Gay Marriage

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Most of the Hate I see is from the Gays. They are upset that the world considers their actions wrong and immoral and to make up for this and to make them feel better they want the world to accept "Gay Marriage".

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

Get over it!

Marriage is the 'union' between two persons. Each of which is an individual having the same right to marry.
What legal authority do you cite to enable you to make your pronouncement?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I just read today that the only Issue to be voted on in Lousiana for the upcoming Election will be a State Constitutional Ammendment defining Marriage as only between a Man and a Woman. Also would not recognize any same sex marraiges from other States.

I don't know the figures but there is a large Gay percentage population here especially around the New Orleans City area.

This thing passes, Doctors that do Gender changes are going to be awfully busy. :shocked:

Dave, the 'Full faith and credit' clause forces the various states to recognize the laws of the various states as they may apply to individuals happening in their state. Lousiana may enact law but, I rather suspect it will be held to be unconstitutional.

Btw, good to see that you've found a place that has internet capability.. I thought you were gonna go to some remote place that has yet to enter the age of enlightenment..

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

My opinion?

Everybody should just mind their own damn business as long as nobody is harmed.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Amen brotha!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I just read today that the only Issue to be voted on in Lousiana for the upcoming Election will be a State Constitutional Ammendment defining Marriage as only between a Man and a Woman. Also would not recognize any same sex marraiges from other States.

I don't know the figures but there is a large Gay percentage population here especially around the New Orleans City area.

This thing passes, Doctors that do Gender changes are going to be awfully busy. :shocked:

Dave, the 'Full faith and credit' clause forces the various states to recognize the laws of the various states as they may apply to individuals happening in their state. Lousiana may enact law but, I rather suspect it will be held to be unconstitutional.

Btw, good to see that you've found a place that has internet capability.. I thought you were gonna go to some remote place that has yet to enter the age of enlightenment..

Actually it doesn't and it won't be deemed unconstitutional either. The FF&C clause isn't limitless and can not be bent to suit the needs of whatever the Feds or such want.
The DoMA specifically enacted law that prevented such forceful acceptance on this very issue.
But hey - depends on how you see and read things I guess. Individual State sovereignty was put in place for a reason by the framers...too bad our elected officials seem to have skipped that portion...

Also as you your other post regarding what I said - you don't seem to have grasped what I was saying. That other discussion was about "rights" and what is regulated and put in place by the gov't. Sure the courts are part of our gov't but remember that most of our courts aren't part of the Constituion and can be disolved The issue you seem to want to hide behind is that the courts can "interpret", but what I have said is correct - they can't make or write law. So IF the court found the DoMA unconstituional(which hasn't been done) it doesn't mean that gay marriage is suddenly the "law". Many people seem to think that the courts are make something legal but they can't. They can only judge that individual law against the Constituion and it doesn't necessarily mean the whole concept of the law is wrong if it is deemed unconstituional. But again, as I've pointed out - the guidlines, laws and regulation of marriage is firmly in the hands of the legislature since they are the only ones who can write and pass law. They have made law that recognizes a marriage in the eyes of the gov't if conditions are met. The Exec signs and the courts rule on and use law. Keeping the legislation in check is both the Exec and the Court but both have set instructions on how they can keep Congress in check. Also, Congress can keep a runaway court in check using the instructions provided for.
So no, I don't buy this "rights" BS, because it's not a "rights" issue. They have just as many rights to become married as the next person but they want the rules relaxed because they don't like them or claim they are unduly excluded. Now again, if they think they are unduly excluded then I suggest they work on getting the legislation passed that will give them the legal standing they desire but IMO using the courts as an end run around the legislative process is apalling and bastardizes our system.

CKG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: piasabird
Most of the Hate I see is from the Gays. They are upset that the world considers their actions wrong and immoral and to make up for this and to make them feel better they want the world to accept "Gay Marriage".

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

Get over it!

Marriage is the 'union' between two persons. Each of which is an individual having the same right to marry.
What legal authority do you cite to enable you to make your pronouncement?

Defense of Marriage Act for one

That question has been asked and answered before.

Time for some light reading for a few of you...

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I just read today that the only Issue to be voted on in Lousiana for the upcoming Election will be a State Constitutional Ammendment defining Marriage as only between a Man and a Woman. Also would not recognize any same sex marraiges from other States.

I don't know the figures but there is a large Gay percentage population here especially around the New Orleans City area.

This thing passes, Doctors that do Gender changes are going to be awfully busy. :shocked:

Dave, the 'Full faith and credit' clause forces the various states to recognize the laws of the various states as they may apply to individuals happening in their state. Lousiana may enact law but, I rather suspect it will be held to be unconstitutional.

Btw, good to see that you've found a place that has internet capability.. I thought you were gonna go to some remote place that has yet to enter the age of enlightenment..

Actually it doesn't and it won't be deemed unconstitutional either. The FF&C clause isn't limitless and can not be bent to suit the needs of whatever the Feds or such want.
The DoMA specifically enacted law that prevented such forceful acceptance on this very issue.
But hey - depends on how you see and read things I guess. Individual State sovereignty was put in place for a reason by the framers...too bad our elected officials seem to have skipped that portion...

Well.. yes, the Congress did pass that law. But, as you know, the thinking is that it won't pass the USSC because they will hold that Homosexual marriage is a "protected right" hehehehe, I think.
I'm all for State sovereignty. I'd want each State to decide this and ALL the 14th Amendment decisions that the Court has handed down. If the people of Iowa want a Pink Angelic Figure on their Court House patios then they should be able to have that. If they don't want Abortion they should be able to enact law prohibiting that too. But, that ain't the way it is and the USSC has deemed just about every issue that can occur to fall under the umbrella of the 14th.

Also as you your other post regarding what I said - you don't seem to have grasped what I was saying. That other discussion was about "rights" and what is regulated and put in place by the gov't. Sure the courts are part of our gov't but remember that most of our courts aren't part of the Constituion and can be disolved

Congress may dissolve the lesser courts. But, not the Supreme Court. The courts below are simply 'helper' courts and there would be no point in doing that.

The issue you seem to want to hide behind is that the courts can "interpret",
I said the executive 'interprets' the law. The courts are suppose to only interpret the Constitution as it applies to the law itself as being within the Constitution.
but what I have said is correct - they can't make or write law. So IF the court found the DoMA unconstituional(which hasn't been done) it doesn't mean that gay marriage is suddenly the "law". It means that the Marriage Act law is unconstitutional if they hear it and decide that way. But, then that decision can be read (if the language is there) that the reason it is unconstitutional is because the Marriage Act allows the States to NOT recognize Homosexual marriage. So it would depend.
Many people seem to think that the courts are make something legal but they can't. They can only judge that individual law against the Constituion and it doesn't necessarily mean the whole concept of the law is wrong if it is deemed unconstituional. But again, as I've pointed out - the guidlines, laws and regulation of marriage is firmly in the hands of the legislature since they are the only ones who can write and pass law. They have made law that recognizes a marriage in the eyes of the gov't if conditions are met. The Exec signs and the courts rule on and use law. Keeping the legislation in check is both the Exec and the Court but both have set instructions on how they can keep Congress in check. Also, Congress can keep a runaway court in check using the instructions provided for.
So no, I don't buy this "rights" BS, because it's not a "rights" issue. They have just as many rights to become married as the next person but they want the rules relaxed because they don't like them or claim they are unduly excluded. Now again, if they think they are unduly excluded then I suggest they work on getting the legislation passed that will give them the legal standing they desire but IMO using the courts as an end run around the legislative process is apalling and bastardizes our system.
The Executive is the body that uses the law to effect what the law pertains to. Like any law, the legislative makes it and the executive interprets that and effects it... then when something occurs to challenge it, the courts determine the law's constitutionality.

CKG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: piasabird
Most of the Hate I see is from the Gays. They are upset that the world considers their actions wrong and immoral and to make up for this and to make them feel better they want the world to accept "Gay Marriage".

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

Get over it!

Marriage is the 'union' between two persons. Each of which is an individual having the same right to marry.
What legal authority do you cite to enable you to make your pronouncement?

Defense of Marriage Act for one

That question has been asked and answered before.

Time for some light reading for a few of you...

CkG

That would certainly be a law to point to. However, even Congress knows it is just a while before it will be overturned. Tis why they want an Amendment.

But even that law only pertains to Federal thingi.. not the States themselves.. except where a State does not wish to recognize the marriage laws of another state... We do live in States.. well most of us do... DC and the others have different compliance issues.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: piasabird
Most of the Hate I see is from the Gays. They are upset that the world considers their actions wrong and immoral and to make up for this and to make them feel better they want the world to accept "Gay Marriage".

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

Get over it!

Marriage is the 'union' between two persons. Each of which is an individual having the same right to marry.
What legal authority do you cite to enable you to make your pronouncement?

Defense of Marriage Act for one

That question has been asked and answered before.

Time for some light reading for a few of you...

CkG

That would certainly be a law to point to. However, even Congress knows it is just a while before it will be overturned. Tis why they want an Amendment.

And the USSC would have to overlook Murphy v. Ramsey to overturn it.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

If there were any doubt that gay marriage is a right there would be no need for a Constitutional amendment to deny it.

Bigots put up their biggest fight before they die off and disappear. Whites can't marry blacks, men can't marry men, all the exact same pig headed bigotry.

 

[LunarRay]

Caddy,
You'll have to admit that the 14th Amendment was intended to protect the minority from the decisions of the majority. Homosexuality is a minority.. I think .. so why wouldn't the 14th protect the rights of an individual who happens to be Gay? Why can't he marry who he wishes (as long as the marriage is legal)?
Now two folks who happen to be Gay both having the same rights appear at the county license office.. why can't they marry each other? (within states where it is legal to do so). In those states that have enacted laws to ban gay marriage the USSC will have to determine IF they are unconstitutional under the 14th. Me thinks.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: piasabird
Most of the Hate I see is from the Gays. They are upset that the world considers their actions wrong and immoral and to make up for this and to make them feel better they want the world to accept "Gay Marriage".

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

Get over it!

Marriage is the 'union' between two persons. Each of which is an individual having the same right to marry.
What legal authority do you cite to enable you to make your pronouncement?

Defense of Marriage Act for one

That question has been asked and answered before.

Time for some light reading for a few of you...

CkG

That would certainly be a law to point to. However, even Congress knows it is just a while before it will be overturned. Tis why they want an Amendment.

And the USSC would have to overlook Murphy v. Ramsey to overturn it.

CkG

Correct me if I'm wrong but, Murphy dealt with bigamy and voting issues.. Not too sure that case is on point with the homosexual marrige issue..

edit... but, I'll go lexus/nexus it and see

edit edit...

I went and scanned the salient parts of the decision and remain unconvinced that that case is on point or close to the Homosexual issue.
Although it is reasonable for the same school of thought to argue that both of these issues flow from the same intolerable POV. I believe the one on one marriage issue has not had need of clarification since the beginning of our Nation. I will look to what the Court some 122 years later may think about the Morman Marriage rights.. hehehehe Scalia and Thomas and the Chief on one side and the others throwing darts..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: piasabird
Most of the Hate I see is from the Gays. They are upset that the world considers their actions wrong and immoral and to make up for this and to make them feel better they want the world to accept "Gay Marriage".

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

Get over it!

Marriage is the 'union' between two persons. Each of which is an individual having the same right to marry.
What legal authority do you cite to enable you to make your pronouncement?

Defense of Marriage Act for one

That question has been asked and answered before.

Time for some light reading for a few of you...

CkG

That would certainly be a law to point to. However, even Congress knows it is just a while before it will be overturned. Tis why they want an Amendment.

And the USSC would have to overlook Murphy v. Ramsey to overturn it.

CkG

Correct me if I'm wrong but, Murphy dealt with bigamy and voting issues.. Not too sure that case is on point with the homosexual marrige issue..

edit... but, I'll go lexus/nexus it and see

edit edit...

I went and scanned the salient parts of the decision and remain unconvinced that that case is on point or close to the Homosexual issue.
Although it is reasonable for the same school of thought to argue that both of these issues flow from the same intolerable POV. I believe the one on one marriage issue has not had need of clarification since the beginning of our Nation. I will look to what the Court some 122 years later may think about the Morman Marriage rights.. hehehehe Scalia and Thomas and the Chief on one side and the others throwing darts..

"union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony" was said in Murphy v. Ramsey. Ofcourse "original intent" might have changed in a hundred years just like the "legal" age has.

As for your other post - DoMA addressed the 14th Amendment issue quite clearly.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

CAD,

"union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony" was said in Murphy v. Ramsey. Ofcourse "original intent" might have changed in a hundred years just like the "legal" age has.

As for your other post - DoMA addressed the 14th Amendment issue quite clearly.

I think I meant that the law that was under challenge and 'upheld' as it related to the facts in that case was not on point with the homosexual marriage issue.

IF the USSC opines that marriage is between Man and Woman and no other combination then that will be that. I'll argue that an Amendment is what will be needed to permit homosexual marriage. At the moment, however, it sure does seem to me to be a protected right of the individual to marry who ever that individual wants so long as it would not be illegal otherwise to do so.

The Marriage Act does not state that it is illegal to be married to the same sex.. only that the states don't have to recognize it.. and other things. That is also interesting... the Congress interpreting what the FFandC clause means so the USSC won't have to.. hehehehehhe.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,

"union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony" was said in Murphy v. Ramsey. Ofcourse "original intent" might have changed in a hundred years just like the "legal" age has.

As for your other post - DoMA addressed the 14th Amendment issue quite clearly.

I think I meant that the law that was under challenge and 'upheld' as it related to the facts in that case was not on point with the homosexual marriage issue.

IF the USSC opines that marriage is between Man and Woman and no other combination then that will be that. I'll argue that an Amendment is what will be needed to permit homosexual marriage. At the moment, however, it sure does seem to me to be a protected right of the individual to marry who ever that individual wants so long as it would not be illegal otherwise to do so.

The Marriage Act does not state that it is illegal to be married to the same sex.. only that the states don't have to recognize it.. and other things. That is also interesting... the Congress interpreting what the FFandC clause means so the USSC won't have to.. hehehehehhe.

Ah, but you questioned why I brought up the issue of Murphy v. Ramsey - so I provided you with a reason for doing so. Sure it had to do with a different "issue" as in voting but it did provide that point in its ruling.
Right...so you are ready to change the Constitution for what you believe but yet others can't support a Constitutional amendment that upholds existing law?
No, it is not a "right" to marry anyone you want - there are guidlines that must be followed to be legally recognized by the Gov't. The issue here isn't the "illegality" of one's actions - it's about what legal path is available for those who wish to be "married". Every man that is of legal standing can "marry" a woman. There is no inconsistency in regards to "discrimination". The law determines what must be done for one to be considered legally "married" and so far there is no Legislation that changes the definition of "spouse" from the existing usage by the Gov't. "Spouse" does not mean "anyone" it means the opposite sex.

Now as for the DoMA - Yes, it doesn't make it "illegal" but it does confirm it's definition as far as the Feds are concernd. No, they didn't interpret it so the USSC won't have to - it's not the court's place to invoke the FF&C clause. In this case there is no need for the USSC to rule on the Constituionality because there was no invocation of the clause.

Also just an FYI for the people who continuously misrepresent the proposed Constituional Amendment situation - it isn't an Amendment to "ban" homosexuals or their lifestyle. It is to protect the definition of marriage, as used in the "spouse" context I previously covered, from people trying to redefine it as "any two people". But along those lines...why is the "two" qualifier added? Why only two? Are you a bigot? Also why add the "people" qualifier? Why "two people"? Are you a bigot?
Just pointing out the absurdity of the "any two people" change...if you really believe that it being man&woman is bigotry

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Caddy,
You'll have to admit that the 14th Amendment was intended to protect the minority from the decisions of the majority. Homosexuality is a minority.. I think .. so why wouldn't the 14th protect the rights of an individual who happens to be Gay? Why can't he marry who he wishes (as long as the marriage is legal)?
Now two folks who happen to be Gay both having the same rights appear at the county license office.. why can't they marry each other? (within states where it is legal to do so). In those states that have enacted laws to ban gay marriage the USSC will have to determine IF they are unconstitutional under the 14th. Me thinks.

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I just read today that the only Issue to be voted on in Lousiana for the upcoming Election will be a State Constitutional Ammendment defining Marriage as only between a Man and a Woman. Also would not recognize any same sex marraiges from other States.

I don't know the figures but there is a large Gay percentage population here especially around the New Orleans City area.

This thing passes, Doctors that do Gender changes are going to be awfully busy. :shocked:

Dave, the 'Full faith and credit' clause forces the various states to recognize the laws of the various states as they may apply to individuals happening in their state. Lousiana may enact law but, I rather suspect it will be held to be unconstitutional.

Btw, good to see that you've found a place that has internet capability.. I thought you were gonna go to some remote place that has yet to enter the age of enlightenment..

Hi Lunar,

I thought this was boondocks but they have both Cable and DSL access here, on cable with 3 meg pipe.

The current Regime says they are the Majority and what they say goes, period.

You heard CAD, the Constitution basically applies how the current Administration sees fit so might as well just burn it along with the Ammendements, they mean nothing.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Caddy,
You'll have to admit that the 14th Amendment was intended to protect the minority from the decisions of the majority. Homosexuality is a minority.. I think .. so why wouldn't the 14th protect the rights of an individual who happens to be Gay? Why can't he marry who he wishes (as long as the marriage is legal)?
Now two folks who happen to be Gay both having the same rights appear at the county license office.. why can't they marry each other? (within states where it is legal to do so). In those states that have enacted laws to ban gay marriage the USSC will have to determine IF they are unconstitutional under the 14th. Me thinks.

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I just read today that the only Issue to be voted on in Lousiana for the upcoming Election will be a State Constitutional Ammendment defining Marriage as only between a Man and a Woman. Also would not recognize any same sex marraiges from other States.

I don't know the figures but there is a large Gay percentage population here especially around the New Orleans City area.

This thing passes, Doctors that do Gender changes are going to be awfully busy. :shocked:

Dave, the 'Full faith and credit' clause forces the various states to recognize the laws of the various states as they may apply to individuals happening in their state. Lousiana may enact law but, I rather suspect it will be held to be unconstitutional.

Btw, good to see that you've found a place that has internet capability.. I thought you were gonna go to some remote place that has yet to enter the age of enlightenment..

Hi Lunar,

I thought this was boondocks but they have both Cable and DSL access here, on cable with 3 meg pipe.

The current Regime says they are the Majority and what they say goes, period.

You heard CAD, the Constitution basically applies how the current Administration sees fit so might as well just burn it along with the Ammendements, they mean nothing.

Lawrence v Texas has resulted in Texas having to reverse many convictions under the Texas law. That finding is binding on all 50 States and the Republican majority in Congress.. True, it relates to just Lawrence but it changes lots of thinkinh

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Also just an FYI for the people who continuously misrepresent the proposed Constituional Amendment situation - it isn't an Amendment to "ban" homosexuals or their lifestyle. It is to protect the definition of marriage, as used in the "spouse" context I previously covered, from people trying to redefine it as "any two people". But along those lines...why is the "two" qualifier added? Why only two? Are you a bigot? Also why add the "people" qualifier? Why "two people"? Are you a bigot?
Just pointing out the absurdity of the "any two people" change...if you really believe that it being man&woman is bigotry

CkG

Okay...let me address this. Certainly, the amendment does not overtly ban homosexual lifestyle, but it finds its inspiration AND purpose in a movement and ideology which portrays homosexuals as morally indecent. No politician would overtly propose an amendment saying that homosexuals couldn't marry - that would be too blunt and to-the-point. But it IS, however, possible to 'conveniently' bar homosexuals from legal union by prescribing 'marriage' to be a union between a man and a woman only. The same sort of indirect underhand technique was in widespread use amongst the South after the Civil War, imposing literacy tests and other intellectual qualifications in order to be able to vote. Naturally, Blacks fell into the category who conveniently failed these tests over and over, although the laws did not explicitly mention Blacks directly. The bottom line is that if a constitutional amendment to define marriage is established, it disenfranchises a large minority population of the United States and that is unacceptable.

Moreover, in reference to your concern over slippery slope, you're diverging from the topic, trying to break the argument by proposing absurd examples (i.e. "If marriage can be between a man and a man, what's next? People marrying their dogs?") Unfortunately for your examples, they are a bit TOO absurd to weaken the gay marriage argument - it does not follow that by allowing two more classes of people to marry, that we will subsequently legalize laws or start movements to allow for polygamous marriage or intra-species marriage - in fact, the latter two are entirely unrelated to the crux of the homosexuality issue and are defined by separate social and psychological ties than homosexual marriage. It is utterly laughable to use this sort of argument - it's like arguing that your daughter shouldn't go out with a football player because she will "undoubtedly" get pregnant, drop out of school, go on welfare, never get to college, marry a deadbeat, have more kids, and end up in a homeless shelter. Please - come up with a better objection, if you can. Arguing against gay marriage because you're afraid people will want to marry their cats or dogs is about as laughable as trying to pawn off Kerry/Edwards or Bush/Cheney as gay lovers.

 

[cmdrmoocow]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
As long as they are not allowed to adopt/raise childen and stuff, then I suppose it could work. There are probably other restrictions that would need to be placed on gay marraiges as well that I can't think of right now.

There are already a number of states which permit adoption of children by gay couples. If what you are suggesting is placing restrictions on gay marriage but not doing the same for heterosexuals, what you suggest is the same sort of discrimination which surrounds gay marriage right now, but is more fierce, pronounced, and even more restrictive. There is very little "grey area" here. You either endow the institution of marriage with its various social and legal protections, or you do not. There is no such thing as 80% married.

Yes, but what about three-fifths married?

The way to handle disagreements is to start with a compromise and work from there.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: cmdrmoocow

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
As long as they are not allowed to adopt/raise childen and stuff, then I suppose it could work. There are probably other restrictions that would need to be placed on gay marraiges as well that I can't think of right now.

There are already a number of states which permit adoption of children by gay couples. If what you are suggesting is placing restrictions on gay marriage but not doing the same for heterosexuals, what you suggest is the same sort of discrimination which surrounds gay marriage right now, but is more fierce, pronounced, and even more restrictive. There is very little "grey area" here. You either endow the institution of marriage with its various social and legal protections, or you do not. There is no such thing as 80% married.

Yes, but what about three-fifths married?

The way to handle disagreements is to start with a compromise and work from there.

I'm sorry...what? I have no idea what you're talking about...did you even read my post?

 

[LunarRay]

It was a reference to your civil war blacks... 3/5 of a person.. sorta thing.. made a bit of a chuckle.. hehehe

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
It was a reference to your civil war blacks... 3/5 of a person.. sorta thing.. made a bit of a chuckle.. hehehe

I know about that passage in the opening parts to the Constitution - my question is what it has to do with my post - as far as I can tell, NOTHING.

 

[FreakyOCR]

Marriage is a tradition based on biblical values. Marriage was intended for a man and a woman.

I mean, I doubt many homosexuals would bother even considering marriage if there wasn't all the tax benefits. Thousands of heterosexuals don't even bother getting married.

Why can't we have a same-sex union witht he same benefits of marriage, just not have it as marriage? Way fewer people would be as pissed off as they are.

In every group there are those that are not satisfied unless they get it their way. And with homosexuals you have the "pride" issue and the fact that they all band together. And when people come together there is that power.

I mean we can all be apathetic and just not give a sh*t about anything... but then what would that accomplish.

I'm a Christian. I would prefer marriage to remain between a man and a woman. That's the way God intended it to be. But we as humans prefer to go against God...

Homosexuality is a choice yes, but what leads people to that choice is our screwed up culture and all the garbage that goes on... it leaves people confused... not sure what to look for. It fulfils some people.

You know what? It's worth arguing anymore.. becuase you'll have people arguing about it until they die.

You know what I think... it's not too pointed, not to controversial. Not bait for those who snap at the former. But it's an opinion. And nowawdays everybody is right. And so am I.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Also just an FYI for the people who continuously misrepresent the proposed Constituional Amendment situation - it isn't an Amendment to "ban" homosexuals or their lifestyle. It is to protect the definition of marriage, as used in the "spouse" context I previously covered, from people trying to redefine it as "any two people". But along those lines...why is the "two" qualifier added? Why only two? Are you a bigot? Also why add the "people" qualifier? Why "two people"? Are you a bigot?
Just pointing out the absurdity of the "any two people" change...if you really believe that it being man&woman is bigotry

CkG

Okay...let me address this. Certainly, the amendment does not overtly ban homosexual lifestyle, but it finds its inspiration AND purpose in a movement and ideology which portrays homosexuals as morally indecent. No politician would overtly propose an amendment saying that homosexuals couldn't marry - that would be too blunt and to-the-point. But it IS, however, possible to 'conveniently' bar homosexuals from legal union by prescribing 'marriage' to be a union between a man and a woman only. The same sort of indirect underhand technique was in widespread use amongst the South after the Civil War, imposing literacy tests and other intellectual qualifications in order to be able to vote. Naturally, Blacks fell into the category who conveniently failed these tests over and over, although the laws did not explicitly mention Blacks directly. The bottom line is that if a constitutional amendment to define marriage is established, it disenfranchises a large minority population of the United States and that is unacceptable.

Moreover, in reference to your concern over slippery slope, you're diverging from the topic, trying to break the argument by proposing absurd examples (i.e. "If marriage can be between a man and a man, what's next? People marrying their dogs?") Unfortunately for your examples, they are a bit TOO absurd to weaken the gay marriage argument - it does not follow that by allowing two more classes of people to marry, that we will subsequently legalize laws or start movements to allow for polygamous marriage or intra-species marriage - in fact, the latter two are entirely unrelated to the crux of the homosexuality issue and are defined by separate social and psychological ties than homosexual marriage. It is utterly laughable to use this sort of argument - it's like arguing that your daughter shouldn't go out with a football player because she will "undoubtedly" get pregnant, drop out of school, go on welfare, never get to college, marry a deadbeat, have more kids, and end up in a homeless shelter. Please - come up with a better objection, if you can. Arguing against gay marriage because you're afraid people will want to marry their cats or dogs is about as laughable as trying to pawn off Kerry/Edwards or Bush/Cheney as gay lovers.

*sigh* Nice try with the "slippery slope" BS. That's not the point. The point is - why do YOU get to set the limit at "TWO" "PEOPLE" when you whine about "discrimination" and "rights" when the law states that a spouse is a person of the opposite sex. Why is one "bigotry" and the other not? THAT is my point(of what you quoted) - I could care less about having polygamy recognized or other "abnormal" relationships but when people sit here and whine about "homosexual rights" and then set the threshold based on what they feel is right/wrong they are being intellectually dishonest.
I'm not "afraid" of homosexuals or them "marrying" but sheesh - look in the mirror when you scream "bigot". Make sure YOU aren't doing the exact same thing you attempt to scold others for.

It isn't a "rights" issue, this is an issue about a group of people trying to change things so they "get" something - legal status of "marriage". That's fine - lets see some legislation - not have a judge decide for everyone.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

CAD,

It isn't a "rights" issue, this is an issue about a group of people trying to change things so they "get" something - legal status of "marriage". That's fine - lets see some legislation - not have a judge decide for everyone.

CkG

It is a rights issue.. whether or not it is a "Protected Right" under the Constitution. It has to be determined by the branch of government charged with that responsibility. It is not explicit in there so it must be interpreted one way or another. It don't matter if no homosexual marriages occur as a result of a 'Yes' determination or not.. it goes way way way way beyond that. It means that the 14th Amendment - if the Supreme Court holds homosexual marriage to be protected - has been stretched so far and in so many directions that what used to be State Rights are totaly and completely gone. We might as well eliminate all State Government and save the money. Let everything be run from Washington. Hamilton won..!!!
It seems to me that Homosexual marriage may well be as much a right as Heterosexual marriage but, the test case must get there first.
Just think about all the various issues that have fallen under the 14th. WE must demand a explicit statement of what the 14th covers and not use it to "create law" as the majority of the Court in Session determine.. it becomes totaly political. It is why the Liberals fight so hard to thwart the elevation of very Conservative Judges to the Federal Bench.
Ever listen to Joe Biden question Nominees? Roe is always a question as well as the other topics of the day.
As to the lesser issue, I think without doubt and not for any legal reason that homosexual marriage should be allowed and recoginzed in those States who agree.