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.
What does the Bible have to do with anything? We don't have a state religion. On the other hand, the people can ban behavior that is found repugnant and offensive to their sensibilities. There is no "right" to gay marriage.
There is a right to marriage though, that was never defined as one man and one woman.
I'm not against gay marriage, I'm for it. I was just responding to another poster regarding potential costs of gay marriage.
But how is it a cost? Is it not already a cost to extend ss benifits to heterosexuals who have survived a spouse? If anything, when my spouse and I married and it became legal Federally, our taxes went up. We both pay more then we did as singles living in the same house, so if anything, homosexual couples getting married will bring more in taxes into the system and boost it, SS benefits extended to the surving spouse of a same sex marriage should not burden the system since more in taxes are being put in.
As one has stated many times before, SSM will be the law of the land in all fifty states before Obama leaves office in 2016. You mark my words by July 2015 when the SCOTUS issues it's ruling the remaining state bans will be declared unconstitutional. The only question will be what conservatives do as their next move as with abortion and the other civil rights movements.
The Kennedy majority from DOMA is still in place so unless a justice from that group dies, becomes ill or for some reason cannot hear this latest case you have five votes right there.
When DOMA was struck down about 20 states had legal SSM, now that number is nearly 40. Just as with Loving vs. Virginia the court will be mopping up what remains after American society largely has settled the issue. By the time of the Loving case interracial marriage was already legal in a majority of the states, it was only Virginia and some others were it remained not. Therefore on balance the SCOTUS's decision was not so much earth shattering but going along with where a bulk of the American population had already headed.
What the Court probably will do is craft a very narrow decision that does not give to suggest trampling of state's rights, but restrict their ruling to civil rights based upon the 14th Amendment. Certain states/people didn't like that when applied to African-Americans and the Civil Rights legislation and so forth of the 1950's and 1960's but things are what they are, so persons had just better make up their minds to things.
OTOH having studied much American history am never surprised at the capacity to hate some people have and thus as with abortion and minority civil rights do not expect those against SSM to go quietly into that sweet dark night.
With that case, many states had never had a ban on interracial marriages and many others had voluntarily lifted them. In the case of gay marriage, many, many states - almost all - had constitutional bans that were voted in and were overturned by the courts. They were forced to allow it. I think the court is going to put out a stunner on this and say it is a state's rights matter.
I don't really care it's not like the heterosexual relationships are flourishing. Making it legal will give them the added benefit of going through a proper divorce instead of fleeing to a state that doesn't recognize the marriage....
What? You do not know what you are talking about. A same sex marriage in California or any state that it is issued in is recognized by the Federal government regardless of the state one is in, if the state does not recognize same sex marriage does not mean the couple is no longer married, they are still married
It is only the homosexual act that I have been speaking of. And you are right that is what the passage speaks of also. The temptation is something entirely different.
In any case, from a Biblical perspective, homosexuality is something that homosexuals do, it is not who they fundamentally are. Which is why we speak about the condemnation of the sin rather than the sinner, the latter of which we all are.
As one poster said, this is about Federal Civil Marriage. The religion forum is that way >>>>>>>>>>>
Tell me please, why is marraige for gays special rights, but for straights it is not? As long as you straight people are getting all those 1049 rights, plus state rights with a civil marriage, then it is YOU THAT IS GETTING SPECIAL RIGHTS.
Regardless of what the Supreme Court rules - and I expect them to rule in favor of federalism and states rights - there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. That is not what marriage is and no legal pronouncement can change that.
You feel the same about mixed race, heritage, or religion marriages ?? Not too long ago that was the case.
Did you pay your wife's father or did he pay you when you married her? Did you have her tested for Virginity before getting married with plans to have her executed if she wasn't??
Everybody has the right to marry the person of their choice of the opposite sex.
Why do some demand special rights to practice deviancy because of a mental aberration?
Ha ha, I call believing in an all powerful creator that governs all and hates a mental aberration. There is nothing special about granting same sex couples marriage equality, there are no more rights granted, they are exactly the same. Before long everyone will have the equal right to marry the one they love with out religious interference in the law.
Tell me please, why is marriage for gays special rights, but for straights it is not? As long as you straight people are getting all those 1049 rights, plus state rights with a civil marriage.
That's another question I have been asking for years and they can't answer it ...
With that case, many states had never had a ban on interracial marriages and many others had voluntarily lifted them. In the case of gay marriage, many, many states - almost all - had constitutional bans that were voted in and were overturned by the courts. They were forced to allow it. I think the court is going to put out a stunner on this and say it is a state's rights matter.
How can the SCOTUS that over turned DOMA not almost a year ago based upon the 14th Ammendment turn around and now say states can discriminate in violation of same? It just does not work. You would have to get Justice Kennedy for a start to change his mind and that just isn't going to happen IMHO.
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.
