Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder if the same people who are against gay marriage would be willing to give up their marriage and benefits?
Of course NOT! Then it is about their "so called rights" (in their words)
As a matter of fact I have given up marriage, willfully... Thats the price of loving the gf that I love.. Do you seriously think that many st8 individuals dont give up marriages due to "benefits"/consequences?
I joined less than a week ago.I can't help they decided this today when I have only been here that long and I haven't posted much. I don't spend all day on here unlike others.
OK then, how about this..you can tell by your rediculous posts.
Consider this: Assuming marriage is only allowed between one man and one woman, what right do I have as a male who is straight, over a male who is gay?
According to the law, we would both be proibited from marrying another man and both be allowed to marry a woman. That's equal treatment and that throws a monkey wrentch into the idea that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional due to the "equal protection" clause. Technically, a male regardless of sexual prefrence, has the same right as any other male to marry any woman they please. Choose to exercise that right great, choose not to fine. However, under the law, both the male who is gay, and the one who is straight, are equally bound by the same law to be able to engage in matrimony with a female, nothing more and nothing less. The adverse is true for females who are gay and females who are straight. Listen,
I'm not here to ruffle any feathers, but it seems like gay marriage is not the true name of the game. Maybe we should be fighting to fully equalize the sexes and saying, "If a man can marry a woman under the law, how come a female cannot do the same thing that a man she should be equal to can? That's sexist!!" The man could say the same thing and be upset that he is not allowed the right to marry a man in the way that a female counterpart is allowed to. I just think the gender equality issue gets squashed under the title of "Gay Rights Movement." Take this from a Straight-Catholic-Republican that has been to more drag shows than most gay men and could probably out cook and decorate the dudes on Quear Eye lol.
I am from Illinois. I oppose civil unions and same-sex marriage. I favor a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage at both the state and federal level. Illinois presently has statutes barring same-sex marriage and civil unions. Most large businesses in Illinois provide reciprocal benefits, which I have no quarrels with.
I am very disappointed by the decision by the federal judge in this case because he was unable to put the arguments of the attorneys and his personal beliefs and situation aside and rule on the law and the constitution.
To me the argument to uphold the California constitutional amendment is clear. The freedom and liberty of persons whom consider themselves homosexual to marry a man or a woman is not inhibited, so long as they marry a person of the opposite gender. In California specifically, in no way was a person entered into a union with same-sex partners disadvantaged under the law. Government is involved in marriage because it felt it did have an incentive in providing for a committed environment for rearing children, something homosexual couples cannot do naturally.
The real debate here is whether homosexuality is a protected class, an innate characteristic, etc. And under the law and precedent behavior, preferences, desires, etc. are not protected under the equal protections clause. The 14th amendment is designed to ensure the freedoms and liberties of people based on race, and truthfully race alone. It was put into place in response to Black Codes. (This is a recurring theme of left-wing groups and movements trying to use tools and laws put into place to prevent discrimination against African-Americans to advance their own agendas). We do not protect criminal behavior, we do not protect zoophilia, we do not protect pedophilia, we do not protect, allow, or recognize polygamy.
With the broad view of the 14th amendment with regard to personal freedoms, liberty, and discrimination we are potentially opening a can of worms of epic proportions. No matter what your view on same-sex marriage is you must realize what a dangerous ruling that has gone down here by trying to use the court system to win same-sex marriage.
I do hope that the Supreme Court, as well as the 9th Circuit considers the consequences when ruling on Proposition 8 if they hear the case. Also, in making comparisons to Canada, please understand that Canada's situation did not have similar implications as we could see with our case of the 14th amendment.
[quote=BucsLose;15335021]Gays could already enter in to legal contracts before this. It just wasnt called Marriage. They arent gaining any rights, rather they are only trampling on the definition and sanctity of marriage.[/quo
What exactly is the "sanctity" of marriage and why is it so precious to preserve?
Tax liabilities, right of kin, hospital visitation, etc.
There's a huge list of privileges you get that you can only get in marriage.
And I can understand people wanting the government to be out of marriage, since marriage nowadays is a religious concept (even though it wasn't originally), but I still do beleive that if two persons or multiple persons want to enter a social contract, then they should be able to.
That's why I said they shouldn't be involved in anything. I figure if you want to do a Civil Union or whatever why not get married? If the government is out of it then go right ahead. We could have avoided all this mess.Just another example of the government sticking its nose where it has no business sticking it.Trying to control people more and more.
So, ONE judge gets to nullify the will of the people of California.
Outrageous.
This is liberal judicial activism at it's core.
lol... Yeah, right. Ever hear of the Constitution? There's a reason why we have a judicial branch of government and why we don't allow "the people" to decide everything. You do have respect for the Founding Fathers, don't you?
I am from Illinois. I oppose civil unions and same-sex marriage. I favor a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage at both the state and federal level. Illinois presently has statutes barring same-sex marriage and civil unions. Most large businesses in Illinois provide reciprocal benefits, which I have no quarrels with.
If you have no quarrel with reciprocal benefits what is your quarrel with civil unions?
That's why I said they shouldn't be involved in anything. I figure if you want to do a Civil Union or whatever why not get married? If the government is out of it then go right ahead. We could have avoided all this mess.Just another example of the government sticking its nose where it has no business sticking it.Trying to control people more and more.
I'm still waiting on those APA stats....hmmmm
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gay Rights or Gender Equality??
