Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Massachusetts is the second-most Catholic state in the union (47%), and Catholics are tied with Lutherans for having the lowest divorce rate among Christians (21%).
Homosexual "marriage" was established in Massachusetts by judicial fiat, not by the legislature or by popular vote.
laws in our country do not always come from a vote, they are common law, which follows the british system.. where a previous case is looked at for distinguishing the law... That is how pro choice laws have come into effect. The reason for this is to balance out the super majority so that it cannot impose on civil liberties of minority groups. The Case is taken and matched with what is written in law.. and a decision is made. If we had put slavery to a vote in the south.. we would still have slavery today.. understand? Massachusetss has the largest catholics you may be right about that.. but it also has the largest percent of gay marriages as well.. so its a double edged sword. I think that is what he is trying to illustrate...
Also, this is why states are ammending their constitutions to say Marriage between anything other than a man and woman is illegal. So that when these cases come to the courts.. and they look at the law.. it clearly states NO.. But here is where we play with fire.. changing the constitution.. is changing the very fabric of what america is... and as we'll see in the future the courts will have a hard time interpreting the law because in ONE ordinance it says liberty for all.. and then later down it will say marriage liberty for only heterosexuals.. they will contradict themselves.. and then the folly in it will be realized and they will have to be overturned, otherwise the very fabric of the documents are void. its not so much that Mass. is liberal, but that it is one of the oldest areas of the country in terms of our nation's founding.. they take pride in that.. so for many it is not a matter of the "gays".. but rather, upholding tradition in keeping with what our founding fathers visioned a constitution to be and represent...
this is the process in which women were allowed to vote.. slavery was abolished.. and giving women the right to choice in abortion....as well as many other issues
lots of times the outcomes have been a shock to society.. but without it.. we wouldn't be where we are today..
and where will we be in the future? it is not a perfect system.. but is a way to bring everyone's issues and reasonings.. and apply them to logic which is suppose to be the law.. and then an outcome makes a statute.. which becomes part of the law...
Last edited by boiseguy; 08-31-2007 at 01:45 AM..
Reason: details
Civil rights. They are either for everyone or they don't exist.
Very good point and I fully agree that each and everyone in this country should have their Civil Rights protected. I thought that you might have some other issues that seem to come up with this type of topic. However Civil Rights is the most important one!
....Homosexual "marriage" was established in Massachusetts by judicial fiat, not by the legislature or by popular vote.
Not meaningful. In fact, a national disgrace that it did not happen by popular vote, as it shows our level of bigotry.
I'm giggling at the prospect of staid old Iowa, cornfields and cattle, actually being out in front of most states on this issue. Hah! Only in America. Okay, so it took a judge to do it, but still, staid old Iowa leads the way! Bravo!!!
Civil rights for blacks was largely achieved by 'judicial fiat' and not in state legislatures or popular vote. In the 1960's (even today?) a majority of Americans would've voted to keep segregation and keep the 'separate but equal' crap and the other trappings of our racist past. It was the courts that finally got the job done, forcing what was the right thing - truly EQUAL RIGHTS for all Americans. One of the many GOOD reasons we have a court system, and checks & balances, is to PREVENT the Tyranny of the Majority. The majority of us are not gay, but we must NOT hold down those who are via the tyranny of the majority. In Iowa, the checks & balances worked. The system worked! Celebrate it!
It's a disgrace that civil rights had to happen by judicial fiat. A disgrace that all those g-d blowhard politicians out there waving the flag for America and "family values" and all that is "sacred" about America didn't have the balls to do the right thing. After a hundred years of Jim Crow and segregation and lousy schools and redlining and poll taxes and lynchings and cross burnings, after all that, the U. S. Supreme Court simply took the ball away from ten thousand elected state and local clowns and fixed the damned problem. To me, that is one hell of a disgrace, that the people and their freely elected leaders were so hateful towards a large segment our population.
Here we are, 50+ years after Brown vs Board of Education, 40+ years after landmark civil rights rulings, still arguing about whether or not we will allow two people of the same sex to set up a household like any other two persons.
Good grief, have we learned nothing?
s/Mike from back east
Standing up against bigotry of all forms.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 08-31-2007 at 09:22 AM..
Opposition to gay marriage only shows that we humans are not altogether logical creatures. All of us, right or left, religious or not, want the things we agree with, and want to restrict or marginalize the things we disagree with. No one is immune from that.
It is entirely possible to object to gay marriage, as a "negative" in society, even though one is heterosexual, and even though one can just "look the other way". That's not a good rule to go by, and no one would use it in all cases. For example, it's entirely possible for a rational person to object to kiddie porn, though he himself has no children. Even if no clear clinical evidence exists proving that kiddie porn harms anyone; and even if the "kiddies" and their "big buddies" all appear to "like it", the rest of us can still object to it (and most of us do). Even those who otherwise defend pornography, and use it themselves, can vigorously draw the line at "kiddie porn", and most do. They are NOT willing to just "look the other way".
If a man's religious beliefs dictate he should "keep the little Mrs. in line" by beating her now and then, WE, his neighbors, are going to "butt into his business" and INSIST that he stop---this holds true even if the "errant wife" AGREES with her "need to be beaten".
The point is, we can, and do, object to all sorts of things, even if some would say it's "none of our business". And we do this, sometimes, even if our interference isn't wanted. We do it, you might say, in the interests of society. It may not always be consistent, but that's what we do......
Very good point and I fully agree that each and everyone in this country should have their Civil Rights protected. I thought that you might have some other issues that seem to come up with this type of topic. However Civil Rights is the most important one!
I agree, of course. It seems illogical to think that civil rights only apply to certain people, doesn't it?
laws in our country do not always come from a vote, they are common law, which follows the british system..
You seem to be confounding case law with common law. Common law, as you say, is a peculiarity of the British system, but it's never been generally observed in America, and wasn't even in colonial times. Historian James Truslow Adams details this issue in his book Colonial America, which I recommend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy
where a previous case is looked at for distinguishing the law...That is how pro choice laws have come into effect
Yes, unless a court decides to ignore previous case law for political purposes, as has happened increasingly often over the past six decades. Many decisions of this period have run roughshod over precedent, including some of the "pro-choice" decisions to which you refer. They represent a sharp divergence from prior case law, not consistency with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy
The reason for this is to balance out the super majority so that it cannot impose on civil liberties of minority groups. The Case is taken and matched with what is written in law.. and a decision is made.
Well, a decision is certainly made, but not always by matching a case with "what is written in law." Some (bad) decisions ignore cases that are representative of the legal history of the subject in question and instead devise novel constructions of the law that have nothing to do with its intent. The decision of the Iowa Supreme Court that prompted this thread is a good example of such arbitrary jurisprudence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy
If we had put slavery to a vote in the south.. we would still have slavery today.. understand?
No court ever ruled that slavery could not be practiced in the south. It wasn't a judicial decision that eliminated slavery; it was the enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished it there and everywhere else in the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy
Massachusetss has the largest catholics you may be right about that.. but it also has the largest percent of gay marriages as well.. so its a double edged sword. I think that is what he is trying to illustrate...
Considering that Massachusetts is the only state that has gay "marriages," it doesn't have a lot of competition for the largest percentage of them. The post to which I responded implies that Massachusetts' low divorce rate demonstrates that treating homosexual unions as marriages does nothing to imperil the institution of marriage. The purpose of my response is to show that this is a nonsequitur. Nearly half of all bay staters are Catholic, and divorce is quite a bit more problematic for Catholics than it is for Protesants. If Massachusetts has a low divorce rate, that is certainly no testimony to the alleged harmlessness of homosexual unions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy
Also, this is why states are ammending their constitutions to say Marriage between anything other than a man and woman is illegal. So that when these cases come to the courts.. and they look at the law.. it clearly states NO.. But here is where we play with fire.. changing the constitution.. is changing the very fabric of what america is...
Both the federal Constitution and the consitutions of the several states have been amended many times. Have we been playing with fire and "changing the very fabric of what America is" every time this has been done? Until approximately ten years ago, homosexual unions were not ever, ever treated as marriages, in any country, in the entire history of Western civilization. Who's really "playing with fire" here? Who's really attempting to "change the fabric" of society? Is it those who merely want to amend their state's consitution to make official what has always been standard practice, or is it those who want to radically redefine marriage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy
and as we'll see in the future the courts will have a hard time interpreting the law because in ONE ordinance it says liberty for all.. and then later down it will say marriage liberty for only heterosexuals.. they will contradict themselves.. and then the folly in it will be realized and they will have to be overturned, otherwise the very fabric of the documents are void.
There is no contradiction to consider. Any changes that the people may make to a constitution through the amendment process always replace any earlier, contravening text. It is always the most recent text that is applicable law. And again, when the people of a state amend their constitution to define marriage, they're not doing anything radical. They're simply writing into law what common sense had always been sufficient to guarantee before courts began substituting the homosexual agenda for it a few years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy
its not so much that Mass. is liberal, but that it is one of the oldest areas of the country in terms of our nation's founding.. they take pride in that.. so for many it is not a matter of the "gays".. but rather, upholding tradition in keeping with what our founding fathers visioned a constitution to be and represent...
None of the Founding Fathers from Massachusetts or any other state ever even hinted that limiting marriage to one man and one woman was in any way incompatible with liberty under a constitution. None of the original thirteen states regarded homosexual unions as marriages or accorded them any official status, and none of the Founding Fathers ever complained about this. Homosexual behavior itself was a criminial offense in many places, and when Thomas Jefferson was governor of Virginia in 1779 he asked the legislature to make the punishment for it the same as the punishment for rape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy
this is the process in which women were allowed to vote.. slavery was abolished.. and giving women the right to choice in abortion....as well as many other issues
Women were given the right to vote and slavery was abolished through exactly the amendment process that you have called "playing with fire" and "changing the fabric of what America is."
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy
lots of times the outcomes have been a shock to society.. but without it.. we wouldn't be where we are today..
No, any many people are hardly happy with where we are today. And the more that courts presume the right to make law instead of respecting the people's right to make it, the unhappier they're apt to become.
You seem to be confounding case law with common law. Common law, as you say, is a peculiarity of the British system, but it's never been generally observed in America, and wasn't even in colonial times. Historian James Truslow Adams details this issue in his book Colonial America, which I recommend.
Yes, unless a court decides to ignore previous case law for political purposes, as has happened increasingly often over the past six decades. Many decisions of this period have run roughshod over precedent, including some of the "pro-choice" decisions to which you refer. They represent a sharp divergence from prior case law, not consistency with it.
Well, a decision is certainly made, but not always by matching a case with "what is written in law." Some (bad) decisions ignore cases that are representative of the legal history of the subject in question and instead devise novel constructions of the law that have nothing to do with its intent. The decision of the Iowa Supreme Court that prompted this thread is a good example of such arbitrary jurisprudence.
No court ever ruled that slavery could not be practiced in the south. It wasn't a judicial decision that eliminated slavery; it was the enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished it there and everywhere else in the country.
Considering that Massachusetts is the only state that has gay "marriages," it doesn't have a lot of competition for the largest percentage of them. The post to which I responded implies that Massachusetts' low divorce rate demonstrates that treating homosexual unions as marriages does nothing to imperil the institution of marriage. The purpose of my response is to show that this is a nonsequitur. Nearly half of all bay staters are Catholic, and divorce is quite a bit more problematic for Catholics than it is for Protesants. If Massachusetts has a low divorce rate, that is certainly no testimony to the alleged harmlessness of homosexual unions.
Both the federal Constitution and the consitutions of the several states have been amended many times. Have we been playing with fire and "changing the very fabric of what America is" every time this has been done? Until approximately ten years ago, homosexual unions were not ever, ever treated as marriages, in any country, in the entire history of Western civilization. Who's really "playing with fire" here? Who's really attempting to "change the fabric" of society? Is it those who merely want to amend their state's consitution to make official what has always been standard practice, or is it those who want to radically redefine marriage?
There is no contradiction to consider. Any changes that the people may make to a constitution through the amendment process always replace any earlier, contravening text. It is always the most recent text that is applicable law. And again, when the people of a state amend their constitution to define marriage, they're not doing anything radical. They're simply writing into law what common sense had always been sufficient to guarantee before courts began substituting the homosexual agenda for it a few years ago.
None of the Founding Fathers from Massachusetts or any other state ever even hinted that limiting marriage to one man and one woman was in any way incompatible with liberty under a constitution. None of the original thirteen states regarded homosexual unions as marriages or accorded them any official status, and none of the Founding Fathers ever complained about this. Homosexual behavior itself was a criminial offense in many places, and when Thomas Jefferson was governor of Virginia in 1779 he asked the legislature to make the punishment for it the same as the punishment for rape.
Women were given the right to vote and slavery was abolished through exactly the amendment process that you have called "playing with fire" and "changing the fabric of what America is."
No, any many people are hardly happy with where we are today. And the more that courts presume the right to make law instead of respecting the people's right to make it, the unhappier they're apt to become.
playing with fire is not the act of ammending the constitution.. it is ammending it and making it contradict itself.. thats playing with fire
slavery was also law.. back when homesexuality was illegal...but do we think that is socially acceptable now?
the issue comes down to change and protection under the law.. people that were against women voting.. are no different than the people behind no gay marriage. They had their reasons why they felt they were right.. but in the end... under the law.. they weren't... so too is this issue..
case law.. common law.. they are similar, I was educated in the british system, so exact terms name's I am not up to speed on.. but I do know how it works... and that is the basis of what I'm saying.. don't get me on a few technicalities... when the bulk of what I'm saying is the point...
Not meaningful. In fact, a national disgrace that it did not happen by popular vote, as it shows our level of bigotry.
I'm giggling at the prospect of staid old Iowa, cornfields and cattle, actually being out in front of most states on this issue. Hah! Only in America. Okay, so it took a judge to do it, but still, staid old Iowa leads the way! Bravo!!!
Civil rights for blacks was largely achieved by 'judicial fiat' and not in state legislatures or popular vote. In the 1960's (even today?) a majority of Americans would've voted to keep segregation and keep the 'separate but equal' crap and the other trappings of our racist past. It was the courts that finally got the job done, forcing what was the right thing - truly EQUAL RIGHTS for all Americans. One of the many GOOD reasons we have a court system, and checks & balances, is to PREVENT the Tyranny of the Majority. The majority of us are not gay, but we must NOT hold down those who are via the tyranny of the majority. In Iowa, the checks & balances worked. The system worked! Celebrate it!
It's a disgrace that civil rights had to happen by judicial fiat. A disgrace that all those g-d blowhard politicians out there waving the flag for America and "family values" and all that is "sacred" about America didn't have the balls to do the right thing. After a hundred years of Jim Crow and segregation and lousy schools and redlining and poll taxes and lynchings and cross burnings, after all that, the U. S. Supreme Court simply took the ball away from ten thousand elected state and local clowns and fixed the damned problem. To me, that is one hell of a disgrace, that the people and their freely elected leaders were so hateful towards a large segment our population.
Here we are, 50+ years after Brown vs Board of Education, 40+ years after landmark civil rights rulings, still arguing about whether or not we will allow two people of the same sex to set up a household like any other two persons.
Good grief, have we learned nothing?
s/Mike from back east
Standing up against bigotry of all forms.
all I gotta say is... amen
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
