Majority in Mass. poll oppose gay marriage

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by wdlove, Feb 22, 2004.

  1. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #1
    A majority of Massachusetts residents said they oppose legalizing gay marriage, a significant increase since the state's highest court ruled three months ago that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, according to a new Boston Globe poll.

    The poll also found that an overwhelming majority of those surveyed wanted the voters, not the courts or the Legislature, to define marriage in Massachusetts, through a statewide ballot question to amend the constitution. And it indicated significant support for civil unions.

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/02/22/majority_in_mass_poll_oppose_gay_marriage/
     
  2. ebow macrumors 6502a

    ebow

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Trapped in a world before later on
    #2
    (this is not directed at you, wdlove)

    Did the voters get to decide, during the Civil Rights movement, that separate but equal (Jim Crow et al) was inherently unequal? No! That's what the courts are for. Screw you and your notion of "activist judges," President Bush. And when the hell was the last time we wrote amendments into a constitution that restricted the rights of a group of people? I don't know much about the Massachusetts Constitution, but in the U.S. version the only one that comes close is the 18th--Prohibition (yeah, it's not restriction the rights of one group, but it's the only similar restriction one I can think of). And that worked so well that they had to come out with number 21 fourteen years later--repealing prohibition. :rolleyes:
     
  3. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #3
    And in related news a poll of voters in 1830's South Carolina found they are in favor of slavery....
    Majority doesn't equal right all the time.
     
  4. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #4
    While I agree with you in this case, I do agree that activist judges are a bad thing. Judges need to be appointed who have a record of decisions that don't get overturned, not because of their views on a single issue. 30 some years ago activist judges took what should have been a legislative matter and turned it into a constitutional matter and the country has been dealing with it ever since.
     
  5. MacRumorSkeptic macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    Southern California
    #5
    Gays have the right to marriage, their free to marry someone of the opposite sex any time they want. Lets get the government out of the marraige business so this won't be an issue.
     
  6. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #6
    I agree with you in a sense - but I don't think you'll like it. :p

    We should indeed "get the government out of marriage." There need to be 2 separate things, and they need to have nothing to do with each other.

    The first is a religious/ spiritual union. Each group (Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and so on) can decide who it wants to be able to "marry." If the Catholic Church says it (and "God") will only recognize a union between a man and a woman, so be it. And if Protestants want to recognize a union between a man and a woman, or 2 people of the same sex, that's fine too. The government will have absolutely nothing to say about it. It's purely a matter of faith and spirituality.

    The second is legal benefits. As far as I'm concerned, *any* two adults should be able to form a "civil union" that will confer the same legal benefits that marriage currently does. Romantic partners, same sex, opposite sex, family members, whatever. It's not a "marriage;" it's things like power of attorney when incapacitated or joint taxes - financial and legal things.

    The two are entirely separate. The government has absolutely no business telling religious groups or individuals what unions are or aren't acceptable, and religious groups in turn have no business performing ceremonies that confer legal benefits.

    Many people will want to form such a civil union with the person to whom they are "religiously married." But you can have either one without the other, if you so choose.

    MacRumorSkeptic -- How would you feel if you had the right to marry anyone you wanted... of the same sex? But couldn't marry someone you loved of the opposite sex. Does that sound good to you? Fair, equal, *just*? I didn't think so.
     
  7. ColoJohnBoy macrumors 65816

    ColoJohnBoy

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #7
    Unfortunately that's not the way it works, and doubtfully ever has worked. When was the last time a president DIDN'T appoint a Supreme Court justice based on a single issue, or several issues? Every judge sitting in this nation was appointed because they would assuredly rule a certain way on certain issues, such as abortion, gun control, gay rights, etc. For Bush to come out a decry "activist'" judges is blatant hypocrisy. If (God forbid) he has the opportunity to appoint a judge, you can be certain that judge will be anti-choice, anti-gun control, anti-gay rights, and pro-school vouchers (This list could go on). Either every judge is an activist judge or none of them are.

    In the case of Roe v. Wade, however, I would hardly say the decision was made by "activist" judges. In 1973, the court was a 5-4 conservative court. In this case, of the seven justices in the majority, four were conservative judges appointed by conservative presidents: Burger and Powell by Nixon, Brennan and Stewart by Eisenhower. The dissenting conservative? Then associate justice Rehnquist. So who are the activist judges in this case? The four who decided in opposition to how most would expect them to vote, or the one who didn't?

    In addition to that, turning legislative matters into Constitutional matters is the job of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court exists to interpret whether or not laws passed by the United States Congress or enacted by the individual states are legal and sustainable in the context of the constitution. In Roe v. Wade the great majority of justices interpreted the Texas prohibition of abortion to be incompatible with the rights granted and guaranteed by the constitution. The reason we continue to stuggle with the issue today is because a vocal minority refuses to accept a judicial decision. The fact is, no matter their personal opinion, most people (two-thirds) oppose any legislation forbidding or even restricting a woman's right to choose. (L.A. Times Poll - June 2000) None of us should abandon efforts to affect change in the direction we feel is right; we cannot, though, expect the constitution to fit our views all the time. If it did, it would cease to have any real value to our country.
     
  8. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #8
    Does this mean I can start calling the other side pro-baby-killer?

    Lets keep it polite and call it pro-life and pro-choice.
     
  9. MorganX macrumors 6502a

    MorganX

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    Midwest
    #9
    I wonder where this will all go when/if, the possibility of procreation is added to the definition of "marriage."
     
  10. ColoJohnBoy macrumors 65816

    ColoJohnBoy

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #10
    I didn't realize I was being impolite. It truly wasn't my intention in any case. A thousand apologies.

    If you feel like calling me pro-baby killer, fine, that's your prerogative. But in the spirit of fairness, perhaps anti-life would be more appropriate and more polite.
     
  11. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #11
    Where do you think marriage comes from???

    I also think that not letting people marry more than one person is discrimination! :D

    Come on people, we have laws for a reason and it's not so you can do anything you want!
     
  12. wdlove thread starter macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #12
    I agree that the discussion should remain on a civil level, arguments are best made with proper words not slang.

    It should be pro abortion and pro life, because either decision you make it is based on a choice. The same as it is either heterosexual or homosexual marriage. This isn't really a human rights issue. The problem is what will be the end results of this, it could be a real Pandora's box.

    I pray that this doesn't' get out of hand. In the end all I have to worry about is that my own house is in order.
     
  13. zamyatin macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Location:
    NYC
    #13
    Body of Philosophers

    ebow, QCassiday, ColoJonBoy, you have all put some great thoughts into this thread already, and there's not much more for me to say!

    Though, I think it's also important to point out how the Courts act as a check (and balance) on the "tyranny of the majority" which is a danger in democratic governments. (Remember the mess of McCarthy and the Red Scare?) The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics and fads; in a way it is the official philosophical body or even conscience of the nation's government. They are tasked with piercing through the fog to expose and uproot our own hypocrisies. (Though I'm referring to the federal government and the issue is actually just one state, I think the states are usually modeled after the federal government's systems.)

    In this case, I believe the court is right and that most people polled are reacting hotly and without fully considering the issue. In the eyes of government, marriage is different than what it is to various religions, and the two should be separate. Any individual objectively analyzing the issue would probably arrive at the same decision the court has made.
     
  14. ColoJohnBoy macrumors 65816

    ColoJohnBoy

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #14
    No, no it should be pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I'm not gung-ho about abortions. I think abortion is a reprehensible act; I believe, though, that the choice of whether or not a woman should carry a pregnancy to full term should be entirely hers. If pro-life legislation were enacted, though, that choice would be denied.

    When it comes down to it, the two sides of the issue are simply two ways of viewing the same issue. For some, it is a matter of life. For others, like myself, it is a matter of liberty, of the freedom to choose.
     
  15. ColoJohnBoy macrumors 65816

    ColoJohnBoy

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #15
    I suppose we've taken things off topic (From same-sex marriage to abortion). Anyhow....

    To be succinct, yay for same-sex marriage! As much as I like the country, I really don't want to have to move to Canada when I decide to get married.
     
  16. krimson macrumors 65816

    krimson

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Location:
    Democratic People's Republic of Kalifornia
    #16
    the way i see it, Civil Unions for all.. marriage for the religious.

    Equal rights for all, unless you're gay... :mad:
     
  17. ColoJohnBoy macrumors 65816

    ColoJohnBoy

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #17
    Dear God, I hope you're joking. If not, prepare to be flamed....

    No pun intended.
     
  18. Flowbee macrumors 68030

    Flowbee

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Alameda, CA
    #18
    I guess all women over 50 would no longer be allowed to get married??
     
  19. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #19
    history has shown that the majority rarely works in the best interest of minorities...whether they be children, religious minorities, ethnic minorites, economic minorities...much less minorities based upon sexual orientation.

    sooner or later ( sooner i hope) all of this nonsense will subside and the majority of people will finally see that love, happiness and religiously recognised commitment are not the private domain of heterosexual couples.

    and i just love the argument that people are afraid gay marriages will somehow denegrade the sanctity of marriage...as if the heterosexual community hasn't done that already. let's see, a 53% divorce rate, an above 50% rate of infidelity, domestic abuse, child abuse, incest...take your pick.

    the majority isn't marching on the high road regardless of the pomposity of their sanctimonious fervor...

    fear and bigotry are poor foundations for sound decision making.
     
  20. krimson macrumors 65816

    krimson

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Location:
    Democratic People's Republic of Kalifornia
    #20
    Without turning this politcal/religious..

    im completely serious, i dont see a need for being flamed. Unless you dont believe in the Bill of Rights...

    Marriage is basically a civil union that is sanctioned by a religion. Strip the priest/pastor from the ceremony, and what do you have?

    a civil union. Simple as that, it removes the religious aspect from marriage.
     
  21. toaster_oven macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Location:
    not sure
    #21
    eh- the majority of voters in Massachusetts also think Larry Bird should have his own national holiday, Donut Dunkin' should be taught in the classrooms, and Cam Neely should run for president. go figure.
     
  22. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #22
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    the first amendment seems to clearly state that the government has no place in the " free excercise of religion". so technically marriage is none of the gov's business.
     
  23. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #23
    Good point. And what about infertile/sterile men and women?


    What I don't get is the argument that it somehow diminishes the sanctity of marriage. Even if I disapproved of gay marriage (and I don't), the fact that gays are now marrying has not in any way lessened the sanctity of my marriage because it is mine. It is what I make of it. And in turn, each couple's marriage is what they make of it, not what their neighbor makes of it. So let 'em marry, dammit. It's not your marriage. It's theirs.
     
  24. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #24
    Everyone has the same rights whether they are gay or not, MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT...you people need to get that through your heads! Anyone can get married at a church but the state only has to recognize marriages that are benefical to the society. That's why you can't have two wives or marry your children etc.

    Gay marriage is just the gateway to marriage becoming completely meaningless. The next thing you know is people will be claiming the right to marry their dog (some people already have).

    This is a democracy, not anarchy, you can't do what ever you want just because you feel like it!
     
  25. krimson macrumors 65816

    krimson

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Location:
    Democratic People's Republic of Kalifornia
    #25
    So because two people get married and they happen to both have a penis, or both have vagina's, that makes Marriage meaningless??

    ridiculous. Pretty shallow if you ask me.
     

Share This Page