Massachusetts Supreme Court Rules for Gay Marriage

[Theophylact]

Not "civil unions"; marriage.

[John Prophet]

2 bad.

I am sure we can find us some nice articles showing the different stages of decline that dead civilizations went thru...I am pretty sure that blatant homosexuality was one of them....dunno though if ANY society EVER had public and official gay marriages.

[Mr. Goodbytes]

Once again, the court has overstepped its bounds set by the US Constitution. Courts DO NOT write law. I can only hope the Legislature and the governor have the balls to tell the court where they can go with their ruling.

The great thing about this though is that Kerry is a senator from Massachusetts. He is going to have to have an opinion on this. He's never going to get any support from the conservatives, but if he supports this, the so-called "moderate" voters who go back and forth will say he's a kook, and they'd be right. However, if he's wishy-washy on it, the liberal left is gonna bail on him. I find it humorous.

Looks like we may have to have a Constitutional amendment defining marraige. Either that or we'll have to do what Lincoln did and just tell the court that we're not going to follow their ruling.


BTW, how do you impeach a Justice for violating the Constitution?

[Toadman]

Absolutely correct. The Judicial Branch's responsibility is to interpret and enforce existing laws, not create new legislation. It's blatantly unconstitutional and illegal. Regardless of issue, the Mass. courts should be hauled before Congress, the Supreme Court and the people.

Thanks for reminding us about John Kerry, Mr. G. I'll be watching his stance very closely.

[MTAtech]

Originally posted by Mr. Goodbytes
Once again, the court has overstepped its bounds set by the US Constitution.

What section of the U.S. Constitution did they violate? I'd love to learn.

[osprey4]

Originally posted by MTAtech
What section of the U.S. Constitution did they violate? I'd love to learn.

The part that says the legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch carries them out and the judiciary decides if they're constitutional.

Here we have the court creating a constitutional principle that was "missing" for over 200 years, the legislature interpreting the principle and the executive branch saying "over my dead body".

Hmmm, come to think of it, sounds like Massachusetts all right!!

[MTAtech]

Originally posted by osprey4


The part that says the legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch carries them out and the judiciary decides if they're constitutional.

That only applies to how the federal government is organized. The U.S. Constitution does not mandate how States must govern. All references in the Const. just states, "the States."

Again, where does it say in the Const. that the States must have separate branches? It doesn't.

"Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

[osprey4]

I agree this is a state issue. The constitution at question is not the US but the MA state constitution. But I'm guessing the principles of separation of powers work the same in most if not all states.

[MTAtech]

Originally posted by osprey4
I agree this is a state issue. The constitution at question is not the US but the MA state constitution. But I'm guessing the principles of separation of powers work the same in most if not all states.

I'm only going by what Goodbytes said, "Once again, the court has overstepped its bounds set by the US Constitution. "(emphasis added)

[osprey4]

Oh, I see your point. Well, that's a different question, whether the MA court has overstepped on a federal issue.