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've told you more than once that the State of Maine legalized SSM via referendum, which specifically protected the religious rights of clergy, so you already knew that but chose to ignore it. I'm sure there are other states that did likewise. In other words, the religious rights were specifically protected when states enacted legislation on their own instead of waiting for the courts to rule that their SSM band were unconstitutional (which has always been the case). When their laws were struck down, they would have to depend on 1st Amendment protection instead of having that protection spelled out in the laws.
OK....so 2 states have legalized it via vote. Again...how does that invalidate my statement of "almost"?
Truth be told, the majority of the places where it was legalized before the SCOTUS decision was because of the courts. In most of the cases, it was not the will of the people. It was the will of strategically placed activist judges.
Homosexuals are on equal footing with heterosexuals, regarding marriage in the United States.
Yeah...that's "the bit" we added.
But..."when it comes marriage, we are now all on "equal" footing"...was NOT a true statement.
We will NEVER all be "equal". That is only a concept...and can never be realized in reality.
What about the 14th amendment? You use that to justify a new form of marriage ONLY for gay people?
There you go with more anti-religious diatribe. I'm not arguing from a religious perspective. Why are you so fascinated by religion? Are you unable to answer the first point?
LOGIC?
Hey deaf, blind and IGNORING person...
IT IS NOT MARRIAGE JUST FOR THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY..it is the SAME marriage applied EQUALLY to EVERYONE!!
So how does one argue against LGBT marriage from a civil perspective? On what ground do you oppose LGBT marriage if not religious?
Most people are under the misinformed position that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were created in relatively the same time frame. In fact, they were separated by eleven years. And while every colony signed on to the Declaration of Independence, at the first meeting of the Constitutional Congress, Rhode Island didn't show up.
The two documents are crafted for different purposes. The Declaration of Independence was a document that turned a rebellion into a revolution--legally. The part that everybody knows and quotes--that first paragraph, isn't even half of the entire document. The rest lists point after point (probably a score of them) of how the good King George had sold the colonists down the river with his decrees.
The U.S. Constitution, drafted eleven years later, was a point of bitter contention---among the contentious viewpoints was that this nation be founded as a "Christian" nation. Led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, and backed by the most powerful figure in America at that time, George Washington, all mention of God and religion was intentionally left out of the original draft. Even the Bill of Rights was contentious, and Madison, for one, was opposed to adding them. The major familiar name associated with an attempt to have a "Christian" nation was Virginian Patrick Henry, one of the greatest orators of his day. Opposing him were to of his fellow Virginians, Jefferson and Madison, who weren't nearly as eloquent, but had pens that managed to stab through old Patrick's tongue. Henry, of course, was the one who suggested a tax on everyone to support the state religion (in Virginia) of the Anglican Church. Jefferson and Madison beat him on the Virginia Constitution, and gave him a further shellacking at the Constitutional Congress. Henry, of course, didn't show up as he was an adamant anti-federalist, preferring a theocratic government that even the people of Virginia rejected.
However, so many who were involved in the drafting would not sign without a Bill of Rights (the original document was signed by only 38 of the 70 participants (although several were ill and unavailable), it was clear that it would not receive the necessary ratification votes from at least nine of the colonies. Indeed, the final colony, Rhode Island, held out until 1789 and the vote to join the union passed by a mere two votes. Rhode Island, even then, questioned the idea of slavery existing in any of the colonies.
The bill of rights was added in 1789 to get those last states over the hump. Massachusetts had been a main hold out without those amendments. Twelve amendments were eventually offered, but only ten accepted. It was enough to swing the doubters over to the side of the Federalists who were being opposed by the anti-federalists. Ironically, those opposing the strong federal government were primarily northern states, but sixty years later it was the southern states wanting to break away from what they originally championed as a strong federal government.
All this is to make one important point. The Declaration of Independence was to start a war, not to be the law of the land. It wasn't and it isn't. Instead we have the Constitution, a godless document, that established our country as a nation, and is the longest lasting Constitution in the world today. Norway is second having been established in 1814, and then Belgium in 1831. One of the main reasons it has endured is that very early on the Supreme Court took on the job of determining the constitutionality of various laws proposed by both the federal and the state governments.
The Court varied in size until 1869 when it was established at nine. In the 1930's Franklin Roosevelt, unhappy with some of the Court's decisions overturning more than a few of his New Deal proposals, wanted to "pack" the Court with an additional six judges. Congress defeated the attempt. And John Nance Garner, Roosevelt's own vice-president, stood in the Senate holding his nose with his thumb down while the proposal was read to the Senate.
So while people today go into a whining mode every time the Court affirms something that goes against their own bias, the fact that the Court has been able to view the Constitution as a living, evolving document has helped it grow with the morality of its people. It has been willing to reverse itself numerous times, and will again in the future. The fact that there are people who don't wish to grow morally has always been around.
So if atheists are using "government" documents that institute the law of the land, they are perfectly correct in referring solely to the Constitution of the United States and the rulings of the Supreme Court. The Declaration of Independence was nothing more than a red flag waved in front of the bull of King George, and served no purpose other than, in our own eyes, legitimizing the war we were going to start.
History needs to be carefully assessed before people offer opinions that are in no way supported by the facts--and we have a tremendous amount of letters and notes from those days of the Constitutional Congress. The Court made a good, solid decision about gay marriage. It has yet to be faced with supporting or denying state laws that were enforced against the anti-gay bakers.
The reason we are forced into this position is because fundamentalist religionists have been drawing lines in the sand for years--and at last someone has called them on it. Like those at the Alamo, they find themselves surrounded, cut-off, unappreciated, no help coming, and the end in sight. They want to view themselves as heroes like the Alamo boys. What they are is just dead, spiritually and politically.
Saying, "What they are is just dead, spiritually and politically", (and acting as if that is so) is about as prudent as viewing ISIS as "the JV team", or not taking the Nazis seriously.
If you, et al, keep thinking that...and believing that, you will end up like those that discounted ISIS, or the Nazis.
Time will tell.
OK....so 2 states have legalized it via vote. Again...how does that invalidate my statement of "almost"?
Truth be told, the majority of the places where it was legalized before the SCOTUS decision was because of the courts. In most of the cases, it was not the will of the people. It was the will of strategically placed activist judges.
First of all, if your side had gotten its way, would those judges then be "strategically placed activist judges"? Or does that only count when your side looses?
Secondly, when deciding the rights of a minority group, a referendum vote of the people should never, ever, EVER be allowed. That is a perversion of the democratic process -- two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for breakfast. I would argue that the vast majority of American citizens don't even know what's actually in the Constitution so they shouldn't be voting on Constitutional issues. This is especially true when the anti-gay side "cheats" by placing the gay marriage referendum on the Republican primary ballot like they did in North Carolina.
What about the 14th amendment? You use that to justify a new form of marriage ONLY for gay people?
There you go with more anti-religious diatribe. I'm not arguing from a religious perspective. Why are you so fascinated by religion? Are you unable to answer the first point?
You must not understand, there is nothing that says only gays can marry someone of the same sex. You can too.
First of all, if your side had gotten its way, would those judges then be "strategically placed activist judges"? Or does that only count when your side looses?
Yeah...like Chief Roberts! So "strategically placed" that guy. LOL!
Quote:
Secondly, when deciding the rights of a minority group, a referendum vote of the people should never, ever, EVER be allowed. That is a perversion of the democratic process -- two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for breakfast. I would argue that the vast majority of American citizens don't even know what's actually in the Constitution so they shouldn't be voting on Constitutional issues. This is especially true when the anti-gay side "cheats" by placing the gay marriage referendum on the Republican primary ballot like they did in North Carolina.
Unfortunately, they can still use the very system we have to get their way in the end.
I just hope they never organize en masse. If they do, we will really be in for it.
I still believe that the current "push" against them is too hard and too fast. They were softening anyway...shoulda just let it happen of its own accord. Better to leave well enough alone...don't get too hasty.
This is way too close to the election...I hope it doesn't stimulate the vote for a religious zealot type candidate. Look what happened in the mid-terms. I see a boiling pot getting ready to pop its lid. I have way more life behind me than in front of me...it's people your age and younger I worry about.
And that existed prior to the SCOTUS decision. No one asked your sexual preferences when you get a marriage license.
Seriously, Vizio, this argument is just plain idiotic. Why people like you continue to use it just boggles the mind. A 5 year-old should know better than to pull this argument out of the crap pile (where it deserves to stay).
Let's dispense with the stupidity, shall we? Let's instead admit that, no, there was NOT equality before the SCOTUS decision. Know why? It's because gay people could not marry the people they were actually IN LOVE with!
Can we say "duh," please? Everyone on the anti-gay side repeat after me: "DUH!"
Not only that, but what if the shoe was on the other foot and heteros were only permitted to marry members of the same gender. What would you do then? Would you just shrug your shoulders and happily marry another man, Vizio? Mmm, could you imagine cuddling up every night with a nice warm dude complete with hairy chest, pot belly, and beer farts? Yes, I'm sure you can imagine it -- which is precisely the reason why people like you would be spitting fire if you found yourselves prohibited from marrying women.
So what makes you think it's any different for gays?
This idea that everything was equal because both straights and gays could marry members of the opposite sex is ludicrous in the extreme. It's like a bird telling a fish, "Hey! I'm sorry that swimming is banned but you're free to fly just like the rest of us!"
That is also the reason why your position is inherently fascistic. You think that, as long as everyone must do the same thing, it is equal AND fair. Except it's not. If everyone is treated unfairly, that doesn't suddenly make it fair. There is more than one variable to equality. Making everyone wear a dress with frills and a bow would be equal, certainly, but extremely unfair to men. JUST like opposite-gender-only marriages are unfair to homosexuals. I mean, seriously, this isn't exactly rocket science logic here.
So let's stuff a cork in the whole "but gays have the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender just like I do" argument. It is patently absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I have never had an issue if anyone identifying as lgbtxypdqz or whatever letters you want to use want to get married.
And you actually think anyone is fooled by this comment? Seriously?
Of course you don't mind whatever identifying letters a person uses -- just as long as they marry the people YOU expect and demand they marry. Sure, identifying as an LGBTQ or "whatever" is perfectly fine as long as they have a nice straight marriage. Heh, right.
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.
