U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas signals that gay marriage will be law of the land

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Annee

think real hard about what i am saying and drop the war annd you may see the beauty

Idealism is a nice word --- not much else.

I'll take the legal contract and tax breaks.

a reply to: Grimpachi

That is the beauty of it.

It removes the current conflict of church and state.

Government would simply reside over the civil union contract that would bind the parties.

That would then allow groups seperate from government to perform marriages that bing the parties in the matter of love,sex or actually whatever one would want to spin it two.

Government was not designed to deal with love and sex but it was designed to deal with the contractual aspects. The term marriage goes beyond just the contractual aspect and injects love into a broken system of government.


Let's start fixing it.

Insurance companies will not like it at first and neither will the irs.

Two groups that are already engauged in a forced sex act with citizens already.

The churches will continue to bless the union of same sex marriages but will not be forced.

After a time things will look different.

a reply to: deadeyedick

But the reality of it is that same sex marriages are real, are occurring, and probably some married couples live near you. The mind-game of 'let's everybody agree to just civil unions' is about 15 years behind the times. Marriage has nothing to do with religion on one hand, it's a legal contract which both protects and enables the people involved in it. A church wedding is fine too, as God or Goddess or Jah or someone is saying 'that's cool, now go forth and trytofly'. For someone like yourself who just can't wrap your head around it, gay marriages are two people entering a contract. Civil unions were one form of that, but are now ancient history in terms of present-day reality.

a reply to: Aleister

You can shove you assumptions of weather or not i like gay marriage or if i can wrap my head around it.

My decisions are not based on my personal feelings but on facts.

By definition marriage includes both church and state.

That is a conflict that once again needs to be adressed because it is the reason marriage was not included in the constitution.

For the purpose of giving eaqual rights the concept of marriage will always fail because giving rights based on sex is not morally justifiable when it comes to government.

Marriage was only introduced federally in an effort to combat blacks and whites getting together.

You are quite wrong in putting a timeframe on the need to do the right thing. It is never too late but failing to do so now will only make it harder in the future to once again seperate church and state.

Benefits for marriage by the government only fuels the ammendment of equal protection under the law to be broken because it discriminates the benefits programs by only allowing them to be givin to those in love or having sex and engauged in marriage. That leaves out any other type of relationship that happens under a roof in the usa.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Marriage was only introduced federally in an effort to combat blacks and whites getting together.

Maybe you can link this federal law. Or is it more bull**** like your Marriage Act of 1938 or claiming that marriage was addressed in the Constitution in 1938.

You are a habitual fabricator.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

why not try to see the bigger picture???

a reply to: deadeyedick

I can, unlike you who has woven a fabric of deception and untruth in this and other threads concerning the topic.

You obviously have an agenda. Why would anyone cite amendments to the Constitution that never existed except in their imaginations?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

yea it was a case law it seems and to tell you the truth i had read it on here several times posted by anne and just got it mixed up a bit.
It seems most of the laws on marriage were all common law but in the time frame referenced there were legal actions taken to try to keep people of different color apart and marriage laws were one tool they used.

You are totally full of it with your accusations about me or my intentions.

How about you address the majority of my post instead of deflecting from it?

yes i do absolutely have an agenda and that is very much outlined in the post very well but you choose to ignore it.

I can, unlike you who has woven a fabric of deception and untruth in this and other threads concerning the topic.

that is a total lie and is only based on one single reference of case law vs ammendment to the constitution.

Beyond that error you have no ground to make the outrageous claims you try to make. You simply try to deflect from a very precise point i am making over and over and that is and has been your m.o. to derail from the point i make

a reply to: deadeyedick

There is nothing to address as you have a deeply and fundementally flawed understanding of not only marriage laws in the United States but of marriage as a social and political tool historically. Marriage has never been solely the purview of religion.

Why do you not try to address the reality of marriage historically instead of conflating the facts as is your perfidious wont.

that is a total lie and is only based on one single reference of case law vs ammendment to the constitution.

The only bull is on your end. Cite the amendment that pertains to marriage.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

can you not read?

I clearly stated that i called it an ammendment but found that it was a case law and actually it is several case laws based on common laws back then.

Why on earth would you then turn around and ask me to cite the ammendment??

You are no comprehending my words accurately to judge if what i am saying is true or not.

Givin that i emplore you to go back and carefully reread my post in ths thread and omit the single reference to 1938 ammendment then come back and post based on that instead of what you are currently doing.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Why on earth would you then turn around and ask me to cite the ammendment??

Because in your above post you claim it was case law vs. and amendment. Which you have done in more than one thread.

If your intention was not to include the Constitution then you need to be much clearer in your language as your sentences are often times disjointed and hard to follow.

Givin that i emplore you to go back and carefully reread my post in ths thread and omit the single reference to 1938 ammendment then come back and post based on that instead of what you are currently doing.

Irrelevant since you are doing exactly what the people proposing those laws did, conflating the historical religious influence on marriage. Again, religion was never the only rationale for marriage.

a reply to: GV1997

SCOTUS said OK and that should fix it.

Why not make incest marriage legal in all states? What's the problem, two consenting adults and all....

originally posted by: deadeyedick
By definition marriage includes both church and state.

No. A Christian marriage requires a Christian church and is not recognized by a Jewish church or a Muslim church. It is purely a contract for two people within the framework of their religion and that contract typically revolves around devotion to God and your partner. As part of that, the legal paperwork gets filed with the state. Just plain old marriage is purely a state function, it confers legal and tax benefits to the couple. Currently only straight couples can get married which is a civil rights issue. Go hang out at a courthouse for a day, you'll see plenty of people get married using nothing more than a judge and a sheet of paper. No church, no priest, no God.

That is what this is about, no one is saying the Catholics have to go down to West Hollywood and start marrying every couple they want. It's saying two gay people can go into a courthouse, get married, and have the same legal and tax benefits that anyone else gets.

originally posted by: jheated5
Why not make incest marriage legal in all states? What's the problem, two consenting adults and all....

Cousins can often marry and they do in many areas of the world. Closer than that though and you start getting into genetic defects which is the primary reason we discourage it... it's not fair to their children.

Oh come on, these couple of brick walls again?

Look, here's a thought. Take your precious book of fibers & ink & have yourself a merry little religious marriage within the structure of your sect. We'll deal with it.

Now you let others have their own marriages by way of the government instead. We deal, you deal, ya get it?

Nowhere on mine does it say squat about anyone from a religious organization officiating & lording over it. Uncle Sam's reps did that, my way of middle fingering churches & such (and also avoiding the pointless costliness of a wedding, they really make no sense to me as such expensive one-day parties) If there's ever a requirement that says my marriage is only valid if religious, then commitment -- you're doing it wrong.

originally posted by: jheated5
Why not make incest marriage legal in all states? What's the problem, two consenting adults and all....

Incest is legal in New Jersey between consenting adults. (But not incestual marriage)

Why do some insist on bringing incest into gay marriage discussions?

Apples and Oranges.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Why does there have to be a difference between marriage and civil union? If marriage laws aren't covered in the Constitution then so aren't civil union laws. It's all the same argument. So what's so special about the word "marriage" that you don't want to extend these benefits to homosexuals?

a reply to: sdubya

I think as it stands right now, a church can't perform a gay marriage ceremony even if it wants to in some states. I think my thoughts on the issue are that churches should be able to perform gay marriage ceremonies if they want.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: sdubya

I think as it stands right now, a church can't perform a gay marriage ceremony even if it wants to in some states.

Really? I've never heard of that. In the 13 states where it's illegal, maybe. Is that what you mean?