Recommended Posts
JohnnyD 0
Quote
I in no way claim that I am right on this topic but, it is the way I believe this should be looked at. I feel gays, if they want to be life partners, should be looked at legally the same as a married man and woman. What I really don’t understand is why it has to be marriage.
That is why I feel that pushing to call it marriage is an attack on religious institution and belief. And congress shall make no law…….. And if they recognize the couples the same under the law then no discrimination is being seen.
Hope this clarifies where I come from. Again, don’t know if I am right, it is just what I believe
As far as I know (and I may be wrong about this) you don't go to city hall and get a legal union license. You get a marriage license. That is what mine says right on the top. Maybe if we change the name of the license for everyone to a legal union license it would be sufficient to satisfy both sides. If the union is presided over by some religious figure in a church, you have a traditional marriage ceremony. If your ceremony is in Vegas by Elvis or in freefall by me (price of a jump ticket only ) the ceremony itself is called something else, but the legal part of it is exactly the same.
Requirements for the legal union would be two people of legal age to enter into the legal union. Gender has no discriminatory basis.
Seems rational to me.
billvon 2,471
People get bent out of shape by language they don't like, and they pass laws concerning it. The only "hate speech" that should be covered by any laws, IMO, are:
1) Causing a panic (i.e. yelling "fire!" in an airplane)
2) Libel (i.e. saying "those three black guys are rapists!")
3) Inciting violence (i.e. "let's go hang us some whiteys!")
Amazon 7
QuoteThe term “marriage” is found throughout Judeo-Christian writings going back for many years. Primarily it is found in the Bible. The term, as it is seen in the Bible is defined as a holy union between one man and one woman. It is a contract put in place under “God”. For some reason the state has recognized this term for that and has given it legal standing.
Were people getting "married" before the Jewish or Christian Bible?
rushmc 18
Quote>>You currently have the right to marry anyone you love and want to spend the
>>rest of your life with. Do you think gays should have that right as well?
> I have stated that gays should be allowed to be couples . . .
If you cannot answer "yes" to that question, then you want to deny others the rights that you have.
I can help it that you frame questions that can not be answered in a correct context, So please stop putting words in my mouth and lying about my position.
So no, I do not
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
tigra 0
QuoteQuoteThe term “marriage” is found throughout Judeo-Christian writings going back for many years. Primarily it is found in the Bible. The term, as it is seen in the Bible is defined as a holy union between one man and one woman. It is a contract put in place under “God”. For some reason the state has recognized this term for that and has given it legal standing.
Were people getting "married" before the Jewish or Christian Bible?
Yes they were- for reasons far more practical than religion.
QuoteYou got me to thinking about this. So it is your fault I woke up at 3 AM this morning thinking about this.
The term “marriage” is found throughout Judeo-Christian writings going back for many years. Primarily it is found in the Bible. The term, as it is seen in the Bible is defined as a holy union between one man and one woman. It is a contract put in place under “God”. For some reason the state has recognized this term for that and has given it legal standing.
Now, I see no reason that any two people can be seen as couples that have legal standing under law either but, I feel that saying they can be married is establishing law regarding religion based on what I posted above.
Now, you brought up the church’s that allow gay marriage within their walls. I submit that they operate under the same writings as the rest of the churches, and doing so goes against the very documents that were used when those churches were founded. I think they have the right to do so if they choose but, they still have not and can not change the writings by which they have been governed and are doing so on their own. So, while this is an example it really does not back up the assertion that marriage of gays should be allowed. I feel they are going against the foundations of that church. Again, it is their choice.
Another example raised was that of two atheists being married. Well, you may want to say whether or not the term marriage should apply by, they fall under the definition and I feel it is they that are lying to themselves or their God. (By the way, Atheism is a religion too. It is the atheists that attack the Judeo-Christian church’s more regularly than the other way around).
I in no way claim that I am right on this topic but, it is the way I believe this should be looked at. I feel gays, if they want to be life partners, should be looked at legally the same as a married man and woman. What I really don’t understand is why it has to be marriage.
That is why I feel that pushing to call it marriage is an attack on religious institution and belief. And congress shall make no law…….. And if they recognize the couples the same under the law then no discrimination is being seen.
Hope this clarifies where I come from. Again, don’t know if I am right, it is just what I believe
I mostly agree that saying they can be married is a law respecting an establishment of religion, however I also feel that saying they cannot be married is a law respecting an establishment of religion. The thing is, this ship has already sailed. There are already tons of references to marriage (an establishment of religion) in existing laws. So, the option in California was to either enact a constitutional amendment FURTHER respecting an establishment of religion in order to prohibit gays from availing themselves of it, or have the government remain silent on the issue and not make ANOTHER law respecting an establishment of religion. The effect of not making such a law would have been to let the equal protection clauses allow gay and straight people to practice their religions as they see fit.
Would you also support a constitutional amendment banning gays from baptism? Or mormons from bar mitzvahs?
Blues,
Dave
(drink Mountain Dew)
billvon 2,471
You want to be able to marry. You do not want gays to be able to marry. You have stated that yourself. Take it up with RushMC if you don't like what that says about you.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteYou got me to thinking about this. So it is your fault I woke up at 3 AM this morning thinking about this.
The term “marriage” is found throughout Judeo-Christian writings going back for many years. Primarily it is found in the Bible. The term, as it is seen in the Bible is defined as a holy union between one man and one woman. It is a contract put in place under “God”. For some reason the state has recognized this term for that and has given it legal standing.
Now, I see no reason that any two people can be seen as couples that have legal standing under law either but, I feel that saying they can be married is establishing law regarding religion based on what I posted above.
Now, you brought up the church’s that allow gay marriage within their walls. I submit that they operate under the same writings as the rest of the churches, and doing so goes against the very documents that were used when those churches were founded. I think they have the right to do so if they choose but, they still have not and can not change the writings by which they have been governed and are doing so on their own. So, while this is an example it really does not back up the assertion that marriage of gays should be allowed. I feel they are going against the foundations of that church. Again, it is their choice.
Another example raised was that of two atheists being married. Well, you may want to say whether or not the term marriage should apply by, they fall under the definition and I feel it is they that are lying to themselves or their God. (By the way, Atheism is a religion too. It is the atheists that attack the Judeo-Christian church’s more regularly than the other way around).
I in no way claim that I am right on this topic but, it is the way I believe this should be looked at. I feel gays, if they want to be life partners, should be looked at legally the same as a married man and woman. What I really don’t understand is why it has to be marriage.
That is why I feel that pushing to call it marriage is an attack on religious institution and belief. And congress shall make no law…….. And if they recognize the couples the same under the law then no discrimination is being seen.
Hope this clarifies where I come from. Again, don’t know if I am right, it is just what I believe
I mostly agree that saying they can be married is a law respecting an establishment of religion, however I also feel that saying they cannot be married is a law respecting an establishment of religion. The thing is, this ship has already sailed. There are already tons of references to marriage (an establishment of religion) in existing laws. So, the option in California was to either enact a constitutional amendment FURTHER respecting an establishment of religion in order to prohibit gays from availing themselves of it, or have the government remain silent on the issue and not make ANOTHER law respecting an establishment of religion. The effect of not making such a law would have been to let the equal protection clauses allow gay and straight people to practice their religions as they see fit.
Would you also support a constitutional amendment banning gays from baptism? Or mormons from bar mitzvahs?
Blues,
Dave
To answer your question, no. No more that I would support an amendment saying they have to be allowed.
Seeing where you are headed though requires I say the following. IF judges interfeared as they are with the gay marriage thing, then I would consider it again
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
there are several (i've heard the number 20 bandied about, but i haven't had time to research them all myself) laws on the california books that contain the term "marriage" or "married" when referring to legal rights for couples. They do NOT say "civil union", "legal union", "domestic partner" or anything else. they say "married".
What is GOING to happen (all hail the almighty dollar) is that some insurance firm is going to attempt to deny a gay partner coverage based on the fact that they aren't "married" in the eyes of the laws that cover non-discrimination for those types of companies and policies. And you know what? under current CA law, and proposition 8, they would be allowed to do that. How many lawsuits are won and lost on the basis of semantics alone?
Now tell me, for PRACTICAL reasons, which is less costly, time consuming, and downright easier: Changing, repealing, or rewriting 20 laws, or changing one?
All religion and "morality" aside, in a very practical sense, until every single law that uses the term "marriage" is rewritten or repealed, taking away the right of gays to "marry" IS taking away their legal rights to many of the privileges that being "married" affords people.
I'd fall over dead the day i see the Mormon church spending $75million to get all those laws changed. Never happen. Because at the core of their support and the support of many of the people who funded prop 8 is the fact that they think gay people are wrong, bad, or unnatural and don't deserve the rights and happiness that "normal" people (meaning, people just ike them) have.
kallend 1,679
QuoteQuoteThe term “marriage” is found throughout Judeo-Christian writings going back for many years. Primarily it is found in the Bible. The term, as it is seen in the Bible is defined as a holy union between one man and one woman. It is a contract put in place under “God”. For some reason the state has recognized this term for that and has given it legal standing.
Were people getting "married" before the Jewish or Christian Bible?
Hindus marry. Buddhists marry. Taoists marry. Zoroastrians marry...
In each case the word is used to describe heterosexual partnerships.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
>>rest of your life with. Do you think gays should have that right as well?
> I have stated that gays should be allowed to be couples . . .
If you cannot answer "yes" to that question, then you want to deny others the rights that you have.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites