Do you think it's right for the judges in MA to decide the gay marriage issue, or should it be left citizens

Answer 1

It should always be left to citizens. Courts are doing way to much to overstep their role in government. This is a popular vote issue.

They (being activist groups) are scared to have a popular vote because believe it or not, most people would vote against it.

Answer 2

Well, from the way you phrase your question, I can we'll be disagreeing, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Several critics have argued that the judges on the high court in Mass. have overstepped their boundaries. I completely disagree. It was and is the judges' responsibility to interpret the Mass. constitution. The constitution included an equal rights protection. The judges found that people were being treated differently and therefore violating the equal rights protections guaranteed by the constitution.

In other words, the judges were doing exactly what they were paid to do. No one complains when the judges say that you can't treat women differently than men because of equal protection or that you can't treat a minority differently because of equal protection.

As for letting the voters decide--ask yourself how often voters decide governmental issues. While they are the ones that elect those that make governmental decisions, hardly ever do voters themselves get to decide. Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that the Mass. voters are ok with the decision as all efforts to have the decision overturned--by constitutional amendment, trying to remove gay rights jurisdiction from the courts, voters initiatives--have failed.

Answer 3

Very few issues are ever put up for referendum. In this case, the constitution was interpreted by the court. That is the court's job. Given the way the constitution was worded, the court made the correct decision. Now, the elected officials have voted against having a public vote on the issue. Representative government is how the people usually decide issues, and here that has happened. So the people have decided.

Answer 4

I would like to see it out of the hands of both the Courts,and the citizens.This is an issue that is one of equal rights. If two people are of legal consent age it should not matter what the partnership looks like.,Marriage is a partnership, on paper for property and revenue sharing,for legal purposes.Marriage before God,in a Church,unashamed,is just an individual choice.It should be no ones business. Again I stress EQUAL RIGHTS.

Answer 5

Let the citizens decide.

BUT - I believe The Massachusetts Supreme Court was interpreting the state's "Equal Rights Amendment" to its constitution to enact same-sex marriage. In that case, one might argue that the amendment (which was enacted by the people) opened the door to this. How can you treat the sexes equally if you recognize differences between them? Sounds like "separate but equal" to me.

What I am saying is not that I personally support same-sex marriage, but that there is an unseen danger in adopting these "equal rights" amendments without carefully thinking them through. Yes, I think men and women should be treated equally, but I don't think they're identical. I have no problem with single-sex restrooms, for example, but I'd have a huge problem with facilities segregated by race.

I will probably set a personal thumbs-down record with that answer, but this is what happens when you try to legislate what cannot be legislated, the interchangeability of men and women.

Answer 6

Yes I do think they're right. They are the only rational ones looking at the issue objectively. They saw that there was no reason for the Commonwealth to deny marriage to one group of people.

And, btw, since when have people directly voted on certain issues?? If that was the case, women would not have the right to vote and black people would still be slaves.

Answer 7

It doesn't make sense how one state can legalize it, while all the others don't. So if you move to another state, are you no longer married? It needs to be all 50 states agreeing on the same thing for this to even have a chance. Having just one person decide an important decision such as this is not good. The judge could use his personal opinions as a deciding factor when it needs to be determined without any personal feelings.

Answer 8

I think the marriage issue should be left between the two adults involved in it...

What earthly difference does it make to you, me or the world for two people to marry? Any two people......? What effect does "gay marriage" have on your happy marriage? What effect does "gay marriage" have on your basic belief system. Why would you think you have the right to chose or not to chose someone elses partner?

Everyone should just keep their noses out of other peoples business - and bedroom.

Answer 9

No, its up to that individual. A persons sexual orientation should not be a concern, "the war on terrorism" is a concern.
Let GOD and that person deal with that. Lets talk about proverty, and the homeless.

Answer 10

It should be the Citizen to decide, not just one person.