Thursday, May 14, 2009

A Lesson on Tolerance

A caller from Andover, Ma called this past Tuesday, 5/12/09, into the Jim & Margery show on 96.9 FM WTKK. The caller successfully refuted Jim's claim that homosexuals are born gay in which Jim cited the American Psychological Association (APA) to prove his point that homosexuals are born gay. As I was listening to this I thought about the fact that there is no conclusive evidence to prove that homosexuals are born gay and that the APA just recently changed their position on the 'gay gene' theory.

I had to e-mail Jim at the WTKK website with the following comments:
It is funny,Jim, how you tried, and failed mind you, to refute the caller from Andover and his claim that people are NOT born gay on Tuesday's May 12th, 2009 show. Why don't you have the podcast available of this call (Click HERE to see that it is not available) such that others can hear your "tolerance of the opposition", but yet you hang up on the caller from Andover sounding like the "tolerant" talk show host that you claim to be.
Before you DON'T publish this comment (on your website), I strongly suggest that you look at the most recent position that the American Psychological Association (APA) has taken on the 'gay gene' theory. The APA just recently stated the following in a brochure called, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality". Click HERE to read full brochure and click on "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?" which states the following:
The new statement says:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."
If you wish to take part in a civil dialog on this matter please do not hesitate to e-mail me directly or to visit my blog because the rest of my readers are waiting for a comment from you that I will not "hang-up" on.
Sincerely,
Scia Ciantee
Ironically an article published on WorldNetDaily on Tuesday the 12th discussed this issue in detail and essentially refuted what Jim, and many others, have claimed regarding the 'gay gene' theory. Now, if only Jim could be a talk show host who could do his homework before his show. If Jim could just express just a little bit of open-mindedness to callers who don't agree with what he says then maybe more people could engage in a discussion on the show without being hung-up on because of differing opinions.
Jim, what was that word you used before you let the caller go..."tolerance", which is defined as:
The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration.
Your show would be a lot better, Jim, if you just let people express their opinion and not rely on yours as the only one that exists.

61 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

But what's your point? What does it matter if there is or isn't a genetic disposition toward homosexuality?

I believe that for the vast majority of homosexuals, it is an orientation, not a choice. Whether that is traceable to a gene is immaterial.

My guess is that you won't be hearing back from Jim. He has more relevant things to do.

11:16 AM, May 16, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

I am curious how this caller successfully refuted the assertion that gays are born that way. Is it the same old rhetoric I hear time and again? Anyway, I have to agree with anonymous; what’s it really matter? I have been waiting for years to hear a non-religious, reasonable reason as to why a person should not “choose” to be gay if they wish to be so. And at the rate Scia has been responding to people on his blog I’ll still be waiting years from now.

11:30 AM, May 16, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

Let's define the word orientation:

an integrated set of attitudes and beliefs

Being Muslim, or Jewish is an orientation. You have a CHOICE if you want to follow these religions. You can CHOOSE to be a homosexual. Being a homosexual is following an integreated set of attitudes and beliefs, which is a CHOOSEN orientation. Let me go a little slower...having or following an orientation is a CHOICE someone has in life.

So, what are you trying to say?

6:41 PM, May 16, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Good to hear from you. My staff and I have been at Notre Dame doing the protest dance, so sorry for not responding as quickly as we would like.

Anyway, beside homosexuality being a sinful lifestyle, which as I can gather your not too concerned about, let's talk secular reasons why being a homosexual is not the right choice to make in life.

Hold on one second...I need to find that broken record that I always play when this question comes up...oh, here it is. Screeeeeeeetch:

The following data are from 50 states and the District of Columbia:
MSM:men who have sex with men

An estimated 19,248 MSM (17,230 MSM and 2,018 MSM who inject drugs) received a diagnosis of AIDS, accounting for 65% of male adults and adolescents and 47% of all people who received a diagnosis of AIDS [1].

An estimated 7,293 MSM (5,929 MSM and 1,364 MSM who inject drugs) with AIDS died, accounting for 60% of all men and 45% of all people with AIDS who died [1].

Since the beginning of the epidemic, an estimated 517,992 MSM (452,111 MSM and 65,881 MSM who inject drugs) had received a diagnosis of AIDS, accounting for 68% of male adults and adolescents who received a diagnosis of AIDS and 54% of all people who received a diagnosis of AIDS [1].

Since the beginning of the epidemic, an estimated 300,669 MSM (260,749 MSM and 39,920 MSM who inject drugs) with AIDS had died, accounting for 68% of male adults and adolescents with AIDS who had died and 57% of all people with AIDS who had died [1].

At the end of 2005, an estimated 217,323 MSM (191,362 MSM and 25,961 MSM who inject drugs) were living with AIDS, representing 67% of male adults and adolescents living with AIDS and 52% of all people living with AIDS [1].

1. CDC. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2005. Vol. 17. Rev ed. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC: 2007:1–46.Accessed June 28, 2007.

Let's just start there Ken and I will provide MUCH more as we listen to this scratched up record AGAIN...

7:05 PM, May 16, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What am I trying to say? Are you really that obtuse? I think it was pretty clear.

I also think that trying to win the argument by semantics is cheap and shows how weak your position really is.

But, just for a laugh, please re-read my post using as a guideline the dictionary definition of "orientation" as a general or lasting direction of thought or inclination.

I see nothing about choice in there, just as I see nothing about choice in whether a person is inclined towards heterosexuality or homosexuality, unless that person chooses to deny their innate inclinations.

8:00 PM, May 16, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

Are you saying that having an integrated set of attitudes and beliefs is not something someone can CHOOSE to do????????????????

5:40 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6:33 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

“Let's just start there Ken and I will provide MUCH more as we listen to this scratched up record AGAIN...”

I’m afraid you’ll have to Scia because your data just doesn’t cover enough for me.

Leading causes of preventable death 1990 to 2000:

1 435,000 deaths in 2000 caused by smoking; and I don’t see anyone telling smokers that they can’t get married and their habit is DEFINITELY a health concern for their kids.

2 400,000 deaths in 2000 caused by obesity; and I don’t see anyone telling heavy people to not get married or have kids and their eating habits are generally mirrored by their children.

3 85,000 deaths in 2000 caused by alcohol consumption; wow! no proposed legislation to stop these people from marrying or having kids either.

Now I’ll drop down to the 8th leading cause of preventable deaths in the U.S.

8 20,000 deaths in 2000 caused by sexual behavior. Not just Aids but anything including HPV and getting strangled by your partner (I hear that increases the pleasure).

http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf


So the leading causes of preventable deaths which are by percentage smoking 18.1%, Obesity 16.6% and alcohol 3.5% and you’re worried about a paltry 0.8% caused by sexual behavior and you want to stop these people from marrying and adopting kids!!?? And I know I’ve heard from you before saying something like we don’t know how those kids will end up because the studies done so far are inconclusive?? When we KNOW that 2nd hand smoke kills??

You are hung up on the sin part of it Scia; just admit it. And since sin is purely a religious problem let’s just leave it in religion because it will never pass the lemon test.

Our religions don’t mesh and likely never will. I don’t believe in invisible men and you don’t believe in evolution. And evolution has a heck of a lot more going for it than invisible men. Think about that please. Try this test at home; take 3 clear glasses, place some unwrapped Lifesavers in one, leave one empty and we’ll pretend that there are invisible transcendental Lifesavers in the 3rd. You’ll quickly notice how the empty glass and the glass with invisible lifesavers in it are identical in every way we can comprehend and the glass with real Lifesavers has reactions. If you shake the glass you’ll hear the Lifesavers rattling; you won’t hear any rattling with the transcendental Lifesavers. You can smell the Lifesavers in the glass with real Lifesavers but not the invisible Lifesavers. You can see and taste, touch and feel and even smell the Lifesavers in the glass with real Lifesavers. The one with transcendental Lifesavers we cannot comprehend with any of our senses. Our hearts may tells us that those invisible transcendental Lifesavers are really there but as any reasonable person will tell you, we have to concentrate on what we can comprehend And isn’t that comprehension all that really matters? Be careful; too many Lifesavers in one mouthful can cause a person to choke; do you really think the transcendental Lifesavers can choke you?

A few months ago I was driving South on I-17 between Thunderbird road and Cactus road. On the West side of the freeway is a billboard for Calvary community church. The sign read “Is God your co-pilot? Switch seats!” I pondered that statement and I wondered what would happen if I pulled over and got in the passenger side of my truck. I also pondered what would happen to someone if the truly believed God was their co-pilot. I came to the same conclusion for me and the believer; we would get nowhere if we switched seats.

6:53 AM, May 17, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scia, stop playing stupid. It's too believable.

5:17 PM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I used to spend much time trying to figure out what Scia's angle is, then I realized it doesn't matter.

Scia, please be sure to continue doing what you do here. I want as many people to hear what you have to say as I can direct to this website.

Would you consider doing a live radio show with me?

1:37 PM, May 18, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"I also pondered what would happen to someone if the truly believed God was their co-pilot."

Just one question, Ken, and I am being serious and not smart when I ask you this:

Have you ever believed in your life, or wanted to beleive in your life that there is a gracious God?

P.S. As for your other comments, I will get to those in a minute. If you feel that the above question is a personal one, feel free to e-mail me and we can chat.

Thanks man,

Scia

9:50 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

What radio show are you thinking of, because I would be very interested in doing a live show with you.

Scia

9:52 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Left Ahead has a good online radio show each Tuesday that I've been on before and they will make sure neither one of us gets talked over or similarly attacked in the Bill O'Rielly fashion.

I'm game so long as it is not one of your cronies.

10:25 AM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

“Have you ever believed in your life, or wanted to beleive in your life that there is a gracious God?”

Yes, I believed when I was very young. I also “want” to believe now. It would make my wife happier if I believed, but she understands that belief is not a switch someone can flip.

1:53 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

I think you told me before why you steard away from Christ. What was the deciding factor again??

7:17 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

This is a game changer. I just about put it up on my blog, but you beat me to it.

For years the homosexual groups have been thriving off the "born-gay" myth - and that has garnered the sympathy of many people unaware of the truth.

If a person isn't "born-gay", then are the civil rights justifiable?

It certainly changes one's perspective, doesn't it?

3:56 AM, May 20, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Tyler, good to hear from you! How's the new wife?

To answer your question, yes, it's still a matter of civil rights. People have the freedom of self expression covered under the freedom of speech. For someone else to come along and say one person's freedom is dangerous to others is within their rights as well, but if they want the court to step in and act against someone's freedoms the accuser must prove what they accuse beyond hearsay.

It's the same basic standard for any law, there must be a compelling social interest and we must derive a benefit from the proposed legislation.

GLAD argued successfully that there was neither a compelling social interest or benefit behind denying same sex marriage, and now 5 states have concurred with this decision.

I think it is basic fairness to say that laws need to be logical and not based on anyone's perception of what God wants. You do live in a melting pot of religious ideas that differ greatly, there seems no other way to be fair, no?

10:10 AM, May 20, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"GLAD argued successfully that there was neither a compelling social interest or benefit behind denying same sex marriage, and now 5 states have concurred with this decision."

How does this "decision" hold any due process? How did the opinion of the Goodridge "decision", in which your eluding too, make states "change" their laws about marriage when the "law" was NEVER approved of by the people, in this case the legislature?

Where is the court order that not only "made" Mitt Romney hand out illegal "marriage" licenses to same-sex couples, but "made" all of the other states hand out licenses????

12:12 PM, May 20, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

You've had five years to try to fight this on legal grounds, you failed and the argument is over. Now all that remains is how we behave. Do we treat each other with dignity although we disagree, or do we act in ways we know are inappropriate because we want to lash out?

12:23 PM, May 20, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

The question still prevails regardless of how long it will take to bring this matter to court. Answer the question or I have to come to the conclusion, as well as the rest of the readers of this thread, that you know same-sex "marriages" are illegal and have been for the past five years.

1:37 PM, May 20, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

No, I was quite clear with my answer, same sex marriages are not illegal. The proof that you have no legal leg to stand on is in the lack of legal wrangling from you side of the argument. You certainly don't lack resources, you simply don't have an argument worth bringing to court.

You can say the same sex marriages are illegal all you want but when I file my taxes I check married and gain the state benefit for doing so. That's proof enough for me.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think you would gain by taking my marriage rights away?

3:09 PM, May 20, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Tyler, did I miss something when reading from the APA that causes you to believe that there is no such thing as being born gay?

Sorry, I keep forgetting that you are an "ex-gay" or "recovering" homosexual.

3:13 PM, May 20, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

“I think you told me before why you steard away from Christ. What was the deciding factor again??”

There were many factors. I guess the main one was that when I did believe and prayed for help I was left alone. My Grandfather helped me and taught me to believe in myself instead of fairy tales. Why does it matter? I am an atheist now and that’s what matters. What I used to be and how I got to be who I am now is irrelevant.

5:54 PM, May 20, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

“Answer the question or I have to come to the conclusion, as well as the rest of the readers of this thread, that you know same-sex "marriages" are illegal and have been for the past five years.”

Hey Scia, did you ever actually read the Goodridge decision or are you still using that one quote you and your anti-SSM buddies have taken completely out of context?

6:00 PM, May 20, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Yes, I have read the Goodridge decision.

What is taken out of contents??

6:33 AM, May 21, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

Your beating around the bush on this question and answering it by making blanket statements that have no relavance, facts, or cited sources. Let me point out to you what I mean.

I said that same-sex "marriages" are not legal because I wanted to know:

"How did the opinion of the Goodridge "decision", in which your eluding too, make states "change" their laws about marriage when the "law" was NEVER approved of by the people, in this case the legislature?"

Your response was:

"No, I was quite clear with my answer, same sex marriages are not illegal."

John, if you expect me to be interviewed on some lefty loon radio program you need to back up your claims with facts and not just statements, otherwise your going to look weak in the debate because all you have is an emotionally laced opinion.

You followed up your claim with:

"You can say the same sex marriages are illegal all you want but when I file my taxes I check married and gain the state benefit for doing so. That's proof enough for me."

That is a result of a former governor inacting a "law" based on an opinion, NOT a court order, which under the Mass Constitution would never happen in order for a law to be enacted. Your ability to check off a box for taxes is a result, not proof that same-sex "marriages" are legal.

All I am asking you is how, why, what led too same-sex "marriages"
(SSM)becoming legal in MA and where is the court order that Mitt Romney followed that led to SSM's from becoming legal?

It really is a simple question. You sound like your pretty knowledgable of the law by making blanket statements, so I am not sure why you can not answer a question without going off on a tangent about something else such as civil rights or taking "marriage" rights away.

Just answer the question.

6:56 AM, May 21, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

“Yes, I have read the Goodridge decision.

What is taken out of contents??”

“We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”

That quote has been used numerous times on this site and every time it has been taken completely out of context. If you have actually read the decision you should know that. So either you are ignoring the facts or you are too dense to understand the facts when they have been presented. I never thought of you as dim-witted so it must be the former. The court provided its decision and if you disagree with their opinions that would be acceptable; but you don’t just disagree, you claim to know the law better then they.

What has become almost laughable is the way the anti-SSM folks turned on each other after SSMs were deemed legal and binding by the authorities. Kris Mineau, Ann Colter, James Dobson and many others have been turned into pariahs because they even admit that SSMs are legal much to the chagrin of groups like Massresitance. I understand that you do not approve the legality of SSM’s, but don’t try and make a dead horse run. You can either accept SSM’s as part of life now or try to start a movement to make them illegal; but continuing to deny what is reality will get you nowhere. Hey! That’s the same place you’ll get to if god becomes your pilot!

7:22 PM, May 21, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I said that same-sex "marriages" are not legal because I wanted to know:

"How did the opinion of the Goodridge "decision", in which your eluding too, make states "change" their laws about marriage when the "law" was NEVER approved of by the people, in this case the legislature?"

OK, for starters you gotta lose the "quotations" thing; it was clever the first 100 times, now it just seems like the unrelenting attitude I'd expect from a tired old queen.

Let's not bother arguing about what we already know. Same sex marriages are performed every day for the past five years, they are accepted by all society save the few religious zealots that have an issue with someone else's sex life. Game over. It doesn't matter how much you protest the nature of the change or it's legality, it is followed as law so it is law. Say what you want, this is reality.

As far as the radio show goes I was worried you might get cold feet. ;)

Perhaps we could simply meet in a chat room that others can spectate or even participate. We have a moderator and a set of agreed rules prior to the discussion. Would that be better?

10:46 PM, May 21, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

A) You can not answer the question, so I, and all of the readers of this thread, have come to the conclusion that you know that same-sex "marriages" are ILLEGAL in Ma. --- Thank-you for being indirectly honest with us.

B) If you think I am going to be interviewed, but you wish to tippie-toe around the issue and NOT answer questions I propose to you, such as you have clearly shown hear on my blog, what is the purpose of making you look foolish and verbally filleting you on this issue in front of thousands? I would not want to do that John, I have no rhyme-or-reason to make you look like a fool in front of so many.

Answer the question and we can discuss this issue where ever you would like.

Thanks John,

Scia

5:44 AM, May 22, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"My staff and I have been at Notre Dame..."

I gotta admire your consistency. ;)

OK, so you make more of a statement than a question if I read this right, so let's review:

I Said:


"GLAD argued successfully that there was neither a compelling social interest or benefit behind denying same sex marriage, and now 5 states have concurred with this decision."

To which you replied:

"How does this "decision" hold any due process? How did the opinion of the Goodridge "decision", in which your eluding too, make states "change" their laws about marriage when the "law" was NEVER approved of by the people, in this case the legislature?

Where is the court order that not only "made" Mitt Romney hand out illegal "marriage" licenses to same-sex couples, but "made" all of the other states hand out licenses????"

Let's go through what your said and respond to everything methodically so you will not be able to say I didn't answer you, though you may likely do so no matter what I say. It's a rather strange tactic, but not one I haven't encountered before that's akin to bald face lying where people deliberately overlook the obvious.

The Goodridge case was a group of citizens that filed a law suit claiming their exclusion from civil marriage on the sole basis that they have same sex partners was a violation of their equal rights. On November 17, 2003 the decision was split with the deciding vote cast by Chief Justice Marshal; it was determined that the denial of same sex marriage was unconstitutional and a mandate was given to the legislators to enact legislation that fully included same sex marriage.

That mandate came with a time line, if legislation was not enacted within six months same sex marriages would begin being issued without any legislation.

Same sex marriage went into effect on May 17, 2004 as a result with no need for legislative remedy because it was by court order which is just as compelling as legislatively enacted law.

I think that is the part that people seem to overlook in this case; judicial order is every bit as powerful as law passed by our representatives or even the people themselves.

The Constitution is a social contract that binds us all. It derives it's power by the people, and it needs to be honored in order to have binding power. It is the job of the courts to determine if those laws are being followed and in some cases to render a decision on their interpretation.

The due process here was that citizens felt they were being treated in a way that was a violation of this social contract (the constitution) and filed suit for relief. The SJC had an obligation to hear the case and render a decision, which it did and was unfavorable according to your point of view.

You asked: "How did the opinion of the Goodridge "decision", in which your eluding too, make states "change" their laws about marriage..."

I never claimed other states were made to change their laws, I said:
"5 states have concurred with this decision"

"Concur" means "agree"; you don't need to force the willing nor was their any force used.

I refuse to bother with the whole Romney issue as it has nothing to do with me. I've never approached this subject and have no need to fight or defend any points you want to make about him.

However, I would gladly join you and shout from the rooftops that he is the father of gay marriage just in order to prevent him from ever becoming President. He's a tool of the Mormon Church and as buried in conspiracy as anyone I've ever laid eyes on. I don't want to see his hubristic aloof arrogance he showed his own constituents visited upon the entire country, it seems irresponsible to allow that to happen through our silence.

7:47 AM, May 22, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

Scia said: As for your other comments, I will get to those in a minute.

My goose bumps from the anticipation have worn off.

2:45 PM, May 24, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Mine too. Scia, do you think one of your corresponding international offices in your worldwide amalgamation could spare the manpower it takes to respond to this blog in a timely fashion? ;)

After all, a multi-billion dollar business like this blog should be given the proper attention it deserves!

3:37 PM, May 24, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeopardy Music while we wait...

12:31 PM, May 25, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said,

"That quote has been used numerous times on this site and every time it has been taken completely out of context. If you have actually read the decision you should know that."

You never answered WHY the quote is taken out of contents. HOW is it out of context with the decision??? Cite your sources please.

Sorry for the delay, but my blog has asked Obama for a bailout,so all the meetings with the Messiah has taken up some precious time!!!

4:42 PM, May 25, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

A) Why did it take YOU so long to answer my question? What Wiklipedia page did you get your information from? Your argument is compelling to the uneducated eye, but it is FULL of holes.

Let's start with the biggest hole and we will go from there.

You said:

"Same sex marriage went into effect on May 17, 2004 as a result with no need for legislative remedy because it was by court order which is just as compelling as legislatively enacted law."

Please cite your sources for the statement 'it was by court order which is just as compelling as legislatively enacted law.'

Where is this stated John?? Who told you this, because it is completely and utterly wrong.

4:57 PM, May 25, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

Hey Scia, I was referring to all of your other non-religious reasons why a person should not “choose” to be gay. You brought up all these AIDS statistics which I really don’t believe are “real” reasons because there are so many more unhealthy activities one can participate in without someone taking away a person’s right to marry or getting in the way of a person’s wish to adopt. That’s what I really wanted to discuss.

“HOW is it out of context with the decision???”

Massresistance and yourself have used this quote and saying that even the courts say SSM’s are illegal.

You stated Jan 1 2009 on the thread titled “Where is the Truth??”

“As stated by the judges who resided over the Goodridge decision who admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: “We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.” Plain and simple.”

What you are saying here is that the SJC violated 207 by their end decision. I made the same mistake as the plaintiffs in the case when reading MGLc 207. I believed that since it does not prohibit SSM’s it must be construed to allow them. The courts disagreed. However the court is basically telling everyone that 207 makes no determination either for or against SSM’s. That’s how this quote is taken out of context. MGLc 207 makes NO difference whatsoever on the issue of SSM’s. So when you use this quote to further your agenda you are quote mining. I really should expect no less. Christians love to mine quotes. They did it to Darwin and Dawkins, now you’re doing it to the SJC.

6:44 PM, May 25, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"However the court is basically telling everyone that 207 makes no determination either for or against SSM’s. That’s how this quote is taken out of context."

I don't understand what you don't understand about basic English meanings:

“We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”

That does not sound like M.G.L. c. 207 does not 'make(s) no determination either for or against SSM’s.'

The court stated an opinion that Romney illegally deamed "law". It is that simple.

7:10 PM, May 25, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I have to admit to my embarrassment that my answer was too big to post here, so I made it into an article and it's over on my website. Please read it there and come back here to comment further.

My Response

7:50 PM, May 25, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

“That does not sound like M.G.L. c. 207 does not 'make(s) no determination either for or against SSM’s.'”

And that proves beyond doubt that you have not read the Goodridge decision yourself.

12:51 AM, May 26, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

He doesn't read a lot of what is in front of him and even what he posts here because he is simply a tool of the organization. That's how I caught him quoting a white supremacist last year and he blamed his "staff".

12:57 AM, May 26, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

I am not sure what you are trying to say here because it really does not prove me wrong ,as anyone reading your response can see.

You said:

“The Goodridge Decision clearly states that legislators were to be given the opportunity to create legislation that gives same sex couples the exact same right to marriage as heterosexual couples.

Having failed to do so in the provided 180 days given the decision went into effect without legislative action and same sex marriage licenses began to be issued at Midnight on May 17, 2004 at Cambridge city hall.”

BEFORE MAY 17, 2004, the JUDICIAL BRANCH knew the legislature would have to change the marriage law for same-sex "marriage" to become legal.>

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) judges who wrote the Goodridge decision (i.e., the judicial branch) in November, 2003, knew they did not have the power to suspend the marriage law, which is why they explicitly did not strike it down (see Goodridge decision).

Rather, the Legislature was told to act within 180 days. The Court, however, did not order the legislature to change the laws. Nor did the Court order the Department of Public Health, a party in the Goodridge case, to issue marriage licenses (because the statute did not then, does not now, and never has permitted such marriages). The court simply "declared" an opinion regarding the constitutionality of the marriage statute.

The SJC clarified their Goodridge ruling in February of 2004 writing to the Senate, "The purpose of the stay was to afford the Legislature an opportunity to conform the existing statutes to the provisions of the Goodridge decision."

Why didn't the SJC simply order the laws to change? Because, as the Court recently held (in its opinion regarding the legislature's constitutional duy to vote on the citizens' proposed marriage amendment), it has no power to order another branch of government to act.

AND THEN . . . AFTER MAY 17, 2004,

But if the Goodridge ruling DID NOT change the law, and the law has never been changed, then why, AFTER May 17, 2004, did everyone, especially pro-family conservatives, act like it had been changed?

If nothing happened (in terms of legislatively changing the marriage laws) between November, 2003 (when the Goodridge decision was published) and May 17, 2004, and the Supreme Judicial Court had never ordered the Governor to do anything, then why did Romney decide unilaterally that a "new law" existed and why did he order town clerks to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses? If nothing had changed between April of 2004 when Mitt Romney said "the Legislature [needed] to look through the laws and see how they should be adjusted for purposes of same-sex marriage," then why were same-sex marriage certificates being given out on May 17, 2004? If the law needed to be changed and it never was, then how could "marriage" licenses be legal?

Second, you refer to a Wikipedia article..enough said

Thirdly, you refer to a statement in the Goodridge decision from page 128.

How in God’s name does this validate your statement of:

“That spells out the fact that the court is the final say on these issues.”??

Finally, what do the articles of the MA Constitution have to do with the “legalization” of same-sex “marriages”???

I urge others to read John’s response, a link is provided in his comments above, and understand the mindset that I am dealing with.

7:55 PM, May 26, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"(because the statute did not then, does not now, and never has permitted such marriages)."

More specifically the law does not restrict marriage as between one man and one woman. This is why we need no extra law or change in the current law.

You can attempt to deconstruct what I've said but the reality of the situtation is that same sex marriages are performed every day and recognized by all government agencies at the state level here in Massachusetts. That fact has now flown in the face of your legal opinions for more than 5 years now.

If you think you have such a solid argument why not file a suit and win back your right to keep people you don't approve of from marrying who they want? Seems the ultimate step in validating your point, don't you think?

12:02 AM, May 27, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

Scia, I am asking you once again to read the Goodridge decision for yourself. I understand it is long and sometimes monotonous, but I believe you might just get something from it. I don’t want you to accept my interpretation of Goodridge any more than I want you to accept someone else’s. I want you to read it yourself. That is the only way for you to understand. It would take way too long and multiple postings to provide you with enough info to get by the quote mining done by Massresistance. What you are getting from them is not the whole story. It is one quote on page 15. If I were to have stopped reading at that point I would agree that SSM’s are illegal; but I did not. If you read more than just that point, you will I have little doubt understand what the SJC was really saying. If you do not and you continue to rely on Massresistance for your education you will only get what they wish to give you.

Scia, I am not your enemy. I don’t know if we are friends; but we are more than associates I think. I don’t know how you came to believe in god, but I hope you did not depend on your parents or friends for that belief. I sincerely hope you looked at as much information you could get your hands on and soaked it up like a sponge. I am not an atheist because my Grandfather was an atheist. I am an atheist because I have not found enough evidence to make me believe. Many people want to claim that atheism requires faith or that atheism is a religion; I can assure you that it requires no faith and it is no more a religion than bald is a hair color. I hope you are a Christian not because your parents were or because you want to believe that you can live forever; but because after soaking up all the info you could not’ not believe. If you read the Goodridge decision for yourself I have little doubt that you will disagree with their decision; I also have little doubt that you will understand that SSM is in fact legal in MA.

Don’t depend on my interpretation, depend on your own. If you refuse to read it, you are willfully being ignorant, and that kind of ignorance is just plain stupid.

11:45 AM, May 27, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

I do not in any way, shape, or form rely on MassResistance for my 'education' on the Goodridge opinion. I think you let this lie sink into your head and seed itself because you heard it so many times from John Hosty, whom I may add, is not an individual in his right mind as I am sure you are aware of.

Briam Camaker (sp, I think)of MassResistance is a one-trick pony who does not work well with others because he thinks he knows EVERYTHING about everything...he is a boob with a capital "B"!!

I have read the Goodridge opinion. Please, please do not hesitate to place as MANY comments possible to interpret what the court was saying about same-sex "marriages". There are way too many gigabytes to fill up on the web to worry about how many postings you make. Let's challenge each other on this topic Ken, because it will make clear our points with clear cut sources to cite from, in this case, the actual decision itself that anyone can refer to.

Ken,

I would like to consider that we are friends and I would have diner with you and shoot the hoop-la anytime over a cold one--I prefer Sam Adams Summer Ale.

How I came to know Christ is from an upbringing that gave me proof that He loves us all, including you Ken. I came closer to Christ after the tragic death of my father 4 years ago this upcoming June. Christ has given me and my family a plethora of wealth that can be seen in the type of Christian that I am and the life that I lead. I may be a Christian that sins on a daily basis and is rather sarcastic at times, but I am a Christian that can tell you about many situations that I know I would not of made through without Christ by my side.

Look, I understand your point of view in regards to you not believing there is a God. What I really think you should do, and seriously, I hate telling people what to do, is just give Him YOUR control of not believing and LET it go!!! Just throwing it out there man, nothing else. Give it a whirl, BUT do not look for miracles to all of a sudden happen. Chill, and just let Him work.

Your a good person Ken, a little confused about who Christ really is, but you are open minded, but I don't think you even know that.

Non-the-less, in regards to the Goodridge debate: "let's get it on!!"

6:32 PM, May 27, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

“I do not in any way, shape, or form rely on MassResistance for my 'education' on the Goodridge opinion. I think you let this lie sink into your head and seed itself…”

I let this “lie” sink in because you and Massresistance use that one quote out of context in the same manner.

“I have read the Goodridge opinion.”

I have a tough time believing that because if you had you would/should understand the decision of the SJC.

“Let's challenge each other on this topic Ken, because it will make clear our points with clear cut sources to cite from, in this case, the actual decision itself that anyone can refer to.”

You want to do it on this thread or do you wish to start a fresh one?

“I would like to consider that we are friends and I would have diner with you and shoot the hoop-la anytime over a cold one--I prefer Sam Adams Summer Ale.”

I’ll take a Pepsi; I always find trouble when I drink.

“…just give Him YOUR control of not believing and LET it go!!!”

This is not me being sarcastic, but how? How do I let go? How do I give a “god” control? Does god control you? If so how do you know where you end and god begins?

“Your a good person Ken, a little confused about who Christ really is, but you are open minded, but I don't think you even know that.”

I try to be open minded but it’s tough when I hear that my questions on faith seem to anger so many. I don’t need to be told that I want to judge god; I already know that. We all judge god (or at least I hope so). If we don’t, then how would we know if he was good and merciful or evil and tyrannical?

“Non-the-less, in regards to the Goodridge debate: "let's get it on!!"”

I’m game just let me know if it is to be on this thread. At the end I hope I’ll know that SSM is illegal in MA or that you know it is not. Would you agree that is the goal?

9:51 PM, May 27, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"John Hosty, whom I may add, is not an individual in his right mind as I am sure you are aware of."

Always cite your facts Scia, this site is called "know thy facts". ;)

Say as much ill as you want, this blog is an echo chamber that hasn't been able to muster 10,000 in all the years it's been open. Even it's name shows you are nothing but someone who follows other people's coat tails.

Briam Camaker (sp, I think)of MassResistance is a one-trick pony who does not work well with others because he thinks he knows EVERYTHING about everything...he is a boob with a capital "B"!!

This seems nothing more than the elaboration of a bad liar. You don't know how to spell his name and you can't look it up? riiggght. This comment is intended to throw us off the trial that they work in tandem. Sell it to someone that doesn't already know you! ;)

Now if you are done with the ad hominem attacks you can get back to the subject at hand.

If you think you have such a solid argument why not file a suit and win back your right to keep people you don't approve of from marrying who they want? Seems the ultimate step in validating your point, don't you think?

If you want we can go throug the Goodridge Decision line by line from begining to end and once it's read that way our points will be much more obvious.

9:30 AM, May 28, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You asked:

"This is not me being sarcastic, but how? How do I let go? How do I give a “god” control? Does god control you? If so how do you know where you end and god begins?"

Good questions. Answer: be opened-minded, as you say you are, and let Him help you. Just ask Him to help you, Ken. Do it right now and pray to Him. The challenge after you pray to Him is to be patient and have faith. Can I give you that challenge??

As far as posting our arguments about Goodridge, let's do it hear on this thread.

Scia

11:05 AM, May 28, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I pray for you Scia, every day, that you will be given the strength to come out of the closet and admit that you are a sloppy party bottem. In His name. Amen.

7:13 AM, May 29, 2009  
Anonymous omd said...

Have read through most of this stuff. The argument will never change because of mindset.

1.Inclination - An attitude of mind especially one that favors one alternative over others

2. Ken, belief is simply a choice. You choose to believe or not to believe.

3. Doesn't matter whether someone is "born" a homosexual, suggesting a homosexual gene, or chooses to be identified as a homosexual

4. The issue is and always has been sexual behavior. Homosexuals have the right to dignity and respect JUST as every human has that right. Personally, I believe it is determental to the mental health of a child to be taught that the insertion of a penis into the rectum of any person or beast is normal sexual behavior or that a male performing fellatio on another male is normal sexual behavior. Or even two males lip kissing and tongue twisting. The same goes for female homosexual sexual behavior.
Now, there are some very perverted hetersexual practices too and people choosing to act in those manners are just as wrong in their behavior.

5. Homosexuals as well as heterosexuals all choose their behavior. The sexual act is a choice. It is not a requirement. Showing love is not sticking your penis up someones rectum.

6. All of this homosexual banter is only about giving a sexual behavior legal status and an act of normalcy. Now, homosexual groups are suing for triad marriages and transgender rights. How soon before the radical homosexual contingency embarks on pedophilia rights- A sexual attraction to children.

7. To be fair these sins are no more important than any other sin. It is just sin, rebellion to God, everyone doing what is right in their own eyes instead of what God has outlined.

8. The wages of sin is death. All mankind sins and falls short of the glory of God. This is why we need a savior. Jesus, the physical embodiment of the invisible God, God in the flesh, came to testify to the truth. He did not come to condemn the world but to save the world. But... there are consequences for sin and rejection of the Christ.

9. I invite all to ask Jesus for forgiveness of their sin and tell Him that you are or maybe skeptical but that you want Him to work in your life. That you want to believe in Him. If you do that with earnest and also due diligence then I can promise you that the day will happen that you will make a conscious choice to either reject Jesus or accept Jesus. Your choice is; He is either a lunatic or He is who He says He is. If He is who He says He is then you would be a fool to reject Him.

A Fellow Christian Sojourner and Disciple of the Christ, Jesus

9:46 AM, May 29, 2009  
Anonymous Rufus said...

I had really given up posting here, as it is akin to beating ones head against a brick wall, but I can't hold my tongue today.

1. SCIA, you gave me a good chuckle today asking Ken to be open minded. I find this very funny coming from someone with a very closed mind.

2. OMD, you show your bigotry with comments like "Showing love is not sticking your penis up someones rectum." and "How soon before the radical homosexual contingency embarks on pedophilia rights- A sexual attraction to children." You really disgust me with thoughts/comments like this. Just as heterosexual love is not about sex, neither is the love between same sex couples. Why must your mind be constantly in the gutter when it comes to gays and lesbians? It is also grossly incorrect to suggest those lobbying for equal marriage rights also wish to grant rights for pedefiles. This is a red herring argument those against SSM have been floating as a scare tactic.

I suggest you tend to your own sinning, and stop the judgment and falsehoods you are perpetuating. I doubt Jesus is proud of your posting today. (Although I'm sure he has better things to do then read blogs.)

11:34 AM, May 29, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Rufus, I have to agree with you, yet here we are anyway. Scia should practice what he asks of others, score one for Rufus on that issue.

OMD, I'd like to address some of the things you've said and see if we can have less of a shouting match and more of a discussion because I genuinely want to understand better what it is that motivates people to be so actively anti-gay. That doesn't mean hateful, I'm just recognizing the fact that a lot of time is spent dwelling on the subject and I'd like to understand why that is.

First point, it absolutely matters whether or not being gay is a choice. Whether or not this is of my own free will has a lot of weight in the eyes of others who judge me and was a factor in my self-judgment. I tried my hardest to not be gay, and when I realized I couldn't change my stripes I tried to take my own life, not once, but three times. This was because of my Catholic upbringing that taught me it was a sin and I thought I'd be better off dead than living in such spiritual and emotional pain.

My elightenment was a process, I didn't just go out and starting boinking everything on two legs like some people seem to think of gay men. In fact, the more people I meet in life the more I realize it is foolish to let stereotypes prejudice your opinions at all.

I decided since I was faithful and could live celebate I would become a priest so that the joy I found could be shared with others in an agape way. I wanted to make sure people never felt about themselves the way I had, and I'm not talking about GLBT people, I mean everyone.

It surprised and dissapointed me to learn how corrupt my own religion was, and how hypocritical it is on the subject, so I left the process of decernment in 1993 shortly after we had gone ot World Youth Day to see Pope John Paul II.

I was content to live alone and celebate when I met someone who was on my same path and shared my same thoughts. It was clear to me from the moment I met my spouse that we were meant to be together, and we never spend a day apart because we are that in love.

I speak from my own frame of referrence because it's something I know for sure. I have been very introspective on this issue as you can imagine.

Identifying yourself as who you are is not wrong; it's called honesty. If you have same sex attraction, you're gay, simply put. If the choice of those attractions were fluid I would have simply changed my mind rather than put myself and my loved ones through all that happened as a result of my struggles.

You can't speak about what you don't have experience in dealing with, I can speak on this issue because I live it.

I'll address the rest of your post later, we have ot get ready for a graduation party. Best wishes to all of you. :)

5:03 AM, May 30, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

“As far as posting our arguments about Goodridge, let's do it hear on this thread.”

I shall get to this soon; I am not blowing it off. There are some things going on that are distracting me but I couldn’t let OMD or one of your comments go without a few comments of my own.

“The challenge after you pray to Him is to be patient and have faith.”

Scia, I have no faith in anything let alone the possibility of a god; if there is a way around this “faith” let me know.

OMD; what is the first comment supposed to mean?

2. Belief is not a choice. You can not choose to believe in something or not. Could you suddenly choose to believe in leprechauns? How about pink unicorns? You could act like you believe but deep down you know you really don’t believe at all. When enough evidence is provided for leprechauns, pink unicorns and/or god my belief will change on its own without a conscious decision from me.

3. I can see John Hosty’s point but to me it doesn’t really matter; I just want a solid reason that can pass a lemon test as to why someone should choose to not be homosexual.

4. I believe it is detrimental to a child’s mental health to teach them fairy tales as factual.

5. Showing love is not shoving a penis into a vagina. Showing love is more than that and if you don’t know it already you have no business being married. It took me a while to know that my wife loves me and it had nothing to do with sex. People can fake the love required to have sex, but you can not fake real love.

6. How long until OMD’s type of Christians stop lying?

7. whoopdeefrickindoooo.

8. Go ahead OMD and balk at your sins, Beg forgiveness from your god, I will keep my sins and learn from them and depend on myself to be a better person, not because god is watching, but because I am.

5:36 AM, May 31, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

From page 15

“The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G. L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.



From page 16

The larger question is whether, as the department claims, government action that bars same-sex couples from civil marriage constitutes a legitimate exercise of the State's authority to regulate conduct, or whether, as the plaintiffs claim, this categorical marriage exclusion violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We have recognized the long-standing statutory understanding, derived from the common law, that "marriage" means the lawful union of a woman and a man. But that history cannot and does not foreclose the constitutional question.


Basically, the SJC is saying that 207 does not answer the question of the legality of SSMs. Which is why there is so much more to the decision.

3:17 PM, May 31, 2009  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

I understand what you are saying, but what really gets me, and all the lawyers currently working on this case, is that M.G.L. c 207 is still on the books and legislation failed last year to wipe it off the books.

The Legislature has never changed the wording of the statute to permit same-sex marriage, nor has it repealed the law, thus, the law of Massachusetts has never changed. [Part II, c. 6, art. 6, of the Massachusetts Constitution provides: "All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved in the Province, Colony or State of Massachusetts Bay, and usually practiced on in the courts of law, shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the Legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and liberties contained in this Constitution."]

The Massachusetts Marriage Statute (Ch. 207) is still in effect because the SJC did not strike it down.

“Aside from an entry of the Court's judgment declaring that the lack of provision in the law for same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, nothing more . . . [resulted].” [http://www.boston.com/news/special/gay_marriage/blogs/chrisfunnell1.html (Scroll 2/3 of the way down the page to the May 14 entry)]

All that the Court did was to “declare” the statute unconstitutional, which is all they had been asked to do. Therefore, the plain meaning of the language of c. 207 has always and continues to prohibit same-sex marriage. As the SJC ruled in Goodridge, and in which you pointed out on page 15 of the Goodridge case:

“The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G. L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

Logic demands, therefore, the following conclusion: a statute that prohibits same-sex marriage that the legislature has never amended nor changed and that has not been stricken by the Court, remains the law of Massachusetts,notwithstanding it’s unpleasant circumstance of having been “declared” unconstitutional by the SJC.

There is currently no legal authority that permits town clerks to violate Chapter 207 and issue same-sex marriage certificates, nor any authority allowing justices of the peace to solemnize those relationships. Despite the boundless naiveté of the traditional marriage movement in Massachusetts and conservatives around the country, and despite the strange, public chagrin of the “reluctant, law enforcing” governor in whose office “homosexual marriages” were conjured from thin air, they remain what they have always been under Massachusetts law: legal nullities. The nuptial equivalent of Confederate currency.

7:43 PM, May 31, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

“The Massachusetts Marriage Statute (Ch. 207) is still in effect because the SJC did not strike it down.”

Have you ever read 207? I falsely believed as did the plaintiffs that since 207 never declares that SSMs are illegal and it does not define marriage as one man one woman that SSMs were therefore legal. The plaintiffs and I are wrong and the SJC acknowledges that in the statement “We conclude, as did the judge, that G. L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.” Now if you keep reading the SJC declares that isn’t the point. 207 makes no determination one way or the other on the legality of SSMs. That is why the SJC didn’t end the discussion there. “The larger question is whether, as the department claims, government action that bars same-sex couples from civil marriage constitutes a legitimate exercise of the State's authority to regulate conduct, or whether, as the plaintiffs claim, this categorical marriage exclusion violates the Massachusetts Constitution.” That 2nd statement is what makes Goodridge so interesting. It is also why 207 makes no difference. That is why I have such a difficult time understanding how you could possibly have read past page 15.

MGLc 207 makes no determination of the legality of SSMs.

MGLc 207 makes no determination of the legality of SSMs.

MGLc 207 makes no determination of the legality of SSMs.

Now maybe that I’ve typed it in plain English 3 times in a row you’ll get it; PLEASE!

4:06 AM, June 01, 2009  
Anonymous JH said...

The Village Atheist,

You do not grasp the basics of American government or the MA Constitution. There are many reasons he/she is deluded. Here are just three:

1. The MA and the United States Constitution both forbid judges from making law changing it or striking it down. Every Founding Father and every lawyer, politician, and most literate citizens knew that before the year 1900 or so. The MA Constitution is brutally clear about it, so "Village Atheist" is deluding himself -- or lying. Even the same judges have admitted that they can't make law.

2. Worse yet for the Village Atheist, the MA Constitution denies judges to right to even hear cases like Goodridge, so it would not matter what edict they issued after hearing it. It is legally void.

3. Even the Goodridge plaintiffs' lawyer admitted after the judges belched forth their anti-constitutional lie that no marriage licenses could be issued to sodomites unless the Legislature rescinded 207 and legalized sodomy-based pretend "marriages."

Game. Set. Match.

"...may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry..." is plenty clear.

7:38 PM, June 02, 2009  
Blogger The New Village Atheist said...

Is JH John Haskins??

1. The Supreme Court does have the authority to strike down laws. While I doubt they have the authority to change law they do have the authority to change how it is interpreted, which is their job. They have done so, many times in our history. Roe vs Wade is the most prominent.

2. SO sue ‘em Johnny. Stop your little cry baby ranting and sue. Put up or shut up

3. I bet you did read the Goodridge decision all by yourself didn’t you. I would even wager you understood what it said. I’ll bet you’re the quote miner aren’t you Johnny. You probably spent days looking over that 160 page document looking for something; anything you could use, and use it incorrectly I might add. I must ask; how much time do you devote to be anti-ssm? Is your life that empty?

“Game. Set. Match.”

I must be resurrected; holy crap I’m the 2nd coming.

12:39 AM, June 03, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

The fact that marriage equality is accepted as law by our people and our government sets stare decisis, which is as powerful as law. This is coming directly from a lawyer in a law office, but feel free to check this fact for yourself.

The bottom line is that if the opposition had a leg to stand on they would have filed a lawsuit long ago. They can't because they have no legal basis to stand on, these points are a farce because they are predicated on false information.

First point, the SJC never makes law, they interpret it. Their interpretation in the Goodridge decision called same sex couples to be treated fairly and equally.

12:17 PM, June 05, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"2. Worse yet for the Village Atheist, the MA Constitution denies judges to right to even hear cases like Goodridge, so it would not matter what edict they issued after hearing it. It is legally void."

Please cite your source. Logic would dictate that someone along the line to the SJC would have caught this and thrown the case out were this alegation true, but I'll humor you.

I expect you've read the law wrong or you just made this up.

12:26 PM, June 05, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Perhaps this would help lessen the confusion:

MA Marriage Laws Chapt. 207

Now that we have a link to the law cited readers can see for themselves what is said verbatum.

12:34 PM, June 05, 2009  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

So now that we have the law cited please point out what wording needs to be changed in order to include same sex marriages, could you Mr. Haskins?

12:40 PM, June 05, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com