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.
And your point is? If you had of taken a vote in Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama etc. on whether to extend the right for blacks to marry whites, it would have died at the ballot box.
Civil rights should NEVER be something that is voted upon.
Exactly civil rights were affirmed through the legislature and specifically addressed in the constitution. The people of California, not exactly Ground Zero for strident conservatism rejected gay marriage rather convincingly.
Not only is gay marriage legally banned on the federal level it is not enshrined in the constitution. We keep hearing how society is evolving to accept gay marriage but it appears the only way to get gay marriage legalized even in liberal states is to disregard the will of the people or have legislators misrepresent themselves as some did on NY and Washington.
This will be overturned the notion that two judges outweigh the desires of 14 million is odius and is the antithesis to a democracy.
Fair enough, at least you're brave enough to admit that the reason you oppose same sex marriages is due to your religious beliefs. Thanks to religious freedom we have in this country, religious ideology has no place influencing our laws. So, you agree that there is no solid legal reason to deny the ability to marry to homosexuals?
So, if all legal "marriage" was changed to "civil union" for everyone, gays and straights alike, you would be OK with that? Or do you want "marriage" for straights and "civil unions" for gays?
For what it's worth, I find that "disagree with" is usually a euphemism for "oppose", most people just think it sounds less harsh. Do you agree?
It has nothing to do with being brave. However, whenever religion is introduced, Christianity is attacked, folks start talking about fairies in the sky, Sky-Daddies, etc and I'm just not interested in going down that route. I don't think that my religious beliefs should be forced on anyone (and I don't want them to be), but I also don't want to be mocked for what I believe.
My disagreement with gay marriage is two-fold: religious beliefs AND I disagree with redefining "marriage". I wouldn't agree with the government making that redefinition.
I'm 100% okay with civil unions being for ALL and marriage being held as a religious heterosexual ceremony.
I believe that gays are focusing their efforts in an ineffective way. Stop focusing so much on being allowed to marry and focus on the RIGHTS. Fight to have civil unions be awarded the full and equal rights of traditional marriages.
re: disagree vs. oppose. I find no distinction between the two. If it makes you feel better for me to say I oppose gay marriage, then there it is. I oppose gay marriage.
Not it doesn't. Not for any of your scenarios. Disagreeing does not equal hatred and/or any type of superiority. That's ridiculous.
Oh please. Consider this statement:
"ChocLot, I don't think you should be allowed to avail yourself to the rights of marriage under our civil law because you are black and because I disagree with blacks getting married."
If I said that in all seriousness, would you view me as a racist who thinks of blacks as inferior, or would you see it as me simply "disagreeing" with you and your views on black people?
Exactly civil rights were affirmed through the legislature and specifically addressed in the constitution. The people of California, not exactly Ground Zero for strident conservatism rejected gay marriage rather convincingly.
Not only is gay marriage legally banned on the federal level it is not enshrined in the constitution. We keep hearing how society is evolving to accept gay marriage but it appears the only way to get gay marriage legalized even in liberal states is to disregard the will of the people or have legislators misrepresent themselves as some did on NY and Washington.
This will be overturned the notion that two judges outweigh the desires of 14 million is odius and is the antithesis to a democracy.
Equal protection of the laws, as stated in the 14th Amendment, is not subject to popular vote.
Moreover, you have no idea whether this will be overturned or not. Nobody, even people with deep knowledge of constitutional law (which I presume you do not) can predict the SCOTUS.
I agree with your bolded statement. So what's your point?
And I'm not controlling anything. I have not voted against gay marriage. I live in Maryland and heard about some march/protest re: the state's consideration of allowing gay marriage. I did not attend. This is not a huge issue for me. I will not be marching in the street and/or waving anti-gay marriage banners. But I don't agree with it. Am I now not allowed to have my own opinion about something? If it doesn't affect you and I'm not attempting to control you, what difference does my opinion make to you?
There are plenty of racists in this world. As long as they don't bother me directly, I couldn't care less what they think about me.
Yup. This isn't a major issue for me either. I won't be marching against it.
As a Maryland resident I'm just glad there is a mechanism to overturn the whims of cynical self serving politicians like O'Malley who thinks his path to the White House means ramming gay marriage down the states throat.
"ChocLot, I don't think you should be allowed to avail yourself to the rights of marriage under our civil law because you are black and because I disagree with blacks getting married."
If I said that in all seriousness, would you view me as a racist who thinks of blacks as inferior, or would you see it as me simply "disagreeing" with you and your views on black people?
Well, see now, your statement is not a direct reflection of my stance.
I don't believe that gays should be denied their rights. I just don't agree with them marrying. I'm 100% for civil unions being given the same rights and privileges of traditional marriage.
So, a better statement would be:
"ChocLot, I don't think that blacks should be able to get married. You can get a civil union which affords the same rights instead".
As long as I get the rights, why would I care what it's called? Especially when what it's called is deeply entrenched in a belief system that I don't adhere to (and might even find idiotic, oppressive, etc)?
Equal protection of the laws, as stated in the 14th Amendment, is not subject to popular vote.
Moreover, you have no idea whether this will be overturned or not. Nobody, even people with deep knowledge of constitutional law (which I presume you do not) can predict the SCOTUS.
Marriage is defined in this country as between one man and one woman. No adult is denied the opportunity to enter into a marriage. I'm not seeing the 14th amendment violation.
What gays seek is to redefine marriage. Fine that needs to be done legislatively as it has been done in a few states in DC already.
I disagree with gay marriage but if the residents of these states as expressed through their legislators want to define marriage that way so be it.
What I do object to is the tossing out of a legally sanctioned and executed referendum by two jurists on the flimsiest of rationales.
You're right I don't know what will happen but if SCOTUS takes the case I'm confident it will be overturned.
Fair enough, at least you're brave enough to admit that the reason you oppose same sex marriages is due to your religious beliefs. Thanks to the religious freedom we have in this country, religious ideology has no place influencing our laws. So, you agree that there is no solid legal reason to deny the ability to marry to homosexuals?
[snip]
You do know there are court cases rejecting the argument that bans on ssm violate the constitution. I figure you believe those decisions were based on bigotry, hate, stupidity, not solid legal reasoning.
'We can’t leave our values at the door. If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moralglue that has held our nation together for centuries, and allowed us to become somewhat more perfect a union... the majority of great reformers in American history did their work... because their faith and their values dictated it, and called for bold action -- sometimes in the face of indifference, sometimes in the face of resistance.'
No, but there have been some on these various "gay" threads who seem to show disdain for Blacks not agreeing with gay marriage. They bring up Prop 8 and the percentage of blacks who supported it. They say "now that Blacks have their rights, they feel superior enough to deny others". It's that attitude that I have a problem with.
It just would be REALLY nice if gays kept blacks out of their debates. The false kinship is offensive.
Uh-oh, that bolded bit really comes across as seeing homosexuals as "less than". Otherwise, why would your perceived kinship be offensive?
Honestly, I find the apparent cognitive dissonance on the part of ANY minority and their rights vs. the rights of a different minority group to be quite confusing. This would include blacks and gays, BTW.
Honestly, the perception I have is that since most black folks are pretty strong in their faith, whatever faith that is, that it is that religious belief that makes them want to divorce their struggle with the struggles of the gay community. Right or wrong, that's my perception.
Well, see now, your statement is not a direct reflection of my stance.
I don't believe that gays should be denied their rights. I just don't agree with them marrying. I'm 100% for civil unions being given the same rights and privileges of traditional marriage.
So, a better statement would be:
"ChocLot, I don't think that blacks should be able to get married. You can get a civil union which affords the same rights instead".
As long as I get the rights, why would I care what it's called? Especially when what it's called is entrenched in a belief system that I don't adhere to (and might even find idiotic, oppressive, etc)?
I debate from the facts. Fact: we have something in our civil laws that confers a collection of some 1400 joint civil rights to couples. Fact: this civil law is called "marriage". Fact: in most places, homosexuals are banned from accessing this civil law - in other words, gays are discriminatorily denied these rights.
In light of those facts, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say "I don't believe that gays should be denied their rights. I just don't agree with them marrying" because the real effect of not letting gays civilly marry under the law is to deny them those 1400 rights.
It's not our (by "our" I mean the gays) fault that you guys made a poor choice in calling this civil law "marriage". That doesn't mean, however, that because of what you called it I should be denied it. I don't give a flying **** what it's called (as long as it's called the same thing for everybody). I just want access to it, and as long as it's called "civil marriage", then I want to be able to get civilly married.
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.
