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.
Funny how some want to quiet the voice of the people if the voice is not one they want to hear.
If polls showed a 60% chance of it passing they would be begging for it to be on the ballot.
They -- supporters of same-sex marriage -- are getting it on the ballot.
Supporters of same-sex marriage supported the laws enacting same-sex marriage that were passed in Maryland and Washington earlier this year, knowing full well that opponents would easily get the small number of signatures required (around 100k) in each state of 6+ million people) to put the new law to a vote this November.
In Maine, supporters of same-sex marriage have gotten the question "Should same-sex marriage be legalized?" on this November's ballot.
In Ohio, supporters of same-sex marriage have gotten enough signatures to put the same affirmative question on the 2013 ballot.
You're cluelessly claiming "If X was true then Y would be happening!" ... and you're ignorant of the fact that Y is indeed happening!
When will you manage to convince the gay community that they must get this question put up to a vote? Since you have the numbers necessary I would think that someone would be trying to do this.
Did you notice that the Scala opinion you quoted so happily happened to be from the minority side of the Court? If not, then why isn't his thinking about Obamacare, also from the minority, given much support by you and your people. I guess it depends on what the topic is when the minority is talking.
I didn't quote Scalia, I referenced him.
The same applies to you, happily ignoring Scalia when it suits you.
Actually, I agree with Scalia often. You know, the majority of acts the Supreme Court takes -- grants of cert, pro forma per curiam decisions, even more regular decisions than you (obviously) would think -- are unanimous.
Scalia is hostile to the majority opinion in Lawrence because he knows what a great many people know -- that the Loving-esque USSC decision which strikes down all laws barring same-sex marriage will largely be built around Lawrence. He's right, no matter how much you whine about me in an attempt to change the subject...
The first official act the first Oklahoma legislature did when Oklahoma became a state was to institute Jim Crow type laws. Would you have supported what the Oklahoma Legislature did had you lived back then?
i dont know if i would have or not. but as in any state, there are mechanisms available to CHANGE the laws one disagrees with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach
It's not even a real issue of importance...This is a political and social fad..gone wild. No one can stop two people from living together...slapping names and tiles on unions bothers me...For instance- I spent almost 30 years with one woman and raised four children- They referred to my long lasting committed union with this woman as COMMON LAW...This was always an insult...That for instance a couple with no children who were formally married were more socially legitimate..and had more status...even if that union had no children and was bound to end up in the divorce courts in two years...
There is not much I hate- But I hated those in authority who would demean and devalue my family by regarding to marriage as COMMON LAW as if we were dumb peasants of old and my kids were bastards...
the term common law marriage is not an insult, in fact it is a recognition of two people who want to get married, but due to certain issues were not able to get a marriage license. the common law marriage statutes were put in place at a time when a couple had to go to the territorial capital to file the proper paperwork to get a marriage license. now if you lived in yuma back when arizona and new mexico were on territory, you would have to travel to the capital of the new mexico territory, which at the time was santa fe, to file the proper paperwork. so were you able to travel 750 miles over the terrain just to file some paperwork to get married? no, so the statute was enacted so that you could mail the paperwork to the capital, and after living together for six months you would be considered married by common law since at the time you had established the fact that you and your significant other were in fact going to get married when the proper paperwork came through. and it didnt matter if you were super rich, or super poor, or somewhere in between.
The whole debate about whether gays should or should not be able to get married shouldn't be placed in the hands of people to vote. Before my Christian posters chew me out for making this claim, I agree with the biblical definition of marriage, which is between a man and a woman. But with that said, the United States of America, as many Christians want to blindly believe is not a Christian country. Nor is it a country where any one's religious opinions should be the law of the land when it violates a person's civil rights. The fact that gay people can't get married is a violation if their civil rights, and propositions should not be placed on ballots for people to vote for or against it when eventually people for or against it challenge that same proposition. Eventually the US Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage anyway, and no matter what I or anyone thinks about it, it will become the law of the land---ending this whole debate at least on the ballot.
Are you talking about gays being "married" in a private ceremony, or that the state government should be forced to recognize it?
I don't agree with same-sex marriage, but the government really should stay out of the institution of marriage. The government shouldn't have no say in the definition on what a marriage should be.
Show me where in the constitution it says anything about marriage.
The Constitution doesn't say anything specifically about marriage, but the Supreme Court cited the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause in the Loving vs. Virginia case. I'm sure the same arguments will be made to strike down laws against same-sex marriage.
I don't agree with same-sex marriage, but the government really should stay out of the institution of marriage. The government shouldn't have no say in the definition on what a marriage should be.
In theory, I agree with the part about the government staying out of marriage, but since the government DOES grant rights, and benefits to married couples, then two consenting, unrelated, living, human adults who wish to join their lives should be allowed to do so, and gain said rights, and benefits. (How I posted that should knock out silly fundie arguments about polyamory, coercion, incest, necrophilia, beastiality, and pedophilia.)
Last edited by Mister Mappy; 08-03-2012 at 06:48 PM..
Reason: Typos!
why do people continue to make the claim that marriage is a civil right when it is NOT one?
also marriage is regulated at the state level, and thus it is up to the states to decide if gay marriage should be legal or not. and to that end, the citizenry of the state can usually get enough signatures to put the issue on a public ballot and let the people decide if they want gay marriage or not.
Actually, the Supreme Court declared marriage as a "basic civil right of man". When the Supreme Court overturned the anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitutional based on the 14th Amendment. The court wrote the following:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as theracial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racialdiscriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
We can just substitute "sexual orientation" for the reference to "race" above, and it would be just as relevant. I wonder how long it will take our country to realize that all citizens deserve to have these "basic civil rights".
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.
