Massachusetts court: Ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

[Natoma]

Hmm. Judge in 1958 says interracial marriage is not intended by god and therefore unnatural. People today are saying gay marriage is not intended by god and therefore unnatural.

Hmmm...This person (me) is saying interracial couples have children just like everyone else, and homsexusal couples don't.

(Please, I beg you, let's not get into the whole "natural" thing again, OK?)

Heterosexual Infertile couples don't have children like everyone else. They can marry. Heterosexual Senior couples don't have children like everyone else. They can marry.

Oh and I edited my post so I'll just add it down here since you weren't able to respond to it.

Another court case in 1955, Naim vs Naim, had the judge stating that the upholding of the anti-miscegenation laws was to "preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride."

Sounds like they believe that the result would be the undermining and destruction of society as we know it, if interracial marriages were allowed, or at the very least that society would be worse off. Same as your belief that somehow society would be worse off if gays somehow are allowed to receive the same legal protections and rights as heterosexuals. Same chicken little argument, different target.

And as for the "natural" debate, no we won't get into that one again. That was more than settled, to your chagrin.

No. Geographic Preference wrt school admissions in terms of application "points" deals with the fact that if you're from a rural community, you have a greater chance of getting into a college than if you're from an urban community. Not because you live in that state.

A state is not a geographic designation? You're still giving preference to someone from "the state the school is in", which has nothing to do with ability.

I know exactly what you mean. But my point is, there ARE in fact criteria for admissions that have "nothing to do with ability" which are perfectly legitimate. Race just isn't one of them.

So why is race not legitimate but being from a rural community is, or having legacy is? They've all got nothing to do with ability. Isn't that the point? Or are you trying to justify a discriminatory policy?

My perfect world would be to get rid of rural geographic preferences, racial preferences, and legacy preferences. If there are any preferences, they should be class based. There are poor people in rural and urban communities. There are poor people who have legacy at schools. There are poor minorities and poor whites. Class touches everyone.

Did you read nothing regarding my stance on how AA should be changed.....

Yes, especially the part that read (paraphrasing) "we will change for the worse, until there are other changes for the better."

I said nothing of the sort. Nor was there any implication.

Then why is it that in every poll taken, people are VASTLY opposed to "gay marriage", but it becomes MUCH closer when "civil unions" that enjoy the same legal rights as marriage are proposed?

The same reason I'm saying here. "Marriage" has a special meaning and special place in our society as a whole.

It's not that I'm afraid You and your partner would come to my church and demand that "we change" or perform a ceremony for you. Why the hell would you want to come join a church or take part in a cermemony of a church that doesn't share your views? It makes no sense. I don't fear Jews or Athiests coming to my church and demanding a "Church Wedding" either.

But our church does believe that Marriage is specifically between a man and a woman, and that it (one man, one woman in a committed relationship), is the cornerstone for a family, which is the basis upon which a quality society is built.

We simply prefer to see the quality preserved.

Ok let's simplify this then. Do you agree, yes or no, that equally-committed-as-their-heterosexual-counterpart gay and lesbian couples should be able to enjoy the same legal benefits in the eyes of the law?

I believe you stated yes to this question in a prior thread, but I'd like you to say it once more for the record.

If the answer is yes, then we're talking semantics. If the word Marriage is so special, you can have it. I don't want millions of religious people who think they're religious church beliefs are being tread upon in their faith (much how many feel the election of that gay bishop treads upon their faith within their faith. notice how government has stayed out of it). If a church decides to perform a religious ceremony for Marriage, then that is their decision and you nor I have any right to interfere in that church's decision. But when it comes to matters of government, the government does have a right to uphold the freedoms of its constituents when it does not fit constitutional law, as two court cases have proven this year so far, with a possible third coming soon, i.e. the NJ supreme court is covering basically the same case and should be rendering a decision soon.

Let me try and put it another way.

My church is against abortion. We're not afraid that if all abortions is legal, that our church is "threatened." We're afraid that it lessens the quality of society. And we, like everyone else, prefer that society's laws reflect what is best for society. Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree. However in this case, what is best for society does not conflict with gays and lesbians being able to receive legal recognition and protections for our relationships, to which the Mass. Supreme Court agrees, and hopefully the NJ Supreme Court, and hopefully, the Supreme Court of this nation, and eventually the congress and president themselves.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

....Heterosexual Infertile couples don't have children like everyone else.

Not going to get dragged into that again. Everyone's heard it enough.

Sounds like they believe that the result would be the undermining and destruction of society as we know it, if interracial marriages were allowed, or at the very least that society would be worse off.

And I disagree with that, so what's your point?

Let me ask you this.

Do you believe, or not believe, that the sanctity of "marriage" and the family unit is essentially a significant basis upon which a quality society is built? Do you believe that if the "sanctity" of marriage is lessened, it would have a negative impact on society? (This is a totally different question on what exactly makes up the "sanctity" of marriage.)

We can contiune after you answer that question.

So why is race not legitimate but being from a rural community is, or having legacy is?

It's not. Where did I say it was?

They've all got nothing to do with ability. Isn't that the point? Or are you trying to justify a discriminatory policy?

No...you're justifying creating a new discriminatory policy "because other discriminatory policies exist."

My perfect world would be to get rid of rural geographic preferences, racial preferences, and legacy preferences.

So is everyone's.

My perfect world certainly doesn't add more discrimination to the mix to try and "balance out" other discrimination.

 

[zurich]

The answer is not pushing the institution of marriage into places it wasn't designed to go (especially not by the government). The answer is designing a legal construct that does not impede on sphere of religion and morality and has set laws that can apply to every person equally, without engendering the ability to claim religious rights are involved.

Which is pretty much what we have in Canada

 

[Natoma]

....Heterosexual Infertile couples don't have children like everyone else.

Not going to get dragged into that again. Everyone's heard it enough.

Indeed, but that didn't stop you from bringing it up again did it? You were wrong then just as much as you're wrong now.

Sounds like they believe that the result would be the undermining and destruction of society as we know it, if interracial marriages were allowed, or at the very least that society would be worse off.

And I disagree with that, so what's your point?

I made my point. Your line of argumentation is just as ridiculous, outmoded, and short sighted as those racists were back in the 50s when they made those judgements regarding keeping the ban on interracial marriage because it'd destroy society and god's natural order if they didn't. Guess what, allowing interracial couples to marry didn't destroy society then, nor did it lower the value of marriage any, and allowing gays to marry won't destroy society now, nor will it lower the value of marriage any.

Now again, I am speaking about Civil, Secular Marriage. Not Religious Marriage. Again, that is up for each church to decide for itself.

Let me ask you this.

Do you believe, or not believe, that the sanctity of "marriage" and the family unit is essentially a significant basis upon which a quality society is built? Do you believe that if the "sanctity" of marriage is lessened, it would have a negative impact on society? (This is a totally different question on what exactly makes up the "sanctity" of marriage.)

We can contiune after you answer that question.

The sanctity of "marriage" and the family unit is indeed an essential and significant basis upon which our society is built. And yes, I do believe that if our social bonds are broken down, we become more and more fragmented and weakened as a society. But this is about bringing gays and lesbians together into that structure, to uphold it, not to destroy it. The same as it was about bringing interracial couples together into the structure of marriage, to uphold it, not to destroy it.

So why is race not legitimate but being from a rural community is, or having legacy is?

It's not. Where did I say it was?

Here.

But my point is, there ARE in fact criteria for admissions that have "nothing to do with ability" which are perfectly legitimate. Race just isn't one of them.

Now as far as I know, the only criteria directly involved in admissions that have absolutely nothing to do with ability are geographic location (rural community vs urban community and if you're attending in-state school) and legacy.

You said there are criteria. I read that as you meaning multiple criteria, whereas if you meant a single criteria, you would have said, "But my point is, there is in fact a criteria," i.e. singular. Now singling out attending in-state schools, that leaves rural vs urban geographic preferences, and legacy. Legacy of course you haven't commented on at all. Why is that?

They've all got nothing to do with ability. Isn't that the point? Or are you trying to justify a discriminatory policy?

No...you're justifying creating a new discriminatory policy "because other discriminatory policies exist."

What? I said that I'd like to change AA so that it's class based and gives help to those who are not privy to the latest and greatest education due to where they can afford to live and their economic status in life. Economic ability affects anyone no matter where they live, what color they are, what gender they are, or whether or not their parents have legacy.

I said specifically get rid of race based AA, rural/urban preferences, and legacy. What exactly are you arguing??

My perfect world would be to get rid of rural geographic preferences, racial preferences, and legacy preferences.

So is everyone's.

My perfect world certainly doesn't add more discrimination to the mix to try and "balance out" other discrimination.

What other discriminations have I said leave in??? Someone has a case of not reading a post again......

 

[Legion]

Score one more for the good guys. Man this has been a great year.

you're telling me. Gay marriage support and a ban on partial birth abortion in one year. This is getting my hopes up! next maybe we'll get an order to dismantle teacher's unions and remove all hate crime/afirmateive actions acts from the books.

 

[Natoma]

I agree about the partial birth abortion ban (shudder) and gay rights, but I don't see what's wrong with teachers unions or hate crimes legislation. I've given my opinion on AA and other preferences though.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Indeed, but that didn't stop you from bringing it up again did it? You were wrong then just as much as you're wrong now.

No, you are wrong. So there.

I made my point. Your line of argumentation is just as ridiculous, outmoded, and short sighted...

That's only of course if the line of argumentation is the same...which it's not...so...

The sanctity of "marriage" and the family unit is indeed an essential and significant basis upon which our society is built. And yes, I do believe that if our social bonds are broken down, we become more and more fragmented and weakened as a society.

Thank you.

So if I believe that bringing homosexuals into marriage lessens the sanctity of marriage itself, you can at least understand why I would be against it. Right?

Again, obviously, you disagree homosexuals being maried lessens the sanctity of the institution itself...or you think it even makes it better. That's fine. We just disagree.

My point is, the question of interracial marriage is completley different to me than homosexual marriage. One of them I believe lessens the sanctity of marriage, and one doesn't. So no, it's not the same argument.

But this is about bringing gays and lesbians together into that structure, to uphold it, not to destroy it. The same as it was about bringing interracial couples together into the structure of marriage, to uphold it, not to destroy it.

Again...fine...you believe that bringing gays into that structure upholds it...I believe in the opposite. Can we just agree to disagree?

You said there are criteria. I read that as you meaning multiple criteria, whereas if you meant a single criteria, you would have said, "But my point is, there is in fact a criteria," i.e. singular. Now singling out attending in-state schools, that leaves rural vs urban geographic preferences, and legacy. Legacy of course you haven't commented on at all. Why is that?

Sigh...

I know that there is AT LEAST ONE critereON that has nothing to do with ability that is a valid admission factor. There may be more for all I know. That better for you?

Why should I comment on Legacy? Like you I think it's wrong to use legacy for a critrea in public universities.

What? I said that I'd like to change AA so that it's class based and gives help to those who are not privy to the latest and greatest education due to where they can afford to live and their economic status in life....I said specifically get rid of race based AA, rural/urban preferences, and legacy. What exactly are you arguing??

Um, this?

Anyways, AA, imo, should be changed so that it does not incur any greater weight in the admissions process than the points given for geographic location, financial status, legacy, or gender, because those are factors that are not talent based, such as music and sports, but still do matter in the world. I don't believe that it should be done away with at this time. Mend the system, as it should be. But it's not time to end it yet.

It is time time end it. And not just time to end it "only if other forms of discrimination don't exist."

What other discriminations have I said leave in??? Someone has a case of not reading a post again......

(Hint...read that quote of YOURS that I bolded....)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

...but I don't see what's wrong with teachers unions or hate crimes legislation....

Must....resist....further...tangents....

 

[London Geezer]

So what's your point?

I believe in the opposite. Can we just agree to disagree?

And I disagree with that, so what's your point?

Hello?

Right. So what's your point?

Joe.... What is YOUR point??

Oh wait, "homosexuals" (very "medical" term straight people use, hate it personally) should not exist. Wow... So much for democracy...

 

[Legion]

I do not agree with Joe and his position but i do not think he is trying to convey that homosexuals or bisexuals like myself shouldn't exist.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe.... What is YOUR point??

Now, since you believe [gay marriage] will have a positive impact on "society", then it logically follows that if I believe it will have a negative impact on society, THEN IT DOES CONCERN ME. Or am I not a part of society, and my decendents not a part of society?

That's my point. Got it?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I do not agree with Joe and his position but i do not think he is trying to convey that homosexuals or bisexuals like myself shouldn't exist.

Thank you (You would think that would be obvious to everyone.)

 

[Natoma]

Indeed, but that didn't stop you from bringing it up again did it? You were wrong then just as much as you're wrong now.

No, you are wrong. So there.

The onus is on you to defend the ridiculous notion that if you can't procreate you shouldn't marry. You said homosexuals can't have kids like heterosexual couples do. I said that infertile couples and the elderly can't procreate as well and they're allowed to marry.

So if you don't want to discuss your notions, don't bring them up.

I made my point. Your line of argumentation is just as ridiculous, outmoded, and short sighted...

That's only of course if the line of argumentation is the same...which it's not...so...

You think allowing gays to marry would bring down society and the marriage structure. Those racists believed that allowing interracial couples to marry would bring down society and the marriage structure. Multiple judges ruled on the matter, and it was even drafted into law to keep it from happening.

Hmmmm.....

The sanctity of "marriage" and the family unit is indeed an essential and significant basis upon which our society is built. And yes, I do believe that if our social bonds are broken down, we become more and more fragmented and weakened as a society.

Thank you.

So if I believe that bringing homosexuals into marriage lessens the sanctity of marriage itself, you can at least understand why I would be against it. Right?

Again, obviously, you disagree homosexuals being maried lessens the sanctity of the institution itself...or you think it even makes it better. That's fine. We just disagree.

And as I've shown, history has proven you to be wrong wrt your chicken little fears about gays marrying. The last great debate was interracial marriages. Before that, it was interreligious marriages. Now it's same sex marriages.

My point is, the question of interracial marriage is completley different to me than homosexual marriage. One of them I believe lessens the sanctity of marriage, and one doesn't. So no, it's not the same argument.

It wasn't different to those judges and legislators in the past. They believed in their cause, just as strongly as you believe in yours, that society would crumble and fall, or at least be seriously hurt, by this incursion into this sanctified and rarified entity.

And in that case it wasn't. In this case, it won't. Conservatives screamed to high heavens after the Supreme court ruled that the Texas Sodomy laws were unconstitutional, that it was the end of humanity and we were doomed to hell.

Gee, we're still here. Gays, Lesbians, and some Heterosexuals engaged in sodomy before, and continue to today. The sky hasn't fallen and the moon hasn't turned to blood. No one is rioting and the US is still by far the #1 power in almost everything.

But this is about bringing gays and lesbians together into that structure, to uphold it, not to destroy it. The same as it was about bringing interracial couples together into the structure of marriage, to uphold it, not to destroy it.

Again...fine...you believe that bringing gays into that structure upholds it...I believe in the opposite. Can we just agree to disagree?

I'm just happy the people who matter agree with me and millions of other gays, lesbians, and heterosexual supporters, on this matter. That is what matters to me.

You said there are criteria. I read that as you meaning multiple criteria, whereas if you meant a single criteria, you would have said, "But my point is, there is in fact a criteria," i.e. singular. Now singling out attending in-state schools, that leaves rural vs urban geographic preferences, and legacy. Legacy of course you haven't commented on at all. Why is that?

Sigh...

I know that there is AT LEAST ONE critereON that has nothing to do with ability that is a valid admission factor. There may be more for all I know. That better for you?

Why should I comment on Legacy? Like you I think it's wrong to use legacy for a critrea in public universities.

It's legal to say at least one criteria. You don't need to use criterion in that respect. But yes, better.

Seriously though, I'm glad you commented on Legacy. Before it seemed as if you were avoiding it.

What? I said that I'd like to change AA so that it's class based and gives help to those who are not privy to the latest and greatest education due to where they can afford to live and their economic status in life....I said specifically get rid of race based AA, rural/urban preferences, and legacy. What exactly are you arguing??

Um, this?

Anyways, AA, imo, should be changed so that it does not incur any greater weight in the admissions process than the points given for geographic location, financial status, legacy, or gender, because those are factors that are not talent based, such as music and sports, but still do matter in the world. I don't believe that it should be done away with at this time. Mend the system, as it should be. But it's not time to end it yet.

It is time time end it. And not just time to end it "as long as other forms don't exist."

What other discriminations have I said leave in??? Someone has a case of not reading a post again......

(Hint...read that quote of YOURS that I bolded....)

Am I not allowed to change my mind? Are my opinions on subjects static for all time?? That post was many months ago. Notice I did not say ever. I said, at this time. Why? Because I had not thought of a solution to the problem at that time.

However, I have come up with one now, and that is that I believe AA should be amended to cover class only, for the reasons I stipulated above. Legacy, Race AA, and rural/urban geographic preferences should be nulled.

 

[London Geezer]

In his own words, gay marriage will take society down, gay people shouldnt have children, gay people shouldnt have any kind of rights.

As opposed to straight marriages which are holy and pure.
Thats enough for me.
I'm done trying understanding him

 

[Natoma]

...but I don't see what's wrong with teachers unions or hate crimes legislation....

Must....resist....further...tangents....

Honestly, I don't. If you have a beef with teachers unions and hate crimes legislation, enlighten me. Frankly I don't have an opinion, educated or otherwise, on either subject.

 

[London Geezer]

Thank you (You would think that would be obvious to everyone.)

Well, obviously it is not. You assume too many things, you take too many things for granted and obvious, when you know very little of the people surrounding you, therefore you are not in the position to make judgements on behalf of them.

You want to know what i think?

It is not politically correct to say gay people shouldn't exist therefore you won't go as far as explicitly say/write it. However all your reasoning stems from the fact that you think this planet would be a better place without gay people. You will go around saying how you do not support gay marriage because at present time it is politically correct to say it.

The fact that i think marriage is useless doesn't have anything to do with me criticizing your way of thinking, which is pathetic.

Stream of consciousness or not, your bigotry amazes me. Thank god i don't live in the USA.

 

[Legion]

it was i who mentioned teachers unions and criminal legislations.

 

[Legion]

Stream of consciousness or not, your bigotry amazes me. Thank god i don't live in the USA.

Lucky you! All you have to worry about is rank antisemitism.

as if europe were without racism .

 

[Natoma]

it was i who mentioned teachers unions and criminal legislations.

Then enlighten me.

 

[London Geezer]

No actually all i need to worry is that the tube could be down tomorrow because of security threats following Bush's visit here....

oh and tea.

and council tax raising....