From: "Andrealphus" 

In News zxFLh.25170$68.13203{at}bignews8.bellsouth.net,, John D.Wentzky at
johndwentzky{at}alumni.furman.edu, typed this:

> In news:UaELh.11602$PL.10205{at}newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net,
> Andrealphus  typed:
>> In News CnCLh.25144$68.20395{at}bignews8.bellsouth.net,, John D.Wentzky
>> at johndwentzky{at}alumni.furman.edu, typed this:
>>
>>> In news:1174332896.135701.85470{at}y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
>>> thomas p.  typed:
>>>> On 19 Mar., 20:09, "Patriot Games"
 wrote:
>>>>> "John"  wrote
in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:1174322257.074547.319270{at}b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> How does Gay Marriage weaken family stability?
>>>>>
>>>>> Who cares?  Its irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marriage is for a man and a woman.
>>>>
>>>> Not if the law is changed, and, in some places, it has changed.
>>>
>>> By the constitutionally required process?
>>
>> In Massachusetts, it was the constitutionally required process.
>
> Opinion is what you are siding with, not with Constitutional law.

No, I am siding with the constitutional law of Massachusetts.  I know
exactly what it says, and how it was applied.


>
>> You see, all laws have to be in compliance with the State
>> Constitution.
>
> And, the existing marriage laws before the mssc corrupted them were
> so. The marriage laws before the mssc courrupted them were enacted by
> the Constitutional process.
> The mssc is out of order.

Nonsense.   Just because a law goes unchallenged doesn't mean it was
constitutional.   The law was challenged, and the court ruled in favor of
the plantifs.   A process which is defined very specifically in the state
constitution.


>
>> If a passed law fails to meet constitutional muster, it can be
>> overturned, PER MASSACHUSETTS STATE CONSTITUTION.
>
> The mssc did not overturn ma marriage laws when they were passed into
> law.

Unnecessary.  All that is necessary is that the law be challenged.   A law
may stay on the books for years, decades even, but when it is challenged
and brought before the court then it is their duty to adjudicate the case
in front of them.  You might try reading a little bit about how the law
works in the U.S.


>
>> I know that will escape the few living cells of gray matter you might
>> have, but that's the way it is.
>
> What escapes your brain is the way constitutional government is
> supposed to operate.

I know exactly how it is supposed to operate, being all lawyery and all
that, you've obviously never taken so much as a basic civics course.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag