| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 09:49:43 AM
|
| I read a very sincere piece by one of the people who changed her vote. It may not necessarily be all quid-pro-quo. I know that about five years ago, I would have argued against gay marriage. Now, after it's been in place and the sky hasn't fallen in...and I have had the honor of observing gay married people, I would be hard pressed to take aware their right to marry. In fact, it feels very, very wrong to me. People do change Middleman. |
 |
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 10:28:32 PM
|
| C4F, I have finally found the time to get through my re-reading of the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision. I know this will come as a shock to you ( not ), but I have found far more logic in the dissenting opinion filed by justices Spina, Sosman and Cordy than in the opinion written by the gang of four headed by chief justice Marshall. I could cite many reasons I side with the court minority opinion but for the sake of time and space Spina writes " There is no basis for the court to recognize same-sex marriage as a constitutionally protected right." Also, " Such a dramatic change in social institutions must remain at the behest of the people through the democratic process". I'm pretty sure that's not what happened in Massachusetts this week but I will not continue to cry over spilt milk. If you believe in something perseverence is essential. This process begins anew. Those on the other side of this issue had best be prepared to continue the fight because if they feel they have settled the issue once and for all they are sadly mistaken. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 10:32:13 PM
|
Sorry Middleman....not enough effort involved. I need to know why you disagree with the majority opinion. What points of the opinion depart from Mass Law. You mentioned that it was craft from thin air...so in order to follow you, you will need to lead on your thinking process. You have to admit, I've taken you step by step through mine.
|
Edited by - Court4Fred on 06/15/2007 10:33:15 PM |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 10:40:32 PM
|
| Court it's a 48 page document. I can't possibly post all the rationale that I feel picks apart the majority opinion. I'm not the lazy type but that's a bit much even for me. You can't condense such a complex arguement down all that easily but I'm going to take my copy to bed with me and give it the old college try. I'll see if I can post something in the am that can be understood well. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 06/15/2007 : 10:57:24 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Middle-Man 1
Court it's a 48 page document. I can't possibly post all the rationale that I feel picks apart the majority opinion. I'm not the lazy type but that's a bit much even for me. You can't condense such a complex arguement down all that easily but I'm going to take my copy to bed with me and give it the old college try. I'll see if I can post something in the am that can be understood well.
Yes you can!
Everybody is entitled to be treated fairly and equitably. For me, that translates to: It doesn't matter if I marry a person of the same sex. It's not about procreation, it's about commitment, and the fact that my choice of a spouse is different from yours, doesn't make that choice any less valid. |
|
|
|
Obvious
Member
51 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 09:26:21 AM
|
| Don't drink soda, it's not good for you. Don't smoke cigarettes, it's not good for you. Don't drink alcohol, it's not good for you. Lot's of stuff out there are not good for you. Love is not one of them. Love is good. Live, Love, and Laugh. That's what life should be all about. Who really cares who one loves? Maybe someone whose fighting a battle with love? Or someone who can't find love? Please, please, please, leave Love alone. It's about the only good thing we have left in this world. |
|
|
|
jcklla
Member
32 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 12:04:41 PM
|
| So what does all this mean. Is it legal now for me to marry my sister? |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 12:27:42 PM
|
| No jcklla, it does'nt mean that at all. Let's keep the argument focused on a rational analysis of the merits here. The court still recognizes the restrcitons on consanguinity within certain degrees. Marrying your sister would still be off limits. My answer to your request for a more detailed answer regarding the Goodridge decision is forthcoming C4F. |
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 06/17/2007 07:03:52 AM |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 1:23:04 PM
|
Let's start with the central questions to be answered here. Those being , does the denying of a license to marry to same-sex couples offend the Constitutions guarantees of equality before the law and do the liberty and due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution secure the right to marry your chosen partner?
The majority writes " Unquestionably, the regulatory power of the Commonwealth over civil marriage is broad, as is the Commonwealth's discetion to award public benefits. Seeing this admission they must prove the refusal of the State to sanction same-sex marriage is a violation of eqauilty or due process. I feel they have done neither. The case frequently cited is the Loving v. Virginia case although there are many others. As we have discussed before the Goodridge decision became the specific arguement, my opinion and the opinion of the dissenting justices is that the Loving case is not a basis to compare this case to. Loving affirmed the right of a man to marry a woman and vice-versa regardless of the race of the partners. So, my arguement would be that consistant with the Loving decision all members of our society including homosexuals have the same right of a man to marry a woman or a woman to marry a man regardless of "race". It does not say anyone has the right, to marry a person of ones "choosing" as those on the pro gay marriage side of the arguement say. This is merely a leap of faith by the majority to rationalize their decision and obtain their own politically correct desired result. As I have said before, intelligent people such as those of the court majority can express themselves in a manner so as to persuade others they have made a prudent decision. The case of Loving v. Virginia does not advance their argument in my opinion. It is only a smokescreen to rely upon to hide their social engineering wishes. Touching on the family unit and the raising of children, there is no long term study or proof that children raised in a homosexual household will not suffer harm to their perception of what a family is or should be. There are plenty of states that do not allow homosexuals to adopt children for just this reason. It is therefor the right of the Legislature to demand proof the children raised in these alternative lifestyle situations will grow up to be well adjusted members of society BEFORE considering whether to ammend the marriage laws. It is not the buisness of the court to engage in social experimentation, in essence gambling that everything will turn out fine in the end. They all agree a childs best interests are paramount and it is unproven at this point if a childs best interest is served by being placed in this situation. As far as due process, there is no restriction on the "right" of anyone to enter into marriage. All are free to marry a willing partner of the opposite sex. They just refuse to do so which is also their right. In this case, the court interferred with the right of the legislature to effectuate social change related to article 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of rights. The power to regulate marrige rests with the legislature not the judiciary ( Comm v. Stowell ). The court has changed it's role in this case with no right to do so. They are the protector of rights not the creators of rights. They have overstepped their bounds here. The previous decisions that are relied upon by the majority including Loving, Griswold v Conneticut, Skinner v Oaklahoma and others that discuss the importance of marriage are about the fundamental nature of the institution of marriage as it existed at that time and was understood in this country. The court has redefined this institution all on it's own with no imput of, or consent from the governed. I will close with this. The radicals that wish to redefine marriage do have the right to attempt to do so. I recognize that fact. The problem I have is that they have turned the process on it's head. They should be the ones attempting to lobby the legislature to change the marriage laws. That is the right of the legislature not the right of the court. If there are so many legislators ammenable to their pleas as indicated by the 3-1 vote this week, then why not push for a change in the law instead of seeking intervention of politically correct judges? The rest of the citizens would have been far more willing to accept a change if it had been done democratically instead of in the back door manner they have temporarily suceeded in using. This only galvanizes those in opposition who feel they were cheated out of expressing their opinion on the issue. |
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 06/16/2007 2:27:27 PM |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 1:28:19 PM
|
| There are many here who disagree with me on this issue as is your right. Some do agree with me also. Once again, if this "right" is so readily apparent then why fight so hard to prevent the issue from coming to a vote? Their own polls supposedly indicated that a majority of voters support their rights to marry. Why not let voters settle the issue so we can all move on? I am willing to accept a vote that falls in their favor as the proper result of the democratic process. It's a pity that they are not willing to do the same and instead have chosen to breed resentment among those who disagree with them. |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 12:39:31 AM
|
| I have taken the time to re-read the Goodridge decision once again. C4F, I believe you have read the decision also and while I disagree with your assement of it, I respect your opinion. All of you who do not agree with me and even those who do, you should take the time to read the decision in full before you speak on it. I believe when people read the rationale used by the justices in the majority and the justices dissenting one thing will be readily apparent. The majority relies on their INTERPRETATION of prior decisions to make their case for changing the definition of marriage as we know it in this country. The dissenters rely on what the decisions ACTUALLY SAY. There is no question in my mind the dissent is the superior argument. Everyone should read the logic on both sides before they proclaim there is a right to same-sex marriage. My opinion is there clearly is no right to any such thing. I have taken the time to educate myself on this decision and those who disagree should do likewise if they wish to speak intelligently on the matter. One final question for you. If the 14th ammendment linchpin of this argument rings true, why are Margret Marshall's gang of four the only state court jurists in the entire country able to see it? |
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 06/17/2007 07:08:21 AM |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 11:09:14 AM
|
To be fair, I don't know why the rest of the country aren't using the fourteenth amendment. Perhaps, it's an ommission that's intentional?
I had an opportunity to read an interview of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, an Anglican archbishop from Africa. In the article, he decribes the African word, "ubuntu" - the connectedness that people have with each other and their community. When he was asked about gay marriage, this was his response:
"For me, I couldn't ever keep quiet. I come from a situation where for a very long time people were discriminated against, made to suffer for something about which they could do nothing - their ethnicity. We were made to suffer because we were not white. Then, for a very long time in our church, we didn't ordain women, and we were penalizing a huge section of humanity for something about which they could do nothing - their gender. And I'm glad that now the church has changed all that. I'm glad that apartheid has ended. I could not for any part of me be quiet because people were being penalized, ostracized, treated as if they were less than human because of something they could do nothing to change - their sexual orientation. For me, I can't imagine the Lord that I worship, this Jesus Christ, actually concurring with the persecution of a minority that is already being persecuted. The Jesus who I worship is a Jesus who was forever on the side of those who were being clobbered, and he got into trouble preceisely because of that. Our church, the Aglican Church is experience a very, very serious crisis. It is all to do with human sexuality. I think God is weeping. He is weeping that we should be spending so much energy, time, resources on this subject at a time when the world is aching."
I found it interesting, because it's gay marriage is a global issue, and I hope one day that there will be a resolution that recognizes that gays are people entitled to the same "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" that we all are. |
|
|
|
jcklla
Member
32 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 6:22:20 PM
|
| That's very nice. So does this mean I can marry my sister? If not why not? Why would it be ok for two men to marry and not brother and sister, isn't that discrimination? Would Jesus Christ concur with the persecution of that minority? |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 12:49:12 AM
|
jcklla,
This is the second time you've brought up the issue of sibling marriage. Do you want to marry your sister or something? I think Middleman addressed the issue of consanguinity quite well, but if you NEED to have it addressed again, then I'm sure we can go over it again, in great detail. |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 01:50:00 AM
|
| Not that I wish to drag this argument on forever but what I read in Sundays paper is another disturbing devolopment on this front as far as I am concerned. It seems the Mass equality group is still not satisfied with the legislature. They are coming back for more. They now want the state law which bars out of state same-sex couples from marrying here if it would be forbidden in their home state abolished. They now wish to impose a highly questionable Massachusetts court decision upon the rest of the country. This is the reason multiple other states passed a constitutional ammendment banning these marriages. It was only a matter of time before these couples began returning to their home states demanding their Massachusetts marriages be recognized when they got back. This may surprise some on this board but I hope the 1913 law is abolished here. My motivation would be a same-sex couple going back to another state, demanding to be recognized as a married couple and being denied based on their state constitution. They would then appeal to the Uninted States Supreme Court contending the ban in their state is unconstitutional based on the 14th ammendment arguement I would suppose. The US high court would then settle the issue once and for all and end the divisive ongoing debate so we can all focus our attention on other issues. |
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 06/18/2007 09:54:27 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Safe Haven
