How does everyone feel on the ruling for same sex marriages in Massachusetts?

[3tbear]

My feelings on this subject are simple, everyone has the right to be happy in life, everyone should have the same freedoms as everyone else. So...as far as same sex marriages go, why not. I wish more states would do that.

[sblme28]

Good for them!

I'm glad this is allowed in MA...all states should allow this!

[3tbear]

Originally Posted by sblme28

Good for them!

I'm glad this is allowed in MA...all states should allow this!

I'm so glad you feel that way too.

[ghostie79]

i agree!

[mayor]

A hot potato if ever I saw one. I moved this thread where it belonged.

For the record, a marriage is a union between a man and woman. A union between a gay or lesbian couple needs a different name.

If we continue to change the meaning of words in our language, words will no longer have any real meaning.

Mayor

[angusmcgee]

are you guys serious??

Marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years!!

To allow same sex marriage is to denegrate the sanctity of marriage and family.

You say "everyone has the right to a happy life" I'll bet Ted Bundy was having a happy life killing cute college girls. That doesn't make it right.

We have to draw a line somewhere..

This is wrong, and it's another shining example of legislation from the bench.. which is the main reason the liberals in the senate are refusing to allow GWB's judges.. They would end this as strict constructionists. Defining law, not writing it.

[jsalba]

Blacks were slaves for hundreds of years.. should they still be in order to keep with tradition?

Civil marriage is not a matter of religion.. there is a thing called the seperation of church and state.. which some are obviously unable to accept. Some thump their bibles at anything they don't personally accept as the norm.

[angusmcgee]

sl***** was wrong.. It still is.

Yes, I do consider umpteen thousand years of tradition as "norm" and thumping a bible has nothing to do with it.

and we're not talking about "civil union" we're talking about gay marriage.

[jsalba]

Then you should probably make sure that those who divorce are not given the opportunity to remarry, right? Or, maybe call it something different? Afterall, for thousands of years marriage was considered a life-long commitment between two people and divorce was not an option or it was wrong.

[angusmcgee]

divorce was just another "chip" used to destroy families. Allowing gay marriage is another one.

You can't destroy something like the nuclear family unit with one fell swoop. You have to chip away at it.. It takes years, decades..

Liberals have used this tactic successfully for a long, long time.

[luvmetender]

I agree (surprise!) that the term "marriage" should be reserved for a union between a woman and a man. I do think that gays should be able to have a legally recognized relationship though, but call it something else, maybe "unionization"?

[sunsheyen]

I dont believe allowing gay marriage is in any way "chipping" away at traditional nuclear families. If someone is gay, they are not (more than likely) a parent in a "traditional,nuclear" family. This is regardless of whether this person is "married" or not. What business is it of mine if someone wants to declare a lifelong union with a loved and respected partner, gay or straight? What right do I (or any of us) have to disallow this union?

And to the topic of "nuclear" families. I thought we disposed of this antiquated thinking back in the days of Murphy Brown vs. Dan Quayle. Families come in all forms and fashions. My family (being that I am several states away from all blood relatives) is comprised of close friends (male and female) who are in similar situations, helping and encouraging each other in raising our children and bettering our community. There are millions of non-traditional "families" in the U.S., so tell me, is the set of grandparents raising their grandkids "destroying the nuclear family"? Is the older sister taking care of her younger siblings guilty of chipping away at this structure? Is the gay couple adopting a child that no one else (i.e. older, disabled in some way) wants. Like those nuclear family wannabes who will ONLY adopt a perfect little caucasian newborn, and pay through the nose to do so?

It's time to rid ourselves of these notions that a family can only mean one thing. If we don't, we will be excluding a vast majority of Americans.

[freesurfer]

I say keep it in the closet!!

[CagedTroll]

Now for the glitch: "Civil Unions", such as in Vermont, aren't recognized across state lines. Meaning that a couple in Vermont, legally "unionized" doesn't have the same rights and protections should they relocate to Alabama. Which is why the Mass. court believes the state should issue actual "marriage licenses" because that would guarantee the rights of couples.

Now, if there were a national "Civil Union" act... Yeah, right, that's going to happen! Because the same people opposed to the Massachusetts ruling, were opposing the Vermont legislation (which doesn't include the word "marriage") and would oppose any legislation that used any wording to recognize gay unions and give them the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I don't think anybody's out to destroy the "Sacred Institution." When the notion of "till death do us part" became a part of marriage the average lifespan was around 35 years. People usually got married around 15. Those that lived longer..., usually from the noble class, and they had all sort of issues with fidelity. Divorce became acceptable to Christian religious leaders because of Henry VIII (was it the 8th) because it was preferable, spiritually speaking, to killing off his wife everytime she gave birth to a girl. But it's not like he was the first king to take multiple wives.

BTW, just to be annoying, didn't Reagan divorce his first wife? And Newt? And Rush...?

[mayor]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

BTW, just to be annoying, didn't Reagan divorce his first wife? And Newt? And Rush...?

Yup, and many other great people.

Oh, incidently, if you are battling this on the grounds that those who derive this type of conclusion are Biblical hypocrites, may I also remind you that each and every one of us can be defined as "liars" at some point in our lives. According to Scripture, we are all worthy of condemnation for this sin as well.

But, just because little Johnny drove his car off a cliff doesn't mean you should do the same. Do we have so few good examples of people doing the thing that we must look to those who do it incorrectly as a role model?

Rationalizing an action based on the actions of others exposes the very reason we need absolute truths. In this case, the absolute truth is that God created man and woman to marry each other, to procreate and expand the population, and to remain committed to one another until one of them dies. Thank you for making the point with your example!

Mayor