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 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.
I suggest you watch the reenactment or read the transcripts of the whole trial. Everything you have written was addressed (and more) - which is why the Judge made the ruling he did.
So please draw the line for me. Equal rights meaning that anyone can marry anyone means anyone? Or just homosexuals now? What about relatives? There's nothing in the constitution saying we can't, unless some judge with an agenda just added it in there.
I think any and all consenting adults should be able to enter into civil contracts with each other. Whether they are called Civil Unions or Marriages, I don't care.
The whole loving a cousin or sibling thing is not my "thing", but if a couple out there really wanted to, I don't care if they get married.
"Sanctity" is religious term. In the US a marriage is a civil contract and need not be religious.
agreed then....it should be done with a lawyer,.... and NOT THE GOVERNMENT
the government should not be in the marriage/civil union business....why should I have to petition to government for permission (a request for a license (for a fee)) to be with someone I love.... make it a legal conrtact
And I think this is the key. Civil unions are a legal contract while marriage is a religious sacrament.
The demand seems to be for the legal rights of gay partners when it comes to child rearing/custody, medical PoA, and insurance benefits. These are all legal contract issues not religious sacrament challenges.
* I am not Catholic either.
Is it really necessary to prevert the sanctity of the marriage sacrament in order to have legal/social equality under the Constitution? I think not. I think this is a matter to be left with the states and the state Constitutions.
In this country, legal marriage is a contract issue. There are no laws requiring any kind of religious ceremony. Nor are there laws preventing a religious ceremony. And guess what? Even those who have only the civil ceremony in front of a judge or justice of the peace (such as my parents more than 60 years ago, my sister nearly 40 years ago and two of my sons just over 10 years ago) are considered married!
Why not just a judge that was up to date on the law and the constitution and neutral?
Please prove that this wasn't the case here.
PROTIP:
Saying that he was gay isn't proof.
Quote:
I don't care what political belief you have you are supposed to follow the constitution he didn't and this is what happens of course if government would get the hell out of marriage this straight marriage/gay marriage crap would have never been an issue so once again we have government where it does not belong.
Fact is, government IS in marriage, so just repeating "government where it does not belogn" really is off topic at this point
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.
