Massachusetts Court Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Ban.

[Lune [6 Option Mod]]

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/storie ... TE=DEFAULT

So ... thoughts? What now?

[StruckingFuggle]

Hm, I was about to post this when I saw it had been posted. Hah.

I say, "about goddamn time". Either let everyone who wants to marry civilly, or get rid of the idea of marriage.

I look forward to the bile-filled drivel that will follow in protest of this. (Not saying everyone who disagrees is just spewing bile-filled drivel - well, not quite - but most of it will be). Should be amusing.

I'm all for either letting anyone who wants to get married marry anyone else (yes, I'm all for multiple people marrying the same person and all for gay marriage), or get rid of the legal concept of government marriage. So, as I said ... about time. Now, for it to happen on a national level... (not bloody likely, given some states being full of fucktards - see "Defense of Marriage" acts. )

[Fishmonger]

Having been part of dozens of Pro-Gay protests, This to me is awesome news. If the Christian right want marriage to be only between a man and a woman it should have no legal standing.

This is either a discrimination or seperation of church and state issue. As it currently stands Banning gay marriage is unjust and unconstitutional.


Craig

[Blaze]

Indeed, I think this is a GOOD thing. I think most people's problems with homosexuals are that they view them as being ver promiscuous and having many partners and what not. If we truly allow them to pairbond to a valid end, we may see a lot more homosexuals with just one partner and what not. A very good thing.

However, expect other states to all have to modify their laws now, depending on how they feel about this. Right now, each state affords the others good faith and credit on things like drivers and marriage licences. So, now that Gays will be able to marry in one state, without addional laws, all states will have gay married couples therein, who simply traveled to one state to get married.

[StruckingFuggle]

[quote="Blaze";p="218054"]
However, expect other states to all have to modify their laws now, depending on how they feel about this. Right now, each state affords the others good faith and credit on things like drivers and marriage licences. So, now that Gays will be able to marry in one state, without addional laws, all states will have gay married couples therein, who simply traveled to one state to get married.[/quote]

Good point. I forgot, being a marriage license same as a hetero couple, other states can't really ignore it (or when they do, lawsuit time) .. haha, choke on that, Rick Perry.

[0bb3]

This is great, it's a good thing tolerance regardless of sexuality is spreading!

[dmpotter]

As a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (it just sounds so much cooler that way... "commonwealth"), I've got to say that it makes me proud that our state's judicial system has made this ruling.

However, this isn't the end of this matter. It will almost definitely be fought by the legislature. It's highly likely (almost definite) that an amendment to the consitution of the commonwealth will be proposed to alter the definition of marriage, legally, down to a man and a woman. I hope that it won't actually pass, though - and I really don't expect it to. I don't think there is enough support for an amendment to actually get it to pass, but I don't really know. All the people I know around here (including adults) that I've actually talked about this issue are all for allowing gay marriage. But I can't say that I've explicitly gone looking for people who would be against it. I'd love to know the actual balance of opinion in the commonwealth.

But yeah, I'm all for it - equal protection under the law and all that. This could be a very good thing. It'll be interesting to watch what happens with this, though.

[Martin Blank]

Expect it to pass. Even a lot of people who are in favor of gay rights get quietly nervous about the idea of homosexual marriages. I don't know why.

I don't see this as any kind of win for gays, though. I see it as an affirmation of equal protection. Laws should apply to all people of all characteristics no matter what they are, unless there is some biological necessity to it that simply cannot be gotten around. Laws covering damages to women carrying a child, for example, are rather forced to focus on women, whereas those covering impregnation of a woman generally have to be focused on males.

Simple fairness. Either everyone has access to it, or no one has access to it.

[Shyknight]

It's good, I guess, but I'm straight so I can't really identify or care much one way or the other.

[dmpotter]

[quote="Martin Blank";p="218146"]Laws should apply to all people of all characteristics no matter what they are, unless there is some biological necessity to it that simply cannot be gotten around. Laws covering damages to women carrying a child, for example, are rather forced to focus on women, whereas those covering impregnation of a woman generally have to be focused on males.[/quote]
I view it as covering equally - anyone who is currently pregnent can get the protection under the law. It's just that one sex may have difficulty managing to become pregnent and therefore will never fall under the law. The law should still cover conceivably "everybody," even if some groups of people may never be able to find themself in such a scenario.

And it's still too early to tell whether an amendment to the state - commonwealth - whatever - constitution would actually pass. Just because the governer and speaker would support it doesn't mean it would actually manage to be ratified. I don't remember the exact process required for amending the state constitution (since it rarely comes up), but it's not a simple majority.

However - it's much more likely that a federal amendment to the Constitution of the United States would pass that would then override the Massachusetts law. So all this may just be a moot point anyway, but I'd like to see gay marriages pass in this state anyway.

(Oh, and Skyknight, I'm straight as well, but I still believe that gay couples should have all the rights granted to straight couples simply due to my belief of equal protection under the law. It may not effect me, but that's just another reason to support it - it doesn't effect me, but it does adversely effect others. So there's absolutely no reason to deny gay marriages as far as I'm concerned.)

[Deacon]

Homosexual behavior as on the same level with bestiality and the rest of the philia's (pedophilia, necrophilia, etc). Some people say they were born with gay tendencies, which I believe is probably 100% true. But we're also born with murderous tendencies, dishonest tendencies, lazy tendencies, etc, but that doesn't mean we nurture and encourage them.

[quote="Fishmonger";p="218052"]As it currently stands Banning gay marriage is unjust and unconstitutional.[/quote]
Gay marriage isn't "banned", it's simply not any more honored than a marriage between a man and a horse, a man and a robot, a man and a 15-year-old girl, etc. I'm curious, though, as to where you get the idea that not recognizing gay marriage is "unconstitutional".

[Blaze]

Deacon, I'd ask you why you claim Homosexuality is on the same level with those others. It's sexual contact between two consenting adults of legal age. You show me what's wrong with that. Please.

[Deacon]

I'd ask you why legal age for consent is 18.

[Blaze]

I'm not saying that's not an irrelivant age. It certianly is. But that doesn't constitute sex as evil. Nobody would deny there SHOULD be a legal age for sex. Before that, it's wrong, whatever that age may be. But what make Homosexuality "wrong"?

[StruckingFuggle]

[quote="Deacon";p="218254"]Homosexual behavior as on the same level with bestiality and the rest of the philia's (pedophilia, necrophilia, etc). Some people say they were born with gay tendencies, which I believe is probably 100% true. But we're also born with murderous tendencies, dishonest tendencies, lazy tendencies, etc, but that doesn't mean we nurture and encourage them.[/quote]

I'd echo Blaze's question : what's wrong with homosexuality? If its "unnatural", I'll gladly argue that it's extremely natural.
You seem to equate it with murder, almost. Why?
Furthermore, what's wrong with necrophilia and bestality? Sure, possibly disgusting, I find it totally unappealing, but what is ethically wrong with it?

[quote="Blaze";p="218351"]Nobody would deny there SHOULD be a legal age for sex. [/quote]

I'd disagree and say it's based on maturity, be it mental/emotional or physical. Hm, so I guess there could be a legal age, but it would be more to the month/day, not year, and different to the people.