[DaveyJones]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-02-gay-marriage_x.htm
Mass. lawmakers advance gay marriage ban

BOSTON (AP) — Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to move forward that would effectively ban the practice.
The amendment's backers had collected 170,000 signatures to get a question on the 2008 ballot asking voters to declare marriage to only be between a man and a woman, but they still needed the approval of legislators in two consecutive sessions.
On Tuesday, 61 lawmakers voted in favor of moving the measure forward, compared to 132 opposed. The amendment need 50 votes of support to advance.
If it makes it on the ballot and residents approve it, the constitutional amendment would leave Massachusetts' existing same-sex marriages intact but ban any new ones.
About 8,000 same-sex couples have wed in Massachusetts since the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that the state Constitution guarantees gays the right to marry. A few other states offer civil unions with similar rights for gay couples, but only Massachusetts allows gay marriage.
Backers of the amendment argue that it should be up to the people, not the courts, to define something as important as marriage.
Supporters of gay marriage say the civil rights of a minority should not be put to a popular vote.
Democratic Gov.-elect Deval Patrick on Tuesday had met with leading lawmakers and urged them to skip the vote, calling it a "question of conscience" and saying the amendment process was being used "to consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution."
Since Tuesday was the final day of the session, skipping the vote would have effectively killed the amendment effort.
Instead, the Senate president called for a vote shortly after opening the constitutional convention, though he left open a chance for parliamentary maneuvers by gay marriage supporters to try to reverse the vote.
"I'm very proud that we took a vote," said Democratic Sen. Sue Tucker, who opposed the amendment. "I think we owed the people that. At the same time, I'm also equally proud of my 'no' vote."
Last fall, the Legislature had angered the amendment's backers and Gov. Mitt Romney when it recessed without voting on the amendment. They appealed to the state Supreme Judicial Court, which said it was powerless to intervene but chastised lawmakers, saying they had shirked their constitutional duties by not voting at all.
Lawmakers arriving for Tuesday's vote were greeted outside the Statehouse by crowds of gay marriage supporters and opponents waving signs.
"Legislators are sent to Beacon Hill to vote on a matter, not to not vote on a matter," said amendment backer Paul Ferro, 30, of Norton.
A sign in the crowd of amendment supporters nearby read, "Let the people vote," while at the pro-gay marriage rally across the street, another sign read, "Let the people marry."

 

[erick295]

I only have two things to say:

1. People in this country are homophobic.
2. Democratic governing facilitates mob rule.

Until someone somewhere in the world can come up with a valid reason why couples of the same sex should not have the same legal rights as couples of the opposite sex, I'll never stop believing that hatred is the root reason for it. Religion, by the way, is not a valid reason, and for that matter, neither is the fact that there's a status quo. When you ask someone why this should not be legal, but you tell them they can't use religion in their answer, you end up with nothing but silence.

It's no surprise, really, considering that less than 100 years ago, racial segregation was legal and women could not vote. That's a pretty sorry record for a country so hell-bent on spreading freedom and democracy.

 

[GoneForNow]

2. Democratic governing facilitates mob rule.

Gee, others would call that majority rule.

 

[erick295]

Gee, others would call that majority rule.

Do you honestly believe that the general public has enough intellect to make appropriate decisions?

If you're trying to make a point, you may want to ease off the word games and present an actual argument.

 

[GoneForNow]

Do you honestly believe that the general public has enough intellect to make appropriate decisions?

Yes. If not, who....you?

If you're trying to make a point, you may want to ease off the word games and present an actual argument.

What word games? Was what I posted too deep for you?

 

[Mulderator]

Do you honestly believe that the general public has enough intellect to make appropriate decisions?

Are you claiming they don't?

 

[GoneForNow]

Are you claiming they don't?

Stop. I want lead him around by the nose awhile before he realizes what the real issue is.

 

[Mulderator]

I only have two things to say:

1. People in this country are homophobic.
2. Democratic governing facilitates mob rule.

Until someone somewhere in the world can come up with a valid reason why couples of the same sex should not have the same legal rights as couples of the opposite sex, I'll never stop believing that hatred is the root reason for it. Religion, by the way, is not a valid reason, and for that matter, neither is the fact that there's a status quo. When you ask someone why this should not be legal, but you tell them they can't use religion in their answer, you end up with nothing but silence.

It's no surprise, really, considering that less than 100 years ago, racial segregation was legal and women could not vote. That's a pretty sorry record for a country so hell-bent on spreading freedom and democracy.

The problem is you can't differentiate the legal argument from the moral one. If I tell you that two women and a man then should be allowed to be married, you'll argue "that's not the same." Well guess what--it IS THE SAME legally--that's the problem--its not for judges to decide the morality of marriage and who can be married. Some people may have hate as the basis for their objection to homozexual marriage, but your broad sweeping generalization has no facts or evidence to support it.

Bottom line is we regulate a lot of things people do and very often people are not treated the same--18 year olds don't have the same rights as all adults over 21, as one example. Fetuses younger than a certain age don't have the same rights as fetuses after a certain age. Couples don't have the right to have sex in a public place (in many places even kissing is against the law). We don't allow people to urinate in public or a host of other things.

You need to stop looking at what you think is right or wrong and look at the legalities and the fact that morality is NOT what you think it is, its not what a group of legislators think but what society as a whole thinks it is. Marriage is NOT a consitutional right, it is not a legal right--therefore--people are free to define that it consists of a man and a woman being married. I have no problem with it personally, but I do have a problem with a minority of people deciding what's best for the majority when it comes to the definition of marriage and using as their jusitification some half-baked nonsense that it must be "hate" as the reason for objecting to it.

Now I ask you why a sterile adult woman and her brother should not be allowed to marry (that eliminates the state's argument about birth defects in pro-creation)--i.e., why does the state get to preclude that, but not same-sex marriages? In other words, explain legally why they can do one and not the other.

 

[Mulderator]

Stop. I want lead him around by the nose awhile before he realizes what the real issue is.

Too late--I just laid it out in my last post!

 

[GoneForNow]

I have no problem with it personally, but I do have a problem with a minority of people deciding what's best for the majority when it comes to the definition of marriage.

That's it in a nutshell. If our esteemed poster thought about what he posted as it relates to slavery and women's suffrage he would realize that neither activity was unconstitutional until there were specific amendments made to the US Constitution. That, dear poster, is the point. The US Constitution is set up for majority rule. The first Ten Amendments (a/k/a The Bill of Rights) was the effort to curtail the power of the majority elected government to impinge upon the basic rights of the people. Nowhere does the Constitution protect women or deny the ownership of slaves, it took amendments to the Constitution to change that. Same thing with gay marriage, nothing in the Constitution protects that right so until such time as an amendment is passed each state shall have the right to determine by majority vote whether or not gay marriage shall be allowed.

 

[GoneForNow]

Too late--I just laid it out in my last post!

I know! Leave it to you to spoil the fun.

 

[Mulderator]

Same thing with gay marriage, nothing in the Constitution protects that right so until such time as an amendment is passed each state shall have the right to determine by majority vote whether or not gay marriage shall be allowed.

You should qualify that to say that a rational reading of the Constitution leads to the conclusion there is no right to gay marriage--obviously a few irrational liberals sitting on the Supreme Court in Massachusetts believe otherwise!

 

[Littlefield]

Good arguments lawyers case made and presented well :up:

 

[GoneForNow]

You should qualify that to say that a rational reading of the Constitution leads to the conclusion there is no right to gay marriage--obviously a few irrational liberals sitting on the Supreme Court in Massachusetts believe otherwise!

Goes without saying. This is the state that has given us Kennedy and Kerry, rational and reasoned thought are foreign concepts. Beside they were interpreting the Mass. Constitution which was probably written by gay Pilgrims.

 

[erick295]

Are you claiming they don't?

No, I don't believe they do, but I guess this is not really an intellectual issue... the smartest people in the world can still be bigots, and the dumbest can be the opposite. The real problem is that majorities tend to oppress minorities when they are given power. Places like Iraq are a prime example of that. Even the United States is a prime example if you look back just 100 years, although (thankfully) we're not a true democracy. If you take the oppression of homosexuals into account, we're still a prime example of that.

What word games? Was what I posted too deep for you?

Yes, you're substitution of "majority" for "mob" to change the connotation of the statement totally "busted" my brain. I guess I'm worn out for the night

The problem is you can't differentiate the legal argument from the moral one. If I tell you that two women and a man then should be allowed to be married, you'll argue "that's not the same." Well guess what--it IS THE SAME legally--that's the problem--its not for judges to decide the morality of marriage and who can be married. Some people may have hate as the basis for their objection to homozexual marriage, but your broad sweeping generalization has no facts or evidence to support it.

Bottom line is we regulate a lot of things people do and very often people are not treated the same--18 year olds don't have the same rights as all adults over 21, as one example. Fetuses younger than a certain age don't have the same rights as fetuses after a certain age. Couples don't have the right to have sex in a public place (in many places even kissing is against the law). We don't allow people to urinate in public or a host of other things.

You need to stop looking at what you think is right or wrong and look at the legalities and the fact that morality is NOT what you think it is, its not what a group of legislators think but what society as a whole thinks it is. Marriage is NOT a consitutional right, it is not a legal right--therefore--people are free to define that it consists of a man and a woman being married. I have no problem with it personally, but I do have a problem with a minority of people deciding what's best for the majority when it comes to the definition of marriage and using as their jusitification some half-baked nonsense that it must be "hate" as the reason for objecting to it.

I suppose you feel the same way about white supremacy, which was a sentiment shared by the majority of Americans at one time? The oppression of women was also quite popular, even supported by women. When did a majority of people wanting something suddenly make it acceptable?

And yes, marriage is a legal issue, because married couples have many rights that other couples do not. No one is asking any church to recognize gay marriage. This is not a question of morals, it's a question of giving all Americans equal legal rights. Age-related laws are something else altogether and have nothing to do with this. You accuse me of generalizing and then do the same thing yourself by justifying this inequality by pointing out that we have laws against public urination, like that actually has anything to do with it.

Even if you did want to turn it into a moral issue, you can only do that through religion, because no one could possibly have a reason for believing homosexuality is immoral unless they believe that for religious reasons. Unless, like I said, someone wants to come out with another valid reason (which no one ever has, because frankly, there is none AFAIC). I do not trust the majority to come up with decent laws, because the majority frequently proves itself to be ignorant and intolerant.

As for the reason why gay marriage should be illegal, I'm still waiting, and until someone states it, I've said all I will say. This is a completely pointless argument without a valid argument on the other side... and no one has presented one yet (and probably never will)... sorry, but Mulder's ramblings about people peeing in public, incest, and what the majority define as morality do not constitute an argument. He is bringing up issues that have nothing at all to do with this topic. He has basically stated in 10,000 words that gay marriage violates the status quo, which, as I said before, is not a valid reason for banning it.

Now, if there are any takers, go for it... give me one valid reason why gay marriage should be illegal. Otherwise, I've said what I have to say.

 

[Stoner]

And yes, marriage is a legal issue, because married couples have many rights that other couples do not.

What would those rights be?

 

[Mulderator]

Well guess what--it IS THE SAME legally--that's the problem--its not for judges to decide the morality of marriage and who can be married.

Let me add to this there is an OBVIOUS factual distinction between a man and a woman and two women and a man getting married. However, the problem is that in the law, you have to have a legal principle that applies--you can't simply state that legally two men should have the same rights in marriage as a man and a woman because you have to have a law that says that. In every state, the law says marriage is between a man and a woman. So then, the only refuge for the homosexual is to say the Constitution gives them that right, but as pointed out nowhere in the Constitution does it say that. Now if a liberal judge tries to say its implicit in the Constitution, then my response to that is HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU COME UP WITH THAT? Where is it implicit for homosexuals and hetersoexuals to have a right to marry, but not for a man and two women or a man and his adult daughter or a brother and a sister--all of these people are consenting adults that arguably must have the same rights--why would homosexuals and heterosexuals be the only consenting adults with a right to marry? How in the world would you derive that limitation out of the Constitution if you first derived that two men and/or two women had a right to marry each other in the first place?

This is what people don't understand--the ramifications of such a decision--they think simplistically and with their emotions rather than with logic. And trust me (and Gbrumb will back me on this), I have seen many decision where some idiot judge or judges caused a myriad of problems by not thinking through what he/she was deciding and simply deciding based on their emotion or what they think was the right thing to do. The problem is their "right" and my "right" and everyone else's "right" is different. That's why you need that to have a legal decision locked to a standard (either Constitutional or statutory or by case law).

That's why I am oppossed to a court declaring that homosexuals have a Constitutional right to marry even though I myself am not oppossed to it--it has nothing to do with hate.

 

[GoneForNow]

Now, if there are any takers, go for it... give me one valid reason why gay marriage should be illegal. Otherwise, I've said what I have to say.

Because (assuming there is a vote) a majority don't want it. That is as valid a reason as any. And it holds more validity then any reason you've stated as to why it should be legal.

 

[Mulderator]

I am also in favor of majority rule because I took an oath to defend the Constitution (and I also believe in it) and that's what it provides and the only time majority does not rule is when they are impinging on the Constitutional rights of some person or entity.

 

[erick295]

Because (assuming there is a vote) a majority don't want it. That is as valid a reason as any. And it holds more validity then any reason you've stated as to why it should be legal.

If that's the argument you want to make, then you must also argue that the oppression of women and the enslavement and segregation of blacks were acceptable during the times when the majority of Americans supported these things, and they weren't specifically addressed in the Constitution.