Same Sex marriage - my view point

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Why change the name. it's a marriage. So what if the Conservative and Religious Bigots don't like it, nobody should ever concede anything to those assholes.

You bigotry towards conservative and religious "assholes" is noted. How's it feel being exactly what you claim to hate?

I'm not, I'm not trying to deny them any rights they should have as American Citizens.

Denying rights isn't the defniition of bigotry.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Denying rights isn't the defniition of bigotry.

But, like I said above, it's not exactly kosher with the highest court in the land.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Denying rights isn't the defniition of bigotry.

But, like I said above, it's not exactly kosher with the highest court in the land.

It's called compromise. Civil unions is a win/win, homosexuals get to have the partnerships recognized, religous assholes get to keep their "sanctity of marriage", and if homosexuals want to have an official ceremony in a church that will marry gay couples, than they can have a ball.

 

[jonks]

"If Dick Cheney can support marriage, so can every Senator. So can every Democrat, Republican, Liberal Conservative. Equality should know no bounds, and we must not rest until we have marriage in all fifty of these United States," - Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who opposed marriage equality just last year.

"The time has come to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Enacted 13 years ago when the idea of same sex marriage was struggling for acceptance, the Act is a relic of a more tradition-bound time and culture," Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), a former Republican who not only voted for DOMA but once supported a constitutional amendment.


beep beep mofos, the equality truck is coming through. get on, get outta the way, or be the bigoted roadkill of future textbooks

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: jonks
"If Dick Cheney can support marriage, so can every Senator. So can every Democrat, Republican, Liberal Conservative. Equality should know no bounds, and we must not rest until we have marriage in all fifty of these United States," - Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who opposed marriage equality just last year.

"The time has come to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Enacted 13 years ago when the idea of same sex marriage was struggling for acceptance, the Act is a relic of a more tradition-bound time and culture," Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), a former Republican who not only voted for DOMA but once supported a constitutional amendment.


beep beep mofos, the equality truck is coming through. get on, get outta the way, or be the bigoted roadkill of future textbooks

As my favorite radio talk show host says, "It's going to happen, it might be able to be delayed but it will happen so why not just do it now?"

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Why change the name. it's a marriage. So what if the Conservative and Religious Bigots don't like it, nobody should ever concede anything to those assholes.

You bigotry towards conservative and religious "assholes" is noted. How's it feel being exactly what you claim to hate?

I'm not, I'm not trying to deny them any rights they should have as American Citizens.

Ah the usual bullshit response from the left. Tell us, since no one else ever has, what "right" gays dont have now?

Protip: marriage is not a right.

(And for the record I couldnt care less whether or not gay marriage was legal or not. Either way is fine by me)

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Why change the name. it's a marriage. So what if the Conservative and Religious Bigots don't like it, nobody should ever concede anything to those assholes.

You bigotry towards conservative and religious "assholes" is noted. How's it feel being exactly what you claim to hate?

I'm not, I'm not trying to deny them any rights they should have as American Citizens.

Ah the usual bullshit response from the left. Tell us, since no one else ever has, what "right" gays dont have now?

Protip: marriage is not a right.

(And for the record I couldnt care less whether or not gay marriage was legal or not. Either way is fine by me)

If it's not a right then what is it, a privilege like being able to drive?:roll:

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Denying rights isn't the defniition of bigotry.

But, like I said above, it's not exactly kosher with the highest court in the land.

It's called compromise. Civil unions is a win/win, homosexuals get to have the partnerships recognized, religous assholes get to keep their "sanctity of marriage", and if homosexuals want to have an official ceremony in a church that will marry gay couples, than they can have a ball.

What you're proposing is against jurisprudence, namely Brown v Board of Education. What you are claiming is that we can have two separate but equal institutions, which is not constitutional.

I'm not even speaking my opinion on the issue, just the facts. Marriage has to be extended to gay folk simply because of the equal protection clause. Done. Over. End of argument.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Denying rights isn't the defniition of bigotry.

But, like I said above, it's not exactly kosher with the highest court in the land.

actually you are being disingenuous......times change as does the supreme court justices...

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Denying rights isn't the definition of bigotry.

But, like I said above, it's not exactly kosher with the highest court in the land.

It's called compromise. Civil unions is a win/win, homosexuals get to have the partnerships recognized, religious assholes get to keep their "sanctity of marriage", and if homosexuals want to have an official ceremony in a church that will marry gay couples, than they can have a ball.

What you're proposing is against jurisprudence, namely Brown v Board of Education. What you are claiming is that we can have two separate but equal institutions, which is not constitutional.

I'm not even speaking my opinion on the issue, just the facts. Marriage has to be extended to gay folk simply because of the equal protection clause. Done. Over. End of argument.

It's not separate but equal, what he's saying is EVERYONE would file for a civil union through the government gay or straight, and that's where the government stops. So in the government aspect there is only one way to do it.

Then as far as the religious ceremony that's up to the church.

 

[StageLeft]

My main perspective on the issue is I don't care either way. I would not lift a finger to help them get married or lift one in opposition of it. The issue isn't going to go away and is wasting an awful lot of effort, time, money being fought so really those who oppose should just give up. There are better fights.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Denying rights isn't the definition of bigotry.

But, like I said above, it's not exactly kosher with the highest court in the land.

It's called compromise. Civil unions is a win/win, homosexuals get to have the partnerships recognized, religious assholes get to keep their "sanctity of marriage", and if homosexuals want to have an official ceremony in a church that will marry gay couples, than they can have a ball.

What you're proposing is against jurisprudence, namely Brown v Board of Education. What you are claiming is that we can have two separate but equal institutions, which is not constitutional.

I'm not even speaking my opinion on the issue, just the facts. Marriage has to be extended to gay folk simply because of the equal protection clause. Done. Over. End of argument.

It's not separate but equal, what he's saying is EVERYONE would file for a civil union through the government gay or straight, and that's where the government stops. So in the government aspect there is only one way to do it.

Then as far as the religious ceremony that's up to the church.

My bad if I misunderstood him. :\

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ah the usual bullshit response from the left. Tell us, since no one else ever has, what "right" gays dont have now?

Protip: marriage is not a right.

(And for the record I couldnt care less whether or not gay marriage was legal or not. Either way is fine by me)

The Supreme Court felt differently when overturning anti-miscegenation laws in the 60s: Loving v. Virginia.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Marriage is a right.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

That's complete bullshit, millions of couple have been married and it wasn't a religious ceremony.

How about "its a term that has deep roots in religion"?

Look, if gays are willing to put off actually getting the rights they deserve to fight over a dumbass word than more power to them. If they want to have actual equal rights than they need to get the government out of marriage. Its that simple. It may be wrong but thats reality and I personally see nothing wrong with changing the stupid term and applying it equally.

If I was the one being discriminated against this would be a perfectly acceptable compromise. Hell, you can start your own church that marries gay folk if you want to (might not be a bad business idea).

The only way we can get religion out of government is to get rid of the GOP.

Yeah because the Dems are full of agnostics and atheists... oh wait they aren't. What religion does our current president practice again?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: bfdd
Yeah because the Dems are full of agnostics and atheists... oh wait they aren't. What religion does our current president practice again?

Voodoo! No, wait, that's not it...

 

[Extelleron]

The bottom line is it is the federal gov's job to step in (as it did in the 50s/60s) when the rights of citizens are being jeapordized illegally by the state governments. State governments have no right to restrict marriage to one group of people and exclude another group of people from the rights that come with marriage. Legislation like Prop 8 should not exist. A majority consensus of citizens do not have the power to take away rights from minority groups.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

That's complete bullshit, millions of couple have been married and it wasn't a religious ceremony.

How about "its a term that has deep roots in religion"?

Look, if gays are willing to put off actually getting the rights they deserve to fight over a dumbass word than more power to them. If they want to have actual equal rights than they need to get the government out of marriage. Its that simple. It may be wrong but thats reality and I personally see nothing wrong with changing the stupid term and applying it equally.

If I was the one being discriminated against this would be a perfectly acceptable compromise. Hell, you can start your own church that marries gay folk if you want to (might not be a bad business idea).

The only way we can get religion out of government is to get rid of the GOP.

Yeah because the Dems are full of agnostics and atheists... oh wait they aren't. What religion does our current president practice again?

There are some Dems who are religious but they don't ram their ideals down your throat like the religious right does.

Oh thx for pointing out the obvious :thumbsup:

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Protip: so would a civil union.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Denying rights isn't the definition of bigotry.

But, like I said above, it's not exactly kosher with the highest court in the land.

It's called compromise. Civil unions is a win/win, homosexuals get to have the partnerships recognized, religious assholes get to keep their "sanctity of marriage", and if homosexuals want to have an official ceremony in a church that will marry gay couples, than they can have a ball.

What you're proposing is against jurisprudence, namely Brown v Board of Education. What you are claiming is that we can have two separate but equal institutions, which is not constitutional.

I'm not even speaking my opinion on the issue, just the facts. Marriage has to be extended to gay folk simply because of the equal protection clause. Done. Over. End of argument.

It's not separate but equal, what he's saying is EVERYONE would file for a civil union through the government gay or straight, and that's where the government stops. So in the government aspect there is only one way to do it.

Then as far as the religious ceremony that's up to the church.

This.

Same thing My wife and I did in Germany, had the official union at city hall, and then had a ceremony afterwards that had nothing to do with the government. Could have just called it a day after the city hall stop,a dn the effect would be the same.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Protip: so would a civil union.

I wasn't aware there a box to check for civil unions on a 1040.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

That's complete bullshit, millions of couple have been married and it wasn't a religious ceremony.

How about "its a term that has deep roots in religion"?

Look, if gays are willing to put off actually getting the rights they deserve to fight over a dumbass word than more power to them. If they want to have actual equal rights than they need to get the government out of marriage. Its that simple. It may be wrong but thats reality and I personally see nothing wrong with changing the stupid term and applying it equally.

If I was the one being discriminated against this would be a perfectly acceptable compromise. Hell, you can start your own church that marries gay folk if you want to (might not be a bad business idea).

The only way we can get religion out of government is to get rid of the GOP.

Yeah because the Dems are full of agnostics and atheists... oh wait they aren't. What religion does our current president practice again?

There are some Dems who are religious but they don't ram their ideals down your throat like the religious right does.

Oh thx for pointing out the obvious :thumbsup:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....breathe...................BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....riiiiiight, guess you never heard of the PMRC.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Protip: so would a civil union.

I wasn't aware there a box to check for civil unions on a 1040.

There could be if you could stop trying to stick it to the "religous assholes", and compromise and get the same rights.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

That's complete bullshit, millions of couple have been married and it wasn't a religious ceremony.

How about "its a term that has deep roots in religion"?

Look, if gays are willing to put off actually getting the rights they deserve to fight over a dumbass word than more power to them. If they want to have actual equal rights than they need to get the government out of marriage. Its that simple. It may be wrong but thats reality and I personally see nothing wrong with changing the stupid term and applying it equally.

If I was the one being discriminated against this would be a perfectly acceptable compromise. Hell, you can start your own church that marries gay folk if you want to (might not be a bad business idea).

The only way we can get religion out of government is to get rid of the GOP.

Yeah because the Dems are full of agnostics and atheists... oh wait they aren't. What religion does our current president practice again?

There are some Dems who are religious but they don't ram their ideals down your throat like the religious right does.

Oh thx for pointing out the obvious :thumbsup:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....breathe...................BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....riiiiiight, guess you never heard of the PMRC.

Don't get your g-string in a bind.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Protip: so would a civil union.

I wasn't aware there a box to check for civil unions on a 1040.

There could be if you could stop trying to stick it to the "religous assholes", and compromise and get the same rights.

GOP=obstruction not compromise...I guess you missed the memo.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Protip: so would a civil union.

I wasn't aware there a box to check for civil unions on a 1040.

Bit dense are we?

xjohnx is saying that they all should be called civil unions, in which case the government would then put said box for "civil unions" on the 1040 (actually they would just replace the marriage box with a civil union box). He said nothing about what the status quo is, just what he thinks it *should* be in the future.