What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
Leave the church.
Leave the Church? Should someone leave the Church?
If they don't believe in its' teachings, yes.
Yes, but there are many Churches that are willing to perform these marriages. If they are willing, and they have congregations who agree, in a free country, why should it be prevented? The operative words here are "in a free country", you know, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, or should that just be reserved for those who are free to conform to your idea of liberty?
If a "church" wants to marry same sex couples, let them. If the government wants to extend legal rights to them, fine with me. But, I would rather my government call it something else. I'm both married by the government's definition and legal contract, and joined with my wife by Holy Matrimony in the Catholic Church. And I don't think they'll be changing their definition of marriage anytime soon. If you want to change the government's definition, by all means, do so. It doesn't change the meaning, and governments come and go.
I really don't have a problem with this thinking, as long as same sex couples who mary, or have civil unions, or whatever it's called have all the same legal rights regarding property, money, insurance, next of kin, etc. Seems like a fair compromise to me. Those who feel strongly about the word and ceremony of "marriage" in a religious context should be respected, but those who wish to enjoy al the same legal rights of married couples who are not heterosexual should be respected too. However, those churches that choose to sanctify the marriage of same sex couples should be allowed to do so; in a free country, where Congress shall make no laws regarding religion. If a Church or a specific religion chooses this practice, and wants to call it marriage, it should be allowed.
As I see it, the only legal way to prevent a Church or religion from practicing freely in the US is by way of a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that.
But a "church" calling it a marriage doesn't make it legal in the eyes of the government. Our current law says marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Now, try to change that through a Constitutional Amendment.
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
Leave the church.
Leave the Church? Should someone leave the Church?
If they don't believe in its' teachings, yes.
Yes, but there are many Churches that are willing to perform these marriages. If they are willing, and they have congregations who agree, in a free country, why should it be prevented? The operative words here are "in a free country", you know, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, or should that just be reserved for those who are free to conform to your idea of liberty?
If a "church" wants to marry same sex couples, let them. If the government wants to extend legal rights to them, fine with me. But, I would rather my government call it something else. I'm both married by the government's definition and legal contract, and joined with my wife by Holy Matrimony in the Catholic Church. And I don't think they'll be changing their definition of marriage anytime soon. If you want to change the government's definition, by all means, do so. It doesn't change the meaning, and governments come and go.
I really don't have a problem with this thinking, as long as same sex couples who mary, or have civil unions, or whatever it's called have all the same legal rights regarding property, money, insurance, next of kin, etc. Seems like a fair compromise to me. Those who feel strongly about the word and ceremony of "marriage" in a religious context should be respected, but those who wish to enjoy al the same legal rights of married couples who are not heterosexual should be respected too. However, those churches that choose to sanctify the marriage of same sex couples should be allowed to do so; in a free country, where Congress shall make no laws regarding religion. If a Church or a specific religion chooses this practice, and wants to call it marriage, it should be allowed.
As I see it, the only legal way to prevent a Church or religion from practicing freely in the US is by way of a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that.
But a "church" calling it a marriage doesn't make it legal in the eyes of the government. Our current law says marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Now, try to change that through a Constitutional Amendment.
So far, DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is failing judicial review, and I believe it will not stand Constitutional scrutiny, and will be found to be Unconstitutional when it gets to the Supreme Court, because Congress is prohibited from pasing laws respecting, supporting, or prohibiting religion and religious activity. If some churches want to allow these marriages, then Congress cannot stop them form doing so, unless the Constitution is amended.
NEW YORK (AP) A divided federal appeals court in Manhattan struck down the Defense of Marriage Act Thursday as unconstitutional, joining an appeals court in Boston in rejecting the law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the case in the next year.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2-to-1 ruling only weeks after hearing arguments on a lower court judge's findings that the 1996 law was unconstitutional.
The majority opinion written by Judge Dennis Jacobs rejected a section of the law that says "marriage" only means a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and that the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. A federal appeals court in Boston earlier this year also found it unconstitutional.
The issue is expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The decision came less than a month after the court heard arguments on Sept. 27.
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
Leave the church.
Leave the Church? Should someone leave the Church?
If they don't believe in its' teachings, yes.
Yes, but there are many Churches that are willing to perform these marriages. If they are willing, and they have congregations who agree, in a free country, why should it be prevented? The operative words here are "in a free country", you know, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, or should that just be reserved for those who are free to conform to your idea of liberty?
If a "church" wants to marry same sex couples, let them. If the government wants to extend legal rights to them, fine with me. But, I would rather my government call it something else. I'm both married by the government's definition and legal contract, and joined with my wife by Holy Matrimony in the Catholic Church. And I don't think they'll be changing their definition of marriage anytime soon. If you want to change the government's definition, by all means, do so. It doesn't change the meaning, and governments come and go.
I really don't have a problem with this thinking, as long as same sex couples who mary, or have civil unions, or whatever it's called have all the same legal rights regarding property, money, insurance, next of kin, etc. Seems like a fair compromise to me. Those who feel strongly about the word and ceremony of "marriage" in a religious context should be respected, but those who wish to enjoy al the same legal rights of married couples who are not heterosexual should be respected too. However, those churches that choose to sanctify the marriage of same sex couples should be allowed to do so; in a free country, where Congress shall make no laws regarding religion. If a Church or a specific religion chooses this practice, and wants to call it marriage, it should be allowed.
As I see it, the only legal way to prevent a Church or religion from practicing freely in the US is by way of a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that.
But a "church" calling it a marriage doesn't make it legal in the eyes of the government. Our current law says marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Now, try to change that through a Constitutional Amendment.
So far, DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is failing judicial review, and I believe it will not stand Constitutional scrutiny, and will be found to be Unconstitutional when it gets to the Supreme Court, because Congress is prohibited from pasing laws respecting, supporting, or prohibiting religion and religious activity. If some churches want to allow these marriages, then Congress cannot stop them form doing so, unless the Constitution is amended.
NEW YORK (AP) A divided federal appeals court in Manhattan struck down the Defense of Marriage Act Thursday as unconstitutional, joining an appeals court in Boston in rejecting the law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the case in the next year.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2-to-1 ruling only weeks after hearing arguments on a lower court judge's findings that the 1996 law was unconstitutional.
The majority opinion written by Judge Dennis Jacobs rejected a section of the law that says "marriage" only means a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and that the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. A federal appeals court in Boston earlier this year also found it unconstitutional.
The issue is expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The decision came less than a month after the court heard arguments on Sept. 27.
Give it to a judge in middle America and you get something completely different. You want to end the argument? Give it to the people. The people will vote for a 1 man, 1 woman marriage every time.
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
Leave the church.
Leave the Church? Should someone leave the Church?
If they don't believe in its' teachings, yes.
Yes, but there are many Churches that are willing to perform these marriages. If they are willing, and they have congregations who agree, in a free country, why should it be prevented? The operative words here are "in a free country", you know, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, or should that just be reserved for those who are free to conform to your idea of liberty?
If a "church" wants to marry same sex couples, let them. If the government wants to extend legal rights to them, fine with me. But, I would rather my government call it something else. I'm both married by the government's definition and legal contract, and joined with my wife by Holy Matrimony in the Catholic Church. And I don't think they'll be changing their definition of marriage anytime soon. If you want to change the government's definition, by all means, do so. It doesn't change the meaning, and governments come and go.
I really don't have a problem with this thinking, as long as same sex couples who mary, or have civil unions, or whatever it's called have all the same legal rights regarding property, money, insurance, next of kin, etc. Seems like a fair compromise to me. Those who feel strongly about the word and ceremony of "marriage" in a religious context should be respected, but those who wish to enjoy al the same legal rights of married couples who are not heterosexual should be respected too. However, those churches that choose to sanctify the marriage of same sex couples should be allowed to do so; in a free country, where Congress shall make no laws regarding religion. If a Church or a specific religion chooses this practice, and wants to call it marriage, it should be allowed.
As I see it, the only legal way to prevent a Church or religion from practicing freely in the US is by way of a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that.
But a "church" calling it a marriage doesn't make it legal in the eyes of the government. Our current law says marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Now, try to change that through a Constitutional Amendment.
So far, DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is failing judicial review, and I believe it will not stand Constitutional scrutiny, and will be found to be Unconstitutional when it gets to the Supreme Court, because Congress is prohibited from pasing laws respecting, supporting, or prohibiting religion and religious activity. If some churches want to allow these marriages, then Congress cannot stop them form doing so, unless the Constitution is amended.
NEW YORK (AP) A divided federal appeals court in Manhattan struck down the Defense of Marriage Act Thursday as unconstitutional, joining an appeals court in Boston in rejecting the law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the case in the next year.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2-to-1 ruling only weeks after hearing arguments on a lower court judge's findings that the 1996 law was unconstitutional.
The majority opinion written by Judge Dennis Jacobs rejected a section of the law that says "marriage" only means a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and that the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. A federal appeals court in Boston earlier this year also found it unconstitutional.
The issue is expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The decision came less than a month after the court heard arguments on Sept. 27.
Give it to a judge in middle America and you get something completely different. You want to end the argument? Give it to the people. The people will vote for a 1 man, 1 woman marriage every time.
That may be true, but it would still be unconstitutional. Congress cannot prevent Churches from marrying same sex couples if they want to, unless you can pass a Constitutional Amendment.
What is this "defining marriage" issue all about anyhow, money? Do we really need to change the definition of marriage because homosexuals want a discount on their car insurance? My personal belief is if that is what the majority wants, then fine give them a discount, but call it something else. I was raised with a specific definition of the term 'marriage". Now I am being told that the long standing accepted definition has to be changed. Seems like there are always those that are attempting to redefine things that have already been defined. So why? For their own personal gain? Is comprehending a definition really forcing ones beliefs on someone else? When is a definition no longer a definition? Now, somehow definitions have become beliefs. Beliefs that can be changed whenever they suit ones personal goals. Hey if people want discounts on insurance or taxes or other benefits whatever. I guess this desire to change the definition of a term into something with a different meaning is an aspect of sociology that I don't really understand. Looking up the definition of marriage in the dictionary shows that this is happening regardless of how we vote. It also shows the confusion caused by doing so as there are several definitions offered and they do not necessarily agree with one another.
What is this "defining marriage" issue all about anyhow, money? Do we really need to change the definition of marriage because homosexuals want a discount on their car insurance? My personal belief is if that is what the majority wants, then fine give them a discount, but call it something else. I was raised with a specific definition of the term 'marriage". Now I am being told that the long standing accepted definition has to be changed. Seems like there are always those that are attempting to redefine things that have already been defined. So why? For their own personal gain? Is comprehending a definition really forcing ones beliefs on someone else? When is a definition no longer a definition? Now, somehow definitions have become beliefs. Beliefs that can be changed whenever they suit ones personal goals. Hey if people want discounts on insurance or taxes or other benefits whatever. I guess this desire to change the definition of a term into something with a different meaning is an aspect of sociology that I don't really understand. Looking up the definition of marriage in the dictionary shows that this is happening regardless of how we vote. It also shows the confusion caused by doing so as there are several definitions offered and the do not necessarily agree with one another.
It's not about discounts on car insurance. It's about property inheritance (next of kin), being able to visit your spouse when they're dying in the hospital, it's about being able to file joint tax returns, and all of the other benefits that are afforded married couples.
It's also about liberty, somethng many conservatives talk a lot about, but seem to have a rather narrow definition of.
What is this "defining marriage" issue all about anyhow, money? Do we really need to change the definition of marriage because homosexuals want a discount on their car insurance? My personal belief is if that is what the majority wants, then fine give them a discount, but call it something else. I was raised with a specific definition of the term 'marriage". Now I am being told that the long standing accepted definition has to be changed. Seems like there are always those that are attempting to redefine things that have already been defined. So why? For their own personal gain? Is comprehending a definition really forcing ones beliefs on someone else? When is a definition no longer a definition? Now, somehow definitions have become beliefs. Beliefs that can be changed whenever they suit ones personal goals. Hey if people want discounts on insurance or taxes or other benefits whatever. I guess this desire to change the definition of a term into something with a different meaning is an aspect of sociology that I don't really understand. Looking up the definition of marriage in the dictionary shows that this is happening regardless of how we vote. It also shows the confusion caused by doing so as there are several definitions offered and the do not necessarily agree with one another.
It's not about discounts on car insurance. It's about property inheritance (next of kin), being able to visit your spouse when they're dying in the hospital, it's about being able to file joint tax returns, and all of the other benefits that are afforded married couples.
It's also about liberty, somethng many conservatives talk a lot about, but seem to have a rather narrow definition of.
So it is about money? And a liberal's broad definition of liberty would include what? threesomes, orgies, animals, etc.? Just kidding on the animals.
What is this "defining marriage" issue all about anyhow, money? Do we really need to change the definition of marriage because homosexuals want a discount on their car insurance? My personal belief is if that is what the majority wants, then fine give them a discount, but call it something else. I was raised with a specific definition of the term 'marriage". Now I am being told that the long standing accepted definition has to be changed. Seems like there are always those that are attempting to redefine things that have already been defined. So why? For their own personal gain? Is comprehending a definition really forcing ones beliefs on someone else? When is a definition no longer a definition? Now, somehow definitions have become beliefs. Beliefs that can be changed whenever they suit ones personal goals. Hey if people want discounts on insurance or taxes or other benefits whatever. I guess this desire to change the definition of a term into something with a different meaning is an aspect of sociology that I don't really understand. Looking up the definition of marriage in the dictionary shows that this is happening regardless of how we vote. It also shows the confusion caused by doing so as there are several definitions offered and the do not necessarily agree with one another.
It's not about discounts on car insurance. It's about property inheritance (next of kin), being able to visit your spouse when they're dying in the hospital, it's about being able to file joint tax returns, and all of the other benefits that are afforded married couples.
It's also about liberty, somethng many conservatives talk a lot about, but seem to have a rather narrow definition of.
So it is about money? And a liberal's broad definition of liberty would include what? threesomes, orgies, animals, etc.? Just kidding on the animals.
Of course it concerns money. There are very few things in American life that do not concern money, and marriage is certainly one of them.
If a Church is willling to sanctify the marriage of same sex couples, then our Constitution grants the Church that freedom. Personally, I believe that if the Mormon Church decided to take polygamy to the Supreme Court, they would win, as long as Congress can pass no law or regulation of religion. That restriction of liberty would require a Constitutional Amendment. If there are enough people in the US to pass a definition of marriage Constitutional Amendment, then it could be done, and if such an amendment should be proposed, I would hope that it defined a marriage as being between two consenting adults.
You want to end the argument? Give it to the people. The people will vote for a 1 man, 1 woman marriage every time.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep trying to decide whats for lunch.
A republic is a well armed sheep begging to differ.
that is a classic logical fallacy named "call to a majority" just because a majority of people think that men cannot marry men or women, women, does not mean that it does not violate their rights to live their life as they see fit so long as they do not violate the rights of others. that is the concept that this country was founded on... the right to live your life as you see fit so long as you do not violate the rights of others. nobody here that is on the side of "one man one woman" has yet to prove that two men getting married violates any rights of anyone.
so tell me again why it should be illegal? just because you "feel" that it should be? or that your religion "doesnt like" it?
our nation wasnt founded on the principals of whatever you "feel" is right should be law.
there is no law, nor should there be, that a person, a group, a demographic, a religion cannot be offended. nobody has the right to not be offended. If it "offends" religions that two men should marry, so be it.
Roberto99:
What is this "defining marriage" issue all about anyhow, money?
no. it is about equal rights. there has never been a time in US history where "separate but equal" has worked.
You want to end the argument? Give it to the people. The people will vote for a 1 man, 1 woman marriage every time.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep trying to decide whats for lunch.
A republic is a well armed sheep begging to differ.
that is a classic logical fallacy named "call to a majority" just because a majority of people think that men cannot marry men or women, women, does not mean that it does not violate their rights to live their life as they see fit so long as they do not violate the rights of others. that is the concept that this country was founded on... the right to live your life as you see fit so long as you do not violate the rights of others. nobody here that is on the side of "one man one woman" has yet to prove that two men getting married violates any rights of anyone.
so tell me again why it should be illegal? just because you "feel" that it should be? or that your religion "doesnt like" it?
our nation wasnt founded on the principals of whatever you "feel" is right should be law.
there is no law, nor should there be, that a person, a group, a demographic, a religion cannot be offended. nobody has the right to not be offended. If it "offends" religions that two men should marry, so be it.
Roberto99:
What is this "defining marriage" issue all about anyhow, money?
no. it is about equal rights. there has never been a time in US history where "separate but equal" has worked.
You want to end the argument? Give it to the people. The people will vote for a 1 man, 1 woman marriage every time.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep trying to decide whats for lunch.
A republic is a well armed sheep begging to differ.
that is a classic logical fallacy named "call to a majority" just because a majority of people think that men cannot marry men or women, women, does not mean that it does not violate their rights to live their life as they see fit so long as they do not violate the rights of others. that is the concept that this country was founded on... the right to live your life as you see fit so long as you do not violate the rights of others. nobody here that is on the side of "one man one woman" has yet to prove that two men getting married violates any rights of anyone.
so tell me again why it should be illegal? just because you "feel" that it should be? or that your religion "doesnt like" it?
our nation wasnt founded on the principals of whatever you "feel" is right should be law.
there is no law, nor should there be, that a person, a group, a demographic, a religion cannot be offended. nobody has the right to not be offended. If it "offends" religions that two men should marry, so be it.
Roberto99:
What is this "defining marriage" issue all about anyhow, money?
no. it is about equal rights. there has never been a time in US history where "separate but equal" has worked.
by "worked" i mean "has not violated rights"
Aptly put.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
You want to end the argument? Give it to the people. The people will vote for a 1 man, 1 woman marriage every time.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep trying to decide whats for lunch.
A republic is a well armed sheep begging to differ.
that is a classic logical fallacy named "call to a majority" just because a majority of people think that men cannot marry men or women, women, does not mean that it does not violate their rights to live their life as they see fit so long as they do not violate the rights of others. that is the concept that this country was founded on... the right to live your life as you see fit so long as you do not violate the rights of others. nobody here that is on the side of "one man one woman" has yet to prove that two men getting married violates any rights of anyone.
so tell me again why it should be illegal? just because you "feel" that it should be? or that your religion "doesnt like" it?
our nation wasnt founded on the principals of whatever you "feel" is right should be law.
there is no law, nor should there be, that a person, a group, a demographic, a religion cannot be offended. nobody has the right to not be offended. If it "offends" religions that two men should marry, so be it.
Roberto99:
What is this "defining marriage" issue all about anyhow, money?
no. it is about equal rights. there has never been a time in US history where "separate but equal" has worked.
by "worked" i mean "has not violated rights"
Thank You.
Interesting analogy. Sheep? I guess as long as it doesn't violate another man's sheep. To each his own.
Depends on what the definition of "is" is? Is that what we have become? How sad that we cannot just call it what it is and has always been rather than twisting it into something it is not. I think some of you just feed on conflict. I could not care less what sort of behavior anyone wants to engage in between themselves but don't try to make it what it is not. Will we expand the definition further now to include inter-species unions. That seems to be the way you are headed. Some pet owner will surely want to marry their dog, they already pretend that they are family somehow. What a sick society this has become!
This post Gypsy is illogical and offensive and the exact argument (if you can call it that) you make continues the bias and hate toward people with opinions different than yours-----even if it doesnt effect you at all. I shouldnt even be wasting the energy to respond to this. Equating two loving humans with a human marrying a dog----I embarrased just hearing someone say this.
This post Gypsy is illogical and offensive and the exact argument (if you can call it that) you make continues the bias and hate toward people with opinions different than yours-----even if it doesnt effect you at all. I shouldnt even be wasting the energy to respond to this. Equating two loving humans with a human marrying a dog----I embarrased just hearing someone say this.
Being absurd to point out an absurdity is one of those tactics that liberals never get. Hey Vulch, how about 3 loving humans? It would fit your argument.
Exposing absurdity with the absurd, nothing illogical about it. Some people DO think of their pets as "family" and wish to confer human rights on them. Say it is not so!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Oliver Cromwell and the British government made war on Irish Catholics, and outlawed their ability to practice their religion. This was done with great loss of life and much brutality. The Founding Fathers did not want any one Church to be able to persecute everyone, or anyone else. That's why Congress cannot outlaw the free exercise of religion.
If an establishment of religion freely chooses to provide same-sex couples with marriage rites, there is nothing you, or the Congress, or the President, or any other Church, or individual can do about it unless the Constitution is amended.
I find it odd that people who are screaming about their "loss of liberty" are so ready to completely disregard the Constitution when someone is doing something that they do not approve of.
Gypsy-------Beat---------This is the same logic used 150 years ago to say "What!??!?1 Give a nig&er the right to vote? What next, give it to a mule?!". The same logic used 80 years ago to say "What?!?! Not let an 11 yr old work 16 hrs straight in a factory locked from the outide? What next, pay them for not coming in?"------At the time they may have made sense to the closed minded or those harkening to a "good ole day" (which rarely ever existed), but with the benefit of hindsight we realize they were either biggoted, or afraid of change, or just a basic d!ck to others because of how they perceived it would effect them.
people who are screaming about their "loss of liberty" are so ready to completely disregard the Constitution when someone is doing something that they do not approve of.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Oliver Cromwell and the British government made war on Irish Catholics, and outlawed their ability to practice their religion. This was done with great loss of life and much brutality. The Founding Fathers did not want any one Church to be able to persecute everyone, or anyone else. That's why Congress cannot outlaw the free exercise of religion.
If an establishment of religion freely chooses to provide same-sex couples with marriage rites, there is nothing you, or the Congress, or the President, or any other Church, or individual can do about it unless the Constitution is amended.
I find it odd that people who are screaming about their "loss of liberty" are so ready to completely disregard the Constitution when someone is doing something that they do not approve of.
Then You answer my question. If a religion chooses to marry 3 people, should we allow it to be legal under our laws?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Oliver Cromwell and the British government made war on Irish Catholics, and outlawed their ability to practice their religion. This was done with great loss of life and much brutality. The Founding Fathers did not want any one Church to be able to persecute everyone, or anyone else. That's why Congress cannot outlaw the free exercise of religion.
If an establishment of religion freely chooses to provide same-sex couples with marriage rites, there is nothing you, or the Congress, or the President, or any other Church, or individual can do about it unless the Constitution is amended.
I find it odd that people who are screaming about their "loss of liberty" are so ready to completely disregard the Constitution when someone is doing something that they do not approve of.
Then You answer my question. If a religion chooses to marry 3 people, should we allow it to be legal under our laws?
No one...or at least few...or proposing this. I think its just a tactic used to deflect from the real question at hand about gay marriage and used by its opponents as a last ditch effort to preserve the "old ways of life" and they will lie, cheat, steal, and change the subject whenever possible to avoid the changing tides.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Oliver Cromwell and the British government made war on Irish Catholics, and outlawed their ability to practice their religion. This was done with great loss of life and much brutality. The Founding Fathers did not want any one Church to be able to persecute everyone, or anyone else. That's why Congress cannot outlaw the free exercise of religion.
If an establishment of religion freely chooses to provide same-sex couples with marriage rites, there is nothing you, or the Congress, or the President, or any other Church, or individual can do about it unless the Constitution is amended.
I find it odd that people who are screaming about their "loss of liberty" are so ready to completely disregard the Constitution when someone is doing something that they do not approve of.
Then You answer my question. If a religion chooses to marry 3 people, should we allow it to be legal under our laws?
No one...or at least few...or proposing this. I think its just a tactic used to deflect from the real question at hand about gay marriage and used by its opponents as a last ditch effort to preserve the "old ways of life" and they will lie, cheat, steal, and change the subject whenever possible to avoid the changing tides.
You just deflected my question and changed the subject. LOL
Actually I didnt. I stated no one (which I am a part of), or very few are actually proposing this. In turn, no I do not believe it should be legal per se, but nor do I think it needs to be a national issue. No one is pushing for that except the far out there and they have little support for it. The ones who do talk about it is the side who doesnt favor gay marriage in an attempt to equate the two, but it doesnt work.
Actually I didnt. I stated no one (which I am a part of), or very few are actually proposing this. In turn, no I do not believe it should be legal per se, but nor do I think it needs to be a national issue. No one is pushing for that except the far out there and they have little support for it. The ones who do talk about it is the side who doesnt favor gay marriage in an attempt to equate the two, but it doesnt work.
Thanks for an answer. Why do you think it should be illegal? What legal or moral reason do you base it on? 3 loving people, freedom of religion, not defined in the constitution. You can't just use these things when they suit your argument.
Again, you are making an argument and maybe its a good one----but I dont truly feel it is. No one is trying to allow 3 or more peopel to be married, so again its a deflection from the REAL issue at hand in this country. Also, I didnt say it should be legal or illegal---I dont know how I feel and I have a hard time thinking a real push for this will ever happen. Monetairly it wont happen because insurance lobbies would never take on the extra people that would come of it. Again, and most iomporantly, we are getting away from the real question of gay marriage which is being considered and deeply discussed as a national and state issue----this is not.
Again, you are making an argument and maybe its a good one----but I dont truly feel it is. No one is trying to allow 3 or more peopel to be married, so again its a deflection from the REAL issue at hand in this country. Also, I didnt say it should be legal or illegal---I dont know how I feel and I have a hard time thinking a real push for this will ever happen. Monetairly it wont happen because insurance lobbies would never take on the extra people that would come of it. Again, and most iomporantly, we are getting away from the real question of gay marriage which is being considered and deeply discussed as a national and state issue----this is not.
So if you don't have to think about it, no big deal? Not in the news? don't have to worry? My arguments are based on principles. And I try not to waiver on them. If we don't stand for them, we'll always be wishy-washy. Its' quite clear to me that it is illegal to have a 3 person marriage. And I think most people who do believe that it should be illegal, do so for moral reasons. Tell me, do you believe in nature's laws? Morality? You showed disgust when the absurd reference to animals was used. How about a 3-some? Any disgust there?
I dont see any principles in denying two people the right to marry----I only see a biased opinion on old fashioned thinking and infringing on the rights of individuals, sorry. I dont know what I feel about morality, other than it being as wishy-washy as anythign else with no definitive answer between two cultures and often not even two people. And as far as disgust, no Im not as disgusted by 3 people having sex with one another as I am with animals and humans getting married. Mainly because the latter is absurd and illogical and if you need a real spelling out of it an animal cannot consent to activities a human can due to their less developed brain and speech capabilities.
"... If a religion chooses to marry 3 people, should we allow it to be legal under our laws? ..."
If an established religion decides to allow this, you cannot prevent it without amending the Constitution. We have freedom of religion in this country, per the Constitution, and you cannot prevent a Church from practicing their chosen religion, even if you abhor those practices, unless you amend the Constitution and restrict religious liberty.
"...My arguments are based on principles. And I try not to waiver on them. If we don't stand for them, we'll always be wishy-washy. Its' quite clear to me that it is illegal to have a 3 person marriage. And I think most people who do believe that it should be illegal, do so for moral reasons. ..."
Your arguments may well be based on principles and moral convictions. So were Oliver Cromwells. In this country, The United States of America, no one religion can usurp any other religious belief or practice. You cannot force me to behave like a practicing Catholic. I cannot force you to behave like a practicing Jew, or a Mormon, or a Hopi, or a Buddist, or a Muslim, and so on and so on and so on.
What is it about religious freedom that you cannot tolerate?
Comments
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/18/ny-appeals-court-nixes-defense-of-marriage-act/1641557/
"1:54PM EDT October 18. 2012 -
NEW YORK (AP) A divided federal appeals court in Manhattan struck down the Defense of Marriage Act Thursday as unconstitutional, joining an appeals court in Boston in rejecting the law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the case in the next year.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2-to-1 ruling only weeks after hearing arguments on a lower court judge's findings that the 1996 law was unconstitutional.
The majority opinion written by Judge Dennis Jacobs rejected a section of the law that says "marriage" only means a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and that the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. A federal appeals court in Boston earlier this year also found it unconstitutional.
The issue is expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The decision came less than a month after the court heard arguments on Sept. 27.
It's also about liberty, somethng many conservatives talk a lot about, but seem to have a rather narrow definition of.
If a Church is willling to sanctify the marriage of same sex couples, then our Constitution grants the Church that freedom. Personally, I believe that if the Mormon Church decided to take polygamy to the Supreme Court, they would win, as long as Congress can pass no law or regulation of religion. That restriction of liberty would require a Constitutional Amendment. If there are enough people in the US to pass a definition of marriage Constitutional Amendment, then it could be done, and if such an amendment should be proposed, I would hope that it defined a marriage as being between two consenting adults.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep trying to decide whats for lunch.
A republic is a well armed sheep begging to differ.
that is a classic logical fallacy named "call to a majority"
just because a majority of people think that men cannot marry men or women, women, does not mean that it does not violate their rights to live their life as they see fit so long as they do not violate the rights of others.
that is the concept that this country was founded on... the right to live your life as you see fit so long as you do not violate the rights of others.
nobody here that is on the side of "one man one woman" has yet to prove that two men getting married violates any rights of anyone.
so tell me again why it should be illegal?
just because you "feel" that it should be? or that your religion "doesnt like" it?
our nation wasnt founded on the principals of whatever you "feel" is right should be law.
there is no law, nor should there be, that a person, a group, a demographic, a religion cannot be offended. nobody has the right to not be offended. If it "offends" religions that two men should marry, so be it.
no. it is about equal rights.
there has never been a time in US history where "separate but equal" has worked.
by "worked" i mean "has not violated rights"
Oliver Cromwell and the British government made war on Irish Catholics, and outlawed their ability to practice their religion. This was done with great loss of life and much brutality. The Founding Fathers did not want any one Church to be able to persecute everyone, or anyone else. That's why Congress cannot outlaw the free exercise of religion.
If an establishment of religion freely chooses to provide same-sex couples with marriage rites, there is nothing you, or the Congress, or the President, or any other Church, or individual can do about it unless the Constitution is amended.
I find it odd that people who are screaming about their "loss of liberty" are so ready to completely disregard the Constitution when someone is doing something that they do not approve of.
If an established religion decides to allow this, you cannot prevent it without amending the Constitution. We have freedom of religion in this country, per the Constitution, and you cannot prevent a Church from practicing their chosen religion, even if you abhor those practices, unless you amend the Constitution and restrict religious liberty.
"...My arguments are based on principles. And I try not to waiver on them. If we don't stand for them, we'll always be wishy-washy. Its' quite clear to me that it is illegal to have a 3 person marriage. And I think most people who do believe that it should be illegal, do so for moral reasons. ..."
Your arguments may well be based on principles and moral convictions. So were Oliver Cromwells. In this country, The United States of America, no one religion can usurp any other religious belief or practice. You cannot force me to behave like a practicing Catholic. I cannot force you to behave like a practicing Jew, or a Mormon, or a Hopi, or a Buddist, or a Muslim, and so on and so on and so on.
What is it about religious freedom that you cannot tolerate?