Re: WAS Re: Gay marriage update
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 5:48 PM Subject: WAS Re: Gay marriage update At 04:15 PM 5/22/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: I could also point out that desegregation of schools didn't really begin in force until Congress passed subsequently passed a Civil Rights Act - whose specific name is eluding me at the moment. Sigh, I lived through that history. School desegregation was by court order. Indeed, if you look at the civil rights act of 1964, you will find very little of it has to do with public school desegregation. I just read it at http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm Uhhh I hope that it was clear from my actual words that I was NOT referring to THE Civil Rights Act.I took the time this time to find out what it was... the specific legislation was called the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Its 600 pages, so I didn't read the whole thing. But it is clear that the purpose of the bill is to establishes a federal program for spending money on education. Indeed, the No Child Left Behind legislation was implemented by ammending and extending this bill. The reality of the '60s and '70s and even into the '90s is desegregation was pushed by court order. What happened was, after roughly 10 years, courts decided that all due speed was not being used and started getting involved in the nitty gritty of deciding exactly how desegregation was to be implemented. In other words, the leadership of the court was strengthened during this period, to the constant howls of judicial tyrrany. I won't argue that the funding provisions in this law didn't help move this process along at all, but the lead was definately taken by the courts. My latest experience with this was when a good friend of mine lost his bid at being re-elected to the school board because he wanted to work on implementing court ordered desegregation, instead of fighting it. This was in the '90s. But again, darn it Dan, why not actually try and defend what the Massachusetts Supreme Court is doing rather than insist upon refighting old battles? It seems to me that this Racist Republicans thing has become a convenient excuse for you to duck criticizing liberal excesses. The point I'm adressing is your criticism of judges for interpreting the Constitution of Mass. The people of Mass. should know full well the consequences of their provisions for ammending the constitution. From the very start of the US, it was clear that the constitution would be viewed in different ways by different people. At the very least, since Brown vs. Board of Education, it should be crystal clear that the result of a change in the interpretation of the constitution would result in important changes. In other words, the courts role in interpreting the constitution is not to just stop new unconstitutional laws from being implemented, its to stop implementation and actions that have long been unconstitutional, in the opinion of the court. In short, I saw are two parts to your statement. 1) The Mass. Supreme Court made the wrong decision 2) The Mass. Supreme Court had no right to make this decision; it is inappropriate for a court to make this type of decision. I can see both sides of the arguement for point 1, so I didn't pick that point to counter. I differ with point 2, and I pointed out another example of this type of action that I considered valid and that was the poster boy for judicial tyrrany for much of my life. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gay marriage update
From: JDG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] We'll see what happens when the Massachusetts Voters approve their constitutional amendment in two years in order to tell those tyrants on the MA Supreme Court exactly what the MA Constitution says. There's been over 30 years to reverse the tyrants on the USSC regarding Roe v. Wade and we haven't seen that yet either... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage update
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: JDG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] We'll see what happens when the Massachusetts Voters approve their constitutional amendment in two years in order to tell those tyrants on the MA Supreme Court exactly what the MA Constitution says. There's been over 30 years to reverse the tyrants on the USSC regarding Roe v. Wade and we haven't seen that yet either... Which makes the alacrity with which the Massachusetts Legislature has proceeded all the more interesting. Look, I'm not going to deny that the loser of any court case can often fall back onto the argument of judicial tyranny. What I am going to point out is that in this case, the Legislature of the State of *Massachusetts* - of all places - has moved with all due speed to overturn a judicial ruling that appears to have no basis in the Law. Moreover, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has no created the potential legal absurdity of Massachusetts having legal gay marriages for a narrow two-year window, and then not having them subsequent to that. In other words, no matter what your opinion of gay marriages is - if you believe in the basic principles of government under a constitutional republic - then if the Massachusetts Supreme Court legitiamtely felt that the text of the Massachusetts Constitution mandated a novel conclusion which the Legislature and People of Massachusetts had plainly not considered, then the Massachusetts Supreme Court should have made the effective date of their ruling to be 1 January 2007, not 17 May 2004. This would have provided the Legislature and People of Massachusetts a fair opportunity to correct the unforseen consequence of their constitutional language. The failure of the Massachusetts Supreme Court to leave legislative power in the hands of the Legislature and People of Masschusetts for even a short period of two years is tyranny by any other name. JDG - Who is longing for the time when someday, somewhere, some conservative Court rules that equal protection under the laws mandates the public school system to be converted into a 100% voucher system - including religious schools. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WAS Re: Gay marriage update
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Dan Minette wrote: The reality of the '60s and '70s and even into the '90s is desegregation was pushed by court order. What happened was, after roughly 10 years, courts decided that all due speed was not being used and started getting involved in the nitty gritty of deciding exactly how desegregation was to be implemented. In other words, the leadership of the court was strengthened during this period, to the constant howls of judicial tyrrany. Actually, my understanding (and this was from a special on PBS about Brown v. Board of Education) was that it was all deliberate speed which could mean unhurried. Which didn't make the plaintiffs happy as various districts dragged their feet on the issue. (There were actually several cases brought before the Supreme Court, but it was the Topeka case that was heard, that being the only non-southern suit in the bunch.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WAS Re: Gay marriage update
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 1:19 PM Subject: Re: WAS Re: Gay marriage update On Tue, 25 May 2004, Dan Minette wrote: Actually, my understanding (and this was from a special on PBS about Brown v. Board of Education) was that it was all deliberate speed which could mean unhurried. Thanks for the correction. ;-) The essence of the later court actions is, waiting over a decade is not all deliberate speed. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WAS Re: Gay marriage update
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 1:19 PM Subject: Re: WAS Re: Gay marriage update On Tue, 25 May 2004, Dan Minette wrote: Actually, my understanding (and this was from a special on PBS about Brown v. Board of Education) was that it was all deliberate speed which could mean unhurried. Thanks for the correction. ;-) The essence of the later court actions is, waiting over a decade is not all deliberate speed. Yes. Even 5 years was too long for Prince Edward County, apparently. *That* was a real mess in the end, and the repercussions of that one are still felt today. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage update
-- From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] We'll see what happens when the Massachusetts Voters approve their constitutional amendment in two years in order to tell those tyrants on the MA Supreme Court exactly what the MA Constitution says. Ah, yes tyranny. The Catholic church has committed more act of despotic tyranny than every single current democracy combined. Just because _you_ would impose your tyrannical orthodoxy on all Americans, because of your despotic religion and EVIL deity, does not make judicial decisions that are not based on JDG_brand Homophobia, Hate, and Extremist Religious Dogma, Tyrannical. -The Pope is the Original Despotic Tyrant. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage update
At 01:57 AM 5/23/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote: So you wouldn't care about losing all the legal rights and responsibilities that come with marriage, if they were denied to you? I would be mildly annoyed, for sure.But I would find ways to make due. My central point, however, is that this situation would have absolutely zero bearing on whether or not I considered myself married. In my mind, my personal marriage will be a personal event - not a legal event. My take on this as a fairly long-term MA resident: I just don't think the amendment will be approved. When the vote comes up, I don't think your activist judge argument is going to sway many people at all Well, obviously we will see about that. I would point out, though, that I don't consider myself as having an activist judge argument in favor of the Constitutional Amendment. Rather, I have an activist judge conclusion that these judges have done a very terrible thing if they have legalized gay marriages for a narrow window of two years because despite the Legislature and People of Massachusetts moving with all due alacrity they cannot affirm that the Constitution of Massachusetts means exactly what they have held it to mean for the past however many years - i.e. that the Massachusetts Legislature may decide to create gary marriages, but is not required to do so - in any possible shorter time frame. At any rate, I think that fact that almost no politician of any significance has yet endorsed gay marriages speaks volumes about the views of the general electorate on this issue. Again, we shall see John D. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage update
At 03:56 AM 5/18/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote: Rights are not decided by majority vote. That is the purpose of the American system, particularly the judiciary. If rights were decided by majority vote than minorities would always be in fear of majorities. Actually. in the United States three-fifths of the State Legislatures have absolutely unchecked authority to establish or deny whatever rights they want. The voting level for majority may vary in other countries. At any rate, in a de facto sense rights are very much decided by majority vote. Of course, the reason why this country has a Right to an Abortion Whenever a Woman Wants and has no Right to Life for Unborn Children is because of a majority vote on the US Supreme Court. It is unlikely that a marrriage once granted can ever be taken away. Would you agree that you were not married if a majority said you and your wife were too different? It is also highly unlikely that a majority in Mass. will vote to take this away. I have stated before that if by the grace of God I am fortunate enough to marry some day that my appearance before a judge will essentially be a piece of bureaucratic red tape in my life. It is in this sense that homosexual couples in the United States are already free to marry in Unitarian Universalist congregations. We'll see what happens when the Massachusetts Voters approve their constitutional amendment in two years in order to tell those tyrants on the MA Supreme Court exactly what the MA Constitution says. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage update
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 2:18 PM Subject: Re: Gay marriage update At 03:56 AM 5/18/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote: Rights are not decided by majority vote. That is the purpose of the American system, particularly the judiciary. If rights were decided by majority vote than minorities would always be in fear of majorities. Actually. in the United States three-fifths of the State Legislatures have absolutely unchecked authority to establish or deny whatever rights they want. The voting level for majority may vary in other countries. At any rate, in a de facto sense rights are very much decided by majority vote. Of course, the reason why this country has a Right to an Abortion Whenever a Woman Wants and has no Right to Life for Unborn Children is because of a majority vote on the US Supreme Court. It is unlikely that a marrriage once granted can ever be taken away. Would you agree that you were not married if a majority said you and your wife were too different? It is also highly unlikely that a majority in Mass. will vote to take this away. I have stated before that if by the grace of God I am fortunate enough to marry some day that my appearance before a judge will essentially be a piece of bureaucratic red tape in my life. It is in this sense that homosexual couples in the United States are already free to marry in Unitarian Universalist congregations. We'll see what happens when the Massachusetts Voters approve their constitutional amendment in two years in order to tell those tyrants on the MA Supreme Court exactly what the MA Constitution says. Well, we've yet to have a constitutional amendment telling those tyrants on the US supreme court exactly what the 15th amendment meant...and its been exactly 50 years. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage update
At 02:50 PM 5/22/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: Well, we've yet to have a constitutional amendment telling those tyrants on the US supreme court exactly what the 15th amendment meant...and its been exactly 50 years. Has anybody else noticed Dan M.'s obsession with race? I know a lot of people groan when I bring abortion into various topics and I think that I finally know how you all feel what that happens.I mean this is ridiculous. Its nearly impossible to have a discussion around here without Dan M. turning it into a Republicans are Racist Bigots thing. I could point out that Congress didn't convene immediately following that decision to start writing a Constitutional Amendment - and the pass such an Amendment in short order. I could also point out that the US Constitution doesn't require two years for any amendment to pass. I could also point out that the US Constitution doesn't provide for the potential absurdity of a tyrannical judiciary creating a law plainly opposed to that which the citizenry had established for two years until democratic processes can actually reverse that law. I could also point out that the deplorable state of colored schools were clearly not providing equal protection. I could also point out that desegregation of schools didn't really begin in force until Congress passed subsequently passed a Civil Rights Act - whose specific name is eluding me at the moment. But what's the use? I'm not at all convinced that Dan M. is at all interested in dealing with the issue at hand. That's the only explanation I have for him failing to respond one whit to the subject at hand in Massachusetts or the subject at hand regarding the beliefs of Evangelicals. Why criticize liberals when you can bash Republicans as being Racist Bigots instead? I give up. JDG - The ends justify the means, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage update
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 2:57 PM Subject: Re: Gay marriage update At 02:50 PM 5/22/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: Well, we've yet to have a constitutional amendment telling those tyrants on the US supreme court exactly what the 15th amendment meant...and its been exactly 50 years. Has anybody else noticed Dan M.'s obsession with race? I know a lot of people groan when I bring abortion into various topics and I think that I finally know how you all feel what that happens.I mean this is ridiculous. Its nearly impossible to have a discussion around here without Dan M. turning it into a Republicans are Racist Bigots thing. I could point out that Congress didn't convene immediately following that decision to start writing a Constitutional Amendment - and the pass such an Amendment in short order. I could also point out that the US Constitution doesn't require two years for any amendment to pass. I could also point out that the US Constitution doesn't provide for the potential absurdity of a tyrannical judiciary creating a law plainly opposed to that which the citizenry had established for two years until democratic processes can actually reverse that law. I could also point out that the deplorable state of colored schools were clearly not providing equal protection. I could also point out that desegregation of schools didn't really begin in force until Congress passed subsequently passed a Civil Rights Act - whose specific name is eluding me at the moment. Sigh, I lived through that history. School desegregation was by court order. Indeed, if you look at the civil rights act of 1964, you will find very little of it has to do with public school desegregation. I just read it at http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm and saw that it mostly had to do with definitions and the right of the attorney general of the US to sue on behalf of parents. So, school desegragation was by court order, not by laws later passed by Congress. I don't know how many times I heard tyrrany of the liberal courts during that time.So, I hope you can see why you triggered these memories when I heard you using the same words. As far as bashing Republicans, I know full well that, at the time, southern Democrats...like Wallace..were instrumental in stopping desegregation. Yellow dog Democrats in the south were mostly for segregation continuing forever. The civil rights act of 1964 was strongly tied to a massive sea change in presidential voting patterns...that's simply a fact. Otherwise one would have a to explain states that overwhlemingly voted for Democratic presidents for 100 years or so would, all of a sudden be the only ones outside of Arizona that went Republican. One cannot simply put off as coincidence all correlations one wishes to ignore. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage update
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 03:57:05PM -0400, JDG wrote: Has anybody else noticed Dan M.'s obsession with race? Not I. Dan seems to have a balanced and reasonable attitude on the subject, as far as I have seen. On the other hand, I HAVE noticed JDG's obsession with making extraneous insulting comments about people for no apparent reason. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage update
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is unlikely that a marrriage once granted can ever be taken away. Would you agree that you were not married if a majority said you and your wife were too different? It is also highly unlikely that a majority in Mass. will vote to take this away. I have stated before that if by the grace of God I am fortunate enough to marry some day that my appearance before a judge will essentially be a piece of bureaucratic red tape in my life. It is in this sense that homosexual couples in the United States are already free to marry in Unitarian Universalist congregations. So you wouldn't care about losing all the legal rights and responsibilities that come with marriage, if they were denied to you? We'll see what happens when the Massachusetts Voters approve their constitutional amendment in two years in order to tell those tyrants on the MA Supreme Court exactly what the MA Constitution says. My take on this as a fairly long-term MA resident: I just don't think the amendment will be approved. When the vote comes up, I don't think your activist judge argument is going to sway many people at all (MA is strongly pro-choice, which also relies on activist judging...), and so the anti-gay-marriage people will resort to other, potentially more inflamatory arguments, which I suspect won't sit well with many moderates/independents here. This has already started. On a local talk radio show late last week, I heard a rather shrill-sounding ad urging people to call in to Gov. Romney to live up to his promise and do more to stop gay marriage, and IIRC implying a gay conspiracy to destroy the institution of marriage.When the hosts came back on, they were a bit flabbergasted by it. What the *heck* was that!?! probably best describes their reaction (and mine), and they continued to make ncredulous references to the ad for the rest of the show. These guys are *not* liberal politicos or pundits; they're fairly moderate everyday-type guys who talk sports as much or more than politics. I remember they actually had been saying Why can't gays just have civil unions instead of marriage?, when the ruling first came out. Anything that has even the slightest whiff of Wllie Horton-type FUD is going to turn people up here off in droves. Aside from that, the vote is 2 years off, so that by the time it comes up, there will be 2 years of counter evidence that gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage as a whole and 2 years of time to build up lots of heartwarming gay marriage success stories. I'm guessing that for every gay couple will have an 'open' marriage example you can find, I could find 5 or more gay couple with a 5, 10 or 20 year relationship (and maybe some kids) finally is able to get married examples. (Please don't take that as a challange - it's just my guess, based on the few dozen capsule interviews I saw on that first day) Another interesting thing, is that, IIRC, Romney will be up for re-election the same year as the amendment vote, and I think the issue will sink him. Republicans have virtually no party existence at all in Massachusetts, except in the governor's race.* IMHO, the main reasons for the string of Republican governors here are: 1) The Dems have failed to come up with a strong candidate that isn't beholden to the powers that control the state legislature (or one that has any charisma) 2) There's a feeling that a republican governor helps counter-balance the almost solidly Democrat, crony-ridden, state legislature 3) That same legislature will prevent a Republican governor from accomplishing too much on the Republican agenda. 4) The republicans use moderates as their governor candidates Romney is in a lose-lose situation. The national right blasts him for not doing enough about gay marriage, while any action he does take strongly jeopardizes points 3 4 of the reasons people voted for him. Even if he does nothing but voice his opposition to gay marriage, it hurts him, becuase while Kerry gets the benefit of the doubt while saying similar things, Romney is a Republican and so will take the full heat. So, I'm guessing that Romney's support for the amendment will be fairly lukewarm in an attempt to try to maintain his image as a moderate, and that will likely also be the case for any of the few other republican office holders here. Lastly, I think that Democrat support here for gay marriage has been quite subdued. I suspect at least part of that is an attempt by the Dems to defuse the issue for now to avoid damaging Kerry with it. It's win-win for them: by pushing the civil union amendment now, they give Kerry a fig-leaf to say he supports that as an alternative to gay marriage which he opposes. And then they have 2 years to slowly shift position to pro gay marriage as the public becomes accustomed to the idea. So all that said, I just don't see this amendment getting passed. -Bryon * I'm serious: In a recent
Re: Gay marriage update
On Mon, 17 May 2004 20:25:39 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:55 AM 5/17/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: A few months ago, JDG predicted that the recent push for gay marriages would trigger a massive backlash. The opposite seems to be happening. 51% of Americans favor either civil unions or actual marriage for gay people, while 44% favor no legal recognition. (28% favor marriages and 23% favor civil unions). So, it appears that civil unions, which were controversial 10 years ago, is emerging as a new middle ground. Ahem. 1) I neve included oposition to civil unions in my predictions of backlash. Indeed, I have consistently predicted that civil unions would likely prove to be inevitable. 2) It should be noted that most pollsters view polling on this issue to be notoriously unreliable. Several newspaper polls in Massachusetts so that Gary marriage has clear majority support. Ahead of both civil unions and no rights. must be those notoriously unreliable polls. 3) We still have yet to see many major politicians endorse gay marriages. Politician have to consult those notoriously unreliable polls. 4) Whatever your position on gay marriage, today is unquestionably a sad day for American democracy. Rights are not decided by majority vote. That is the purpose of the American system, particularly the judiciary. If rights were decided by majority vote than minorities would always be in fear of majorities. An unelected judiciary has issued a law for the State of Massachusetts that is completely contrary to what the representatives and politicians of Massachusetts believed they were agreeing to as part of passing that State's Constitution. Moreover, this decision now appears likely to produce the ludicrous result of legalizing gay marriages in Massachusetts for a period of 2-3 years, until government by the people for the people can finally be restored by referendum in 2006. It is unlikely that a marrriage once granted can ever be taken away. Would you agree that you were not married if a majority said you and your wife were too different? It is also highly unlikely that a majority in Mass. will vote to take this away. 5) For all the talk about gay marriages strengthening the institution of marriage, I could only laugh when I read the comments of the very *first* couple to get married in one Massachusetts town: In Vermont, the first state to recognize civil unions, most people initially had your reaction and opposed the law the legislature was forced to adopt under threat of gay marriages by their courts. That was two years ago. Now it is a non-issue. Same with mixed race marriages not that many years ago. Now people who don't mind being thought of as bigoted oppose mixed race marriages. Yarbrough, a part-time bartender who plans to wear leather pants, tuxedo shirt, and leather vest during the half-hour ceremony, has gotten hitched to Rogahn, a retired school superintendent, first in a civil commitment in Minnesota, then in Canada, and now in Massachusetts, the first U.S. state to recognize gay marriage. But he says the concept of forever is``overrated'' and that he, as a bisexual, and Rogahn, who is gay, have chosen to enjoy an open marriage. ``I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner, not in the polygamist sense,'' he said.``In our case, it is, we have, an open marriage.'' http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=28184 Sorry, the first ones I saw were two lesbian couples in happy long-term committed relationships who now feel safe about visits to a hospital, healthcare benefits, inheritance, and adoption. I know of a nice couple in a very open marriage and i believe I know of another who make special exceptions. They are heteros. It takes all kinds. JDG - Strengthening, Maru GLD strengthening liberty maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Gay marriage update
A few months ago, JDG predicted that the recent push for gay marriages would trigger a massive backlash. The opposite seems to be happening. 51% of Americans favor either civil unions or actual marriage for gay people, while 44% favor no legal recognition. (28% favor marriages and 23% favor civil unions). So, it appears that civil unions, which were controversial 10 years ago, is emerging as a new middle ground. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage update
At 10:55 AM 5/17/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: A few months ago, JDG predicted that the recent push for gay marriages would trigger a massive backlash. The opposite seems to be happening. 51% of Americans favor either civil unions or actual marriage for gay people, while 44% favor no legal recognition. (28% favor marriages and 23% favor civil unions). So, it appears that civil unions, which were controversial 10 years ago, is emerging as a new middle ground. Ahem. 1) I neve included oposition to civil unions in my predictions of backlash. Indeed, I have consistently predicted that civil unions would likely prove to be inevitable. 2) It should be noted that most pollsters view polling on this issue to be notoriously unreliable. 3) We still have yet to see many major politicians endorse gay marriages. 4) Whatever your position on gay marriage, today is unquestionably a sad day for American democracy. An unelected judiciary has issued a law for the State of Massachusetts that is completely contrary to what the representatives and politicians of Massachusetts believed they were agreeing to as part of passing that State's Constitution. Moreover, this decision now appears likely to produce the ludicrous result of legalizing gay marriages in Massachusetts for a period of 2-3 years, until government by the people for the people can finally be restored by referendum in 2006. 5) For all the talk about gay marriages strengthening the institution of marriage, I could only laugh when I read the comments of the very *first* couple to get married in one Massachusetts town: Yarbrough, a part-time bartender who plans to wear leather pants, tuxedo shirt, and leather vest during the half-hour ceremony, has gotten hitched to Rogahn, a retired school superintendent, first in a civil commitment in Minnesota, then in Canada, and now in Massachusetts, the first U.S. state to recognize gay marriage. But he says the concept of forever is``overrated'' and that he, as a bisexual, and Rogahn, who is gay, have chosen to enjoy an open marriage. ``I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner, not in the polygamist sense,'' he said.``In our case, it is, we have, an open marriage.'' http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=28184 JDG - Strengthening, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
