Gay Marriage is Safe in Mass a Two Sticks…
June 14th, 2007 | by admin |What happened in Boston today really was not about Gay or Lesbian people having the ability or right to legally marry. Although I am very much in favor of gay marriage, today was really about our state Constitution and keeping it intact as a living working document that is fair for all citizens of the state. Placing any language in it that bans the personal rights of any individuals happiness is not for the place of government at any level.
Over at the Boston Herald they had this to say about it…
Lawmakers defeat gay marriage ban amendment by five votes
By Casey Ross
Boston Herald Reporter
Thursday, June 14, 2007The state Legislature has defeated a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, ending a three-year campaign to overturn its legalization after several lawmakers switched their votes in the final hours of a dramatic legislative battle.
The proposed constitutional ban was defeated in a roll-call vote of both houses of the Legislature shortly after 1 p.m. today, triggering a thunderous ovation by gay couples in the State House. The final tally was 151-45, giving supporters of gay marriage a victory by 5 votes.
The vote means the ban will be blocked from reaching the 2008 ballot, and that gay marriage has survived its final challenge, barring an unlikely effort to resurrect the ban at a later date. - Boston Herald
For all the folks that were demanding that gay marriage be banned in this state I’d suggest that you look around at your own family. Chances are that someone that you love very dearly is gay. Would it ever be right to deny that person the happiness of having a state recognized lifetime commitment? We should define marriage as love between two people and leave it at that.
Now that the state is out of the peoples personal lives can we get something done about matters that are really important? Is it true that cats and dogs are living together. Now that just isn’t right.
Papamoka
Cross posted at Papamoka Straight Talk
6 Responses to “Gay Marriage is Safe in Mass a Two Sticks…”
By SteveIL on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply
If the goal is happiness, then why encourage anyone to get married?
In all seriousness, you really can’t believe this is a good idea, do you? Think of the implications, and what’s missing from this statement.
By Paul Watson on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL,
What implications? The gays won’t have kids anyway whether they get married or not. The straights will have kids whether they get married or not. So unless you’re saying that gays being able to have equal rights is the end of civilisation, what’s the implications us stupid liberals are missing?
By manapp99 on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply
Conerning the rights of gays to marry the Mass legislature only voted to NOT allow the proposed ban to go to a full vote of the people. This will in effect allow them to marry and in my estimation that is fine. The issue I take with the legislature is in not allowing the people to vote. If they were sure that the popular vote would back up their stance they would not have disallowed the vote. It seems that they were worried that the will of the people would differ from theirs. What if the issue were the other way around and the legislature had banned gay marriage and the people disagreed and wanted to vote. I feel that if states allow ballot measures they have allow ballot measure about ALL issues as long as they meet a predetermined criteria. It is the courts job to determine if the vote brings about a civil rights violation, not the legislature. This happened in Colorado with an amendment that passed popular vote but was killed by the courts as a civil rights violation. It also concerned gays.
By manapp99 on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply
As far as this line goes:
“Would it ever be right to deny that person the happiness of having a state recognized lifetime commitment?”
I have had three of these “life time happiness” experiences and I can say for sure that two of them were neither life time or happy. If the gays want a part of that action….best of luck. Think of this. What would life had been like if there were no marriage for anyone? We would still have plenty of kids and plenty of couples living together in commited relationships, but no “ownership” that is implied with marriage. Also, we would not have the unfair marriage penalty in the tax code. It would put a lot of divorce lawyers out of business as well. How could that be a bad thing?
By SteveIL on Jun 18, 2007 | Reply
Paul,
Did you actually read what Mr. O’Keefe wrote? He said, “We should define marriage as love between two people and leave it at that.” Where in my reply do even mention homosexuals? Again, I asked what was missing, and you missed it.
Are not a brother and his sister two people? Could there be love between these two people? Based on the above definition, should then we allow them to marry because they “love” each other? No, and that is because of the obvious genetic problems with offspring from such a union.
Here’s another aspect to what I’m talking about. The ancients who started the Judeo-Christian traditions we primarily live under in the West, and who are often dismissed as religious whackos by so many, had nothing more than direct observation over a couple of generations or so to know that incest was wrong and that children from incestuous sex had all kinds of problems, both physical and mental. They didn’t know about the scientific ramifications, especially as they relate to genetics, because the world wasn’t as far along scientifically as it is now. Yet, they knew it was a problem. And those who believed they were divinely inspired wrote that incest was an affront to God and warned that being in such a relationship was not allowed in societies whose people follow the religions that came out of the Judeo-Christian traditions. This isn’t to say these relationships didn’t happen with those who ruled over some of the Judeo-Christian world (e.g., the Habsburgs); but, in general, these relationships were, and are, not tolerated.
And if the ancients were right about the damaging implications of incest, who could say they were always wrong about other things?
By Paul Watson on Jun 18, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL,
They also said the Earth was flat.
They also said not to eat seafood.
They also said not to wear clothes cut from two different cloth.
They also said never to shave the hair on the side of your head or to trim your beard.
These things should make you question just how much they knew. Doesn’t mean they were wrong about everything, but it doesn’t mean they were right.
So, implications of gay marriage are what? You’re correct that incest is allowed under the statement. Just add the word ‘unrealted’ in the middle and that’s solved. Are there any implications of that that I’ve sudenly missed? Will the sky fall in?