This May Be A Very Important Day For Gay Rights

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by beezzer

 

I have no problem with equal rights. Just do it with civil unions. Don't rewrite the bible or destroy the sanctity of marriage for something that can easily be accomplished by civil union laws.

If you had no problem with equal rights, you wouldn't be opposing two consenting adults being able to have their marriage legally recognized in any state, especially for reasons as stupid as "it goes against the bible" or "it will destroy the sanctity of marriage".

reply to post by jimmiec


I once wrote a lengthy piece about this.

If my wife and I owned a BMW and our neighbors (Betty and Sally) owned a Nissan, yet called it a BMW, it does not impact the value of our BMW. Our BMW retains its value based on how my wife and I treat it.

Not on what others call their vehicle.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by poloblack

 

The only comparison between slavery and homosexuality is that in both cases, a group of individuals were denied rights.

As so many point out, it's just 4% of the population. Let's allow simple equal rights to everyone and move on to more important business.

I understand where you're coming from beez, but the comparison is way off. Can't hide your blackness, but I know gay guys that look and act hetero. So that's partially where the comparison is flawed. Anyway, that's just my humble opinion.

reply to post by poloblack


I agree with you. I guess I'm just so tired of "gay" this, or "black" that, or "Hispanic" this. . . .

I don't agree with Westboro Baptist, yet I think they should have the same rights of free speech as everyone else.

I don't understand homosexuality, yet I think they should have the same rights as everyone else.

People shouldn't just pay lip service to concepts such as equality.

Either we are all equal and have the same rights, or we aren't.

So they wanted to override the fed and DOMA with the referendum. But when they lost that, they look to the fed to override that very same referendum.
WTF.
BIG GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE ANSWER.

it is possible the scotus claims they have NO jurisdiction on marriage, why?
Because they don't. Not a word about marriage in the constitution.

They may strike down DOMA as unconstitutional. Which it is very much unconstitutional.
And it will put the whole marriage argument back at the state level, where it belongs.
Which then makes the equal protection clause argument a non argument, because there would be no federal marriage law to argue against.

If the doma decision comes out first as unconstitutional.
Look for a decision to uphold prop8.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by poloblack

 

I agree with you. I guess I'm just so tired of "gay" this, or "black" that, or "Hispanic" this. . . .

I don't agree with Westboro Baptist, yet I think they should have the same rights of free speech as everyone else.

I don't understand homosexuality, yet I think they should have the same rights as everyone else.

People shouldn't just pay lip service to concepts such as equality.

Either we are all equal and have the same rights, or we aren't.

Agreed bro. After all, at the end of the day, we're all Americans.

Originally posted by bjax9er
So they wanted to override the fed and DOMA with the referendum. But when they lost that, they look to the fed to override that very same referendum.
WTF.
BIG GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE ANSWER.

it is possible the scotus claims they have NO jurisdiction on marriage, why?
Because they don't. Not a word about marriage in the constitution.

They may strike down DOMA as unconstitutional. Which it is very much unconstitutional.
And it will put the whole marriage argument back at the state level, where it belongs.
Which then makes the equal protection clause argument a non argument, because there would be no federal marriage law to argue against.

If the doma decision comes out first as unconstitutional.
Look for a decision to uphold prop8.

edit on 26-3-2013 by bjax9er because: (no reason given)

What about interracial marriage. SCOTUS ruled the banning of it as discrimination. It's not really about marriage. It's about the state discriminating against law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult, legal citizens.

reply to post by xedocodex


The bible states that marriage is between man and woman. There are 1 billion Catholics alone. What DOESN"T it have to do with the bible?

Originally posted by MegaSpace
This topics heading is misleading, it is not about gay rights, you have your rights to be treated equally in society with respect, well in the U.S you do and in other western societies. This topic is really about destroying the sanctity of marriage, change the definition of what marriage really is. Soon we will be getting people wanting to marry their sisters or brothers next because marriage has become a joke due to attacks by certain groups who wish to force their agenda on the majority. To rewrite things as they please without the slightest concern of the majority how they may feel, in the end it creates a divide in society.

Which is closer to the real definition of marriage? Two gay people who love each other and want to commit their lives to be with each other in a caring relationship? Or two people who marry because the wife is a hot trophy wife and the man is an old geezer rich sugar daddy, 40 years her senior, where there is no real love involved at all? Marriage has always been a joke for some, and has always been taken seriously by others. Gay marriage won't change that at all.

All recent polling shows that there is a definite trend towards being accepting of gay marriage. It's called evolution. Those that don't move forward get left behind.

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by xedocodex

 

The bible states that marriage is between man and woman. There are 1 billion Catholics alone. What DOESN"T it have to do with the bible?

Then Catholic gays, if they adhered to the bible, would not get married.

A suggestion.

Let's be across the board equal. If those who are religious and gay choose not to get married because of religious teachings, then that should be their choice.

When a society makes that choice for them though (by banning the oppourtunity to marry) then it removes a freedom to self determine.

Originally posted by teslahowitzer
I could care less of this 'issue' let them marry their dogs if the wish. My problem is that with this overturn of the voted law, that a chosen lifestyle will get a bonus, supported by taxpayer funds. With a ruling of this type, g&l will have more access to adoption of children. If you choose a lifestyle, you should deal with it's limits, period, done, OVER. If your chosen life has limits as in procreation, you can not reproduce, therefore you must be given special rights to 'be a family',you should just have to learn to cope with your choice. If a forced adoption is ruled, then the indocrination process begins with this child and this is just reality, period. The child has no choice, and the enviornment IS part of the indocrination. I say let them have it, but forced family rulings should be off the table forever. Want a family? Hire a sub, don't like it? not the child's problem.

It is not a "chosen lifestyle" as you so claim. You are born a LGBT just like you are born straight. This isn't like chosing to be a drug user.

There should be no limitations on someone who is born LGBT that there isn't on people who are born straight.

What indocrination are you talking about? You make it sound like being in a household that has same sex parents is like being in a household that supports the slaughter of millions of people. Some same sex parents are a million times better than families that have a woman and a man.

Your arrogance is disgusting and straight people like you should not be allowed to have kids. Your way of thinking is damaging to children.

Really how the heck does this effect you? It doesn't. It really does not effect a majority of the people bitching and complaining about same sex marriage.

reply to post by beezzer


Why must it be MARRIAGE? Are they not just wanting the same rights? Can it not be obtained with civil unions? Must the church change their doctrine just because? There is a reason that 99% of church's will not marry gay couples. Do their rights have to be infringed upon?

reply to post by jimmiec


There should be no law that says gays can't marry.

But there should NOT be a law that says churches HAVE to marry gays. Why not make mosques and synagogues serve bacon sandwiches next!

The freedom to marry should also carry a caveat that says that it should not "infringe" upon the belief of a specific religion.

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by beezzer

 

Why must it be MARRIAGE? Are they not just wanting the same rights? Can it not be obtained with civil unions? Must the church change their doctrine just because? There is a reason that 99% of church's will not marry gay couples. Do their rights have to be infringed upon?

They want the right to be EQUAL -- equal in name, equal in benefits, equal in every way. No church will be forced to marry anyone, however I can see some churches evolving, due to changing attitudes of church members.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by supertrot

 

You're right... it shouldn't be a government matter, but since it is, it should be at the state level and not the Federal level. The voters of California voted to not have same sex marriage in their state. That should be the end of it right there. The SCOTUS has no Constitutional authority to over rule the voters of a state on a state issue. I would make the same argument if the roles were reversed... if California voted FOR same sex marriage, and the SCOTUS were entertaining the idea of over ruling that.

So would you have this same opinion if, hypothetically speaking, the State of Utah voted to reinstate Slavery?

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide the Constitutionality of issues, weather at a State level or Federal Level. The Supreme Court has every right to decide this case. From scholastic.com in reference to the role of the Supreme Court:

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

And let us be honest, this is a Constitutional issue.

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by beezzer

 

Why must it be MARRIAGE? Are they not just wanting the same rights? Can it not be obtained with civil unions? Must the church change their doctrine just because? There is a reason that 99% of church's will not marry gay couples. Do their rights have to be infringed upon?

Individuals have rights. People have rights. The Church is neither an Individual nor is it a person.

I'm tired of hearing about it. The whole issue is like a rash that won't go away and gay marriage war lords keep scratching it to keep it on the surface and to keep it irritated.

Recognized civil unions were not enough even if said unions gave them all the "benefits" they were entitled to. I was fine with that issue until they started going for the jugular to completely redefine marriage.

If they get what they now they will just find something more to fight about 6 months from now. This has no business in the US Supreme Court. The voters spoke but that was not good enough either.

There is no appeasing this movement because they will just keep moving the goal posts in an effort to stay relevant.

We have far greater problems in this country. Problems that should be uniting all of us to solve regardless of perspective. Yet, the dividing wedge just gets driven a little deeper.

I follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. That's me. My beliefs.

Yet I feel I should respect those who don't follow my specific religious leanings. If they don't believe the same as me, that's fine. If they feel that they can marry, then they should have the freedom to do so.

If the extremists muslims started coming into my home and started telling me I can't have bacon or scotch, I'd be steamed as hell!

If a catholic came into the house of a gay couple and said that they can't marry, . . . . .
What's the difference?

reply to post by beezzer


When the pedophiles demand the right to marry 11 year olds what then? This is a slippery slope. This is just another issue that America does not need. It will not end when they get the right to marry. It is part of the destruction of the church. It is the further eroding of morals in society.

reply to post by jimmiec

"pedophiles demand the right to marry 11 year olds what then?"

Pedophiles and gay people, there is no comparison!

That's just to far, people are people gay or straight. Pedophiles are beasts and predators!

I will however add the prophet Mohamed done exactly that!