Feel free to read my recent http://ludicrosity.com/ posting on the matter; I hadn’t seen this posting before writing otherwise I would have quoted from it. :)

The Massachusetts Constitution was never meant to create dogma that adopts inflexible views of one time to deny lawful rights to those who live in another. The provisions of our Constitution are, and must be, adaptable to changing circumstances and new societal phenomena, and, unless and until the people speak again on a specific subject, conformable in their concepts of liberty and equality to what is fair, right, and just.

That really just says that the Court is free to change the meaning of the constitution from time to time.

So, impeach a couple judges, change the law, that’s ok.

It is not. How would you feel if the Court suddenly said, “hey, times have changed, women shouldn’t have civil rights after all?” Would you blithely go, “hey, that’s ok.”

I hope not. There is a social compact that acts like this undermine.

There is a steady evolution towards gay rights. Acts like this solidify the opposition and create lasting barriers, much like Roe v. Wade stopped the trend towards abortion acceptance cold and will probably yet lead to a loss of abortion rights. It would only take one judge.

If by “change the meaning” you mean “interpret the constitution as they see fit” then yeah. That’s one of the major reasons there’s a judicial branch.

Gays who covet their neighbor’s wives seem ironic because marriage was once the target of no boundaries groups. Gays have successfully dominated the older culture and religious tradition that transmitted marriage to this century, making it almost fashionable to come out with openly gay lifestyles. Marriage, once the target for rule breaking, is called in for re-making. Mainstream gays demand changes to the established order. They want the blessing of society and a bigger piece of the American pie. Gay couples feel cheated assuming the obligations of a spouse without the financial advantages given to male and female partners. They say they pay taxes too and besides, many heterosexual marriages end in divorce.

The Catholic Church, one of the oldest and largest moral authorities in human experience, insists that homosexual acts are disordered. The word moral has a stigma now but it means what is “good” not what is “wrong.” So moral is good for mankind.

Gay demands represent a shift in emphasis away from procreative interests toward sensual and emotional priorities. New attention is focused on sexual action as the core value in relationships. It represents a change in the order of priorities away from the life-giving in favor of the prurient. This is a proposal for new morality.

There are many kinds of friendly and emotional bonds between people, from family ones like cousins, uncles, and brothers, to ones outside the family like teachers, teammates, and caregivers. There are many expressions of love by taxpayers. The sexual behavior of homosexuals is the only thing that distinguishes them from other groups of cohabitating people who love each other. Rewarding only couples doing adult things together would be unfair to groups who don’t participate in these activities. The community is asked to make private gay behaviors a group priority.

Marriage was granted special legal status for the one main reason, because men and women have children. The privileges for couples were never intended as a reward for having marital relations. Tax benefits, life and health insurance, were not perks you got for sleeping together.

It is remarkable to me as the father of five children that others fail to acknowledge the different value of having children versus the value of having relations. Parenting is a contribution that is better and different than someone who lives with someone else and wants insurance.

Marriage is the joining of two lives into one (as commonly stated in ceremonies). It is not the mating of two people to create more people (I never hear that at weddings). If marriage was meant solely as “special legal status for the one main reason, because men and women have children”, then marriages would not be allowed to be granted until there were children in existence.

Do you understand how misguided your explanation is? Do you see that the facts of marriage as it exists in the USA (and has always existed in the USA) are against your interperetation?

If you insist that you are correct, could you please show me one place in American law where, “The privileges for couples were never intended as a reward for having marital relations. Tax benefits, life and health insurance, were not perks you got for sleeping together,” is written (or other words to that effect). If you can’t show me that, kindly find a more logically & factually correct argument to support your prejudices.

To clarify, I think that my marriage is one of the two most important relationships in my life (three if you count my God, but not everyone would, and that’s not a legal relationship in the sense that I mean legal anyway). It is that way because I make it that way, not because of some broader societal endorsement. I know that marriage is a different kind of relationship than just a long-term, monogamous, co-habiting relationship, but only because that’s what I have made it through personal effort. In my opinion marriage is a higher level of relationship than a monogamous LTR, though I’ve heard many respectable arguments to the contrary. And if being in a monogamous LTR isn’t good enough for me, then why must we send the message that being in a monogamous LTR is good enough for some people, who would rather be married, because of something they can’t control?

Allowing same sex couples to marry does not in any way redefine what marriage is. I wish people would stop acting as though it does.

And for the record, neither my wife nor I ever mentioned children anywhere in our vows.

Whose morals? They’re not objective, contrary to popular belief. For example, my morals dictate tolerance and love over discrimination and hate. Don’t yours?

Gay demands represent a shift in emphasis away from procreative interests toward sensual and emotional priorities.

1. Does it? I doubt heterosexuals will suddenly decide to stop having children just because we allow SSM. 2. Homosexual couples can raise children, too, either through adoption or by the usual means. 3. Why should we prefer “procreative interests” to “sensual and emotional priorities” in the first place? 4. If “procreative interests” are important, then shouldn’t we require all married couples to have at least one child? 5. Since when did “sensual and emotional priorities” become “prurient”? I thought they were healthy and beneficial to the tenor of society. If there were no “sensual and emotional priorities,” there would be no one to get married and have children.

Rewarding only couples doing adult things together would be unfair to groups who don’t participate in these activities.

But that’s what marriage currently is: heterosexual couples doing adult things together in a way that’s unfair to those who don’t participate in heterosexual behavior. Right?

If you base your support for marriages on the idea that marriage perks make it easier to raise kids, would you say same-sex couples with kids should be given marriage perks?

Terry31415

What comes around goes around. Hopefully next time our self-appointed moral betters will remember that they are our employees, not our masters and will restrict themselves to …