US supreme court rules on gay marriages

Oceans11 · May 14, 2004

US court rules on gay marriages

The marriage issue has stirred feelings across America
The US Supreme Court has rejected a last ditch effort to stop same sex marriage from becoming legal in the state of Massachusetts.
The court refused to issue an emergency injunction to prevent the process from going ahead on Monday.

The injunction, sought by conservative groups, had earlier been turned down by a lower court.

Massachussets is set to become the first US state to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

In their lawsuit, the conservative groups argued that Massachusetts' Supreme Court had overstepped its authority when it ruled last year that a state ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional.

This argument was rejected by an appeals court on Thursday. That ruling was upheld by Supreme Court justices, who gave no reason.

Fighting on?

The decision was welcomed by gay-rights activists.

However it was criticised by the Liberty Counsel, a conservative group whose president said the battle over same-sex marriage was "far from over".

The issue has prompted nation-wide protests. President George W Bush to call for a constitutional amendment defining marriage in traditional terms.

"Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal," Mr Bush said.

His main rival in this year's presidential election, the Democrats' John Kerry, has spoken out against gay marriages but supports civil unions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3716615.stm

barman · May 14, 2004

Oh they're just a bunch of liberal, spineless activist judges.

They can't possibly be reading the Mass state Constitution correctly.

I know because Pat Robertson told me.

UncleMoneybags · May 15, 2004

barman,

Are these the same people that would throw you in jail for committing the abominable and detestable crimes against nature? If so, why make marriage for it legal but at the same time if they do it throw the book at them? I'm not sure if they wrote the laws or just the Constitution but John and Samuel Adams did not have a positive view of sodomy. Whoever wrote the laws put it in there and it was passed.

IMO actions speak louder than words. The Founding Fathers IMO frequently seem to operate on the assumption that their intent is known. In that day, that was probably true. I don't think they could have foreseen just how stupid we Americans would become.

I live the majority of my time in the Midwest. This entire gay marriage debate is weighing heavily on a lot of people that I know here. Some have even expressed feelings of violence. I think gay people should cool the rhetoric (at least where I live) because the continued pressure could bring the situation to a head.

They keep reciting "equal protection" bull$hit. 2+2 and 3+1 both =4. What's the problem? Man and woman is not man and man or woman and woman. Just because you tell the teacher doesn't mean that you're hated any less. It may just be a word but to some people the etymology of it has religous overtones and they don't want to be included with someone else's definition of it.

I have to give Kerry credit for his stance on this issue as he tries to bridge the gap between the two sides.

UncleMoneybags · May 15, 2004

barman,

I'll refrain from further comment on this because I don't know which specific part to which you're referring in your post.

barman · May 15, 2004

UMB, it was nothing specific.

It was more a smartass poke at those who have described court rulings to date in Mass as being from 'liberal, activist judges who ignore the actual constitution and instead just impose their own heathen, liberal, activist values' on a public that is desperately trying to preserve the 'institution of marriage'....

or whatever...

And yes, I fully realize that the SCOTUS refusing to issue the emergency injunction is NOT tantamount to "The SCOTUS today ruled that same-sex marriage was ok in Mass"

And I'm pretty sure EEK also knows that, though his Topic header might be twisted by those who will accuse him of misreporting the facts of the case to date....I believe he merely made a semantical trip up.