Supreme Court to discuss same-sex marriage
Which way does everyone think they're going to lean? They have indicated that they are likely to strike down the marriage law.
Please, let's keep this civil. I'm just curious to know how everyone here on Hackettstownlife feels.
talon104 At first when I heard about same sex marriage or even a relationship with someone of the opposite sex.. I felt this was very wrong...but as time goes on..and I know what true happiness really is all about...I feel that you should be with and in a relationship with whoever( and of whatever sex or color or persuasion) makes you truly happy and loves you unconditionally. Everyone deserves to be happy in all aspects of their life and if this means being with someone of the opposite sex and forming a life with them...so be it..
joyful 
Mr Negative I agree with Joyful
The only thing that I question is these younger kids....they think it's "cool" and the new "in thing". Be who you are and be who you want to be regardless if it's the "in thing"
Nosila The homosexual community has adopted the word "Gay " for their cause. Gay used to mean Carefree example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay They have also adopted and stolen the Rainbow for their cause. They have an agenda to get what they want. They will trample anyone who objects to them.The Gay community will use any court or appeal to accomplish their goals.They have money and lawyers at their use. For me this is an absolute abuse of the system of Law in the United States. They are forcing this issue on the country.
wrenIt seems to me that for the most part the only people. That have an issue with same-sex marriage is most conservatives who feel that the federal government has no right to tell states what it can and cannot do but then feel it's perfectly okay for the state to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies and of course the Bible thumper's people who pretend they follow Jesus but only when it suits their agenda. I personally feel if gay people want to marry have add it
I'm not really in to the idea of marriage, but I think people should be able to do it if they want to.
However, my friends seem to throw ridiculously expensive weddings and if this means an influx of weddings next summer, that is really going to suck for my wallet. :)
AliciaStill For it:) I don't understand the argument of how this threatens marriage of a man and a woman. When people choose to marry numerous times for just a week or so, I feel that makes a mockery of marriage. Religions can decide how they want to handle this but it should not dictate to the masses.
blackcat It isn't even about the marriage part at this point...it is all the benefits of marriage that these people are denied. No social security, inheritance tax, health insurance, child adoption prejudices etc...it is a crime what is happening to these people. It doesn't threaten the definition of marriage any more than my preference of the color blue undermines your preference of the color green - it is equally as ridiculous. I understand that gays are not enslaved and beaten legally under the law however I cant help but liken this to how blacks were treated in the south (and all over for that matter) in the 50's and 60's. Segregation and other atrocities were just a way of life not to be questioned. Now we look back with jaws dropped wondering how society could ever be so indignant and cruel. I hope that is in the near future for us. I dont want my kids to grow up in a "free society" where everyone is equal...except for those homosexuals. Ugh!
Natalie All for it!!!
If certain religions don't want to perform gay marriages, that is fine, that is their 1st Amendment right. But the Gov't should provide certain liberties to ALL citizens.
And the argument that gay marriages will be a mockery of marriage is silly, Divorce rate is 50%, we heterosexuals are already doing a great job of making a mockery of marriage
darwin 
happy2bhere oldred - Your comment is particularly interesting in connection with Judge Kennedy's statements on the DOMA case. He's implying it's not just a case of the federal government denying benefits, but exactly the case of states having the right to set their rules then having that overridden by federal law.
GC It should be allowed under federal and state law. I got married in a court of law and others should have the freedom to do the same. If churches don't/won't marry same-sex couples, I'm ok with that. But they should be entitled to all of the legal benefits as I am.
Birdie Interesting article:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/journal-led-astray-same-sex-marriage
"Liberty is of a piece. The simple presumption of our Constitution is liberty, with government authorized and empowered to protect it, and obligated to offer compelling reasons for restricting it when that should be necessary. In recognizing rights, the Court is not “creating” them. It’s simply acknowledging that they were always there, even if we haven’t always lived up to our principles and recognized them, as clearly we have not. That’s not judicial activism. It’s simply the Court engaged in making explicit what was always implicit, even if we haven’t seen the matter clearly until now."
The "marriage definition" debate is an attempt to create a restriction.
emaxxman 
ianimal 1967 Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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 discrimination. 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.
You can almost remove "Racial classifications" and insert "Sexual Orientation" and use this
In my opinion, same sex marriage should be legal. I feel that if you are capable of finding the love of your life, then NO ONE should be able to tell you that its not right. In the 21st century you need to be open, and need to be accepting about a lot of things. Its better that kids at my age of 14 and 15 are accepting, and that they are able to cherish and love themselves for who they are. No matter man or woman we should all have the right to tie the knot with whoever we want. At 14, I've learned how to be accepting and how to be a global citizen. It isn't "the in" thing to be accepting. Being proud of yourself is something that is important, its a skill that many people need to learn.
paddycake Homosexuals have Civil Unions. Just give them the same benefits that married couples have and leave it at that. Why is their a need to overhaul what marriage has been considered for thousands of years?
Metsman From a legal standpoint, it's all civil unions. Why even call a heterosexual union a marriage? In fact, why even get married? If you love someone, just tell them so and spend the rest of your life serving that person. Why do you even need to be married? Is it for the fiscal benefits?
Marriage is a contract between two people. If they want to make something that is implicit to them "official", I don't think anyone has the right to tell them they can't...all other things being equal.
"Gay" marriage is just one of several divisive, but relatively inconsequential, issues that keep us divided so we can argue amongst ourselves while our respective "heroes" in government screw us bigtime on the REAL issues...
jjmonth4 Marriage allows partners access to many legal and financial benefits that "just saying I love you and living together" does not. For instance your spouse can be listed on your health insurance and pension, your roommate cannot. There are tax breaks provided for marriage, most notably inheritance taxes and claiming for tax filing purposes. These are services or benefits that the government at state and federal levels allow married citizens to take advantage of.
In my mind any time laws are made to exclude a portion of the population from certain rights or benefits it is wrong. Rights should apply to all citizens, regardless of gender, race, religion or sexual proclivities.
Agust Came here prepared to be overwhelmed with bigotry...pleasantly surprised! :)
theHHSinformant 
bean Separate is not equal. Brown v. Board of Ed, 1954.
If it is called marriage for one, it should be called that for all.
Same license, same "contract", some responsibilities, same rights = same name.
"In my mind any time laws are made to exclude a portion of the population from certain rights or benefits it is wrong. Rights should apply to all citizens, regardless of gender, race, religion or sexual proclivities."
True.
Time for a serious question then:
Why don't we collectively focus on getting rid of laws that favor one group over another rather than focusing on creating *more* divisive laws?
justintime 
When the gays get the " Equality" of the right of marriage, where does it end. Can those who practice Beastiality also petition for the same rights. Can this issue open another Pandoras Box.
Great post on here, but this is my favorite ~
"Gay" marriage is just one of several divisive, but relatively inconsequential, issues that keep us divided so we can argue amongst ourselves while our respective "heroes" in government screw us bigtime on the REAL issues...
jjmonth4
2 days ago
Yup ~ you got that right! ;)
One of the arguments for same sex marriages is to be treated the same way a traditional couple is treated with the same benefits and tax advantages. My overall question is why does anyone have to be part of any kind of couple to get the same federal benefits and protections as anyone else?
Why does a marriage of any kind make the couple better drivers with lower vehicle insurance? I've never had an accident and I have two cars, so the multi-car theory is out. Why does a sickly couple who smokes, have lower health care rates then a single, healthy non-smoker because the company can offer them a discounted family plan? What about the two employees who work the same hours, make the same salary, pay the same into social security for 20 years, the married employee can leave his benefits to his spouse upon his death but the single employee can not leave his benefits to a family member or loved one. They just get rolled back into the system.
With only approximately 51 percent of American adults being married I think it is time that the "system" gets a complete overhaul so that NO American Citizen (gay, straight, single, married, blue, green, purple) is discriminated against and everyone is afforded the same benefits across the board.
JrzyGirl88 "When the gays get the " Equality" of the right of marriage, where does it end. Can those who practice Beastiality also petition for the same rights. Can this issue open another Pandoras Box."
Just another dumb comment from a dumb person.
1) When the sheep that you've had your eye on can provide consent to you sticking it in the rear, then yes, feel free to petition for beastiality. Until then, it's rape and it holds the same for human heterosexuals as well.
2) When women were given the right to vote, did we suddenly open the floodgates of "why can't a horse vote" or "why can't my goldfish vote" ? No.
3) When we abolished slavery and segregation, did we suddenly see a mass protest to allow horses to sit in the front of the bus? No.
I do have to say, HL is a very progressive site since it's possible for jacka**es to post dumb questions.
hhsinformer said - "Came here prepared to be overwhelmed with bigotry...pleasantly surprised! :)"
now you see, there you go, . . . . folks will fool you sometimes, this is a 'teachable' moment; pre-judgng people's responses and reactions is not a good thing. prejudice does goes both ways, and there is such as as 'reverse prejudice', and recognizing it is the first step in dealing with it.
i support gay marriage, it's a personal choice of free will, they should be afforded all of the joys and miseries that marriage can bring, i think that over time it will bring more stability to the gay community.
BrotherDog Thank you emaxxman for pointing out the obvious.
Anyhow I'm all for it, seems like a no brainer to me and is something that should have been done a long time ago so we could move on to other things.
Jem JrzyGirl88 ~ amend my previous post ~ you're my next favorite. Very nicely said. I also love when others post their thoughts and are able to express it in such a way that it gets me to see things from another point of view and feel good about it ~ like someone "got me" and was able to express it so much better than I could, and, then kick it up a notch. Beautiful!
BroDog ~ "stability in the gay community" ~ I don't know. Most of the gay couples I know have been together for AGES and working it, still. Some heteros should take note of how to be in a relationship ---- love, acceptance, flexibility, respect, communication, fun, love ~ at the end of the day ~ it's all that matters.
That was a bit harsh emaxx. Surely you understand the point that was being made, no?
Once again this is 100% a benefits issue. It has ZERO to do with any personal trait, the preference for bestiality included. If the same government-authorized perks were available to everyone, equally, then this discussion would be moot.
And just what's wrong with personal contracts anyway? Two people who wish to commit themselves to each other can sign a contract stating that they are doing so for the benefits of being a couple (legal and monetary) and will abide by whatever protections the government puts in place. Today that contract is called marriage, but it's still a contract so can be called whatever we want to call it.
But conflating the contractual for-government-benefits part with the marriage defined as man/woman- man/man-woman/woman-man/beast part is just a distraction. NO ONE is allowed to tell gay folks they can't do what they want in their personal lives (this is still the "land of the free", correct?), yet everyone wants to have control over the perks they would get if their relationship becomes "approved" by the government.
The real issue is the contract, not our personal view on the appropriateness of non man/woman relationships. They are two totally different subjects.
good post JIT -
happy2 - we agree on this. LTR's are better than a series of empty one night stands, that's what i was referring to. when talking about guys who are gay, it can get a little wild out there. having the option to get married will over time bring more legally recognized LTR's to the community overall, and this is a good thing.
my personal belief is that the government should have no say on who gets married or not, imo, government ought to have no interest or authority over two people's relationships. it's another overreach by an out of control governement structure, we all should be free to make our own individual chioces in this world
Actually JIT, I don't think it was harsh. A bit uncivil, possibly. I'm tired of the ridiculous hypotheticals. If someone wants to not accept gays or gay marriage based on some reasonable line of thought, then I'm open to a discussion. If someone doesn't want to be around gays, I'll support their right to do so. I will not sit around and see people, who have done no harm to others, debased and compared to rapists and animals.
Despite this country's origin of freedom, minorities have constantly had to fight for equal rights, whether it was blacks, women, religious minorities, or now gays. We need to search within ourselves and question, as a society, if we truly are the accepting society that we pretend to be.
"That was a bit harsh emaxx. Surely you understand the point that was being made, no?"
There is absolutely no point to be made with that ridiculous and hateful argument.
Gadfly Bestiality ? I wonder what that poster is doing late at night behind closed doors. Ignorant thinker like the people that link the gays and child molesters together. Dr Phil says that most pedophiles are married straight men.
You don't have to convince me emaxx. We're usually on the same page. But when government perks are given to a subset of society it's only a matter of time until the perk is expanded to include everyone.
In all seriousness, I say get rid of the perks if we truly want equality. Otherwise we'll always have these ridiculous arguments that stem from the desire to protect an entitlement that we don't want someone else to have.
And what about polygamy? Some practice that. Are we going to extend benefits to families like that too? Where does it all end? Benefits across the board should just be reformed so that everyone has equality. We don't have to legalize marriage to people other than a man and a woman.
BrotherDog - "now you see, there you go, . . . ."
Don't patronize me. Knock it off.
emaxxman you are so wise. When gay marriage is approved, where does it end. The courts will have endorsed Sodomy as a way of life. What other deviant sexual practices will then be brought forward to be challenged in the courts to be accepted by main stream society.
hhs-informer, my intentions are quite sincere, not patronizing in anyway. sorry you took it wrong. the concepts of 'prejudging' and 'reverse prejudice' are valid and i urge you to think it through instead of getting angry.
From sodomy is a deviant sexual practice you do realize that sodomy is also oral sex between a man and a woman to women or two men not just anal sex between two men so according to you anyone participating in oral sex is a sexual deviant
From you said What other deviant sexual practices will then be brought forward to be challenged in the courts to be accepted by main stream society.
I am old enough to remember when these same kind of hateful words were used by the states when arguing why it should be against the law for interracial couples to marry from its 2013 not 1913
oldred - Thanks. I was going to respond last night but I was tired and probably would have written something not as civil as your response.
I sure hope we accept sodomy. It'll open the doors to all of the other deviant acts that the good book doesn't allow:
1) Eat pork....how's that Easter ham taste now?
2) Eat fat...bacon anyone?
3) Eat blood...who knew my medium rare steak was a sin?
4) Drinking alcohol in holy places...guess we can now feel good about having wine with our communion wafer
Oh hell, just look at all of things Leviticus bans (dude sounds like a wet blanket at a party for sure):
http://leviticusbans.tumblr.com/post/23730370413/76-things-banned-in-leviticus
BrotherDog - "the concepts of 'prejudging' and 'reverse prejudice' are valid and i urge you to think it through instead of getting angry."
First of all, from a sociological standpoint, there is no such thing as "reverse prejudice". You're either prejudice or not. I was not.
Prejudice is defined as "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience," which might have been true but I had very good grounds to believe you'd be as discriminative as you were in this thread: http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/304341.
You said, not even two years ago, that "I do not accept or apporve of the lifestyle chioce[sic]." You also played "guess the gay guy" in that thread, where you listed four celebrities and made everyone guess who was gay.
Don't get me wrong, I love your change of heart (read: flip flop), but I have very sound experience on this forum to assume the worst. Thanks for playing!
not playing with you hhs; but thanks for your candor in stating that is what you are doing with me.
accepting the gay lifestyle and supporting gay marriage are two different things, why do you group the two together as if they were the same?
I have lived in the same house with gay men for several years. and they are still my friends to this very day. so go figure. (and yes we played 'guess who's the gay guy' together for many years, they have a sense of humor about it, how come you don't? a lot of this stuff can be very funny, my gay friends get it, they laugh with me, they also have some good natured fun at my expense over 'hetero' issues, it's all good, no need to be so serious about everything all the time)
I said here that I support the right for gay's to get married, and I do. and yes, my position on this issue has 'evolved' just like president Obama's has. free people in a free society should be free to exercise their individual free choices. let them get married if they want.
how come when conservatives change positions it's a 'flip flop' but when liberals change position they have 'evolved', at least I am honest enough to admit when I was wrong. are you?
please stop conflating different issues together and then reading into them things that are not there.
and if you read my posts in that thread you would see that I showed love and compassion and urged tolerance for my gay brothers and sisters and I urged others to do the same, I also urged tolerance for people of faith. how come they don't get any tolerance thrown their way?
and you are quite wrong: 'reverse prejudice' does exist , never claimed to be a sociologist. 'reverse racism' also exists in our society. if you cannot see that, then you're just not looking
you said - "You're either prejudice or not. I was not." oh yes you were and are, you keep assigning certain positions and characteristics to people based on your own prejudices, and ascribing to them certain 'pre-conceived' positions that are wrong, inaccurate and that you have no idea about.
be well, go in peace.
Reverse racism is just as big a fallacy as reverse prejudice, only difference is at least the former has a wikipedia page.
The first thing you really need to understand is that the definition of racism that you probably have (which is the colloquial definition: “racism is prejudice against someone based on their skin color or ethnicity”) is NOT the definition that’s commonly used in anti-racist circles.
The definition used in anti-racist circles is the accepted sociological definition (which is commonly used in academic research, and has been used for more than a decade now): “racism is prejudice plus power”. What this means, in easy language:
A. Anyone can hold “racial prejudice” — that is, they can carry positive or negative stereotypes of others based on racial characteristics. For example, a white person thinking all Asians are smart, or all black people are criminals; or a Chinese person thinking Japanese people are untrustworthy; or what-have-you. ANYONE, of any race, can have racial prejudices.
B. People of any race can commit acts of violence, mistreatment, ostracizing, etc., based on their racial prejudices. A black kid can beat up a white kid because he doesn’t like white kids. An Indian person can refuse to associate with Asians. Whatever, you get the idea.
C. However, to be racist (rather than simply prejudiced) requires havinginstitutional power. In North America, white people have the institutional power. In large part we head the corporations; we make up the largest proportion of lawmakers and judges; we have the money; we make the decisions. In short, we control the systems that matter. “White” is presented as normal, the default. Because we have institutional power, when we think differently about people based on their race or act on our racial prejudices, we are being racist. Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power.
D. People of color can be prejudiced, but they cannot be racist, because they don’t have the institutional power. (However, some people refer to intra-PoC prejudice as “lateral racism”. You may also hear the term “colorism”, which refers to lighter-skinned PoC being prejudiced toward darker-skinned PoC.) However, that situation can be different in other countries; for example, a Japanese person in Japan can be racist against others, because the Japanese have the institutional power there. But in North America, Japanese peoplecan’t be racist because they don’t hold the institutional power.
E. If you’re in an area of your city/state/province that is predominantly populated by PoC and, as a white person, you get harassed because of your skin color, it’s still not racism, even though you’re in a PoC-dominated area. The fact is, even though they’re the majority population in that area, they still lack the institutional power. They don’t have their own special PoC-dominated police force for that area. They don’t have their own special PoC-dominated courts in that area. The state/province and national media are still not dominated by PoC. Even though they have a large population in that particular area, they still lack the institutional power overall.
F. So that’s the definition of racism that you’re likely to encounter. If you start talking about “reverse racism” you’re going to either get insulted or laughed at, because it isn’t possible under that definition; PoC don’t have the power in North America, so by definition, they can’t be racist. Crying “reverse racism!” is like waving a Clueless White Person Badge around.
Seems that bats engage in sodomy as well... I guess they don't know that God disapproves.
http://news.yahoo.com/male-bats-caught-performing-oral-sex-females-172656066.html
"The scientists also noted that males might perform cunnilingus on females in order to clean off competitors’ sperm. Doing so could help ensure their sperm, and not their rivals', impregnates the females."
That's where I draw the line... (-;
HHS Informant... that's the kind of nonsense that gets sociology relegated to the "pseudo-science" trash heap.
I made it to level E on theHHSinformant's post, but to be honest i lost interest at level A
:) guess that's why i wasn't a socialogy major
As far as I'm concerned the subject of gay marriage shouldn't be in the political arena....it's NOT political, it's personal. The same goes for abortion....IT'S NOT POLITICAL!
It's all a curtain to hide the Wizard (government) from what he really is doing!
DB not clueless at all and wiki is not the final definition of what is and what isn't, and , I already admitted I am no sociologist. but there is such a thing as reverse racism. it does not depend on who has 'institutional power' that an artificial definition that doesn't fit the real world. there are racists, and race baiter's that come in all colors and they do not all have institutional power to spread their hate. they get it done anyway they can and it is just as racist as anything else you can describe. btw, according to your definitions, Archie Bunker cannot be a racist as he has by himself no "institutional power" ; he's just a low paid bule collar worker, what power does he wield? (None)
by your definitions individuals cannot be racist, but only societies/institutions can be racist by collecting power and influence for one particular race at the expense of other races. you know that this is wrong don't you? what about Louis Farrakhan? is he a racist or not? (no? but Archie bunker is? come on now, work with me here)
and prejudice indeed, flows both ways; which is all I meant by coining the phrase 'reverse prejudice', you get that don't you? it's a two way street, that many different kinds of people can and indeed are prejudiced?
I happen to come from a multi-racial background, so your racially charged term "Clueless White Person" is again another clear indication of your own prejudice, and serves no good purpose in this discussion. other than to denigrate those who with you happen to disagree. that's not good you know.
ianimal - I'd love to hear your basis for the comment.
BrotherDog - I find it hilarious you speak of "artificial definitions" (see: 'reverse prejudice').
But moving on, "by your definitions individuals cannot be racist, but only societies/institutions can be racist by collecting power and influence for one particular race at the expense of other races." If that's what you comprehended from my comment, maybe reread it.
"I happen to come from a multi-racial background" Right, just like you lived with those two gay guys for those several years and you were their best friend and blah, blah, blah, bologna. Your anecdotal nonsense means all of nothing to me and doesn't help your case.
If you think 'clueless white person' is a "racially charged term," then you've pretty much proved to me how your little world varies greatly from everyone else's.
wow! everything i said about myself is quite true, didn't make any of it up, i do come from a multiracial background and did live with several gay men for about 4 years.
we were good friends then, and still are to this very day (almost 40 years later)
you keep attacking me personally for some reason, not sure why, it's not a good thing to do you know.
emaxxman, damn you are so smart. There are many gospels in the Christian faith. Glad to see you have chosen one that fits your style.
BD,
I find it interesting that you've told HHSinformant that calling you a "clueless white person" serves no purpose in the conversation. A couple years ago when discussing gay marriage, you called me a f***t and told me it was my own problem that I let the word affect me and it's just a word. I wonder what the purpose was there....
MB emaxxman, damn you are so smart. There are many gospels in the Christian faith. Glad to see you have chosen one that fits your style.
Isn't that what every Christan does? No one follows the Bible word for word, they pick and choose which parts best fit their style and ignore the rest.
And the bible also says homosexuals will not inherit God's kingdom. I wonder how many of them go to church and don't care about that verse.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." (I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11).
I'd say theres a lot of people, not just homosexuals, that are going to Church and don't care about that verse either.
"fornicators"!! Fornication refers to sexual activity outside of the marriage, including premartial sex with your girlfriend ... I'm sure you're not one of those sinners Metsman, right? :)
OMgoodness. And the thread started out sooooooo uplifting. Then the bible, racism and the rest entered the scene.
Funny that we all type this crud, don't really talk about is socially, but we all must have these thought bubbles around us in social settings.
And BDog: the archie bunkerism of "some of my best friends are gay" is really a bit dated. We are proud of you, but you really should let it go. At this point, who hasn't known gays, lived with gays, worked with gays, etc. etc. etc. Since America allowed them to live a failry decent life out of the closet, darned if they don't pop up everywhere. We don't need to highlight that fact in order to give these folks equal rights under the law.
Some of us of a certain age have even attended way, way too many funerals for this community as a number of "bible thumpers" during this era thought bubbled "just deserts."
Now if we could just offer ALL "partnered" Americans equality under the law for state-sanctioned marriage benefits that the rest of us enjoy, we could take the next step.
mistergoogle Difference is, I haven't been religious for awhile. Right now baseball is my religion.
Religion is the root of all evil not money how many billions of people has been killed and enslaved in the name of religion throughout time religion gives people an excuse to hate religion as a whole has done far more harm than good to mankind
wren wrote: "emaxxman, damn you are so smart. There are many gospels in the Christian faith. Glad to see you have chosen one that fits your style."
I can't really tell if you're being sarcastic or not so I'll assume the positive.
I chose Leviticus because it is in Leviticus where homosexuality is discussed and banned. It is what all bigots choose to quote when they make their homophobic comments about gays (although I doubt many have read the Bible.) Yet, it seems that these so called pious and moral bigots routinely ignore the rest of the teachings in Leviticus.
Why is that? Is it because most don't really give a crap about the Bible and simply choose to do what they want to do and they're as immoral as the gays they so love to hate? Why is it OK to eat pork or blood or drink in church or get some nice oral from a heterosexual partner, when the Bible, specifically Leviticus, bans people from doing so?
"For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."
I'm beginning to understand how conservative logic works...
So, I want to go on record right now that I'm against "shall issue" right to carry firearms laws because once we legalize carrying guns, what stops us from legalizing beastiality and pedophilia.
I think gays should be allowed to marry. Think how much fun Gay Divorce Court would be to watch!
Lady Jayne There are always restrictions and are usually created by the general consensus of the people. If you feel anyone should be entitled to marriage then you must consider the pro-gay marriage arguments will apply to all fascists of society including; consensual polygamists, incest between father & son or Mother and daughter. Every argument for Gay marriage will apply to these other types of relationships and others. So there is a line that is not based on discrimination or bigotry but based on what people understand to be moral, natural and productive within the original definition of marriage. The question is what is the line? I personally believe gay relationships do not belong on the marriage side.
"all fascists of society", huh? Boy I would hate to have to let all of the fascists marry.
bbqlover,
People will say you're crazy... but you're exactly right. Especially with poligamy. I mean, seriously- WHO ARE WE to tell 2 women and 1 man, or 2 men and 1 woman, or 5 men and 1 women, or 4 women, or 6 men, that love each other, that they can't marry? It's pure logic.
Where is the line, indeed. Depends on what the line is based on. If it's not longer based on heterosexuality and 2 people, why can't it be based on ANY sexuality in ANY number?
JeffersonRepub Wait, didn't they ask that same BBQlover question when adam and eve married?
What answer did they come up with for the fascists then?
I thought I was getting the hang of this conservative logic, but then I read bbq's post and realized how much I have to learn. I'll try again.
I'm not really against the sale of sodas larger than 16 oz, but if you allow the sale of plus-sized cola, you have to legalize incest. So, the rest of you can support big gulps, and incest, if you like. But I'll keep my principals and remain squarely in the anti-big gulp, anti-incest camp.
The polygamy argument is ridiculous and holds no merit, yet people keep repeating it. Baffling.
If gay marriage became legal, it would remain a contract between two people. NO DIFFERENT from how it is now. Simple.
Where do you draw the line? Seriously- if gays can marry, then poligamy should be legal also. I'm not joking. As long as the people involved all agree, it should be allowed. That IS what we're talking about, right?
As far as the big gulp comparison goes- here's some LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE logic for you:
I believe the intended word was facets, not fascists.
HHSinformant: your post above about reverse racism misses the point. The only difference between the two is one of perspective. Racism by anyone is just plain stupid - not only is any racist view inherently incorrect but by it's very nature racism must be based on assumptions. I don't care if someone is a member of a "power" majority or not, anyone who makes assumptions about an entire group of people based on a common trait is a loon. Now that's the view that will get you laughed at in today's society. Both kinds of racism you describe are equally idiotic.
I tend to be more liberal than conservative, but on this issue, I don't support same sex marriage. What saddens me is that I rarely feel comfortable sharing my view on the topic because I am called predujice or closed minded. I am not so quick to anger at people who seek a different life style--I just personally don't agree with it. I dont hate gays or lesbians--You can love someone and still not agree with every one of thei choices. I just worry about the antagonism I feel com same sex advocates who say I need to give up my first amendment rights so they can have theirs. It doesn't seem right to me.
Hopefuloptimist Yes people, obvious typo, facets not fascists...LOL..
Hey MB of course Polygamy holds merit, thats why it was mentioned in court. Think about all the arguments. Who should you deny people who love each other? Why should they be discriminated against in regards to receiving benefits? It is discrimination for their life style. You would change the definition from Heterosexual to include Gay, what not also include plural? Or if you cannot grasp the polygamy analogy (which is on its way to the courts due to the show on TV), what about consenting incest between two women or two men. Do you condone that, if not why not? Who are you to draw the line? Why should you deny people who love each other? Why should they be discriminated against in regards to receiving benefits? It is discrimination for their life style? You would change the definition from Heterosexual to include Gay what not also include incest? On and on and on….Marriage has a legal definition, let’s leave it…
Gadfly,
Maybe you are trying to be sarcastic? You do not have to be as we are just having a discussion here.
We are discussing the topic of marriage. How marriage is defined, who should be allowed to change that definition and to what extent.
Absolutely nothing to do with the topic of soda. Let’s stay within the realm of marriage….
BBQ, Illicit soda pop is just as relevant to the topic of same sex marriage as incest. Silly? Perhaps. But no more silly than your argument. At least we can agree that fascists shouldn't marry.
Gadfly,
How is it silly when there are people out there in relationships of incest and want to be married?
We are talking about changing the definition marriage to include relationships other than two heterosexuals.
This has been brought up numerous times in many courts regarding this debate. Soda? Nothing to do with it, you are the first to try to make that connection.
I don't see any issue with polygamy as long as it's a marriage between consenting adults.
Regarding incest, one could make scientific and quantifiable arguments against incestuous procreation (note that I didn't say incestuous marriage) based on historical genetic theory. The current arguments against gay marriage are based on the archaic teachings of a non-universally accepted tome and the unproven effects on society.
With advances in genetic science, it's possible that these theories are no longer valid. If deemed invalid, I would argue that there isn't a logical argument against incestuous marriage and/or procreation as long as the relationship is a consenting one on both parties, e.g. a father can't have one with his daughter (or mother/son) if the child is deemed too young to consent - that would be rape and molestation.
emaxx,
You raise an interesting point... HOW OLD is old enough to consent? Surely that's a matter of opinion as well. I mean, just because the "law" arbitrarily decided that 18 or 16 is "old enough" to consent to sex, who's to say a 14 year old couldn't knowingly/willingly consent? And along those lines, I give you the National Man Boy Love Association.
I'm sure NAMBLA disgusts alot of people (it certainly disgusts me), but with all this flexible morality (which is in reality no morality at all), who's to say what is "right" between CONSENTING people, regardless of sexual orientation, number, or age?
Sexual orientation is one thing. Morality is another. Allowing gay people the right to marry is a matter of equality and has nothing to do with flexible morality.
The religious arguments are completely irrelevant as marriage is an institution of the state. You don't even need a religion to get married. Currently, you just need to be straight, and that's not fair in the civil rights sense.
Aquarius "Polygamy holds merit, thats why it was mentioned in court."
Not, that's not the reason for mentioning it. The reason is emotionality as a moral argument.
"As long as the people involved all agree, it should be allowed. That IS what we're talking about, right?"
No, not right. That's the whole reason for the Constitution. There is a difference between morality, and legality. That's the separation of Church and State. You can't make a legal basis for something that is different for every single person. Morals are individual, so whose morals do you use? Instead the belief of the people we make the basis on whether or not it affects someone's rights. The well quoted limit on the First Amendment is about yelling fire in a theater. Why? Do many people really think about the reasoning of that, or just that it means there is some kind of unfathomable limitation?
When the exercise of one person's rights interfere with another person's rights, that's what the limit is. Morals are not that limit, although that is what many want to try to insert into the legal process. You can't do that, and that's what emotional statements about how it makes people feel, or what is "right" do. In the converse you also have to understand that it doesn't make anything "right", or "wrong" for that matter. It ends up being legal (really meaning "Constitutional") because it doesn't infringe on some other Constitutionality. Whether it's right or wrong is an individual thing and government does not belong. That is extremely fundamental to not only the Constitution, but being American.
Then put those other questions through the same process. It may well be down the road that "plural" marriage is allowed on similar basis. As I've said many times before I personally don't feel that my life is threatened or "cheapened" by what someone else does. So if a couple of women want to marry the same man, I don't have a problem with that. Even if I did, I would not see that as a legality issue because it doesn't step on someone else's rights.
However, how we treat younger people is not just moral, it's legal. We can't put aside a 5 year old's rights because some 30 year old says so. Yet we also don't hold them in the same light when they can't tell the difference between a police officer and Batman. The same is true with disabled people. Abusing younger people because they don't have the same capabilities is not just morally wrong, it's illegal. Not because it's morally wrong, but because it infringes on their rights. Incest is illegal not just because many feel it is morally wrong, but offspring for nothing they've done are born into a life of suffering. What relationship is close enough for incest, and what age is old enough to consent - yes, that's what may be argued without any clear answer. But the fact that rights are violated is the issue.
I didn't say one thing about religion in my posts. It's pure logic. Legality is defined by US. So far, legality is 2 people, 1 man and 1 woman. If we want to change that, fine- BUT: if your argument for changing it is "people loving each other", then you can't limit the NUMBER and poligamy should be allowed. It's pure logic.
The constitution has nothing to do with this one.
All this babble about Gays and Gay rights, What any doctor will tell you is that Homosexual behavior is a hormonal imbalance . Look it up. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_gay_people_be_cured_of_hormone_imbalance
Wait, I think I have the "hormonal imbalance causes heterosexuality" paper somwhere....
Jefferson why are you attempting a backhanded attempt to equate pedophilia with homosexuality 85% of all pedophilia is heterosexual and as for your just because it's the law comment the age of consent is not just arbitrarily decided it is decided by the people of any given state through their representatives in the government
I'm not attempting anything. I'm being dead serious: WHO gets to say what the age of consent is? And WHY is 18 good but 16 not, or 16 good, but 14 not? You have to have an answer if you want to base a law on it. "decided by the people"... so if the "people" of Utah decide poligamy is A-OK, and pass a law saying so, then that's law- the federal government can't touch it, and no one can say "it's wrong" because the "people decided".
And taking it further, if some state's "people decide" that 14 is old enough to consent, with homosexuality already being OK, then there you have it... NAMBLA being justified by "people's decision".
You can't want the "people to decide" only when they agree with YOU- if you want the "people to decide" you have to take the good AND the bad.
The question before the Supreme Court is the constitutional right for gays to marry stemming from the Ca ban and the couple who said they deserve equal protection under the law.
I have posted those protections above.
The question before us is whether gays are equal to hetero's and therefore, is gay marriage equal or "equal enough" to hetereo marriage to rule loss of equal protection as discriminatory.
There is much law on the books protecting the rights of gays, to some extent, we, as a society have already proclaimed they are equal, as individual citizens, under the law. The question is do we make the same claim for couples or do we shun them.
As for the other groups you banter about; most are not given equal rights under the law ---- matter of fact most are downright unlawful (as well as disgusting IMHO). But if JR and others want to defende their rights, great. Just leave your guns at home :>)
Oooops; here are the denied rights: http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples
mg said "The question before us is whether gays are equal to hetero's and therefore, is gay marriage equal or "equal enough" to hetereo marriage to rule loss of equal protection as discriminatory."
So- next we need to apply the same arguments for poligamists- because if you don't, you are a bigot. Because there's no reason for poligamy to not be lawful and be offered all the same protections hetero and homo unions do.
Who wants to change the age of consent?!?! Or is it just something you've pulled out of thin air to create a correlation between gay marriage and pedophelia?
Regardless of what the article calls them, those items listed are not "rights" in the traditional sense as most people would think. They are legislated benefits to a particular class of citizens. Not ALL citizens mind you, only a particular group of citizens. This is what I meant when I stated above that this *entire* discussion is about the perks of marriage rather than what is right or wrong morally. They are completely separate arguments.
The definition of "rights" has been hijacked to mean a legislated perk. A simple stroke of the pen removes those "rights" as easily as they were "granted".
It's emotional obfuscation at best, which makes the whole topic that much harder to deal with.
The question is: How many people will we allow to take the marriage benefit? Some want to argue over exactly who that is (this discussion), some say let everyone take a piece of the pie equally (the fact that we all contribute to the pie and that "taking" our cut would in effect be a zero sum game - pointless in the end - not withstanding), and others such as myself say get rid of it all (true equality). No, this is all about the benefits and how each of us can screw the other guy to get a our cut, because that's what our government has become: an incubator of jealousy (hey - HE got a benefit, I want MINE!)
tomato, potato. OK, Justy -- "federal rights," "benefits," "legalized subsidies," "the dole," whatever. They are not all "perks" either as you call them either unless you think spousal inheritance is a "perk." But symantecs aside, you want to focus on the "perks" themselves, most certainly a question.
But it is not the question in front of the Supreme Court and not the topic of this thread so moot argument in this thread.
Personally, if you want to talk "perks," or perhaps more finely refined "tax perks;" that would be a great thread to discuss. Start with "scrap them all" and then ask if we feel any should be brought back or created.
JR, on poligamy --- asked and answered by many threaders. I am just amazed that the Judges did not raise your issue :>)
"You raise an interesting point... HOW OLD is old enough to consent? "
"And WHY is 18 good but 16 not, or 16 good, but 14 not? "
These are good questions. Two 14 year old's can have sex with each other but it would be extremely disturbing if a 19 year and a 14 year old did it. I don't have an answer to what the appropriate age would be. Some states allow marriage at 16 (at least they used to when I was in HS and a fellow pregnant student drove down south to get married.)
What I would hope is that any discussion be based on a set of evolved standards that are logical, modern, non-hypocritical, and at the end of the day, based on equality.
Homosexuality and Hormonal Imbalance.Read on and enjoy. http://jamesjcrook.hubpages.com/hub/The-Misguided-Gay-Rights-Movement
"and based on equality."
And there is the "rub", if you will- TRUE equality means EVERYONE gets the "benefit" (or whatever it is being argued for), or NO ONE gets it.
"SELECTIVE Equality" is what has been argued this entire thread.
"But it is not the question in front of the Supreme Court and not the topic of this thread so moot argument in this thread."
The court is reviewing the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which specifically defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and defines spouse and a person of the opposite sex. However, is it wrong to consider the goal of changing the definition and repealing the law? No, of course not. There is only one reason for changing the definition, and that is to make available to same sex couples (and possibly others who share the burdens of cohabitation) the full benefits of federal laws pertaining to marriage. This isn't exactly a well kept secret.
I don't have a problem repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. IMO it should be repealed. But as I said before, if the government weren't a co-party to marriage contracts in the first place this entire issue would be moot.
JR - Kinda bizarre how you're using this issue to promote polygamy and marriage with minors.
The core of your argument seems to be "but...but...if the GAYS can get married then that means {group that defies social norms} can too! That's equality, ya know!"
I guess just reexamine your talking points before you proceed, or this will prove to be very silly for you.
I agree Justy, however, it's a point for another thread. That's my point.
And when you open the thread, perhaps you want to discuss all the "privileged" groups under the tax laws starting with the rich, poor, middle class, Monsanto and other specific industries, farmers, small business, large business, work-at-home, sick, single-parents, old people, young people, married people, etc. etc. etc.
And then you might want to open it up to other laws beyond tax as well.
I think it would be a good thread. I have said before that we should scrap all the tax deductions and credits and start over with a national dialogue on what we should incent. I think credits and deductions are a good thing however the current system is too complex and convoluted and many of the reasons for passing some credits do not exist or have changed status. Time to start fresh and keep it simple.
First of all, it is polygamy. You keep misspelling it.
Secondly, I have no issue with polygamy between consenting adults. It has ZERO effect on my life. If there is really a push to legalize polygamous marriages and the government can do it in a fair and equitable manner (which is the largest hurdle, I would think), then I think it is fine.
My question to you would be - why do you care so much about something that doesn't affect you in the slightest?
bbqlover brings up an excellent point. Take a look at voting rights, First we let black people vote and then we had to let women... it's only a matter of time before we let kids, criminals, heck maybe even dogs vote. I mean if a black person can vote, why can't a dog, or a cow, where will it end!!! Republicans have allowed the country to changed the defintion of who a "registered voter" is and now look at the mess they're in. We need to stop letting people have rights, it's ruining our country. Right JR?
;)
Plus wasn't the very first marriage one of insest? So all you religious people should be for
HH:
"The core of your argument seems to be "but...but...if the GAYS can get married then that means {group that defies social norms} can too! That's equality, ya know!"
Yes, it is. To deny that makes you a bigot. Gays getting married "defies social norms" just as polygamy does. I'm not arguing WHAT is and isn't, or what should or shouldn't be normal. But the point is, if heteros are bigots and discriminatory because they don't want gay people to be able to marry, then heteros AND GAYS are bigots and discriminatory for not wanting polygamists to marry. We are talking about consenting adults here. Who are YOU to tell a group of consenting adults that they can't marry each other?
MB-
I actually DON'T "care". I'm done with this issue, politically and morally. My entire point of being involved in the debate is much along the line of JITs- if you want equality then it has to be REAL AND TOTAL equality, not SELECTIVE equality. Otherwise, you (not you personally) would be a bigot and a hypocrite.
I actually have more respect for someone who is anti-anything-but-hetero marriage than I do for someone who says OK to gay marriage but NO to polygamy. The former has a belief/principle with faith at it's core (for right or wrong), where as the latter is simply a bigoted hypocrite who's arguments can't stand up to logic.
Jefferson define social norms I can argue with you that the Amish people defy social norms the Amish people will tell you they live their life according to their religion the same argument can me made about polygamists
jit - is right about this,
government should not be in charge of who gets married or not, it's not something they *NEED* to be involved with.
Gays should be able to get married, (just don't expect certain religions to be OK with it, they have individual rights that are just as equal)
Polygamists should be able to get married and live their lives the way they want to.
this is freedom; freedom of action, freedom of association. the freedom to live your life the way that you decide to.
Government should have no authority over marriage, at all.
I just have one question remaining :
Can Winchesters legally marry Remingtons? if we allow that are we all doomed?
MB: thanks for the spell tip. All I sud was the poliogumy tissue is not German to the kase in front of the Supream Curt if indeed, given the mis-spelling by Juforsun Retreadlick, it was me u were squalking aboot.
So far this issue has not cropped up in the case in front of the Supreme Court; guess they know something that JR and BD do not.
BD: It happend on Season 3, Episode 7 of The Big Valley.
I think this pie is baked. It started on such a high note.
JeffersonRepub - You previous said:
"marriage is actually a defined religious union between a man and a woman. Calling 2 homosexuals "married" is like calling peanut butter, jelly. Doesn't matter what your opinion is- they simply aren't"
Like I said with Brother Dog, I'm glad you had a change of heart. But, you must realize that polygamy and underage marriage aren't the same issue as gay marriage. I don't have a problem with polygamy, but comparing them really just undermines the gay marriage cause because, regardless of sex, marriage has always been (ultimately) between two people.
I don't believe the government should have control over which social contracts I make with whom, but the truth of the matter is they do, and I didn't think dialogue about gay marriage would have come for another 20 years. That said, let's tackle one government overreach at a time.
That is still my OPINION, HHS- however, you will notice I draw a line between my OPINION and what I think should be LEGISLATED LAW. Most people on this forum can't. They simply think their opinion should become law, regardless of what the constitution says. (altho, as I have stated, marriage is not a constitutional issue, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to keep & bear arms, etc., are.)
Now- continuing this issue, since it has been clearly shown that gays and polygamists should be allowed to marry... let's go on to this "separation of church and state" the same people are always citing. I'll go with you on that one. There SHOULD be separation of church and state- or mote ACCURATELY, "freedom of religion." And what that means is, any church that decides to not marry gays or polygamists for religious reasons should not be allowed to be sued, prosecuted, or penalized in ANY way. Ditto for the religious schools who don't want to teach about such life practices. Ditto religious hospitals who don't want to perform abortions or hand out birth control due to religious reasons. You want separation of church and state, you got it- but you take ALL of it, or NONE of it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
JR,
As long as the hospital does not accept any money from the government, including Medicare/Medicaid and any of the assortment of tx breaks communities give to them. They can turn away anyone that their good Christian values dictate, and refuse to hire any doctor they want opting for faith healers for all I care.
Churches already take the role you describe. Try going into the local Catholic Church as a Protestant marrying a Jew and asking them to recognize your ceremony. None of the folks I see supporting same sex marriage think churches should change anything.
By the way since churches claim tax exemption, how about we demand they conform to the other tax exempt organizations rule about keeping their nose out of politics. Endorse a candidate for mayor or president and lose your tax free status, might help keep the religious right and the black ministers in the church instead of on the campaign trail.
Agust pretty much hit all the points I would have, but your "OPINION and what [you] think should be LEGISLATED LAW" are two different things? That's...um, interesting.
Sounds like your opinion is that gay marriage is bad, but you support it? I'm lost.
And this is very much a constitutional issue, and here's why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
"It happend on Season 3, Episode 7 of The Big Valley"
Hah !
your age is showing.
theHHSinformant - You seem to have previously understood the issue of basing law on "social norms". The statement "Sounds like your opinion is that gay marriage is bad, but you support it?" then follows. "Opinion" vs "Law" is the same thing I had stated before (and others are talking about) how our Constitution sets up a difference between "legality" and "morality". Because morality is individual you can't base everyone's laws on on person's opinion. So we have a system where people's rights are the legal basis, not whether it's "right or wrong".
Following that then, it's entirely possible to say legally, everyone should be allowed to do what does not infringe on someone else's rights. However, it doesn't mean what everyone can do, is right to do. Borrowing form another thread - you "can" forget to RSVP and then still take your kid to the party. But does that make it right? No. So people can believe in universal marriage legally, but say their religion or what ever other beliefs say you shouldn't do that.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe the statement about marriage and the Constitution is more a matter of the semantics and focus on the underlying issue. Marriage itself is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right, it is not specifically enumerated. However, as your link goes into, it is a matter of equal protection under the law. So I don't think the idea was to say the current case isn't a Constitutional matter, but to say it's an "equal protection" vs "marriage" issue.
HHS informant-
yes, you are lost. There is a difference between what *I* THINK is "good", and what I believe should be legislated law. That's the problem with the left- you guys can't figure out the 2 things are different. If your opinion disagrees with the constitution, you simply ignore the constitution.
I am a christian, I think it is the ONE true religion, but I would NEVER be in favor of legislating that people be christians, because it goes against our constitution.
I also abhor smoking. But I am not in favor of any legislation that outlaws it. I think restaurants and bars, being privately owned, should be allowed to do whatever they damn well please, and then smokers or non-smokers can use their facilities, or not.
Agast-
here's the rub: if gay marriage is made "legal", how long do you think it will be until someone tries to force a catholic church to marry gays by bringing suit against them? And how do you think it would go down if a christian hospital announced they were no longer accepting medicare, medicaid, or obamacare, and that they would not be performing abortions or handing out birth control? You think the federal govt would stand for that? THIS federal government wouldnt.
GC-
well said. I am FOR "equal protection", but AGAINST so-called "gay marriage" (because it isn't marriage.) But civil unions SHOULD have all the same benefits and protections (call it "civil rights" if you want) that marriages have. Whether that be "equal benefits" or "NO BENEFITS" as JIT has explained. So long as it is EQUAL. And churches should never be forced to perform gay marriages in opposition to their religious beliefs. Freedom OF religion is what is guaranteed, not freedom FROM religion.
here's the rub: if gay marriage is made "legal", how long do you think it will be until someone tries to force a catholic church to marry gays by bringing suit against them?
That argument makes no sense at all. The Catholic Church already doesn't marry everyone that wants to get married in their church. In fact no church is required to marry anyone that wants to get married in their church, they can and have turned many couples away with no lawsuits. Catholic churhes have no obligation to marry 2 Jews that want for some reason to get married in their church. Most if not all Catholic churches won't marry someone that has been divorced, never seen a lawsuit for that.
People need to calm down with gay marriages are going to take away religious freedoms. The 2 have nothing to do with each other. Gay marriage in not a religious issue, it's a civil rights issue. You can get married outside of a church by a judge, ship captain, etc/ Religion doesn't have to have anything to do with marriage. If 2 Atheists get married are they still married? Yes in the eyes of the state.
"If 2 Atheists get married are they still married? Yes in the eyes of the state."
agreed, and they are also married in the eyes of God; even if they don't know, or acknowledge it.
@darwin.
NOW they don't. But if the supreme court says gay marriage is OK, my point is, how long until gay groups start suing churches to MAKE them marry them because "the supreme court says so!" Mark my words- it WILL happen. And then THAT will have to go to the supreme court.
Besides, I ahve said all along I am FOR equal rights. Equal rights, and calling it a marriage, are 2 different issues.
I don't care what the supreme court says- gays will never be "married", as that is a religious institution. They will have all the rights of straight people, as they should, (and as should polygamists), but the word "marriage" will not apply, regardless of their choice to use it.
GC - Well from a sociological standpoint (and well, civics too), you couldn't be more wrong. A law is a norm that is written down and enforced by an official law enforcement agency. In other words, our laws are a reflection of our moral compass as a society. Homosexuality is viewed by fundamentalists and other hate groups as a taboo, or a norm that society holds so strongly that violating it results in extreme disgust or even banishment.
Admittedly I'm no sociologist, just an interest of mine, but in order to debate me on the topic, I suggest using this page as a tool to learn more: http://sociology.about.com/od/Deviance/a/Folkways-Mores-Taboos-And-Laws.htm
"I don't care what the supreme court says- gays will never be "married", as that is a religious institution. "
Then everyone married outside a religious institution should never be allowed to use the term "marriage" to describe their union. Go to city hall and you'll find many "marriage" certificates for wedding ceremonies performed by a civil servant and not a member of the clergy.
BD - Regarding your statement (not to sidetrack the conversation), would the marriage really be acknowledged in God's eyes? I assume two atheists would not be married by a member of the clergy therefore, would it be a valid ceremony in the church's eye? Just genuinely curious.
"Then everyone married outside a religious institution should never be allowed to use the term "marriage" to describe their union. Go to city hall and you'll find many "marriage" certificates for wedding ceremonies performed by a civil servant and not a member of the clergy. "
Hmm... interesting point.... where do you draw the line between "religious" and "not"? I could be wrong, but I think civil servants use the bible to marry people? If so, I think that qualifies as "religious", regardless of the fact that they aren't in a church.
Also, while there were legitimate reasons to begin assigning marriage licenses way back when (like to keep families from intermarrying, I guess), another large reason was simply that is was another way for the govt to make money- another license we have to pay for.
Gas and beer prices are draining my wallet and all you people can do is biotch about persons you dont even know getting married. Why does it matter ? Personally I dont give a dam !
jerseycash5 - Those Ferrari's are real gas guzzlers, aren't they? Then again, I'm sure you'll have plenty of cash after you sell your Bentley.
JR - That's a very loose interpretation of religious. If you were to ask the Pope, would he consider a ceremony conducted by the mayor to be a Catholic-recognized union?
JR,
No one is demanding that the Catholic Church recognize civil marriage or divorce now. No one demands that Muslim or Jewish temples recognize marriage outside of their faith now, there is no reason to think they will in the future. What makes you think that anyone will force any church to do so for gays? I suspect that some faiths will gladly accept gay marriage and other will not, both will gain and lose members based on this decision.
To me this topic is not a religious one, it is a strict interpretation of civil law. The government gives certain rights to married people, it is wrong to exclude anyone from those rights.
JR. I couldn't find the price of a marriage license in Hackettstown, but in Newark its $28. With the paperwork that must be done to to document that someone is married, do you really think this is a big moneymaker?
We were married in city hall and there was no bible. Had our ceremony there since I disagreed with the "rules" if I wanted to be married in church.
gadfly,
I wonder why they bother having marriage licenses AT ALL then? If there's not SOMETHING IN IT for the govt, they don't do it. (not disagreeing with you, serious question... WHY is the govt involved in marriage AT ALL?)
emaxxman - From what I've been told and seen of Mormon practice the answer is in no way is it recognized by them. But that's OK, they take public records and perform a Sealing Ceremony at one of their Temples for you. So you'll be seeing your spouse for an eternity. That's all OK with you, right? ;-)
JR - Although I can understand the possibility of such moves, but it's such a well established Constitutional precedent, I don't see anything but dismissals - wouldn't even get to Supreme Court level.
HHS - "from a sociological standpoint" But I wasn't talk sociology, and not even general law. The whole context I'm referring to is specifically American Constitutional Law. Sure many other societies over time have done many different things, and law based on majority norms is a common theme.
GC-
if it's such a well-eastablished constitutional precedent, then why...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/cardinal-george-birth-con_n_1307749.html
(the link is about religious freedom/separation of church and state, not gay marriage specifically, but it applies to the conversation)
emaxx - yes, God knows all, don't have to be married in a church for God to recognize and be knowledgeable of the union. He certainly does know and is aware of the two atheists who got married, and certainly knows that they are now married, and (just to twist your head sideways) God knew they were going to get married before they actually got married.
ms. hhsinformant said - "fundamentalists and other hate groups" ; for the record, you should understand that fundamentalists are not hate groups, I urge you to reevaluate your bias on this.
NOW they don't. But if the supreme court says gay marriage is OK, my point is, how long until gay groups start suing churches to MAKE them marry them because "the supreme court says so!" Mark my words- it WILL happen. And then THAT will have to go to the supreme court.
Again no one is suing churches for not marrying them now, so what makes you think Gay people will?? The Catholic church normally doesn't marry a couple if both aren't Catholic, or if one has been divorced, yet no Supreme court cases resulted from them. Also gays can already get married in some states, yet there has not been 1 lawsuit filed against a church in any of those states.
But let's say you're right and 1 gay couple decides to sue and it goes to the Sumpreme Court, the Supreme court will rule against them.
"But let's say you're right and 1 gay couple decides to sue and it goes to the Sumpreme Court, the Supreme court will rule against them."
Forgive me if I have less than the upmost confidence in SCOTUS making the correct decision. They've certainly been wrong before.
A flower shop refuses to sell wedding flowers to a gay couple on moral grounds... and is sued...by THE STATE.
http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2013/04/10/state-sues-florist-who-refused-to-decorate-gay-wedding-n1563874/page/full/
...how long will it be until a church is sued for not wanting to hold a gay wedding? Just because it hasn't happened yet does not mean it won't. I say it's just a matter of time.
And you haven't? Or might not be now?
When did the SCOTUS get it wrong before? Even when I think they are wrong, like the stupid blocking on the ban on corporate campaign spending, it is the law and until overturned, must be upheld.
But you think it's peachy when cops don't follow the law as long as the cops agree with you. Little short on principles aren't you?
Supreme Court Rules Same sex marriage is legal Nationwide and states can't ban it and must honor marriage licenses from other states. This is great news!!
botheredbyuu2 Great news! My opinion of the Robert's court has improved a bit since the ghastly decision in the Citizens United case - and a few others.
RAD 
5catmom Caesar Has Spoken !!! I rolled back and laughed when I heard the ACA decision yesterday. You on the forum pick on sentence structure, spelling, etc. and the Supreme s can’t even read four words. What did you expect? Justice Roberts is from N.J. the great legal training ground. Jonathan Gruber is the smartest man in Washington. It's getting hard for me to keep up with all the new word definitions.
With todays ruling we will see how it goes over on Judgement day.
Old Gent Amazing. It hasn't been that many years since the idea of a same-sex marriage seemed really bizarre.
Would have liked something more positive than 5-4.
jd2 The state legalizing gay marriage is fine. Really who are we to judge. Separation of church and state is a good thing. The state shouldn't base it's decision on religious teachings imo.
However, if the government were to FORCE any church to marry homosexuals I would go ape shit.
so your saying you dont care but the church does correct? just enjoy the moment
doctor k 16 "However, if the government were to FORCE any church to marry homosexuals I would go ape shit."
Mark my words. This WILL happen- in one shape or form. Perhaps something like tax exempt status being taken away from churches if they don't comply. Or a lawsuit where a gay couple takes a church to court because they will not perform the marriage, using today's SC ruling as some kind of precedent. It WILL happen.
You want separation of church and state? Fine. But that street goes BOTH WAYS: if religion can't interfere in govt, then govt can't interfere in religion. PERIOD.
Because some people like to force their opinions and beliefs on others. It's called society. Also for revenge for hundreds of years of "oppression".
Come on, that wasn't a serious question, was it?
All the Liberals want separation of church and state, until they want the church and state to unify on one of their issues.
Heidi 
Mommyof3 Live and let live. Here's a good opportunity to encourage acceptance of different opinions, persuasions, etc. It does take all kinds to make a world - an interesting, colorful world.
I like to think of it like soup - lots of different flavors can make it wonderful!
Have a peaceful day all.
MAN Jeff Rep- nice call! No sure if I'm aloud to give points but here you go! 1,000,000,000.
Hot corner “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
America just got a little bit closer to that ideal today.
Agreed, emax, both decisions this week are historically important and representative of America at it's best.
yankeefan Good to Hear!
From a population perspective, the planet is over-crowded. Maybe same sex marriage is the way evolution deals with that.
hktownie I disagree JR, I doubt you will see many/if any gay couples sue churches because they will not perform their wedding.
But what you will see is more states passing these discrimination laws that allow bakeries, florists, catering halls the right to not serve a gay couple simply because it goes against their religious rights. That will be the next fight.
If you are worried about cases like this, JR doesn’t be this chapel was a FOR PROFIT and therefore does not get the same religious freedom an actual church gets.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html
And this one: it was not a church. it was a pavillion that they rent out to everyone.. except gays.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on
in fact the only lawsuits foxnews or other conservative news can produce are in countries like England and Denmark and they use those as fear that they will soon be here.
Wait for it, darwin. It WILL happen. The SC ruling just came down today, giving the gay community carte blanche. Give them time ..... it WILL happen.
I'd love to see a gay couple go into a MOSQUE and demand to be married....
A Christian church today would not marry a jewish or muslim couple and there's no objection. Why do you think this would be any different?
And maybe you're right, maybe someone would try just for kicks. But so what? There are lots of baseless lawsuits that don't go further than a headline and no one freaks out that they are going to set precedent and become legislation.
Plus I think the church has done a pretty good job of chasing away all the gays and making them never want to set foot again.
What I cannot figure out is why straight folks get so upset. I married the girl i took to the prom, still together and don't really see how anyone else getting married or divorced regardless of gender or race will impact either of us.
I think the SCOTUS decision is sound, made even more so by the ranking of the opposing opinions which to be honest sound rather senseless.
JR like gun control if you don't believe in gay marriage don't marry a guy. You do not have a right to impose your belief on gay folks, any more than they have a right to ban you guns because they don't like them.
Yeah, wait for it just like the next thing people will want is to marry their pet or a child or a block of wood! Lol, anyone who believes that is out of their mind. I once had a "friend " say that to me. So I said because you're afraid of what might come next, then I shouldn't have the same rights that you do? Now she's extremely intelligent but religious, which I was ok with. Hey, who am I to judge ;) but to say my liberty and happiness should be forfeited because of some perceived future bad outcome just floored me.
RAS I just don't understand WHY every single person on this forum (and most people in America) WANT the government involved in marriage at all (I am talking straight, gay, plural, whatever...). I think it should be a personal issue and anyone who doesn't want to make a cake for, or do the photography for, or any pastor/priest/rabbi that doesn't want to do the services of a couple (because they are straight, gay, black, christian, or they just don't like the couple for some reason-whatever), should be able to just refuse and tell them to go somewhere else.
All this PC, government up everyone' a$$ and Va&ina, can't offend anyone ever cr@p is just getting to me, lol!
Heidi, if your husband gets into a horrific accident, who grants you the authority to make medical decisions on his behalf as his wife, God or the government? If he were to die without a will, who automatically entitles you to collect everything in his estate, God or the government? Marriage is a contractual agreement between two people that grants those people these rights and others, based on laws passed by the government. THAT is why gay people wanted the right to be married, not because they wanted to mock your Bible's teachings.
All this PC, government up everyone' a$$ and Va&ina, can't offend anyone ever cr@p is just getting to me, lol!
------
I'm sure you have no issues with government forcing men to allow women to vote? Or how about non-discrimination against women? Or how about equal pay?
Easy to act like you're not all PC until you take a step back and realize it's the "PC-crowd" that even allowed you to have a say in government.
skippy ive said it before, the government has no business in marriage,
marriage traditionally was handled by the church,
government allowing or disallowing marriage was always an over reach imo.
glad to see the gays can finally get hitched, they should have every right as anyone else has to enter into a lifelong commitment !! :)
i have thought for a long time now that stable monogamous relationships might bring more stability to the gay community overall.
they will soon find out that the grass isn't always greener; i mean some days, some times . . . . . "bang, zoom! right to the moon alice!!" :) :)
jr and others, "Let them all get married . . let God sort them out" it's not for us to pass judgement
darwin; who decides a for profit church? there is a creeping secular intrusion into religious practices, and it needs to stop, churches have rights too. i think the court was wrong in that pavilion rental case, and i think the bakery had good religious reasons not to take the job baking the wedding cake for the gay couple, because they have rights also.
Heidi,
Just because someone doesn't expressly say "I don't want the government in my marriage" doesn't mean they believe the opposite.
The fact is, the government is involved because if you're committed to each other anyway, it would be foolish to not take advantages of the many benefits that come with it. Those who are in favor of gay marriage just think that it should be available to everyone equally.
I'm sure most would have been fine with just eliminating the government from it too! But we all know that would never happen.
As far as businesses being able to refuse service - at the end of the day, this is about judging other people's sins. Because that's the basic argument, right? "I do not want to condone this person's sin by baking their wedding cake".
So what if those businesses could start judging everyone by their sins? "Well, you've had a kid before marriage - no cake for you".
Should they deny selling baked goods to fat people? Gluttony is a sin, too.
So the solution is just that they offer their services equally to everyone.
Since Caesar changed the definition of the word marriage, that's been around for centuries, I guess Christian's, Jews, Muslims, will just have to create a different name for there religious ceremony.
It's not just benefits - its being able to act as a loved partners next of kin, rights in probate court, the ability to be the beneficiary of life insurance, health insurance and the basic human dignity of recognition as someone's life partner - such as visiting them in the hospital. It's disturbing that anyone would deprive any person of such a basic human right.
On the other hand - libertarian here - I feel that any business - bakery or other wise can choose to do business with whomever they wish - is it not the basis under the common law of "shopkeepers privilege" - ergo we reserve the right to refuse the business of assholes like you? lol - its the basis of a free market economy in my opinion.
strangerdanger Jefferson,
So you're telling me people attend houses of worship out of pure spite?
Gosh, I'd love to live on the planet you do. This is a whole 'nuther level of out there.
Also, regarding forcing housing of worship to do something (the unconstitutionality of which is known to a second grader), the slippery slope argument is the one thing you still cling to.
DeaconBlus Heidi, you have made some good points. Most of your posts even on other threads are knowledgeable and intelligent. On the other hand, when you use vulgar language it diminishes the seriousness and meaning of the point/points you are trying to make. That's just me..maybe others don't have a problem with it.
positive Heidi - it is a government issue since they can decide who can and can't enter the bonds of matrimony and all that comes with it - however I have stated my opinion above - any two persons of legal age who want to engage in making a legal entity of affinity should in my opinion be allowed to
Hey Skippy - Good points on the legal repercussions of not being "married" to your partner. I was raised catholic, and when I married out of the church, was told by relatives and members of the clergy that my children were bastards because I wasn't married. How 'bout dat?
That's horrible MAN / any god I would pray to is a loving God who would accept all who worship him (or in reality her ) how any person who could deny the love love of two persons who want to be bound legally ever after is beyond me
Heidi like it or not but our govt is involved in our marriages. You would not be able to reap the benefits of your marriage until you filed your marriage license with your state. That is what the gay community was fighting for. The same rights that you have
As far as saying a business should be able to refuse service to anyone they want? That's called discrimination how can anyone be for that?? You would a restaurant to refuse service to black people, a store to refuse service to a woman, a business to refuse service to a handicap person or a florist to refuse service to a gay couple?? What year is this? What country am I in that people think that is right??? SMH
When I got married.....60's...long long ago...phew!..
No such thing as married at the reception hall, or in a garden. It had to be INSIDE a church. Never on a Sunday, or a Friday. Had to be a Saturday! .....
Catholic Rules! .... "Strict"...
Plus, we had what they called a "Pre Cana" class we both had to attend with the police. All about birth control no no's.....and whatever. I lucked out. I was in the service fighting the devil; so I didn't attend.
OOoops! Did I mention I am a Male, and I married a Woman?... Back then, that was the Normal. In my books, it is also the normal today!
Embryodad Sure why cant a restaurant refuse service to anyone based on whatever - they will most likely soon be out of business - let the free market decide
I hope you never get discriminated against Skippy, lucky for you you're a white Christian male so odds are you'll never have to deal with that. Lucky you.
Yes you're are right Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, Methodists and many other religious sects plus many different religions shun people that do not fit into their man made self righteous rules. When in reality, we are all God's children no matter what.
Religion can be inspirational and a positive experience, but for many, it can turn out to be demoralizing. I think this is why many people are turned off from church/religion. It's as though you have to be someone you are not to be accepted. This is why I do not belong to a sect and consider myself a Christian.
Im white and male but I'll spend money where people serve me - ergo if places don't serve me nor agree with my - fill in the blank - they have every right to refuse my business - in a free market economy someone will meet my need and provide services for remuneration and benefit there from
Agust,
I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone. Obviously you don't know where I stand on the issue of equal rights for gay couples.
And marrying "pets or a block of wood" won't be next.... polygamy will. Which I am for. I mean, it's LOVE, right? Consenting adults, right? EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUE. Who are YOU, or who is the GOVERNMENT to tell me I can't have multiple wives, or multiple husbands, or even a mixture?
Where's the talk here that goes to the point of the legislation, which is to grant the group called "gays" the right to government perks? What I keep reading is the emotional reactions, the ones that are completely irrelevant to the purpose of the legislation.
For the umpteenth time: No one has ever stopped same sex couples from being together. Ever. The only thing that changes by giving legal status to this group is that now they too can partake in the government benefits party. That's all. It won't stop the idiocy of some to judge people who are gay, it won't change anyone's mind about whether being gay is right or wrong (as if anyone could ever do that anyway) and it won't stop dumb folks from trying to discriminate.
This legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with being gay, being *allowed* to be gay, or preventing gays from being together. It never was. Why all the angst about this particular group being "gay"? It's irrelevant.
Go for it JR!! I love how people think that those of us who are in support of gay marriage would fight to stop polygamy. Nope it would be the same people that fought against gay marriage that would fight that
So JR go out and find others like you and start your movement. We won't stand in your way.
JIT / are you confused? - the argument is about same sex couples being entitled to the same tax benefits, and recognition that mixed sex couples
Are - the answer is yes -through our arduous civil process through the Supreme Court its agreed - do you have an amicus brief to submit at this juncture? - too bad unfortunately - it happened
I don't want to hear this crap is born in. People who are gay choose to be. Ancient Greece thought homosexuality was normal.
Not confused skippy, but I think maybe you're misunderstanding. I'm saying that any rhetoric about *being* gay is irrelevant because the issue is one of government entitlements. The emotional arguments in this area are wasted efforts because gays already can live their lives anyway they want, just like the rest of us. The only issue here is the perks. That's all I'm saying.
BTW, my view is that we ALL should be treated equally. Treating specific groups to government benefits while excluding others is the problem. Either *everyone* gets the benefit (would never work) or *no one* gets them. This group getting a benefit while still excluding everyone else isn't exactly what I would call equality.
Metsman "I don't want to hear this crap is born in. People who are gay choose to be. Ancient Greece thought homosexuality was normal."
Seriously? Do you know any gay people? It is most definitely not a choice.
This was a win for equality. A more perfect union. Plain and simple.
eperot people who are gay choose to be gay? I'm pretty sure I've known all of my life and that it was more than apparent that I was mentally, emotionally and physically attracted to the same sex at the young age of 8.. so the mere fact you would so ignorantly say that as a gay person I "chose" this life is the most ludicrous thing I've heard... not saying that I don't love my life because I surely do.. But come on cut the crap already and don't be *butt hurt* ; ) that the lgbt community has had one of the greatest moments in history today!!!
Obamacare is permanent. Gay Marriage is permanent. Confederate Flag is gone. USA beats China. It's been a great week, America.
When is the Hackettstown LGBT Pride Parade?
LeRoy Grimace Yes I do. And he was molested by straight men as a child. It's a choice. Too many people nowadays want to be gay and change sexes for it to be an inborn issue.
Ancient Greece was full of homosexuality. Are we supposed to believe they were all born with it? Give me a break...
Such a range of responses on this thread... mostly positive, but many predictable.
The "In God's name, I reject anyone different from what I think they should be or what the men of my church tell me they should be" (never understood that perspective) and "if you are not like me, then I will not even sell you a bagel!"
The "never mind scientific findings, I decide what is true because that's how I WANT it to be" perspective
but clearly today, the predominant response has been, "Yay!" nice.
pmnsk And I can copy and post studies that show the opposite.
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/
http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html
http://www.aamft.org/imis15/aamft/Content/Consumer_Updates/Same-sex_Parents_and_Their_Children.aspx
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/05/2106751/same-sex-parenting-study/
Bessie 
maja and, to repeat: (in case you didn't actually read it the first time)
"All but a handful of the studies cited in support draw on small, non-random samples which cannot be extrapolated to the same-sex population at large. This limitation is repeatedly acknowledged in scientific meetings and journals, but ignored when asserted as settled findings in public or judicial advocacy."
So people CHOOSE to be something hated by society, CHOOSE to be something that in many cases gets them disowned by their families, church, and CHOOSE to live a life so much harder in so many more ways???
So why would anyone CHOOSE that life? Being gay is not a choice. But Being stupid is a choice.
JR, read your cut and paste (which is now missing for some reason), just saying there are many articles on the subject. Not meant to dismiss you. There will be much debate by the "experts". Personally, I think the experts will be the ones that were raised in one sex households.
Just wondering for those of you with children and are opposed to the ruling, if your child came out, would you still love them, would you want equality for them or would you feel the same? And for those that say, I know my child is not gay, no one really knows that. It's not something easily shared at a young age with parents that clearly express intolerance.
"Personally, I think the experts will be the ones that were raised in one sex households."
LOL yeah because that wouldn't be biased or anything LOL
For the record, as JIT has said, I don't think anyone here is arguing FOR Inequality, from a rights standpoint, for homosexuals couples. I think everyone with a brain agrees homosexual couples should not be discriminated against on issues like sharing healthcare, sharing tax breaks, etc.....
How this situation affects culture, and children, and religion, is what most people are concerned about... we are... uncomfortable.... as to where this might lead. You can laugh at me all you want, ridicule me with "slippery slope" comments, but it's happened over and over and over again in society- not just American society.
I pray to God (literally) that I am wrong, but I am afraid that I will proven to be right. Let's re-visit this in a year (if it takes that long) and see where we are....
Here's my question in nj man and women get divorced 80% of the time the women takes everything kids house alamony child support dog. If 2 women are married who gets what? It's gonna be Jerry springer episodes all over the US.
Random thoughts of recent rants.
"I don't want to hear this crap is born in. People who are gay choose to be." Amazingly many choose this at birth.........
"BTW, my view is that we ALL should be treated equally. Treating specific groups to government benefits while excluding others is the problem." Which basically is "just say no" to government since almost everything that government does excludes someone or offers more of something to someone.
"So JR go out and find others like you and start your movement. We won't stand in your way." Except to tell your wife :>)
"When is the Hackettstown LGBT Pride Parade?" Can we get a rainbow-painted General Lee?
"Too many people nowadays want to be gay and change sexes for it to be an inborn issue." Yeah, if everyone is doing it, it must be choice, like being left-handed.
pmnsk , I fully understand American society permitting gay marriage. I just did not like the word marriage being high jacked. Maybe we should just get a marriage licence, have the clerk announce your married. and we Christians can go the the church and have our Man/ Women, UNION Commitment, sworn to in front of the Lord table as my Bible says. I can say we have a Union. Others, can say they are Married. Its just a reversal of word meanings, from what they should have been in the first place..
Old Gent,
Another solution would have been to retain marriage as a ceremonial status only and make civil unions the only legally recognized partnership. So you could get married in a church, but still have to have a civil union to be recognized by the state. That would have been another way to create equality.
I agree gadfly, but the govt using the phrase "civil union" would open the door for other groups to petition for benefits as well. Parents and children who are codependant, siblings, friends who live together, etc, would have a foot in he door to the legalized perks offered by the government. Those who already get the perks would have a hard time accepting that.
That's why I've been insistent to call this by what it really is - a benefits grab by a group that doesn't have them. Now if there weren't a "Married filing..." filing status on tax returns I doubt this conversation would have ever come up.
I am trying to keep the church separated from the government. as it should be. Every one gets married by the government, Period. Since they changed the historical meaning of marriage and, started to require a licence to do so.
It s' Not a question of equality. It's a choice.
JIT,
I don't understand why you keep calling this a "benefits grab". Would you say the same thing if SCOTUS had just struck down laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage?
"Now if there weren't a "Married filing..." filing status on tax returns I doubt this conversation would have ever come up."
I disagaree. Forced acceptance is what it's primarily about. I don't know one gay person who is "fighting this fight" to get the marriage deduction. They are fighting it to force society to accept and validate their lifestyle. The rights/benefits angle is just the legal ammo they're using (and they are correct- they do deserve equal rights on these issues).
So, instead of your beliefs being your beliefs, "I'm ok you're ok", now anyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality, even based on religious faith is "officially" "wrong". Which is bullshit of course.
Skippy, funny you should say that....
http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw-this-side-effect-of-the-gay-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/
My stance is due to the simple fact that nothing prevents people from living their lives together as they see fit. Whether interracial, gay or whatever, people are already free to live their lives the way they want. This business about if it's right or wrong for same sex or interracial has no bearing on the legality of marriage. Those are personal, emotional, and reactionary concerns that have nothing to do with the kegal system.
A govt issued marriage license carries with it a contract with provisions set forth by the govt. It's this contract that has now been applied to same-sex partners, right?
So ask yourself what is in the govt contract that you couldn't do for yourself? People regularly use prenuptial agreements (contracts) to frame their relationship, and there's nothing that prevents them from adding provisions for, let's say, who can make medical decisions (one of the big concerns) or receives life insurance. So what can't people dictate in a personal contract?
It's the monetary benefits gifted by the govt that makes the difference.
Ill tell you what JR - this decision makes a sweeping declaration that the 14th amendment's due process clause applies to “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” .
I would think that CCW licenses must now be recognized in all 50 states. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to get married. Why the government has any dealings with marriage AT ALL is beyond me but in any regard - if the SCOTUS took this case they may take a second amendment reciprocity case as well.
So then you would make the same statement about the SCOTUS striking down laws prohibiting interracial marriage?
wow, JIT- it's funny, how I can agree with you, yet also see it in 180 degrees the opposite way.
If I'm correct 14 states still had a ban on gay marriage- so no benefits, but but also no validation by the "law" saying it's "right" or "ok" to be a homosexual.... wit this ruling, by the SC no less, if you don't "agree" with homosexual marriage, YOU ARE WRONG now. Your actual belief, regardless of what it's based on, is WRONG. THAT is what this has always been primarily about. The benefits thing is the LEGAL ammo they used (and rightfully so) to achieve FORCED ACCEPTANCE.
I'm not sure why you can't see that... I seriously think, because you are so good at taking emotions of out issues, that you think everyone else does do. As you point out, most other people DON'T. EMOTIONS is what this whole issue is based upon. They could have sued for all 50 states to have "civil unions" to achieve the benefits thing, but no- marriage HAD TO BE REDEFINED OR NO DEAL. Knowing full well marriage is not JUST something recognized by the state, but is and has always been a religious union- before the state ever got involved- a sacred union. THAT is what had to be changed.
Much like the whole Confederate flag thing- emotion-based, you're not allowed to have a contrary opinion on the issue, if you think there's ANYTHING good about the Confederate flag, you are a racist. And if you won't agree to NOTHING LESS than the redefinition of marriage, you're a bigot.
It's ALL a bunch of horseshit.
I agree Jeff Rep, even though I would never criticize a persons choice. I was forced to sign an "acceptance" form at my work place. Even if it contradicts my beliefs, I was to sign it or face potential termination.
100% agree with JeffersonRepub...
"They are fighting it to force society to accept and validate their lifestyle. The rights/benefits angle is just the legal ammo they're using"
Exactly!!!!
JRT "I agree Jeff Rep, even though I would never criticize a persons choice. I was forced to sign an "acceptance" form at my work place. Even if it contradicts my beliefs, I was to sign it or face potential termination."
Which, in and of itself, is persecution for your beliefs, and bigotry.
From American Beauty:
Chris Cooper "Those faggots always have to shove it in your face. Don't they have any shame?
Son "That's just it dad...they don't think it's anything to be ashamed about."
JR, it isn't bullshit. Not anymore than the government "forcing" certain people to recognize blacks as human beings and not property, or "forcing" whites to accept that blacks should have the ability to vote without fear. There are winners and losers in history. The winners usually accept that change and increasing equality is a good thing. Which side are you on?
While I think anyone who wants to should get married and the government should have nothing to do with it I feel the constitution says nothing about marriage and the Supreme Court just created one - they legislated from the bench - it's was a states rights issue.
eperot,
You clearly either don't have a full grasp on the subject, or haven't read the thread fully. I am on the "side" of individual liberty, meaning I don't have to accept homosexuality as normal if I so choose- and as I have said repeatedly, that has NO BEARING on my stance as to the equal rights of homosexuals. They don't have a "right" for me to accept their lifestyle. Only a right to be treated equally with regards to the law.
Gadfly, I am PRO any relationship that you can imagine. I may disagree with them personally, but people are free to do what they want with their lives as long as they are not harming others.
I also stated earlier that either everyone gets a benefit or no one does. That's true equality.
You're asking about SCOTUS passing judgement on whether to expand the definition of a group (marriage) to include interracial and same sex couples and I'm asking why stop there?
My preference would be to remove govt from ALL private unions, but if that is not acceptable then include EVERYONE. No playing favorites. We're talking about contract laws here, not personal feelings.
The problem is that those already in the group don't want to be inclusive, right? Exactly who's problem is that?
It seems, perhaps, some of you think that those of us who don't agree with homosexuality based on religious beliefs, also MUST want to deny homosexuals equal rights... that is not true. You also seem to think that I CAN'T disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, and still me "nice" to one. You would be wrong again. Just like I can have a conversation with a socialist or communist without hating him or discriminating against him in some way, I can do the same with a homosexual... but I never have to accept socialism, communism, or homosexuality.
The form Skippy had to sign is an abomination, imo- and should be ILLEGAL. Companies should not be able to force you to sign a statement that you agree with something that goes against your religious beliefs. THAT is worse than bigotry- because power is involved. THAT is coercion.
BTW- looking forward to going shooting with you sometime, Skippy & Darrin. We really should do an HL shoot like BrotherDog suggested...
"It seems, perhaps, some of you think that those of us who don't agree with homosexuality based on religious beliefs, also MUST want to deny homosexuals equal rights... that is not true."
Nothing is ever 100%. That is 99% true. :-)
The problem is the vocal minority/majority (who really knows) have been actively trying to deny gays equal rights.
Then there are people like yourself who claim to champion freedom and equality but in this case turn a blind eye because of what you fear may happen, eg forcing churches to marry gays. If you're truly about freedom and equality (and not really just about yourself), then you would champion equality for all AND also champion the freedom of the church to operate freely under the 1A.
Looking forward to shooting with you JR. I agree but I didn't sign the form that was hot corner :)
Emaxxman- I think that's EXACTLY what JR is saying! He believes in the freedom for all persons to do whatever they want in regards to marriage - he doesn't agree with homosexuality but states that has no bearing on an individual's liberties and rights - and stay off his lawn unless you want an ass full of 00 buck (I made up the last part)
emaxx,
I'm "turning a blind eye", how, exactly? How could I possibly be any more FOR "gay marriage"? I have stated my position quite clearly.
If you expect me to ACCEPT homosexuality, married or not, as "normal", that's not going to happen... just like some people on this forum will never accept Christianity, or conservatism, as "normal". The difference is, I'm not trying to force them to.
If you're truly about freedom and equality (and not really just about yourself), then you would champion equality for all AND also champion the freedom of the church to operate freely under the 1A.
"If you're truly about freedom and equality"
I am.
"then you would champion equality for all "
I do, and have said so many times in this thread alone.
"AND also champion the freedom of the church to operate freely under the 1A."
Exactly. FREELY. If a church WANTS to marry gays, have at it. If a church REFUSES to marry gays based on religious belief, they shouldn't be forced to, by ANY means.
Skippy, my bad on the HotCorner quote.
And you're right about the 00 buck! (metaphorically speaking, of course :)
JIT - Just as a point of clarity, 'benefits' doesn't always mean $. The ruling is based on two different cases with related legal clarifications by the court. One was about being declared a spouse on a death certification that definitely has $ implications to it. But the other was about the ability to adopt.
I bring that up because my cousin had to move from Virginia to Maryland. When her one son went to high school, they denied her partner the ability to pick him up after school. They said the only way they would do that is if her partner adopted him, which is not allowed in Virgina. Heaven forbid if either one of them died because the two boys would be split up either way, one going to either my aunt or cousin and the other would end up either at the partner's sister or even could legal force open sealed records to find a biological father that none of them have ever met. If they were ever in a car accident they could be denied the ability to authorize medical treatment depending on which son it was and what state they are in. That's crazy.
How would all the guys here feel if their marriage weren't guaranteed in neighboring states? What if in NJ your wife could get you medical treatment but in NY she couldn't? What if you died in PA and instead of your wife getting the insurance money, the state gets it because you have no known relatives? The question of marriage is completely ingrained into various legal matters that are not necessarily goverment benefit related.
Thank you, GC. Il couldn't have said it better myself. Even though l know some people here hate it, every now and then a Federal ruling must trump "state's rights" for the protection and equality of all citizens of the United States...emphasis on United.
Maybe some of us dont believe in God, so we should not have a choice, if thats the case go to the court house get married, you cant shove religious views in peoples faces, what you believe you believe, what i believe i believe, People think muslims are all terrorist, i know tons of muslims, they are very religious, and they do not believe in killing people. No 69 virgins when you die,
And to all woman out there, this should thrill you, if people didnt fight way back when you would all be doing dishes, not working, not voting, nothing, is that right?
People are people, i dont think you wake up one day and say you know what im gonna be gay today. I pesonally think thats impossible. Im a man, i enjoy woman, everything about them, they are mysterious.. I have a lesbian cousin, her whole life she was a wreck over this, she wouldnt admitt it. Thats torture, it hurt her mentally, our family loves her no differently, in fact she is my fav. Life moves forward my friend, maybe we should take away the rights of fat people and give them no health coverage, since they cost us the most, then where would christie be
heh yeah metaphor :) The sad part is I didn't read anywhere where anyone here is really against marriage rights for same sex couples. Not sure what were arguing about.
So when the concept of a civil union was presented as an option (an option that would have satisfied all of your concerns GC) why was it vehemently opposed? IOW, what is the primary difference between marriage and civil unions?
Separate but equal is not equal. Civil unions would have been fair, if that were also the only legal option for straight couples?
A nother step forward in the presuite of happy ness thumbs up and a nother step in that all humans are created equal
Caged Animal "why was it vehemently opposed" - Who by? Like you had said before, in order to do 'Civil Union' you need to get rid of marriage by the government so there is no difference. As long as that acted exactly like marriage, you can call it anything you want and let the religious entities be responsible for 'marriage', then I wouldn't see the problem. But you try to tell some religious groups they don't have a recognized marriage because the Baptists do but the Episcopalians don't. I totally agree with all of your all or none statements, but I think very few people want to get rid of marriage. People on both sides of the argument.
IIRC GC the proposal for civil unions didn't include the same tax breaks which is why I talk about that aspect. I agree you're right, the intent was to keep the two seperate, with the main distinction, besides the emotional ones, being the $ issues.
"Bad week for conservatives. So sad."
---strangerdangerstrangerdanger
I say, bad week for conservatives. Great week for Americans! So proud of this country.
Also, any business owner that is part of the wedding industry that do not want to serve gay couples for their weddings are the dumbest business owners ever. Those people should be jumping for joy as their businesses now have a whole new market to service!
Well done on the logo change, Hackettstown Life!
As for you JeffersonRepub, the amount of energy you're putting into a fight you've already lost is astonishing.
The "forcing society to accept" bit: Yeah, no one's doing that and no one's asking you to validate anything. To legalize something is to not endorse it; being a staunch anti-Government fella you should know that. This is about LGBTQ people, not you! (That is, unless, well....) If you don't want to accept reality, that's your business.
Skippy, uh, bud - giving your consent on a legal document is contingent on your employment. By rejecting the agreement you reject the position. Just like iTunes Terms and Conditions. For the second time, this is about LGBTQ people, not you! All around, this is a bogus comparison. If you've "accepted" every law up until this one, which I know you haven't, then maybe this would be a little more comparable.
Deacon are you somewhat developmentally disabled? - JR is not fighting anything. I didn't sign anything - JR made an error in the author of the post. JR and I are both libertarians - we agree with everyone's rights to do anything that doesn't impinge on outs - reading is fundamental. In any regard the SCOTUS can't invent rights not granted in the constitution- they essentially made one up - read scalea's dissent. You're going off half cocked my friend
Equal Protection Clause. It's fourth grade social studies. Read up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
Also, making fun of disabilities is never okay, even when you think you're right! Read up here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableism
Politics reflects culture, and culture reflects religion. If you are concerned with the political drift of American culture, preach the gospel! As it sends out roots in the lives of believers, the seed of the gospel will change hearts and minds.
George O. Wood, General Superintendent, Assemblies of God (USA)
Read the whole statement here. http://penews.org/Article/Statement-Regarding-the-Supreme-Court-s-Same-Sex-Marriage-Decision/
Steve Davis DeaconBlus comments only illustrate the level of NON-ACCEPTANCE these people are already possessed by..... I'm not looking to deny anyone any rights.... yet regardless of my stating such MANY TIMES, DeaconBlus still doesn't want to hear it. I even wrote a post specifically on this issue, but again- DeaconBlus apparently doesn't want to believe it, for some reason. Maybe he can only read on a "4th grade" level, and therefore, isn't understanding the whole thread?
I am sorry but not a fan of the new HL banner. I am a do what you want, whatever make you happy, BUT just don't rub it in my face type guy.
Darrin Lol now that's funny. Seeing words in rainbow colors is somehow rubbing it in your face but flying a confederate flag over a state building is about Heritage. Ha I love it.
I hear you Darrin. Same thing with Christianity. I'm a do whatever you want, whatever makes you happy, BUT just don't rub it in my face type of guy. That's fair, right?
So, WE should ACCEPT the "queer stuff" "in our face", but YOU (and others) DON'T have to accept and religious- especially Christian - "stuff" "in your face"? Is that how this works?
JR. I'll explain this to you because I know the written word isn't your strong suit. My post was a satirical play on Darrin's previous post, meant to expose the unreasonableness of his statement. Christians should feel free to express their beliefs just as the gay community should. Neither should be construed as "rubbing it in the face" of anyone. That is how it works.
It's hilarious you anti-confederate-flag people don't get the irony: it's not ok to fly the confederate flag in your face, but it's perfectly fine to fly the rainbow flag in our face?
That fact that you can't see the hypocrisy of your position only tells the illogic and unreason you think with.
Gadfly- agree with your last post. So, WHY the banning of the Confederate flag again???
Nope. Not at all the correct comparison. Those have an issue with the confederate flag its only with it being on a state building.
Fly it on your own lawn, truck, or privately own website. Like the owner of HL is doing with the rainbow letters.
So until a rainbow flag is flown over a state building this comparison is not valid.
There you go again with your exaggerations JR. Who's banning the stars and bars? I'll be right there with you opposing a ban on that or any other flag. Supporting the removal of a flag from flying at a state capital is not a ban. Vendors choosing not to sell the flag is not a ban.
Who's banning the stars and bars? (sorry, vendors DO "count"- as where else are you supposed to BUY one if you want one? Vendors stopping sales = nationwide ban)
Amazon
WalMart
possibly the NPS
ebay
sears
target
...and, from a source you no doubt accept as credible:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/23/retailers-ban-confederate-flags_n_7648614.html
The largest flag maker in the country, right here in NJ, has stopped selling it:
http://www.toledoblade.com/business/2015/06/24/Nation-s-oldest-largest-flag-manufacturer-stops-production-of-Confederate-flag.html
@Darwin "Lol now that's funny. Seeing words in rainbow colors is somehow rubbing it in your face but flying a confederate flag over a state building is about Heritage. Ha I love it."
Did I say that the rainbow colors of HL was rubbing it in my face....no.....I made two separate statements, one stating I was not a fan of the new HL banner, and a second statement saying do what makes you happy, just don't rub it in my face......yet you somehow combined those two statements to try to make a point..... FAIL
@Darwin "So until a rainbow flag is flown over a state building this comparison is not valid." Got one better for you buddy......
Gladfly and Darwin, rubbing it in your face is lighting up the white house in rainbow colors, while demanding that confederate flags be taken down from all state buildings.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/white-house-buildings-across-the-country-light-up-122601444526.html
Yeah, again, I don't think you understand what the word "ban" means. Private corporations choosing not to sell something is not a ban. Should they be forced to sell confederate flags? Is that what you'd like to see?
Gadfly, sorry to break it to you, but if it is impossible to buy something because they are no longer sold due to the fact that many of these suppliers are concerned with political repercussions and what some consider to be "correct", although not a straight out ban, it is still a limiting, banning factor. Not to mention the amount of controversy this has caused, anybody displaying this flag will now be thought to be a racist without question, because the government has condoned that very meaning for this flag.
Gadfly, I'd LOVE to see the left's reaction if those same companies announced they were no longer selling rainbow flag merchandise......
I certainly wouldn't call it a ban.
Wow, I thought that pic was fake at first. That's awesome!
Yea I saw the White House. Was pretty cool. For 1 night to celebrate a major moment in U.S. History. If it stays up for the next 55 yrs let me know.
I agree gadfly, love the rainbow lights that have been shown all over the country on different buildings.
..yet you somehow combined those two statements to try to make a point..... FAIL
Lol ok so those 2 statements were in no way related to each other. Ok. Got ya. Can't imagine how I made that mistake. Lol. Please
Darwin, if you saw it, you wouldn't of made a comment saying "So until a rainbow flag is flown over a state building this comparison is not valid."
Unless you were just totally setting yourself up......
The rainbow flag was first created in 1978, so 37 years, getting there. Has anyone ever told them that they cannot sell those flags in stores or online?
Trust me Darrin I'm sure there are plenty of confederate flags on the secondary market for you to buy.
The confederate flag has been around since (i think) 1861.....so 154 years later and suddenly we want it gone?
Maybe in 120 more years that will be the case with the rainbow flag.....but NO that would be a outrage!!!!!!!
Point is Darwin, why should I have to go to a secondary market to buy a piece of history??
Meanwhile, monuments that were made for this very event are being stripped of this flag.......whats next....take down the monuments?
Darrin, you can by all of the flags you want at Cooters Place. Funny to see all of you "free market" conservatives crying about businesses making business decisions. BTW, if my local Christian bookstore decides not to sell LGBT bestsellers, is that because those books were "banned" or was it just a private business making a business decision?
Let me know that answer once that spreads to just about every commonly used online and physical store Gadfly, then we will talk........
Also, is the national park service really a business making a business decision??
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/25/national-park-service-confederate-flag-sales-items/29264025/
The threads are getting a bit mixed.
I agree Gadfly that businesses not selling a ware isn't banning. They can do as they please and are betting that more people will agree with their stance than not. IOW it's plain and simple marketing.
We will MAKE YOU accept us. We don't give a shit about your religious beliefs.
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/86460?search=1
"Wow, I thought that pic was fake at first. That's awesome!"
So was the Confederate flag flying over the state house.
Nice hypocrisy, BTW.
Deacon---- It was I who had to sign the acceptance paper at my work place, not Skippy.
Although I know that it was not legally binding it still went into my personal records, which can be used for or against me at anytime.
During my orientation I signed something similar about Race, Religion, Politics. Which I'm sure you did the same.
Why must I sign a separate acceptance form for gay, lesbian and transgender? Thought that was already covered under being a good citizen.......
The way I live this life is that I judge people by their heart, not caring about color, nationalism or sex.
I just don't think my job should be threatened because I believe differently. Forced acceptance.
To whomever changed the HL. You know that was a dig, and until you start acting more reasonable you will always get confrontations. Or is that what you really want! ;)
Enjoy your day!
Gods Peace
@Hot corner "To whomever changed the HL. You know that was a dig, and until you start acting more reasonable you will always get confrontations. Or is that what you really want! ;)"
I agree, and that was the point I was trying to make. Why not make it in the confederate flag in memory of a flag that was taken down all over?
Hot corner, employers want to make sure that they don't get sued because an employee treats the targeted groups on the forms in an illegal manner. That's the employer's right. Self employment is an option for those who do not want to follow the rules of the person that hires them. Simple. Other option for employees is just go to work and do their job, stay out of people's personal business and don't be a drama queen.
skippy - Elsewhere you commented about decorum. Refraining from calling people developmentally disabled might be a start. Did you read both the opinion and the dissent in their entirety? You are correct that Scalia implies they made up a new right, but only far down in his summary where he goes off the deep end and unprofessionally questions the others intelligence, humility, and sobriety. [sic] The first approx 1/3 is all about tradition and Locke, Daniel Webster, the Han Dynasty and more with little else than "we've always done it this way".
It's only in the second 1/3 that Scalia actually starts referring to a few cases and his real issue that they're changing the procedure of how the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection is applied. Previously he calls it "means-ends" and suggests they should have gone over individual specific benefits instead of marriage itself. To what end? Every time you look at each right's denial and apply means-ends you over turn it based on Equal Protection. Why? Because it's about tying the right to marriage. The end result is the exact same thing as the majority opinion.
I suspect DeaconBlus link about Equal Protection is a response to your statement skippy as to why it's not a new right. The mention of 4th grade shouldn't be about anyone here, but about the Justices and how simple a ruling it should be. If perhaps the one thing Scalia could successfully argue is that a statement about "right of same-sex marriage" is more correctly "right of Equal Protection in same-sex marriage law". Equal Protection is the right, not marriage. But Scalia blew it on that point as well because early in his diatribe he declares marriage a right. He mentions several times about the need for precision then spends his small section of actual dissent on wishy washy non-precedent rhetoric lamenting the way it used to be. He would have been far more successful if he had challenged marriage-government involvement all together and not go to such lengths to say how much he personally despises Roberts for betrayal.
Alito's dissent at least goes into more of the issues of whether the 14th Amendment applies or not. The only with his writing is you can replace the word "same-sex" with "opposite-sex" as well. Alito may not have had it in mind, but he is giving the argument there is no right to any marriage at all.
The majority opinion is actually pretty uneventful. It's everyday typical summary of past precedents, discussion of what was right, what was wrong, and a final conclusion of the opinion. Mostly citations of previous rulings.
"It all makes sense now. Gay marriage and marijuana are being legalized at the same time.
Leviticus 20:13 says if a man lays with another man, he should be stoned.
We were just misinterpreting it."
The Man Well hot corner according to Skippy's logic you should have refused to sign that and seek employment elsewhere and let the free market decide. Eventually the company would not find enough people to work there and go out of business. Right Skippy?
Maybe you should spend more time speaking for yourself Darwin, and let other people post their own feelings, rather then swaying the discussion before someone even gets the chance to respond.......just sayin
then there's this: http://edcyzewski.com/2015/06/26/the-supreme-court-just-gave-american-evangelicals-a-gift/
Great rebuttal @GC.
The last paragraph of the Supreme Court ruling says it best:“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
Bonv The article 5catmom posted is a little... incorrect.... well, not incorrect, because it's an opinion piece, but to take the article at face value you have to believe Christians have not helped the poor and needy because they've been wasting their time fighting gay marriage.
Which is, of course, ridiculous. Christianity has been the world's largest "helper of the poor" since it's inception. We haven't stopped performing good works, or donating money to worthy causes, because gay marriage has "taken all our attention."
http://billmuehlenberg.com/2005/09/07/a-review-of-how-christianity-changed-the-world-by-alvin-schmidt/
Forced Acceptance was first mentioned by JR.
I will not bore you with my religious beliefs and while I continue to work where I do.
This issue would be best served with out the Governments assistance.
It is a "belief" after all isn't it?
History has proven that if a government gets to powerful bad things usually happen.
I think that is JR's point.
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/86460?search=1
Now this is a good example. How great is this....full frontal attack! Let the attacks begin.
Forced Acceptance was first mentioned by JR.
I will not bore you with my religious beliefs and while I continue to work where I do.
This issue would be best served with out the Governments assistance.
It is a "belief" after all isn't it?
History has proven that if a government gets to powerful bad things usually happen.
I think that is JR's point.
Maja- I was minding my own business, the "Drama Queen" approached me.
My message was for Deacon by the way! :)
Amazing that a gay marriage discussion morphs into a discussion of totalitarianism when HL flies the colors of support as it's banner.
"There is no right to "dignity" in the Constitution."
Lolololol this is the whole embodiment of what's wrong with America.
Call me a fourth grader, JeffersonRepub, that's fine. At least I have the decency to a) not only rip from a convoluted dissenting opinion (read: an opinion that has already failed in the Highest Court) but, b) I have enough tact to come up with talking points of my own.
How messed up this is for you to say aside, there IS actually mention of dignity from our founding fathers, put more eloquently: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Wish I could bold those last three words to get it through that skull of yours.
It's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage.
Or, in this age of trans-gender, any two people, whatever.
Hot corner it's not Forced Acceptance. No one is forcing you to work there. Some on this thread think a company has a right to set policies that may or may not discriminate certain employees/customers and a free market allows those employees/customers to choice whether or not they want to work or do business with that company. And that will dictate whether or not those company polices succeed or fail.
At least that's what I have learned on here the last couple of days.
So when JR says A florist should be allowed to not serve a gay couple but than says this I get confused:
"Companies should not be able to force you to sign a statement that you agree with something that goes against your religious beliefs. THAT is worse than bigotry- because power is involved. THAT is coercion."
What is the difference? If a company wants its employees to follow their same principle how is that different that a company not wanting to serve a customer that doesn't share their same principle? So you should be for either both or neither. But you can't be for 1 and not the other.
Here's the difference:
The company is not the customer's EMPLOYER. There is no power involved, like there IS in the employer-employee relationship.
It's really not that hard to grasp, Charles.
Unless you have a union in which case you have too much power and must be destroyed.
This is devil's advocate reductio ad absurdum stuff that might go to show that consumer power may not always be absolute especially when the transgressed consumer is in a minority as apparently Hot corner is as an employee feeling put upon to sign some acceptance paper.
I happen to agree with Hot corner, employer should stuff that agreement where the sun don't shine. If you don't like my interactions with others, fire me for cause or take me to court.
Although what Hot corner's lament has to do with the legality of same sex marriage makes one ponder.
Mrg, I mean Stranger Danger, re: your last post;
Long Valley Life doesn't sport our new colors and is still all in black letters. I guess we on HL must be " special", and as anticipated by the powers that be, will provide entertainment for the owner, and any who have time or inclination to read these posts...
Spring Fever I still don't see the difference. If a company should be allowed to not serve gay people. Then what would be the difference if a company Decides they don't want to employ gay people? Both are discrimination, no?
If you can't see that there's a difference between a company-customer relationship and an employer-employee relationship, despite it being explained to you, perhaps you don't WANT to see the difference? Just a thought...
Well the only difference you have shown is the employer had POWER over its employees. Well if that is true. How about this: if a gay couple lives in a small town with only 1 florist within 200 miles and that florist refuses to service them, don't they have power over that customer?
So yea I apologize I don't see the difference how one can be expressing a company's religious beliefs and one be discrimination.
OK, OK, on the topic of refusing service there's two tangents: legal and moral.
On the legal side, it's pretty cut n dry, service can be refused to gays in about 30 states. At the Federal level, gays can be refused anywhere but in 20 states, you probably would be sued. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance.
Here's the list: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming. Before you pick up and move, this is a rapidly moving target since I think Indiana just came off the list thanks to the recent public firestorm.
On a moral level, IMHO, whattayoucrazy? Refusing service for sexual orientation is bad form unless you have strict religious tenants against it. Even then, IMHO, you better be orthodox in all of your doings versus this one phobia. IMHO no heterosexual person should even frequent a practicing discriminator of the basis of sexual preference.
The good news is that no shirt, no shoes, no service still flies.
Phobia? Really Mr. Strangerdangergoogle.
Here is a thought, since Christians have opinions that differ from the government, maybe we should build camps all over the country and tell them that they can live there and wont be bothered. They can all shower together too! :(
Once again I do not care what Race,Religion, or Sex you are. But please do not tell me that I can't choose whom I wish to serve in my private business.
I do agree not selling flowers to a same sex couple, would be both stupid and harmful to my business.
I would draw the line at marriage though. You must respect a Pastor's oath to God
Equal Rights--- Equal Respect!
nobody is saying that you have to serve someone - however you do so at your own peril - free market economy
This is the face of our New and liberated America....why do I want to cry?
CONTENT WARNING!
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/29/content-warning-images-from-this-weekends-gay-pride-parades/
sha44ss Let me make sure my opinion is perfectly clear. I am not saying you have to serve every customer that comes into your business. If you don't like them, they give you an attitude, or don't think they will pay them of course you have the right to reject them
But if you hang up a sign or have a flat policy that you will not serve someone Soley because of their: race, gender, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation than that is discrimination and should fall under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This I believe will be the next fight to go to the Supreme Court as more states will try to make this legal in their states now that gay marriage is legal everywhere
Well sha44ss I guess it could be worse; this could the face of our nation:
http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2011/03/hoboken_police_make_34_arrests.html
Actually in about 20 states you do HAVE to serve people regardless of sexual preference whether married or not. NJ is one of them, it is the STATE law.
Sexual preference is not part of the Civil Rights Act so in 30 states, you do not have to serve based on sexual preference, legally. Sorry it's not part of the Federal discrimination package.
"maybe we should build camps all over the country" I think we call that UTAH.
Phobia - yes phobia. How many religions say you can't serve someone based on sexual preference. If you do think they do, is it the religion or your phobia.
Here's the Pope: "When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…they’re our brothers."
As far as letting the free market take care of it, no need in about 20 states. It's the law. In the rest of them, well, that's all you got but don't expect much where this customer segment is a minute minority. As for me, IMHO, whattayacrazy?
Someone once wrote that the government is making "knee jerk reactions". I agree!
Please tell me how this makes sense......Many years ago, our government gave cigarettes to our soldiers to help calm nerves do to battle fatigue. (Medical issue).
With "evolving" intelligence we have spent millions on trying to fight this addiction along with other drugs. Dare program, banning smoking in public places, t.v. commercials ect.
Now we are leagalizing weed for ( Medical issues) with hopes of many for recreational use.
Moonshine can now be purchased at any liquor store.
Anytime a crazy, shoots someone, our gun law's get tighter
What's next? All you "home brewers" should be taxed on any product
given to your friends?
@ Darwin....I don't see the correlation. And you wonder why people are against homosexuality....I not only want to cry but it makes me want to vomit!!
LOVE wins? This isn't about love ....it is about sex and political power......we have lost all sense of decency in this country, and we are going the way of sodom and gomorrah....
God is not Happy. We WILL be punished.
"Anytime a crazy, shoots someone, our gun law's get tighter"
This is just not true.
Sorry sha44ss I guess you're a visual person. Here tell me the difference in this pic and the one in you link?
Stranger- took your meaning of phobia out of context, as you did of my internment camps comment. My bad
being "lukewarm" is dangerous in my Book.
you were right about the gun law statement too, but they have become more restrictive.
you may see the country growing in leaps and bounds, I see differently.
Hey Darwin....The difference in your pic is I see three 'animal house' drunk teenagers having fun at a once a year drunken St Patricks Day Parade or it could be gays taking advantage of parading their 'stuff' too! Do you think ALL those people at the St Patties' Day Parade are Irish?
The Gay Pride Celebration ..... I see the Celebration of *National* Legalized Pornography and Indoctrination of our Children to Perversion! .
ok well you have shown your true colors and there is no point having a conversation with you. enjoy your hateful life. i'm moving on
and here are examples of what horrible things have happened in other countries that have passed these laws: http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/what-happens-now#.fuEbKOW4g3
I think sha44ss will be very disappointed
Great link, 5catmom!
sha44ss .... take a deep breath and get ahold of yourself!
;-)
Is sha44ss ignorant of the existence of such heterosexual displays of debauchery known as Mardi Gras/Carnival and Spring Break? It's not like "inappropriate displays of sexuality" are limited to the gay community. He's probably got an entertainment center full of "Girls Gone Wild" videos on VHS (-;
5 catmom >Buzzfeed = Left wing Liberal RAG......shills for Obama and his Marxists!
I have a cousin who is gay and a nephew who is gay....they lead quiet normal lives and don't need PDA's to flaunt their stuff ...they keep it in their own private bedrooms like most NORMAL people...II don't HATE Gays or anyone Darwin...I'm not against CIVIL Unions if that is their Choice,it doesn't effect me.. it IS their CHOICE....but Marriage is a Sacrament >GODS LAW> not the Governments..." marriage is a privilege and not a right, a union of one man and one woman sanctioned over millennia by virtually every culture and country over time as the stable(and the word here is STABLE) foundation of any society, a framework for the bearing and rearing of children that are the future of any society"
REligious Liberty vs Gay Rights is the last nail in the coffin of American Traditional Values and the 'total transformation of America' as Barack Hussein OBama promised and SCOTUS HAS sealed our fate.
A Nation Divided Cannot Stand: We've been divided in every possible way and this IS the the straw that will break the camels back....Christians who still ARE the majority in this Country are going to have to take a stand or we DIE as a nation.
We need a Christian Revival and I hope it comes before 2016!
FYI ianimal..I'm a Grandmother of 5...and my kids never went to spring break to partake in any debauchary or have any dvd's of girls gone wild...I'm married 43 years to the same MAN!
sha44ss,
Your random capitalization explains fully your status as a grandmother.
Unfortunately, you are losing touch with reality. You've bought the sensationalism that Fox News has sold, and you've been brain-washed into thinking your way of life is under attack. It is not. The fact that people can live how they choose should have no bearing on your happiness, and if it does - it is out of pure jealousy.
sha44ss,
I find it amazing that you would want to deny the same legal rights to your cousin and nephew that you enjoy.
Shame on you.
Don't know why you felt the need to tell us you are a senior or how many years you have been married ....does that make you better than those who are married less years or have less grandchildren?? FYI ... I am also senior statis, married 30 plus years to the *opposite* sex, and born and raised Catholic.
I really think you need to acknowledge the LOVE that the bible teaches ----- to have love for all people and get over your bias.
You might also want to research the prevalence of homosexuality in biblical times and it's existence in the church.
No one is condemning your beliefs or your way of life ..... why would you even care who someone else marries ?????
With 5 grandchildren you would think you would have a life by now.
STOP!!!! Just because people have differnt views, does not give you the RIGHT to publicly humiliate them! Isn't that the type of discrimination you are backing?
Go back and reread the above...........talk about hate crimes.....smh
unbelievable and sad to awake to this :(
Enjoy your day
+ a million hot corner!!!
Typical HL, when people do not agree with others opinions, personaly insult and embarass them...... so childish!
If I own a business and put up a sign that says "no blacks," or "no gays," or "no Christians," whatever...that should be MY RIGHT and nobody, not the government, not the blacks, not the homosexuals, not the Christians should be able to tell me who I can and can't serve.
Let the free market take over and if people agree, they will shop in my store/use my services, and if they believe I am a bigoted hater, they will not and I will go out of business. That's how it should be in a free society.
FORCING a black bakery owner to make a KKK cake, a Muslim to make a t-shirt calling Allah names, a Jewish deli to cater a Nazi seminar, a redneck from Alabama to turn in his grandfather's guns or forcing a Christian to photograph a gay wedding (or to make a cake), is all the same and should not be FORCED upon anyone.
These Liberals who espouse "love" and "diversity" are full of $hit...what they want is to FORCE their ways on everyone and if you don't fall in lockstep they take you down. Yeah, lot's of "love" there.
Just look at Facebook. Sure the gay's won their right to marry. But they KNOW that some are bothered by it and instead of being HUMBLE they have Pride parades down the streets, they are having everyone put "rainbows" on their faces on social media, they are acting horrible about it.
Where is their love and understanding. They are acting like a bunch of babies. Even my friends who are BIG supporters of gay marriage are getting sick of it!
The point of 5cat's liberal rag article was on pint out 18 other CHRISTIAN countries have already legalized gay marriage and God has not punished them. In fact they look pretty happy.
So why would we think God would somehow punish the U.S.? Do we really think in Hod's eyes we are more important than those 18 countries combined?
Sodom was REALLY happy right before they weren't...Not my opinion per se but just saying! Sodom was in the middle of a party/orgy/celebration that went on for years and then God finally had enough of the fornication and homosexuality and...BAM! Sizzle, bang, zoom...they were annihilated.
Lest not be too comfy in our giddiness...nobody really knows what God (if you believe in God) is thinking. Anyone who professes to know what's in God's mind is kidding themselves - on the far Atheist Left or the far Christian Right...
Heidi, remember that, according to Genesis 18, God would not have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah if there had been at least ten righteous people living there. It turned out there weren't. Hopefully there are still quite a few in the U.S., and so we will be spared? :)
I just found out that I'm now going to be forced to marry a man. I'm a bit upset about this as I'm not gay. Is anyone else upset about this?
perhaps this chart will help explain a bit more: https://thenib.com/are-you-against-gay-marriage-because-the-bible-f67c2d12231c
"you were right about the gun law statement too, but they have become more restrictive."
I don't think this is true either. Here's the year post Newton for example: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/10/us/state-gun-laws-enacted-in-the-year-since-newtown.html?_r=0
Current big push is concealed carry, open carry, and opening more and more locations legal to carry like schools, bars, school buses, court rooms (judges), snowmobiles (for Darrin), cars, buses, restaurants, athletic events, political rallies, churches, public buildings, parks, casinos, even some open carry laws.
"If I own a business and put up a sign that says "no blacks," or "no gays," or "no Christians," whatever...that should be MY RIGHT and nobody, not the government, not the blacks, not the homosexuals, not the Christians should be able to tell me who I can and can't serve." Uh, actually they can both on a State and Federal level.
"FORCING a black bakery owner to make a KKK cake, a Muslim to make a t-shirt calling Allah names, a Jewish deli to cater a Nazi seminar, a redneck from Alabama to turn in his grandfather's guns or forcing a Christian to photograph a gay wedding (or to make a cake), is all the same and should not be FORCED upon anyone." These examples are NOT illegal according to the law and it is not discrimination to turn these customers away except for the photography and cake (basic cake, not the hate cakes noted above) examples which would be illegal in 20 states including NJ.
" the gay's" Need I say more :>(
"and instead of being HUMBLE they have Pride parades down the streets" The parade was not dramatically different than the previous 21 years. Just happier.
"Typical HL, when people do not agree with others opinions, personaly insult and embarass them...... so childish!" Darrin, did you just accuse people of name calling while calling them a name? Typical :>) (just kidding since you were describing an action not a person).
Thanks Heidi ..you explained it perfectly...neither of the two that attacked me for my view or religious beliefs even bothered to read what I wrote and said. but that IS the way of the liberals to FORCE their beliefs and to degrade and humiliate and to marginalize...and that is what I DO --HATE! I HATE the division that is spreading like a disease in our Country and it is part of the lefts AGENDA to suppress our view,( YES my capitalization is for emphasis since I can't use italics and yes 'emotional' too because the last seven years of our Country's decline has affected me personally and financially) I LOVE this Country... I love people...I love to see stable Loving HAPPY Families and Children that are nurtured by those families but we are under attack!! LIBERALS are the cause of God being removed from every facet of our lives and the subsequent divorce rate over the past 50 years in this country. God was at every dinner table in my Grandparents day>>there was a real humane connection to each other back then.
I don't begrudge anyone their relationships or right to marry whom they want to....but I was raised as a Catholic too hapiest girl, and that is where I learned from the Bible History classes we had to go to( maybe you skipped yours?) that Marriage is between a man and a woman and GOD, and yes about Sodom and Gomorrah as Heidi explained and how God punished their orgy's of sin. You do know that the Catholic Church won't marry a Catholic to a Protestant or a Jew or perform a Gay union either...right? They won't marry you if you've been away from the church too long either>>you have to go to classes and learn the rules all over again ! Also do you know about Noah and the flood that wiped out the heathens and the heretics and the sinners and then when it was all over and Noah and his Family were saved they saw the rainbow >>The rainbow that was and is sign provided by God to attest to the covenant between God and Noah (and hence all of humanity) that God will never again destroy the world by way of a flood.
"The rainbow is aimed away from the earth to show God's mercy. It appears today to remind humanity of their failure to keep the obligations that Noah entered into on behalf of all mankind. The 7 colors of the rainbow represent the 7 Laws given to Noah as his part of the Covenant" So maybe it is a little ironic that they chose that as their Flag!??
My Cousin OR my nephew can get married in a civil union if they wish but they haven't because there is no need to...everything they want to give to each other they can do through the state with legal documents. They aren't going to 'procreate' so why do they need to get 'married'. Under Gods law of marriage their unions they aren't recognized and so the rules of the Church,...and SO the push to FORCE the Church to recognize them! Why can't they be happy with CIVIL UNIONS? This is only the beginning of the 'persecution' by the left of..... the Church.
By the way I was talking to ianimal and telling him that I was a Grandmother and NOT a man who was watching girls gone wild videos ....maybe I thought I might get a little 'respect' as a senior and as a woman too?...OR that I might be 'offended' by the perverseness of the really raunchy Gay pride parade images.......omg...in todays upside down world (especially as a Christian) I HAVE NO RIGHT to be offended...what was I thinking?
I sincerely apologize for the GGW crack, sha44ss. I had no idea I was replying to a grandmother... probably because my own grandmothers never had a bad word to say about anyone, nor does my mother. So, please forgive my incorrect assumption that you were a man.
sha44ss,
Do you also believe then that marriage should be denied to those who have a child out of wedlock? If you're going to use the bible as a guide we should apply the rules across the board, no?
I never understood the attachment to the word marriage. If a civil union is exactly the same in every respect, what does it matter? What exactly would you be preventing by calling it something else?
If you hate the division so much, why are you contributing to it so vehemently?
Really ianimal? Your mother and grandmother don't have a bad thing to say about ANYONE? Nothing about pedophiles? Rapists? Charles Manson? Nixon? George Bush? Eric Holder, when he lost all the AK-47's he was supposed to track through Mexico? The lunatic who murdered the 9 people in the church in SC?
They sound like two apathetic morons.
Before they died, they were both too busy volunteering their time helping others to waste time discussing politics in an online forum. Nor did they ever discuss mass murderers or pedophilia in my presence. Your dinner table must be a vastly different experience than theirs were.
But you stay classy, Heidi. The Christian spirit is obviously strong in you.
"Under Gods law of marriage their unions they aren't recognized and so the rules of the Church,...and SO the push to FORCE the Church to recognize them! "
We as a nation are not ruled by God. I really don't care if the Catholic Church recognizes Gay marriages or not. NO one is FORCING them to!!! The Catholic Church barely recognizes women so we know how hard it would be for them to recognize a gay marriage.
They just want the State and Fed Government to recognize their marriage. Which is what just happened.
Being a Christian doesn't ban you from calling out a doofus when you clearly see one, ianimal. Love it when people pretend to know what a Christian is when they clearly don't.
Forgot about Jesus turning over the tables and throwing the guys taking people's money in the temple..Jesus telling the adulterous woman to "go and sin no more," telling Zachariah to stop shaking down the people, etc, etc, etc.
No, Christians are allowed to have a brain and an opinion. Just because YOU don't like the opinion doesn't give you the right to marginalize and throw "Christianity" in someones face. That's the usual Liberal go-to tactic when they obviously look silly.
I don't see any anger here, by the way. At least I'm not angry -- just happily standing my ground.
"That's the usual Liberal go-to tactic when they obviously look silly"
I think you're correct, but we probably disagree on who "obviously looks silly".
There seems to be a lot of that Christian spirit going around. Maybe it would help them to discuss their anger with the pastor/priest/rabbi of their church. I would hope if I was that angry about the world situation, my pastor would help me see the good side of life and not be so stressed and nasty.
Heidi - "No, Christians are allowed to have a brain and an opinion."
But when they do you call them "apathetic morons". Is that a Christian thing to do?
Her you go, I hope this sounds nicer to everyone. Yes, I am a Christian. I believe the bible. I do not support homosexuality or " homosexuality marriage. Yes, I still love you. No, I am not judging you. No, I am not condemning you to hell. No, I will not let anyone bully you. But realize that name-calling and stereotyping those of us who stand for what we believe is exactly what you don't want done to you. We have a right to speak what we believe. Same as you have a right to speak what you believe.
auntiel "Lest not be too comfy in our giddiness...nobody really knows what God (if you believe in God) is thinking. Anyone who professes to know what's in God's mind is kidding themselves - on the far Atheist Left or the far Christian Right..."
Um, Heidi, little contradictory there. An Atheist doesn't profess to know what is in God's mind because we believe there is no God or to be clear we believe in about a thousand or so less gods than a monotheist does.
It is interesting to see how the harshest comments and most hard line views come from those who are supposed to believe in a loving being. Having an opinion and a belief to express doesn't give you the right to demand others toe your god's line. Homosexuality as an example has been around since mankind began and exists in other species as well. Just because a book you read says it's not okay doesn't mean you have the right to legislate that way.
I know this is a waste of time and energy but it's really ridiculous that people want to deny happiness between consenting adults.
Suze Amen Suze!
And .... sha44ss you are wrong about who the catholic church will marry. Marriages between catholics and non-catholics are allowed in the catholic church, and even a marriage between a catholic and a jew with proper clearance.
As for divorce, it has been declining and is lower now than 40 years ago.
No need to insult me by saying I skipped my Bible classes. The rules of the church are constantly changing, maybe you need to catch up with the times.
warning this article is going to upset some people..... please don't blame the gays for this one
http://news.yahoo.com/oklahoma-court-ten-commandments-monument-must-come-down-164936584.html
A catholic can marry a non-carholic in the church? Since when? I thought only a select few would even consider that and it is only allowed in the vestibule? At least that is what the priest told me.
Divorce rates are declining? Wow really? I feel like I hear or read somewhere everyday how they are increasing steadily.
I guess I also must need to catch up with the times lol!
JRT, it's been that way for quite a while. It is not allowed if either party has been divorced, but only if that wedding was catholic. If the non-catholic was previously married in a civil ceremony, then they can get remarried to a catholic in the church.
I'm so please the high court finally made this ruling. It's long overdue.
As an ordained minister I'm willing to marry any couple.
Love trumps bigotry. LoL.
MikeL My niece was married in a Catholic Church, at the alter. Her husband is Catholic, she's not and they had a 3 year old son at the time. It was a beautiful ceremony.
That didn't take long....
http://www.youngcons.com/that-didnt-take-long-man-applies-for-marriage-license-to-marry-second-wife/
Hey MikeL, how you feel about this one?
Congrats JR you found 1 guy to use as an example try to prove your marriage dooms day prediction. Btw You do know this guy is a reality TV personality. He can sue all he wants and if he loses at the county level let's see how far he really takes it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/1/nathan-collier-sister-wives-polygamist-cites-gay-m/
Hey Darwin- it's all about LOVE. If gays can marry, why can't more than 2 consenting adults?
Lol good show. Hey polygamy is all over the Bible so I'm sure it'll get some supporters. And I never said I am against it, I'm not a supporter of it cause I Cant think of anyone crazy enough to have to deal 2 wives. :). But I won't stand in their way
It's all about love. If two straights can marry, why can't more than two consenting adults?
It really makes as much sense as the statement four posts up.
Wait- Gadfly and happiest girl are AGAINST polygamy?
I certainly hope not, because that would make no sense whatsoever. If consenting adults - the number is irrelevant- want to enter into a contract of marriage, who are WE to say they shouldn't be allowed to? I'm dead serious. If marriage can be defined as anything we want, and it's "all about love", then why not?
Darwin- AMEN to that, brother!! 1 wife is all I can handle!! LOL
"I Cant think of anyone crazy enough to have to deal 2 wives."
what about two husbands?
what about three wives getting married with no husbands?
what about a man marrying his daughter to avoid the inheritance tax when he dies? (this would be a marriage solely for the purpose of tax avoidance)
and, then, what about a man marrying his son, (or maybe marrying two sons) for the purpose of avoiding inheritance taxes?
all you tax and spend big government types down with that? or would you support a law to go in and take their money anyways?
i mean really, who's to say who loves who, or for what reasons?
Here you go, BD....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/16/daughter-plans-to-marry-long-lost-father/21859547/
Having lived in Utah for a number of years (yes, among the polygamists) it's interesting to see the issue of polygamy being raised here. I think it's going to be much more difficult to accommodate polygamy - both polygyny (one man with more than one wife) and polyamory (one woman with more than one husband). The laws are written for two people and it's fairly straightforward for that to apply to any two whether same sex or not. It's harder when more than two people are involved since current marriage laws don't handle that situation well if at all. And let's not even think about multiple husbands and wives all intermarried! Wouldn't that be an interesting discussion.
Well then, apparently the laws should be "redefined". We've already redefined marriage once, why not do it again?
NO DIFFERENCE. Love is love, and consenting adults are consenting adults.
What's the issue, JR? You said you think gays should have the right to marry and by your own logic, that would mean you are also in favor of polygamy becoming legal. So what's your point here?
Nice when you have "love", but from a legal marriage standpoint, love is irrelevant.
In fact, traditional marriages in days of yore were about family relations, property and money, legitimate children. "Love", usually not.
Agreed - its all about intestacy and inheritance. If the tax rate was ever changed for married persons or inheritance laws changed I bet the amount of marriages would drop off significantly - look at Cuba - there is no incentive to get married so nobody does
JR...
No, I never gave any opinion about polygamy.
I gave an opinion about what you wrote.
You are simply employing sensationalism to berate gay marriage.
Your tactics are not working!
Yes, and "all men" are created equal, i.e., white land owners. Didn't someone redefine that? What a slippery slope that turned out to be!
happiest girl,
Berate gay marriage? Apparently you haven't been reading all my posts on the subject. I have been for it all along- to balance the scale, as JIT describes. However, using the same logic that applies to gay marriage, that means that polygamy is also 100% A-OK.
I'm serious. Redefining marriage for gays and not for polygamists is bigotry.
And anyone who is for gay marriage but against polygamist marriage is a bigot.
JR if I am neither for or against polygamy am I still a bigot?
If I literally can give 2 sh@ts about this does that make me a bigot?
"Berate gay marriage? Apparently you haven't been reading all my posts on the subject. I have been for it all along" says JeffersonRepublic
So go back to your post in April '13 where you wrote you are:
"against so-called "gay marriage"
It is very clear from all you have written that you feel threatened by the marriage of anyone other than a man & woman.
April 2013?... you do know it's now 2015, right? People are still allowed to continue thinking and examining an issue, and change their mind, right? Or is changing your mind some kind of scarlet letter?
In this thread, and other recent ones, I have made my case clear: I am 100% for equal right for gay couples. Logic dictates I must also be 100% for equal rights for plural couples.
Threatened? LOL It's not "marriage", regardless of what they call it, but I couldn't care less about "gay marriage"... they should have the same rights as everyone else. I'm certainly not "threatened". What DOES worry me, is since the government has gotten involved in something it never should have gotten involved in in the first place (marriage), that now they will feel they have the power to begin infringing the 1st Amendment and freedom of religion. As I stated earlier, if they attempt to MAKE a church marry a gay couple, when the church does not want to, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment and THAT I WOULD have a problem with.
All the polygamy talk is just the natural course of events... if marriage can be defined as a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, then who is society to say a plural marriage- polygamy -is somehow "morally wrong" to gay marriage? It can't. If gay marriage is ok, polygamy is ok. And if any of you think one is ok and the other is not, you're a bigot. That's all I'm pointing out.
Darwin,
Being "not for it or against it" means in effect you are for it. That's cool. So long as you aren't "for" one and "against" the other.
JeffersonRepublic-
You are the one who used the words "all along"
("I have been for it (gay marriage) ALL ALONG")
No one said you can't change your mind. But by saying you have been for gay marriage "all along" ...... is ......hmm....... a lie.
Then you say (a gay marriage) is not a marriage.
HUH???
You seem confused to me.
We get that you are 100% for equal rights for gay couples.
Let's hope so.
Do you believe people who are married in a civil ceremony are not married?
My opinion on "marriage" is that it's a holy covenant, having nothing to do with the government, and government should have nothing to do with it. What is and is not holy would depend upon your choice of (or lack of) religion.
Digging deeper into what the Judeo-Christian God thinks of homosexuality, well- you'd have to ask him. According to what I have been shown, he's not fond of the practice. However- God loves all people, and I refuse to believe that because someone is gay that they are destined to hell or some such.... I also do not hate, or even dislike, or judge, someone based on their sexual preference... it makes no difference to me. But what God thinks about the arrangement is between them and God; I have nothing to do with it. I judge people on their character and their actions. I have a feeling God does too.
None of this has anything to do with government defining "marriage", of course. I couldn't give 2 shits what govt says marriage is and is not. But then you probably know that about me- that I don't care much what govt has to say anymore. lol
I'm libertarian on the issue. Leave the people the hell alone, it's none of your damn business lol. But.... with a watchful eye out- because now govt HAS gotten involved- as to exactly what powers govt THINKS it has on the matter..... but that's something else you should know about me by now-
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
full quote:
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
For those here with a historically impaired opinion about marriage here are 13 fun facts. It's fine with me if you don't want to believe in the accuracy of this - feel free to supply your own "facts".
http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html
Marriage being a holy covenant is fine if that is your belief. When your belief is what you perceive as right for all whether they are believers or not is wrong. Laws are meant to keep a civil society and can legislate equal treatment. Whether you believe it is right for a man and a man to marry is immaterial to the equal treatment under the law.
MK "Marriage being a holy covenant is fine if that is your belief. When your belief is what you perceive as right for all whether they are believers or not is wrong. Laws are meant to keep a civil society and can legislate equal treatment. Whether you believe it is right for a man and a man to marry is immaterial to the equal treatment under the law."
Which is exactly what I have been saying.
agreed - there is a separation between church and state guaranteed by the constitution - we need to look at this civically and not as a matter of religious doctrine which is open to vast interpretation
I really wish that all those loudmouth rightwing religious zealots would understand that Skippy.......sadly from what I read in the papers and online every day say they don't understand that fact, don't want to understand that fact, and will fight to the Supreme Court to make their beliefs yours whether you are religious or not.
" and will fight to the Supreme Court to make their beliefs yours whether you are religious or not."
This action/attitude is not exclusive to religious groups. EVERY group- including atheists- do this same thing. For example, suing to not allow a nativity scene in a city park at Christmas- a community tradition that has been done for many decades- crying "separation of church and state" because "it's on city property". The religious aren't the only ones who attempt to stretch things beyond reason.
"will fight to the Supreme Court to make their beliefs yours whether you are religious or not."
correct, agreed that should not happen, and that principle goes both ways MK, right?
why should the government have the power and authority to tell those who have a religious objection that they 'must' do certain things that are in conflict with their religious beliefs?.
having a pastry shop open to the public is one thing, forcing that same shop to cater a gay wedding is something else. in the first part, the shop is open to the public and must sell the baked good to whoever comes in off the street. in the second part the catering of the gay wedding is something that the shop owners have a valid right in the free exercise of their religion to not participate in or support.
the 1st amendment enumerates a protected right to the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion. the words 'separation of church and state' are not in the constitution. the concept is that the federal government is proscribed from establishing a state religion. that's what is referred to in the constitution. this concept of 'separation of church and state' has been stretched and contorted into a meme that is unsupported under the law, and it needs to stop.
if the pastry shop owners are forced by the government to cater the gay wedding, then by the same standards the government can now force the Amish to join the combat forces in the Army. under this new understanding there is no room or accommodation for 'religious exemptions'.
one could argue that if the government can force these things, that in itself constitutes the establishment of a type of religion and that is strictly defined in the first amendment as something the feds cannot do.
thank about it,
this woman should be fired. If she refuses to do her job then that's ground for termination. Imagine any of us refusing to do our job?
http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-clerk-sued-not-issuing-gay-marriage-licenses-214105523.html
Discrimination is a two-edged sword even if you can rationalize why you should refuse service to a normal, legal, even righteous customer.
So what about the other side? What if you are a BrotherDog and some places will serve you, some places choose not to because their religion says dogs are a really bad lifestyle choice in some form or another. I mean dogs are not monogamous, they don't believe in God, they lay around all day barely working, and they will basically jump anything. But yet BrotherDog looks and acts basically just like the rest of us; he does not let his dog out in public. Should each store be forced to openly display which "types" of customers they won't serve (I am guessing that's the shorter list versus the one's they will serve)? Or do you have to have hunt around to see who will serve the BrotherDog's? Like do you either call first, "do you serve dogs?" or do you face the humiliating experience of being turned away in public. Why are you singled out just because you're Brotherdog for this type of life?
Now if you're a BrotherDog that wants service to a hater's hate group hate session, or to sell them some offensive custom piece, I believe the law allows you to deny service, but if you are a legal, paying, normal customer, should you be denied service because of appearance or lifestyle choices?
Which world do you want to live in? One where the BrotherDog's can go into any commercial outlet or one where BrotherDog needs to ask whether the shop serves dogs before entering?
Seems good to deny service when it makes you uncomfortable and won't harm your business but discrimination really makes American life unfair for those being denied free access to a commercial concern's services.
"Hey MikeL, how you feel about this one?" - Jefferson Repub
Jefferson,
I'm ok with this, whatever consenting adults choose to do in their personal lives is fine with me. However, I have serious doubts that polygamy will become legal anytime soon, but if does I'd support it. I can't imagine why anyone would want more than 1 spouse, but I'm now happily single and will never marry again.
MikeL
Yep, darwin, especially considering that THE TAXPAYERS PAY HER SALARY!!!
Interesting. to say the least, that the voices that usually scream that phrase the loudest are quietest about it now.
So Darwin, since you found someone who "should be fired" for not doing her job when it was legal (mind you I totally agree, you cannot refuse to do your job)
Should action be taken on this person who did something, while it was illegal, in a government building? After all, the tax payers pay their salary.......
http://news.yahoo.com/former-obama-speechwriter-recalls-secretly-performing-a-same-sex-marriage-at-the-white-house-175113407.html
seems like now that it is legal, they want to make a big joke out of it to try to gain fame for the first White House same sex marriage (prior to it being legal), I feel action should be taken.
WTF are you talking about? How was any of that illegal? , Same sex marriage has been legal in DC since 2009.
"shared a story about how, years before gay marriage would become legal nationwide,"
LOL you need to know your facts, yes it was before gay marriage was legal NATIONWIDE but it was legal in DC.... LMAO you were really trying to stretch that one into something way bigger than it was ....LOL thanks for the good laugh this morning.
LOL you really think someone performed an illegal gay marriage in the White House???
"“And then I filed the paperwork — the only real evidence that this took place, because I had to list the address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”"
He even said he filed the paperwork, so that should have been your first clue that it was legal if paperwork was filed. hahahahaha
I dream of a simpler time when all the right had to kvetch about was ObamaCare.
Aquarius,
At least these people quit. Although trying to start a Go Fund me Campaign for themselves was beyond tacky. Heck i'm sure they will even blame Obama for being unemployed.
Good news, there are 3 job openings in Tenn if anyone is looking for work
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tenn-county-clerk-staff-resigns-gay-marriage-ruling-article-1.2281567
WOW! Gloat much Darwin?
Sorry my mistake, depending on how you read what I said, but you should definitely work on calling people out a little more, um, adult like? Lots of YELLING in your post! I don't really spend my time reading the "gay" laws, I don't have and vested interest, so I did not realize it was legal in D.C.
BUT....anyways, If you re-read my post, I was more concerned with the legality of the service. I assume they had permission to do it? Was it legal to use a facility that the (we) tax payers pay for to perform a marriage? It is unclear if the worker was on the clock or not, so we may or may not of paid for him too.
Yelling??? lol I wasn't yelling I was laughing. But I'll be sure to take your advise to act more adult like in consideration. :)
And it sounds like he perform a 2min wedding in the middle of a tour of the White House. If you have a problem with that use of time on your taxpayer dime than you are really grasping at straws. Give up in this one you're really sounding desperate with this non story.
And no I was reading your post correctly. You were concern of him performing an illegal wedding because you thought gay marriage was illegal at the time.
Which of course it was legal
Maybe you should keep up with all these gay laws. :)
So "the 'gay' laws" aren't important enough to learn about, but they're important enough to complain abouton HL? Brilliant!
Oregon State Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple, Fines Them $135K
In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.
“This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which has since closed, wrote on their Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”
Darwin, i already apologized for not realising it was already legal, what more do you want? And yes, i will grasp at some straws so that I am not 100% wrong! So assuming that 2 minutes was on work time, yeah, probally not legal! Why can't i be married there, or everyone else married there.....
Gladfly, On the contrary, i have not complained at all about it, maybe you should reread all my posts on the topic before trying to degrade me and my post, i would appreciate it.
i do believe i clearly stated my stance as not caring what they do because it does not affect me, but not really liking it, and thats all i have said. Rest of the posts were calling out Darwin ;-)
BD, From what I've read the order doesn't stop them from talking about the case, the order, or their beliefs. It just indicated that they could no longer say that they were not going to serve gay customers. Isn't there a difference?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/06/cake_wars_oregon_did_not_gag_an_anti_gay_bakery.html
So assuming that 2 minutes was on work time, yeah, probally not legal! Why can't i be married there, or everyone else married there.....
Again why are you using the term legal? It's not like a crime was committed or a law was broken. If anything a company policy might have been broken, not certainly nothing that would need “action should be taken." as you declared. And you can get married there. Just go with your bride to be and an ordained minister and take a tour of the White House. In the middle of the tour stop, say” I do” and bingo you are married at the White House the exact same way this couple was. You seem to be the only one that has issue with this story, and it is coming off as been very petty IMO.
Darlin' wrote:
"Gladfly, On the contrary, i have not complained at all about it, maybe you should reread all my posts on the topic before trying to degrade me and my post, i would appreciate it."
Sure you were, Darlin'. You're entire participation on this thread has been just that....sour grapes.
Great Article Gadfly, that is how i read the "gag" order to be when BD first posted the link yesterday but it was taken down until today and that is what my opinion has been from the start. I do not believe a business owner should be allowed to post a sign on their store window stating that they will not serve a certain type of customer.
the order is not about posting signs in their cake shop (which is now closed); they have been gagged by a government official from about talking about their beliefs, they cannot speak about it on talk shows or in interviews or in the press. they are being restricted from the free exercise of their first amendment rights, this is wrong in my view,
the constitution has competing interests in this case, the gay couples right to expect fair and equal treatment in the public square and the the christian couples right not to partake in the marriage of a union that they don't wish to participate in based on their religious beliefs.
they both have rights. and that's not being talked about
“Brad Avakian has been outspoken throughout this case about his intent to ‘rehabilitate’ those whose beliefs do not conform to the state’s ideas,” anna harmon lawyer for the (now closed) cake shop owners
'rehabilitate"?? 'conform to the state's ideas' ??? sounds awful stalinist-like to me.
the government enforcing state-sanctioned thoughts\ideas on those who don't agree with them is draconian. that's the PC thought police in action, and it is as intolerant as anything else you can name
i also think the $135K award is way out of line.
Gladfly? I have? Where?
Just because I have pointed out some failures in other posters or a few stories, is not complaining, it is participating in a thread, not everyone has to agree with you, and if they don't apparently that is complaining?
Darwin, he is a government employee, so who decides corporate policy? We can keep this going as long as you want to argue about it.
"the christian couples right not to partake in the marriage of a union that they don't wish to participate in based on their religious beliefs."
How does baking a cake constitute participation in a marriage? EVERYONE sins. So if baking a cake = participation in sin, then they can't bake a cake for anyone.
So this won't sound right at all but here goes! I could care less who does what with who or what! However I personally do not think it is right that same sex people can get married. So I remember a kid that went to school that had a gay father who picked him up from school with his partner. The horror that the kid had to go through because of this was simply incredible. They talk about bullying now a days heh, this bullying is nothing compared to what this kid had to go through. Then to make matters worse the gay couple broke up and the father re married a woman so that was the new topic for danny to deal with. Lots of times adults think about themselves FIRST instead of thinking about the childs situation. Why should a 10 year old or anyone for that matter have to worry about going around in public and having to feel a certain way because daddy is holding hands with another man? As we speak there are men on this board who are closet gays but why should the children have to know about that or feel a certain way when it comes to explaining their parents situation?
If you think about the children and ask yourself. should we teach the children at 1st grade level that it's ok for little johnny to have his first kiss with little Robert?
Sorry I simply do not believe that! I am old school call me a hater or whatever you want I believe little johnny should be writing cute notes to susan and not bobby!
Can I at least for the love of god lol get at least 1 AHMEN for that simple point??
OP To fight for state's rights to own slaves is OK by some.
To fight for state's rights to mandate against discrimination based on sexual preference is wrong by some.
To have the religious freedom to do whatever you want whether state legal or not is a good thing for some.
To say whatever you want in the midst of a legal battle potentially tainting the jury pool should be first amendment protected say a few.
I say let them eat cake!!!!!!!!! This is the law, if you don't like it, there are plenty of states you can pursue your religion of discrimination. There is no Federal discrimination law based on sexual preference and plenty of places without it at the state level in the US.
And oh my goodness, these people had already done business with the shop, they were existing customers. They didn't even get to the point of asking the cake makers to bake something obscene, and they certainly didn't need to be called "abominations."
Here's the real story, maybe: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/brint/almost_everything_you_heard_on_the_sweet_cakes_case_is_false
you will not get an Ahem from me. The reason the little boy in your story was bullied was because of people like you. The reason the are closested gay men on this board is because of people like you. If we act like it is wrong or teach or kids that it is wrong of course they are going to bully those who they think are different. its not the boy of the 2 dads i am worried about, the the kids with the bigoted parents i am worried about.
Or we can just teach our kids that there are always going to be people that are different and its no big deal. its not promoting gay behavior its promoting tolerance for someone who might be different than you.
strangerdanger nice article.
quick question in that picture on the top of the article. Is that the "gay" ear the guy has pierced? I think it is :)
OP - so you're saying that people should be denied equal rights because you can't talk to your child for five minutes and explain that not everyone is the same?
"
Darwin, he is a government employee, so who decides corporate policy? We can keep this going as long as you want to argue about it."
I don't want to argue about it. This might be the dumbest non story you and I have gotten involved in.
if a government board of labor and industry biased bureaucrat can use the force of law to compel the bake shop to support the gay wedding . . . .
then using the same logic, the government can now force the Amish to join the combat forces. under this arbitrary ruling by a mid-level gov. toady there is no room or consideration or accommodation for a 'conscientious objector' or a 'religious exemption'. so now the Amish can be compelled to pick up arms and join the armed forces or face prison (or worse)
if the government can force these things, that arguably may constitute the establishment of a religious view. a religion that requires all individuals to agree with them or face the consequences. Isn't the establishment of religion proscribed in the first amendment as something the feds are enjoined from creating?
there are competing rights here, why is it the religious couple who are being denied due process and tolerance? why does tolerance always flow only one way?
Personally, I don't care who gets married. If boys want to neck on other boys or if women want to marry 5 men etc... Fine. If they want it, they got it. In fact, there are some seriously outdated and downright draconian marriage (read divorce and childcare) laws that could use a swift kick to the face and opening up marriage to non-traditional couples may be just what the country needs in that regard. Additionally, there is now room for real tax reform since marriage is becoming more of a tax shelter than a religious institution.
However, this should only be supported by the government as far as anti-discrimination laws allow. This means employment, government services, etc... Anti-discrimination law should not make it compulsory for non-essential services (such as a bakery) to literally cater to those people they do not agree with. Yes, there are those that will take an ignorant, hard line stance and refuse service based on skin color or sexual orientation, but those businesses should be tried in the court of PUBLIC OPINION, not a court of law.
I fear a future created on knee-jerk reactions by popular-vote seeking politicians similar to what BD outlines in his previous post. Tolerance cannot be coerced by laws that swing from one wrong extreme to the opposite wrong extreme. Tolerance must be taught and learned and this is not what we (or those who represent us) are accomplishing with their actions.
Common Sense Very possible, but can't see how it is a "non story" it was enough of a story for someone to write a "story" about. But either way your views are very biased. If you like the cause there is no problem, do no wrong, but if you do not like the cause there is a huge problem, basing this off both this thread and many other threads.
And in this case because you agree with the cause there is no problem with a government employee spending his time performing a questionable marriage rather then doing what we pay him to do.
So while you think the link is a non story, silly, dumb, etc....i wonder what will be done about this employee spending our money performing marriages......but that's okay because now that it is nationally legal we think it is cute?
The state law says if you open a business, you can not discriminate based on sexual orientation no matter what your religious beliefs are. Don't like it, don't open.
Don't believe for one second that closing the brick and mortar shop and going onto the internet will protect them from the state law. Good luck on that dodge.
Does their religion say that baking a cake sends you to hell if the customer is a sinner or is it just the gays? Do they ask all customers to take confession? What about the rest of the cake eaters? Full sin, partial sin or absolution? I mean if you bake a straight cake but 20 non heterosexuals partake, is that a worse sin than baking a gay cake for 20 heterosexuals? We need to understand the fine points of discrimination due to sexual orientation and other mortal sins.
What if the contentious objector was gay?
BD,
You are incorrect about the alleged "gag order" - its just an order prohibiting the bakers from stating that they will continue with their practice of refusing service to gays. That's not an infringement on 1st amendment rights. Its essentially the same as a sign in the window that says, "we don't serve gays" OR "whites only", for that matter. If you're going to continue to insist that the order restricts the bakers from discussing the case and/or their beliefs, can you please provide the relevent quotes from the actual order? Here's where you can find it:
http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf
Furthermore, you're last post pertaining to contientious objector status makes absolutely no sense for a number of reasons. First of all the decision your refering to is the decision of a department of the state of Oregon, specifically the Bureau of Labor and Industries. Its not a court decision that would have the broad reaching implications that you suggest. Furthermore, the contientious objector status is a protection afforded specifically by federal statute, that would not change without being a repealed by the legislature or deemed unconstitutional by the courts.
BD, you're getting a little carried away. No one is going to have to perform a service they don't already perform - they just have to offer the service to everyone equally. Plain and simple. Your Amish comparison makes no sense whatsoever.
Darrin it's a non story for the following reasons:
1) the "story" was written by yahoo news so much like how they run an story on the sex of the next Kim K baby is a non story.
2) it happened 5 yrs ago
3) the employee no longer works there
4) the guy was a speech writer so not sure if he has set hours where he is " on the clock" so how can you even tell if he was " working" when this happened"
5) it looks to have taken 2 mins to say the quick I dos.
6) but mostly it's a non story because only you seem to care about this
But if you want to somehow say I am bias because I am pro gay marriage go for it, I will let you try to save face even though we both know the main reason you brought up this non story in the first place was because you thought the guy performed an illegal gay marriage. It wasn't until after you learned gay marriage was legal at the time that you switched it to something else. Feel free to get the last word in if you like I'm done. I usually enjoy our back and forth and respect your opinion but this is too silly even for me to continue.
I think you and I can discuss better things than this :)
@Darwin "but mostly it's a non story because only you seem to care about this"
IDK about that, judging by your lengthy posts on the topic, you seem pretty engulfed ;-)
also, it is not just on yahoo
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/05/secret-white-house-gay-wedding-revealed/
Darwin, there is no harm in having a conversation, but when you are going to ridicule something I bring to the table and claim it is a non story I am going to argue why it is a valid story.
But much to your excitement, I found another similar story, posted a year ago, so I am unsure if it happened or not.
http://nationalreport.net/obama-first-gay-marriage-white-house/
And of course I ask, who paid for the president, as well as the president's tag team of security and ect. people that go with him to be there?
Why can't a straight couple get this same treatment?
Geez man you got to get better sources. I know you don't stay up to date on gay news but Michael Sam just got engaged this January so not sure how this article could predict the future that they were going to get married in the White House before they even got engaged and who the guest list will be. Obama might not even be there by time the get married
Man just by reading the titles of the other "news" below the article you should know how bogus this story was.
I think you reachef for your last straw. Come on man you're better than this
http://www.outsports.com/2015/1/16/7509139/michael-sam-engaged-vito-cammisano
Lol darrin you just quoted an Onion style website as actual news. Man you are off your game with all this gay stuff
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Report
Darrin stated he is unsure wether it happened or not- apparently he found it dubious as well - let it go
@Darwin "Man you are off your game with all this gay stuff"
What game did I ever claim to have LOL! I said I have no idea about this stuff, nor do I care to have any idea about this stuff, I was pretty straight forward in letting everyone know I am not fully up to date in gay news like you appear to be.
All I was doing was presenting some things that popped up on a search after proving that the first story I posted was actually a story, yet you still claim as a non-story.
gadfly - i know who it was, i already posted that it was a mid-level BLI bureaucrat, maybe you missed that in your quick read? go back and review what's written for clarification.
there absolutely is an issue restricting the free speech of the christian couple by this (imo) government toady, and there is a parallel to be considered for ongoing further incursions on 1st amendment rights from more government agencies and the blowhards who run them. they increasingly lord it over us like we are all living in a feudal society,
btw, i reviewed the over 100 pages of that document before you posted the link, and the order says, "communications", and that's in any form. you insisting that it's 'essentially' like, or that it only applies to signs in shops is purposely misleading. the order includes all forms of communication, which includes speech, tv and press interviews etc. that's absolutely an infringement on their individual rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
the 135K dollar award is based only on 'feelings' and unsupported statements from the plaintiffs. their unsubstantiated claims are all over the map and contradict each other. they claim they couldn't eat in one statement, then they claim they gained weight in another statement. Really? and in this confusing mosh pit of self-described feelings and condition the biased anti-christian government man awards 135K dollar penalty against the young christian couple? really? $135,000 ??? this is true overkill. issued by an out of control un-elected, non-court related government 'lord' who thinks he can correct the thought process and beliefs of the young couple who (he thinks) need 're-education'. maybe we should put them in re-education camps? or rehabilitation camps? at least until they are corrected or fixed. they should have no right to think differently than what the government tells them to think. right?
my posits for thoughts/discussion stand as written, they may make an uncomfortable point for you to consider, so i get the fact that you think it's 'absurd'. many others would disagree with you, for sure.
this PC crap about 'im offended' or 'my feelings are hurt and i cried' are whats absurd about our modern america. it's just got to stop.
"this PC crap about 'im offended' or 'my feelings are hurt and i cried' are whats absurd about our modern america. it's just got to stop."
It sounds like you don't even understand the entire issue if you think this is about being offended and having hurt feelings.
MB - i understand the issue make no mistake about it, but the 135k dollar award is based on 'hurt feelings' just read the decision for clarification
BD, did you not read the part about the couple receiving death threats? Do you realize how frightening that is?
And BTW, it's not going to ruin the bakers. They have a large group of supporters who have raised pretty much the entire amount already.
I just can't see BrotherDog accepting a world where service can be denied based on race, ethnicity or lifestyle choices. I can only imagine if BrotherDog was denied service because of who he is that he would be the first to cry wolf.
What's next: don't have to sell your house to those people? don't need to give loans to that group? Either we are inclusive or discriminatory. And if your religion preaches discrimination, that's a sin.
BD,
I would LOVE to hear you say that about an interracial couple discriminated against in this fashion. Hurt feelings, just liberal tears, right?
MB "this PC crap about 'im offended' or 'my feelings are hurt and I cried' are whats absurd about our modern america. it's just got to stop."
I have been handicapped in job seeking most of my life. My buddy Jesse said " I am black and I said to myself "deal with it". We were both Vets. Thats just what we did. No time for tears. Now there's lots of money to be made screaming "Discrimination" and not just against you, but against your ancestors also. What a joke it's become today. We have to many lawyers.
BD so i assume you read where the bakers brought all this pain and suffering onto the couple not just from their initial behavior to the couple when they first tried to get a cake, but by posting the couplings information publically which in turn turned some in the public to attack the couple. The bakers made a simple matter way worse and did it in a hateful way
you guys all missed the point about competing rights under the constituion. (sadly)
i personally dont agree with the couple, but they are claiming their religion doesn't allow them to participate in the marriage of same sex couples. they have a lot of people who agree with them, i am not one of them,
tolerance only flows one way it seems . . . . . . .
hey fellow posters - don't miss the forest for the trees, ignoring valid discussion points by painting me into a corner that isn't there is the strawman technique in action, and it's been used consistently by gadfly, (esp gadfly on this one), and the stranger, (who never misses a chance to jump on the bandwagon, can change the name but not the stripes it seems)
mb - yes i read that in the document; but i think the determination that the couple is responsible for the death threats is invalid and was decided by a biased government bureaucrat ho has it in for them. we have courts for that. they should be used, this is an arbitrary award decided outside the law by a prejudiced non-elected guy who has an axe to grind. 135,000 dollars?? that's unreasonable, and is another example of government running out of control.
mb - you and i actually agree more than we disagree, please be clear, i'm ok with same sex marriage, and with equal accommodation under the law, on the same page.
darwin - i don't agree with all of the findings. don't agree that everything that happened to the gay couple is the fault of the bake shop. and the award is true overkill meant to punish and harm those who are different. (in this case christians)
BD the board noted this in their awarding of the $135K:
The Final Order notes that the non-economic damages are consistent with the agency’s previous orders, such as an earlier ruling against a Bend dentist In the Matter of Andrew W. Engle. In that case, BOLI awarded a Christian employee $325,000 in damages for physical, mental and emotion suffering due to religious discrimination and harassment.
http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Legal/docs/FOpdffiles/2012_FOs/Andrew_Engel_38-11.pdf
So do you have an issue with that ruling as well? i'm sure you were just as outraged when this case occured in 2012, right?
It's always a good dodge to claim strawman for things you don't want to discuss or better yet, can't refute. So what was my strawman de jour?
Cuz I mean you've tossed out re-education camps, forcing the Amish to wage war, pc thought police, two wives, two husbands, man marries son, and even Stalin ---- to name a few tangents.
Meanwhile, a new wrinkles: Indiana Pizza Shop discriminates: http://www.eater.com/2015/4/1/8325219/indiana-pizza-parlor-public-deny-service-lgbt-gay-law-discrimination
He'll sell to gay individuals, just not to same sex wedding activities. He draws the fine line between the individual and the event. I think we're gonna need a discrimination hand book to figure out these rules.......
"uh, I like to order a pizza to go"
"go where?"
"what?"
"go where, your house, a party, a gay wedding?"
"uh huh, it's just for dinner with some friends."
"well, are gay people eating it?"
"uh, I just want a pizza."
"what kind?"
"ham and pineapple....."
"OK, I know there are gay people there."
"uh, well, some of my friends here are gay."
"well, are they serious or are they just foolin around?"
"uh, what?"
"are they thinking of getting married or not?"
"uh..........nevermind......."
Here's an argument for religious exemption and also a survey saying most of us agree: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/wedding-businesses-gay-couples_n_6625096.html
OK, I give. It's just wrong, it's hateful, but I say why not if you believe your God considers some sexual orientations and marriage untenable for sales while you proffer your goods to many other types of "sinners." Just make it easy for the rest of us to know if you are an Religious Objector so we don't embarrass you by trying to buy something. In states where discrimination is illegal on this basis, these folks should legally apply for RO status just like a Contentious Objector would. And then, to avoid embarrassment, they should display their RO status proudly on their stores, signs, in their ads, etc. so that the restriction is public and any humiliation of being turned away is minimized. I mean no one likes to be actively discriminated against if they could avoid it, right? And no one likes to waste their time turning people away either. That would keep everything transparent, legal, and easy to do business with.
"So do you have an issue with that ruling as well? " - yes!
"i'm sure you were just as outraged when this case occured in 2012, right?" - forgive me, i did not know of this case until i read in the 100 page pdf file yesterday, did you know of it before you saw it listed here??
BD, he is elected. And as darwin notes above, this isn't out of the ordinary.
I realize that we agree on a lot in this conversation, but I just cannot get behind denying service based on sexual orientation. In all the times I've been part of one of these debates, no one has ever been able to give a reasonable explanation as to how baking a wedding cake for a gay couple is a hardship.
I know the argument is that baking the cake somehow equates to approval of the sin, but a) it doesn't and b) if you limited your customer base to only people who don't sin you would have no customers.
The bakers started this whole thing by denying service. They are the ones who violated the law and this is the repercussion. Such is life.
"i'm sure you were just as outraged when this case occured in 2012, right?" - forgive me, i did not know of this case until i read in the 100 page pdf file yesterday, did you know of it before you saw it listed here??
No and that's the point!!! none of us would have know about the baker story either if they didn't go public and go public with the gay couples names.... thus they are responsible for the public threats to the couple and the emotional damages caused by those threats
I am simply saying I do not agree with teaching young children about being gay. Is there any % that sparks an interest when you tell children something? Should that be open to them? You are saying it should be and I am saying it shouldn't be. Even the teachers treat the students different we have all seen it. I am not saying that is good I just simply do not agree with teaching children about this.
yup lets teach our kids about the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy, but lets not dare teach them that there may be gay people in the world.
You do realize that by teaching kids about what it means to BE gay won't cause them to start being gay, right? You know being gay is not a choice?
darwin - there are other ways for that information to get out to the public, you can't be sure it was only because of their actions, as is claimed in the document, this agency guy has emails he sent out to others about it, (allegedly media people and local/state politicians), additionally the gay community rallied in support of the gay couple, (who tried to tone it down for the sake of their adoption of two children, and that's good) there are some in the gay community who can get quite aggressive in reacting to a situation like this, who knows if the bake shop couple haven't received threats as well? so with all of these clouds around this case it's hard to definitively pin this only on the bake shop owners,
mb - "how baking a wedding cake for a gay couple is a hardship." - again, i don't agree with them, but they think that doing this would violate their religious tenants. why can't the law find an accommodation for them like it did for the Islamist working as a cashier at Target who said she was not allowed to scan bacon as it was 'against her religion'? why can't the gay couple find a way to respect/tolerate the differences between them and the cake shop owners? btw, the BLI administrator is an elected position? haven't heard that before. where is that referenced?
Well I'm late to the table on this one. I for one, am happy that homosexuals can marry. I don't see what the big deal is. Those who have a problem with it have some insecurity issues that need tending to.
As a side note to the religious who follow the bible's teachings on homosexuality being wrong. Your god who created all of mankind also create homosexuals. Now why, being omnipotent and omniscient, would god go ahead and hate his own creation? The whole thing is ludicrous. If your a hater, then stand up for what you believe or don't believe but don't hide behind your fictitious nonsense.
Jazzykatt @Darwin "You know being gay is not a choice?"
I don't think that is 100% percent accurate with every instance.
Here BD
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Commissioner_of_Labor
He technically was not elect because replaced someone mid term but he will be up for reelection
And yes maybe it would have gotten out and been made public, but we'll never know since they ran to their Facebook page to post the complaint and didn't even blackout the names.
Like I said, the Contentious Objector status made me change my mind since the Religious Objector status seems as relevant.
First, if there's a state law against discrimination based on sexual orientation, that's plain and simple and makes sense IMHO. I find shunning people at your business because of sexual orientation abhorrent and just can't imagine my God turning these folks away based on that. But hey, takes all kinds.
If you are a Religious Objector, then as long as you can prove it, document it, I think you should enjoy the status of your religion. We do have freedom of religion as a main part of our country. http://www.sanantonioquakers.org/action/ConsObj/C-Objector7.htm
BUT, if it is the law not to discriminate, to have a RO status, IMHO, you must apply he same rigor that one gains CO status, get the paperwork, etc.
Then if you plan to discriminate based on RO status, you must post plainly your exclusions on store fronts, signs, ads, etc. so that everyone knows who can not come to your store. Especially if one Pizza guy only objects to weddings, but a cake guy might object to all same sex couples or individuals.
That works for me. I think they should examine their religion since I find no sin in it but if that's what it is and they want to work with the law, so be it. I can live with it.
He was reelected in 2008, darwin. He did replace someone who left mid-term, but then he was reelected on his own accord.
"again, i don't agree with them, but they think that doing this would violate their religious tenants"
BD, they can say that till they're blue in the face, but it doesn't make it true. It's not like the cake would be an iota different because of the customer's sexual orientation. And if this WAS against their religious tenets, then they'd have to turn away ALL sinners.
And you're right, they should find an accommodation like in the Target case. If the baker was that adamant about personally making a cake for a same sex wedding, then the store owner can have someone else in the store bake the cake.
Times change. If this baker does not want to serve everyone equally, then she should get out of a business where she would have to serve same sex weddings.
"why can't the law find an accommodation for them like it did for the Islamist working as a cashier at Target who said she was not allowed to scan bacon as it was 'against her religion'?"
it wasn't the law, it was the business that found an accommodation for those employees.
Yes, that's a good point Darwin. Plus, the story BD is citing didn't even happen. It's been thoroughly debunked by snopes. Target has Muslims employees who don't want to handle pork perform in other positions. They don't work as cashiers.
pretty interesting "sting" operation found the bakery would bake cakes for other "sins"
i will point out the 2 owners of Sweet Cakes mentioned in another article that it wasn't either of them that answered the phone.
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_cake_wars.html
I like reading this thread. My favorite part is how intolerant the "tolerant" are being towards the "intolerant." LOL.
FWIW, the actual definition of "tolerance" does not infer equal treatment. It just means that people will not interfere either way. Refusing to provide a private, non-essential service is not interference. Inconvenient? Perhaps.
"tol·er·ate
ˈtäləˌrāt/
verb
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference."
tl;dr doing nothing (like the bakery did) was tolerant of the gay couple as "nothing" is the normal condition (cakes don't assemble and bake themselves).
"I am looking for a cake for an upcoming wedding"
"Great, are you gay?"
"Well, yes, why do you ask?"
"Go elsewhere, we are religious objectors to this abomination."
That's doing nothing? That's being tolerant?
All righty then.
But where is the sin line drawn --- gay marriage, adultery, divorce? And how tolerant is it to welcome me into your store only to deny me service after I don't fit your model of righteousness? In the land of free speech you most certainly would get an earful as I departed. At minimum.
Note that most of these "tolerant" discriminators don't have the guts to advertise their exclusions lest the "norms" that they service take offense. Discriminators love to keep things under the radar.
I don't think the bakery was intolerant. I think they were discriminatory and are using a flimsy religious excuse to justify that.
It's their beliefs and should be respected as such- MB - as your beliefs should. Thats the only way we can get along. If I don't care for a place of business, I simply move on.
If you run a business and are open to the public you are subject to the laws and regulations of the city, county, and state that your business is in. Public businesses are supposed to treat all customers equally under the law. What would people say if the church was rebuilding or repairing the building they are in. I own a hardware store and refuse to sell them wood. nails, or tools needed because I think the church is a money grabbing enterprise that I don't agree with. I would be just as right as the cake business was. Does that sound fair and reasonable to you? Does every business owner like every customer or agree with their way of life? Your right to discriminate ends when you hang out an Open for Business sign.
Thats kind of my point MK.
Yes I agree about an owner has obligations by law. The trouble is that everyone who feels the slightest bit discriminated against, cries out and wants to file a law suit. Therfore no matter which side your on creates anger and resentment. Don't let the dispute get that far, call them an idiot ( under your breath ) and move on.
By the way I do think the baker was wrong in this case.
"I own a hardware store and refuse to sell them wood. nails, or tools needed because I think the church is a money grabbing enterprise that I don't agree with. I would be just as right as the cake business was. Does that sound fair and reasonable to you?"
-MK
Yes, it does sound completely fair and reasonable. It is your business. You can choose who to sell your products to. In fact, let's modify your hypothetical situation a bit, shall we?
-5 guys in white hoods and cloaks come to your lumber yard and want to buy wood for their "weekly cross-burnin'" as they haughtily gloat towards one another while walking into your place of business.
Or how about this:
-You own Wal-Mart. Someone wants to purchase a budget-conscious wedding cake in the shape of a confederate flag. Prior to a few weeks ago, you would have happily made that cake. Must you make this cake?
Or how about this:
-You own a bakery. A lesbian couple wants a cake, but you feel your interpretation of your religion would frown on it. (here's the good part) Since you can't flat-out deny them this service thanks to power-hungry politicians, you say the only cake that you will make them is one in the shape of a swastica-emblazoned penises savagely beating puppies to death. Is this better than denying them service? They are getting a cake after all.
How would you handle these sorts of situations where the tide pulls against your own personal moral compass? Would you say "well the law is the law" and all that other happy crap you just spouted out your ass?
"tolerance" . I haven't heard that word in many years. The law making lawyers decided years ago they like the word "offended" and "discrimination". There is a lot more money to be made with those words.
thought this story relevant to the discussion:
----------------------------------------------------
Muslim Costco employee refuses to touch pork; sues after getting transferred to different department
A Muslim former employee has filed a lawsuit against Costco accusing the the wholesale giant of discriminating against him because he refused to handle pork or alcohol products.
The man, Jean Camara, told ABC 7 New York that he was moved from cashier’s assistant to gathering carts outside when he informed his employers that he couldn’t work with pork or alcohol due to his religious beliefs.
“Just because you have a different belief, that doesn’t give anybody the right to treat you different,” Camara said.
“We all share different beliefs so we all should be treated equally no matter what belief we have,” he added.
According to Camara, his superiors at the Brooklyn Costco never told him why he was reassigned — although it’s strange that he couldn’t figure that out on his own after complaining he couldn’t handle certain products.
He said he asked his bosses if he could work in the electronics department but his request was denied.
Camara filed a human rights complaint against the company and was fired 16 days later for “insubordinate conduct,” according to ABC 7.
“It’s not OK to discriminate against someone for their religion. It isn’t OK. It isn’t OK to treat them differently from others because of what they believe in,” Henry added.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/03/02/muslim-costco-employee-refuses-to-touch-pork-sues-after-getting-transferred-to-different-department-183683#ixzz3fRItToJI
this is from 2007, snopes has not debunked this story from NBC news:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Target shifts Muslims who won't ring up pork. Department stores in Minn. reassign some cashiers over religious conflict.
"Islam teaches that pigs are unclean and eating pork is a sin, and some Muslims feel selling or handling pork is also forbidden because it would make them complicit in the sins of others."
"Several times on his first day as a cashier, Dahir said, said customers brought pork products to his register. He asked them to take their goods to another register, and a customer complained to management."
“They told me, you have to check this,” Dahir said. “I told them, I can’t do this. You want me to do something that’s against my religion.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17665989/ns/business-us_business/t/target-shifts-muslims-who-wont-ring-pork/#.VZ8BIF9Viko
A cashier's assistant is a " bagger" is it not? I'm pretty sure it was one of his duties to gather carts. Sounds to me like he wanted a "cool" job and didn't get it so he played the discrimination card.
Touching pork is a lil different than taking someone else's rights away. I guess I thought that went without saying....
BD it's funny reading the comments about this case in other articles. Not 1 single comment defended the costo employee. They all screamed about Muslims and how they want toy force their religion on us. Wonder how many of those people that made those comments are on the baker's side??? Probably every single one of them?
Funny what hypocrites Some Christians are.
And in this case he was unable to perform his job based on his religion so they didn't fire him but instead found him a different job.
So honest question, do states have the right to make it illegal at thr state level?
Because there are many laws that are tougher at a state level then at a federal level, like gun laws, ao i was wondering if the same can, legally, apply to same sex marriage laws?
No the states do not have the right to make it illegal at the state level. This the reason for the celebration. Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states.
What he is asking in my opinion is how did the SCOTUS create a constitutional right that can't be infringed when others are highly regulated by the states - fair question. I have one as well could the states cause same sex couples to jump through numerous arduous and capricious hoops designed to essentially make it impossible to comply but state hey - we issue licenses - we just need you to get blood work from your entire family for 10 generations pass a full scope lifestyle polygraph and get permission from a superior court judge first - oh and the license cost $10.000
Sure they can as long as they do that for every marriage license not just same sex marriage license. Good luck with that. Or we can just accept same sex marriages are legal nationwide and move on with our lives once we realize it has zero affect on us.
skippy, the Constitution is irrelevant. By law, the government shouldn't be involved in *any* marriage contract.
Get rid of marriage-specific contracts and create a generic template from which people can modify to suit there particular situation. Government is capable of handling contract disputes and so that would be a perfectly legitimate solution.
So, how would everyone feel about abolishing ALL marriage laws and replacing them with a simple, voluntary, two-party contract system? Or do you feel that people are simply too stupid to enter into contracts on their own and thus cannot be expected to make decisions that are in their own, personal best interest?
I never thought the government should be involved in marriage at all - of any sort. Marriage was originally a "church" thing and if you wanted to get married HAD to go to a church, because it was considered a sacrament (or a binding promise which set up heirs).
Then the government got involved in licensing (fee generating) and then next you were able to go to a justice of the peace if you were not religious and the state would do it for you.
I never really understood why (other than to make money on licensing) you had to get a license, pay a fee and all that.
I think the government should get out of anything to do with marriage, abortion, marijuana and peoples property as inheritance among other things. It's not their place.
JIT - I have stated repeatedly - in this thread alone I believe the govt should have nothing to do with marriage - I agree with your proposal and think any persons or group of people can enter into a legal covenant supported by law.
The constitution, however, is not irrelevant in this matter - the SCOTUS only has the authority to interpret constitutional issues (work cited http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/briefoverview.aspx) - the SCOTUS - right or wrong - ruled on something that is not relegated by the constitution - they legislated from the bench - I am not passing judgement on that - as I have stated repeatedly I am a Libertarian - but that indisputably happened.
Darwin - I could see that happening - don't kid yourself.. there are many hoops that states, counties, and municipal governments make us jump through that are completely arbitrary - I am just posing a question.
and I agree with you Heidi - a marriage is between a person and their loved one(s) - government has no business in it nor regulating / incentiveising it...
http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/29876-texas-judge-who-s-against-gay-marriage-will-conduct-the-ceremonies-but-there-s-a-catch?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feedburner%2FbwTl+%28Chicks+On+The+Right%29
Looks like this answers my question - this judge is imposing his own requirement around scheduling a marriage with him
Justintime- "skippy, the Constitution is irrelevant." Are you from this planet- The U S of A?
"How could anyone say the constitution is irrelevant?"
That's what happens when you take things out of context. In the context of what JIT said, it is irrelevant. If someone said they want the Constitution to decide if I should eat chicken or fish tonight and JIT said the Constitution is irrelevant, would you still question how anyone could say that?
Rich Easy sherri: "The Constitution is irrelevant!"
Which it is, when you think about it's original intent versus what it has become. There was an intended method to keep the Constitution up to date with the times - the amendment process - but that has long since been forsaken and replaced with hundreds (of thousands?) of workarounds, ultimately leading the brilliant among us to call it "elastic". (The law of the land is supposed to be elastic? I don't think so!)
Besides, I was referring to the government being in the marriage contract business. I didn't see that mentioned anywhere in the Master Document, do you? Government is supposed to arbitrate contract disputes, not be a third party to them, and over the years the institution of marriage has become 1/10th him, 1/10 her, and 8/10ths government. There's something out of balance in that equation...
Thousands of workarounds? Are you referring to court decisions? It is impossible to a have a constitution, or law for that matter, without interpreting it. That's the court's role. You call them "workarounds" and imply that they are a cheat in the system. In fact, it is how the system is supposed to work.
Sure Gadfly, but the SCOTUS is supposed to rule with regards to the meaning of the Constitution, not the meaning they *want* it to have.
Surely no one can argue that the original intent and meaning of the Constitution wasn't for LIMITED Federal government, yet look what we have today - a government of gargantuan proportions. It didn't happen over night, and the growth started soon after the original document was crafted. And while many can claim current and previous SCOTUS rulings are valid based on "precedent", it doesn't mean that the precedent was in line with the Constitution in the first place.
This isn't a new concept, and I'm fairly certain you get my point. Whether you want to call it a "cheat in the system" is perspective based. I most definitely, without any doubts, think that the systems of government we have today are in no way based on the rule of law imposed by the Constitution. The most obvious is the Federal Reserve Banking system, where the Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to coin money. Congress interpreted the Constitution to say that they could pass the job off to a private banking system having limited restraints, so that's what they did. And just look at all the laws that were created due to that one single decision!
The point really is that instead of changing the Constitution to fit what people want today, collectively we continually give a pass to legislation that in no way (without manipulative word play) follows the words and intent of the original document. Which is why I always say that the Constitution should be changed to reflect our society instead of being paraded about as this awesome document that in reality has little bearing on modern day society.
While I generally agree with your conclusions, I also feel that the Constitution does allow interpretation leading to things like the Federal Reserve. I think these "manipulations" work across the board to serve all sides at times with sufficient Constitutional checks and balances.
"Surely no one can argue that the original intent and meaning of the Constitution wasn't for LIMITED Federal government" is frankly the core debate from the very beginning, even before the Constitution was ratified. Sure, the 1781 Articles of Confederation focused on monarchy avoidance with a central government so limited that the framers moved for replacement starting in 1787, the conception date of our Constitution. The Constitution evolved far from the original Articles and the simplistic "avoid monarchy" goal to embrace many different concerns, regional differences, class differences, protection of the individual and protection of the country from powerful individuals or groups.
The original Articles of Confederation had serious flaws like one vote per state in Congress, unanimous amendment vote requirement, 9 votes (out of 13) to pass laws, and not congressional regulation on foreign/global commerce. There was no national court and no executive branch to enforce Congressional actions. It was so weak as to be ineffective at any level.
And thus begins the perennial give and take between Federalists and Antifederalists or those desiring a national government and those desiring a federal one. By the names alone, you can tell who's aggrieved and, according to The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History: "Since the issue before the American people was ratification of the Constitution, (Antifederalist Leader) Gerry reasoned it would have been more appropriate to call to the two sides “rats” and “anti-rats!”
Here's a great summary of the debates of the day: http://www.wwnorton.com/college/polisci/american-politics-today2/full/ch/02/outline.aspx
In actuality JIT, I believe the Antifederalists were in the minority although I have yet to come up with a defined list from the convention. But this smacks in the face of a sole purpose of limited government although government limitations as well as checks and balances is indeed a main purpose. Here's a good high level view of the two camps, the "rats" and "anti rats" https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-of-confederation/the-great-debate/
Note the final paragraph of this detailed some events at the state level. Like today, the debate is not just by the political elite but apparently a debate for all Americans.
Fascinating stuff.
Fascinating indeed.
Jefferson, in 1791, arguing for strict construction of the words of the Constitution, "to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
Replied Alexander Hamilton, "an adherence to the letter of [the Constitution's] powers would at once arrest the motions of the government." In other words, nothing will then get done.
allowed the foot in the door. What is next? gay-ish relationships with other species?
This slowly leads to Sodom and Gomorrah. Whoever read the bible remembers what happened to them. Think deeper - same sex "marriage" leads to no procreation, which leads to, essentially, death. Then think about this - what entity represents death? and what entity represents the opposite - life (or birth)?
Pyc "What is next? gay-ish relationships with other species?"
what is a gay-ish relationship with other species? if i am a man and F a female cow, is that ok? or is that gay-ish?
Sounds like some things never change, our current society having the same basic disagreements.
So the conclusion is that there will forever be a swinging pendulum and all of this discussion is wasted energy? Lol
Are you advocating inter species marriage as long as it's "heterosexual" lol - we could use a thinning of the population quite frankly
Glad you two found the question so comical Darwin and Gadfly, at least skippy was wise enough to see what I was getting at.......Why can states make certain nation laws stricter, such as gun laws, but other laws have to remain at a nation level? Where is this seperation spelled out?
Darrin you asked if states could make it illegal not harder or stricter. Then only answer to your question is NO states an not make it illegal anymore. It is legal nationwide.
If they want to make it stricter then sure I guess they can but as long as they make all marriage licenses processes the same in that state. But they can't make it illegal. Just like states can't make owning a gun illegal in their state.
You asked a straight yes/ no question. Sorry we weren't wise enough to see what you were getting at.
The Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to further define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The amendment says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution - since the constitution is mute on marriage - it's a state issue. people in 30 states voted against it - the SCOTUS overstepped their bounds and legislated from the bench. Again I interject no moral standing on the issue - I don't care who gets married, however, this is a failing of our basic civic process.It sets a dangerous president where state government can be superseded by the judicial branch through tort thereby short circuiting the balance of power guaranteed by the constitution.
Skippy certain things should not be up to the voters to decide. Imagine if we left it up to the voters to allow blacks the right to vote? With only white males being able to vote on it. Or allowing men to vote if women had the right to vote. Some times majority shouldn't have the say. And that's why we at times need the government to make sure the rights of the minority are protected.
Justice Jackson in 1943
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette
Ok understood - then amend the constitution to allow it - there's a process for that as well - I'm not against you - I'm just for following the process - and not circumventing it. If the constitution is a living document - so be it - follow the amendment process - and you will note there is still no mention of contract law or marriage within that decision. - the right to marriage was not deemed to be inalienable under the constitution - again the constitution is mute to this point - perhaps government should not incentivize marriage or be in control of any part of it. If certain legal protections and incentives did not exist under law it would not be such a hot issue. Unfortunately these exemptions exist and all persons should have the right to take part in them - but since that is the case the appropriate steps towards an amendment must be complied with - otherwise the entire process breaks down.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/
For anyone confused on the process
Skippy, I have to disagree with your analysis. The SCOTUS decision on gay marriage was not based on any supposed power to regulate marriage. It was based upon constitutionally protected rights to due process and equal protection. Clearly those are well within the SCOTUS's purview. Similarly, SCOTUS has made numerous decisions finding discrimination to be unconstitutional, including cases related to housing, interracial marriage, and school segregation. If SCOTUS strikes down a state law that prohibits black people from getting driver's licenses, for example, that doesn't mean that that SCOTUS is overstepping its bounds by regulating drivers licenses.
Make sure the rights of the minority are protected. Hmmmm?
Freedom of worship and assembly.....hmmm?
Oh hello Darwin, don't mind me, I was just musing over your last statement.
+1 skippy - you're quite correct, and this is partly what JIT was getting at. we have an activist court that is overstepping it's bounds and charter, and the myopically left viewing ones don't see anything wrong with this. they need to open their right eye once in while, if only to stay balanced and not fall over so much to one side, (can anyone else see their 'confirmation bias' ?) :)
darwin - agreed, inalienable rights should not be subjected to popular vote, agreed.
Darrin, this what you wrote:
"So honest question, do states have the right to make it illegal at thr state level?
Because there are many laws that are tougher at a state level then at a federal level, like gun laws, ao i was wondering if the same can, legally, apply to same sex marriage laws?"
That is THE very question that the SCOTUS ruled on. It's the basis for this whole discussion. You clearly didn't know the answer. I'm not sure how that is, but your question was pretty damn clear.
Thanks BD - gadfly you and darrin either need to fight or make love because you have a predisposition for him - meanwhile I wouldn't fight him and I am a 6 foot 320 lb man / I've met him and he is large.
"It was based upon constitutionally protected rights to due process and equal protection."
...which means access to the benefits of marriage...
Luciferian Agenda - the gays have no clue what the Rainbow means to God....it is so far over their heads they wouldn't get it.
Just useful idiots...imo
It's not lost on me - who has never attended a mass that the Homosexual Agenda would be taken in by this...i mean c'mon God told Noah after the Flood - I will give you a sign- the Rainbow that the coast is clear to land and restore the Earth.
So the Gays take the Rainbow Flag...lol
You think that was an accident...give me a freakin break.
There is a whole agenda behind this - along with Bruce Jenner supposedly the best athlete on earth becoming a woman...think he still holds decathlon records. It's an Agenda if you can't see it - well guess you don't have eyes to see & you will get slaughtered like the rest of them.
Answer this question why did Noah's Flood take place?
If you can't answer that question - well your going to the wrong church...imo
Genesis 9
God’s Covenant With Noah
12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”
17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”
RU Omg, yes, yes, the word of God is so wonderful and clear that it should be the way and the law for everyone! Yippee! The trouble is which God is the right one? I'm pretty sure each one says that they are. How can anyone in their right logical mind think you can govern all people by one religion, i.e., yours??? Just boggles my mind. People talk about this country being based on freedom "of" religion, well I think it is freedom "from " religion. Meaning I don't have to believe the same as you do and can still be free to have life, liberty, and happiness. We all have to abide by the same civil laws, not religious tenets. God why is that so hard to understand? Aargh!
Skippy,
A warning about how how big Darrin is, but no reply on my response to your SCOTUS overstepping its bounds post?
Ras- so if someone makes a civil law against my religious beliefs, I should conform and compromise what I believe to be true?
This has been tried and proven wrong so many times in the past.
Let's try loving our brothers as we love ourselves. Respect one another.
Oh crap that won't work because it's because that's what MY God tells me I should do.
Let's keep hating each other it seems to be working well....
Come on man! Is respecting someone else's opinion that hard?
Doesnt mattter anymore, its done, nothing anyone can do to change it, so everyone move on, if you find gay marriage offensive tough shit, i find things offensive that wont change, like 400 pound fat bastards at a buffet
"darwin - agreed, inalienable rights should not be subjected to popular vote, agreed."
glad we agree BD, then i guess our only disagreement is if marriage is considered an inalienable right.
My previous comments stand for itself - the SCOTUS should never have accepted the case it wasn't cognizable before them and in the dissent scalea says pretty much that
I'm happy that same sex couples get equal protection under law - I think it should have been done via legislation akin to the 1964 civil rights act and not through the judicial branch - this is a dangerous precedent is my only point.
I don't 100% disagree with you Skippy, but I do not believe it would have been able to make it thru Legislation since Congress would have been pressured by their own religious beliefs as well as pressured by their voters’ religious beliefs. I believe the SCOTUS had to take this case because they were able to see this as rights issue and not a religious issue. I don’t think we needed an Amendment to the Constitution or an Act to tell us what the definition of marriage is, but I do think we needed a court case to tell us it was Unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry
They decided that a state does not have the right to ban gay marriage and so therefore gay marriage is legal in every state. They should and needed to take that case.
darwin - i've been saying for many years now (years) that the government has no business is deciding who can marry who. only reason to have any paperwork filed on it is for legal reasons, benefits, inheritance etc. other than keeping a record, government should have no other interest in it.
my personal beliefs on what constitutes a marriage are my own and i will keep that counsel to myself
I agree with you Darwin - it's an inalienable right. I just feel that the SCOTUS completely circumvented the electorate sent by the people to Washington. If the legislature would have denied it - then that's the will of the people. This is reflected in the fact that 30 states had laws against it. It's a slippery slope when the SCOTUS forces what is essentially legislation of any type on a population in direct conflict to their wishes
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/symposium-ryan-anderson/
"As the four dissenting opinions make abundantly clear, today’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges had nothing to do with the Constitution. This ruling is perhaps as clear of an example of judicial activism as any we have seen in recent years – or are likely (hopefully) to see in the future"
Darwin - I cant see how you would feel that appointed justices are somehow more qualified to legislate then the representatives we sent to Washington.
Watch The Imitation Game and see what gay discrimination could have cost us: 2-4 additional years of war and 14 million to 21 million lives saved. And then the very government he saved through ant-gay laws pushed him over the edge to suicide at 41.
He was a weird, but I think we would say normal enough. He was athletic, smart, and did not harm anyone. He saved the world and began our computer age. And basically our fears and discrimination killed him.
IMHO if two people want to marry, live their lives peacefully without "bothering" the rest of us, why shouldn't they receive the same protections and benefits as other married couples. The Imitation Game gives a clear picture as to the useless harm discrimination can cause.
"Prime Minister Winston Churchill said Turing’s work was the single greatest contribution to Allied triumph. "
http://www.biography.com/news/alan-turing-biography-imitation-game
Skippy - The Declaration doesn't say that all men are created equal unless you're the wrong race, gender, or sexual orientation. Nor does the 14th Amendment say you get equal protection unless you're the wrong race, gender, or sexual orientation. Neither of those things should have been necessary to have any law passed.
As for the Scalia dissent he tries to make a case that a new right has been established but his argument is short and very weak. Most of his dissent is a personal attack calling others drunk morons. The majority opinion makes it much clearer no new right has been created. The ruling has only upheld the existing right of equal protection in the 14th Amendment.
Ok I get what your saying GC - lets not forget that the Constitution also guarantees as it's cardinal principle a popular vote elected self-government invested with certain limited legislative powers in the form of a Congress.
Further, the 10th amendment relegates all other legislative powers to the states, each of which was guaranteed, though the Republican Guarantee Clause, a popular form of government.
the SCOTUS in Obergefell v. Hodges violated these principals.
"If the legislature would have denied it - then that's the will of the people. This is reflected in the fact that 30 states had laws against it."
so since you agree that it is an inalienable right, i will direct you to my above post that the Bill of Rights was designed so that inalienable rights should not be up for vote nor be ruled by the majority. The fact that 30 states had Unconstitutional laws on their books is the EXACT reason they needed to take this case.
Ok but my belief dosent make it part of the constitution - I also believe a lot of other things are inalienable rights - that are in fact in the constitution and those rights are infringed daily.
My idea of freedom is a married same sex couple defending their marijuana fields with a class III firearm. That's just me though
I don't hate anybody and just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I do! A civil right doesn't infringe on what you believe in. Believe whatever you want. You just can't act on it if it infringes on my civil rights. What if your religious belief is that women shouldn't work outside the home and that man is the head of the household and can do whatever he wants to his wife and children? Oh yeah your religion already says that, good thing we have civil laws to counteract those religious beliefs, else women would still be barefoot and pregnant. Now I know not every religious person thinks the same way or has the exact same beliefs or zealousness but I think that's the point of separating religious doctrine from civil laws. And I take exception to anyone claiming love and compassion for my fellow human beings is dependent on believing in some deity. I have my own conscience and don't need some mythical being to tell me how to be a good person.
GC, I wish it were true that the Court had simply "only upheld the existing right of equal protection in the 14th Amendment". It seems, though, that it has found a right of marriage (any marriage?) in the Constitution. I'll attach a discussion of this topic:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0629-schneller-kennedy-20150629-story.html
This could become a problem; hopefully not.
I'm by far not a believer in the Bible. MY PERSONAL view point is that people needed a book that had a set of rules kinda like a pre law book so people did not go bat crazy. It's been changed several times. And this day and years prior we still do not have what was the original copy of the book.
Moving on, History books indicated that the reason why some things were discussed in the bible was to keep diseases out that have been an issue with how they were spread... but like I said previously, it was like a law book to keep the crazies within.
Now I'm not calling anyone crazy so please do not keep that out of subtext. My point is just that people are going to throw the BIble around to indicate what is right. Those are your personal and your religous backgrounds. I'm not going against them. However, keeping an open mind homesexuality isnt wrong and by far getting married is not wrong. To me it's wrong to disallow people getting married. Going further, I think personally you should not allow someone to marry a cow or a chair. But marrying another person is fine.
Also it's clear that GC Darwin et all are debating from a position where they are happy with the end result - in that I think we all agree. Again my concern is the flagrant disregard of the constitution that made it happen. I also have concerns that you feel that it is acceptable for a court to disenfranchise our elected legislature and essentially create new legislation. The legislature creates laws and the courts interpret them pursuant to the constitution and applicable president.
Skippy, just for the record I hear what you are saying. Not sure yet if I agree with you as I did not read the complete SC opinion. I get it that the courts shouldn't be creating laws, that is for the legislative branch, but I think they are just enforcing the law to apply to everyone. I really need to read the opinion though to understand your point of view better.
"Also it's clear that GC Darwin et all are debating from a position where they are happy with the end result - in that I think we all agree....I also have concerns that you feel that it is acceptable for a court to disenfranchise our elected legislature and essentially create new legislation"
that is not the case. The SCOTUS did not create new legislation. What they did was declare legislation that was voted on in 30 states was Unconstitutional. That is why they took the case. Not to redefine marriage or create a new law, but to strike down existing laws at the state level that were Unconstitutional.
"The legislature creates laws and the courts interpret them pursuant to the constitution and applicable president."
correct and the courts decide if those laws are Constitutional or not... that is what happened here. If no state passed a law banning same sex marriage there would be no case for the SCOTUS to hear.
Skippy i feel like my last few posts have fallen on deaf ears with you.
skippy - Darwin has laid out exactly the reasons why this ruling does not violate the principles of the Constitution at all. In fact, they follow the regular process outlined in it and upheld with Marbury vs Madison. You mentioned exactly the basis when you said that Congress and the states have limited powers. Limited by the Consitution itself, when for example it says they may not pass any law respecting an establishment of religion. If they do, the Supreme Court strikes it down. Exactly what happened here, a challenge to Constitutionality was made, and ruling struck down the law. If you are implying there is precedent of a requirement for Congress or states to pass laws, they already did. They were just not Constitutional. That is why a flagrant violation of the Constitution was not made at all.
jd2 - Two points first. One is that we seem to agree on a 14th Amendment as a basis for a correct ruling. Second is the link you cite is more of a simple editorial rather than a full discussion. But that aside, I'm not sure I entirely agree with the editorial's assessment that the main argument of the majority opinion is a new right of marriage as opposed to a 14th Amendment challenge. There are definitely references to that right in the majority opinion, but the context is in the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness. I believe Roberts did that mostly as a matter of fall back, similar to how Scalia in his dissent claims phantom rights but mentions the 14th Amendment. There's no way Scalia needed to bring up equal protection if he didn't think that was justification of the majority opinion.
That said the editorial does mention one of the weaker citations. Most of the cases in the majority opinion are well chosen, and have equal protection implications which is why I say I don't entirely agree with the editorial. A bigger problem with the editorial is starting first with the legislation from the bench angle and then trying to have the tail wag the dog into that argument given the one case mentioned. The writer has a valid point of pointing out a weakness, but that's about as far as I think it goes.
ok - conceded - I am not the only one that thinks this way - there are constitutional scholars that agree with my points as well
"I don't hate anybody and just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I do! A civil right doesn't infringe on what you believe in. Believe whatever you want. You just can't act on it if it infringes on my civil rights. "
I agree. Which makes every single gun control law on the books unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court has said- they are not infallible, just all-powerful.
As far as "will of the people", that doesn't work... that's mob rule, and specifically what the founders were trying to avoid when designing our government the way they did. I get what you're saying (whoever said it)... but look at CA: Prop 187... the people voted TWICE for it, and the 9th circuit court of appeals told the people that their "will" did not matter. The "will of the people" think is sticky... our government is designed for the will of the people to win out, just not override the bill of rights (at least not with out a constitutional convention/constitutional amendment).
Anyone else find it strange that there are people who *want* a government sanctioned marriage? I mean, everyone keeps saying that same sex couples only want to be recognized, as if that can't happen without a government license, but that's obviously not the reason for the continual fighting.
I'm repeating myself once again, I know, but this whole distraction is about benefits plain and simple. All these excuses to essentially say "please government man, tell me it's OK to be the person I want to be!" make no sense whatsoever in any other context.
Please, can we get the government out of the marriage contract business already? This is ridiculous.
Agreed JIT - government incentives towards marriage need to be eliminated and all government needs to be out of the marriage business!!
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
JD and others,
No right was created here. The Warren Court recognized (created?) the right to marry in its 1967 ruling Loving v. Virginia, which struck down a state law that prohibited interracial marriage.
Jit, I do hear you but the fact is the government is in the business of marriage. The government often uses incentives to achieve desired social effects or conditions. I think marriage is one of those deals. There is another HL poster who keeps saying why should any one group get benefits and not others and this is the reason. The government at a point in time was trying to promote the family unit. What you say is correct, it is essentially about benefits as in why should I have to pay thousands of dollars to a lawyer to draw up a contract for my relationship when for a 28 dollar marriage license I can get the same protection? Actually not quite the same protection as certain benefits, such as inheritance tax relief or social security benefits are only bestowed upon married couples.
JIT, I don't understand why you keep belittling the issue of marriage equality as being only about benefits. If congress passed law providing that only same same sex marriages enjoyed these benefits, you and others critcizing the recent SCOTUS decision would be up in arms, and with good cause. The benefits you dismiss so blithely are important. They important consequences in people's lives. If you want to take the position that no marriage should result in special treatment by the government, I wouldn't argue with you. But that position in no way supports the notion that gay Americans should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as everyone else. It also does not detract from the fundamental importance of all people being treated equally under the law.
Gadfly, I keep coming back to the question of why it is so important that people need to petition the government for legal permission to be "married". No one needs permission to be together, happy, etc. So why look for the permission? Benefits.
Why not, for instance, argue harder to extricate government from the marriage process in the first place? Benefits, taken from your neighbors and redistributed to you.
And why has so much of the dialog been centered around sexual orientation? That's a personal issue and irrelevant to any legal matters.
So like I said, it's ALL about the benefits. I'm not even saying that this argument is wrong, just that many of the arguments for and against are complete BS and should be ignored, and the best way to do that is to focus on what this is really about. Benefits.
Regarding who can and cannot make legal decisions for their partners and other personal decisions, that doesn't have to be done under marriage laws. That could be done the same way people choose beneficiaries for example, very simply. It's not complicated to do.
To be clear, I've always said that if the government is offering benefits it would be stupid to not take advantage of them, which is what the LGBT community wants to do. Still about benefits, specifically monetary benefits - SS, tax incentives, death benefits, estate distributions, etc.
My question is why are these benefits controlled by the government in the first place? If I own property and want to pass it along to someone upon my death that's MY business, is it not? If I paid into SS my whole life, why can't I decide what happens to MY property after I pass?
See now? I'd rather see elimination of these laws instead of adding one more group to the classification. Removal of these laws would remove the entire reasoning for wanting the permission of government to fit into the benefits bucket called "marriage". Better yet, more people would be able to decide for themselves, without government dictate, what happens to their property and insurance benefits. Even better, there would be no reason to even worry about someone's sexual orientation being the cause for them taking from the same benefits bucket that you currently have access to.
Yeah, all of that really isn't relevant. Assign marriage benefits, don't assign marriage benefits. It's a separate question. The point, which you seem to want to ignore, is that everyone should be treated the same.
You could just easily be arguing that the government shouldn't be providing ANYONE with drinking fountains, while quietly ignoring the problem with government providing "whites only" drinking fountains.
Gadfly, on the contrary! I'm saying that EVERYONE should be treated the same with NO classifications!
The government currently discriminates via law toward people who fit into the marriage classification. Certainly you can't deny that! The LGBT group of people want to be ADDED to that discriminatory group, claiming they are not being treated equally, but in reality they want to stop being discriminated against while allowing everyone else in society to remain being discriminated against! I say include everyone!
Which is why IMO the only way to NOT discriminate is to get rid of current marriage laws and replace them with full spectrum equality based on contracts agreed to by those people in relationships.
Did you read his post?? JIT is not anti-equality they are anti government incentivizing human rights and liberties.
JIT are you married? If so why did you get married? I would assume the reason you got married, if you are, is the same reason 98% of people get married which had very little to do with the tax or other financial benefits that come with marriage.
JIT, your argument is based on the notion that marriage benefits are discriminatory in the same manner as prohibition on same sex marriage is discriminatory. That's just not the case.
Gadfly can you clarify that I'm not understanding - how JIT is saying marriage benefits are discriminatory? Honest question
Look at any former and current communist country that has Marxist roots to their legal system - ergo Cuba. There is no benefit to marriage so nobody does it - marriage has nothing to do with love or anything else under the law - it's about creating a contractual covenant which has ramifications under the law if the terms are violated and in addition carries with it benefits such as intestacy, tax advantages, probate court advantages and estate tax advantages. It is clearly incentivized under our system of law. The case before the SCOTUS was are same sex couples entitled to equal protection. If it was just about love then the 14th amendment argument fails in its entirety.
Gadfly, Okay I read about the Loving vs Virginia case, so I see what you mean.
That was a unanimous decision. It might be interesting to speculate how the same case would fare in today's Supreme Court.
I had to laugh about the reasoning of the Virginia court that held that the prohibition against inter-racial marriage did not violate Equal Protection, in that the white and non-white partners suffered equal penalties under the law!
I guess you could also argue that gay people had equal protection - they had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex just like anyone else did. :)
Gadfly, the arguments about denying benefits to same sex couples differs how from denying them to single people? Singles get sick and need someone to carry out their will, they have pensions and 401k's and SS benefits that they would like to pass along to someone. In fact, nearly every argument put forth by same sex couples as a reason to get a government mandated marriage license can be argued for single people as well. Again, it's because of the benefits gained from having that license.
IOW, if you are going to claim rights under the equal protection clause then tell me why single people can't cite the same clause? What's the difference, other than discriminating against single people?
Darrin, you are making my point. People wed due to things other than the wedding license. BUT, what do those same people think *after* they wed? Do they ignore the benefits given to them by the state? Regarding anyone who falls in love, why even bother to get approval from the government? Why in the world would ANYONE seek approval to validate their commitment and love to each other? Except for the benefits doled out by the government, there is no reason whatsoever.
Skippy,
JIT is arguing that marriage benefits are discriminatory against people who are not married, since they treat married people and unmarried people differently.
The same argument could be made to say that the government discriminates against people who don't on their own home, since they are not entitled to the same tax deductions. It's a weak argument in my opinion.
Weak based on the current climate of expecting favoritism from the government, I'll give you that, yes. But not weak when presented as just plain old facts without the "but..but... they are getting a benefit and I'm not" arguments that typify any and all requests for government benefits, and in line with the true dictionary definition of equality.
BTW, this is usually referred to as the "slippery slope" argument.
thanks for clarifying Gadfly - I think JIT makes a good case to expand federal employment and housing discrimination law to cover single people, and to promote the same treatment at the state level. Also we are one of only a few developed countries to retain the joint tax return, and we should think seriously about reconsidering whether it's actually justified.
Here is an interesting list of how single people are not receiving the same rights as married persons.
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/laws-affecting.html
I agree with JIT that we could remove all the benefits and probably reach the same results although we would all need to hire lawyers or legalzoom.com to effect our will, wills, and other stuff. At last count, there may be over 1,000 different bene's some of which predate the nation I think.
Meanwhile a more vexing dilemma caused by legalizing same sex marriages......
With all this same-sex marriage going on, there better be some new etiquette's written for those kissin-da-bride and garter grabbing/tossing parts...... And is it all hands on deck for catching the bouquet?
Maybe I am a prude, but just saying.........
Marriage is a contract. The government will always been part of contract resolution. You could put some other name on that kind of contract if you want, but it won't change a thing.
While marriage required registration even in colonial days, until the 1850's, most states ruled that cohabitation was proof enough. You did not need a contract for marriage, "all you need is love." bum ba bum ba bump.....
The civil war followed shortly thereafter; you be the judge.
After that most common law marriages did not count but also many states prohibited one from marrying "that kind" of which there were a number depending on the season. Emancipation was the law of the land, except in marriage.
By the 1950's, most prohibitions were falling away and marriage was needed for proof of something else: bene's!!!! Especially social security. Suddenly really strange "benes" like hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits all required the contract.
Today there are over 1,000 rights and benefits determined by the marriage contract. That's a lot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
"The government will always been part of contract resolution."
Absolutely, that is one of the primary roles of government. But this issue is when the government inserts itself as a party to a contract that it drew up without the consent of every individual it says the contract applies to.
Don't agree to the contract? No benefits. Exactly.
Commenting is no longer available.