Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Publius
So did the Massachusetts Supreme Court define “marriage” to include gays as many people have claimed? No, they simply stated that baring a state constitutional amendment, the Massachusetts State Constitution bared the legislature from defining “marriage” as only between one man and one women. Was the Court acting out of some liberal agenda? Maybe, but more importantly they were adhering to the law, and their ruling was based upon upholding that law. 11 states recently passed State Constitutional referendums defining marriage, why? Because that is how law is made. Had Massachusetts such a constitutional provision defining marriage, then, the court would have been bound to uphold that provision. As it was, however, no such provision existed and because of this the court was bound as a matter of law to make the ruling that they did. Thank God for “liberal” judges who know how to follow that law, instead of handing down opinions based upon personal religious moral ideologies.
|
Again, lower courts held that the law did allow for restricting marriage to something between a man and a woman. The lower courts also probably thought they were acting within the law.
Hopefully one of these new state amendments actually gets before the US Supreme Court, and have the issued settled once and for all (at least until there is a fundamental shift in the court's makeup).