| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 11:29:04 PM
|
Coup d'arret. Moulinet!
Actually, Middleman, I have no intentions of making mincemeat of you or anyone. This is dispassionate logic operating, not the heated fury of battle.
I know you desperately want to believe that New Hampshire has been "infected" by those damn liberals from Massachusetts, but I have to tell you, at least anecdotally, I don't believe that these damn liberals are getting themselves elected in New Hampshire. My experience with our Northern neighbors is sufficient to recognize that they don't "cotton" to newcomers well enough to elect them. If the Dems have gained a foothold, then perhaps it's "homegrown" and you should consider what's happening nationally?
Who said that marriage was a right? Middleman, I hate to belabor the point, but the opinion in Virgina v. Loving made that very clear, and it is derived from the fourteenth amendment.
Relative to Margaret Marshall's opinion, Middleman...have you actually read the thing, or are you relying on canned opinion from the nattering nabobs? If you've read it, please state where it actually departs from state law and heads into "thin air". If it's actually "dubious" (and not because the nattering nabobs have said so) then please state exactly what these outstanding concerns are. By all means, let's subject the opinion to rigorous analysis; I welcome it and will wholeheartedly participate.
As for keeping this issue out of the hands of the voters...I guess I would ask you if all rights should be put on the ballot? Recall that amending the law is interferring with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and that "all men are created equal."
I did read Mr. Fitzgerald. While he may be pithy, he's not necessarily correct. I disagree profoundly that this isn't a civil rights issue. The Supreme Court has stated that "marriage is one of the basic civil rights on man," and we have a religious movement that wishes to take that right away. (Please don't tell me it's not a religious movement, not when we have churches pushing the petitions)
As for Mr. Smith, while I am sure he would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you, he's made it very plain that he believes this to be a civil rights issue. I am not a one-issue voter; given the myriad of problems facing the city, I don't have that luxury.
Thank you for your kind words. I have enjoyed myself as well. If I've gotten one person to acknowledge the complexity of this issue, then my time was well-spent. |
 |
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 08:56:17 AM
|
I feel what has gone on across the country was merely the result of enough people being dissatisfied by President Bush, the war and immigration issues, not a sustainable reincarnation of the Dems. Not to mention their mistaken belief that this is not a good economy. 60 some odd quarters of uninterrupted growth, booming stock market and virtually non-existant unemployment. What do they want man? It's a better economy than under Bill Clinton and they loved that one. Seeing I don't live in New Hampshire nor do you, let's not waste too much time on it. My opinion would be that the Mass residents helped elect left leaning New Hampshire residents who would never have stood a chance previously without their votes. I did'nt mean to say Massachusetts residents were being elected themselves. Sorry for the confusion on that. I have said I do not agree with the Loving decision being applicable to this situation. Your rationale that decisions are effected by the politics of those who wrote the decision could also be applied to any decision including Loving. The Warren court is recognized as quite a left leaning group is it not? Possibly the most left leaning in our nations history. Intelligent, well written individuals such as Supreme Court justices, Federal or State, can put forth a coherent opinion drawing reasonable conclusions that will be accepted by the populace. It's not always black and white, no pun intended. Only those such as the Marshall courts decision will draw the ire of the people and necessitate a constutional ammendment. No ammendment was passed to circumvent the decision in the Loving case. That will not be the case here if our elected officials do their job and represent US, not their own politically motivated position. Mr. Smith told me prior to the election he had not made a decision on that issue as of that time. Connolly, while unable to get much else done, was unambiguous on this point and honest about it. I suspect Mr. Smith knew how he would vote all along and was attempting to blow smoke up my a** to assure my vote for himself. That's why he will not get my vote again if he takes mine away on this issue. Anyway, if this "right" is so obviously enshrined in the 14th ammendment then the case should be brought forward. Surely if the Warren court can find it the current group will be just as successful. All those " mean spirited " state constitution ammendments will be swept away as the bi-racial laws were after Loving. They both rely on the same principle so we should get the same result? Either decisions are subject to politics or they are not. You can't have it both ways. I will need to re-read the Marshall decision before I can speak extensively and intelligently on it. It's been a while and I need to refresh my memory first. You have me in agreement the issue is not a simple one, nor one I took lightly before I came to the conclusion that I did. I have people close to me that this issue will effect and I owed them the time to consider it carefully before making a decision. I feel I have done that but your arguments have furthered my knowledge a bit more.
Thank You for taking the time court, I believe it was well spent. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 3:33:41 PM
|
From Fox News
A joint session of the Massachusetts Legislature has defeated a constitutional
ban on gay marriage 151-45, eliminating any chances of getting it on the ballot
in November 2008. At least 50 votes were needed to advance the measure |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 7:02:17 PM
|
| Well, well. It seems the lilly-livered pols on Beacon Hill caved to Deval, Arlene Issacson and the gay lobby. What they don't understand is they have just highly offended the 75% of the population who believe this matter should be put to a vote of the people. As I have stated earlier today, Representitive Smith who has proven he does not represent the majority of his constituents on this issue, has just lost any future vote from me. I am the only person in my large extended family who has much interest in politics. Therefor I am easily able to sway about 20 votes in Everett myself simply by asking friends and family to vote my way. I have done this in favor of Representitive Smith on many occasions in the past. When he ran against John McCarthy for mayor, his many Alderman and Council races and his recent election to the House of Representitives. That's all over now. I will actively work twords his defeat in the 2008 election cycle with donations to his opponent whomever that may be and once again making calls to friends and family. This time I will lobby as many people as possible against this arrogant thief of the democratic process. I hope all the politicians across Massachusetts who voted to stop the citizens of this state from casting their ballot on this issue are summarily defeated in 2008. They should all be prepared to face the consequences of their actions today. The issue here is no longer about same sex marriage. It has crossed over into their belief that they can go against the will of the people with impunity. I can only hope that the majority of voters teach them the important lesson that they cannot do so and remain in office. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 8:57:18 PM
|
I am just waiting for you to pronounce pestilence, plagues and the slaughter of Smith's first born.
As for caving in to the "lobby" - Middleman, perhaps there are people like me, who really are convicted that this is a civil rights issue. God knows the gay lobby didn't call me up. I just happen to believe that with a number like 1:10, most of us have someone we love who is gay, and wouldn't want their civil right to marry usurped, however well-intentioned. "Leave it to Beaver" got up and left decades ago.
I will also point out that Citizen, who likely responded here without gay lobby pressure, aptly pointed out, "does anyone suffer from 2 people making a commitment to each other?" Is your marriage diminished or harmed in any way since the legalization of gay marriage? |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 9:23:10 PM
|
Middle-Man1 . . . you're actually saying that because of this one issue, you're throwing overboard someone you've supported since 1993, which I believe is the first time Smith ran for public office? That the overall satisfaction that you've felt with this person, his ability, and his accomplishments over 14 years can be completely obliterated over this one issue?
And what if Smith's opponent in 2008 has the same feelings as Smith on this subject?
Personally, I believe in civil unions for gay couples; I believe that "marriage" is a religious ceremony. I have no problem with civil unions, with homosexual couples being granted the same rights and privileges as straight couples enjoy. What affect does it have on my life or my family's life? Is anything in my life, or your life, going to be fundamentally any different if gays have the legal right to marry or enter into a civil union?
|
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 12:45:01 AM
|
| Citizen Kane, this issue is of great importance to me. I have clearly sated I am against gay marriage but that is no longer the most important issue here. I take my right to vote quite seriously. Representitive Smith has taken that away from me. These politicians on Beacon Hill have gotten away with ignoring the will of the voters for long enough now. It's time we "throw the bums out" for defying us. If we do continue to allow them to do whatever they please without fear of losing their positions it will never stop. If Smith's opponent has the same feelings as he does on this issue I have lost nothing. I will have gained the satifaction of being instrumental in teaching him a hard lesson as a warning to those who would defy the majority in the future. I'm sick and tired of it and won't take it anymore. |
|
|
|
bostonbulldog
Member
1 Posts |
 Posted - 06/15/2007 : 03:58:20 AM
|
| Court4Fred you are right that the case"Virgina v. Loving was was the right decision.But please have the decency to acknowledge the the facts!!The court case was about marriage between a man and a women!!!!! |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 08:07:10 AM
|
| Just bringing this topic back on top. |
Edited by - massdee on 06/15/2007 08:07:34 AM |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 08:36:21 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bostonbulldog
Court4Fred you are right that the case"Virgina v. Loving was was the right decision.But please have the decency to acknowledge the the facts!!The court case was about marriage between a man and a women!!!!!
My guess is we were all fully aware the case Court was referring to was between a man & a woman. I know I certainly was.
It's a shame your first post on this board was to attack a highly respected member. That may be hard to overcome but ............... Welcome to the board. |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 08:38:43 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Court4Fred
I am just waiting for you to pronounce pestilence, plagues and the slaughter of Smith's first born.
As for caving in to the "lobby" - Middleman, perhaps there are people like me, who really are convicted that this is a civil rights issue. God knows the gay lobby didn't call me up. I just happen to believe that with a number like 1:10, most of us have someone we love who is gay, and wouldn't want their civil right to marry usurped, however well-intentioned. "Leave it to Beaver" got up and left decades ago.
I realize there are people like you Court. That's why when it came time to vote on the issue you should have voted NO on the ban. You're entitled to your opinion and entitled to express it. The same goes for Stephen Smith. The problem here is that the Rep voted to take that right away from me and I will not tolerate it. This new silly excuse they all pull out contending they voted their conscience is NOT why they were elected. They were elected to represent the views of their constituants. Unfortunatley for the rep from Everett he will be finding out next year that there are far more people like me who are livid that he had the audacity to hijack the democratic process than people like you who feel he did the right thing in screwing the majority of his voters because of his personal beliefs on the subject. The 1:10 is the mistaken belief by them that the gays would turn out in force against them in the next election and that the rest of the attention span of a nat voters would forget all about it by then. As for why the gay lobby did'nt contact you it is pretty obvious. You did'nt have a vote. If you did rest assured you would have been pressured unmercifully by their supporters, Patrick, DiMasi etc. If you believe those pols did'nt offer rewards or punishment to members of the con-con who did'nt vote their way, well, I have a bridge I want to unload. Interested?
Leave it to Beaver may have got up and left decades ago. That does'nt mean that it was a good thing. Many feel those ideals are something to strive for whether they are attainable or not. I hope the members of the general court realize we will just start the signature process over and bring the issue right back after we defeat them for their arrogance. They have gone too far now and must be prepared to deal with the backlash. WE WILL NOT FORGET.
|
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 06/15/2007 08:39:41 AM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 08:59:40 AM
|
Middle-Man 1,
I'm not sure how you could be surprised by this. Weren't there a number of direct mailings done for Rep Smith last year that were clearly put out by pro-gay marriage groups? Did you expect him to use them and then turn on them? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 09:16:45 AM
|
| It was also discussed on this board before the election last year. I am not surprised at his vote. I am one who thought it should go to the people, and let the majority decide. That said, even though I don't agree with the vote, I will still support Smith, one vote I don't agree with does not erase the good I think Smith can do for our community. If this ends up being a pattern, then maybe down the road I will rethink my position. I think he's doing a good job at city hall and if he makes a run for school committee, I will certainly support him. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 09:28:47 AM
|
bostonbulldog- welcome to the forum. No worries, justme! I think bostonbulldog will have to get up very, very early to launch a real attach on any of us here in the Forum. :)
You're right, Virgina v. Loving was about a man and a woman, but if you actually followed the debate that we've been having on this, you'd understand that Virgina v. Loving outlined two points of law.
1. Marriage is a fundamental civil right of man, based on the Fourteen Amendment.
2. The state shall not infringe on it.
And if you accept that sexuality is hard-wired into an individal and no more mutable than race, it is reasonable to draw lines between an interracial civil marriage and same gender civil marriage.
Now Middleman - I know that you are vehemently against gay marriage, but you do understand that you have no real "right" to vote on the issue. Even the Boston Herald, hardly a pantheon of liberalism, through their editorial staff, wrote today: "As we noted yesterday, nowhere in the Constitution is there guaranteed the right to a popular vote on a constitutional amendment. Lawmakers had a set of proscribed rules to follow, and with only slight variation here and there (and after some not-so-gentle prodding by the Supreme Judicial Court), they managed to follow those rules yesterday. At this point, I am going to predict that you will now insist that the Herald has been infected by liberals. :)~
We've also been round and round on the myth of "Leave it to Beaver." You may long for the good old days, Middleman, but they weren't that good, not when you look at it from a historical perspective. Let's see....Brown V. Board of Education, Virgina v. Loving, Vietnam, the Cold War, Civil Rights marches, the murders of JFK, MLK, RFK, Watergate and the fallout from that...and on and on. As I mentioned previously - that warm fuzzy nuclear family you saw on television, and may have experienced in your own childhood, is not a collectively shared experience, nor is it a historically established norm throughout the hundreds of years of American culture. |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 09:43:53 AM
|
| Court, there were enough votes of pricipled people in the legislature in January to send this issue to the voters. Lo and behold a few short months later it suddenly falls short. I smell a rat my friend. I do not feel the Herald has been infected by liberals LOL. Technically the rules were followed here. Many will be watching eagle-eyed for the expected quid pro quo for those who Dimasi and Patrick arm twisted into changing their votes. What, they suddenly had a revalation? I think not. It's funny, I was out with friends last night one of whom is formerly from Everett but now resides in Stoneham. He said his rep voted in favor of advancing the ammendment proposal to the ballot. He agreed it should be before the voters but worried that his district will now be shorted on funding by the ringleaders on Beacon Hill because his representitive did not " go along to get along". I think his fears are certainly warranted here. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Safe Haven
