Gay Marriage

[captain.crazy]

BUT, isn't denying them a civil union denying them rights? And therefore, violating the constitution? I think the states should decide to call it a Marriage or a Union, but the Gov't needs to decide that denying gays a civil union is the same as denying a minority a marriage

I don't believe that they ever asked for a civil union.

It's arbitrary whether or not they asked for it they deserve it

Its not arbitrary! Its relevant! If they didn't ask for Marriage, how could there be opposition to gay marriage. States could absolutely recognize this. But its not a federal issue. Oh No!

[sailorseal]

BUT, isn't denying them a civil union denying them rights? And therefore, violating the constitution? I think the states should decide to call it a Marriage or a Union, but the Gov't needs to decide that denying gays a civil union is the same as denying a minority a marriage

I don't believe that they ever asked for a civil union.

It's arbitrary whether or not they asked for it they deserve it

Its not arbitrary! Its relevant! If they didn't ask for Marriage, how could there be opposition to gay marriage. States could absolutely recognize this. But its not a federal issue. Oh No!

It is a federal issue because they are given rights to marriage by the federal government but are being denied it by the states

[muy_thaiguy]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but basically people don't want gays to have marriage because it ruins the sacredness of marriage? Okay, so my idea is that there is the government-controlled Civil Marriage for government purposes (civil unions, benefits, rights, etc.) and this is for people who are gay, atheists (don't want to deal with the Church), etc. And then, there is Religious Marriage, which is for the "sacred" union of a man and a woman. That way gays have their rights, and religious people have their sacred marriage.

Now, I know you're asking, "But, SEA, God doesn't like gays, we can't have God angry!" My quick response, "Let God deal with it in heaven/hell, but let gays have their rights here on Earth."

Please correct me if I'm getting any part of any argument wrong.

My sentiments exactly.

[comic boy]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but basically people don't want gays to have marriage because it ruins the sacredness of marriage? Okay, so my idea is that there is the government-controlled Civil Marriage for government purposes (civil unions, benefits, rights, etc.) and this is for people who are gay, atheists (don't want to deal with the Church), etc. And then, there is Religious Marriage, which is for the "sacred" union of a man and a woman. That way gays have their rights, and religious people have their sacred marriage.

Now, I know you're asking, "But, SEA, God doesn't like gays, we can't have God angry!" My quick response, "Let God deal with it in heaven/hell, but let gays have their rights here on Earth."

Please correct me if I'm getting any part of any argument wrong.

My sentiments exactly.

Yes this makes perfect sense to me as well.

[SEAsportsfan]

BUT, isn't denying them a civil union denying them rights? And therefore, violating the constitution? I think the states should decide to call it a Marriage or a Union, but the Gov't needs to decide that denying gays a civil union is the same as denying a minority a marriage

I don't believe that they ever asked for a civil union.

They asked for equal rights, if i remember correctly. Also, have you ever asked someone to get Civil Union-ed to you? So, I think when a gay person says, "I just want to be able to get married", he may mean that he just wants to be able to be legally bound to his/her partner for the rest of his/her life. But, I'm no expert on politics in any form, just throwing out my opinion.

[captain.crazy]

BUT, isn't denying them a civil union denying them rights? And therefore, violating the constitution? I think the states should decide to call it a Marriage or a Union, but the Gov't needs to decide that denying gays a civil union is the same as denying a minority a marriage

I don't believe that they ever asked for a civil union.

It's arbitrary whether or not they asked for it they deserve it

Its not arbitrary! Its relevant! If they didn't ask for Marriage, how could there be opposition to gay marriage. States could absolutely recognize this. But its not a federal issue. Oh No!

It is a federal issue because they are given rights to marriage by the federal government but are being denied it by the states

Where were marriage rights given to people by the federal government?

[jay_a2j]

ATTENTION ALL GAYS! GO AHEAD, GET MARRIED......just don't tell me it's your "right"

[sailorseal]

ATTENTION ALL GAYS! GO AHEAD, GET MARRIED......just don't tell me it's your "right"

?

[captain.crazy]

ATTENTION ALL GAYS! GO AHEAD, GET MARRIED......just don't tell me it's your "right"

?

seconded.

What?

[PLAYER57832]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but basically people don't want gays to have marriage because it ruins the sacredness of marriage? Okay, so my idea is that there is the government-controlled Civil Marriage for government purposes (civil unions, benefits, rights, etc.) and this is for people who are gay, atheists (don't want to deal with the Church), etc. And then, there is Religious Marriage, which is for the "sacred" union of a man and a woman. That way gays have their rights, and religious people have their sacred marriage.

Now, I know you're asking, "But, SEA, God doesn't like gays, we can't have God angry!" My quick response, "Let God deal with it in heaven/hell, but let gays have their rights here on Earth."

Please correct me if I'm getting any part of any argument wrong.

My sentiments exactly.

Yes this makes perfect sense to me as well.

I agree with this also, but here is the problem.

The state already does recognize unions between atheists, etc. completely outside of a church. They do so by means of a Justice of the Peace. The result is a Marriage. So, this as already been defined. It is understood in multiple ways -- children are automatically recognized, inheritances automatically passed, etc. Churches recognition or not is irrelevant. The state simply honors the clergy authorized unions because its easier and cheaper than making every couple head for the Justice of the Peace.

The Federal government similarly recognizes such unions. Further, the ability to marry is generally considered a key right of free people. There is case law on this in regards to slaves and free people.

There is not such recognition of anything called a "civil union".

So, basically, those people who wish to claim that marriage is somehow limited to a church are just plain wrong. The church may dictate who gets married, what marriage entails within its congregations, but not outside. This is a blatant attempt by some people to define things in way they like to meet their desires, it is not about freedom at all. It is about limiting the freedom of a few people, a few unpopular people, because a large number of others don't like how they live.

Sorry, but the constitution is there specifically to preserve and protect the rights of individual people, NOT to oppress them.

[captain.crazy]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but basically people don't want gays to have marriage because it ruins the sacredness of marriage? Okay, so my idea is that there is the government-controlled Civil Marriage for government purposes (civil unions, benefits, rights, etc.) and this is for people who are gay, atheists (don't want to deal with the Church), etc. And then, there is Religious Marriage, which is for the "sacred" union of a man and a woman. That way gays have their rights, and religious people have their sacred marriage.

Now, I know you're asking, "But, SEA, God doesn't like gays, we can't have God angry!" My quick response, "Let God deal with it in heaven/hell, but let gays have their rights here on Earth."

Please correct me if I'm getting any part of any argument wrong.

My sentiments exactly.

Yes this makes perfect sense to me as well.

I agree with this also, but here is the problem.

The state already does recognize unions between atheists, etc. completely outside of a church. They do so by means of a Justice of the Peace. The result is a Marriage. So, this as already been defined. It is understood in multiple ways -- children are automatically recognized, inheritances automatically passed, etc. Churches recognition or not is irrelevant. The state simply honors the clergy authorized unions because its easier and cheaper than making every couple head for the Justice of the Peace.

The Federal government similarly recognizes such unions. Further, the ability to marry is generally considered a key right of free people. There is case law on this in regards to slaves and free people.

There is not such recognition of anything called a "civil union".

So, basically, those people who wish to claim that marriage is somehow limited to a church are just plain wrong. The church may dictate who gets married, what marriage entails within its congregations, but not outside. This is a blatant attempt by some people to define things in way they like to meet their desires, it is not about freedom at all. It is about limiting the freedom of a few people, a few unpopular people, because a large number of others don't like how they live.

Sorry, but the constitution is there specifically to preserve and protect the rights of individual people, NOT to oppress them.

Sorry, but states are within their rights to determine the terms of Marriage as they see fit. It has always been that way. As how the states do that, a lot of progress could be made if they simply changed the terms. Specifically, states issue civil unions, and the term of marriage is reserved for whatever faith is used to perform the ceremony. Anything other than this will simply cause the issue to continue to be a problem, much like abortion is today. That is another bullshit federal interpretation of the constitution that they aught not to have made. Rowe vs. Wade should be overturned and the issue should be for the states to decide. diversity is best.

[InkL0sed]

You completely misunderstand the idea of federalism.

It is essentially a system set up to protect the rights of everyone, including minorities. That is why for most things states make their own legislation, to best represent people of a local area. But states do not have the right to take away freedoms guaranteed by the federal government, nor do they have the right to nullify federal law.

So on a federal level, the majority within each state can be thought of as a minority whose rights are protected. But on a state level, the federal government is supposed to protect the rights of minorities within that state.

Gays are a minority in every state, which means that the violation of their rights is the federal government's business.

[captain.crazy]

You completely misunderstand the idea of federalism.

It is essentially a system set up to protect the rights of everyone, including minorities. That is why for most things states make their own legislation, to best represent people of a local area. But states do not have the right to take away freedoms guaranteed by the federal government, nor do they have the right to nullify federal law.

So on a federal level, the majority within each state can be thought of as a minority whose rights are protected. But on a state level, the federal government is supposed to protect the rights of minorities within that state.

Gays are a minority in every state, which means that the violation of their rights is the federal government's business.

I understand that. And as much as I hate to see it, I think that the fed will act from the supreme court to see this kind of legislation pushed forward. Marriage is a state's issue plain and simple. It always has been and it always will be. unfortunately, for the sake of saying "Ha Ha religious right... we got our rights to be married... we don't care that the compromise could have been met that changed the terms under which marriage could have been reinvented as a civil union!!! Ha ha!!!" this country will further be divided, more effort, time and money will be wasted in trying to reverse the issue, like for abortion. Let the religious right have their "marriage" and let the gays have a civil union. its legally the same thing.

[Snorri1234]

Marriage is a state's issue plain and simple. It always has been and it always will be.

Stop saying that and actually explain why it is so. Because clearly a lot of people disagree with it.

[captain.crazy]

Marriage is a state's issue plain and simple. It always has been and it always will be.

Stop saying that and actually explain why it is so. Because clearly a lot of people disagree with it.

I have tried... but maybe you can read and digest this???

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/a_state_ly_march_toward_gay_marriage

This is the viewpoint that I am trying to convey.

[PLAYER57832]

Marriage is a state's issue plain and simple. It always has been and it always will be.

Stop saying that and actually explain why it is so. Because clearly a lot of people disagree with it.

I have tried... but maybe you can read and digest this???

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/a_state_ly_march_toward_gay_marriage

This is the viewpoint that I am trying to convey.

Except the only reference it makes is that marriage has traditionally been left to the states. This is not even true, because the Federal government did "force" Mississippi to honor bi-racial marriages, etc. It definitely does not support your claim that states have the constitutional right to decide marriages.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Marriage is a state's issue plain and simple. It always has been and it always will be.

Stop saying that and actually explain why it is so. Because clearly a lot of people disagree with it.

I have tried... but maybe you can read and digest this???

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/a_state_ly_march_toward_gay_marriage

This is the viewpoint that I am trying to convey.

while that sure is an impressive piece of dickless hand-wringing over how controversial gay marriage is, it doesn't actually make an argument as to why it isn't very much a federal issue. better luck next time, though

[captain.crazy]

Marriage is a state's issue plain and simple. It always has been and it always will be.

Stop saying that and actually explain why it is so. Because clearly a lot of people disagree with it.

I have tried... but maybe you can read and digest this???

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/a_state_ly_march_toward_gay_marriage

This is the viewpoint that I am trying to convey.

Except the only reference it makes is that marriage has traditionally been left to the states. This is not even true, because the Federal government did "force" Mississippi to honor bi-racial marriages, etc. It definitely does not support your claim that states have the constitutional right to decide marriages.

I never made that claim.

I said the same thing that that article did. The issue belongs with the states, it always has and it always should.

[captain.crazy]

Marriage is a state's issue plain and simple. It always has been and it always will be.

Stop saying that and actually explain why it is so. Because clearly a lot of people disagree with it.

I have tried... but maybe you can read and digest this???

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/a_state_ly_march_toward_gay_marriage

This is the viewpoint that I am trying to convey.

while that sure is an impressive piece of dickless hand-wringing over how controversial gay marriage is, it doesn't actually make an argument as to why it isn't very much a federal issue. better luck next time, though

you certainly have a good way with words. I bet you have lots of great friends... maybe the kind that think about the best way to kill you without getting caught?

[SultanOfSurreal]

you certainly have a good way with words. I bet you have lots of great friends... maybe the kind that think about the best way to kill you without getting caught?

sweet burn dude i may have to borrow it

it will come in handy when i am trying to distract people from my complete lack of a salient point, as you so ably demonstrated

[captain.crazy]

you certainly have a good way with words. I bet you have lots of great friends... maybe the kind that think about the best way to kill you without getting caught?

sweet burn dude i may have to borrow it

it will come in handy when i am trying to distract people from my complete lack of a salient point, as you so ably demonstrated

It seems that you are already using that tactic, since you haven't made a point in this thread yet.

[SultanOfSurreal]

you certainly have a good way with words. I bet you have lots of great friends... maybe the kind that think about the best way to kill you without getting caught?

sweet burn dude i may have to borrow it

it will come in handy when i am trying to distract people from my complete lack of a salient point, as you so ably demonstrated

It seems that you are already using that tactic, since you haven't made a point in this thread yet.

why don't you read back on page 2 or so, I don't enjoy repeating myself for the benefit of internet lackwit #23,456,021

[captain.crazy]

you certainly have a good way with words. I bet you have lots of great friends... maybe the kind that think about the best way to kill you without getting caught?

sweet burn dude i may have to borrow it

it will come in handy when i am trying to distract people from my complete lack of a salient point, as you so ably demonstrated

It seems that you are already using that tactic, since you haven't made a point in this thread yet.

why don't you read back on page 2 or so, I don't enjoy repeating myself for the benefit of internet lackwit #23,456,021

Don't be a turd. I'm not talking about your posts from 12 pages ago. I didn't even remember you since you dropped out of the conversation. and a good thing too... you have nothing to offer but vile comments. You have made no point against the article that I just posted.

[sailorseal]

Let's not flame

[SEAsportsfan]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but basically people don't want gays to have marriage because it ruins the sacredness of marriage? Okay, so my idea is that there is the government-controlled Civil Marriage for government purposes (civil unions, benefits, rights, etc.) and this is for people who are gay, atheists (don't want to deal with the Church), etc. And then, there is Religious Marriage, which is for the "sacred" union of a man and a woman. That way gays have their rights, and religious people have their sacred marriage.

Now, I know you're asking, "But, SEA, God doesn't like gays, we can't have God angry!" My quick response, "Let God deal with it in heaven/hell, but let gays have their rights here on Earth."

Please correct me if I'm getting any part of any argument wrong.

My sentiments exactly.

Yes this makes perfect sense to me as well.

I agree with this also, but here is the problem.

The state already does recognize unions between atheists, etc. completely outside of a church. They do so by means of a Justice of the Peace. The result is a Marriage. So, this as already been defined. It is understood in multiple ways -- children are automatically recognized, inheritances automatically passed, etc. Churches recognition or not is irrelevant. The state simply honors the clergy authorized unions because its easier and cheaper than making every couple head for the Justice of the Peace.

The Federal government similarly recognizes such unions. Further, the ability to marry is generally considered a key right of free people. There is case law on this in regards to slaves and free people.

There is not such recognition of anything called a "civil union".

So, basically, those people who wish to claim that marriage is somehow limited to a church are just plain wrong. The church may dictate who gets married, what marriage entails within its congregations, but not outside. This is a blatant attempt by some people to define things in way they like to meet their desires, it is not about freedom at all. It is about limiting the freedom of a few people, a few unpopular people, because a large number of others don't like how they live.

Sorry, but the constitution is there specifically to preserve and protect the rights of individual people, NOT to oppress them.

So, are you saying that gays have a right to head to the Justice of the Peace for marriage, or union, or whatever?

And, how about a "Religious Marriage" and a "Federal Marriage"? Either way, everyone's happy. Or, even better, why don't the gay-bashing religious people realize, that they, of all people, should treat people the way they want to be treated. Because, I sure would hate to be them when, for some reason, homosexuals become the majority in America, and they decide that straight people can't be married, because it says in their "religious texts" that straight people are bad. That would really suck, wouldn't it? Obviously, that's a major exaggeration, but in order to deal with this kind of situation, you have to look at it from a reverse point of view.

In the end, this shouldn't be a political issue, where we examine the Constitution to look for little passages, that say this and that; instead, it should be a human issue, where we decide that all humans deserve to have equal rights. I thought the Civil Rights Movements of the '60s had settled this.