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.
sigh......
I don't care either way. However when government uses force, even on an issue I agree with I have no choice but to take a stand against that tyranny. We fought a revolution to over throw tyranny and we didn't do it to replace it with our own brand of tyranny. Keep government out of marriage, completely.
Can you prove that it is in the Constitution? Like prohibition, right?
I said SCOTUS, not the Constitution.
Quote:
The ruling,currently, is about only allowing heteros to marry. Before that it was about inter racial marriage. Government should not be able to discriminate by law. Government should be about equal access for all of the people. No different than over turning Jim Crow.
I agree with this.
Quote:
If government would have stayed away from these issues America would be a much better place.
Why give power to the same corrupt entity that enslaved our people and continues to run parts of our daily lives? Is it because government knows best?
But it's not because "government" knows best. Really, people (or now corporations) are the government. People made the laws. People in these states voted for state-sanctioned bigotry and homophobia. There is no faceless Borg-like government.
She filed a stay based on the likelihood it will be appealed. Just because VA's AG has made a deal with the Devil does not mean the VA House cannot appoint someone to take up the appeal.
The defendants in the case are two clerks. And while they may appeal, they face a fundamental problem. The defendants' argument is that in denying homosexuals the right to marry, they are merely enforcing the law of the State. The judge has found the law to be Unconstitutional. So, in order to appeal, they actually have to address whether the law is Constitutional or not. They can't defend that they are merely enforcing an Unconstitutional law. They have to argue that the law is Constitutional, that the State has an interest in denying homosexuals the right to marry and enjoying the benefits thereof, that the State will actually be harmed if homosexuals are allowed to marry. And religious arguments won't float. And they run into issues of standing, because they are not the State that passed the law, they are simply clerks charged with upholding the law. So even though it is likely that appeals will be filed, there is a question of whether the appeals will even be heard, since both the Governor and the Attorney General concur with the judge that the law is Unconstitutional.
Yes, just as in the very near future, all states and pretty much the world will also condone and participate in incest, beastiality and pedophilia, even if they are "kicking and screaming," they will be dragged into the new age agenda.
You know what's sick?
Trying to make a connection between homosexuality (between two consenting non-related adults) with pedophilia (an adult having sex with underage, often very young, children), bestiality (sex with animals), and incest (sex between related people, often one of the participants a person of power - mom, dad, uncle, etc. - with an underage child).
That's sick.
I'm surprised you didn't throw necrophilia in there for good measure.
Why don't you all just get over it? It's obvious where we're headed (YAY!); you might as well just accept it because you're not going to stop it.
And, you know what? You will survive. Your children will survive (and possibly thrive, if you end up with a gay child). Your marriage will survive (or, at least, if it does fail, it won't be because John and Steve next door are legally married).
The world will not end when loving couples in all fifty states can enjoy the benefits of marriage regardless of gender.
Trying to make a connection between homosexuality (between two consenting adults) with pedophilia (an adult having sex with underage, often very young, children) and bestiality (sex with animals).
That's sick.
I'm surprised you didn't throw necrophilia in there for good measure.
Why don't you all just get over it? It's obvious where we're headed (YAY!); you might as well just accept it because you're not going to stop it.
And, you know what? You will survive. Your children will survive (and possibly thrive, if you end up with a gay child). Your marriage will survive (or, at least, if it does fail, it won't be because John and Steve next door are legally married).
The world will not end when loving couples in all fifty states can enjoy the benefits of marriage regardless of gender.
No one was equating the two. Stop with the fallacies. If you are okay with homosexuality and gay people getting married you have to be okay with those other groups getting married too. Because you believe that EVERYONE has the right to marry who they '' love '' regardless of orientation.
If a man has a sexual orientation towards his own brother or father what's to stop them from marrying? After all it's really no different than homosexuality in terms of physiology, they can't reproduce either so the argument about deformed offspring wouldn't work. What's to stop them from redefining marriage to allow them? After all if you truly believed in equality and acceptance you have to support them. It's just hypocritical from your end if you don't.
But isn't Scotus job to "rule" on the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199
But it's not because "government" knows best. Really, people (or now corporations) are the government. People made the laws. People in these states voted for state-sanctioned bigotry and homophobia. There is no faceless Borg-like government.
Mob rule that forced 49 percent of the people to do what the 51 percent wanted. Those against Jim Crow had little choice. Follow the law of get penalized. Horrible choices. A few brave people fought Jim Crow but many who were against it just sat idly by.
We the people overturned government Jim Crow. Government came after the fact and only when we the people, through civil disobedience, stood up to the tyrannical Jim Crow laws. Well intentioned (which I believe you are from your posts) or not, using force to get ones way is immoral. I'd bet quite a few who were against inter racial or gay marriage thought they were well intentioned too. That's the rub.
It has to do with morality. Once you say that an immoral action is ok, it opens up the pandora's box for everything else to follow.
It's kind of like pre-marital sex. America's family unit was primarily intact until the power structure started implementing new rules and lessening the stigma of pre-marital sex. Once this happened, it became acceptable and even encouraged for women to proudly become "single moms, with out of wedlock children." We see however that the policies which created this type of lifestyle have been very detrimental to American society.
You know, you kind of contradict yourself in that post.
On the one hand, you are saying homosexuality is immoral (who are you? the morality police?).
But, on the other hand, you are complaining about premarital sex. Based on that, I would think that same gender marriage would suit you to a tee - look at all the premarital sex that will be eliminated once gays are allowed to legally marry!
You also mention "unwed moms." Do you realize that gay couples are often the ones who step in and pick up the pieces when those unwed moms, unprepared financially and emotionally for motherhood, have their children removed from their homes? That gay couples foster or adopt those troubled, and often, abused and neglected children, while straight adoptive parents generally want the newborn babies?
Personally, rather than allowing same gender couples to marry being "immoral" and "detrimental to American society," I see it as a very positive thing for the American family.
You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how much I disagree with you, but you re not going to stop same gender couples from getting married, creating homes together, and adopting children into loving, supportive, and nurturing homes.
If you are okay with homosexuality and gay people getting married you have to be okay with those other groups getting married too.
Actually, no. Other groups are "other" because they are different. If the state can show harm (and it surely can), then there is good reason to prohibit those OTHER groups getting married, too.
I'm just praying that I, along with other people of faith are not here when the SH** hits the fan. The question is not if it will happen, it's more or less when.
Well, since same gender marriage is legal now in, what? nineteen states (more or less), I would say you're already here. lol
Like it or not.
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.
