Federal Judge Overturns Wisconsin's Gay Marriage Ban (Liberty, Ontario: city hall, renting)

[Empidonax]

Originally Posted by milt14

only in two ways:
1. in the belief the individuals have for that religious ceremony
and/or
2. because it's a legal contract (getting divorced is so expensive because sometimes it's worth it. )


i could see how some could think people are treated better, but a single person that's never been married and is 56 would be looked upon with some suspicion too by a lot of people.

i don't think marriage is a big thing, but gay people want to be 'celebrated' by all people in every aspect of other people's lives--and that's wrong. you shouldn't have to celebrate me and what i do, nor your church, etc. i'd say these intolerant gays should just get over themselves and live their own lives.

Many people in general-- gay, straight, frat boys, beauty queens, conspicuous consumers, nerds, actors, slackers, military folks and so on-- want to be celebrated for who they are. Not all have a parade to make it happen, but all have something fairly public and visible.

If you actually get to know some gay people-- not stereotypes, but real people-- you'll find that many have very practical reasons for getting married: tax advantages, legal security, hospital visitation rights, and so on. They are, in fact, trying to live their own lives. If you find all of this to be "intolerant," that's fine-- you have many like-minded people ready and willing to celebrate you and your own brand of intolerance, even here on the forum.

[breeinmo.]

Wonderful post DR.Jeff and congrats. And it is nice to see posters that feel like I do and want equality for all. The other posters? Dang, what IS your problem? Should we go back to having separate bathrooms and drinking fountains? Don't you see your trying to put a group of people in "the back of the bus"? Its NO different.

And majority shouldn't rule when they're wrong...

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by milt14

don't really see why people need to force others to have a religious ceremony for them, but guess that's how the angry and intolerant gay leftists are. next thing you know, the head of firefox will get fired because he had the same position on gays as the clintons and obama....

Your suggestion is false. Churches are free to discriminate on the basis of performing marriages, whether they do so regarding sexual orientation or race or religion. They always have been. Now, businesses (and churches conducting business) are not, but churches doing what churches do outside of commercial activity are free to do so.

Example:
Same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states other than Wisconsin. It has been legal in Massachusetts for ten years now. Present a single instance of a church or religious figure being forced to 'have a religious ceremony' for gays. Well? You can't. The First Amendment protects the right of religions to marry whom they chose and only whom they choose.

Unable to argue on a coherent, logical basis, the anti-gay crowd has long made dishonest claims, such as the one that legalizing same-sex marriage means churches will be forced to marry gays. That same-sex marriage is legal in many states and this has never happened exposes it for the lie that it is.

Stop peddling false claims.

Originally Posted by jeffersondavis

Activist judges at it again. This is a terrible thing.

Yes, the horrors of 'judicial review'...

Originally Posted by PrincessoftheCape

It's depressing to see majority rule overturned by a single individual with an agenda. I have no comment on the actual marriage issue, but if Wisconsinites wanted gay marriage to be legal, they would have voted it into being. This country is heading in dangerous directions. You can damn well bet that when some judge decides to pull this nonsense in Alabama (or if the Texas judge's ruling ever goes into effect), you'll see secession before people adhere. Contrary to what the left believes, you cannot force people to accept or welcome or embrace what they don't want to. And, even if you could, is a forced tolerance real tolerance?

Only a complete fool would take that bet. Then it happens in Alabama (as it will, in all likelihood along with every state that is still holding out, sometime next year), Alabama will fold like a cheap suit - just like it did in 1967 when the United States Supreme Court told Alabama and 15 other states that their bans on interracial marriage were constitutional, and thus null and void.

Originally Posted by PrincessoftheCape

You mean the ones who tax bases and fiscal responsibility prop up failed local like California? Between there and New York, you'd be a third world country in about a day.

Alabama sucks away $2.03 from the federal government for every $1.00 it sends to DC in the form of taxes. It is a taker, a parasite dependent on the surpluses of states like California and New York, which receive less than $1.00 in return for every $1.00 they pay.

Get a clue.
Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones

[doctorjef]

Civil marriage IS NOT a religious ceremony, but rather falls broadly under the traditional remit of contract law. Many countries require a civil marriage ceremony at a marriage registrar's office and only then can you go get a religious ceremony if you desire one. This is true for almost all countries outside the Anglo-Saxon nations that inherited from the legally established Church of England the use of ministers of religion as magistrates for the purpose of solemnizing civil marriages. It's a peculiarity of counties like England, Wales, Canada, the United States. In continental Europe and other western countries, you typically have to go get hitched by a civil magistrate/registrar before having a religious wedding.

Marriage secures a relationship in ways that other legal documents such as power of attorney, will, etc simply cannot do. Those documents will only cover some issues and are never as certain as the status conferred by marriage. My spouse, for example, would have had a far, far easier time establishing permanent residency and naturalization as a US citizen if we had been able to marry back in 1974 when we met. Until marriage equality became law in our own state and the SCOTUS tossed out part of DOMA, we did not have the advantage of social security survivor benefits in respect to one another. Although tax law will not always favor married couples filing jointly, in our case it does serve to decrease our tax burden. We now have the ease of going through immigration and customs together when returning to the US from trips abroad. When visiting other states that have either marriage equality or strong civil union laws, we don't have to travel with our legal instruments that confer various powers and authority on one another.

Although we are both strongly involved in church and could even have a church wedding if we so desired, the ecclesiastical celebration of our marriage has never been terribly important to us. Rather, what is important to us is the range of protections that legal, civil marriage confers on our relationship.

[Megan1967]

Originally Posted by milt14

it would be as a few very powerful people/groups fund things to shove down people's throats,

Oh, you mean like the Koch brothers?

Originally Posted by milt14

but the way i look at it, it's a violation of religious rights as marriage is a religious ceremony--that has some legal consequences.
civil unions are the same thing as a 'marriage', with the exception you can't force a religious group to honor/celebrate/serve the person.

They aren't asking to be celebrated. Just to get married. I don't "celebrate" anyone because they get married.

Marriage is a legal contract, not a religious ceremony. We can choose to add the religious aspect as an option.

[MKEastsider]

Originally Posted by PrincessoftheCape

It's depressing to see majority rule overturned by a single individual with an agenda. I have no comment on the actual marriage issue, but if Wisconsinites wanted gay marriage to be legal, they would have voted it into being. This country is heading in dangerous directions. You can damn well bet that when some judge decides to pull this nonsense in Alabama (or if the Texas judge's ruling ever goes into effect), you'll see secession before people adhere. Contrary to what the left believes, you cannot force people to accept or welcome or embrace what they don't want to. And, even if you could, is a forced tolerance real tolerance?

Actually, we couldn't, because they made an ammendment banning it, which is the entire reason it had to go to court. And how are you claiming "majority rule" when the latest polls show that 55% of Wisconsin supports gay marriage?

Thank goodness that even in a state that's been going backwards for the past 4 years, homophobes are being pushed to the fringes of society where you belong.

[MKEastsider]

Originally Posted by milt14

and again, "madison" is a "taker" area, sucking money in from elsewhere and w/o other people's money being sent there, madison wouldn't fail, it'd just would have stayed something like waunakee or cross plains.

Most of that money comes from the tax revenue generated by those who work in Milwaukee. How much is YOUR town contributing, Milt?

[everwinter]

Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile

Good. Then you should be happy for something that helps lower the incidence of STDs and rate of depression, and promotes stable, healthy relationships. Right?

Allowing gay marriage sends the signal to youth that it is OK to engage in homosexual sex. Statistics show that it is not healthy or OK to engage in homosexual sex. It's embarrassing for the state of Wisconsin to simply ignore facts & allow gay marriage.

[everwinter]

Originally Posted by Empidonax

High rates of adultery, child abuse, abortion, financial mismanagement. Yay, let's support heterosexuality, Wisconsin. lol.

High rates of war, pestilence, environmental destruction, greed, and petty crime. Yay, let's support humanity, Wisconsin. lol.

BTW, Africa has the highest rates of HIV/AIDS in the world, and it is primarily a heterosexual problem. Yay, let's support heterosexuality, Africa. lol.

Is my or your facebook feed filled with friends celebrating heterosexuality or war? At 4pm yesterday my facebook feed was filled with friends showing their excitement & happiness due to gay marriage.

Were 2 message board threads started in the same day on the city data forum due to the excitement about the above topics of war, heterosexuality, & humanity?

[everwinter]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

You have to realize how ironic and backwards everything you're saying is. You're making a statement, and in doing so pointing out exactly what the other side is saying. It's like you're calling yourself out.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with you. It's their lives they're fighting for, not yours.

Part of the reason they deal with all those things in your first post is because of having to deal with people like you in their lives - trying to tell them that who they are as a person is "wrong" as if they ever had a choice. Like they should just sit out life in the corner because god forbid it might disrupt your existence.

OK, maybe we should just back off & let them carry on. Don't come crying to me though when homosexuals continue to have significantly higher rates of depression, suicide, anxiety, and HIV/AIDS.

I read a fact sheet yesterday that NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) completed, & they opened up the fact sheet stating that homosexuals are now given greater liberty, but they continue to struggle with mental illness (that's much greater compared to heterosexuals). Of course they went on to say that society needs to allow more liberty, which I found very puzzling since liberty has been increased since the 50s, but mental illness hasn't decreased in the homosexual population.

The future will be interesting. We MUST allow high level research to be done on homosexuals in the future.

Will allowing gay marriage & so called liberty fix the mental illness, & STD problems that homosexuals have? I strongly doubt it. Though, society will keep saying that we need to allow homosexuals to have more freedom, because that will fix the problem.

We need a change in our approach if we truly care about homosexuals. Allowing gay marriage isn't the change I'm thinking about, or the solution. Or we can give in to the popular belief and just let homosexuals live their lives while the statistic trend continues.