Gay marriage opponents seek to reverse new law

Your hypocrisy is showing....

Why do you object to a law requiring each marriage be for life--no divorce (ever)?

None wrote:

Your hypocrisy is showing....
Why do you object to a law requiring each marriage be for life--no divorce (ever)?

Hypocrisy? Care to elaborate?

You know as well as I do that the repeal of this law has absolutely nothing to do with "racial undertones", nor is it about any requirement to marry for life. The repeal is about attempting to spread the acceptance of same-sex marriage to other states, and nothing more.

bridog wrote:

"... Gov. Deval Patrick bowed to the will of the 'gay lobby' last month by approving the repeal of a 1913 statute that banned such marriages...[There was] an emergency preamble attached to the repeal. It bypassed a normal 90-day waiting period and made the law effective immediately. Opponents typically use the 90 days to present signatures and delay the law until it can be PUT TO A BALLOT VOTE."
MA voters better wake the f&*k up and realize that our legislators and governor are denying the citizens of this state the right to vote on key social issues. They pulled this same stunt regarding the marriage amendment last year, which prevented the citizens of this state the right to vote on what the definition of marriage in Massachusetts.
The gay lobby currently has our legislators, our governor, and the local liberal media (who hardly mentions this issue) in their hip pocket. Thisisbullshit.

Agreed 100%.

This strategy and tactic of usurping the power of the people to direct their own public policy is undemocratic, regardless of the issue involved, and must be stopped.

bridog wrote:

<quoted text>
Hypocrisy? Care to elaborate?
You know as well as I do that the repeal of this law has absolutely nothing to do with "racial undertones", nor is it about any requirement to marry for life. The repeal is about attempting to spread the acceptance of same-sex marriage to other states, and nothing more.

And this is bad, why?

If laws are designed soley to harm others, hurt couples, threaten the elderly, and make families with children less secure, they should be fought.

I could care less if someone "accepts" my marriage or not, other than in the civil and legal sense. As long as my wife and kids have the same security and protections that straight couples have, I'm content.

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
And this is bad, why?
If laws are designed soley to harm others, hurt couples, threaten the elderly, and make families with children less secure, they should be fought.
I could care less if someone "accepts" my marriage or not, other than in the civil and legal sense. As long as my wife and kids have the same security and protections that straight couples have, I'm content.

I was, of course, using the term, "acceptance" in the civil and legal sense. But you knew that.

And this repeal is bad because it demonstrates that, by being denied the right to vote on key social issues, Massachusetts citizens, without realizing it, have become victims of activist politics.

We, the citizens of MA, deserve the right to vote on the definition of marriage. Our legislators have completely overstepped their boundaries by taking it upon themselves to decide the issue for us.

And only a small percent of heterosexual marriages last a 'lifetime', what's to say gay people are different?

Marriage is a HOLY bonding.

Sorry folks. Marriage is only a HOLY bonding if executed in a church OF THE MARRIED's faith. EVEN IF the married couple is of faith, if they CHOOSE not to execute a marriage in a church it is still a civil union and a government task - nothing "holy" about that. And on top of that, nobody in this case is demanding that "holy" marriages are changed (and not being subject to non-parishioners wishes they do not alter this opinion). But you can't make *my* marriage *holy* if I don't believe it is holy and didn't execute in a church.(For the record, I'm Catholic and as of now not yet married. I was also not born gay).

You can do as you like from a faith perspective in your own congregation - but you cannot demand the state agree with your articles of faith if they fly in direct opposition to the constitution and/or are discriminatory.

You also can't ask me to pay for your discrimination attempts and operation outside the constitution by accepting tax exemt status as a church. If you are a political organization operating as a church for cover you should alter your tax designation or lose your status.

WWJHD, What Would John Holmes Do

bridog wrote:

<quoted text>
I was, of course, using the term, "acceptance" in the civil and legal sense. But you knew that.
And this repeal is bad because it demonstrates that, by being denied the right to vote on key social issues, Massachusetts citizens, without realizing it, have become victims of activist politics.
We, the citizens of MA, deserve the right to vote on the definition of marriage. Our legislators have completely overstepped their boundaries by taking it upon themselves to decide the issue for us.

You were not denied the right to vote. You voted for the people in office to make decisions for you. Don't like their decisions? Don't vote for them. Stop complaining. Would you be complaining about "not voting" if the elected official did what you wanted?

Juror8 wrote:

<quoted text>
You were not denied the right to vote. You voted for the people in office to make decisions for you. Don't like their decisions? Don't vote for them. Stop complaining. Would you be complaining about "not voting" if the elected official did what you wanted?

What you fail to realize is that the "people in office...mak[ing] decisions" in this case are the JUDGES who serve for 12-year terms and who are thus not directly accountable to the People in the same way that the representative branches of government are.

Juror8 wrote:

<quoted text>
You were not denied the right to vote. You voted for the people in office to make decisions for you. Don't like their decisions? Don't vote for them. Stop complaining. Would you be complaining about "not voting" if the elected official did what you wanted?

Absolutely. The citizens of Massachusetts deserve the right to vote on this issue. Period. Our officials are elected and appointed to protect our rights, not necessarily to exercise them for us at will, especially on such a contentious issue as this.

Thank God the voters in California this November will have the opportunity to right the wrong that has been done them as a result of the most recent activist legislation put forth by their state Supreme Court.

I thought all marriages took place with some kind of holy figure?

I thought otherwise it wasn't a legal bonding!

Dani California wrote:

I thought all marriages took place with some kind of holy figure?
I thought otherwise it wasn't a legal bonding!

Hardly.

bridog wrote:

<quoted text>
Absolutely. The citizens of Massachusetts deserve the right to vote on this issue. Period. Our officials are elected and appointed to protect our rights, not necessarily to exercise them for us at will, especially on such a contentious issue as this.
Thank God the voters in California this November will have the opportunity to right the wrong that has been done them as a result of the most recent activist legislation put forth by their state Supreme Court.

Which of your basic civil rights would you like me to be able to vote on?

Ooooh I see. it's only the basic civil rights of OTHERS, particularly minorities, that you want to put to the vote.

Oh. Come to think of it, we do have those stupid gothic weddings...

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Which of your basic civil rights would you like me to be able to vote on?
Ooooh I see. it's only the basic civil rights of OTHERS, particularly minorities, that you want to put to the vote.

These fellow homo sapiens (I use the term in its biological sense, since any form of "sapient" is inappropriate for many in the bigots' camp) give hypocrisy a bad name.

Republicans like McCain and Gingrich talking about the "sanctity of marriage"? Barf!

Now the gays are squirming, as they know the California voters will reverse the law in November! Just say NO to homosexuality!

When I see gheys holding hands in public it makes me throw up in my mouth a little. But that still doesn't mean they aren't humans and should get the same rights as others.

WTF let em get married....they might as well be as miserable as heterosexual people are.
All most of them want is the right to the property when their partner dies, or they split up in a divorce.

Religious people scare me more that gheys.

Ultimately, this should be presented to the voters in a referendum to decided whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry; it is a civic matter which the people of the states have a right to express themselves.

What a bunch of hatemongers, spewing the same, tired, right-wing pap.

Time to move on.