Message boards :
Politics :
Gay Marriage.
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 19 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30651 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
It's about tearing down institutions. Change, the universal constant. ;) |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30651 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
We can solve this debate today. Willing to do 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? |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
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! |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
If a church wishes to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, why should state law prohibit it? 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 Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
An easy question...... Will the citizens of the USA accept a gay president & all that entails? |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Now this I find agreeable. Both politics & media attempt to get the masses discussing trivia while ignoring more pressing issues.... 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 Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Now this I find agreeable. Both politics & media attempt to get the masses discussing trivia while ignoring more pressing issues.... 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 Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Now this I find agreeable. Both politics & media attempt to get the masses discussing trivia while ignoring more pressing issues.... 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 Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
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. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30651 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
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? |
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 Send message Joined: 16 Jun 02 Posts: 6895 Credit: 6,588,977 RAC: 0 |
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!!!!! |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
you always have the Log Cabin Republicans. Janice |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
On the state law prohibition of same sex marriage, the first amendment prohibits the free exercise of religion. 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 ... |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
On the state law prohibition of same sex marriage, the first amendment prohibits 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 |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3756 Credit: 1,999,735 RAC: 4 |
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) ? |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
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. |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
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?? 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 |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
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. 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 ... |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
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. |
©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.