Gay Marriage.

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) ?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"It does not matter who we love, nor how we love. What matters is THAT we love."

I see no reason why two consenting adults should not be able to define their own relationship. That is a very basic freedom.

There is no attack on the "institution of marriage", since a marriage means as much or as little as those inside it believe it does.
____________

Janice

For me the concept of "gay marriage" is rather alien as I see marriage as partnership in which one of the objectives is procreation. Now obviously, without some form of "external assistance" procreation is highly improbable within a monogamous, purely homosexual relationship.

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.

and yet if one state allows it then it is law in all the others.

It wasn't so long ago that interracial marriages were illegal in many states.
The last of the laws preventing interracial marriage were struck down in 1967. I think it will take time but the court system will eventually be forced to strike down those 38 states laws on the topic.

Again I don't care one way or another but it seems an inevitable outcome
____________
Proud member of TSWB.

End terrorism by building a school

I am a little over 55yo.
So, you should know where I come from.
Gay or lesbian relationships were verrrry shunned in my youth.
Some still do now.

I have come to relax 'some' of my views as I grow older and realize that the mores of old shall change, me with them or not.

Here comes Dick......

A few years ago it was only permitted in a couple of states.

So 12 down, 38 to go!!

If your church/temple/mosque/circle does not agree with them then they are certainly not required to perform them.

This is about basic rights and human dignity. Honestly I would advise any of them NOT to get married.. but that is only because I am old and cynical.

____________

Janice

A few years ago it was only permitted in a couple of states.

So 12 down, 38 to go!!

If your church/temple/mosque/circle does not agree with them then they are certainly not required to perform them.

This is about basic rights and human dignity. Honestly I would advise any of them NOT to get married.. but that is only because I am old and cynical.

Barry's second 4 years are shot due to this issue.

And so is the issue.

Temporary Locked: 24 hour cooldown.

Discussions have gotten too heated and are resorting to personal attacks.
Disagreeing politically is fine, Personal/religious insults are not.

Since this is not being followed..

TIME OUT!!
____________

Janice