Ian McColgin
11-19-2003, 12:59 PM
Or some such.
I can't make this library machine transfer the story, but our Supreme Judicial Court yesterday ruled that there was no constitutional reason to limit civil law's contractual arrangement or marriage to people of different sexes. It is simply a formal agreement between any two people.
You can read much in the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Times and other sites.
There will be an effort to make a constitutional ammendment to overturn the court's decision. I hope we defeat that.
After all, it was Paul who said
Better to marry than to burn . . .
HehHehHeh
Ah - Just saw the Adam and Steve post. Better keep the dialog over there.
[ 11-19-2003, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Ian McColgin ]
I can't make this library machine transfer the story, but our Supreme Judicial Court yesterday ruled that there was no constitutional reason to limit civil law's contractual arrangement or marriage to people of different sexes. It is simply a formal agreement between any two people.
You can read much in the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Times and other sites.
There will be an effort to make a constitutional ammendment to overturn the court's decision. I hope we defeat that.
After all, it was Paul who said
Better to marry than to burn . . .
HehHehHeh
Ah - Just saw the Adam and Steve post. Better keep the dialog over there.
[ 11-19-2003, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Ian McColgin ]