California Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

How is it special treatment when each individual male and female has the legal right to choose the gender of whom they marry? This is not special treatment as each human would have the same rights.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
How is it special treatment when each individual male and female has the legal right to choose the gender of whom they marry? This is not special treatment as each human would have the same rights.

I hate that lame "special treatment" ???? argument.

Its such a stupid stupid stupid - - - excuse for an ??? argument.

Equal Rights - - applies to 2 persons wanting to legally join as one. Gender is inconsequential.

I have an idea, let us repeal the "Defense of Marriage" act and all recognition of marriages on the federal level. We can remove 100% of marriages and replace them with a "Civil Union" that would be defined as the "Legal coupling of two or more induviduals into a single organization with the express purpose of improving the financial, physical, and mental welfare of all members of said organization"

See it's that simple. Marriage is, at best, a cultural tradition... for the most part a religious institution. So that being said, if Christians want to be married, Pagans wedlocked, or whatever people want to call it in their churches, so be it. The marriage ceremony will have NO LEGAL recognition without an accompanying civil union.

And for the record, I am totally straight and don't really give a damn what anyone else does with their body parts or their heart and soul. Just keep your damned moral bias out of my life.


[edit on 8-4-2010 by rogerstigers]

reply to post by rogerstigers


I agree roger,
Marriage is a union between man woman and god, if you are not happy
with that prospect then marriage is not for you. What you need is some
sort of legally binding contract only. If you have been married without
the inclusion of our lord in your vows it is not a true marriage and only
recognised by the state. Sorry if i have offended any.

I would not be opposed to gay marriage if we could just legalize gay marriage and be done with it. If I don't have to be directly involved then I can live with it. The problem is that many of the gay "activists" who promote gay marriage really want to force their beliefs on other people. If gay marriage is legalized nationwide then there will immediately be law suits filed against churches everywhere for violating laws and being discriminatory. Unlike gay marriage, freedom of religion IS a right defined in the US constitution. The reason many religious people like myself oppose gay marriage is NOT to be discriminatory but rather to defend against the further and increased attacks against religion in general that will follow.

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

I agree roger,
Marriage is a union between man woman and god, if you are not happy
with that prospect then marriage is not for you. What you need is some
sort of legally binding contract only. If you have been married without
the inclusion of our lord in your vows it is not a true marriage and only
recognised by the state. Sorry if i have offended any.

Not quite how I would have put it, but a good point nonetheless. Star for you for putting that in a way that may be more "sensible" to some of the religious folks.

Originally posted by itguysrule
The reason many religious people like myself oppose gay marriage is NOT to be discriminatory but rather to defend against the further and increased attacks against religion in general that will follow.

Just out of curiosity, did this happen when Interracial marriage was made legal?

To that point, why do Christians think that a gay couple would necessarily want to get married in their church? If they know their church won't condone it, then they need to find a new church. If they aren't Christian, then why would they need to be married in a Christian church?

There is a big differance between having the legal right to marry and being able to force any particular church to perform the ceremony, especially when any old JP can perform a marriage. I firmly believe that if a case were brought up by a gay couple against a church that won't perform their marriage ceremony on the basis of discrimination , the couple would lose on the grounds of freedom of religion and expression -- and rightfully so.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by rogerstigers]

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

I agree roger,
Marriage is a union between man woman and god, if you are not happy
with that prospect then marriage is not for you. What you need is some
sort of legally binding contract only. If you have been married without
the inclusion of our lord in your vows it is not a true marriage and only
recognised by the state. Sorry if i have offended any.

God is only for people that believe in God.

God has no jurisdiction in government equality.

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Just out of curiosity, did this happen when Interracial marriage was made legal?

I don't think so - but that was quite a number of years ago. The political climate was not so acerbic as it is now.

There is a big differance between having the legal right to marry and being able to force any particular church to perform the ceremony, especially when any old JP can perform a marriage. I firmly believe that if a case were brought up by a gay couple against a church that won't perform their marriage ceremony on the basis of discrimination , the couple would lose on the grounds of freedom of religion and expression -- and rightfully so.

I believe you would be correct in this instance. What concerns me is a larger more general attack such as "you can't teach anything from the bible that might be discriminatory against gays." Another one would be "since churches have discriminatory teachings they cannot be tax exempt."

It is the same as the ruling that the Boy Scouts can exclude gays as a private organization. That Supreme Court Ruling did not settle the issue at all. Instead of allowing the Boy Scouts to just mind their own business they are under constant attack from gay groups who are still trying to IMPOSE their will upon them even after the ruling by the Supreme Court.

Like I said - this court decision, or the next, or the next won't settle anything. I am afraid this conflict will continue for decades just as with the battle over abortion.

Originally posted by itguysrule
Like I said - this court decision, or the next, or the next won't settle anything. I am afraid this conflict will continue for decades just as with the battle over abortion.

As will any and all decisions that relate to one or more religious groups' definition of morality. It is part of the game that has been going on for centuries. *shrug*

I mean, take the boy scouts, for instance... private organization so they should be able to have whomever they want as a member and be able to exclude whomever they want.. but only if they don't receive federal funding.. if they do, they have to be open to everyone as per the recent Supreme Court decision:
HASTINGS CHRISTIAN FELLOW-
SHIP v. MARTINEZ

I am pretty sure that *most* churches do not receive federal funding, but they do qualify as a non-profit organization and are tax exempt for that reason. Their membership guidelines and preferences don't change their non-profit status, so that tax break should continue, I think.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by rogerstigers]

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Just out of curiosity, did this happen when Interracial marriage was made legal?

I believe it was shortly after WW2. I could be wrong though.

To that point, why do Christians think that a gay couple would necessarily want to get married in their church?

Damned if I know. One would think that their church was more accepting. I think they just want the same rights as hetros. When it comes to a "union". Look at gay rights and medical care. Insurance, etc.

There are enough churches that accept gays.

There really is no reason for them to get married in any antiquated church - - still stuck in the dark ages.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by 19872012


Later troll.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by 19872012

 

Later troll.

no i'm serious. why do people care? why should people's sexual preference matter?

Originally posted by 19872012no i'm serious. why do people care? why should people's sexual preference matter?

And, for the record, many lesbians don't like it in the butt and many straight people do. ;-) Maybe you were not intentionally trolling, but the fact is that being gay has nothing to do with where certain people like certain things to be put.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by rogerstigers]

Originally posted by 19872012
no i'm serious. why do people care? why should people's sexual preference matter?

You're right, it shouldn't matter. Does that effect you or me? The "butt sex" thing though is old. Look at any porn today. Hetros either do it or want to. I know gay people and though it wasn't the topic of conversation it seems hetros are more into "butt sex" than they are. Love is just love. Bottom line. No pun intended.

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by 19872012

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by 19872012

 

Later troll.

no i'm serious. why do people care? why should people's sexual preference matter?

And, for the record, many lesbians don't like it in the butt and many straight people do. ;-) Maybe you were not intentionally trolling, but the fact is that being gay has nothing to do with where certain people like certain things to be put.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by rogerstigers]

I'm sorry. Bad joke. But the point is, I totally support gay rights.

Originally posted by 19872012
about time.

straight people ... why do you CARE? why waste your time hating people, especially just because they like it in the butt?

Oh yeah - - that's all gays are about.

They don't have jobs - families - insurance - mortgages - children - etc etc.

Honestly - - when you see a hetero person - - do you only think about what they do in the bedroom?

And - besides that - - not all gays are in to anal sex. Shocking - I know.

reply to post by SWCCFAN


Perhaps having the argument would be easier if you articulated a cogent thought throughout your threads.

The rules state that a judge must recuse themselves if they are directly involved in the matter at hand, not if they could be involved.

That the judge is homosexual is not relevant, ethically, legally or in any other manner.