Same-Sex marriages banned ?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 01:29 AM
link   
www.cnn.com...

I came across this and was curious as to what it meant ? Can we gather that same sex marriage has been banned?


Deep

[edit on 3-11-2004 by ZeroDeep]




posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   
"Sam" is gonna be disapointed (see your title)

Some states will not aloow a formal marrige if they pass, and lot have, these ballot measures



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Just one of the many disturbing things you can thank the GOP for in the coming months and years. If ever there was a setback for personal freedom in the US this is one of them, but most certainly not the last. I imagine the Patriot Act will get expanded along with other various bills.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 01:37 AM
link   


"Sam" is gonna be disapointed (see your title)




Woops. I edited it out.

From what i'm being told, this will not go through the sumpreme court, i hope so.

Deep



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
From what i'm being told, this will not go through the sumpreme court, i hope so.

what makes you think the supreme court would hear it?



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
From what i'm being told, this will not go through the sumpreme court, i hope so.

Deep


It will eventually end up in the Supreme Court. One of the US constitutional amendments provides for it. It's too late here now, I'll try to find it tomorrow. But basically if I get married in Nevada, my home state must also recognize that union. So if even one state allows for gay marriages they must be recognized in other states.

The only way it won't go the Supreme Court is if the US congress initiates a constitutional amendment to the Constitution.

B.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Bleys

i'll be looking...i'm not sure, but i don't see how marriage would be any different from other laws that are different between states.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Here in ARKANSAS yes

I hope thew rest of the country is more progresive



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 02:09 AM
link   
keholmes:

You know just because I need it right now I can't find it. But it has to do with the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I found this on a marriage planner site but it's not what I want:


The legal requirements for a man and a woman to marry vary from state to state. Although there are differences between the requirements in the various states, a marriage between a man and a woman performed in one state must be recognized by every other state under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.


It is under this section that the country will decide this issue - either through legal means or a constitutional amendment. One way or another this will be settled in the next few years.

IMO - the states ought to discontinue marriage licenses altogether and have all couples register civil unions for legal protection. Marriage is a religious instuition and the state and feds need to stay out of it.

If I find the section - I'll post it here.


B



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Alternateheaven says,


If ever there was a setback for personal freedom in the US this is one of them
I cant disagree more
This EXEMPLIFIES freedom....it shows that a democratic culture has the right to determine its cultural boundaries for itself thru the process.

Weather you think this issue was decided "right or wrong" is not the issue.

The fact that a majority concensus is being reached in those states with this on the ballot, shows that they have chosen to define their states by having this law.

This does NOT make them bigots, homophobes etc....
it simply makes them the current majority to get to review and decide upon including/excluding this agenda into practice or not.
It makes no difference the "why" they want things this way...because god says its bad, because its always been this way, because a culture has the right to make this self determination....the democratic process takes the reasons into count by making all votes "blind" meaning each is counted and no reason has to be given.

If you say these states do not have the right to vote on this issue and take actions from the outcome, i ask,
what system of governance are you saying we need to use here?

Freedom includes the right to not be inclusive, to seperate yourself from others that do not expouse your core beliefs, to band together and form a political concensus using he tools of democracy we have.
Freedom means you have the right to choose to screw up if thats what the majority wants in a democracy.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 03:29 AM
link   
in some places, I noticed, they banned it despite a certain popularity for it. weird.

allowing for gay marriage is a good thing for two reasons:

1. It allows people who are in the closet to come out and relieve themselves of the preventitive anguish that they have been suppresing themselves with for who knows how long.

2. It decreases the overall national divorce rate because, let's face it, sometimes heterosexual people marry a gay guy or a lesbian who is still in the closet until... oops... a same-sex affair.

on a moral level, I cannot really say because that's a largely subjective angle. on a reproductive level, it's kinda bad because only lesbian couples can reproduce children.

but at least the governments aren't totally coming out and saying "if you are gay, you are in violation of such-and-such law". Damn. The chaos that would cause.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 04:29 AM
link   
AlnilamOmega states an untruth,


1. It allows people who are in the closet to come out and relieve themselves of the preventitive anguish that they have been suppresing themselves with for who knows how long.
I dont see society saying "stay in the closet", also, being married has nothing to do with weather a person chooses to come out or not. Pleanty of gay people indeed have no desire to even be married. obviously youd have to be out before you went to get a gay marriage.

he says another fallicy here,


2. It decreases the overall national divorce rate because, let's face it, sometimes heterosexual people marry a gay guy or a lesbian who is still in the closet until... oops... a same-sex affair.
Id like to see the study that shows this decreases divorce rates. Has any study like this even been conducted to know this?
weather divorce occurs or not in no way justifies gay marriage, one way or the other. were talking about being able to marry, not what happens after that.

the final untruth,


only lesbian couples can reproduce children.
Not by themselves, and not without serious medical treatments (invetro), it is still unnautral for 2 women to reproduce just like it would be for 2 men, nature isnt wired to make humans either of those ways naturally.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 05:21 AM
link   
This is exactly how issues of 'morality' should be handled. At the state level. Because it is at the state level that the popular, democratic vote voices the will of the people clearest.

What you see from this result is that 11 states have OVERWHELMINGLY stated they want this ban in place.

Which means there are still 39 states where the ban is NOT in place.

My hope is that this issue stays at the state level and that my constitution is not muddied by it either pro or con. Just as I believe my constitution should not be marred by the abortion issue...which should also stay at the state level.

It will be an extremely sad day if the Supreme Court attempts to disempower the people of a state by deeming their referendums unconstitutional, because what will result then is a bastardization of the constitution through an amendment. The Supreme Court needs to leave it alone.

[edit on 11-3-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:05 AM
link   
How do we have the right to tell someone who they can love and marry? I think its a shame that so many people are so insecure with themselves that they voted yes on this. Oh well, such is the state of america.
We have a moral obligation to accept people for who they are, as long as thier not killing anybody, or strapping bombs on thier chest. Its not our responsibility to control someones life. Its wrong, and I have lost my faith in my country.


[edit on 11/3/04 by Kidfinger]



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Kid...

Your point is recorded in my little point notebook, but the fact is, on the state level the majority rules. If the majority feels the anti-thesis of your opinion...you get what you get in 11 states.

Majority rules. It's a very simple concept that a lot people need to accept...or move some where where the majority rules the way they want....which would not be in those 11 states.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:19 AM
link   
If majority rules in politics, then Bush would not have been our president to begin with
This is why I have lost faith. Nothing about our voting system is cut and dry. I believe Bush scared half of America to vote for him this time. The election was no landslide. It has been very close the whole time. Not so with the marriage ammendment. Between 65-73% of voters said yes to the ban dependeing on where they were. That to me just says thier are alot of close minded, insecure people out thier who dont think a certain group of people should be happy. I also see it as treating gay people as second class citizens.

Sorry if Im rambeling on, I havent had my Red Bull this morning



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:36 AM
link   
You seem to be stating that this was some type of anti-sodomy law. Which it wasn't. Now, all 11 states may have already had anti-sodomy laws on the books...I don't know. But this simply stated:

If you want an Official Butt-Sex certificate...you can't get one in this state. And if you get one some where else, it doesn't apply here...you'll go back to unofficial butt-sex when you're in this state.

That doesn't seem to be keeping anybody from loving anybody they choose, nor does it keep them from boinking whomever they chose to boink.

edit: typos

[edit on 11-3-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:55 AM
link   
kidfinger asks,


How do we have the right to tell someone who they can love and marry?
No one is telling anyone who they can/cant feel love with, noone is saying "dont be gay".
BUT
Marriage is a legal, meaning public record. It is also a special interest minority group entitlement, not a right (who garuntees anyones right to a spouce?)

When you study sociology, you will learn about the ways that cultures define themselves, their laws, ways of doing things, mannerisms etc...
When talking about a democratic culture, they have the right thru a majority concensus to determine what things they will/wont adopt into their cultural identity. Thus this means they as a democratic culture have the right to say NO, this behaivior is not for us.
This should not be confused with various reasons that groups use to say yea or nay to this issue.




I think its a shame that so many people are so insecure with themselves that they voted yes on this.
Dont assume their motives for saying no to gay marriage....a) you dont really know each reason, and b) reason is irrelavent when the overall principal of DEMOCRACY is considered, it is reaching a majority concensus that is the agreed upon method and most fair way this culture has chosen to deal with these issues.




We have a moral obligation to accept people for who they are
who's morals are we trying to cite, obviously not the morals of the majority of the citizens in the states where ther said no to gay marriage (or yes to man/woman only is more accurate) Voting this way only makes marriage MOTRE of a special intrest minority group entitlement than it does ban people from alleged equality. (discrimination is legal here, but thats a whole PAGE thread ive already written)




Its not our responsibility to control someones life.
Its NOT??? then why in the heck do we have all these laws here?
people misbehaive, people also do things that while not illegal are generrally shunned by the cultural majority.
A democratic culture has the right to do both of these things, its how you can tell the differance between the USA and say Canada.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 07:04 AM
link   
I think everybody's being short-sighted on this anyway. I believe if not ALL the 11 states that passed this ban, at least MOST of them, are red states.

Osama has become the advocate of the gay community. He will take out all these states for you and leave you with a sexual free-for-all in the remaining 39 states.

No worries...nature adjusts itself. Oops...I forgot, bein's as species propagation is a major factor of survival of the fittest, nature correcting itself would NOT be on your side...no worries, Al Qaeda will step in where nature fails you.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Valhall, you're killing me! Official Butt Sex Cert! Thats a riot.

Anyways, my state didn't so much as ban gay marriage as define it legally as being between one man and one woman...and its not any attempt to restrain freedoms. Its an attempt to save our medical insurance and medicare/madicaid programs from being drained by people legally amending dependants because they claim to be same sex partners.

In my state, the majority of us are democrats but we do lie smack in the middle of the bible belt which makes most of our liberals more conservative than L.A. republicans. I agree that this should have been handled at the state level and have always been more for states rights than federal power.

I don't think this amendment should have been on the ballot for another reason. In my opinion, all this is doing is giving more attention to the gay movement. I think that fuels the fire to be "different" or the "underdog" and many people choose that path for just that reason...an attempt to get attention they didn't get as a child. More "village to raise the child" lack of parenting results I guess.

Much like a child will misbehave to get attention, even if its scolding or punishment, we manifest that as adults as well. Some are performers, some are hypochondraics and some choose outlandish lifestyles to garner attention.

Any doctor will tell you (at least if he's assured he will not get sued) that hetero or homo sexual anal sex is not what the anus was intended for. Its an exit only people (save for the prostate exam..yikes!!! sorry to bring that up middle aged dudes). There are grave health risk involved in such a wreckless lifestyle. The results are taxing health care for the poor and elderly. Thats the issue and once I spoke to people in the medical profession, I understood why its an important one.

Sure, to want attention is normal and acceptable but we need to find other avenues that aren't so dangerous to do so. Its not natural to copulate in this manner and it will never be medically proven that it is. In fact, anal health and the threat of HIV and colon cancer is something that needs to be taken dead serious. The affects of either are devestating. The first step is finding a cure, the second step is stopping the cause.





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join