Gay Marriage.


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Gay Marriage.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 20 · Next
Author Message
Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31761
Credit: 13,144,410
RAC: 37,396
United Kingdom
Message 1230045 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 16:04:46 UTC

I believe it is not clear whether a "Civil" marriage or partnership would qualify for a married couples tax allowance, or state pension. In the UK two single people co-habiting together get the full single state pension each, which is more than a married couples pension.

Spanner works chuck in the .......


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 43,268,141
RAC: 185,965
Message 1230056 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 16:40:04 UTC - in response to Message 1230027.
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 13:16:22 UTC

--

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12569
Credit: 6,876,953
RAC: 6,666
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. ;)
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12569
Credit: 6,876,953
RAC: 6,666
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?

____________


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 43,268,141
RAC: 185,965
Message 1230156 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 20:17:57 UTC - in response to Message 1230043.
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 13:16:07 UTC

--

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11255
Credit: 1,679,318
RAC: 3,493
Israel
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!
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31761
Credit: 13,144,410
RAC: 37,396
United Kingdom
Message 1230186 - Posted: 10 May 2012, 20:51:53 UTC

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


Both the US and UK Governments thought that being a bit more "with it" in the 21st century was a vote catcher. Unfortunately they are now finding out that it isn't, and is masking the more pressing problems. Worth a try guys but no cigar.

Next ...

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,829,507
RAC: 2,906
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 ...

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11255
Credit: 1,679,318
RAC: 3,493
Israel
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?
____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,829,507
RAC: 2,906
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 ...

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11255
Credit: 1,679,318
RAC: 3,493
Israel
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.
____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,829,507
RAC: 2,906
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 ...

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11255
Credit: 1,679,318
RAC: 3,493
Israel
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.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12569
Credit: 6,876,953
RAC: 6,666
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?

____________

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
____________


Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 6
United States
Message 1230340 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 1:29:58 UTC

you always have the Log Cabin Republicans.
____________

Janice

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,829,507
RAC: 2,906
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 ...

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
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

End terrorism by building a school

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2570
Credit: 1,179,172
RAC: 139
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) ?

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.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 20 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Gay Marriage.

Copyright © 2014 University of California