| Author |
Message |
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
 Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:20 pm Judge rules gay R.I. couples can marry |
|
| Quote: | A Superior Court judge ruled Friday that same-sex couples from Rhode Island have the right to marry in Massachusetts, finding that Rhode Island laws do not expressly prohibit gay marriage.
Wendy Becker and Mary Norton of Providence, R.I., argued that a 1913 law that forbids out-of-state residents from marrying in Massachusetts did not apply them. The law prohibits couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would not be permitted in their home state, but the couple argued Rhode Island does not specifically ban gay marriage.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/09/29/judge_rules_gay_ri_couple_has_right_to_marry_in_mass/?p1=MEWell_Pos4 |
|
|
|
John Luck Pickard
Lieutenant
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 150
Location: Orange Co., NY
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:38 pm |
|
Then why didn't they just get married in Rhode Island then?
-------signature-------
"Is there a John Luck Pickard here"?, -Q, Tapestry
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:51 pm |
|
It's WRONG that a single person gets to make this decision for an entire state. 
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
John Luck Pickard
Lieutenant
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 150
Location: Orange Co., NY
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:55 pm |
|
Why aren't things like this put up for vote among the people. I realize we elect people to make laws for us, but on issues like this, why not just put it up to the voters to decide.
-------signature-------
"Is there a John Luck Pickard here"?, -Q, Tapestry
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:46 pm |
|
Well, that's just great. Another judge going off on a limb. Great.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:49 pm |
|
| John Luck Pickard wrote: | | Why aren't things like this put up for vote among the people. I realize we elect people to make laws for us, but on issues like this, why not just put it up to the voters to decide. |
Because that would be actual democracy, instead of this stupid system of representitives. I've always thought that the people should vote on all major decisions, such as abortion rights, gay marriage and war.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:51 pm |
|
Well, 19 states have let the people decide, and in every case they vote against it, but it's sometimes overturned by the courts. Gay marriage is an appropriate ballot initiative, whether you think it should be done that way or not.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:13 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | | John Luck Pickard wrote: | | Why aren't things like this put up for vote among the people. I realize we elect people to make laws for us, but on issues like this, why not just put it up to the voters to decide. |
Because that would be actual democracy, instead of this stupid system of representitives. I've always thought that the people should vote on all major decisions, such as abortion rights, gay marriage and war. |
I don't like the representative system because our representatives are horrid.  However, the reason they did that was to prevent mob rule and walk over the rights of the minority. A sound system, if the representatives are decent, which they aren't. I don't think "the people" are altogether level-headed enough to decide on everything. Nor educated enough.
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:16 pm |
|
| Arellia wrote: | | madlilnerd wrote: | | John Luck Pickard wrote: | | Why aren't things like this put up for vote among the people. I realize we elect people to make laws for us, but on issues like this, why not just put it up to the voters to decide. |
Because that would be actual democracy, instead of this stupid system of representitives. I've always thought that the people should vote on all major decisions, such as abortion rights, gay marriage and war. |
I don't like the representative system because our representatives are horrid. However, the reason they did that was to prevent mob rule and walk over the rights of the minority. A sound system, if the representatives are decent, which they aren't. I don't think "the people" are altogether level-headed enough to decide on everything. Nor educated enough. |
I completely agree, the public cannot be trusted to fairly judge the issues using facts. Some issues can be up for a vote, but other such as war should never be.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:18 pm |
|
Generally agreed. But gay marriage, IMO, is definitely an issue that should be up to the people. I support it 100% (leaving it up to the people to decide for their state). I don't think that's an issue that the government or courts should be deciding. It should be up to the people.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:22 pm |
|
I don't recall you having left it up to the people before, RM. Peculiar. So... if it won nationally, you'd support it? If it won by a state would you be fine with it, including the idea that one could go get married in one state and have it recognized in another?
|
|
|
John Luck Pickard
Lieutenant
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 150
Location: Orange Co., NY
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:28 pm |
|
| Arellia wrote: | | I don't recall you having left it up to the people before, RM. Peculiar. So... if it won nationally, you'd support it? If it won by a state would you be fine with it, including the idea that one could go get married in one state and have it recognized in another? |
I think this is a proper issue to have decided sperately by state. That's the nice thing about America, in that if you don't like how one state does things you go to another. I don't think you should be allowed to go to other states to bypass the rules in your own. I mean, I can't go to another state that has lower taxes and file my tax return to get a bigger return. So one shouldn't be able to go to another state to get married. At least not until marriage is not governed by the government.
-------signature-------
"Is there a John Luck Pickard here"?, -Q, Tapestry
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:29 pm |
|
No, actually, I'm on the record in recent months, including HERE, as believing that. You can check the latest topic, for instance, I do believe.
I don't think that there should be a national referendum, no, it should be a state-by-state basis. However, if it were voted legal in my state, I would hate it, but I think I'd live with it, because it was up to the people, and I'm not going to say that it should be up to the states only if my side wins.
And no, I don't believe that other states should be forced to recognize gay marriages, not one bit. And they shouldn't, unless their state legalizes it. Which is why I'm so glad we have the Defense of Marriage Act put in place (one of Clinton's few good things). Too bad the courts are jeopardizing that brilliant piece of legislation.
It's a state's rights issue, as far as I'm concerned. If a state doesn't want gay marriage in it, they should be allowed to say so, and I think it should be up to the people of individual states. Say a gay married couple from MA moves to CO, and CO has it illegal, CO shouldn't have to recognize it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:32 pm |
|
However, you can go to Nevada, get married, and it is recognized by California. Double standard, or do I miss something? Perhaps I do?
- Edit -
And RM, I didn't know you'd stated on HERE that you believe that. I said I don't recall, and I didn't. It was new to me.
|
|
|
John Luck Pickard
Lieutenant
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 150
Location: Orange Co., NY
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:34 pm |
|
| Arellia wrote: | However, you can go to Nevada, get married, and it is recognized by California. Double standard, or do I miss something? Perhaps I do?
- Edit -
And RM, I didn't know you'd stated on HERE that you believe that. I said I don't recall, and I didn't. It was new to me. |
Because California allows heterosexual marriages.
-------signature-------
"Is there a John Luck Pickard here"?, -Q, Tapestry
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:39 pm |
|
Mmmm, I wasn't aware of the defense of marriage act. How lovely. I learned something new. I was operating under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause."
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:02 pm |
|
| Arellia wrote: | | Mmmm, I wasn't aware of the defense of marriage act. How lovely. I learned something new. |
Two things new, one about it, and another about me
Anyways, in response to your question, the difference is, marriage has already been between a man and a woman for long before this concept entered the United States. What allowing gay marriage is is a redefinition, an alteration, of marriage. Allowing regular marriage isn't, especially since it's been around for as long as this country has stood, and longer, on this continent, unlike gay marriage, and recognizing regular, heterosexual marriage goes along with that. Marriage is between a man and a woman. However, some states would (under my philosophy) choose to legalize it and redefine it for their state, but that's just it--a change. Other states shouldn't have to recognize that change unless they want to. Otherwise every state would flock to Massachusetts, get married, and go back to their state, which specifically illegalized it for a reason. That's not right.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:50 pm |
|
Excellent. Another victory for rights.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:52 pm |
|
| WeAz wrote: | | Excellent. Another victory for rights. |
Please show me the source from where you conclude that marriage is a right.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:54 pm |
|
Is it not your right, RM, when you become an adult, to marry any woman you choose, only on the basis that you chose her and you love her? I'd say it is.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:58 pm |
|
| Arellia wrote: | | Is it not your right, RM, when you become an adult, to marry any woman you choose, only on the basis that you chose her and you love her? I'd say it is. |
Is it a right? No. Marriage is not a right. This is not a civil rights issue. Though I do think that there are rights that are associated once the...I don't want to say privelage, but perhaps ability to marry is granted, so I would say yes, since that ability is granted, or would be granted, since I would marry a female in a heterosexual marriage.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
