Mass. Senate votes to let out-of-state gays marry »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 1 year, 3 months ago in StyleOut-of-state gay couples got one step closer to a Massachusetts wedding Tuesday when the state Senate voted to repeal a 1913 law that has been used to bar them from marrying here.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
1050 Views Share Story 21 Comments Report
Submitted By:
TechnologyExpert
I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 177 (view all)
-
Neutral
ningyo1 year, 3 months ago
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive9 Replies
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 3 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, stop it, ningyo! Give it up! The issue is one of institutionalized discrimination under the law.
It's rightly recognized that no plebiscite supporting that discrimination can be allowed to stand, as none could that barred blacks from opportunities other races enjoyed.
Now, as for the MA decision: apart from the reasonableness of the decision, the state recognized the economic advantages of allowing out-of-state gays to get married there.
All-in-all, a good thing!
Reply -
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 3 months ago
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive26 Replies
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What is your point, Global? That because a judge can make a wrong decision, gays should be prohibited from getting married?
That "the people" should be given the right to uphold discrimination because a judge may be fallible or make a decision with which someone disagrees?
Reply -
Neutral
ghengisghan1 year, 3 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 3 months ago
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 3 months ago
-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, it is OK to force "your" morals onto others? Assuming so, then we can dispense with the typical "don't force your morals on me" argument for while gay marriage should be allowed and move on to substantive issues. Why are the morals of person X better than those of person Y and so it is OK for society to force the morals of person X onto person Y and the rest of society.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More power to them. State legislatures should be dealing with issues of marriage. If the voters don't like it, they can vote out these representatives and replace them with another batch who remove this law. Or they can like it and maybe other states will follow suit. At the same time, other states have the right to say "no" and to not recognize these marriages. States rights FTW!
Reply-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 3 months ago
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My goodness, Global, you are a homophobe! And, it sounds, a puritan as well.
Surely it would be a better, more morally hygienic world if everyone derived sexual pleasure from the exact SAME sexual practices--that is, the ones that you endorse, no?
NO!
The vehemence of your rejection (let's call it) of male-male anal intercourse (presumably, you find the male-female kind not quite so disgusting) says VOLUMES about YOU, not about gay sex.
And those volumes don't make pretty reading.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
smeejay1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Gentlemen, i offer this resolution... that the States of the Union may ratify it. Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and adverse to every sentiment of pure american spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremecy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania...let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy"
In December 1912 and in January 1913, Representative Seaborn Roddenberry introduced a proposal to the United States House of Representatives to insert a prohibition of inter-racial marriage to the U.S. Constitution and thus create a nation wide ban on inter-racial marriage.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 3 months ago
-
-
ScrimshawComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, Drop, when did you choose to be (presumably) heterosexual?
Oh--I'm sorry! That's the human-sexuality default position against which all other forms of sexual expression should--no, MUST--be measured for legitimacy.
PS, gayness in itself has no more moral significance than straightness does. In that sense it's inconsequential--like preferring vanilla ice-cream to chocolate.
But do keep trying to insert a wedge between people on baselss grounds; do keep trying to deny others the same rights you enjoy simply because, in re one morally neutral, inconsequenial matter, they're different from you, have different tastes.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The notion that homosexuality is genetically derived is supported by homosexual behavior in other species, such as dolphins (they don't call it a 'blow-hole' for nothing) and bonobos. It was also likely evolutionarily 'useful' to increase group cohesion during our hunter-gatherer days.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And KISA, above, a question: why do you posit marriage--the act of two people voluntarily committing themselves to each other--as moral IN ITSELF?
Could be moral; could also NOT be, depending, I suppose, on what use the marriage was put to. But then you'd have to decide what "part" of a marriage made that union moral or im-.
Reply-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poulenc, when did I posit that marriage was moral? You presupose my opinion, though I'll give you a glimpse. I think that it is entirely possible, right, and even necessary to impose one set of morals over another. This is the only way for society to work. If you don't do so, you end up with 300,000,000 people trying to do "their own thing" including rape, murder, stealing, etc. Even then, the "strong" would then impose their "morals" on the "weak". It is not possible to avoid imposing morals on others, we all agree on that, but don't always admit it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.