« Dean’s Wisconsin Factor | Home | Ben Stein Nails It »
Mass High Court Approves of Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Marriage
By Matt Margolis | February 5, 2004
Yesterday the liberal activist Massachusetts high court declared that gays are “entitled to nothing less than marriage” paving the way for same-sex weddings by springtime.
Of course, it’s Massachusetts.
I’m getting tired of activist judges legislating from the bench. When the minority enforce their will on the majority, Democracy suffers.
Interestingly enough, John Kerry said he believes the right answer is civil unions. “I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court’s decision.” Kerry said.
Hmmmm.. interesting.
John Kerry opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Talk about playing both sides of the issue.
By visiting John Kerry’s website, there is a community page for the sexually confused (GLBT) where his stance on gay and lesbian issues are touted:
Protecting Gay and Lesbian Families: John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need. He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees. He was one of 14 Senators — and the only one up for reelection in 1996 — to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
These positions clearly put Kerry on both sides of the issue – something he is very good at. Kerry has been trying to absolve himself any political liability on big issues.
He voted to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq – but opposed the war.
He was in the military and fought in Vietnam – but based on his voting record, he hates the military.
He opposes gay “marriage” – but wants them to have absolutely every benefit that comes with marriage otherwise.
I hope George W. Bush pushes something through congress to constitutionally define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Based on what he said yesterday, I have some hope he’ll do what he can:
Today’s ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
The homosexual lobby will be up in arms, but the majority of people oppose gay marriage. Bush has everything to gain and nothing to lose by fighting for the sanctity of marriage.
Topics: In The News |
Related Posts:
February 5th, 2004 at 8:45 pm
Gov. Romney has a piece over at Opinion Journal today
this is going to be a federal issue in the near future
(full faith and credit thing)
February 5th, 2004 at 9:20 pm
Here’s the link: One Man, One Woman A citizen’s guide to protecting marriage
February 6th, 2004 at 2:01 am
I got into the link the first time after registering, and now it won’t let me back in. Is there anywhere else on the web it can be found?
February 6th, 2004 at 9:46 am
Someone reposted the piece here
Scroll down through the post to see Romney’s piece.
February 6th, 2004 at 2:55 pm
That Pain-in-the-Ass Issue of Gay Marriage
Matt over at MattMargolis.com writes about the Massachusetts High Court and their declaration that gays are “entitled to nothing less than marriage.”
The gay marriage issue has yet to go full throttle in the presidential election, but I imagin…
February 6th, 2004 at 3:00 pm
I personally don’t care about this issue much. The main reason is that heterosexuals have done more than enough to destroy the sanctity of marriage. With the War on Terror, our troops overseas, exploding government spending, massive illegal immigration this is hardly an issue that should be at the forefront of national discussion during an election year.
February 6th, 2004 at 3:50 pm
“main reason is that heterosexuals have done more than enough to destroy the sanctity of marriage”
that’s a pretty dumb reason to not care.
February 6th, 2004 at 5:14 pm
It didn’t come out like meant to say. Let me clarify since I couldn’t go back and edit. I don’t care becuse I am rather libertarian minded about this issue and not religious. I don’t believe that the government should have any say in who and who cant get married. I think it is a religious debate and one government should stay out of. It just seems strange that homosexuals are such a threat to marriage but infidelity, divorce, etc, all which destroy the sanctity of marriage, are not being addressed in this defense of marriage movement. I do see, however how homosexual marriage starts us down a slippery slope. If homosexuals can marry, why not poligamists or pedophiles or multiple people marriages? I also think that it is out of place for the courts to legislate from the bench. Liberal judges forcing their liberal agenda on the country when citizens do not agree. If other states are forced to accept other states marriages then they should also accept other states concealed weapons permits as well (I would suggest Alaska’s system of no permit for concealed carry). It would only be fair. Somehow I don’t see that happening. I understand both sides of the arguement and both have good points. I just don’t think its the most pressing issue at this time.
February 6th, 2004 at 5:21 pm
And just some other quick thoughts:
Will homosexuals being allowed to marry change in anyway the sanctity of heterosexual marriage? I am unmarried but I just don’t see how it would change my personal views about the vows and responsibilities of marriage.
I now know why the Democrats are against making the abolishment of the marriage penalty in the tax code permanent and supporting gay marriage. They want more taxes and this is a covert way to do it.
February 7th, 2004 at 11:27 pm
Kerry on both sides of the issue? No, never /sarcasm
My big wonder is how this whole SJC decision (and I guess subsequent MA law) will be received in other states, esp. ones with DOMA types of laws on the books…the whole “full faith and credit” thing.
February 23rd, 2004 at 8:58 pm
hey Matt, using your logic all these “faggots” are gonna burn in hell right????? Using your logic Gay people are freaks of nature who deserve no human rights because they arent human????
that is how your position is being interpreted, please clarify….