Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[joffer]

Missouri

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

it was a good run righties.

Did I or anyone post this already? Lessons learned

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

it was a good run righties.

Did I or anyone post this already? Lessons learned

I agree with this part:

Fourth, studies show federal judges chosen by Democratic presidents generally decide cases according to Democratic philosophy and vice versa for Republicans. In light of this reality, presidents, governors and confirming senators should unapologetically evaluate a judicial candidate’s political views in deciding whether to choose or reject such candidates, contrary to the current etiquette. For too long, we’ve conducted a polite charade in selecting judges, which allows stealth candidates to avoid the questions that really matter. Voters selecting their next president, governor or senator should consider what kind of judges a candidate will select, and vote accordingly.

 

[matuski]

Huck is not saying away near what you are implying he is saying. He wanted to change a few things in the Constitution because he did not like the way the courts were changing it. Implementing a few polices which are viewed as immoral is a far ways from theocracy.

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do--to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards"

:"Change a few things"

No theocracy here folks.

 

[timschochet]

Huck is not saying away near what you are implying he is saying. He wanted to change a few things in the Constitution because he did not like the way the courts were changing it. Implementing a few polices which are viewed as immoral is a far ways from theocracy.

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do--to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards"

:"Change a few things"

No theocracy here folks.

at this point if Huckabee or any other religious conservative had the means to fix our economy and produce jobs, I might vote for them. Who cares what they think about gay marriage anymore? It's a done issue. They'll never put the genie back in the bottle.

 

[joffer]

Huck is not saying away near what you are implying he is saying. He wanted to change a few things in the Constitution because he did not like the way the courts were changing it. Implementing a few polices which are viewed as immoral is a far ways from theocracy.

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do--to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards"

:"Change a few things"

No theocracy here folks.

at this point if Huckabee or any other religious conservative had the means to fix our economy and produce jobs, I might vote for them. Who cares what they think about gay marriage anymore? It's a done issue. They'll never put the genie back in the bottle.

6th circuit court of appeals just ruled in favor of the Huckabees of the world. Sounds like it's got a good chance to go to the Supreme Court now.

 

[jon_mx]

Anybody that is seriously worried about a theocracy here is crazier than a truther.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Huck is not saying away near what you are implying he is saying. He wanted to change a few things in the Constitution because he did not like the way the courts were changing it. Implementing a few polices which are viewed as immoral is a far ways from theocracy.

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do--to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards"

:"Change a few things"

No theocracy here folks.

at this point if Huckabee or any other religious conservative had the means to fix our economy and produce jobs, I might vote for them. Who cares what they think about gay marriage anymore? It's a done issue. They'll never put the genie back in the bottle.

6th circuit court of appeals just ruled in favor of the Huckabees of the world. Sounds like it's got a good chance to go to the Supreme Court now.

Yup. But I have a feeling they won't overturn a nationwide movement. 6-3 or 5-4 decision reversing these Sixth Circuit nutbags perhaps the most likely outcome.

 

[the moops]

Anybody that is seriously worried about a theocracy here is crazier than a truther.

you were one more world net daily article away from being convinced Obama was born in Kenya. I think we know the crazy one

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Anybody that is seriously worried about a theocracy here is crazier than a truther.

If it wasn't for people worrying about theocracy we would actually have one, numbnuts.

 

[Gachi]

50 years ago, it was damn near impossible for a black person to register to vote in a southern state. Now, voter blatant voter discrimination is basically unheard of in the traditional sense.

50 years from now, in 2064 do you guys think it will be same thing for same-sex marriage? Will marriage discrimination be a thing of the past, and will people look back and say "man, it was crazy how gay people couldn't even marry that long ago?"

 

[Scoresman]

50 years ago, it was damn near impossible for a black person to register to vote in a southern state. Now, voter blatant voter discrimination is basically unheard of in the traditional sense.

50 years from now, in 2064 do you guys think it will be same thing for same-sex marriage? Will marriage discrimination be a thing of the past, and will people look back and say "man, it was crazy how gay people couldn't even marry that long ago?"

Yes. people currently against this will be on the wrong side of history.

 

[the moops]

Not even 50 years. In 15-20 years looking back it will be shocking that straight people feared the apocalypse if gays martied

 

[Scoresman]

once again it will be religion that's on the wrong side of history.

 

[jon_mx]

Anybody that is seriously worried about a theocracy here is crazier than a truther.

you were one more world net daily article away from being convinced Obama was born in Kenya. I think we know the crazy one

I never read any WND article and I never thought Obama was born in Kenya. I did think he should show his birth certificate though, like voters should show ID.

 

[fatness]

Tell us that story about heroes again, Grandpa Judge.

When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.

So did the heroes win, Grandpa Judge?

Yes, they're still fighting about it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Tell us that story about heroes again, Grandpa Judge.

When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.

So did the heroes win, Grandpa Judge?

Yes, they're still fighting about it.

####. Now I have to iron my cape.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

once again it will be religion that's on the wrong side of history.

It won't be perceived that way.

In a few decades, people won't remember that pretty much all the arguments against gay marriage were religious -- just like today, people don't remember that pretty much all the arguments against interracial marriage were religious.

When you tell a religious person today that the Bible used to be interpreted as forbidding interracial marriage, they think you're nuts. Of course the Bible doesn't forbid interracial marriage!

It will be similar in a few decades. People won't realize that the Bible, way back in 2014, was commonly interpreted to forbid gay marriage. "Of course it doesn't," they'll think.

P.S. Nice sig.

 

[roadkill1292]

once again it will be religion that's on the wrong side of history.

It won't be perceived that way.

In a few decades, people won't remember that pretty much all the arguments against gay marriage were religious -- just like today, people don't remember that pretty much all the arguments against interracial marriage were religious.

When you a religious person today that the Bible used to be interpreted as forbidding interracial marriage, they think you're nuts. Of course the Bible doesn't forbid interracial marriage.

It will be similar in a few decades. People won't realize that the Bible, way back in 2014, was commonly interpreted to forbid gay marriage. "Of course it doesn't," they'll think.

P.S. Nice sig.

So you're reminding us that it was the southern churchies who were opposed to integration and interracial marriage 50 years ago. I'm glad you brought that up. Maybe reminders like this will help us remember who were the poopy-heads 50 years from now. Outlook event reminder toggled.

 

[Henry Ford]

South Carolina

 

[jon_mx]

once again it will be religion that's on the wrong side of history.

It won't be perceived that way.

In a few decades, people won't remember that pretty much all the arguments against gay marriage were religious -- just like today, people don't remember that pretty much all the arguments against interracial marriage were religious.

When you tell a religious person today that the Bible used to be interpreted as forbidding interracial marriage, they think you're nuts. Of course the Bible doesn't forbid interracial marriage!

It will be similar in a few decades. People won't realize that the Bible, way back in 2014, was commonly interpreted to forbid gay marriage. "Of course it doesn't," they'll think.

P.S. Nice sig.

That analogy fails, IMO. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest interracial marriage should be forbidden, that was just people making assumptions and twisting things that weren't even remotely there. The Bible is fairly clear on homosexuality being a sin. I take a lot of issues with the condemnation and the holier than thou selective sin attitude of many Churches, but this is much different than interracial marriage.

 

[Joe Summer]

once again it will be religion that's on the wrong side of history.

It won't be perceived that way.

In a few decades, people won't remember that pretty much all the arguments against gay marriage were religious -- just like today, people don't remember that pretty much all the arguments against interracial marriage were religious.

When you tell a religious person today that the Bible used to be interpreted as forbidding interracial marriage, they think you're nuts. Of course the Bible doesn't forbid interracial marriage!

It will be similar in a few decades. People won't realize that the Bible, way back in 2014, was commonly interpreted to forbid gay marriage. "Of course it doesn't," they'll think.

P.S. Nice sig.

See also: slavery.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

once again it will be religion that's on the wrong side of history.

It won't be perceived that way.

In a few decades, people won't remember that pretty much all the arguments against gay marriage were religious -- just like today, people don't remember that pretty much all the arguments against interracial marriage were religious.

When you tell a religious person today that the Bible used to be interpreted as forbidding interracial marriage, they think you're nuts. Of course the Bible doesn't forbid interracial marriage!

It will be similar in a few decades. People won't realize that the Bible, way back in 2014, was commonly interpreted to forbid gay marriage. "Of course it doesn't," they'll think.

P.S. Nice sig.

That analogy fails, IMO. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest interracial marriage should be forbidden, that was just people making assumptions and twisting things that weren't even remotely there. The Bible is fairly clear on homosexuality being a sin. I take a lot of issues with the condemnation and the holier than thou selective sin attitude of many Churches, but this is much different than interracial marriage.

You don't say...

 

[jon_mx]

once again it will be religion that's on the wrong side of history.

It won't be perceived that way.

In a few decades, people won't remember that pretty much all the arguments against gay marriage were religious -- just like today, people don't remember that pretty much all the arguments against interracial marriage were religious.

When you tell a religious person today that the Bible used to be interpreted as forbidding interracial marriage, they think you're nuts. Of course the Bible doesn't forbid interracial marriage!

It will be similar in a few decades. People won't realize that the Bible, way back in 2014, was commonly interpreted to forbid gay marriage. "Of course it doesn't," they'll think.

P.S. Nice sig.

That analogy fails, IMO. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest interracial marriage should be forbidden, that was just people making assumptions and twisting things that weren't even remotely there. The Bible is fairly clear on homosexuality being a sin. I take a lot of issues with the condemnation and the holier than thou selective sin attitude of many Churches, but this is much different than interracial marriage.

You don't say...

The Old Testament did not want Jews to marry non-Jews. That had nothing to do with skin color, but beliefs.

 

[trogg78]

once again it will be religion that's on the wrong side of history.

It won't be perceived that way.

In a few decades, people won't remember that pretty much all the arguments against gay marriage were religious -- just like today, people don't remember that pretty much all the arguments against interracial marriage were religious.

When you tell a religious person today that the Bible used to be interpreted as forbidding interracial marriage, they think you're nuts. Of course the Bible doesn't forbid interracial marriage!

It will be similar in a few decades. People won't realize that the Bible, way back in 2014, was commonly interpreted to forbid gay marriage. "Of course it doesn't," they'll think.

P.S. Nice sig.

That analogy fails, IMO. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest interracial marriage should be forbidden, that was just people making assumptions and twisting things that weren't even remotely there. The Bible is fairly clear on homosexuality being a sin. I take a lot of issues with the condemnation and the holier than thou selective sin attitude of many Churches, but this is much different than interracial marriage.

You don't say...

The Old Testament did not want Jews to marry non-Jews. That had nothing to do with skin color, but beliefs.

You were there.

 

[joffer]

Maybe the Old Testament only wanted Jews to not be homosexual

:lightbulb:

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Maybe the Old Testament only wanted Jews to not be homosexual effeminate

:lightbulb:

close

 

[joffer]

Montana

 

[cstu]

Maybe all religious texts are made up.

:lightbulb:

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Inverted equal protection: same-sex marriage at the Sixth Circuit

 

[Koya]

Maybe the Old Testament only wanted Jews to not be homosexual

:lightbulb:

How can we be expected to NOT have any homosexuals and STILL be able to be such darn good entertainers?

 

[joffer]

http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/714136/more-magistrates-quit-over-same-sex-marriage-issue-than-previously-reported/

 

[Koya]

Can't we just realize the best and probably only truely fair path is to get rid of gov't / civil marriage. Anyone can get the legal rights by having the govt acknowledge a civil union.

Marriage should not be a legal exercise... it goes far deeper and for those who want more than just legal rights can have a marriage, religious, spiritual or otherwise.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can't we just realize the best and probably only truely fair path is to get rid of gov't / civil marriage. Anyone can get the legal rights by having the govt acknowledge a civil union.

Marriage should not be a legal exercise... it goes far deeper and for those who want more than just legal rights can have a marriage, religious, spiritual or otherwise.

Nope! You don't extend rights by taking the most important right in question away from everyone. And marriage is ultimately a contract and is just as much a "legal exercise" as any other contract.

 

[ericttspikes]

At least a convicted murderer like Manson can get legally married in all 50 states. Has the Family Research Council chimed in on that one yet?

 

[jon_mx]

Can't we just realize the best and probably only truely fair path is to get rid of gov't / civil marriage. Anyone can get the legal rights by having the govt acknowledge a civil union.

Marriage should not be a legal exercise... it goes far deeper and for those who want more than just legal rights can have a marriage, religious, spiritual or otherwise.

Nope! You don't extend rights by taking the most important right in question away from everyone. And marriage is ultimately a contract and is just as much a "legal exercise" as any other contract.

What role does the government play in making a relationship happy?

 

[Koya]

Can't we just realize the best and probably only truely fair path is to get rid of gov't / civil marriage. Anyone can get the legal rights by having the govt acknowledge a civil union.

Marriage should not be a legal exercise... it goes far deeper and for those who want more than just legal rights can have a marriage, religious, spiritual or otherwise.

Nope! You don't extend rights by taking the most important right in question away from everyone. And marriage is ultimately a contract and is just as much a "legal exercise" as any other contract.

Im honeslty not sure if this is shtick or not... marriage, in terms of having certain tax benefits or other legal remidies are not some constitutional nor god given "right" - like you state, it's a contract. So, if the gov't wants to extend certain rights/remedies/protections for couples, give them all the "right" to the same civil union. Then, it's not religious, moral, just business.

For those who want "Marriage" by all means, go to your Priest or Rabbi or Minister... that's not the gov'ts business and no individual "has" to marry a couple against their religion.

But if the gov't is giving out benies to couples, we can't be capricious and objectively, arbitrary about who is allowed to get those benefits and who can't.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can't we just realize the best and probably only truely fair path is to get rid of gov't / civil marriage. Anyone can get the legal rights by having the govt acknowledge a civil union.

Marriage should not be a legal exercise... it goes far deeper and for those who want more than just legal rights can have a marriage, religious, spiritual or otherwise.

Nope! You don't extend rights by taking the most important right in question away from everyone. And marriage is ultimately a contract and is just as much a "legal exercise" as any other contract.

Im honeslty not sure if this is shtick or not... marriage, in terms of having certain tax benefits or other legal remidies are not some constitutional nor god given "right" - like you state, it's a contract. So, if the gov't wants to extend certain rights/remedies/protections for couples, give them all the "right" to the same civil union. Then, it's not religious, moral, just business.

For those who want "Marriage" by all means, go to your Priest or Rabbi or Minister... that's not the gov'ts business and no individual "has" to marry a couple against their religion.

But if the gov't is giving out benies to couples, we can't be capricious and objectively, arbitrary about who is allowed to get those benefits and who can't.

How is giving benefits to everyone that is married any more capricious and arbitrary than giving benefits to everyone that is "civil unioned"?

This "fairer idea" of yours has been discussed for over a decade now on this board. It was a dishonest solution back then, it is now. The marriage "basement" doesn't need to be abandoned. The bigots aren't going change their tune when the rock they are hiding behind is moved. There is no magic search and replace function that can replace all instances of marriage in the federal code, in every state, every locality's laws and regulations, in every private contract, possibly in every treaty, etc., etc.

Ten years ago, while mostly still dishonest there was some intellectual appeal to this idea to jump ahead. But now there is no good that would be accomplished, but lots of harm and lasting resentment. This was briefly an interesting thought exercise. Not anymore.

 

[Koya]

Can't we just realize the best and probably only truely fair path is to get rid of gov't / civil marriage. Anyone can get the legal rights by having the govt acknowledge a civil union.

Marriage should not be a legal exercise... it goes far deeper and for those who want more than just legal rights can have a marriage, religious, spiritual or otherwise.

Nope! You don't extend rights by taking the most important right in question away from everyone. And marriage is ultimately a contract and is just as much a "legal exercise" as any other contract.

Im honeslty not sure if this is shtick or not... marriage, in terms of having certain tax benefits or other legal remidies are not some constitutional nor god given "right" - like you state, it's a contract. So, if the gov't wants to extend certain rights/remedies/protections for couples, give them all the "right" to the same civil union. Then, it's not religious, moral, just business.

For those who want "Marriage" by all means, go to your Priest or Rabbi or Minister... that's not the gov'ts business and no individual "has" to marry a couple against their religion.

But if the gov't is giving out benies to couples, we can't be capricious and objectively, arbitrary about who is allowed to get those benefits and who can't.

How is giving benefits to everyone that is married any more capricious and arbitrary than giving benefits to everyone that is "civil unioned"?

This "fairer idea" of yours has been discussed for over a decade now on this board. It was a dishonest solution back then, it is now. The marriage "basement" doesn't need to be abandoned. The bigots aren't going change their tune when the rock they are hiding behind is moved. There is no magic search and replace function that can replace all instances of marriage in the federal code, in every state, every locality's laws and regulations, in every private contract, possibly in every treaty, etc., etc.

Ten years ago, while mostly still dishonest there was some intellectual appeal to this idea to jump ahead. But now there is no good that would be accomplished, but lots of harm and lasting resentment. This was briefly an interesting thought exercise. Not anymore.

I personally have always felt (well, as long as can remember at least) that the gov't should not get involved in the marriage game at all. Like... well, not at all.

Why should the gov't dictate tax benefits or penalties because someone is single or not?

To that end, I don't believe in civil unions AND marriage from gov't either... seperate but equal doesn't fly. That said, BECAUSE Marriage, in terms of the meaning, the history, etc, has been not just a legal arrangement, but a relationship that extends beyond legal benefits, it is something that people want to be done according to their beliefs and customs.

As such, Priests give weddings, as do Rabbis... We are not talking gov't employees or "justices" but rather clergy. Why is clergy conducting a religious CEREMONY that then extends to gov't / legal rights?

So, answer seems civil. Marriage is something of the private realm. And therefore, it is to the individuals where and how they wish to be married, what to them, contitutes a marriage, the recognition before god or whatever. It is also to individuals to preside over a marriage ceremony or, if it runs counter to their religious beliefs, not to do so. Because it's not a legal issue here, it's personal and private.

Civil unions can be done by the gov't to give all legal protections and it's just legal. Gov't shouldn't do any more.

Marriage is to the individual, but does not bring with it any special legal status.

 

[The Commish]

Can't we just realize the best and probably only truely fair path is to get rid of gov't / civil marriage. Anyone can get the legal rights by having the govt acknowledge a civil union.

Marriage should not be a legal exercise... it goes far deeper and for those who want more than just legal rights can have a marriage, religious, spiritual or otherwise.

Nope! You don't extend rights by taking the most important right in question away from everyone. And marriage is ultimately a contract and is just as much a "legal exercise" as any other contract.

Im honeslty not sure if this is shtick or not... marriage, in terms of having certain tax benefits or other legal remidies are not some constitutional nor god given "right" - like you state, it's a contract. So, if the gov't wants to extend certain rights/remedies/protections for couples, give them all the "right" to the same civil union. Then, it's not religious, moral, just business.

For those who want "Marriage" by all means, go to your Priest or Rabbi or Minister... that's not the gov'ts business and no individual "has" to marry a couple against their religion.

But if the gov't is giving out benies to couples, we can't be capricious and objectively, arbitrary about who is allowed to get those benefits and who can't.

Been saying this for a very long time. And about the only response I get in rebuttal that's somewhat reasonable is "that's too hard".

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can't we just realize the best and probably only truely fair path is to get rid of gov't / civil marriage. Anyone can get the legal rights by having the govt acknowledge a civil union.

Marriage should not be a legal exercise... it goes far deeper and for those who want more than just legal rights can have a marriage, religious, spiritual or otherwise.

Nope! You don't extend rights by taking the most important right in question away from everyone. And marriage is ultimately a contract and is just as much a "legal exercise" as any other contract.

Im honeslty not sure if this is shtick or not... marriage, in terms of having certain tax benefits or other legal remidies are not some constitutional nor god given "right" - like you state, it's a contract. So, if the gov't wants to extend certain rights/remedies/protections for couples, give them all the "right" to the same civil union. Then, it's not religious, moral, just business.

For those who want "Marriage" by all means, go to your Priest or Rabbi or Minister... that's not the gov'ts business and no individual "has" to marry a couple against their religion.

But if the gov't is giving out benies to couples, we can't be capricious and objectively, arbitrary about who is allowed to get those benefits and who can't.

How is giving benefits to everyone that is married any more capricious and arbitrary than giving benefits to everyone that is "civil unioned"?

This "fairer idea" of yours has been discussed for over a decade now on this board. It was a dishonest solution back then, it is now. The marriage "basement" doesn't need to be abandoned. The bigots aren't going change their tune when the rock they are hiding behind is moved. There is no magic search and replace function that can replace all instances of marriage in the federal code, in every state, every locality's laws and regulations, in every private contract, possibly in every treaty, etc., etc.

Ten years ago, while mostly still dishonest there was some intellectual appeal to this idea to jump ahead. But now there is no good that would be accomplished, but lots of harm and lasting resentment. This was briefly an interesting thought exercise. Not anymore.

I personally have always felt (well, as long as can remember at least) that the gov't should not get involved in the marriage game at all. Like... well, not at all.

Why should the gov't dictate tax benefits or penalties because someone is single or not?

To that end, I don't believe in civil unions AND marriage from gov't either... seperate but equal doesn't fly. That said, BECAUSE Marriage, in terms of the meaning, the history, etc, has been not just a legal arrangement, but a relationship that extends beyond legal benefits, it is something that people want to be done according to their beliefs and customs.

As such, Priests give weddings, as do Rabbis... We are not talking gov't employees or "justices" but rather clergy. Why is clergy conducting a religious CEREMONY that then extends to gov't / legal rights?

So, answer seems civil. Marriage is something of the private realm. And therefore, it is to the individuals where and how they wish to be married, what to them, contitutes a marriage, the recognition before god or whatever. It is also to individuals to preside over a marriage ceremony or, if it runs counter to their religious beliefs, not to do so. Because it's not a legal issue here, it's personal and private.

Civil unions can be done by the gov't to give all legal protections and it's just legal. Gov't shouldn't do any more.

Marriage is to the individual, but does not bring with it any special legal status.

You have just solved zero problems and create many new ones. What civil word do we now use for spouse? For husband? For wife? Or are we just carving out one word?

How exactly is your second paragraph applicable? Are "civil unioned" people now single?

The third paragraph isn't an argument for anything.

The fourth paragraph is just wrong.

The fifth paragraph is an answer to the zero problems you listed other than a conflict with your personal preferences.

For the sixth paragraph, I agree. The government shouldn't do more than remove unnecessary restrictions in who should be allowed into a marriage contract. It shouldn't be creating a whole new vocabulary to appease those that aren't going to satisfied anyway.

The seventh paragraph "Marriage is to the individual" is how it is now. Nothing needs to change for this.

 

[NCCommish]

Can't we just realize the best and probably only truely fair path is to get rid of gov't / civil marriage. Anyone can get the legal rights by having the govt acknowledge a civil union.

Marriage should not be a legal exercise... it goes far deeper and for those who want more than just legal rights can have a marriage, religious, spiritual or otherwise.

Nope! You don't extend rights by taking the most important right in question away from everyone. And marriage is ultimately a contract and is just as much a "legal exercise" as any other contract.

Im honeslty not sure if this is shtick or not... marriage, in terms of having certain tax benefits or other legal remidies are not some constitutional nor god given "right" - like you state, it's a contract. So, if the gov't wants to extend certain rights/remedies/protections for couples, give them all the "right" to the same civil union. Then, it's not religious, moral, just business.

For those who want "Marriage" by all means, go to your Priest or Rabbi or Minister... that's not the gov'ts business and no individual "has" to marry a couple against their religion.

But if the gov't is giving out benies to couples, we can't be capricious and objectively, arbitrary about who is allowed to get those benefits and who can't.

Been saying this for a very long time. And about the only response I get in rebuttal that's somewhat reasonable is "that's too hard".

It's about acceptance and showing that a committed gay relationship has the same value as a committed straight relationship. And yes at this point marriage has become a de facto civil right.

I was married by a federal judge we still call it a marriage. As an atheist I am not required to submit my relationship for whichever sky gods approval and I still get to call it a marriage. No one pickets me. And despite the lack of involvement of religion we are still plugging along 26 years later.

 

[Koya]

Can't we just realize the best and probably only truely fair path is to get rid of gov't / civil marriage. Anyone can get the legal rights by having the govt acknowledge a civil union.

Marriage should not be a legal exercise... it goes far deeper and for those who want more than just legal rights can have a marriage, religious, spiritual or otherwise.

Nope! You don't extend rights by taking the most important right in question away from everyone. And marriage is ultimately a contract and is just as much a "legal exercise" as any other contract.

Im honeslty not sure if this is shtick or not... marriage, in terms of having certain tax benefits or other legal remidies are not some constitutional nor god given "right" - like you state, it's a contract. So, if the gov't wants to extend certain rights/remedies/protections for couples, give them all the "right" to the same civil union. Then, it's not religious, moral, just business.

For those who want "Marriage" by all means, go to your Priest or Rabbi or Minister... that's not the gov'ts business and no individual "has" to marry a couple against their religion.

But if the gov't is giving out benies to couples, we can't be capricious and objectively, arbitrary about who is allowed to get those benefits and who can't.

Been saying this for a very long time. And about the only response I get in rebuttal that's somewhat reasonable is "that's too hard".

I had always been against the civil union concept, because it was always presented to me (well, at least from what I did not miss) in conjunction with "regular" or "real" marriage. Different but you know, the same. So, the only option was marriage for all, and therefore no civil unions.

Recently, I realized its not about civil unions for the "gays" and some better marriage (but not better, its the same, just different) for others. Its that marriage is private and personal and dammit, gov't should stay the hell out.

Now, if the gov't is so bloated and overreaching in power that is will discriminate dependent upon whether you are single or with someone (even if you are some pathetic loser for whom the latter is not much an option), then grant some legal classification as civil unions, though I've stated why I don't believe this is in any way fair and equitable.

Gov't, please stay out. You are not wanted nor needed here. Really, you aren't. At all.

 

[Koya]

Can't we just realize the best and probably only truely fair path is to get rid of gov't / civil marriage. Anyone can get the legal rights by having the govt acknowledge a civil union.

Marriage should not be a legal exercise... it goes far deeper and for those who want more than just legal rights can have a marriage, religious, spiritual or otherwise.

Nope! You don't extend rights by taking the most important right in question away from everyone. And marriage is ultimately a contract and is just as much a "legal exercise" as any other contract.

Im honeslty not sure if this is shtick or not... marriage, in terms of having certain tax benefits or other legal remidies are not some constitutional nor god given "right" - like you state, it's a contract. So, if the gov't wants to extend certain rights/remedies/protections for couples, give them all the "right" to the same civil union. Then, it's not religious, moral, just business.

For those who want "Marriage" by all means, go to your Priest or Rabbi or Minister... that's not the gov'ts business and no individual "has" to marry a couple against their religion.

But if the gov't is giving out benies to couples, we can't be capricious and objectively, arbitrary about who is allowed to get those benefits and who can't.

Been saying this for a very long time. And about the only response I get in rebuttal that's somewhat reasonable is "that's too hard".

It's about acceptance and showing that a committed gay relationship has the same value as a committed straight relationship. And yes at this point marriage has become a de facto civil right.

I was married by a federal judge we still call it a marriage. As an atheist I am not required to submit my relationship for whichever sky gods approval and I still get to call it a marriage. No one pickets me. And despite the lack of involvement of religion we are still plugging along 26 years later.

I agree with you here... but why do you need the gov't to say you are married? It's not that gov't should give marriage to some but not all. It shouldn't be involved whatsoever.

That's a civil matter, imo and therefore should be handled in the private realm.

Now, if gov't insists on inequitably giving certain rights and protections to some who are in a committed one on one relationship, much as that seems, well, not really right, call it civil union. Cause marriage, imo, is more important and, again, private.

 

[fatness]

http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/714136/more-magistrates-quit-over-same-sex-marriage-issue-than-previously-reported/

Last month, a federal judge cleared the way for same-sex marriages in North Carolina, prompting the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to direct magistrates. They are required by law to perform the wedding ceremonies, if asked.AOC reports between that ruling on Oct. 10 and the end of the month, 16 magistrates left their jobs, but the state wouldn't release why they left.

"I explained to the judges that I could not continue to perform as a magistrate if it included doing something that was against my sincere religious beliefs," Kallam said at a rally supporting his decision to quit his job.

"I felt like to perform same sex unions would be in violation of the Lord's commands so I couldn't do that," said former Gaston Co. Magistrate Bill Stevenson after his resignation.

Time Warner Cable News has been able to determine at least 10 of the 16 magistrates who left last month, did so because they will not perform same-sex marriages.

Good. Hopefully there will be more rallies to support more magistrates resigning over this. Poor widdle magiswates.

 

[NCCommish]

http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/714136/more-magistrates-quit-over-same-sex-marriage-issue-than-previously-reported/

Last month, a federal judge cleared the way for same-sex marriages in North Carolina, prompting the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to direct magistrates. They are required by law to perform the wedding ceremonies, if asked.AOC reports between that ruling on Oct. 10 and the end of the month, 16 magistrates left their jobs, but the state wouldn't release why they left.

"I explained to the judges that I could not continue to perform as a magistrate if it included doing something that was against my sincere religious beliefs," Kallam said at a rally supporting his decision to quit his job.

"I felt like to perform same sex unions would be in violation of the Lord's commands so I couldn't do that," said former Gaston Co. Magistrate Bill Stevenson after his resignation.

Time Warner Cable News has been able to determine at least 10 of the 16 magistrates who left last month, did so because they will not perform same-sex marriages.

Good. Hopefully there will be more rallies to support more magistrates resigning over this. Poor widdle magiswates.

I'll be glad to do it.

Guess I'll have to see what the magistrate requirements are. I'm already ordained.

 

[NCCommish]

Can't we just realize the best and probably only truely fair path is to get rid of gov't / civil marriage. Anyone can get the legal rights by having the govt acknowledge a civil union.

Marriage should not be a legal exercise... it goes far deeper and for those who want more than just legal rights can have a marriage, religious, spiritual or otherwise.

Nope! You don't extend rights by taking the most important right in question away from everyone. And marriage is ultimately a contract and is just as much a "legal exercise" as any other contract.

Im honeslty not sure if this is shtick or not... marriage, in terms of having certain tax benefits or other legal remidies are not some constitutional nor god given "right" - like you state, it's a contract. So, if the gov't wants to extend certain rights/remedies/protections for couples, give them all the "right" to the same civil union. Then, it's not religious, moral, just business.

For those who want "Marriage" by all means, go to your Priest or Rabbi or Minister... that's not the gov'ts business and no individual "has" to marry a couple against their religion.

But if the gov't is giving out benies to couples, we can't be capricious and objectively, arbitrary about who is allowed to get those benefits and who can't.

Been saying this for a very long time. And about the only response I get in rebuttal that's somewhat reasonable is "that's too hard".

It's about acceptance and showing that a committed gay relationship has the same value as a committed straight relationship. And yes at this point marriage has become a de facto civil right.

I was married by a federal judge we still call it a marriage. As an atheist I am not required to submit my relationship for whichever sky gods approval and I still get to call it a marriage. No one pickets me. And despite the lack of involvement of religion we are still plugging along 26 years later.

I agree with you here... but why do you need the gov't to say you are married? It's not that gov't should give marriage to some but not all. It shouldn't be involved whatsoever.

That's a civil matter, imo and therefore should be handled in the private realm.

Now, if gov't insists on inequitably giving certain rights and protections to some who are in a committed one on one relationship, much as that seems, well, not really right, call it civil union. Cause marriage, imo, is more important and, again, private.

I don't need them or a priest or a rabbi to say I am married. But we live in a civil society. Within that society words have meanings and convey societal acceptance. Marriage is one of those words.It was one of those words for interracial couples as well.

 

[Koya]

http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/714136/more-magistrates-quit-over-same-sex-marriage-issue-than-previously-reported/

Last month, a federal judge cleared the way for same-sex marriages in North Carolina, prompting the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to direct magistrates. They are required by law to perform the wedding ceremonies, if asked.AOC reports between that ruling on Oct. 10 and the end of the month, 16 magistrates left their jobs, but the state wouldn't release why they left.

"I explained to the judges that I could not continue to perform as a magistrate if it included doing something that was against my sincere religious beliefs," Kallam said at a rally supporting his decision to quit his job.

"I felt like to perform same sex unions would be in violation of the Lord's commands so I couldn't do that," said former Gaston Co. Magistrate Bill Stevenson after his resignation.

Time Warner Cable News has been able to determine at least 10 of the 16 magistrates who left last month, did so because they will not perform same-sex marriages.

Good. Hopefully there will be more rallies to support more magistrates resigning over this. Poor widdle magiswates.

My knee jerk reaction is to agree with you. Then I realized, much as I might abhor those who might actually resign over this, they are entitled to their religious views. Just as if you are a clergyman and you feel that it should be prohibited to marry an interracial couple, you should have that right as well, if we are talking about marriage as religious. To them, marriage is sacred and they should not be forced to go against their religion. Hell, if the KKK is allowed to (and SHOULD be allowed to) certain rights and freedoms, so should clergy or folk who don't want to reside over a ceremony that, to them, is far more than just hard legal realities.

Don't intermingle gov't legal rights of marriage AND the religious / ceremonial / spiritual / other meanings of marriage.

Gov't can give the former via a union and folks can get their religious / other bonds of marriage in the private realm.

 

[NCCommish]

http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/714136/more-magistrates-quit-over-same-sex-marriage-issue-than-previously-reported/

Last month, a federal judge cleared the way for same-sex marriages in North Carolina, prompting the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to direct magistrates. They are required by law to perform the wedding ceremonies, if asked.AOC reports between that ruling on Oct. 10 and the end of the month, 16 magistrates left their jobs, but the state wouldn't release why they left.

"I explained to the judges that I could not continue to perform as a magistrate if it included doing something that was against my sincere religious beliefs," Kallam said at a rally supporting his decision to quit his job.

"I felt like to perform same sex unions would be in violation of the Lord's commands so I couldn't do that," said former Gaston Co. Magistrate Bill Stevenson after his resignation.

Time Warner Cable News has been able to determine at least 10 of the 16 magistrates who left last month, did so because they will not perform same-sex marriages.

Good. Hopefully there will be more rallies to support more magistrates resigning over this. Poor widdle magiswates.

My knee jerk reaction is to agree with you. Then I realized, much as I might abhor those who might actually resign over this, they are entitled to their religious views. Just as if you are a clergyman and you feel that it should be prohibited to marry an interracial couple, you should have that right as well, if we are talking about marriage as religious. To them, marriage is sacred and they should not be forced to go against their religion. Hell, if the KKK is allowed to (and SHOULD be allowed to) certain rights and freedoms, so should clergy or folk who don't want to reside over a ceremony that, to them, is far more than just hard legal realities.

Don't intermingle gov't legal rights of marriage AND the religious / ceremonial / spiritual / other meanings of marriage.

Gov't can give the former via a union and folks can get their religious / other bonds of marriage in the private realm.

If you are a civil official you don't get to pick and choose. You either follow the law or move on. You don't get to view the law through your personal prism and act accordingly.

 

[Koya]

Can't we just realize the best and probably only truely fair path is to get rid of gov't / civil marriage. Anyone can get the legal rights by having the govt acknowledge a civil union.

Marriage should not be a legal exercise... it goes far deeper and for those who want more than just legal rights can have a marriage, religious, spiritual or otherwise.

Nope! You don't extend rights by taking the most important right in question away from everyone. And marriage is ultimately a contract and is just as much a "legal exercise" as any other contract.

Im honeslty not sure if this is shtick or not... marriage, in terms of having certain tax benefits or other legal remidies are not some constitutional nor god given "right" - like you state, it's a contract. So, if the gov't wants to extend certain rights/remedies/protections for couples, give them all the "right" to the same civil union. Then, it's not religious, moral, just business.

For those who want "Marriage" by all means, go to your Priest or Rabbi or Minister... that's not the gov'ts business and no individual "has" to marry a couple against their religion.

But if the gov't is giving out benies to couples, we can't be capricious and objectively, arbitrary about who is allowed to get those benefits and who can't.

Been saying this for a very long time. And about the only response I get in rebuttal that's somewhat reasonable is "that's too hard".

It's about acceptance and showing that a committed gay relationship has the same value as a committed straight relationship. And yes at this point marriage has become a de facto civil right.

I was married by a federal judge we still call it a marriage. As an atheist I am not required to submit my relationship for whichever sky gods approval and I still get to call it a marriage. No one pickets me. And despite the lack of involvement of religion we are still plugging along 26 years later.

I agree with you here... but why do you need the gov't to say you are married? It's not that gov't should give marriage to some but not all. It shouldn't be involved whatsoever.

That's a civil matter, imo and therefore should be handled in the private realm.

Now, if gov't insists on inequitably giving certain rights and protections to some who are in a committed one on one relationship, much as that seems, well, not really right, call it civil union. Cause marriage, imo, is more important and, again, private.

I don't need them or a priest or a rabbi to say I am married. But we live in a civil society. Within that society words have meanings and convey societal acceptance. Marriage is one of those words.It was one of those words for interracial couples as well.

I don't disagree at all. But gov't should still remain out of the marriage game.

In a civil society that respects true religious freedom, you should neither have laws that do not grant equal rights to all (i.e. a gay couple not allowed to marry and therefore inheritance or medical visitation can be denied) NOR should you have laws that "force" someone to grant a status that in their religion, outside of any legal benefits, is not allowed.

Want legal protections / tax benefits etc? Gov't involved. Everyone treated equal.

Want a historical institution that to some represents submission, to others an eternal bond and to others yet a relationship of dedicated equals? Let religious and secular but non-governmental realms take care of that.