Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Legislature Must Stand Up For The Definition of Marriage

Feb 10, 2004 12:27AM PST

The Following Editorial is from The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune. Sunday, February 8, 2004


OUR VIEW
Only a Legislature with enough backbone to insist that a free, democratic people are ruled by laws, not edicts from a four-person tribunal, can stop this from happening.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A slim majority on a sharply divided court is about to force a fundamental change in the understanding of human relationships on the people of Massachusetts.
Only a Legislature with enough backbone to insist that a free, democratic people are ruled by laws, not edicts from a four-person tribunal, can stop this from happening.

We have reached a crisis point in Massachusetts on the question of same-sex marriage. The Supreme Judicial Court by a 4-3 majority ruled in November that the state constitution does not permit laws barring same-sex couples from marrying. The court issued a 180-day stay on its ruling to give the Legislature time to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."

The Senate asked the court if a Vermont-style "civil unions" bill, granting same-sex couples all the legal benefits of traditional marriage, would suffice. On Wednesday, the court, again split 4-3, said no. Only full marriage satisfies its decision.

Justice Martha B. Sosman, one of the dissenters, rightly called the majority "activist" and "dogmatic."

These four justices in the majority -- Margaret H. Marshall, John M. Greaney, Roderick L. Ireland and Judith A. Cowin -- appointed to their posts, not elected, have taken upon themselves the decision to redefine marriage for the 6 million citizens of the commonwealth. We are to have no say.

This is not democracy but tyranny. A free people must not stand idly by in the face of it.

Marriage throughout human history has been the union of one man and one woman. It is the structure through which families are formed and maintained over generations. Each of us can trace his or her lineage back through father and grandfather, mother and grandmother. We live on past our natural deaths through children, grandchildren and their descendants.

The history of human families is a history of marriages.

The sacred bond of marriage in a religious context is not the issue here. No law can force a religion to change its understanding of marriage.

The issue is whether the state has an interest in keeping civil marriage unique as a bond between a man and a woman. It surely does.

Marriage fosters the formation of stable families, the backbone of civil society. Numerous studies have shown the ill effects on society that come from a breakdown of families.

Truly, heterosexual marriage is not perfect. Many end in divorce. Childish fools like singer Britney Spears make a mockery of marriage with drunken weddings just for the "fun" of it. But heterosexual marriage is the model civil society must promote.

Marriage is not a civil rights issue, as gay marriage advocates insist. People are denied the right to marry due to the age of the parties, their relationship or the desire to marry more than one individual.

Same-sex couples should not be denied the legal benefits that accrue to heterosexual couples. They should have the right to inherit, to speak and act in the interest of an ill partner, to enter into contracts jointly and enjoy any other financial advantages. Call it a "civil union" if you will. But it is not a "marriage."

More importantly, let us remember that homosexual men and women are our fellow citizens, entitled to be treated with dignity and respect, not hatred or derision.

There is no law, no government without the consent of the governed. That principle, not same-sex marriage, is the foundation of the Massachusetts Constitution. The Legislature must stand up for the right of citizens to rule themselves.

If the court will not be swayed from the path of tyranny, the Legislature must act to give the people their voice.

The Legislature should move forward with a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man with one woman and let the people have their say at the ballot box. It should petition the court to stay its order until that process is complete.

When the people have exercised their democratic rights, let us all agree to abide by the result.

If we are to rewrite a definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years, it must be by the will of the people, not four judges, that we do it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Actually it was illegal in California for Chinese and whites to marry
Feb 13, 2004 4:57AM PST

At one time or another somewhere in the world, almost any form of marriage was legal and illegal. One man with many women is fairly common today. One woman with several men have occurred in various parts of the world (it's easier for one woman to keep several men happy than the reverse). Group marriages and, even, gay marriages have been recognized in various places and times.

Actually if you keep Judeo-Christian-Islamic views out of the discussion, what is the objection to two men or two women getting married? Do you think that heterosexual unions are going to go downhill? If the "normal" family (whatever that is nowadays) is that fragile, perhaps it needs to go the way of the dinosaurs.

I love this argument that families or Christianity or Islam cannot withstand challenges or questions. People and religion have been around for a long time and, I think, both can withstand alternate marriage styles and new age gurus.

BTW polygomists believe that they are following God's will. Of course that is only one man having many wives not one woman having many husbands.

- Collapse -
Re:Here.
Feb 10, 2004 7:05AM PST

Dan... Just read your links. What the hell does my post have to do with Black & White marriages.

I think you missed MY point about same SEX marriages. Male to Male. Woman to Woman.

George

- Collapse -
They always do that. Standard diversion tactic for defending homosexuality.
Feb 10, 2004 8:03AM PST

Who would ever have believed even 30 years ago that a disgusting vice would ever be defended as if it was on par with marriage? Whatever slippery slope existed, we are almost at the bottom of it already. At this rate 20 years from now they will be saying the same things to defend Bestiality. There is no end to their shames and there will be no end to their flames, in the time of judgement.

- Collapse -
Re: AMEN
Feb 10, 2004 8:48AM PST

{nt}

- Collapse -
You always do that. Standard diversion tactic for preaching your morality
Feb 10, 2004 11:12AM PST

Nobody ever asked you to agree with a lifestyle you don't believe in, James. I only wish you wouldn't get so venemous about it. I guess disgusting is in the eye of the beholder...I feel the same way sitting across a dinner table with somebody who chews with his mouth wide open.

TONI

- Collapse -
Welcome back Toni, good to see you are feeling better. (nt)
Feb 10, 2004 11:38AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re: Standard diversion tactic
Feb 10, 2004 12:36PM PST

Hi, James.

Homosexuality IS -- it doesn't need defending. What does need defending is the prejudice against homosexuals, which is just about the last legal form of discrimination based on "class," rather than individual characteristics. it is therefore ENTIRELY appropriate to compare our society's current bias, dioscrimination, and even hatred of homosexuals with the previously sanctioned and similar actions against people of different race, religion, and national origin (remember reading about "No Irish need apply?") The hope is that people will stop using their emotions and start using logic to see that there IS no real difference -- ahtred is hatred, and discrimination is discrimination, despite the prejudice that ostensibly justifies it. And before you start talking about how religious principles justify it, remember that Protestants, Jews, "heretics," and yes, homosexuals were previously tortured and burned at the stake under the auspices of the "Holy Inquisition." Society pretty much agrees (there are still the KKKers, Aryan Nation, etc) that all but one of those were terrible examples of prejudice -- why not the last one, too?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
The old hatred charge. If you don't lobby in favor of the homosexual
Feb 10, 2004 12:53PM PST

agenda, that means you hate homosexuals. Right? Sorry Dave, but homosexual behaviour is sin, and calling it sin does not mean hating homosexuals. Remember? You can hate the sin while loving the sinner.

Clearly, homosexual marriage is unnatural. It is not discriminatory to say so. The logic you appeal to says there is a VAST difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual 'marriage'. If you can't see the difference, then you are letting your emotions control your perceptions. Marriage, as a relationship between a man and a woman, is the bedrock of our society. We can't play with that formula and say that it is not unique.

- Collapse -
If we followed the liberal practice of name calling
Feb 10, 2004 7:02PM PST

then everyone who defends homosexuality would be accused of also being one. It's a good thing conservatives at least are more tolerant than that.

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Standard diversion tactic
Feb 10, 2004 7:25PM PST
Homosexuality IS -- it doesn't need defending.

Marriage IS, when people get married. Homosexuality IS, when people engage in same gender sex. Both are an action, neither are preordained to occur for any particular individual, it is their choice. Having sex is a choice. Marriage is the correct process, homosexuality is the perverted practice.


What does need defending is the prejudice against homosexuals,

No defense necessary, since it is homosexuals that must try and defend their perversion instead. There are those who engage in perversion, there are those who will defend the perversion, more often they are one and the same.


which is just about the last legal form of discrimination based on "class," rather than individual characteristics.

Standing for what is right is not discrimination, but if so, of a good type. I have no qualms discriminating between right and wrong. Where do you get "class" as applying to this? Do you believe in a married "class" of people? Strange you would believe in a homosexual "class" of people. I submit you don't really know what "class" is, just like to use the word as if it proves some vacuous point you wish to make.

it is therefore ENTIRELY appropriate to compare our society's current bias, dioscrimination, and even hatred of homosexuals with
the previously sanctioned and similar actions against people of different race, religion, and national origin (remember reading about "No Irish need apply?")


So now you are saying you can tell a homosexual from the day it's born? This is laughable Dave, and you should know that. First of all religion isn't a birth characteristic, it can change for a person. So are you finally admitting that homosexuals can change too? Welcome to our side of the argument!!! Took you long enough to get here! Race is genetic, homosexuality hasn't been proven to be such, and never will be proven honestly since it isn't. It is a behaviour, nothing more, nothing less.


The hope is that people will stop using their emotions and start using logic....

Yes, it's about time you did that.


And before you start talking about how religious principles justify it, remember that
Protestants, Jews, "heretics," and yes, homosexuals were previously tortured and burned at
the stake under the auspices of the "Holy Inquisition." Society pretty much agrees (there are
still the KKKers, Aryan Nation, etc) that all but one of those were terrible examples of
prejudice -- why not the last one, too?


State executions you mean, right? Yep, criminals still get executed today for what we consider crimes. Why do you go out of your way to point to some tyrannical period to justify swinging all the way to the other side that justifies their actions anyway? That would equate to us pointing at the actions of Jews when they left Egypt and entered Canaan, and the slaughter of the indigenous peoples during those days, to justify ignoring their values of today? Ready to go there?
- Collapse -
I'm really having a hard time
Feb 10, 2004 8:08PM PST

trying to understand your thoughts regarding homosexual people, James. Sometimes I get a strong feeling that you believe that they are less than human and therefore if they don't make the choice to change that they should be dead because they aren't fit to be in your version of society.

Most gays are productive, creative, loving contributors to society but you don't seem to believe that any of that counts and that they aren't entitled to basic human rights that you as a heterosexual enjoy just because they don't use their 'equipment' the same way you do.

And yes...history has shown that blacks were considered to be subhumans without rights, as well as the Native Americans and other cultures that were wiped out and slaughtered by 'Christians' throughout the world because they didn't believe in God in the same ways as the 'conquerors'.....and history has been proved wrong, James. Missionaries in jungles have wiped out whole tribes whether by accident via introducing them to diseases they've never encountered before or by choice in their attempts to change the heathen and bring them to God.

Is murder justified in the name of religion when the righteous think theirs is the only way and 'subhumans' should be conquered into submission? The arrogance that one 'class' of people think they are superior to another saddens me.

TONI

- Collapse -
I don't think James was saying anyone should be dead.
Feb 10, 2004 11:50PM PST

He was saying that the practice of homosexuality is immoral, and shouldn't be 'sanctified' by marriage. He was also saying that the practice, the actions, are a choice. Making that choice is wrong, but it doesn't mean that the person who does it is not productive, creative, or loving. It does not make that person any less of a human being. However, homosexual marriage, to my knowledge, has never been considered a basic human right.

Missionaries cannot be blamed for disease. Disease is carried by travelers, and it is very few, if any, people who will be able to isolate themselves from travelers. OTH, missionaries bring education, medical care, technology and a host of other things to the poor of the world. Missionaries are also instrumental in stopping barbaric practices like canabalism or female circumcision.

- Collapse -
Re:I'm really having a hard time
Feb 11, 2004 2:10AM PST
Is murder justified in the name of religion when the righteous think theirs is the only way and 'subhumans' should be conquered into submission? The arrogance that one 'class' of people think they are superior to another saddens me.

Apparently you prefer that it be justified in the name of deviancy? AIDS kills. AIDS costs can be measured in money, time, productivity, and negative effects on research into other disease that can't be controlled mostly through sexual preferences.
- Collapse -
AIDS is not spread by homosexuality it's spread by promiscuity.
Feb 13, 2004 6:23AM PST

This includes homo as well as hetero sex.

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Standard diversion tactic
Feb 11, 2004 2:04AM PST

Yes Dave it is diversionary.

MURDER IS, robbery is, rape is, incest is, child abuse is, -- therefore by your line of "reasoning" none need defending. The only thing that needs defending is legal discremination against those who practice them.

Homosexuality is a deviant sexual activity and although you may pretend there are "shades of gray" in deviants there aren't. Consensual deviancy (think German canibal for one) doesn't justify condoning it.

Homosexuality is no more nor no less a deviant behavior than paedophilia or rape or incest or necrophilia. NONE need justifying or defending, they need elimination.

- Collapse -
Re: Standard diversion tactic
Feb 11, 2004 4:27AM PST

>> NONE need justifying or defending, they need elimination.<<

You state as fact what is bigoted personal opinion. If you made the same statement in large portions of the country as recently as 75 years ago, except substituting "N-----" for "homosexual," many would have agreed. That didn't make it right then, and it's not right now.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
There you go again...
Feb 12, 2004 12:52AM PST

You state a bigoted personal opinion and claim it to be correct and expect all to abide by it (something you often accuse Conservatives of but refuse to acknowledge about yourself). As soon at it is restated referencing other unacceptable behaviors it becomes a bigoted opinion even though the general claim has not been changed. That Dave exemplifies your own widely disseminated bigotry that everyone can see plainly but you. Overcoming denial is the first step you need to take.

Just because something is "not right" now after social engineers have played with moral values does NOT infer that it was necessarily bad even when it was right. Tell us about growing up in Boston and which side "of the tracks" who lived on (and still do to a very large extent).

Just because you think something was "not right" doesn't make it so and never forget that EVERY MAJOR RELIGION as well as EVERY MAJOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT has been receptive to slavery and rejective of homosexuality although changes come based on time and economic reality. Slavery was never just white masters and black slaves regardless of attempts to make it appear to be so. Ask yourself (or Josh or Jonah) what Moses led his people out of as they departed Egypt.

That is a mighty High Horse you are on to be denying your bigotry while propounding it--EVERYONE sees you up there.

- Collapse -
Re:A little poetry?
Feb 10, 2004 9:12AM PST

Heres another view??

As I understand it, a male married to another male.

One supposely is the Husband, the other the Wife. now a Wifes job in the household is a never ending job, repeating itsself day after day. I can't picture any male, especially myself wanting that job. When I retired recently, the deal was, share the household chores. Well, I'm now considering coming out of retirement and go back to work.


NOW, Woman married to Woman?
Thats a Total Waste of beautiful Womanhood. Need I say more.

Thank you, members of this forum for allowing me to express my views, no matter how distorted they may seem.

George

- Collapse -
Your picture
Feb 10, 2004 11:44PM PST

Just because you can't picture it does that mean that is should be illegal?

If same sex couples get married, how does that harm you?

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:Your picture
Feb 11, 2004 1:35AM PST

Just because I can't picture what Dan?
How does that harm me? It does'nt harm me in the least so far. BUT, it will harm the future of our Moral Standards with regards to the Unity of two People, A MAN and WOMAN Married as a family of familys, Children or no childen. Commonly know as Mr. & Mrs.

Its going to distroy the foundation of Marriage for our children, the teachings, and create a whole mess of other problems that we are not even aware of yet.

Give them Unity or whatever. Marriage NO. Basically all they want is the benifits, and bennies that go with the marriage license. What are we suppose to do, give them the sacraments of marriage too.

Aw, forget it, theres been enough discussion on this issue. If you don't know what its all about by now, watch the results.

George

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Your picture
Feb 11, 2004 2:50AM PST
Basically all they want is the benifits, and bennies that go with the marriage license.

Well, that and the simple dignity that comes with being treated as an equal.

Your description of male/female roles was interesting. Reminded me of Leave it to Beaver.
- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Your picture
Feb 11, 2004 3:22AM PST

By the way Josh...

I figured out how to get rid of that Curse on the Red Sox.

Eat lots of Babe Ruth Candy Bars....EAT, EAT

Thats been the trouble all along.

Have a good one.
George

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Re:Your picture
Feb 11, 2004 4:28AM PST

That will just make you miserable AND fat, LOL.

"Offerings" of beer and hot dogs at the Babe's gravesite didn't help last year. Wonder what they'll think of next, LOL.

- Collapse -
Watch results? Personally, I would prefer we manage to avoid the results. I think we can if we keep defending society. (nt)
Feb 11, 2004 3:20AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re: Point Well Made James.
Feb 11, 2004 3:28AM PST

{nt}

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Your picture
Feb 11, 2004 4:17AM PST

The government does not and should not regulate sacraments. Maybe that's where your understanding fails.

Please explain how same sex marriages will destroy the institution. I do want to understand why you think that is so.

Dan

- Collapse -
Question of marriage vs civil unions
Feb 11, 2004 9:24AM PST

"The government does not and should not regulate sacraments."

Granted there are civil marriages, but marriage was religious institution before it was a civil one IMO. Even non-religious people went to a church to get married in many cases because that was left to the established religion of the area at that history period.

So isn't the court insisting on marriage instead of a civil union that offers legal spousal benefits the government attempting to regulate sacraments?

- Collapse -
You raise a good point that should be considered.
Feb 12, 2004 12:14AM PST

Perhaps all that the government should sanction is civil unions and confer all rights and responsibilities that now regulate marriages to these unions.

Let the religions regulate marriages. You'd get a marriage certificate from your church and a civil union license from the state.

I think you're on to something here, Roger.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:Question of marriage vs civil unions
Feb 13, 2004 10:53AM PST

Does this mean that couples that are married by a justice of the peace or the captain of a ship aren't really married - they just have civil unions?

- Collapse -
Interesting point. They are called civil marriages.
Feb 13, 2004 1:48PM PST

I think the idea behind the civil union law in Vermont and proposals elsewhere is to give homosexual couples the legal rights to company health benefits, inheritance, guardianship of partner in health situations, right to visit in hospitals etc.

And I think the reason they went with a separate state of civil union instead of civil marriage was just to avoid the emotional reaction to the marriage of homosexuals.

BTW, anyone that thinks that would be enough.

Andrew Sullivan on how gay marriage will unite America

While some here have expressed disdain of Time, it has interesting accounts sometime. This is just the editorial at the end that is written by different people on different subjects. There is another story in the same volume on the recent history of lawsuits moving toward gay marriage rights.

I was surprised on one of the links from some post here to see Andrew Sulllivan described as a conservative. If it is the same one that often
writes this column for Time, it's a strange classification to me. I wouldn't have thought so from the his columns there I've read.