Whit is the real issue with same sex marriage?

[parkerbi]

As someone who is not homosexual I am simply trying to form an unbiased opinion (as unbiased as possible) on the issue. What are the arguments for and against same sex marriage? Why is having an official document of marriage worth so much controversy? What kinds of opposition do same sex couples face in society?

[Vikkster230]

Well I'm not a lesbian, but I do get the concept and reason why it's so important. I mean we're talking about a basic right for people who are in love and should be allowed to have that right. I've known same sex couples who have been together longer than the "traditional" couples. It's not about a piece of paper, but more of sharing the life with their partner in every sense of the word. So many times, a life partner is denied access to medical information and other problems due to not being "family", which can be so much crap because the real family may not be all that great. The real family could make the totally opposite choices that the life partner would make, although the life partner would respect the wishes... (I'm getting off my soapbox now.)

[orpheus_lost]

They want equality.

They want to know that they are being treated as full fledged citizens with all the rights and responsibilities as the guy across the street in his marriage.

They want to know that they're going to receive every consideration their tax dollars pay for including a responsive police department that doesn't insult them for being gay, a military that doesn't exclude them and, yes, a marriage license that affords them everything that Vikkster mentioned.

And maybe, just maybe, they want to be thought of as people instead of just gay.

It hurts to be on the outside looking in.

[Hephaestion]

Marriage is about legal dependancy. Hence the terminology of illegitimate for a bastard (one born out of wedlock). Social historians point out that in most western societies fidelity has not been the real issue. Instead it has been one about associates and offspring claiming: preference; estate; title. Nowadays, the legal profession makes much out of extrications form these legal dependancies i.e. contracts. In the past, matters might have been settled in wars. Any wonder that legal challenge is called a tort.

In this context a marriage between any two people is understood. However, the term marriage has, effectively, already been pre-occuppied by the Christian church to mean a binding partnership between one man and one woman. As the Christian church is (Irrespective of constitutional declarations) interwoven with politics and government and thus the law, it would appear wise to simply choose another name for the union but to arrange matters so as to attract the same benefits (and penalties) as might be attendant to a traditionally named 'marriage'. From the other point of view, many legally accepted marriages have already headed away from the strict religious interpreteation have incorporated custom vows and fincanial stipulations.

In any case, the end point is the same: people dedicated to one another in body soul and finances. Who cares what the union it is called and in reality, how many people are involved. Just so long as the participants remain true to any oaths sworn and financial committments. IF legal redress is an issue then contracts could be drawn that sail as close to legal boundaries as might be allowed in the appropriate society.

The legal concept of a 'partnership' seems to carry most of the requirements and the rest of 'contracts' framework may even be used to deal with care and inheritances. If anyone is worried about a god then generally it is held that any god is imbued with the ability to see into hearts and souls and could well be expected to know the level of sincerity invovled.

One might well borrow from the sixties here - "Just do it!"

[12voltman59]

To me --this whole issue boils down pretty simply----extending to "gays" the right to "marry" is a positive step forward in America living up to its ideals of freedom, democracy and the "pursuit of happiness" as expressed in the Declaration of Independence--pure, plain and simple-just as it was a step forward when Lincoln emancipated the slaves and one hundred or so years later--black Americans could finally vote everywhere in the US, get married to someone not of their "race", be reasonably sure that the laws that worked for white folks worked for them too--things of that nature thanks to the Civil Rights legislation.

I say to those who are against "gay marriage" and the rest---if you continue to deny this "right" to a sizeable percentage of your fellow citizens--all your supposed claims of love of liberty and all that is merely so much hooey!!!

You have no real appreciation or knowledge of the concepts of those ideals as expressed in the DOI and the rights granted to American citizens in the Constitution---one of the documents other than the Bible you supposedly hold so dear---

If you hold that "gays" don't have the right to marriage or much else as some do say----then really----you don't hold to the IDEALS of FREEDOM---they are merely NOTIONS---and you really don't care about true freedom.

That is the bottom line for me!!

Granting of same-sex marriage is one of those milestone points in our history--do we do the right and proper thing as expressed in our founding documents and extend "marriage" and other rights to "gays' or are they continued to be denied??

Extension of these rights is forward progress--to not grant them is actually a major regression--and can put into doubt whether this nation is truly committed to liberty and may even begin to backslide in other areas of "rights" as well.

[allbimyself]

I will make one point regarding the term "civil union." If the various religions wish to take possession of the term "marriage" then only unions that are performed within the rules of a church may be called a "marriage." A particular church may discriminate in it's decisions as to whom may be joined in their religion. Unions performed by civil authorities, be they between same gender or otherwise, can NOT be termed "marriage" and can NOT discriminate in who will join in such union (as long as such petitioners are humans that have reached the age of majority).

This, obviously, leaves open the possibility of a church determining it WILL conduct same gender marriages and thus opening the door to same gender marriages :tongue:

[hudson9]

The question of whether marriage is a civil or religious institution is confounded by history. For most of human history, religious authority and civil or state authority have been closely intertwined, and still are in much (most?) of the world.

If you believe (as a country or culture) that separation of church and state is a generally good thing, it is only consistent and logical to allow both church and state their own definitions of "marriage." I.e., if religion X believes marriage can only be between a man and a woman, they conduct only those marriages; if religion Y believes marriages can be between any 2 consenting adults, they act accordingly. The state, meanwhile, can and should make it's own decisions about what it recognizes as legal "marriage."

What do gays want in "marriage?" Exactly the same things that straight people do. Aside from the very real and significant legal and economic implications of spending your life closely intertwined with another person, there is the also very real emotional component of knowing the society takes your commitment, involvement, and love of your partner seriously, and respects it.

Why do some straight people oppose gay marriage? Absent any coherent explanation of how it could possibly negatively affect straight marriages, I can only assume it is a purely emotional response. Personal revulsion? (I find the very concept of Hagis revolting, but if you want to eat it it's no skin off my nose!) Fear? (But of what, exactly? Then again fear is often not logical.)

Fear of gay marriage has been use as fear of anything has been used -- to manipulate people for political ends: to distract them from other problems, to create an "enemy" to rally around, or a scapegoat to blame. The nature of fear is that it can take on a life or hysteria of its own, to the point where people can become leaders of the anti-(evil of your choice) crusade, completely impervious to logic, and oblivious to the fact that they have been caught up in a hysteria. Meanwhile, the manipulators manipulate happily on...

[darkeyes]

[QUOTE=hudson9;112926] Personal revulsion? (I find the very concept of Hagis revolting, but if you want to eat it it's no skin off my nose!) QUOTE]

Mmmmm Haggis.. wiv neeps an mash tatties wiv lotsa melted butta ova em... mmmmmmmm yum yum.... a true marriage made in a celtic heaven... :bigrin:

..as Rabbie sed.. "Great chieftan o' the puddin race..":tong:

[FalconAngel]

This nation, as has been pointed out, was established with the ideal that "all men" (humans) "are created equal". This is the founding principle behind our Constitution.

The whole thing against gay marriage is based exclusively in Dominion Christian doctrin and is diametrically opposed to the Constitution; specifically the First Amendment, which among other things separates church from state, and the 14th Amendment which states, among other things;

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That is at the core of the gay marriage rights. They want to be treated, by the laws of the land, the exact same as anyone else is.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with wanting that, but the Dominion Christians see it as an attack on their control over the government and the American people.

[elian]

I actually had this editorial published in the local paper (hey, one out of four submissions isn't bad) ..

"If marriage is so sacred, why don't we sponsor an amendment to make divorce illegal in the Pennsylvania Constitution?

I think there has been some miscommunication. I have gay friends and the ones who have known each other long enough to be married do the same thing that other married couples do in bed - they fall asleep.

What isn't a joke is knowing that your best friend is dying of cancer in a hospital bed because they can't afford the chemotherapy treatments. And what isn't a joke is knowing that although you have loved and been faithful to that person for the last 35 years, you can't be at their side because the hospital only allows immediate family to be present.

Before you condemn someone, learn to walk in their shoes first. I think that gay people who want the right to marry in this state aren't interested in flaunting their sexuality at all - they just want the same basic rights that other people already take for granted."

[elian]

This nation, as has been pointed out, was established with the ideal that "all men" (humans) "are created equal". This is the founding principle behind our Constitution.



No, I think you had it right the first time (without the parenthesis) - I'd venture to guess that at the time those words were written they really meant to say that only men were created equal..or at least that's what they thought.

Women had to fight tooth and nail for their rights in this country well into the early 1900's.

Again - what divides one divides all..

[FalconAngel]

No, I think you had it right the first time (without the parenthesis) - I'd venture to guess that at the time those words were written they really meant to say that only men were created equal..or at least that's what they thought.

Women had to fight tooth and nail for their rights in this country well into the early 1900's.

Again - what divides one divides all..

No. I have it right, but you have to understand the culture of the day. For example, not everyone in the 1800's used the word "nigger" as a derogatory term. It was just a way of describing black folks, by folks in the south, either individually or as a group. It has to do with the entymology of the word which, as it was pronounced by southerners of the day, was mispronounced from the root word, "nergo", which became "nigra" and eventually, the word that so many have found offensive (and used accordingly "nigger". Many did use it as a derogatory term and it became common usage for the word.

You have to remember that our founding fathers were adherents to the founding philosophies of some of the more "radical" philosophers of the day as well as many of those same founding fathers being Masons; some of which were very high level Masons. There is probably a Mason or two around that can verify that, but it is a historically recorded fact.

But I digress; the culture of the day had women as second class citizens and the original intent was to afford the same civil rights to both women and blacks, but the prevailing Anglo-European culture would not allow for it and some of the colonies would not sign the Constitution until the women's rights and slave issues were handled to their satisfaction.

The principles of freedom that were established in the Declaration of Independence did not all make it into the original version of the Constitution, but the men who drafted the Constitution allowed for the nation and it's founding principles to evolve to higher levels of humanism than it was when it was originally drafted and approved.

Unfortunately, most people suffer from a bad case of high school historical disinformation when it comes to American history. We should all delve deeper into it to really understand our own nation, culture and government.

[frikidiki]

Here's a true story from San Antonio, and likely one that is similar to events in other places. I only have the gist of the story and not the details, but I believe it is mostly correct as I give it. I welcome any corrections.

I recall reading in the local hipster rag about this gay couple--two guys that lived together for thirty years or so. The first one happened to have been disowned by his family for choosing to live with the second. Meanwhile, the couple amassed the various shared things of betrothed life, and the first one ended up making a lot of money, so they lived very well.

When the first one died, he left everything to his partner, as per his will. His estranged family came out of nowhere and successfully sued to have the will declared null and void due to his apparent mental instability--ie, his sexuality and chosen lifestyle--or something along these lines. The partner got a few things, mostly little things he could rightly declare his own. The family got EVERYTHING else--money, cars, the house, etc.

I hope this disgusts you who've read it as much as it does me. It's my understanding that this has happened to a lot of people who were not married and/or were partnered up with someone not of the opposite gender.
I'm for same-sex civil unions. If some people don't want to call it marriage, that's fine with me, so long as injustices like this I've told about cannot happen so easily.

[Toad82]

^^I think someone got their feelings hurt! Also its kind of funny he is making fun of frikidiki and Texas, but his new profiles says he is from there. LOL

[darkeyes]

God JS.. ya face not 2 hot is it babes???:tong:

[elian]

Yes, that is disgusting to me and perfectly believable the way the "law" works here.


Here's a true story from San Antonio, and likely one that is similar to events in other places. I only have the gist of the story and not the details, but I believe it is mostly correct as I give it. I welcome any corrections.

I recall reading in the local hipster rag about this gay couple--two guys that lived together for thirty years or so. The first one happened to have been disowned by his family for choosing to live with the second. Meanwhile, the couple amassed the various shared things of betrothed life, and the first one ended up making a lot of money, so they lived very well.

When the first one died, he left everything to his partner, as per his will. His estranged family came out of nowhere and successfully sued to have the will declared null and void due to his apparent mental instability--ie, his sexuality and chosen lifestyle--or something along these lines. The partner got a few things, mostly little things he could rightly declare his own. The family got EVERYTHING else--money, cars, the house, etc.

I hope this disgusts you who've read it as much as it does me. It's my understanding that this has happened to a lot of people who were not married and/or were partnered up with someone not of the opposite gender.
I'm for same-sex civil unions. If some people don't want to call it marriage, that's fine with me, so long as injustices like this I've told about cannot happen so easily.

[innaminka]

The sad thing is that 99% of people who object to gay marriage/gay rights are avid churchgoers. :eek:

Go figure!

That is not to say that 99% of avid churchgoers object to gay marriage. They don't.
Its just a very vocal minority of the population.

[Bluebiyou]

It is simple.
Some people see that publicly acknowledging gay marriage is one of the final social breakdowns before the end of society itself.
(as opposed to 99% traditional end of society, loss of military advantage to a new expansionist and greedy neighbor)
Others see that publicly acknowledging gay marriage opens doors of ambiguity that they are too uncomfortable dealing with.
Most mature adults would be satisfied with 'civil union'.
But gay or not... where there's money to be inherited, there are inventive potential heirs...
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand.

[12voltman59]

It didn't take long for the troll to come back and create yet one more profile---I wonder what his count is up to by now? His number has to be getting in the range of at least 30 or so by now----one peristent little bugger!!

[csrakate]

I find it sad that the word marriage can get an entire nation fraught with anger and disdain when it comes to same sex couplings. Whatever it is called, it only seems fair to me that loving and devoted couples are entitled to the same benefits regardless of gender. Hopefully, one day, we won't get so hung up on what it's called, but what it means in the grand scheme of things. I do know that my children are much more accepting of such an arrangement....hopefully this indicates a more understanding and accepting generation to follow. But sadly, I fear we will never see it come to fruition in our lifetime...(well, mine at least...being that I am a bit older than some of you! LOL!)

Hugs,
Kate

[AFTER9]

Here's a true story from San Antonio, and likely one that is similar to events in other places. I only have the gist of the story and not the details, but I believe it is mostly correct as I give it. I welcome any corrections.

I recall reading in the local hipster rag about this gay couple--two guys that lived together for thirty years or so. The first one happened to have been disowned by his family for choosing to live with the second. Meanwhile, the couple amassed the various shared things of betrothed life, and the first one ended up making a lot of money, so they lived very well.

When the first one died, he left everything to his partner, as per his will. His estranged family came out of nowhere and successfully sued to have the will declared null and void due to his apparent mental instability--ie, his sexuality and chosen lifestyle--or something along these lines. The partner got a few things, mostly little things he could rightly declare his own. The family got EVERYTHING else--money, cars, the house, etc.

I hope this disgusts you who've read it as much as it does me. It's my understanding that this has happened to a lot of people who were not married and/or were partnered up with someone not of the opposite gender.
I'm for same-sex civil unions. If some people don't want to call it marriage, that's fine with me, so long as injustices like this I've told about cannot happen so easily.


Stuff like this really is one of those "Things that make you go HMMM"
While we're debating this whole what defines a marriage issue why not correct things like this? To me as a mentioned before it's a business law matter. Whether some political party, church or whatever thinks people should be free to choose their own family structure.
In the same sex marriage issue why do we have to be totally for or totally against? These laws and decisions often seem to be all or nothing. Why not think of it as climbing a set of stairs instead of a line in the sand? I personally support same sex marriage nevertheless I get turned off by hardliners on both sides of the issue.

[darkeyes]

Stuff like this really is one of those "Things that make you go HMMM"
While we're debating this whole what defines a marriage issue why not correct things like this? To me as a mentioned before it's a business law matter. Whether some political party, church or whatever thinks people should be free to choose their own family structure.
In the same sex marriage issue why do we have to be totally for or totally against? These laws and decisions often seem to be all or nothing. Why not think of it as climbing a set of stairs instead of a line in the sand? I personally support same sex marriage nevertheless I get turned off by hardliners on both sides of the issue.

Human relationships an how they commit 2 each otha a matta of biz law?? Jeez..no wonda we r in such a bloody mess... hardly a glowin recommendation for makin it so is it givin state a biz law on both sides a the pond...???

[AFTER9]

Human relationships an how they commit 2 each otha a matta of biz law?? Jeez..no wonda we r in such a bloody mess... hardly a glowin recommendation for makin it so is it givin state a biz law on both sides a the pond...???


Yeah parts of it like divorce,child custody,inheritance etc etc are a matter of bussiness law. This situation in Texas is about business law or more specifically about Family law.
Even the most in love comitted partners have matters like these to deal with. It's more than just "Happily ever after" And with enough love everything will just work out.
Like I mentioned in my previous post and this is solamente IMO. Its not all this open and shut,there are shades of grey. While as a society we debate the other issues regarding same sex marriage why not correct injustices such as this in the meantime?

[darkeyes]

Yeah parts of it like divorce,child custody,inheritance etc etc are a matter of bussiness law. This situation in Texas is about business law or more specifically about Family law.
Even the most in love comitted partners have matters like these to deal with. It's more than just "Happily ever after" And with enough love everything will just work out.
Like I mentioned in my previous post and this is solamente IMO. Its not all this open and shut,there are shades of grey. While as a society we debate the other issues regarding same sex marriage why not correct injustices such as this in the meantime?

got wotya meanin now babes... soz.. contract law is used largely ere, an family law.. an precedent..:) spose contract law is parta biz law.. ther r always shades a grey yas rite.. human relationships r complex an messy by ther very nature...:)

[12voltman59]

Earlier today I received an email from the Human Rights Campaign---thanks to a massive war chest and big time ad buys by the forces for California Prop 8----the polling numbers now show voters are in favor of it--which means--if passed---same-sex marriage in California goes down.

HRC is seeking immediate contributions to run counter ads.

For more info--go to http://www.hrc.org/

[turtle2]

This was already brought up in an earlier post and I thought was put to bed but I guess we are back to round two.

1st let me out myself and say that I am a sexual kinky perv that loves cock from time to time, But there is a very important other side to this that needs to be thought about.

Let me start by saying people here are flat out misquoting the constitution so please stop regarding separating church and state. I am not an overly religious person but that is not in the constitution so please stop quoting it as if it is. That concept came from misinterpretation of the Jefferson letters which if actually read is clear what the meaning is.

Someone sited hospitalization as a reason for marriage. Because of estate and trust laws and domestic partner registration(in California at least) people can gain the same legal and financial rights as anyone else. If you have heard otherwise you heard a talking point. Passing prop 8 in CA does not take away any persons rights.

Due to judicial activism verses going through the correct process of putting forth a ballot measure what prop 8 does do is keep the separation of church and state. If its one thing the gay community has a track record of its suing everyone. If they didn’t sue everyone the yes on 8 side probably wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. I.e photographer sued for not wanting to shoot a same sex ceremony, doctors sued for non-emergency artificial insemination, pastors sued for not performing a same sex ceremony, pastors sued for not allowing gay people to hold church offices, etc. Some of these examples have happened some will happen.

The other big one for me is as a parent I will teach my kids things of a social nature. Right now by CA law my kids have to be taught same sex marriage and I have no right to opt out. When my rights are being taken away I am going to need a more valid reason than people should be allowed to marry whomever they love.

Lets be honest most in the gay community are looking to be “married” because of its religious origins. Changing the law and suing people aren’t going to change that. The traditional marriage people have rights also. Due to four judges some of those rights have been yanked from them. They are fighting to get them back as anyone would. If prop 8 passes, maybe next time this issue comes up the gay community will ask instead of steal. Right now nothing is defined so marriage means nothing. By law I can marry my sister, my brother, my cousin and dog. This is sad.

[darkeyes]

Lets be honest most in the gay community are looking to be “married” because of its religious origins. Changing the law and suing people aren’t going to change that. The traditional marriage people have rights also. Due to four judges some of those rights have been yanked from them. They are fighting to get them back as anyone would. If prop 8 passes, maybe next time this issue comes up the gay community will ask instead of steal. Right now nothing is defined so marriage means nothing. By law I can marry my sister, my brother, my cousin and dog. This is sad.

Rights hav been stolen from gay people for centuries..don c ne stealin bak of em..more a bloody gr8 fite wich has cost the lives of sum an a refusal a rleigious an less than tolerant Str8 peeps institutions an politicians 2 allow us that 2 wich we r properly entitles... we hav "asked" for centuries an it got us nower..bein a lil more assertive in the last haff century ahs gotten us rites that not so long ago wudda been undreamed of as possible..we do not..we ar not stealin..we r as far as we can takin that 2 wich we r entitled by the fairest means we can... wosnt us that rote the fukkin rules...

[allbimyself]

Let me start by saying people here are flat out misquoting the constitution so please stop regarding separating church and state.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzttttttttttttt! Wrong answer! Johnny, tell him what he didn't win!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That's not hard to understand. Nor are Jefferson's writings hard to understand, yet you seem to lack a grasp. But that's OK! Fortunately, we have many learned men and women today and in history whose job it's been to interpret the constitution and they disagree with your interpretation.


Lets be honest most in the gay community are looking to be “married” because of its religious origins.


If you have heard otherwise you heard a talking point. Passing prop 8 in CA does not take away any persons rights.Hmm, really? I think not. It may not specifically state that, but that is what the net result will be.


pastors sued for not performing a same sex ceremony, pastors sued for not allowing gay people to hold church offices Perhaps they should if they wish to keep their tax exempt status. Otherwise, state what they are, a private club.


The other big one for me is as a parent I will teach my kids things of a social nature.Hmmm, I've heard this before. I believe it was the cry of several white parents in the south not too many decades ago not wanting their children exposed to the culture of negro.


The traditional marriage people have rights also. Due to four judges some of those rights have been yanked from themWTF? You religious nutters keep claiming this. HOW? How have the rights of heterosexuals been diminished? The only "right" I see them losing is the "right" to deny rights to others. They still have to right to be ignorant, bigoted assholes.

[darkeyes]

This was already brought up in an earlier post and I thought was put to bed but I guess we are back to round two.

1st let me out myself and say that I am a sexual kinky perv that loves cock from time to time, But there is a very important other side to this that needs to be thought about.

Let me start by saying people here are flat out misquoting the constitution so please stop regarding separating church and state. I am not an overly religious person but that is not in the constitution so please stop quoting it as if it is. That concept came from misinterpretation of the Jefferson letters which if actually read is clear what the meaning is.

Someone sited hospitalization as a reason for marriage. Because of estate and trust laws and domestic partner registration(in California at least) people can gain the same legal and financial rights as anyone else. If you have heard otherwise you heard a talking point. Passing prop 8 in CA does not take away any persons rights.

Due to judicial activism verses going through the correct process of putting forth a ballot measure what prop 8 does do is keep the separation of church and state. If its one thing the gay community has a track record of its suing everyone. If they didn’t sue everyone the yes on 8 side probably wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. I.e photographer sued for not wanting to shoot a same sex ceremony, doctors sued for non-emergency artificial insemination, pastors sued for not performing a same sex ceremony, pastors sued for not allowing gay people to hold church offices, etc. Some of these examples have happened some will happen.

The other big one for me is as a parent I will teach my kids things of a social nature. Right now by CA law my kids have to be taught same sex marriage and I have no right to opt out. When my rights are being taken away I am going to need a more valid reason than people should be allowed to marry whomever they love.

Lets be honest most in the gay community are looking to be “married” because of its religious origins. Changing the law and suing people aren’t going to change that. The traditional marriage people have rights also. Due to four judges some of those rights have been yanked from them. They are fighting to get them back as anyone would. If prop 8 passes, maybe next time this issue comes up the gay community will ask instead of steal. Right now nothing is defined so marriage means nothing. By law I can marry my sister, my brother, my cousin and dog. This is sad.Hav read an re read this load of ole bull... everythin u say is ole hat..it argues wot the itolerant an anti gay world had for a long long time.. every 2 has rites.. no matta ya sexuality ya religion ya politics.. hav lived me life fitin for peeps 2 exercise ther rites in a truly democratic manna.. wot u r arguin is that our rites r subservient 2 those who believe us 2 b nowt moren perverts .. wot u r sayin is that no matta how we proceed in gettin justice.. we mus accept that our rites r less than those who hav fukked wiv em for centuries... an that we r less than they... wot u r sayin is we cant use the tools 2 achieve our rites in the same way as those who oppose an h8 us hav used em 2 screw us throughout the ages...

Well hun hav news forya..we not goin away... we will use wotvea tools we can 2 get that 2 wich we r entitled an nowt u or ne 1 else can say will change that..in Hitler's Europe they had 5th columnists..seems 2 me u r 1 in our midst... yas not alone..ther r othas... u help the bigotted arseholes keep us down... thats ur rite...they won thankya for it or give ya ne privileges...an am buggered if ya will get ne ere...

We hav rites..we luff like otha peeps an wanna commit an liv our lives out wiv those we luff... we don wan special privilege... we wan those we luff an leave behind 2 prosper an 2 receive our bequests..as gay an bi peeps we jus wan equal treatment..we r no betta than ne 1 else..but we r sure as hell no worse... wich is not the argument u place before us....

[FalconAngel]

........ people here are flat out misquoting the constitution so please stop regarding separating church and state. I am not an overly religious person but that is not in the constitution so please stop quoting it as if it is. That concept came from misinterpretation of the Jefferson letters which if actually read is clear what the meaning is.

Some of us quote the constitution directly and correctly. We also know what it means better than others. Some of us have served in it's defense and understand it far better than most.

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
source: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

That is the 1st Amendment; what many call the "separation of church and state". Take a very close look at it. It prevents the government from using any single religion as a reason to enact a law that is a mandate to anything other than all religions. This is why we have laws that some say are based in Christianity.
Those laws exist because they are universal to all religions (don't steal, kill, cheat on your spouse, etc.).

This opposition to Amendment 2 in Florida and Prop 8 in California are based EXCLUSIVELY in dominion Christianity and no other religion is making a deal out of it.

To allow any law to be passed, based only on the beliefs of one (or two) religion(s), is respecting the establishment of religion and a violation of the 1st amendment.

Whether some wish to admit it or not, this is a secular nation, not a Christian one. If it were a Christian nation then we would still be putting people in jail for not converting to Christianity.

I am so glad that I live in a free country. Dominion Christians are trying very hard to take those rights away from any who disagree with them.

[turtle2]

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
source: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

[/QUOTE]

Falcon, Well written and we will have to agree to disagree. I actually respect your position on the debate unlike most here who just randomly call names or make things up.

When reading the Jefferson letters and when reading amendment 1 the intent was clearly to not have a state sponsored religion as there was in England and other countries. The point in context was to simply point out that people do have a right to religious freedom and that the state is duty bound to protect that freedom whether we like it or not. If we don't agree then we need to amend the constitution not have judges do it. Right now due to the gay community suing everyone that doesn't agree with them peoples religious freedoms are not being guarded. (What happend to tolerance?)

I always have a printed copy of the constitution on my desk as i am a strict constructionist. I don't want to go down the road of the church and state debate as our courts have ruled already. My point was people earlier were quoting out of context and actually hurting their own argument.

My point was simply to point out that there is a valid argument on the other side. The process was undercut by judicial activism. I don't know how that is in question. Not going through the correct process is wrong and shouldn't be done. Because it wasn't done correctly there are numerous slippery slope issues that people don't seem to care about.


In fact looking back at the posts nobody argued anything except church and state. Are we conceding that giving someone the word married gives them no more or less rights than they currently can achieve through a domestic partnership and estate and trust laws? It sounds to me like the gay community isn't going to gain anything but the religious community and parents stand to lose a lot.

I have thought about the interracial argument myself when I was thinking about my position. I just don’t buy that they are equal, as interracial couples can conceive and have children, spend hundreds and thousands of dollars per child, and still have a female and male influence….which is ideal rearing situation per most sociologists. I can already hear the response…”there are plenty of gay couples that are great parents” if you look at the numbers there are a few and they are probably great parents, but the data I have read supports that the best environment is a father and mother. The data supports that lesbians are close, but male couples fall way short as they have numerous partners even in “Committed” relationships.
The process is the process for a reason.

[allbimyself]

The point in context was to simply point out that people do have a right to religious freedom and that the state is duty bound to protect that freedom whether we like it or not. If we don't agree then we need to amend the constitution not have judges do it. Right now due to the gay community suing everyone that doesn't agree with them peoples religious freedoms are not being guarded. (What happend to tolerance?)Again, what freedom to their religion is being restricted? You quote "gays suing" but cite some examples and details of the lawsuits. If they are frivolous I'll agree with you.


My point was simply to point out that there is a valid argument on the other side. The process was undercut by judicial activism.
What you call "judicial activism" I call necessary interpretation. A true democracy (where the majority is ALWAYS right) is A Bad Thing. The constitution exists to protect not only the citizens from the government, but the minority from the majority. It isn't perfect since amendments can be passed that screw the minority and the constitution can't help that EXCEPT to make the process of amending difficult. You want the majority to be able to pass legislation (simple majority) and not have the judiciary do one of their jobs (rule on the constitutionality of that legislation. The only reason I can see for this is that you believe the constitution should not apply.



Because it wasn't done correctly there are numerous slippery slope issues that people don't seem to care about.Name some so we know what you are really afraid of.




In fact looking back at the posts nobody argued anything except church and state. Are we conceding that giving someone the word married gives them no more or less rights than they currently can achieve through a domestic partnership and estate and trust laws?No, this has been addressed many times. Examples have been cited.


It sounds to me like the gay community isn't going to gain anything but the religious community and parents stand to lose a lot.<sighs> There you go again. WHAT do the stand to lose?



I have thought about the interracial argument myself when I was thinking about my position. I just don’t buy that they are equal, as interracial couples can conceive and have children, spend hundreds and thousands of dollars per child, and still have a female and male influence….which is ideal rearing situation per most sociologists. I can already hear the response…”there are plenty of gay couples that are great parents” if you look at the numbers there are a few and they are probably great parents, but the data I have read supports that the best environment is a father and mother. The data supports that lesbians are close, but male couples fall way short as they have numerous partners even in “Committed” relationships.
The process is the process for a reason.This whole paragraph is pointless. Marriage is NOT only about producing offspring. If that were the case, then infertile or aged heteros should not be allowed to get married. Your great concern for the welfare of the children, while admirable, doesn't ring true either as you totally ignore children growing up in homes without two opposite gender parents. By your logic: couples with children should be denied divorce (or severely punished for doing so, or have their children taken away and given to a still together M/F couple); or single mothers should have their children taken away. After all, this all about the welfare of the children, not the rights of the parents. Oh, and one other point about this, I'm sure those studies show that children raised in multiple foster-homes or in an institution do WAY better than those raised by same gender couples. Wait, they don't? Hmmm.