Massachusetts courts (not people) might overturn no out-of-state gay marriage law

[Kevin_Walker]

"Mass. top court to hear gay marriage case."

aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/10972216.htm

"BOSTON - Massachusetts’ highest court, which legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts, has agreed to hear a challenge to the 1913 law being used to bar out-of-state gay couples from getting married in the state.

The law denies out-of-state couples the right to marry if it would be illegal in their home state.

The Supreme Judicial Court agreed in late January to hear the case, but no public announcement was made. Because of an earlier ruling by the court, Massachusetts last year became the only state that allows gays [sic] couples to marry."

---

Please be aware that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romey, who is vehemently against absurd homosexual marriage and voted against it, invoked this 1913 law to impede the onrush of homosexuals to this state.

The people of Massachusetts, the State House, and the Governor all voted against homosexual marriage in Massachusetts, and it was overturned by six non-elected members of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

We have 31 years of court ordered forced busing.
We have court ordered affirmative action.
We now have court ordered homosexual marriage by non-elected bureaucrats.

Maybe when the U.S. Army returns home after imposing democrary on Iraq, it will impose democracy on Massachusetts as well.

 

[Lisa_N]

Kevin, thanks for posting. This is good news! I would LOVE to see this ridiculous ruling overturned and let the people speak for themselves. Please pass on any updates.

Lisa N

 

[Deacon_Tony560]

Good for the governor. I still remember the currupt political machines that ran Boston for many years. I don’t see much hope there. But anything is possible with God. Even in Southie!

Deacon Tony

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Lisa N:

Kevin, thanks for posting. This is good news! I would LOVE to see this ridiculous ruling overturned and let the people speak for themselves. Please pass on any updates.

Lisa N

Oh don’t worry, it will be overturned. But I’m afraid then the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will rule the referendum unconstitutional.

So much for democracy in Taxachusetts: The Gay State

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Lisa N:

Kevin, thanks for posting. This is good news! I would LOVE to see this ridiculous ruling overturned and let the people speak for themselves. Please pass on any updates.

Lisa N

Lisa, maybe I’m misunderstanding this, but I don’t think it’s good news. The court has foisted same-sex marriage on Massachusetts and now it’s looking to foist it on the rest of the states. Their talking about overturning the law that prohibits out of state people to come in for the purpose of getting “married”. If the court nullifies this law then homosexuals from all over the country will flock to Massachusetts and export their “marriages” to other states. This would surely invite a challenge to the Supreme Court based on the “full faith and credit” clause of the constitution.

As interesting as it would be to see two grooms show up in a place like Vidor, Texas proclaiming that they’re married, I would be very unhappy to see marriage further undermined by a few black robes in Massachusetts.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Lisa N:

Kevin, thanks for posting. This is good news! I would LOVE to see this ridiculous ruling overturned and let the people speak for themselves. Please pass on any updates.

Lisa N

As I was trying to say…

My mistake. Actually it is not good news. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is trying to overturn a 1913 law which Governor Mitt Romney cited to prevent out-of-state homosexuals from being married in Massachusetts. Governor Mitt Romney said he didn’t want Massachusetts to be a magnet for every homosexual in the country who wants a absurd marriage.

This is a classic case of Whose in Charge? The Governor or the unelected Courts?

The referendum is not until 2006 which will kill homosexual marriages, but not homosexual Civil Unions.

Massachusetts Catholics are very upset, because we are not voting for homosexual civil unions, we want to kill any kind of homosexual inane nuptials. So no matter how we vote this 2006, it will not prevent homosexuals from getting hitched in Massachusetts, despite the protests of 6million Mass residents. Plus the courts can declare any decision of Mass registered voters to be unconstitutional.

I would love to see the Governor break out the national guard and place the Massachusetts Supreme Court under arrest for violation of the seperations of powers.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Kevin Walker:

As I was trying to say…

My mistake. Actually it is not good news. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is trying to overturn a 1913 law which Governor Mitt Romney cited to prevent out-of-state homosexuals from being married in Massachusetts. Governor Mitt Romney said he didn’t want Massachusetts to be a magnet for every homosexual in the country who wants a absurd marriage.

This is a classic case of Whose in Charge? The Governor or the unelected Courts?

The referendum is not until 2006 which will kill homosexual marriages, but not homosexual Civil Unions.

Massachusetts Catholics are very upset, because we are not voting for homosexual civil unions, we want to kill any kind of homosexual inane nuptials. So no matter how we vote this 2006, it will not prevent homosexuals from getting hitched in Massachusetts, despite the protests of 6million Mass residents. Plus the courts can declare any decision of Mass registered voters to be unconstitutional.

I would love to see the Governor break out the national guard and place the Massachusetts Supreme Court under arrest for violation of the seperations of powers.

When the court made it’s original decision directing the legislature to come up with same-sex marriage laws, I wondered why the governor or the legislature didn’t sue in the federal system for violating separation of powers. Of course, I’m not a lawyer, so what do I know.

 

[Lisa_N]

StJeanneDArc:

When the court made it’s original decision directing the legislature to come up with same-sex marriage laws, I wondered why the governor or the legislature didn’t sue in the federal system for violating separation of powers. Of course, I’m not a lawyer, so what do I know.

Sorry I misunderstood. I thought they were trying to OVERTURN the decision to allow homosexual marriage. My understanding was the timing of the court decision precluded the people from voting on the issue for a couple of years right? So the court overturning the original decision sounded like a way to take homosexual marriage off the Massachusetts books.

Sorry
Lisa

 

[4_marks]

Deacon Tony560:

Good for the governor. I still remember the currupt political machines that ran Boston for many years. I don’t see much hope there. But anything is possible with God. Even in Southie!

Deacon Tony

The Governor is a faker. One minute he says he is pro-choice, the next pro-life. One minute he supports gay unions, the next he does not. Typical New England Republican. No backbone.
Give me Carla Howell any day!!!

 

[Brad]

"Mass. top court to hear gay marriage case."

aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/10972216.htm

"BOSTON - Massachusetts’ highest court, which legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts, has agreed to hear a challenge to the 1913 law being used to bar out-of-state gay couples from getting married in the state.

The law denies out-of-state couples the right to marry if it would be illegal in their home state.

The Supreme Judicial Court agreed in late January to hear the case, but no public announcement was made. Because of an earlier ruling by the court, Massachusetts last year became the only state that allows gays [sic] couples to marry."

---

Please be aware that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romey, who is vehemently against absurd homosexual marriage and voted against it, invoked this 1913 law to impede the onrush of homosexuals to this state.

The people of Massachusetts, the State House, and the Governor all voted against homosexual marriage in Massachusetts, and it was overturned by six non-elected members of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

We have 31 years of court ordered forced busing.
We have court ordered affirmative action.
We now have court ordered homosexual marriage by non-elected bureaucrats.

Maybe when the U.S. Army returns home after imposing democrary on Iraq, it will impose democracy on Massachusetts as well.

Judicial tyranny extends over almost everything. This branch is completely out of control. It is the least spoken of branch in the consitution and yet, it has almost absolute and unaccountable power. This has to stop.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

4 marks:

The Governor is a faker. One minute he says he is pro-choice, the next pro-life. One minute he supports gay unions, the next he does not. Typical New England Republican. No backbone.
Give me Carla Howell any day!!!

No, the current Governor of Massachusetts is not a faker on the issue of homosexual marriage, he is dead set against it, voted against it, and has had a huge war of words with the Massachusetts Attorney General trying to impede the court order. And homosexual marriage is a court order in Massachusetts and was not voted for by the people or the State House.

Governor Romeny invoked a 1913 law that prevents outsiders from flocking to Massachusetts to get married if it is illegal for them to marry in there home state. Now the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (MSJC) is now trying to over-turn that law and allow a multitude of homosexuals to come to Mass to get hitched.

In the meantime is the 2006 referendum which will allow Mass. voters to overturn the MSJC’s ruling. But it will only defeat Homosexual marriages and not homosexual civil unions.

This puts Massachusetts Catholics in a bind, because we don’t want either one, yet no matter how we vote, homosexual unions will still be State recognized.

It is very appaling to be placed in such an ethical dilemma by a non-elected tyranical court system.

 

[4_marks]

Kevin Walker:

No, the current Governor of Massachusetts is not a faker on the issue of homosexual marriage, he is dead set against it, voted against it, and has had a huge war of words with the Massachusetts Attorney General trying to impede the court order. And homosexual marriage is a court order in Massachusetts and was not voted for by the people or the State House.

Governor Romeny invoked a 1913 law that prevents outsiders from flocking to Massachusetts to get married if it is illegal for them to marry in there home state. Now the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (MSJC) is now trying to over-turn that law and allow a multitude of homosexuals to come to Mass to get hitched.

In the meantime is the 2006 referendum which will allow Mass. voters to overturn the MSJC’s ruling. But it will only defeat Homosexual marriages and not homosexual civil unions.

This puts Massachusetts Catholics in a bind, because we don’t want either one, yet no matter how we vote, homosexual unions will still be State recognized.

It is very appaling to be placed in such an ethical dilemma by a non-elected tyranical court system.

On the contrary. I know first hand as I am an active conservative Republican from the Communist Commonwealth.

Governor Romney backed civil unions during the 2002 gubernatorial campaign. As Rush said yesterday on his “open line Friday” show, there are far too many “moderate” Republicans who just want to be liked by all. New England is famous for producing and offering Republican candidates, like Mr. Romney, who are socially liberal and fiscally moderate. In fact, the entire “Gay Marriage” issue is the handiwork of such a Republican, former Attorney General under Reagan, William Weld.

It was Weld, and his entourage (including former Massachusetts Governors Argeo Paul Celluci and Jane Swift), who appointed the liberal activist judges, like C.J. Margaret Marshall, to the bench. They are to blame for “Gay Marriage.”

When a conservative pro-life Republican, James Rappaport, had the support to run as Lieutenant Governor along with Romney, he was prevented from doing so when Romney chose Kerry Healey, a pro-choice Feminazi Republican, as his running mate. The people didn’t even have a say. Once again, a wealthy Anglo-Saxon blue blood bureaucrat had his way. It’s as deceptive as John Kerry, taking the political advice of that fat drunken “lady-killer” from Hyannis, and posing to be an Irish Catholic just to get elected here when in reality he was half Blue Blood Protestant and half Jew.

Romney has a distinct agenda. To get elected President, by hook or by crook. The agenda is in line with his position as a Mormon elder. In Mormon theology, Mormonism will “save America.” In order to accomplish this, Mormons like Romney, and Harry Reid, and Orrin Hatch, enter the political arena.

Romney is giving in to the Democratic heavyweights, such as Bob Travaglini and James Capuano, who as Italian Americans are but a testament to the years of religious and moral complacency of the Boston Italian Catholic community. Romney has done little if anything to address the Democrat legislature’s attempts at the deliberate stagnation the Massachustts economy. He is hot on the campaign trail…telling folks in South Carolina and elsewhere what he thinks they want to hear. Like Kerry, he is a master of double-speak.

By the way, the law to which you refer above is nothing to be supported. It was enacted to prevent “mesegenation between the races,” that is to prevent black men from marrying white women. The legislation is inspired by bigotry. Applying it against homosexuals only serves to fuel the fires for the charge that opposition to “Gay Marriage” is inspired by hate and fear, not by a sense of profound moral decency. Thus far, Mitt Romney has not demonstrated to this voter by his lack of firm and unwaivering leadership that he, too, is in possession of any.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon8.gif

 

[Kevin_Walker]

4 marks:

Governor Romney backed civil unions during the 2002 gubernatorial campaign. As Rush said yesterday on his “open line Friday” show, there are far too many “moderate” Republicans who just want to be liked by all. New England is famous for producing and offering Republican candidates, like Mr. Romney, who are socially liberal and fiscally moderate. In fact, the entire “Gay Marriage” issue is the handiwork of such a Republican, former Attorney General under Reagan, William Weld.

You seem to be ignoring the fact of Mitt Romney’s vehement and continued protest against homosexual marriage to the Massachusetts Attorney General. Mitt Romney is dead set against homosexual marriage, as well as the majority of the Republican party. Mitt Romney invoked that 1913 law to prevent Massachusetts from becoming overwhelmed by homosexuals, which was to counter act both the foot dragging and insubordinate attorney general and the mutinous Mass. Supreme Judicial Court.

Romney has a distinct agenda. To get elected President, by hook or by crook.

No, I disagree. It is the Republican agenda to get Mitt elected president, and he has been groomed by the Republican party for presidency for years.

Mit Romney is an obvious and willing martinette of the Republican Party, but I think he is much better than Gov. Weld.

Romney is giving in to the Democratic heavyweights, such as Bob Travaglini and James Capuano, who as Italian Americans are but a testament to the years of religious and moral complacency of the Boston Italian Catholic community. Romney has done little if anything to address the Democrat legislature’s attempts at the deliberate stagnation the Massachustts economy. He is hot on the campaign trail…telling folks in South Carolina and elsewhere what he thinks they want to hear. Like Kerry, he is a master of double-speak.

This equivocation does not only apply to Mitt Romney, but also to my fellow Irish Catholic American, the back-stabbing Congressman Stevie Lynch as well - backstabbing because now he is in support of homosexual marriage while being against it prior to his election, and now Lynch is reportedly pressuring the statehouse to support it.

By the way, the law to which you refer above is nothing to be supported. It was enacted to prevent “mesegenation between the races,” that is to prevent black men from marrying white women. The legislation is inspired by bigotry. Applying it against homosexuals only serves to fuel the fires for the charge that opposition to “Gay Marriage” is inspired by hate and fear, not by a sense of profound moral decency.

Sorry but that is not what this law is now being used for. This is a great example of a bad law turned on its head for a good cause; the prevention of more homosexual marriages. Governor Romney did a great thing by invoking that 1913 law and he has my full support and vote. We do not want any form of homosexual marriages in Massachusetts for any reason whatsoever, and Governor Mitt Romney and the State house have done a great job in fighting this gross absurdity.

 

[4_marks]

Kevin Walker:

You seem to be ignoring the fact of Mitt Romney’s vehement and continued protest against homosexual marriage to the Massachusetts Attorney General. Mitt Romney is dead set against homosexual marriage, as well as the majority of the Republican party. Mitt Romney invoked that 1913 law to prevent Massachusetts from becoming overwhelmed by homosexuals, which was to counter act both the foot dragging and insubordinate attorney general and the mutinous Mass. Supreme Judicial Court.

No, I disagree. It is the Republican agenda to get Mitt elected president, and he has been groomed by the Republican party for presidency for years.

Mit Romney is an obvious and willing martinette of the Republican Party, but I think he is much better than Gov. Weld.

This equivocation does not only apply to Mitt Romney, but also to my fellow Irish Catholic American, the back-stabbing Congressman Stevie Lynch as well - backstabbing because now he is in support of homosexual marriage while being against it prior to his election, and now Lynch is reportedly pressuring the statehouse to support it.

Sorry but that is not what this law is now being used for. This is a great example of a bad law turned on its head for a good cause; the prevention of more homosexual marriages. Governor Romney did a great thing by invoking that 1913 law and he has my full support and vote. We do not want any form of homosexual marriages in Massachusetts for any reason whatsoever, and Governor Mitt Romney and the State house have done a great job in fighting this gross absurdity.

While I fully agree with you concerning Rep. Stephen Lynch, he is a marked improvement over the late Rep. Joseph Moakley. Even so, he remains a loyal Democrat, and as a firmly pro-life Catholic, I would never be caught dead voting for or supporting one of those “jack-asses” these days. My voting choices are between certain Republicans (I am quite reticent to be supportive of many Northestern or West Coast ones who are mostly RINO’s), and some third party candidates. I prefer to cast my votes based on principle not by expedience.

As for homosexual marriage, don’t worry too much. Civil marriage is NOT the same as the Sacrament of Matrimony, which is God-ordained marriage that no man or woman can effectively tamper with. American society, along with Western culture in general, has been sliding down a slippery slope of moral and ethical relativism for decades. I am afraid, as always, we are doomed to repeat a cycle in history…the fall of a once noble and glorious empire. As long as we keep our own noses clean, so to speak, and remain faithful to God in word, in deed, and in our daily lives as sacramental people, we have nothing to fear. They may try to silence us, but they will never be able to silence the Truth for even the very rocks will cry out as a testimony against them. God is, as always, in unwaivering control. Battles may be fought and lost, but the victory is ultimately won. Bear this in mind as you soujourn through life.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Kevin_Walker]

4 marks:

As for homosexual marriage, don’t worry too much. Civil marriage is NOT the same as the Sacrament of Matrimony, which is God-ordained marriage that no man or woman can effectively tamper with.

Unfortunately, homosexual civil marriage is de facto marriage. And Massachusetts society will be forced to abide by the demands of this absurdity.

American society, along with Western culture in general, has been sliding down a slippery slope of moral and ethical relativism for decades. I am afraid, as always, we are doomed to repeat a cycle in history…the fall of a once noble and glorious empire.

This struck a familiar chord with me. Since I graduated from UMass/Boston in 1984, I have been comparing ancient Rome with the USA. Rome was a nation of Engineers, Lawyers, and Soldiers, and so is the USA. Greece thought alot, and Rome fought alot, and again, the USA resembles Rome in this rhyme.

The USA has noticibly changed drastically from the vision of the founding fathers, and even lawyers claim the U.S. Constitution is no longer relevant; and with my 31 years of experience with forced busing in South Boston, I must agree.

I wonder what shape the new republic of the US will take?

 

[4_marks]

Kevin Walker:

I wonder what shape the new republic of the US will take?

This remains to be seen. Present trends lean toward a globalization of world economies and cultures. Economic and, thusly, socio-political power centers are emerging, such as the European Union, the Asian and Pacific Alliance, the North American Free Trade Association.

Twenty-Five years ago, I would have balked at the thought that the United States and China would be associated in such an intense economic partnership, and that, despite this, China would remain a Communist state.

I suspect that some of the present Administrations efforts in the Near East are geared toward this same end…globalization primarily for economic interest under the guise of spreading democracy.

Post-modernism and other forms of secular humanism have swept over Western Culture and dominate much of it. Truth is defined in terms of expedience. The individual is exalted, but only as he or she remains a functional contributor toward the common societal effort. Escapism, as demonstrated by such a profound fascination with entertainment, the latest gadgets and professional sports, is also rife. Does one really need that perfect smile obtained through cosmetic laser dentistry? How about the five bedroom mansion in the latest cul-de-sac of mansions out in the burbs? Not to mention the SUV with OnStar navigation system and XM satellite radio. Heck, who can really get by on a salary of only 95 K these days???

Where will it all lead? In the short run, it is anyone’s guess, Based on historical pattern, it does not seem to bode well at all. Not to be a modern pollyanna, but in the long run, everything will be brought to its completion in Christ, no matter how wayward we humans may become.