bedroom.

    If a homosexual has to pay the same taxes and follow the same laws, shouldn't they expect fair treatment under the laws?

    It's ok to work with a homosexual. It's ok to be taught by a homosexual. It's ok to live next to a homosexual. It's ok to collect taxes from a homosexual.

    Apparently, it's just not ok to love a homosexual.


Dammit, Guru, that was MY POINT, for goodness sake. I don't give a good hoot or hollaw what anyone does in their bedroom. Because, ultimately, everyone has to live with with the consequences of their own actions. And I love 'em. You too. Even Dr. Dirt, God bless him.

As long as we are (our governments) are in the marriage business, we have to make that moral decision. That shouldn't be up to a government. Recently, in a New Hampshire court, a man was denied grounds for a faulted divorce on the basis of adultery. The law there (bad or good, it's the law) says that if one member of the marriage has sexual relations outside of the marriage, it is adultery and grounds for the divorce. Except, in this case, the affair was Lesbian. The court ruled that the sexual activity was not adultery because there was no chance for issue.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/ jj20031117.shtml

Why are we even making those decisions as a nation? Can Homosexuals get married? Can other pairings? What other posibilities are there?

See Guru, I'd rather leave marriage up to the organization that more or less came up with it: The church. In the civil world, people make contracts with other people. That can easily still happen with people married in the church. For those who don't want to be involved with a church, any yahoo who wants to build a little "Marrying house" can perform marriages. But the contract law would be seperate. Probably a standard contract most couples would sign without thinking about it. But the same sort of contract you and I might enter into if we discovered a way to make money as a team and we started a business together. Because it is important to know what will happen if the partnership is ever disolved.

That gets the government out of the moral decision of making this decision and any future ones. That's the kind of decision that can only be divisive. Because I know where I stand. And I have a pretty good idea of where you stand. Amazingly, unless a radical change in the law (as I propose) is made, I would agree with Dr. Dirt (Sorry, Doc).







We'll be back as soon as order is restored.....
wordlife
Head cheese








Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3271 days
Last activity: 2555 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by Guru Zim

      Just so you know, not everyone wants the sexual habits of consenting adults regulated by law. There are quite a few people who believe that the government doesn't have any place in the bedroom.

      If a homosexual has to pay the same taxes and follow the same laws, shouldn't they expect fair treatment under the laws?

      It's ok to work with a homosexual. It's ok to be taught by a homosexual. It's ok to live next to a homosexual. It's ok to collect taxes from a homosexual.

      Apparently, it's just not ok to love a homosexual.


    Dammit, Guru, that was MY POINT, for goodness sake. I don't give a good hoot or hollaw what anyone does in their bedroom. Because, ultimately, everyone has to live with with the consequences of their own actions. And I love 'em. You too. Even Dr. Dirt, God bless him.

    As long as we are (our governments) are in the marriage business, we have to make that moral decision. That shouldn't be up to a government. Recently, in a New Hampshire court, a man was denied grounds for a faulted divorce on the basis of adultery. The law there (bad or good, it's the law) says that if one member of the marriage has sexual relations outside of the marriage, it is adultery and grounds for the divorce. Except, in this case, the affair was Lesbian. The court ruled that the sexual activity was not adultery because there was no chance for issue.
    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/ jj20031117.shtml

    Why are we even making those decisions as a nation? Can Homosexuals get married? Can other pairings? What other posibilities are there?

    See Guru, I'd rather leave marriage up to the organization that more or less came up with it: The church. In the civil world, people make contracts with other people. That can easily still happen with people married in the church. For those who don't want to be involved with a church, any yahoo who wants to build a little "Marrying house" can perform marriages. But the contract law would be seperate. Probably a standard contract most couples would sign without thinking about it. But the same sort of contract you and I might enter into if we discovered a way to make money as a team and we started a business together. Because it is important to know what will happen if the partnership is ever disolved.

    That gets the government out of the moral decision of making this decision and any future ones. That's the kind of decision that can only be divisive. Because I know where I stand. And I have a pretty good idea of where you stand. Amazingly, unless a radical change in the law (as I propose) is made, I would agree with Dr. Dirt (Sorry, Doc).






This is the exact problem, is that people bitch about their being a separation between state and religion on certain issues (i.e. Pledge of Alligence, prayer in school) but then don't want it for other things (Gay marriage).

While I disagree with the post above, he makes a good point regarding state and church separation, something that all of these Gen Xers want.

I question if some of the fear of allowing gay marriages comes from the fact that people are afraid that they will have a better divorce ratio than straight people do (I mean what is it at now 60%?!?!, which is atrocious). I totally agree with the letter that was posted a little earlier by OlFuzzyBastard, I have a gay family member, someone explain to me why he shouldn't have the right to have a true life partner in his heart and by law? Why should my brother lose his house b/c his partner dies?



astrobstrd
Bockwurst








Since: 13.3.02
From: Loveland, OH

Since last post: 2489 days
Last activity: 2457 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    IMO the main purpose of mariage is for the protection of children. I know I'm archaic, but it's the way I feel. My head says why not, but my heart can't go there.


I'll ask the question that came up last time in the discussion of gay marraige then. Should a male/female couple who can't have children or simply chose not too, be denied marriage then? How about a gay couple that adopts?

Honestly, I don't care if polygamy and (consentual) incest marraiges are allowed either. They don't hurt anyone outside of the realtionship (contrary to popular belief, unless spread out over several generations, incestuous reproduction does not lead to gibbering mutant babies. Not any moreso than normal reproduction anyway. Many animal populations and even some human populations even :GASP: encourage it and are doing fine. Many tribal peoples consider only one bloodline (mother or father) family and actively encourage marriage into the other to strengthen familial bonds)



Ph-nglui mgwl'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl.

DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.12
    Originally posted by Joseph Ryder
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Fuzzy, I wish I could give you a good answer about why I care.


    You should have just stopped right there, because everything that followed read a bit "fuzzy."


It read a bit fuzzy because its that kind of issue. C'mon, when AWA and I start agreeing it mut be. You can see from te posts here that it is a very complex issue and opens a whole can of worms. Even though I am a liberal, I can't totally separate church and state. I don't want state sponsored religion, but any honest person must admit that the foundation of our laws is based in Christainity.

Based on my religous upbrining and beliefs, homosexuality is wrong. Even though I know in most cases it is a genetic predisposition. My head and heart cannot agree on this. Ergo fuzzy. Unlike many, I just don't see the world in black in white. I can't, even though it would make my life easier.



Perception is reality
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.55
The problem with the story about Jeff and Keith is that it takes less time and money to write a will and get it notarized than it does to get (and complete) a valid marriage license. If they had simply written a will, then none of their problems about household possessions, life insurance, etc. would be issues. It might have been a touching, emotional story, but at the end of the day, it’s also the ultimate red herring argument. And, that doesn’t even cover the bogus arguments within his story about taxes and social security. My wife and I pay more in taxes as a couple than we would as two single people, and if either of us died, the other would not get any of their social security benefits.
The Goon
Boudin blanc
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.08
When this became an issue in Ontario last year, my Dad had the best insight:

"Gays should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married people."
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 5.76
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: from "The West Wing" to real life
Next thread: Slow News Day in England
Previous thread: New York Sun - credibilty
(1649 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I cannot fathom being in the situation of the victim's family, but try as I may, I would think any further drawn breath for said convicted killer to be most unfair. The prospective penalty for such actions (as Peterson has been convicted of)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Gay Marriage In MARegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.142 seconds.