Mass. Senate votes to let out-of-state gays marry »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 11 months, 3 weeks 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 »
909 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)
-
0%
ningyo11 months, 3 weeks ago
why let the voters pretend to vote on anything anymore--you can just take the results to your pet judge and have them thrown out
Reply-
-
0%
DropkickaLib11 months, 3 weeks ago
If you noticed, this was a vote in the State Soviet, I mean Legislature, not a public ballot issue. Wouldn't want too much democracy to cloud the issue.
Reply -
0%
tkyrchncs11 months, 3 weeks ago
Part of the function of our governments, state and Federal, is to carry out the wishes of the majority. The other part is to protect everyone from the tyranny of the majority.
Reply
-
-
0%
Poulenc11 months, 3 weeks ago
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 -
-
0%
Global_Warmer11 months, 3 weeks ago
If you were a serial killer and some bonehead judge dismissed your case, you'd applaud that decision too. However, OJ, you still woulndn't be accepted back into mainstream society
Reply
-
-
0%
Poulenc11 months, 3 weeks ago
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 -
0%
ghengisghan11 months, 3 weeks ago
Exactly why alot of states did marriage protection laws and Amendments.....despite the critics saying they werent needed.
Reply-
0%
DropkickaLib11 months, 3 weeks ago
Voted on by public ballot issues and reflecting the mores of the states in which they were passed.
Reply
-
-
0%
Poulenc11 months, 3 weeks ago
Should the mores of the old segregationist South have been upheld because citizens of those states believed that blacks were inferior to whites?
Reply-
0%
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
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 -
-
-
0%
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
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-
0%
tkyrchncs11 months, 3 weeks ago
But they cannot fail to recognize the actions of other states, either. If you are licensed to marry in MA or CA, and get married there, you are married wherever you go.
Reply
-
-
0%
Poulenc11 months, 3 weeks ago
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 -
-
0%
smeejay11 months, 3 weeks ago
"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 -
-
ScrimshawComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
Poulenc11 months, 3 weeks ago
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-
0%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
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
-
-
0%
Poulenc11 months, 3 weeks ago
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-
0%
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
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
-
-
0%
memestryker11 months, 3 weeks ago
Yawn. More religious indoctrination being used by the indoctrinated to control and judge other people's behavior instead of focusing on improving their own.
Reply -
0%
KazamaSmokers11 months, 3 weeks ago
I'm in Mass. Nothing has changed here. The sky hasn't fallen. Gay marriage is a non-issue. Nobody ever talks about it. No one cares about it. You people have way too much time on your hands.
Reply -
0%
Clarksville2211 months, 3 weeks ago
You know... if you listen quietly, you can actually hear Dropkick getting owned.
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.