Mass. lawmakers reject gay marriage ban

[asousa]

I agree except for the "choose" part of your statement. I know some on here will say it is a choice, but I never chose to "be gay". I am what I am, as you are what you are. There wasn't a morning when I woke up and picked gay over straight. I never woke up and said, hey, this would be fun. Would my life be easier if I were straight, hell yeah. But I don't choose who I fall in love with, just as you don't choose who you fall in love with. I choose my car, I choose where I live, I choose where and for whom I work, I choose what color dishes I buy, what politicians I support, what shoes I wear, the color of my hair, blue or black socks, etc, etc, etc. But I have yet to meet someone who chooses who the fall in love with.

Hey, I am on your side. I used the word "chose" lightly. I am not gay, but I truly respect you and your feelings. And I also believe that, back on topic, that people should not be told who they can and cannot love. I don't see why people make such a huge deal out of this gay marriage thing....who cares, how does it affect that individual in ANY way at all. This whole topic still boggles my mind. I can understand different veiws on abortion and politics, but the gay marriage thing is just people being morons as far as I am concerned.

 

[Slamminc11]

Your not telling me anything I dont already know. But yes the one that has let the liberals go too far. But if you are suggesting our forefathers didnt recognize God your kidding yourself:

Where in my statement did I ever suggest our forefathers not recognize god? All I said was that for the first 50 or so years that this country said the pledge it didn't have the words "under god" in it, then in the 50's they decided to add it in. Like I said, doesn't matter to me either way. It didn't affect nor influence my views on god when I was in school and "had" to say it, no would it have affected nor influence mine if "under god" were not in it.

 

[CPanther95]

the gay marriage thing is just people being morons as far as I am concerned.

So much for being considerate of other's feelings.

 

[Matt]

The liberals have twisted the Constitution beyond any point which our forefathers could ever foresee. I'm sure they are rolling in their graves watching how our courts are botching the interpretation of our constitution.

I hope, you don't hear "our" forefathers revolving noise - could be a sign of a very serious condition
Imagining, how and what the Forefathers of the Constitution would be doing, is very easy and everybody can use as pleases - none of them is around anymore - which is a fact - unless you tell me otherwise.

 

[Slamminc11]

...I'm sure they are rolling in their graves watching how our courts are botching the interpretation of our constitution.

Isn't that the role of the judicial branch of our government, to interpret the laws? Or is it their role for them to rule the way YOU see best?

 

[vurbano]

Where in my statement did I ever suggest our forefathers not recognize god? All I said was that for the first 50 or so years that this country said the pledge it didn't have the words "under god" in it, then in the 50's they decided to add it in. Like I said, doesn't matter to me either way. It didn't affect nor influence my views on god when I was in school and "had" to say it, no would it have affected nor influence mine if "under god" were not in it.

Im sorry, but Ive seen the debate start with the statement you made. I agree you never said our forefathers did not recognize God.

 

[vurbano]

Isn't that the role of the judicial branch of our government, to interpret the laws? ?

Yes

Or is it their role for them to rule the way YOU see best?

No

It is the the role of the Supreme Court to strictly interpret the constitution not to create things that are NOT there! Not to legislate from the bench. Where does it say in the constitution that the government can take your PRIVATE property for PRIVATE use? IF anything the mere fact that it says that it can take PRIVATE property for PUBLIC use with fair compensation and doesnt address the other is proof that the forefathers never thought that this society could become so perverted in its thinking to ever consider the other. A perverted, twisted misinterpretation that is becoming common in their rulings. Whats really amazing is that even some of the liberal judges voted for this. Arent they the ones that claim to be the only real protectors of our civil rights?

 

[Matt]

WHats really amazing is that even some of the liberal judges voted for this

Now,that is a point, I agree with you 100 % !

 

[vurbano]

Now,that is a point, I agree with you 100 % !

I was shocked to look at the voting record. I just dont understand. You may not agree with me on many things about this court or exactly what is wrong with it. But obviously there is something wrong here.

 

[riffjim4069]

The Politics of Law...

The role of the Judicial Branch is to apply the law as written - there should be very little room for interpretation. Laws not clearly written should be appended/amended by State and Federal law writers (Legislative Branch). Problems arise when people confuse written law with fairness and common sense...and more problems arise when Judges attempt to interpret that which is not clearly written or expressly implied.

The Supreme Court is there to ensure the actions of the President, Legislative and Judicial branches, do not violate The Constitution. They should not be there to set precedence. The problem is The Constitution, while a brilliant document, isn't perfect. Since Congress in this day and age is incapable of amending The Constitution, the Supreme Court is largely left to establish precedence setting rulings through their implied interpretation of the Constitution. The last amendment (Twenty-seventh Amendment) passed in 1992, was first proposed in in 1789. Prior to that time, the Twenty-sixth Amendment lowering the voting age to 18 was passed in 1971. Hence the unfortunate politics of law...

 

[vurbano]

riffjim4069 says it a lot better than I.

 

[dstrouth]

It is the the role of the Supreme Court to strictly interpret the constitution not to create things that are NOT there!

Unfortunately it seems lately that the supreme court is not interpreting the constitution, rather making new law based on what other countries think is right, and what other countries will be OK with us doing or not

 

[Purogamer]

What's so wrong about two gay people wanting to be as miserable as opposite-sex couples? =)>

Why can't they just call it "civil unions" or whatever and the religious side of this shut up? The whole point is that the word accociated with the union of two men or two women is "marriage" which is wrong under the bible. So use another word. It's just a word.

To say "Go f**k yourself" can be replaced with "Go Fork yourself" and despite different wording, has the exact same meaning when it comes out of my mouth.

It's a religious war over the use of a word. Have we nothing better to do? Sitting around picketing for no-gay marriages while the precious children are at home downloading porn on the internet between "choking game" sessions with their other un-attended to friends...

 

[EEJay]

A perverted, twisted misinterpretation that is becoming common in their rulings

It's the same "perverted" court that put your buddy Georgie boy in the Oval Office.

 

[EEJay]

It's a religious war over the use of a word.

And what do we know about religious wars? They're pointless and endless.

 

[vurbano]

It's the same "perverted" court that put your buddy Georgie boy in the Oval Office.

Why wouldnt they? He won the election.