For those of you not from the Boston area, the names Whitey Bulger and Steven Flemmi may have no meaning, but they were two of the worst of the Irish mob here.
Flemmi is in jail now, and Bulger will be soon. Flemmi received some amnesty for agreeing to testify against Bulger.
43 comments
I like salad for lunch, not breakfast.
Let me get see if I have this straight. You're upset that same sex marriage in Massachusetts wasn't in place in 1995 because then one guy couldn't testify against the other. But your upset that there is same sex marriage because you thing homosexuals are "owed this right"? Which is it man...I'm confused here.
And that spousal immunity has railroaded otherwise open and shut cases before. Also, no Irish mobster would be allowed to marry another man, being that they are staunch Catholics.
It looks like Taz's son is not as intellectually gifted as his father.
How old is this quote? Bulger is either in prison or in the hospital.
Anyway, one could say the same thing about a lot of hetero criminal pairs.
Same sex marriage should be illegal because members of an Irish mob will conspire to marry so they can get out of jail... Creative, at least. Still as insane and illogical as any other objections to gay marriage, but okay.
image
Spousal privilege does not mean you can't testify AT ALL against your spouse, only that you can't testify about any information you got through spousal communication.
This guy needs to stop getting all his legal information from television shows.
Yeah this makes perfect sense, this is a great example of how SSM can be used to thwart the criminal justice system. Now we just need a time machine so we can go back and warn criminal co-defendants that they need to get married before they get arrested and are asked to testify against each other in court!
What a cunning plan, its foolproof!
That...has got to be the most idiotic "justification" to ban gay marriage that I have ever seen. I mean we should ban heterosexual marriage for the exact reason. Women commit crimes too. If a woman marries a man she committed a crime with, they cannot be compelled to testify against each other, too.
@cdcdrr
The law makes "spousal communications" privileged. Just like the court can't make your lawyer or priest testify about anything you told them by threatening them with contempt charges, it also cannot force your spouse to testify about anything you said in private since you were married.
Your spouse can still be forced to testify about anything they witnessed you do or even about anything you said while any other person was present. The spousal privilege exception is a pretty narrow one and unlike on TV or in Son of Taz's fevered imagination it hardly ever has occasion to be used in court.
Many people relate to their spouse as their confidant, friend, "therapist" and confessor. So to force them to reveal details of private conversations is generally considered to be an egregious violation of both the "marriage contract" and the couples human rights.
"Homosexuals think they are owed this “right” but this Court better kill homo marriage, or civil unrest won’t be far behind here."
See, this is what I never understood nor do I think I ever will. Why do fundies think that gay marriages will affect heterosexual ones?
Conservatives bitch and moan about how there may be "unforeseen events" when equal rights exist, but will continually support tax cuts for the rich, the suppression of science, the denial of rights for the nonreligious, and worthless wars without a second thought.
CleverScreenName
That's a new one. I'll give him a point for originality, but then deduct it for tupidity.
I agree, the tupidity in this case is taggering! Can anyone be more tupid ?
Well, the thought of two Irish thugs marrying each other did somewhat liven up my morning.
Your argument, though, is utterly pathetic.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Oh, wow, thanks, Son of Taz, I needed that laugh :P
WTF?
This reminds me of the episode of "Law & Order" where Jack McCoy used his legal acumen to get all gay marriages in New York invalidated in order to allow a guy to testify against his husband in a murder trial.
Not Jack's proudest moment, to be sure.
"Had homosexual marriage been in force in 1995 when the indictments against Bulger and Flemmi were handed down, Bulger would not stand a chance of being convicted because Flemmi could “marry” Bulger and not be required to testify against him, since they would be “spouses.”
Homosexuals think they are owed this “right” but this Court better kill homo marriage, or civil unrest won’t be far behind here. Unforeseen events as I described will take place routinely if anyone can marry anyone. This law is an abomination and must not be allowed to stand."
All this started when niggers were allowed to marry white women in 1967.
"Had homosexual marriage been in force in 1995 when the indictments against Bulger and Flemmi were handed down, Bulger would not stand a chance of being convicted because Flemmi could “marry” Bulger and not be required to testify against him, since they would be “spouses.”
Okay--let's assume this is true. Do away with marriage altogether--that's your position?
After all, if we have to prohibit same sex marriage because it would make it impossible to compel a criminal's same sex spouse to bear witness against them, logically we must also oppose heterosexual marriag, since it will make it impossible to compel a criminal's opposite-sex spouse to bear witness against them.
No, wait, spouses cannot be COMPELLED to testify aga8nst each other.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
