The Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is considering a bill that would repeal a 1913 law that has been used to block same sex marriages for couples that live in states where same sex marriage is illegal.
The bill has passed the Senate and is headed for the House, and the Governor has said he will sign it.
Senate passes repeal of 1913 marriage law - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe

What happens if a gay couple from say Iowa, gets married in Massachusetts?
Can they then bring an equal protection suit in Iowa, which recognizes Massachusetts marriages between heterosexual couples, if they are denied any of the rights of married couples?

And for you gay couples with money to spend
Heres a little something to get you in the mood on the long drive to P'town

YouTube - Patti Page - Old Cape Cod *****

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

dammit! Now when my marriage fails, it'll all be Taxacheusetts' fault!

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

They need to just take government out marriage altogether, and just treat it as a regular contract with no special government benefits. Problem solved. Unfortunately, they'd rather continue adding more and more government, making the problem worse. More government is not always the answer.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Fine and well, but don't you think that opening the process up is getting government out?

-Benjamin

__________________
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

President Theodore Roosevelt
1918

I added a question mark to the thread title, as the Court didn't actually do it yet.

-Benjamin

__________________
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

President Theodore Roosevelt
1918

It's allowing even more people to unjustly get government benefits.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

In terms of your argument, fair enough. I don't agree, but that wasn't why I asked.

Benjamin

__________________
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

President Theodore Roosevelt
1918

You disagree that giving out more benefits (thus, more income redistribution to socially engineer people to be married) equals more government?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

I disagree with your philosophy on his issue wholesale, honestly. It is more government, but I don't mind. (I also do not have the time at the moment to debate it, honestly)

Benjamin

__________________
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

President Theodore Roosevelt
1918

Then you feel that social engineering, that is, paying people money from the pockets of other citizens just because those people are married (gay or straight), is justice? Who is to say that marrying is the right way to live and living single is not?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Yes, I believe in some social engineering to encourage the perpetuation of the human race and more specifically, U.S. citizens. To answer your second question, there's nothing wrong with being single, but we need babies who will buy into Western culture and value systems lock, stock and barrel.

Benjamin

__________________
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

President Theodore Roosevelt
1918

US citizens are in no danger of being wiped out. It would take a hell of a lot more than the lack of government subsidies and unjust encouragement to wipe us out. Similarly, your position is actually one that should, logically, oppose giving gays marriage benefits as they do for straight couples. The reason? Although gays can biologically multiply, a gay lifestyle would not encourage multiplication as would a straight lifestyle. So then you oppose gay marriage, as it clearly contradicts the reasoning behind your support for marriage benefits?If there's nothing wrong with being single, then why don't I get those benefits, too? Surely being single contradicts the government's efforts to turn everyone into McDonald's-eating, SUV-driving soccer moms and overweight office-worker dads, no? Furthermore, would you support other child-bearing incentives? How about a government paycheck of $100,000 for every child that a woman has after the first child? Tax breaks for families that are catholic and attend church weekly? Free gasoline for people who buy SUVs and have plenty of kids?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

I believe that gay marriage is a right afforded under the fourteenth amendment. "Separate but equal" will not do.

It's that simple. I can't justify the benefits, as they cannot reproduce.

Benjamin

__________________
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

President Theodore Roosevelt
1918

So then why are the unmarried treated unequally? Is that okay with you?Well, there you go. You can't justify the benefits. Thus, using your own reasoning, you should oppose giving marriage benefits to gays just as you do to straights. In other words, you choose to only apply that reasoning when it suits you, meaning that you are using a double standard. That is illogical, and therefore, your position does not appear to be grounded in logic.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

"The Great and General Court" is the name the Massachusetts legislature, and it's already passed the Senate, The Governor and the Speaker of the house are in favor of it, and earlier this year an attempt to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage was defeated when it failed to get 25% of the vote of the legislature. So the bill will probably pass.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address