Mass. Keeps Gay Marriage Ban From Voters

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Jun 14, 2007.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    Thanks Massachusetts! My faith in humanity is somewhat restored.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ay-marriage,1,7893518.story?coll=chi-news-hed

     
  2. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    Cool! No bad posts! The fact that this got no comments makes me really happy, and means we must be moving in a really good direction. MR is truly a great place.
     
  3. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #3
    A society is only as free as its most persecuted group.
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    i assume you're referring to the christian right?
     
  5. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    White males.
     
  6. Steradian macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Jose
    #6
  7. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #7
    I don't think anyone cares that much anymore. Which, yes, is a good thing. The "debate", if you can even call it that, is almost over and common sense is winning. Just as it has for every other persecuted minority. I don't think gay related threads even belong here anymore, they should be in Community, but I just know that there are still some wackos out there ready to screw up otherwise civil discourse.

    I mean, sure, maybe a slim majority of voters in some areas are still anti-gay rights, though not even that in some areas as we see here, but to be honest, most of the general populace just doesn't care what you do because it's none of our business.
     
  8. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #8
    1 down, 49 to go. At least the pink dollar should shield Mass. from the upcoming property crash :)
     
  9. stillwater macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Location:
    Rowley, MA
    #9
    Yeah, this is good news, but the anti gay-marriage crowd are not giving up yet. They have vowed to carry on the fight.

    The longer same sex marriage stays legal, the less likely it is that it will be overturned. It also doesn't hurt that our new governor is a pro-gay democrat.

    I think more people are realizing that protecting other peoples rights doesn't compromise their own.

    I just wish that the gay-marriage opponents would adopt a more "live and let live" attitude. Of course, that probably won't happen any time soon.
     
  10. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #10
    The entire evangelical Christian movement is based on people being told what to think and what to do. Its followers are hardly going to let others follow their own hearts whist taking orders themselves, are they?

    I hope more North East states follow Massachusetts and that the West Coast also takes their lead. The more gay marriage gets seen as just part of the human backdrop, the smaller the minds of the anti- crowd appear.
     
  11. Turkish macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    #11
    Part of me is happy, but part of me thinks it is best to let the voters decide.

    Voters decide=no more gay marriage, unfortunately.

    At then end of the day, all of this will eventually be decided by the courts, and little by little, on the state and federal level, judges are starting to see that its a simple equal protection issue, voting in favor of letting homosexuals have the same priveleges as straight couples.
     
  12. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #12
    I find it amazing that posters in this forum are coming down on the side of preventing democracy and the right for voters to weigh in on an issue that affects them. Any other subject and many would be screaming bloody murder that it should be voted on.

    If the voters would not vote the same as their representatives, then it says something about just how well their elected officials represent them, doesn't it?
     
  13. Turkish macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    #13
    The problem lies in when the voters are presented with a choice that is possibly (and likely in this case) un-Constitutional.

    I do believe the voter should decide, but I also believe they should be voting on isues that are solid to begin with. People have to realize just because they may not agree with gay marriage, it doesn't make it legal to outlaw it.
     
  14. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #14
    I was thinking that it's a little odd to be celebrating this. I know that most folks here will argue that it's a good decision because it's just not something that should even come before the people for a vote anymore, and we should therefore not waste the voters' time. The reality of course is that it has about a 50-50 chance of being voted down by the people of Massachusetts if it were in fact put to a vote (if you believe the polling data).
     
  15. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #15
    Doesn't the United States Constitution already say everyone is equal under the law?
     
  16. geese macrumors 6502a

    geese

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #16
    The consensus is that gay rights doesn't encroach on anyone elses. Hence it doesnt affect the average voter for the most part. No-one is screaming bloody murder because thankfully most people realise that it really isnt a big deal and doesnt effect them.

    Odd as it sounds, you have law made just because a majority of people want it. IT would be mob-rule then and all chaos would ensure.
     
  17. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #17
    Isn't it up to the courts to determine the constitutionality of a law? I also don't remember sexual preference as being one of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution. If it was then I don't see how we can have laws against polygamy or any other sexual preference.
     
  18. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #18
    Polygamy isn't a sexual preference. It's a lifestyle.
     
  19. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #19
    So, using that rationale we shouldn't be able to incarcerate felons because they should be accorded the same freedoms as you, huh? It seems to me that the better argument would be that due to the separation of Church and State that the government should NEVER be involved in marriage at all. They can create civil unions and allow people to sign papers with anyone or anything they want for all I care.

    Anyway, I hope that gay marriage becomes law. It's not fair that we heteros are the only ones that have to suffer it. Welcome to divorce court!
     
  20. Turkish macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    #20
    It is, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you'd say the courts would be legislating from the bench if they decided that if you are going to grant human rights to one group of people, you have to grant it to everyone.

    Where does it say that marriage is the union between a man and a woman in the Constitution?

    So you can't say one group of people can marry and say no to another... plain and simple.
     
  21. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #21
    Not if having threesomes is your preference and you want to be married to both of them. :)

    Where's it say in the Constitution that the government should be involved in the institution of marriage?
     
  22. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #22
    Oh come on now. That's scraping the barrel even for you isn't it? Criminals are punished for their actions, not the way they're born.

    Enough of your fantasies. Please!! :p
     
  23. Turkish macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    #23
    Fine with me.
     
  24. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #24
    My point was that you can't just use the word "equality" with a broad brush. There's equality where it's specifically delineated. Also thanks to federalism, states can grant more or less rights to people than another state. Those rights not specifically delineated in the Constitution are left to the individual states.

    Like I mentioned earlier, gays would be best served legally by setting up durable and medical powers of attorney, pour over wills and living trusts and they'd have most if not all the rights that one spouse has over another without the drawbacks of marriage. They can even petition a court to have one of their names changed to the other if they want.
     
  25. Turkish macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    #25
    Kind of oxymoronic if you read it aloud a couple of times.

    Why should they have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to get the same legal rights that others get almost free?
     

Share This Page