"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:se8300pbl4hgtl89bsmaq14kcg2ilvmdm0@4ax.com...

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:20:03 GMT, "Amelia M. Samples"
<milla@georgebush.visi.com>, Message ID:
<7dXKb.64771$fq1.54257@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism;

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:d50mvv4b4jmi7a0graa8o278vdjqdgklan@4ax.com...

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 22:32:13 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>,

Message

ID: <3FF7A55D.6070403@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism;

Bob, you projectioning pervert.

I knew a couple of guys like that...claimed to be christian fundies, and

one

of them was talking about tossing grenades thru the windows of one of our
local taverns. I was over at his place working on his stereo (he paid me
well - otherwise I wouldn't have been within 50 feet of him)...and I

found a

big stash of guy-on-guy porno in his stereo rack behind his LD

collection.

Needless to say, I got triple my fee for hooking up the gear...;)

Tossing grenades.... :\ There's that "Christian love, empathy,
compassion, humanity" which is seen via the total dearth of such traits.

Hehehehehehehehe...good for you....

This was some time ago...if it happened today, I would have taken the money,
and then outed him anyway. ;)

Daniel Kolle wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 05:05:53 GMT, Quando Omni wrote:

<snip>

I wonder how many of these anti-gay marrige people like lesbian porn?
...Probably all of them.

That's so typical of rump rider flames. They are filled with jealousy
and hatred of any normal man or woman who refuses to accept their sordid
perversion as "normal." One almost ought to have sympathy for their sick
sordid pathetic lives.

Gay Marriage Was a 3-3 Tie, with Marshall Casting Deciding Vote

Gay Marriage Was a 3-3 Tie, with Marshall Casting Deciding Vote

Everyone who disagrees with Margaret Marshall is a "prejudiced bigot,"
according to her. When Marshall wrote that in her opinion, was she
including the three Associate Justices who say she had no right to do
what she did?

This was a 3-3 tie with Marshall casting the deciding vote. She had
been unable to convince even her three most capable associates. They
say she had no power to do what she did. No wonder she was so nervous
at oral argument and is now trying to hurry this along in the
legislature before anyone has a chance to think about it.

The following is excerpted from the book by Atty. Pawlick.

When Margaret Marshall saw the opinions of her fellow justices about
gay marriage, she must have cringed. The judges have prided themselves
upon working as a body, with few dissents. It now appears that those
days may be over These were not the words of "right wing kooks" in
those dissents, but her fellow Justices. -- "Today, the court has
transformed its role as protector of individual rights into the role
of creator of rights, and I respectfully dissent." Justice Francis X.
Spina" -- "[T]he case stands as an aberration. To reach the result it
does, the court has tortured the rational basis test beyond
recognition." Justice Martha B. Sosman -- "Whether the court is
correct in its assumption is irrelevant. What is relevant is that such
predicting is not the business of the courts." Justice Robert J. Cordy

All the pundits appear to have missed the significance of the above
quotations. But, then again, it's almost impossible for any newspaper
reporter to have grasped this significance within their deadline. This
insight does not come when you're in a frenzy to make "deadline."

The words of the dissenters show that we finally have an "intelligent
discussion" in process in Massachusetts, which is what I have been
attempting for five years. This should have a profound effect upon
what happens here in the next six months that the court has given the
Legislature to do something. The only problem will be informing the
citizens about what these Justices have said. Obviously, The New York
Times Company, including its two subsidiaries in the state, the Boston
Globe and the Worcester Telegram, will be working to see that they
never discover the truth. In their story written in the Times on
November 19th, our old friend, Pam Bullock, did not go into any depth.

If Pinch was angry to see Sally's referendum come out of nowhere [the
Protection of Marriage Amendment], think what he will do when he
discovers this book you're holding.

One's heart must go out to Margaret Marshall. When you look at the
picture of the idealistic young woman who arrived here in 1968 eager
to help the world, it is sad to see her going down the road that many
seem to follow when they become entwined with the Times.

Although Pinch will do his best to keep her reputation intact, for a
while, he will not care when she no longer serves his purpose. Her
dream of a happy SJC working together under her leadership has been
shattered. That might explain her uncivilized behavior at the oral
argument last spring. She knows she is not making sense.

When I first appeared before the seven judges in 2002, none of them
seemed interested in listening to me. They were occupied with other
things. It was readily apparent and discouraging that no one had had
the time to read my briefs. Now it appears that we may finally have a
court that will forego consensus and debate issues contentiously, but
with respect, which is why they are there. But it seems doubtful that
Margaret Marshall will be able to do that.

Cordy Was Fired Up Justice Cordy wrote the longest opinion of all and
Marshall felt compelled four times to answer him, only him, by name in
her opinion, which is highly unusual. She obviously realized the
sagacity of his remarks. Justice Cordy was so passionate about the
matter that he wrote 9210 words, as compared to 9021 for Marshall.

If lawyers in other states or academics want to understand this issue,
the three dissenting opinions are the place to begin. They are better
than any law review article will ever be.

I knew at the end of my last session before the SJC in May 2003 that I
had gotten Justice Cordy's attention. He asked Assistant Attorney
General Peter Sacks if it was correct that the only option that
Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage had was to spend another $1.7
million, try again and hope that someone in the Legislature would
follow the Constitution the next time. Attorney Sacks, who is only a
"hired gun," as is every attorney and is required to represent his
client whether they are right or wrong, replied with some skewed
information and I was not allowed any time to respond. However, it
appeared to me at the time that Justice Cordy had been awakened.

Here's a short sampling of Cordy's opinion. (If you wish to read more,
the entire opinion is easily found. If you do not know where to go,
you can use the website of the legal newspaper I used to own at
www.lawyersweekly.com. All three dissenting judges joined in each
other's opinion, so all three agree with what you are reading.)

Justice Cordy Explains Why We Have Marriage "[T]he institution of
marriage has existed as one of the fundamental organizing principles
of human society. ... Marriage has not been merely a contractual
arrangement for legally defining the private relationship between two
individuals (although that is certainly part of any marriage). Rather,
on an institutional level, marriage is the 'very basis of the whole
fabric of civilized society,' ... and it serves many important
political, economic, social, educational, procreational, and personal
functions.

"Paramount among its many important functions, the institution of
marriage has systematically provided for the regulation of
heterosexual behavior, brought order to the resulting procreation, and
ensured a stable family structure in which children will be reared,
educated, and socialized. ... [A]n orderly society requires some
mechanism for coping with the fact that sexual intercourse commonly
results in pregnancy and childbirth. The institution of marriage is
that mechanism. ...

"The marital family is also the foremost setting for the education and
socialization of children. Children learn about the world and their
place in it primarily from those who raise them, and those children
eventually grow up to exert some influence, great or small, positive
or negative, on society. The institution of marriage encourages
parents to remain committed to each other and to their children as
they grow, thereby encouraging a stable venue for the education and
socialization of children. ... More macroscopically, construction of a
family through marriage also formalizes the bonds between people in an
ordered and institutional manner, thereby facilitating a foundation of
interconnectedness and interdependency on which more intricate
stabilizing social structures might be built. ...

"It is difficult to imagine a State purpose more important and
legitimate than ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social
structure within which to bear and raise children. At the very least,
the marriage statute continues to serve this important State purpose.
...

"Taking all of this available information into account, the
Legislature could rationally conclude that a family environment with
married opposite-sex parents remains the optimal social structure in
which to bear children, and that the raising of children by same-sex
couples, who by definition cannot be the two sole biological parents
of a child and cannot provide children with a parental authority
figure of each gender, presents an alternative structure for child
rearing that has not yet proved itself beyond reasonable scientific
dispute to be as optimal as the biologically based marriage norm. ...
Working from the assumption that a recognition of same-sex marriages
will increase the number of children experiencing this alternative,
the Legislature could conceivably conclude that declining to recognize
same-sex marriages remains prudent until empirical questions about its
impact on the upbringing of children are resolved. ...

"As long as marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples who can at
least theoretically procreate, society is able to communicate a
consistent message to its citizens that marriage is a (normatively)
necessary part of their procreative endeavor; that if they are to
procreate, then society has endorsed the institution of marriage as
the environment for it and for the subsequent rearing of their
children; and that benefits are available explicitly to create a
supportive and conducive atmosphere for those purposes. If society
proceeds similarly to recognize marriages between same-sex couples who
cannot procreate, it could be perceived as an abandonment of this
claim, and might result in the mistaken view that civil marriage has
little to do with procreation: just as the potential of procreation
would not be necessary for a marriage to be valid, marriage would not
be necessary for optimal procreation and child rearing to occur. In
essence, the Legislature could conclude that the consequence of such a
policy shift would be a diminution in society's ability to steer the
acts of procreation and child rearing into their most optimal setting.
... "The court recognizes this concern, but brushes it aside with the
assumption that permitting same-sex couples to marry 'will not
diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage,' and that
'we have no doubt that marriage will continue to be a vibrant and
revered institution.' Whether the court is correct in its assumption
is irrelevant. What is relevant is that such predicting is not the
business of the courts. A rational Legislature, given the evidence,
could conceivably come to a different conclusion, or could at least
harbor rational concerns about possible unintended consequences of a
dramatic redefinition of marriage

"The Legislature is the appropriate branch, both constitutionally and
practically, to consider and respond to it. It is not enough that we
as Justices might be personally of the view that we have learned
enough to decide what is best. So long as the question is at all
debatable, it must be the Legislature that decides. ...

"While the courageous efforts of many have resulted in increased
dignity, rights, and respect for gay and lesbian members of our
community, the issue presented here is a profound one, deeply rooted
in social policy, that must, for now, be the subject of legislative
not judicial action."

Justices Sosman and Spina Disagree with Marshall Both Sosman and Spina
also used tough language in their opinions. Sosman wrote: "Today,
rather than apply that test, the court announces that, because it is
persuaded that there are no differences between same-sex and
opposite-sex couples, the Legislature has no rational basis for
treating them differently with respect to the granting of marriage
licenses. ***

"As a matter of social history, today's opinion may represent a great
turning point that many will hail as a tremendous step toward a more
just society. As a matter of constitutional jurisprudence, however,
the case stands as an aberration. To reach the result it does, the
court has tortured the rational basis test beyond recognition. ***

Justice Spina wrote: "What is at stake in this case is not the unequal
treatment of individuals or whether individual rights have been
imper issibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate
social change without interference from the courts ... The power to
regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary.
... Today, the court has transformed its role as protector of
individual rights into the role of creator of rights. ***"

Anyone Who Disagrees with Margaret is "Prejudiced" Margaret Marshall
made a donkey of herself in her opinion which is easily discernible to
those of you who have been following along. Marshall is not
interpreting the state Constitution. She is writing a new one.
(However, she does not have the authority to do so and she knows it.)
The legal way to change the Constitution is to have the Legislature
initiate a referendum or for someone like Sally to get enough
signatures to require that a referendum be held.

Marshall wrote: "[The state] has had more than ample opportunity to
articulate a constitutionally adequate justification for limiting
civil marriage to opposite-sex unions. It has failed to do so."

Ample opportunity?!? Seventeen minutes is an ample opportunity?!? It
took Marshall 9000 words to explain her ruling, yet she had expected
the Assistant Attorney General, Judith Yogman, to explain the subject
to her in only 17 minutes and a few seconds.

She cut off Yogman in a disgraceful manner when the lawyer asked for
thirty seconds more! No person, much less a judge, should ever treat
anyone in such a discourteous manner.

Then Marshall wrote that those who do not believe we should have
homosexual marriage are "prejudiced." She started that paragraph at
the very end of the opinion with this: "The marriage ban works a deep
and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no
rational reason." She continued: "[This] suggests that the marriage
restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are
(or who are believed to be) homosexual." …

Marshall Kept the Opinion for Herself The writing of court opinions is
always assigned by the Chief Judge to different judges so that they
all have an equal workload but Justice Marshall kept the gay marriage
case all for herself. After all, she and Pinch had worked hard and
long for this. It was not just another boring case. She was not a
judge here, she was an advocate in another "civil rights" cause. She
would not let go of this one.

Marshall obviously thought this would make her famous and improve her
chances of being named to the U.S. Supreme Court. It certainly made
her a heroine to Pinch. If he continues to be the President of The
Company, he will be able to continue the publicity he has given her in
Massachusetts.

The reporter for the Christian Science Monitor, Sara B. Miller, said
that Marshall's ruling was a "pen stroke heard around the world" and
"this relatively unknown Massachusetts jurist ... has thrust herself
into the middle of the nation's culture war. ... While she is not
expected to become a national lightning rod, her recent decision is
likely to catapult her onto the national stage, putting her both in
the spotlight and the limelight." That made Margaret smile.

I hate to say I told you so. That needn't have happened; she could
have had someone else write the decision. She could even have helped
them write it if she wished. But if she had done that, she wouldn't
have become famous.

"Civil Rights" Champion Marshall likes to tell reporters that she is
merely a civil rights advocate, as though she is unique in that quest.
She doesn't realize that what may be her "civil right" will almost
always be a grievous interference with the civil rights of someone
else. But "civil rights" is a magic phrase today. She must have told
Sara Miller about her "courageous" stands for civil rights because the
first paragraph in the article says:

"Margaret Marshall likes to say she's lived through two revolutions -
the overthrow of apartheid in her native South Africa and the
advancement of women in the U.S. Now the chief justice of the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is on the forefront of a third:
the redefinition of the family. ... Marshall was raised in South
Africa and came of age fighting against systematic segregation, which
many say has formed her notions of freedom and fairness as a judge."

Another paper, the Berkshire Eagle, used the same theme in its
headline and in its lead paragraph:

"Gay-marriage ruling: Echoes of apartheid fight. In 1966, while South
Africa was under the grip of apartheid laws that denied black people
the right to own land or vote, Margaret H. Marshall led a group of
20,000 student activists protesting the regime's racial
discrimination. ... Legal professionals focused on those sentences,
especially the use of the words 'second-class citizens,' to illustrate
the South African born Marshall's strong belief that the rule of law
in this country should prevail over prejudice." (It would be
interesting to see proof of that "20,000 student" claim.)

One would assume that if we were to search more stories in more
newspapers, we would discover that the Chief gave the same story to
every reporter. One must wonder how black people feel about being
compared to homosexuals when polls are showing that most blacks are
not supportive of gay marriage.

Started Out Totally Wrong Marshall started out totally wrong in her
opinion. In the very first paragraph, she said the question before
them was whether the state could "deny" marriage to homosexuals.

But the simple answer to that - Judith Yogman would have told Marshall
the answer if she had been allowed to talk - is that Massachusetts
does not deny marriage to anyone, except for laws prohibiting
polygamy, marriages of brother and sister etc., ones where there is
communicable syphilis or, in some cases, if the person is under
eighteen-years-old.

There are no laws that "deny" homosexuals from marrying. And there is
no definition of marriage in either the Constitution or laws that the
Legislature has passed. Everyone has always assumed that we all know
what marriage is. There hasn't been a need for a definition.
Marshall's good friend, Mary Bonauto, urged the court to just go ahead
and say that the Department of Health had made a mistake. Bonauto
pointed out that there was nothing anywhere that "denied" the
Department the right to issue licenses. But if Marshall did that, she
wouldn't become famous, would she? The whole world wouldn't be
bothered reading her opinion.

Of course, we knew that the next thing Marshall would do was to say
this is not a religious issue, because by so doing she would thereby
make it into a "religious issue." Attorney Yogman never said it was a
religious issue, but Marshall put it right at the top of her opinion
with this: "Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical
convictions ... but our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution
..." But we know that is not the truth because she has no concern at
all for our Constitution, except to twist it for her own special
goals.

And besides, everyone has known for hundreds of years that marriage is
a secular institution. Does she think she's the only one who knows? As
she said later, "In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since
pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly
secular institution."

The judge went into a lengthy description of the seven homosexual
couples and what outstanding people they are. That may well be true,
and it probably is, because they were all carefully chosen by the
16-person staff at GLAD. She told us "they include business
executives, lawyers, an investment banker, educators, therapists, and
a computer engineer."

But what exactly does that prove? There are many other fine people who
are not included in marriage as we know it. How about mothers who have
children out-of-wedlock? Should we have marriage for them also, with
the Secretary of State appointed as their spouse? Or how about widows?
How about those three lesbians who truly love each other and have
children who are dependent upon them? How about the two women who
truly love the same man? What harm will it do to let them marry? How
about two sisters who live together because their husbands have died.
Must they have sex in order to get the benefits of marriage?

The simple answer is, there is no answer. Any system you establish
will not be "rational" in every situation. The only really fair
alternative is to just abolish the institution of marriage, which is
the true aim of extreme feminists.

The truth about why Marshall wrote only about state law and never
cited the U.S. Constitution is because she knew that she would have
serious problems under the federal Constitution because there are
judges there who still look at that document fairly. In Massachusetts,
the state Constitution means anything she says it does. What she did
here was to favor one group, homosexuals, and give them benefits that
other groups do not receive. Most lawyers believe that would violate
the U.S. Constitution. That would allow federal judges, like the
dissenters in her own court, to show her duplicity.

Family and Children Not Important She said that the state argued that
it had two reasons for "prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying."
The reasons were to have a favorable setting for procreation and to
ensure the optimal setting for child rearing, which she says the state
defines as "a two-parent family with one parent of each sex."

It was embarrassing to read her language about procreation. She filled
it full of statements like this: "Fertility is not a condition of
marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce." She would get an "F" in law
school for an answer like that, which was totally unresponsive. She
does not even grasp what Justice Cordy meant when he wrote that
procreation was an important reason why society would favor marriage.

It was also embarrassing watching her squirm around the truism that
children do much better when they have a mother and a father to help
and protect them. She wrote: "Protecting the welfare of children is a
paramount State policy. Restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples,
however, cannot plausibly further this policy." But that's only a
matter of opinion. Where does she find that she has the power to make
this earth shattering change to our society simply because of her
opinion?

The truth is that as an extreme feminist she believes that marriage is
deleterious to women, and she must remove that institution, whether
she can justify it or not.

It now becomes clear why she waited so long to issue her opinion. She
was desperately trying to write something that would make sense. But
she couldn't do so.

Her final absurdity is that her ruling, if implemented by the
Legislature, would not destroy marriage as we know it. She wrote about
her ruling: "But it does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage
in our society." ***

<Repost of comments made by another poster in another newsgroup>