VeeshanVault

Churches pick and choose who they'll perform a service for now - gay marriages won't change that at all. When I was 20, I was engaged to a girl and her family's church wouldn't perform the ceremony because I was open about being an atheist. No one is going to be able to force a church to perform a ceremony that isn't in keeping with their OWN moral standards. Civil services will probably be the most available option, and the only one where someone will be compelled to perform a ceremony regardless of their own personal feelings about it (do you think your hypothetical redneck JOP in AR is any happier to marry a white girl to a black guy?). Also, there are plenty of churches and ministers in the world that will also perform such ceremonies.

The federal govenrment does have the right and obligation to ensure that states do not unduly deny individuals of their rights. Further, states are required to recognize the same "privileges and immunities" to citizens of other states, and therefore it becomes a federal issue when, say, Alabama decides not to recognize a marriage that is legal in Massachusetts.

Atokal wrote:ht?<Lynxe"]Atokal, I don't think we are saying that people who have religious beliefs should not carry those beliefs outside their church or home. I wasn't. The USA (and Canada for that matter) is not purely populated by Christians and my point is that those beliefs have no place in laws that govern people of different race, religion, sexual preference and ideals. Better stated?

I actually have a lot of respect for folks who can believe in a religion, I just don't myself.

I was going to reply to Midnyte but Fesuni and Lalanae said it perfectly. Besides, there is no point arguing with a closeminded individual who believes they are right and the rest of the world is "fucked up", not "normal" and "wrong" because they don't share his beliefs.

Atokal wrote:Finally an opinion from someone not frothing at the mouth about the evil Christians. Lynxe the problem with this whole agenda that I see is the impact decisions permitting same sex marriages will have on Churches and therefore on people with religious beliefs.

For instance how long will it be before some gay activist group sues a fundamental church for refusing to marry them?
How long before legislation is written so it makes it illegal for Churches to refuse to marry gays?
How long will it be before the bible is declared as hate literature because it decries homosexuality as a sin. Whose rights will be trampled then?

*Wipes the white gooey residue left gurggling down my chin* Must be that anti-religious wheaties I had this morning!

Xatrei wrote:The federal govenrment does have the right and obligation to ensure that states do not unduly deny individuals of their rights.

I'm still waiting for someone to point me to the section of the Constitution covering the right to marry.

There's plenty of redneck states that could ram through gay marriage laws in the relatively near future. Georgia is a possibility, because of the size of Atlanta, and Florida could certainly be done, despite the panhandle. In this case, that podunk pastor would still have to marry them. There are people of widely varying beliefs in individual states, so while i'm not disputing that this is a state right, don't pretend that it being left to the states would solve this problem.

Additionally, if that podunk pastor doesn't want to carry out his duties as an employee of the government, then he should quit his fucking job. If he's not going to carry out his responsibilities, then that's entirely on his shoulders. We can't compensate for bigots.

Sueven, you're absolutely correct. But having your state legislature do something like this, even if you personally disagree with it, is infinitely more palatable than having the Fed do it.

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:

Atokal wrote:ht?<Lynxe"]Atokal, I don't think we are saying that people who have religious beliefs should not carry those beliefs outside their church or home. I wasn't. The USA (and Canada for that matter) is not purely populated by Christians and my point is that those beliefs have no place in laws that govern people of different race, religion, sexual preference and ideals. Better stated?

I actually have a lot of respect for folks who can believe in a religion, I just don't myself.

I was going to reply to Midnyte but Fesuni and Lalanae said it perfectly. Besides, there is no point arguing with a closeminded individual who believes they are right and the rest of the world is "fucked up", not "normal" and "wrong" because they don't share his beliefs.

Atokal wrote:Finally an opinion from someone not frothing at the mouth about the evil Christians. Lynxe the problem with this whole agenda that I see is the impact decisions permitting same sex marriages will have on Churches and therefore on people with religious beliefs.

For instance how long will it be before some gay activist group sues a fundamental church for refusing to marry them?
How long before legislation is written so it makes it illegal for Churches to refuse to marry gays?
How long will it be before the bible is declared as hate literature because it decries homosexuality as a sin. Whose rights will be trampled then?

*Wipes the white gooey residue left gurggling down my chin* Must be that anti-religious wheaties I had this morning!

That was probably one of the most disgusting things I've ever read in my life.

This should be handled by the federal gov't simply because it has to do with civil rights.

masteen wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to point me to the section of the Constitution covering the right to marry.

It doesn't explicitly, and so it is left to the states to regulate. When one state makes it legal and other states try to refuse to recognize a legal marriage, it very quickly becomes a federal issue as prescribed in article 4 of the Constitution.

Ultimately, any state that grants a right (marriage) to one group (heteros), and denies it to another (gays) based soley on sexual orientation will eventually find the Feds forcing fair and equal treatment. This is how it should be, and eventually we'll get there. The Federal courts certainly have the authority to rule on the Constitutionality of inequities such as this (oh nos - activist courts strike again!!!!11).

Psyloche wrote:

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:

Atokal wrote:ht?<Lynxe"]Atokal, I don't think we are saying that people who have religious beliefs should not carry those beliefs outside their church or home. I wasn't. The USA (and Canada for that matter) is not purely populated by Christians and my point is that those beliefs have no place in laws that govern people of different race, religion, sexual preference and ideals. Better stated?

I actually have a lot of respect for folks who can believe in a religion, I just don't myself.

I was going to reply to Midnyte but Fesuni and Lalanae said it perfectly. Besides, there is no point arguing with a closeminded individual who believes they are right and the rest of the world is "fucked up", not "normal" and "wrong" because they don't share his beliefs.

Atokal wrote:Finally an opinion from someone not frothing at the mouth about the evil Christians. Lynxe the problem with this whole agenda that I see is the impact decisions permitting same sex marriages will have on Churches and therefore on people with religious beliefs.

For instance how long will it be before some gay activist group sues a fundamental church for refusing to marry them?
How long before legislation is written so it makes it illegal for Churches to refuse to marry gays?
How long will it be before the bible is declared as hate literature because it decries homosexuality as a sin. Whose rights will be trampled then?

*Wipes the white gooey residue left gurggling down my chin* Must be that anti-religious wheaties I had this morning!

That was probably one of the most disgusting things I've ever read in my life.

Xyun wrote:This should be handled by the federal gov't simply because it has to do with civil rights.

what xyun posted refers to both the original and this heh

masteen wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to point me to the section of the Constitution covering the right to marry.

I've pointed it out repeatedly Masteen...I am sorry this IS and of rights ought to be a Federal issue when the citizens of the country are not guaranteed the same rights and privleges in the several states...Wake up its 2004 this is a federal republic......

None is so blind as he who does not want to see:

Amendment IX
See Also Article IV; sections 1 and 2

Some folks used to think it was ok to make being homosexual illegal as well...until the supreme court intentionally made those laws unenforceable......

Xyun wrote:This should be handled by the federal gov't simply because it has to do with civil rights.

WHICH FUCKING AMENDMENT IS BEING VIOLATED?!? You've fucking spouted the same shit all through this thread, but have not said where in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or subsequent Amendment marriage is covered as a RIGHT. I think you're just too fucking stupid to comprehend exactly what you're saying.

And ya know I wish the states had had the sense to leave this alone...I think it IX Amendment and should have been left to the people...But the states decided to legislate morality...And you know what its my federal right to be protected from that...

There doesn't need to be an amendment for every single right a person has. Those rights that are questionable (abortion for example) get settled by the supreme court or the federal legislation. Leaving this issue up to states will make some states accept gay marriages while others don't and consequently, we will see a migration of gays to the more liberal states. Although this might not necessarily be a bad thing, I highly doubt it is good for the country for people to be segregated from each other simply because of intolerance.

I could give two shits on this.

Just don't marry or fuck kids, kill family pets, leave shit in your yard, pay your taxes and eat each other's cock n' bawls in public.

This has no effect in my life ... until it does fuck off.

Xyun wrote:There doesn't need to be an amendment for every single right a person has. Those rights that are questionable (abortion for example) get settled by the supreme court or the federal legislation. Leaving this issue up to states will make some states accept gay marriages while others don't and consequently, we will see a migration of gays to the more liberal states. Although this might not necessarily be a bad thing, I highly doubt it is good for the country for people to be segregated from each other simply because of intolerance.

Wrong. Abortion is an clear conflict between the right to the mother's right to control herself (9th and 14th Amendments) and the unborn child's 5th Amendment right ("...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...").

Xatrei wrote:It doesn't explicitly, and so it is left to the states to regulate. When one state makes it legal and other states try to refuse to recognize a legal marriage, it very quickly becomes a federal issue as prescribed in article 4 of the Constitution.

Ultimately, any state that grants a right (marriage) to one group (heteros), and denies it to another (gays) based soley on sexual orientation will eventually find the Feds forcing fair and equal treatment. This is how it should be, and eventually we'll get there. The Federal courts certainly have the authority to rule on the Constitutionality of inequities such as this (oh nos - activist courts strike again!!!!11).

No one could say it any better than that, and yet he ignores it.

Xyun wrote:This should be handled by the federal gov't simply because it has to do with civil rights.

Most definitely.

masteen wrote:

Xyun wrote:There doesn't need to be an amendment for every single right a person has. Those rights that are questionable (abortion for example) get settled by the supreme court or the federal legislation. Leaving this issue up to states will make some states accept gay marriages while others don't and consequently, we will see a migration of gays to the more liberal states. Although this might not necessarily be a bad thing, I highly doubt it is good for the country for people to be segregated from each other simply because of intolerance.

Wrong. Abortion is an clear conflict between the right to the mother's right to control herself (9th and 14th Amendments) and the unborn child's 5th Amendment right ("...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...").

i think it is a bit of an strecth to definititively say that an embryo has constitutional rights. There is no language in the constitution that dictates at what point in embryological development an embryo or fetus is considered for legal purposes a "person".

there are many who for religious reasons deam that at the moment of fertilization the zygote is the moral equivalent of a "person". that of course doesn't mean shit , because for now we don't live in a theocracy.

But it is an important legal question to establish at what point in development the contents of the uterus take on the rights of a person.

I think there are huge problems with the religious right's view of how abortion should be regulated, because it essentially denies doctors the right to perform procedures referred to as DNC's.

but the point is that it is extremely common for women to have miscarriages. Many of you that may not have entered the reproductive years of your lives probably don't know this. but basically it happens a lot, i have had 2 friends have miscarriages this year alone. It is usually detected at the 12 or 20 week ultrasound, at which point, the doctor performs an abortion (if the baby's heart is not beating or if it is anencephalic (no brain), etc.).

Obstetricians' careers revolve around helping families have children. It is ignorant to think that these medical professionals - at large - are eager to irresponsibly perform medical procedures to terminate pregnancies casually. And if the conservatives had their way, medically necessary abortions would be outlawed as well.

to grossly oversimply the matter- anybody who would chose the life of an at-risk fetus over the life of his wife is not a man.

edit: removed my half assed made up medical term!!

Vetiria wrote:

Xatrei wrote:It doesn't explicitly, and so it is left to the states to regulate. When one state makes it legal and other states try to refuse to recognize a legal marriage, it very quickly becomes a federal issue as prescribed in article 4 of the Constitution.

Ultimately, any state that grants a right (marriage) to one group (heteros), and denies it to another (gays) based soley on sexual orientation will eventually find the Feds forcing fair and equal treatment. This is how it should be, and eventually we'll get there. The Federal courts certainly have the authority to rule on the Constitutionality of inequities such as this (oh nos - activist courts strike again!!!!11).

No one could say it any better than that, and yet he ignores it.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm still unclear on how and where marriage became a right.

masteen wrote:

Vetiria wrote:

Xatrei wrote:It doesn't explicitly, and so it is left to the states to regulate. When one state makes it legal and other states try to refuse to recognize a legal marriage, it very quickly becomes a federal issue as prescribed in article 4 of the Constitution.

Ultimately, any state that grants a right (marriage) to one group (heteros), and denies it to another (gays) based soley on sexual orientation will eventually find the Feds forcing fair and equal treatment. This is how it should be, and eventually we'll get there. The Federal courts certainly have the authority to rule on the Constitutionality of inequities such as this (oh nos - activist courts strike again!!!!11).

No one could say it any better than that, and yet he ignores it.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm still unclear on how and where marriage became a right.

Right to pursue happiness. Marriage makes some people happy. Personally I think those people are insane But I'm a hater. As happiness is an ambiguous term, marriage can fall under it, as can any number of other things. The constitution is ambiguous intentionally. And meant to be interpreted as seen fit.

Atokal wrote:Finally an opinion from someone not frothing at the mouth about the evil Christians. Lynxe the problem with this whole agenda that I see is the impact decisions permitting same sex marriages will have on Churches and therefore on people with religious beliefs.

For instance how long will it be before some gay activist group sues a fundamental church for refusing to marry them?
How long before legislation is written so it makes it illegal for Churches to refuse to marry gays?
How long will it be before the bible is declared as hate literature because it decries homosexuality as a sin. Whose rights will be trampled then?

First of all, stop acting like your lobby is the majority here. You guys are the ones pushing for removal of freedoms, not us.

Second of all, all these things you say about gay people forcing churches to marry them should not happen as they are unconsititutional. It goes against freedom of religion. "Hate literature" is not illegal here. It's covered by the first ammendment as well. So it doesnt even matter if people consider it as such, to make a ban on that would be unconstitutional.

-=Lohrno

laneela wrote:

Drasta wrote:hey it says men .... we should exclude women right?

Only if you're an idiot.

i was only kidding =-) but its the same thing kinda dealing with but it says man and woman ! not man and man ... well the constituition says ... men ..

masteen wrote:

Vetiria wrote:

Xatrei wrote:It doesn't explicitly, and so it is left to the states to regulate. When one state makes it legal and other states try to refuse to recognize a legal marriage, it very quickly becomes a federal issue as prescribed in article 4 of the Constitution.

Ultimately, any state that grants a right (marriage) to one group (heteros), and denies it to another (gays) based soley on sexual orientation will eventually find the Feds forcing fair and equal treatment. This is how it should be, and eventually we'll get there. The Federal courts certainly have the authority to rule on the Constitutionality of inequities such as this (oh nos - activist courts strike again!!!!11).

No one could say it any better than that, and yet he ignores it.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm still unclear on how and where marriage became a right.

This issue actually has a great deal to do with the rights granted to married individuals as a direct result of their legal status as being married in the eyes of the courts. These rights are not granted to couples that are gay as a result of the dimscrimation on the basis of sexuality that prevents them from obtaining this married status.

In short, your comment is both obtuse and irrelevant. The legal standing of a married status grants legally protected rights rather than being a right in itself. These rights are being withheld from a certain percentage of the population based upon their sexual orientation. This is classic discrimination, which is something that this country has spent centuries now irradicating.

Drasta wrote:i was only kidding =-) but its the same thing kinda dealing with but it says man and woman ! not man and man ... well the constituition says ... men ..

I didn't really think that I'd have to define this but:

man ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mn)
n. pl. men (mn)
1. An adult male human.
2. A human regardless of sex or age; a person.
3. A human or an adult male human belonging to a specific occupation, group, nationality, or other category. Often used in combination: a milkman; a congressman; a freeman.
4. The human race; mankind: man's quest for peace.

laneela wrote:

Drasta wrote:i was only kidding =-) but its the same thing kinda dealing with but it says man and woman ! not man and man ... well the constituition says ... men ..

I didn't really think that I'd have to define this but:

man ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mn)
n. pl. men (mn)
1. An adult male human.
2. A human regardless of sex or age; a person.
3. A human or an adult male human belonging to a specific occupation, group, nationality, or other category. Often used in combination: a milkman; a congressman; a freeman.
4. The human race; mankind: man's quest for peace.

you still misunderstand me ... i was lowering myself to the stupidity of some people on here that are unable to use more elevated thinking skills in interpreting the meaning of words. hence removing womens rights because it says men in the constituion instead of women because people are like omg im a retard its gender specific, when really its not ... just like gay people shouldn't have marriage rights because of peoples inability to interpret things more openly

anyways i think i fucked my whole reasoning up ... but hopefully it gets the point across sorry if it doesn't

You played a retard so well, I was fooled into believing you actually were one - I didn't realize you were just joshin'. =P (No insult intended) I was expecting that same kind of reply from someone so when I read it, I didn't stop to decipher it.

archeiron wrote:

masteen wrote:

Vetiria wrote:

Xatrei wrote:It doesn't explicitly, and so it is left to the states to regulate. When one state makes it legal and other states try to refuse to recognize a legal marriage, it very quickly becomes a federal issue as prescribed in article 4 of the Constitution.

Ultimately, any state that grants a right (marriage) to one group (heteros), and denies it to another (gays) based soley on sexual orientation will eventually find the Feds forcing fair and equal treatment. This is how it should be, and eventually we'll get there. The Federal courts certainly have the authority to rule on the Constitutionality of inequities such as this (oh nos - activist courts strike again!!!!11).

No one could say it any better than that, and yet he ignores it.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm still unclear on how and where marriage became a right.

This issue actually has a great deal to do with the rights granted to married individuals as a direct result of their legal status as being married in the eyes of the courts. These rights are not granted to couples that are gay as a result of the dimscrimation on the basis of sexuality that prevents them from obtaining this married status.

In short, your comment is both obtuse and irrelevant. The legal standing of a married status grants legally protected rights rather than being a right in itself. These rights are being withheld from a certain percentage of the population based upon their sexual orientation. This is classic discrimination, which is something that this country has spent centuries now irradicating.

Getting the terms of a legal argument straight is hardly irrelevant. Proper wording is a key aspect of the law. I was beginning to despair that anyone would ever make the jump that you just did. This is about domestic partnership, which is just one of the components of marriage in the classical sense.

In those terms, one state not recognizing the legal partnership granted by another state, either though marriage or any other civil union, does violate the full faith section of the Constitution.

I still feel that forcing states, through federal legislation, to allow gay marriage is wrong. I have no objection to the Fed clearly redefining what can constitute a domestic partnership. The very fine distinction I'm making here is mostly due to the separation of church and state guaranteed to us. Using the term "marriage" carries inheirant religious significance.

Letting the states individually decide would present sticky legal issues as well though. What about gay married couples who move from a tolerant state to an intolerant state? Would their marriage be annuled? If so, would they have to go through a divorce like proceedure just because they moved?

-=Lohrno

masteen wrote:Getting the terms of a legal argument straight is hardly irrelevant. Proper wording is a key aspect of the law. I was beginning to despair that anyone would ever make the jump that you just did. This is about domestic partnership, which is just one of the components of marriage in the classical sense.

In those terms, one state not recognizing the legal partnership granted by another state, either though marriage or any other civil union, does violate the full faith section of the Constitution.

I still feel that forcing states, through federal legislation, to allow gay marriage is wrong. I have no objection to the Fed clearly redefining what can constitute a domestic partnership. The very fine distinction I'm making here is mostly due to the separation of church and state guaranteed to us. Using the term "marriage" carries inheirant religious significance.

It carries inherant religious signifcance to you, not everyone in your country. A majority? Yes, more than likely. If all your complaining has been over a semantic as small as you don't like the gays using "your" word to describe their union, that's still displaying an alarmingly small minded view.

masteen wrote:I still feel that forcing states, through federal legislation, to allow gay marriage is wrong. I have no objection to the Fed clearly redefining what can constitute a domestic partnership. The very fine distinction I'm making here is mostly due to the separation of church and state guaranteed to us. Using the term "marriage" carries inheirant religious significance.

Using a clever semantic distinction will often produce the most polemic resolution. In principle, I am loathe to let this issue be sidestepped using word games because I believe that the homophobes should not be acknowledged in our legislative doctrine. In practice, this is a likely outcome as it produces that best possible results for gay couples while softening the blow for religious organizations.

I fear that even if the best possible action is taken by our courts that this matter will be fought over for decades to come. Frankly, I don't have the patience to listen to it

As to my comment concerning the relevence of your comment, I must say that I was just irritated by the comment. No offense intended.

archeiron wrote:Using a clever semantic distinction will often produce the most polemic resolution. In principle, I am loathe to let this issue be sidestepped using word games because I believe that the homophobes should not be acknowledged in our legislative doctrine. In practice, this is a likely outcome as it produces that best possible results for gay couples while softening the blow for religious organizations.

I fear that even if the best possible action is taken by our courts that this matter will be fought over for decades to come. Frankly, I don't have the patience to listen to it

As to my comment concerning the relevence of your comment, I must say that I was just irritated by the comment. No offense intended.

I agree, Arch. I wasn't offended, and tried to clarify my point.

Lohrno wrote:Letting the states individually decide would present sticky legal issues as well though. What about gay married couples who move from a tolerant state to an intolerant state? Would their marriage be annuled? If so, would they have to go through a divorce like proceedure just because they moved?

Which is why I advocated having Congress make laws regarding domestic partnership rather than marriage.

Dregor: just because it's a small-minded view doesn't mean we can ignore it.

p.s. Voronwe, I didn't want to drag abortion into this debate, and I'm certainly pro-choice. I just wanted to illustrate how that "religious" debate has clear Constitutional underpinnings.

(if the baby's heart is not beating or if it is anencephalic (no brain), etc.).

Damn, how many jokes could i make out of that one

After mulling over this topic and discussing both here and with a bunch of friends since last weeks decision by the Mass supreme court...I am in favor of a federal mandate allowing gay marriages in all 50 states.

Discussion is important. Open discussion. Without it and without going into it with an open mind you will never allow yourself to adapt your points of view.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:After mulling over this topic and discussing both here and with a bunch of friends since last weeks decision by the Mass supreme court...I am in favor of a federal mandate allowing gay marriages in all 50 states.

Discussion is important. Open discussion. Without it and without going into it with an open mind you will never allow yourself to adapt your points of view.

/salute

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:After mulling over this topic and discussing both here and with a bunch of friends since last weeks decision by the Mass supreme court...I am in favor of a federal mandate allowing gay marriages in all 50 states.

Discussion is important. Open discussion. Without it and without going into it with an open mind you will never allow yourself to adapt your points of view.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:After mulling over this topic and discussing both here and with a bunch of friends since last weeks decision by the Mass supreme court...I am in favor of a federal mandate allowing gay marriages in all 50 states.

Discussion is important. Open discussion. Without it and without going into it with an open mind you will never allow yourself to adapt your points of view.

/cheer Midnyte

now if everyother american can see the light ....

Drasta wrote:now if everyother american can see the light ....

does being beaten into apathy count?

Deneve wrote:

Drasta wrote:now if everyother american can see the light ....

does being beaten into apathy count?

While I try not to post on threads like this...I'm gonna have to agree with Marilyn Manson on this one here.

While you all cheer Mid and his change of heart, a lot of you should have had the same outlook to begin with. Didn't really see many of you as really having an *open mind* to those that disagreed.

Deneve wrote:

Drasta wrote:now if everyother american can see the light ....

does being beaten into apathy count?

/agree Deneve.

I choose to ignore people when they turn into fanatics/zealots.

Atokal wrote:

Lynxe wrote:Atokal, I don't think we are saying that people who have religious beliefs should not carry those beliefs outside their church or home. I wasn't. The USA (and Canada for that matter) is not purely populated by Christians and my point is that those beliefs have no place in laws that govern people of different race, religion, sexual preference and ideals. Better stated?

I actually have a lot of respect for folks who can believe in a religion, I just don't myself.

I was going to reply to Midnyte but Fesuni and Lalanae said it perfectly. Besides, there is no point arguing with a closeminded individual who believes they are right and the rest of the world is "fucked up", not "normal" and "wrong" because they don't share his beliefs.

Finally an opinion from someone not frothing at the mouth about the evil Christians. Lynxe the problem with this whole agenda that I see is the impact decisions permitting same sex marriages will have on Churches and therefore on people with religious beliefs.

For instance how long will it be before some gay activist group sues a fundamental church for refusing to marry them?
How long before legislation is written so it makes it illegal for Churches to refuse to marry gays?
How long will it be before the bible is declared as hate literature because it decries homosexuality as a sin. Whose rights will be trampled then?

It's an agenda Atokal...

More can be accomplished/gained in small steps than in one giant leap.

This is why I think the hullabaloo over terminology is a crock. There is more to this than just a desire to get the same benefits as a man and woman who are married.

Again, I am not a member of any church or religion, but what you describe is a VERY definite possibility.

If Bush had a gay son (being that he wouldnt shoot him), his opposition to gay marrige would go away in an instant.

I hate fucking prejudice assholes, and there is no other way to define what someone is who supports a ban on gay marrage.

masteen

I was beginning to despair that anyone would ever make the jump that you just did.

I swear I did back on page four responding to Brotha's post about equal rights.

Atokal: Good point! Religions are based on beliefs, not rights. If a religion choses not to believe in homosexual marriage and therefore not perform cerimonies for it, then I'm totally cool with that. In the same way I'm ok if the Catholic church refused to marry my husband and I because we are not regular attendees of a church or because I'm catholic but he isn't. If I believed in the religion, then I would be bound by the same beliefs/restictions. I don't and it did not prevent me from getting married in a civil service and getting the same legal rights as any other married couple.

masteen: As for allowing homosexuals the same rights as married couples, but not letting them to actually marry (ie: just live commonlaw), if a heterosexual couple is allowed the right to be legally married by a Judge in a civil service, denying a homosexual couple that same right is a violation of their rights. To me it is that simple

Xzi, there are ar lot of parents that turn their back on their kids when they find out they aer gay.


On a lighter note, went to a gay club with 2 girls frm work tonight. got plastered and danced for like 4 hours straight. was the most exercize ive had for a year and my legs feel like they will fall off. felt undcomfortable at first but then it was a lot of fun. only one dude hit on me and when i told him i was straight he was gone. a lot checked me out though and it was obvious they wanted my cack. but alas, had to give it to a female. too bad so sad for them!

Laliana wrote:

Deneve wrote:

Drasta wrote:now if everyother american can see the light ....

does being beaten into apathy count?

While I try not to post on threads like this...I'm gonna have to agree with Marilyn Manson on this one here.

While you all cheer Mid and his change of heart, a lot of you should have had the same outlook to begin with. Didn't really see many of you as really having an *open mind* to those that disagreed.

Being "open-minded" towards an opinion that impedes civil liberties is perhaps the most difficult frame of mind to be in. How open minded are you towards the idea of revoking Women's Suffrage? Intelligent discourse and logical reasoning serves only as a framework for debate, while one's own established opinions and passions fuel the discussion. Or in the words of Terry Goodkind: "Passion rules reason".

I hate coming into a discussion this late because I have neither the time nor inclination to read through 800 posts that I can't reply to because of the way the discussion has evolved. I am going to try to respond to the points that have been brought up in the last 30 or so posts, as I find this discussion highly entertaining...

I'm a strong believer in state's rights. Looking at the constitution in the way that it was written and established, the rights of the states to determine law for their citizens should take precidence over federal mandates when constitutionality is at issue.

In this matter, where federal rights, in the form of tax breaks, are at issue, I believe that the feds could modify the tax code to allow for recognition of Marriage or Domestic Partnership (Mutual Dependancy) with recognition of common law partnerships.

In this case, the federal government is not forced to decide on the legality of gay marriage. While most people here believe it should be legal, and I don't disagree, this wouldn't be an issue if there weren't enough people that believed it wrong to frighten legislators into not pressing the issue.

The civil rights argument here is only in recognition. I personally can't think of a situation where a person's rights would be infringed upon by not recognizing gay marriage, except through tax breaks. Legal recognition is merely a title.

Once I've had a few cups of coffee I'll return and talk about this some more, but this has been taxing on my poor head. And being sick the last couple days hasn't helped any.

Laliana wrote:

Deneve wrote:

Drasta wrote:now if everyother american can see the light ....

does being beaten into apathy count?

While I try not to post on threads like this...I'm gonna have to agree with Marilyn Manson on this one here.

While you all cheer Mid and his change of heart, a lot of you should have had the same outlook to begin with. Didn't really see many of you as really having an *open mind* to those that disagreed.

You are correct I don't have an open mind when it comes to clear violations of others rights based on morality...

Pahreyia wrote:I hate coming into a discussion this late because I have neither the time nor inclination to read through 800 posts that I can't reply to because of the way the discussion has evolved. I am going to try to respond to the points that have been brought up in the last 30 or so posts, as I find this discussion highly entertaining...

I'm a strong believer in state's rights. Looking at the constitution in the way that it was written and established, the rights of the states to determine law for their citizens should take precidence over federal mandates when constitutionality is at issue.

In this matter, where federal rights, in the form of tax breaks, are at issue, I believe that the feds could modify the tax code to allow for recognition of Marriage or Domestic Partnership (Mutual Dependancy) with recognition of common law partnerships.

In this case, the federal government is not forced to decide on the legality of gay marriage. While most people here believe it should be legal, and I don't disagree, this wouldn't be an issue if there weren't enough people that believed it wrong to frighten legislators into not pressing the issue.

The civil rights argument here is only in recognition. I personally can't think of a situation where a person's rights would be infringed upon by not recognizing gay marriage, except through tax breaks. Legal recognition is merely a title.

Once I've had a few cups of coffee I'll return and talk about this some more, but this has been taxing on my poor head. And being sick the last couple days hasn't helped any.

To answer part of your question:

Currently, gay couples do not have the automatic right to make medical, legal, or financial decisions on behalf of their partner should the need arise. They may be denied access to visit their spouse in intensive care units and other hospital departments. Gay and lesbian couples do not have the automatic right to make funeral arrangements, or to assume ownership of property (even jointly owned property) when a partner dies.

Gay couples also lack many of the financial benefits of marriage. They may not have access to their spouses' employee health insurance, retirement or death benefits. They are not eligible for tax breaks heterosexual couples receive, nor are they eligible for insurance discounts which are frequently provided for married couples. Gays and lesbians would like to see same-sex marriages legalized so that they could provide the same type of legal, financial, and emotional security for their loved ones that heterosexual couples currently enjoy.

With the help of an attorney, some of the benefits of legal marriage can be obtained by same-sex couples, but many cannot. A valid will and power of attorney can provide some protection, but this takes time and money, and is subject to challenges from biological family members and the government. Until same-sex couples are allowed to marry, their rights and benefits will not be equal to, or as secure as the rights and benefits granted to heterosexual couples upon marriage.

Furthermore, it is important to note that Massachusetts is soon going to be passing a law allowing gay marriages. However, a legally recognized married gay couple in MA would not be legally recognized in, say, Ohio. As a result, the resolution of the inconsistency between state laws is a matter for the Federal Courts.

I'm a strong believer in state's rights. Looking at the constitution in the way that it was written and established, the rights of the states to determine law for their citizens should take precidence over federal mandates when constitutionality is at issue.

So you are saying the states should be allowed to make laws in violation of the constitution?...

either I don't quite follow what's going on or something else, but...

And maybe it's just a matter of wording it carefully, Bush wants to make and amendement to constitution defining marriage as a union between man and woman, Kerry is against same sex marriages but is not against civil unions between gays. WTF does that mean?

Maybe we can finally separate marriage and civil unions, just give them both the same legal rights regarding spouses, kids, insurance etc.

Let the religions keep the freaking word "marriage" as long as we can name every other legal union of 2 humans something else?