Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 11/29/04 12:00 pm:
The Mass. law allows for a vote in Nov. 2006 (the earliest)to amend the Mass.Constitution .Making no ruling is in fact consistant with Conservative principles in that Conservatives think that it is the legislative branches of the gvt. that should make law and that in the federal system ;it is the states that should decide issues (re 10th Amendment) .

My contention has been and contines to be that the 10th doesn't apply because of the 'full faith and credit ' clause (Section one of Article four of the United States Constitution )states :"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. "That means that the many States that have banned same sex marriage are compelled to recognize same sex marriages from another State. It is a national issue. If I was on the court I would've argued it in this manner and recommended a national law .

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 11/29/04 9:55 pm:

Hello everybody:

If I were gay, yes I would want the legal benefits that come with marriage. But I would want my union to be the same as everybody else's union - a marriage. To me, there is something second class about only being eligible for a "civil union" when everybody else can get married.

Yes, it's almost the same - kinda, but not really. It's different, just like separate but equal wasn't the same as integration.

I think the radical gays are going for exactly what they should get and won't accept anything less. I think they're right, and I think they'll get it.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/30/04 8:50 am:
Tom,

I agree that the Federalism argument is one that has caused problems in the past. But I don't think that that fact makes it an invalid legal/constitutional argument any more than I think that a hammer used to kill sombody makes hammers bad tools.

I happen to be in favor of legalizing medical marajuana... in fact I think that it is long overdue. I'll take it a step further: I have no problem with legalizing marajuana en toto the way alchohol has been legalized. My issue with excon on this issue has always been his method of 'protest', not the actual legalization issue. I do not feel that way about other, more harmful drugs, but that is a different issue.

Frankly, I don't see the fact that the "states rights" argument has been subverted is a reason to invalidate the argument.

And regarding the sodomy issue, I have yet to see a single state constitution or law that specifically says or can be interpreted to say that sodomy is a "right". In that sense, the left is wrong when they argue that "states rights" makes sodomy a right. It was a misuse of the states rights argument that the courts endorsed, and yes, I do take issue with the decision. But not with the basis of the argument itself.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/30/04 8:59 am:
Excon,

>>>But I would want my union to be the same as everybody else's union - a marriage. <<<

Gay people have the right to marry people of the opposite sex just like straight people. Nobody is abrogating that right. They are not looking for the same rights as everyone else... they are looking for a NEW set of rights that allow them to marry the same sex.

What about polygamists? Should polygamists be allowed the same "rights" as everyone else? Should an employer be forced to provide insurance for the five wives and 25 children of a single employee the same way that he must provide insurance for a monogomist employee with only 5 kids? Is that "fair" to the employer? What about "colony marriages" where multiple men and multiple women all "marry" each other, and are all husband and wife to each other, and can produce literally hundreds of kids? If one of them is employed, does the employer have to provide insurance to the entire family? If not, isn't that an abrogation of the so-called rights of the employee to receive insurance for his family? And if yes, is that fair to the employer who now has to pay for insurance for the entire "family" that numbers in the hundreds?

Once you start down the slope of giving the same rights to "alternative lifestyles" that you grant "traditional lifestyles", where do you daw the line? Especially when there is no legal "right" to such "marriages" under the Constitution.

This is a dangerous road, excon, and it has no legal basis to provide "rights" that have never before existed.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 11/30/04 9:35 am:
not to go off on a tangent but .... re medical marijuana : there have been alot of drugs with lesser side effects that have not been approved for dispensing . Can you imagine any other drug;especially a tempory pain reliever ; with side effects of chronic bronchitis ;abnormal functioning of lung tissue injured or destroyed by marijuana smoke;short term distorted perception ;long term reduction of blood flow to the brain;genetic changes in the reproductive organs ?

Vioxx was just removed from the market due to side effects and everyone is questioning the FDA oversight. If I was a doctor or a pharmacist I would not dispense or perscribe medical marijuana unless the tort reform laws were severely reformed.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/30/04 10:18 am:
Tom,

We are getting off on a tangent here. It might make more sense to open up another string for this issue.

In any case, ALL drugs have side effects, some better, some worse. Heck, in some cases, the side efect became the main reason for dispensing the drug. Take Minoxidil, for example: originally perscribed as a blood preassure medication, it had the side effect of causing hair-regrowth in males and to a lesser extent females. Today, it is almost exclusively used as a hair-loss treatment.

In the case of marajuana, yes there are definitely adverse side effects. But in some cases, the doctor is forced to choose between two evils... the symptoms of the disease or the side effects of the drug. That would seem to be the case in most medical marajuana cases. If the patient is in so much pain that they don't respond to traditional analgesics and anasthetics, then it is pretty clear to me that the side effects of marajuana are secondary to the pain-reducing benefits.

As for legalizing marajuana en toto, are the side effects of marajuana any worse than the effects of long-term use of alchohol (kidney disease, psoriosis of the liver, reduced mental and physical accuity, addiction, etc.)? Or for that matter, cigaretts (various cancers, emphyzema, lung disease, redued oxygenation of the heart and brain, addiction, discoloration of teeth and gums, etc)?

In my opinion, as long as people are made aware of the possible effects, and as long as the products are made to certain safety standards (the people won't be instantly poisoned), the choice of whether to use that product SHOULD be totally up to the individual.

So why not other drugs too? Because in my opinion, other drugs have more diliterious effects, both mental and physical, on the user. Also, the rate of addiction of other drugs is much higher... which means that after the first use, there really is no free choice anymore. But I grant you that this may be a subjective rather than an objective argument. Nevertheless, I believe that marajuana IS different than, say, heroine or cocain.

Elliot