Gay Marriage.

Message boards : Politics : Gay Marriage.
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 19 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1230060 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 16:47:15 UTC - in response to Message 1230056.  
Last modified: 10 May 2012, 16:47:39 UTC

It's about tearing down institutions.

Change, the universal constant. ;)
ID: 1230060 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1230065 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 16:56:41 UTC - in response to Message 1230038.  

We can solve this debate today. Willing to do it?

As of today forward churches do marriage, which will not be recognized by government. Government does civil unions, which will not be recognized by church.

Problem solved.

Unfortunately, marriage is as much of a legal institution, as it is religious. As a matter of fact, I'd argue in my case that marriage would have nothing to do my religion, and instead is for the purposes of two people joining, UNDER LAW.

Because marriage is neither tied specifically to religion, or law, you can't solve the issue in that manner.


Sure you can, marriage becomes a purely religious exercise, and a marriage certificate would become meaningless in civil law; for taxes, wills, insurance, and everything else in the non-purely religious world, a civil union is the means to show assets are shared, etc. Those ordained to perform marriages could also be certified to perform civil unions, so both could be conducted simultaneously.

Lawyers would love it ;-)

Actually I'd prefer that no single person could preform both a marriage and a civil union. Make it clear the two things have nothing to do with each other. Just consider the plight of a Muslim - Jewish couple. Who does the marriage? Buddhist Priest? Easy to find a judge to do the civil union. This way government has no say in how religion works. When you mix them you get trouble.

If a church wishes to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, why should state law prohibit it?

If it does, isn't that an unconstitutional interference in a purely religious matter, forbidden by the first amendment?

ID: 1230065 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24876
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1230183 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 20:43:58 UTC

Now this I find agreeable. Both politics & media attempt to get the masses discussing trivia while ignoring more pressing issues....

Real problems

...& guess what folks? We fall for it every time!
ID: 1230183 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1230281 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 23:01:15 UTC - in response to Message 1230156.  

If a church wishes to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, why should state law prohibit it?

There *are* churches that perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. A state can prohibit it if that's what the majority of the state wants. What's your point?

What value has a tradition other than serve as a means to continue doing the same thing as before without having to think about its worth?

You can have tradition *and think* about its worth. Again, what's your point?

Obama believes it should be left to the states compared to? Perhaps an amendment to the USC? Why would proposing such an amendment be considered a dictatorial action?

Compared to? THE US CONSTITUTION. Have you read the 10th amendment lately? Obama believes.... THE US CONSTITUTION STATES AUTHORITATIVELY. I'm ALL FOR PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT. I'm not for him dictating with our regard to the laws of this nation.

bobby, why do you always try to get me off track?


I am not trying to get you off track, I'm trying to get you to think about what Obama meant by his statement rather than have a knee jerk reaction and assume he's somehow being dictatorial. If he were here we'd be able to ask him, as it is critical thinking allows us to imagine plausible responses. It seems to me the obvious alternative to State laws would be a constitutional amendment, and it seems to me that Obama has expressed a preference for the former. It's not clear to me why you find his words so objectionable

On the state law prohibition of same sex marriage, the first amendment prohibits the free exercise of religion. The 14th amendment means that this freedom applies to the states. Your response appears to ignore this.

Regarding your comment about tradition, sure you can have tradition and think about it, I never said you couldn't. My point is that thinking is not required when an action is excused by virtue of it being "traditional".
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1230281 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24876
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1230282 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 23:05:15 UTC

An easy question......

Will the citizens of the USA accept a gay president & all that entails?
ID: 1230282 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1230283 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 23:06:25 UTC - in response to Message 1230183.  

Now this I find agreeable. Both politics & media attempt to get the masses discussing trivia while ignoring more pressing issues....

Real problems

...& guess what folks? We fall for it every time!


One particular political party is trying to involve itself in private matters. Should we simply ignore this and only deal with the more pressing issues? What's more real to you, what you get up to in your own bedroom, or what happens in a boardroom you have never entered?
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1230283 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24876
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1230286 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 23:08:07 UTC - in response to Message 1230283.  

Now this I find agreeable. Both politics & media attempt to get the masses discussing trivia while ignoring more pressing issues....

Real problems

...& guess what folks? We fall for it every time!


One particular political party is trying to involve itself in private matters. Should we simply ignore this and only deal with the more pressing issues? What's more real to you, what you get up to in your own bedroom, or what happens in a boardroom you have never entered?


The boardroom, as there, decisions are made that affect the employees.

& for your info, I've entered many boardrooms & not when they were empty.
ID: 1230286 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1230296 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 23:18:23 UTC - in response to Message 1230286.  

Now this I find agreeable. Both politics & media attempt to get the masses discussing trivia while ignoring more pressing issues....

Real problems

...& guess what folks? We fall for it every time!


One particular political party is trying to involve itself in private matters. Should we simply ignore this and only deal with the more pressing issues? What's more real to you, what you get up to in your own bedroom, or what happens in a boardroom you have never entered?


The boardroom, as there, decisions are made that affect the employees.

& for your info, I've entered many boardrooms & not when they were empty.


Fair enough. Though I suspect the number of people with bedrooms outnumbers those that are employees, so if it's a numbers game ....

& for your info, I did not say that your hadn't entered any boardrooms.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1230296 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24876
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1230304 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 23:28:12 UTC - in response to Message 1230296.  


Fair enough. Though I suspect the number of people with bedrooms outnumbers those that are employees, so if it's a numbers game ....

& for your info, I did not say that your hadn't entered any boardrooms.


I know you didn't, just stating that if one has access, the things that go on in boardrooms can be truly eye-opening or mouth-watering.

Personally, there's no difference bdetween them & politicians.
ID: 1230304 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1230332 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 1:08:50 UTC - in response to Message 1230281.  

On the state law prohibition of same sex marriage, the first amendment prohibits the free exercise of religion.

Bobby, you did mean the opposite of what your fingers typed?

ID: 1230332 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1230339 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 1:28:11 UTC

Will the citizens of the USA accept a gay president & all that entails?


I will. USA no. Because 100% of people never accept.

Wait a minute. Gay and Black. I'd think long about that one. Nope, he would be Dem/Lib and that is always a No.

Puke. Yeah. No Problem. Love them Gay TeaAnderthals.

I'm old. I'll be Dead before I need to throw the lever for.....The Next Not White Republican Guy.

SixFeetDownDullNanDo

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1230339 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1230340 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 1:29:58 UTC

you always have the Log Cabin Republicans.
Janice
ID: 1230340 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1230366 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 3:06:28 UTC - in response to Message 1230332.  

On the state law prohibition of same sex marriage, the first amendment prohibits the free exercise of religion.

Bobby, you did mean the opposite of what your fingers typed?


That'll teach me to multi task while posting. Thanks Gary, what I meant to say was "the first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion".
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1230366 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1230487 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 12:19:44 UTC - in response to Message 1230366.  

On the state law prohibition of same sex marriage, the first amendment prohibits the free exercise of religion.

Bobby, you did mean the opposite of what your fingers typed?


That'll teach me to multi task while posting. Thanks Gary, what I meant to say was "the first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion".

and that no religion will be established as a national religion. That being said Christianity isn't really a religion. Though most Christian religions follow the same basic tenets, however loosely.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1230487 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1230527 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 14:10:35 UTC

I think it may be fair to ask: doesn't the first amendment just actually guarantee that no religion will be imposed or put forward by governmental entities. Also are we given the right to have freedom from religion??

I don't think that it gives the right for anyone to practice anywhere at any time or in any place especially when others belong to that public place. What do you think about France banning the head scarf or the birka (Chador) ?
ID: 1230527 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1230528 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 14:10:58 UTC - in response to Message 1229917.  

Kafkatrapping...

I don't hate Gay people. I don't agree with the life style they have 'chosen' for themselves.

They cannot claim that they are being discriminated against. We have rule of law for a reason. In that law at the federal level we have the 14 and 15 amendments. For both it isn't a life choice we are talking about. In both cases you are born this way and have no control over this matter.

Kafkatrapping...


If you want wiggle room, go to the state and ask. However, remember that if 2/3rds of the states tell you no then at the federal level you have no wiggle room.

In California the most liberial state in the Union voted for prop 8. This was the consensus of the people. However, this was not allowed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took a vote of the people themselves and said it was unconstitutional. The Hollywood elite backed the effort in cash and didn't have a hard time finding Judges who would Rule from the Bench in place of ruling on established law, first and foremost---precedent.


Indeed, Kafkatrapping...



Bottom line is that a Federal Court has only one duty and that is to rule on established law only in a Constitutional issue. That does mean that they need to READ the Constitution and apply that law to the issue.

As I said, they cannot claim they are being discriminated against. Such a issue is life style. One can claim that they want to marry a anamial, or an object. The precedent has been since the start of this Country--one man, and one woman. One could claim that he/she wants more then one wife or husband, the precedent is one man and one woman.

The matter of the subject at hand here is that life style is curbed by law everyday of the week 24/7 hours of the day. Someone can say they like little kids--alot, to much, that life style is against the law. Someone could say they like whatever the masses find unacceptable, and that LIFE STYLE is curbed by the law.

This is the bottom line of said subject. The gay issues is a matter of life style, not a matter of people being discriminated against. And Constitutional law has only one direction and that is to rule on what is in the Constitution.

ID: 1230528 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1230566 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 16:02:34 UTC - in response to Message 1230527.  

I think it may be fair to ask: doesn't the first amendment just actually guarantee that no religion will be imposed or put forward by governmental entities. Also are we given the right to have freedom from religion??

I don't think that it gives the right for anyone to practice anywhere at any time or in any place especially when others belong to that public place. What do you think about France banning the head scarf or the birka (Chador) ?

No it doesn't say that. Some foolish judge decided with some atheists that its "from" and not "of". Worship as you like without hindrance. Don't worship.. Eh whatever you please, is what it says.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances



In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1230566 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1230575 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 16:27:15 UTC - in response to Message 1230528.  
Last modified: 11 May 2012, 16:27:41 UTC

Bottom line is that a Federal Court has only one duty and that is to rule on established law only in a Constitutional issue. That does mean that they need to READ the Constitution and apply that law to the issue.

As I said, they cannot claim they are being discriminated against. Such a issue is life style. One can claim that they want to marry a anamial, or an object. The precedent has been since the start of this Country--one man, and one woman. One could claim that he/she wants more then one wife or husband, the precedent is one man and one woman.

The matter of the subject at hand here is that life style is curbed by law everyday of the week 24/7 hours of the day. Someone can say they like little kids--alot, to much, that life style is against the law. Someone could say they like whatever the masses find unacceptable, and that LIFE STYLE is curbed by the law.

This is the bottom line of said subject. The gay issues is a matter of life style, not a matter of people being discriminated against. And Constitutional law has only one direction and that is to rule on what is in the Constitution.


1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


14th amendment, section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Homosexuality is not illegal, unlike paedophilia, bestiality, bigamy, etc., so comparisons with such practices are not applicable. It seems to me that the most applicable comparison is to the anti-miscegenation laws that SCOTUS struck down in 1967.

There are civil practices that are modified after a couple is married, rights to a partner's pension can be contingent on marriage, hospital policies on gaining access to a dying loved one, granting consent for medical interventions, the list goes on. It appears to me that not being free to give your lawfully chosen partner such rights is discrimination, just as anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1230575 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1230585 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 17:19:18 UTC
Last modified: 11 May 2012, 17:28:12 UTC

What one thinks about gay marriage personally is of some matter. What the group thinks together is the matter at hand. Out was prop 8 was voted on and approved by the masses. They made up their minds on the issue as I have told you. One can't like a child to much. One cannot have more then one spouse. One cannot marry a dog. One who wishes to marry of the same sex is not allowed.

Then it went to court. The judge did not rule on what the masses wanted. The judge did not rule on a Constitutional matter.

If gay marriage can be shot down by vote in such a state as California it has no chance at all unless we get judges who rule from the bench and not on established law. Bottom Line. You all can banter all you want, it amounts to nothing at all. Any court ruling can and in this case will be overturned by the people themselves. In this Country the people make the law, we have no masters but ourselves.

Just because the last of the laws against gay marriage were struck down in 2003 by SCOTUS does not mean that they will not be reinstated at a later date by the people themselves, namely the right to marry.
ID: 1230585 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 19 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Gay Marriage.


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.