Courts kick queer marriage in the ass

[DesertFox]

Supporters of banning gay marriage won two major court rulings Friday, with a federal appeals court reinstating Nebraska's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage and the Tennessee Supreme Court dismissing an effort to keep a proposed ban off the November ballot.

Last week, the highest courts in two others states also dealt gay rights advocates setbacks. The New York court rejected a bid by same-sex couples to win marriage rights, and the Georgia court reinstated a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage there. ...

Forty-five states have specifically barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments.

Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, acquired through a court ruling, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.

More (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2006/jul/14/071400137.html)

[Wyatt_Junker]

Okay, the article says this is a 'setback'. Is this merely a setback or a KICK IN THE ANUS?

[DesertFox]

Yes! Yes, it is! By all means! YES!

[DoctorDoom]

Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, acquired through a court ruling ...Refresher course: MA Fag "Marriage" 101


Here's some info from Jeff Jacoby, the Boston Globe's token non-left-wing-extremist.

Let's rewind the tape:

It is July 2002. The Legislature has before it a proposed amendment to the state constitution, properly drafted in language approved by the attorney general, enshrining the traditional definition of marriage: one man, one woman. The amendment is supported by the certified signatures of more than 130,000 registered voters on official petitions -- far more than the number needed to qualify for legislative action.

The lawmakers know the rules. Under Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, they are required -- not authorized, *required* -- to vote on the proposed amendment. If 25 percent of the 200-member Legislature votes yes in two consecutive legislative terms, the amendment goes to the voters in November. In other words, legislators cannot kill an amendment proposed by citizen initiative unless more than 150 of them -- 75 percent -- vote no.

But the amendment's opponents don't have 150 votes. So they decide to kill the amendment through an underhanded maneuver. After the presiding officer, Senate President Thomas Birmingham, opens the joint session, he immediately recognizes Brian Lees, the Senate minority leader. Lees moves to adjourn the constitutional convention. Birmingham puts the motion to a vote. They need only a simple majority to end the joint session and they easily get that -- the vote is 137-53. The convention is aborted, the marriage amendment is dead, and the lawmakers who killed it are treated as heroes for robbing the voters of the "chance to vote and be heard" that Lees now pretends to revere.

Had Lees and Birmingham obeyed the Constitution in 2002 instead of flouting it, the marriage amendment would likely be on the state ballot this fall. Massachusetts voters would be in the midst of a spirited debate on its merits. They would no doubt be divided on the issue, but it would be universally understood that *they* were the ones to make the decision. The Supreme Judicial Court, knowing that a vote of the people was imminent, would never have presumed to rule as it did in Goodridge, the same-sex marriage case. Instead of unilaterally redefining marriage, the SJC would have deferred to the voters and the political process.A HYPOCRITICAL MARRIAGE DEBATE (http://www.bigeye.com/jj021504.htm)

The amendment petition was an egregious example of political corruption and homosexual domination in Boston from day 1.

• During the signature-gathering process, faggots, feminazis and union thugs verbally and physically harassed the signature collectors and signers, while police utterly ignored the brazen violation of their First Amendment rights. Despite that, they gathered far more than enough signatures.

• Knowing that the amendment would pass at the polls, Birmingham, beholden to the faggots, pulled the illegal action described by Jacoby. He as much as flipped the bird to the voters with a sneering, "F**K YOU! I'M in charge here." On a positive note, Tommy B ran for governor in '02, and was trounced in the primaries.

• Once the danger of the voters passing the DoM petition was terminated by Birmingham et al, the Goodridge case went to the SJC.

• Margaret Marshall, the chief "justice", stated before any of this happened that she was in favor of queer "marriage".

According to a Massachusetts News article published on July 2001, before the Goodridge case was even filed, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall said "she favored gay marriage. The Chief Justice of the Superior Court, Suzanne DelVecchio, where the suit was filed, already had told the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), who are based in Boston, that she favored same-sex marriage. The GLAD group noted:

"The only lawyers who will be arguing against the lawsuit come from the office of Atty. Gen. Thomas Reilly, who has indicated many times that he also favors gay marriage."

Obviously, this decision, which is being reported and discussed worldwide, was a foregone conclusion, based on opinion and not the law or the Constitution of Massachusetts.Did Chief Justice Marshall collude with lesbian buddies on same-sex marriage decision? (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/031120)

• Marshall was a close friend of Mary Bonauto, the lawyer for the queers. Same page:

So, I did a little research on the subject of Margaret Marshall and discovered that back in March of this year an ethics complaint was filed against Justice Marshall (http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/3_March/031803_mn_complaint_against_justice_marshall.shtml ) to remove her from two cases involving homosexual marriage, one of them being the Goodridge vs the Department of Health which was just decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The basis of the complaint was Judge Marshall's "close friendship and association with Atty. Mary Bonauto, the lesbian lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Goodridge case."• She also violated MA judicial conduct rules by being a featured speaker at the MA Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, a political organization. Same page:

In May 1999, the Massachusetts News reported, "Marshall was the honored guest and keynote speaker at the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association. That organization reported in its newsletter that Marshall, who was born in South Africa and moved here to attend college, noted 'with pride' that her native land was the first country to write sexual orientation protections into the national Constitution. In 1998, South Africa's courts struck down laws banning sodomy between consenting adults. According to Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, 'Marshall read excerpts from the stirring decision. The Justice encouraged those lawyers in attendance to pay attention to the growing body of gay-friendly international jurisprudence.'"• Her husband, Anthony Lewis, worked for the New York Times, which was agitating in favor of queer marriage in its own pages and in the Boston Globe, which it owns. The papers strongly supported the court ruling.

• The court trashed separation of powers by dictating to the legislature that it must change the law to reflect the court's ruling.

Judicial and political corruption gush like raw sewage from every aspect of this travesty. Pandering politicians and four activist judges inflicted queer marriage on America. And it's a portent of things to come in YOUR states, DoM laws and Constitutional amendments notwithstanding.

[Timberwolf]

As I said in another thread...one of these days, good, decent, MORAL folk are gonna have had their fill of perverts screwing up society and will take matters into their own hands...because those we've elected to do OUR business are not doing OUR business.

It takes a lot to get good, law-abiding, CITIZENS dander up...but, once that is accomplished, kiss it good-bye because whoever is the focus of their ire is not gonna be a happy camper.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

. . . the Georgia court reinstated a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage . . .Just the same though, how the hell does an established component of a constitution -- not merely a statute -- get reinstated without first being declared unconstitutional? How does that happen?

Ah! On a procedural technicality:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0706gay.html?imw=Y

A proposed constitutional amendment banning homo marriage in Arizona is being challenged on the same grounds.

[Riverboat]

Supporters of banning gay marriage won two major court rulings Friday, . . . Last week, the highest courts in two others states also dealt gay rights advocates setbacks. The New York court rejected a bid by same-sex couples to win marriage rights, and the Georgia court reinstated a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage there. ...So, what are they calling this? Black Friday? Or White is SO Not In Friday, Pink Friday, Chartreuse Friday, . . . ?