[excon]

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

[smoothy]

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...

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

Hello wingers:

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.

So when are the lefties going to stop discriminating against practitioners of Bestiality..

I'm surprised you didn't bring up the man on boy group. Are you saving it?

Let me just say to you, that the world is passing you by. Get on board, or get left behind.

Excon

[tomder55]

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.

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.

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.

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

the next step will be 14th amendment violations for churches that don't recognize the state sanctioned "marriage" of gays

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.

Excon

[tomder55]

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 ?

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

How will that change when the state redefines the word for legal purposes ?

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.

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

[tomder55]

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. .

Excon

But the church can be forced to dispense contraceptives . Hmmmm

"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.

(San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage)

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 .

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

But the church can be forced to dispense contraceptives . Hmmmm

Sure. What? You think they're NOT bound by the Constitution?

Excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

Sure. What? You think they're NOT bound by the Constitution?

excon

Here we go...

[tomder55]

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 .

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[tomder55]

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).

[Wondergirl]

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.

[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.

[Wondergirl]

that is the product of the state defining marriage for it's own purpose .

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?