 |
Hello,
Yawn... I said so way back when, and I haven't changed my mind.. I KNEW the country would catch up. That is, except for our resident right wingers.. They're going to tell me WHY gay people shouldn't enjoy the very rights THEY enjoy, and they'll do it with a straight face..
I'd LOVE to be wrong about them..
excon
So when are the lefties going to stop discriminating against practitioners of Bestiality... and push for inter-species marriage?
How about standing up in support of Polygamy?
Or are they really not as all accommodating as they pretend to be...
DOMA is unconstitutional; because it violates Federalism and the 1st Amendment .It violates Federalism because States define the terms that a couple should become a union . It violates the 1st Amendment because marriage is a religious institution . States can define unions and their legalities .Religions define what marriage is... not the State... not the Federal Government .The only reason 'Marriage' is government regulated is for taxation and for wills, and parents rights regarding their children. That can easily be accomplished in union laws .Any other interference by the State in 'marriage ' is a repressive intrusion on what is properly a religious issue.
Hello wingers:
The key word is CAN. I suppose it could, but you should have tried it, instead of saying it COULD be done.. Look.. Lots of great laws COULD be passed.. But, they ain't.Quote:
That can easily be accomplished in union laws
I'm surprised you didn't bring up the man on boy group. Are you saving it?Quote:
So when are the lefties going to stop discriminating against practitioners of Bestiality..
Let me just say to you, that the world is passing you by. Get on board, or get left behind.
Excon
So I'll change the word to SHOULD . It has tremendous impact on religious rights for the State (national or state governments ) to define what the word marriage means.Quote:
Quote:
That can easily be accomplished in union laws
The key word is CAN. I suppose it could, but you should have tried it, instead of saying it COULD be done.. Look.. Lots of great laws COULD be passed.. But, they ain't.
This amicus related to the DOMA case addresses specifically why Congress has absolutely no authority to make that definition because of the federalism issue .
http://www.robbinsrussell.com/sites/...March_2013.pdf
But it doesn't go far enough in addressing the religious implications of the government intruding on a right for religions to protect their institutions from government intrusion.
Hello again, tom:
Apparently, you think the word marriage BELONGS to religious organizations.. It doesn't. Be that as it may, when DOMA goes down, it's NOT because of the 1st Amendment.. It'll be because of the 14th, and the 14th has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with CIVIL RIGHTS.
This is really simple.. IF, what you say COULD have been done, had actually been done, we probably wouldn't be here today.. But, it wasn't done.. It was TALKED about like you're talking about it here. BECAUSE it wasn't done, people who joined in civil unions DID NOT have the same rights as those who entered marriage... The challenge to DOMA is about THOSE rights...
excon
Marriage is a religious institution.. nothing more ;nothing less. It is no secret that has been the position I've taken since we started debating this . Nothing has been done or said to change my mind.
I don't want to go down the slippery slope that smoothy took . But ;without the 1st amendment protections ;the next step will be 14th amendment violations for churches that don't recognize the state sanctioned "marriage" of gays . You know that's true as you have seen in recent months the trampling of religious rights regarding contraception.
Hello again, tom:
You got it exactly BACKWARDS.. The church isn't withholding rights from gays, it's the STATE. I have NO idea what you mean by the church not recognizing a gay marriage.. The ONLY thing a church could withhold from a gay couple is membership, and they can do that now. A repeal of DOMA isn't going to change that.Quote:
the next step will be 14th amendment violations for churches that don't recognize the state sanctioned "marriage" of gays
Excon
No the church isn't withholding rights from gays because gays have no right to a church marriage. How will that change when the state redefines the word for legal purposes ?
Hello again, tom:
I don't think it will. Church's can't be forced to perform weddings it doesn't want to. The 14th Amendment doesn't address that.Quote:
How will that change when the state redefines the word for legal purposes ?
Besides, they're NOT redefining the word. Legally, a marriage comes with rights, and it will CONTINUE to come with rights. Nothing changes. Plus, from a legal standpoint, the state doesn't care whether a church thinks marriage is in its sole domain or not.
Excon
But the church can be forced to dispense contraceptives . HmmmmQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
(San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage)Quote:
"I honor the president’s concern for the equal dignity of every human being, including those who experience same-sex attraction, who, like everyone else, must be protected against any and all violence and hatred," wrote Archbishop Cordileone in an email to the Register.
"But the marriage debate is not about equality under the law, but, rather, the very meaning of marriage. Marriage is the only institution that unites children with their mothers and fathers."
"Protecting this understanding of marriage is not discrimination, nor is it some kind of pronouncement on how adults live out their intimate relationships; it is standing for the common good," he stated.
NCRegister | Obama's Collision Course With Religious Liberty
To religions marriage is a sacred institution To the state ,marriage is simply whatever judges, politicians or 51% of the majority think it is .
Hello again, tom:
Sure. What? You think they're NOT bound by the Constitution?Quote:
But the church can be forced to dispense contraceptives . Hmmmm
Excon
Here we go...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So they are bound by the 14th amendment of the Constitution to dispense contraceptives;but they won't be bound by the 14th to honor gay marriage . I see .
Hello again, tom:
The 14th Amendment protects peoples rights. It doesn't protect a church or force a church to do anything... But, you're playing dumb, aren't you? You know what it says. You just don't LIKE what it says.
excon
Still unsure of how forcing anyone to dispense free contraceptives is equal protection. It certainly doesn't protect the one being forced to buy them for someone else.
Oh I know what it says all right .Do you know what the 1st amendment says ? If you " separate church and state " ,then marriage should be defined by a church. Not a state. The state can deal with all the legalities of the contract between 2 indivduals ,but it cannot define what is a marriage (which is sacred as an institution ,or a sacrament ,a covenant between a man and a women to GOD).
I thought marriage was a legal contract. Non-Christians marry. And if marriage is the function of the church, then there should be no government benefits for being married, only ecclesiastical benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That is the product of the state defining marriage for it's own purpose . In truth many religions have marriage ceremonies and are free to define the institution as they wish . Some Christian churches have same sex marriages.. That is their business. The state has NO business in the marriage business. Their concern is the legality of the contract.
So if the state says same-sex marriage is okay by them, equality under the law, and grants it the same legal privileges as opposite-sex marriage, what's the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The church can do whatever it wants, but the government has a vested interest in a definition of marriage that works for all religions, and classes of people simply because it means federal and state benefits and protections under the law that only marriage can bring.
Bestiality and polygamy are illegal, and if you want it changed so you can marry your horse, or a herd of them, then find someone to petition your government like the gay people, black people and woman have done.
If it offends your religion senses, don't do it, and write your religious leader not to do it, or sue the government not to make you do it. Once the court rules on it though you like every other citizen are bound to the same law.
Long story short, the judge(s), will decide. Good luck Smoothy, hope it works out with your horse, or the animal(s) of your choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, you vehemently criticize the other side for saying the state should be able to define what a religion is when it comes to Obama Care. Yet you are doing exactly the same thing here. You want to apply a religious test to people who may want a civil marriage.
Why does marriage have to be strictly in the domain of religion in the first place? Who made that rule? What religion is a court house marriage?
No I'm saying that the state sanction of unions ,either man /women or same sex is NOT marriage .it is setting civil law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
A civil union... a contract..Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
So a Jewish couple who exchanges vows in a synagogue isn't really married? Or a Muslim couple in a mosque? My Hindu friends aren't really married? Do I even want to know about my agnostic friends who got married by a Unitarian minister in a park?
I did not say marriage is Christian . I said marriage is religious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
So if my agnostic friends were united by a JP in the park, it wouldn't be a marriage? The difference between a marriage and a civil union is who unites the couple? Then you had better make sure those civil rights bestowed are exactly the same ones as the rights given at a marriage!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I have no problem with that. Let the contracts be equal under the law.. . that is a state issue. I stand by my definition of marriage.
I think you've aced this one tom.
Tom and I aren't in a contest.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
So how does one do that? The rights that come with civil unions are vastly inadequate as compared to marriage rights.
I would say you are holding a contradiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You want to say that religion should be DEFINED by the church and not DEFINED by the state for the purposes healthcare.
Yet you also want to say:
"If you separate 'church and state', then marriage should be DEFINED* by the church. Not a state." ( * my emphasis )
You further go on to say that the state can deal with the legality of marriage, but it cannot define what marriage is.
You seems to believe that it is the role of the church to dispense the sanctity of marriage to people who don't believe that marriage can or should be defined in these terms.
Yet you complain when the state forces individuals to violate religious beliefs by supplying contraceptives.
Tut
Try to stay with me... marriage is a religious institution that the state has no business being involved in . The state's compelling interest is the contracts that come with the union... period
There is no contest, tom is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Not yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I think that laws against gay marriage will go the same way as sodomy laws. More and more states will legalize gay marriage until there are just a few holdouts in redneck states like the
South and Utah, then the supreme court will strike down the last state laws that ban gay marriage. It will take another few decades, but I think it is just a matter of time.
I still think they are being grossly unfair to polygamists. If these guys are gluttons for punishment and want more than one wife... and can afford it... why shouldn't they.
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So your saying sexual preference is a civil right? I guess that leaves the door open for anything and everything. That is not a place I would like to go. Is that what is going on here?
So anyone who goes to a JP (non religious) to get married really isn't married, but is civilly united?Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Sexual orientation is a preference, a choice? When did you choose to be straight? What age were you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The states compelling interest is health care this is why the state wants to redefine religion for healthcare purposes.
Yet you want to say that the church's compelling interest is marriage. This is why you want to redefine marriage for relationship purposes.
Can anyone else besides Tom, see the contradiction?
Tut
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:25 AM. |