The Mass. Goodridge decision was not judical activism.

I have started this thread due to the fact that another thread is being hijacked. I have put it in the pit, rather than GD, so I can say how I feel about this issue. Fuckity fuck with a cherry on top, I am getting tired off this.

I need to get going soon, but before I go, here is a quote from For once, I’m proud of my State Legislature that is not quite how I view the situation but is close enough for government work.

When come back, bring rant.


Scott, the quote by Grelby and his use of the word “legislature” refers to CALIFORNIA’S legislature. It is not in any way a comment upon “activist” or any other word as applied to the Massachusetts situation.

Oh Irony, thy name is Scott Plaid.

If he comes back I suspect he’ll be worn out as well.

You misunderstand. I quoted that post becuse it summerized my argument about the self-hijack you are perpetuating in the thread that spawned this. So maybe a few words were out of context in my quote. Big deal.

God damn you suck at this, Scott. Your “pitting” consists of a nearly content-free OP and a quote from someone else in another thread which sort of overlaps with your position in the thread under discussion. Pathetic.

It made your argument 90 degrees and sunny, with a chance of late-afternoon thunderstorms?

Scott, what is your argument in your own words? Is it contained in your thread title? Is that all?

Scott, once again, would you please stop arguing in favor of gay rights? We really, really, really don’t need your “help.”

That is one of the funniest posts I’ve read all week.

You see, Rick started a thread praising the recent gay rights development. :cool: Then, he commented “I have been sharply critical of efforts to force same-sex marriage into being by judicial fiat.” :rolleyes:

Well, I could not stand that kind of nonsense. Then, one of the posters stated

Well, while I feel that was a noble thing to say, nothing happened, so after correcting Polycarp’s misinterpretation of what I was saying, I started this thread in hopes of staving off the hijack.

I’m not sure Wiki has an article on this topic.

Just for shits and giggles you guys ought to wander over there and catch** Scott’s** correction of Polycarp.

Since you feel so strongly about it, why didn’t you put an argument, a stance, or, hell, at least an insult in your OP? Content free doesn’t begin to describe it.

Here, I’ll help:

Bricker, you ignorant slut. How dare you cast aspersions on the Massachusetts Supreme Court? It is plain to all who have eyes to see that their ruling was based on a careful and logical reading of the Massachusetts constitution. Fuckity fuck with a cherry on top, I am getting tired off this.
Then Bricker comes in to defend himself, and we’re off and running.

Hey, he summarized what a couple of people said in the GD thread. What more do you want? Thinking is hard, OK?

No, I just hoped to quickly divert the hijack, since I had to leave a few minutes later. I figured I would insult people later, when they posted here. So much for that.

Sorry, but I’m not going to argue a point by proxy.

If you believe what you wrote, I’ll address it. If you’re merely assisting the classic unarmed man in a battle of wits, then I’ll pass.

What? Of course I believe that the case in Mass. wasn’t Judicial activism. You can’t seem to keep from referring to your belief that it was, and hijacked your own Calif. praising thread to say so, so I posted this thread. Tell me, how was it “judicial fiat”?

P.S. I have no problem with arguing by proxy, since my case is so simple, so:

The latter. It was an example.

It’s a matter on which I am still decidedly undecided, even after reading the threads in which you and other knowledgeable folks have discussed this in the past. I’m certainly not going to argue either side.