Is there really a significant risk that there will be a "anti-gay" amendment to the constitution?

A federal law against same sex marriges is one thing. I'm against it of course, but hey. It's just a law. But making it part of the constitution? In my ears, that sounds like spitting on every ideal that America ever had any reason to be proud of.

Adding anything like "we don't like gays", "we don't like niggers" or "we don't like moslems" to the constitution is a horrific idea.

I personally don't think the risk is real. In the past, attempts to enshrine christian morality into the constitution have ended badly (see prohibition) and people remember it. I certainly would not support a constitutional amendment for that purpose.

Its more complicated than that.

Both sides have elevated this into a real constitutional crisis. The problem is that a conflict between the legislative and judical branches created in Massachusetts.
What is supposed to be is a system of checks and balances doesnt let any of the branches have dominance over the others. The Massachusetts Supreme Court broke this fragile balance. What they did was ORDER the Mass. Legislature to change its constitution to allow for gay marriage. In the past the court has never ordered legislation. It has merely ruled on the constitutionality of laws presented before it.
So now what?
What is the nature of Laws? Laws are a reflection of the values and traditions of society for the most part. What is important to us. What do we cherish and what do we hold dear? Who we are and where we come from. This is why we are a Representive Democracy. We elect lawmakers who reflect the things we want and can REPRESENT our values.
Judges who decide for themselves what is right and wrong, and try to engage in social engineering from the bench are a cancer to our Democracy. There is NOTHING we can do about it.. Judges are appointed for Life tenures and removing one is almost an impossible action. Now we have a judge ordering a legislature to create laws and change the constitution?

I dont like a amendement to the constitution to exclude anyone from anything.. The constitution has NEVER been a limiting document. It shouldnt be now. But society and who we are as a people should NEVER be defined by the wishes of a person or a small group of people, who answer to nobody, who think they know what is good for everyone.

elevated this into a real constitutional crisis

Well, I don't think we're there yet.

And I'm very annoyed that such a small group can turn this into such a big issue.

There is a big difference between a state constitution and the US constitution. If it were a federal judge ordering the change, then it would be a national constitutional crises. As it is, it seems to be limited to Massachusetts and ,so far, is a state issue.

With the exception that this is happening in California, but on a smaller scale in San Francisco. The legal issues brought forth here are going to be resounding. A constituitional change would in effect be defining a class of invididual as something and thereby creating a huge mess.

If judges would stop making up new laws, we wouldn't have this problem.

Congress' attempt to limit free speech via the FCC seems to also be somewhat alarming, tho it really has not created the debate I thought it might in a country that valuse its freedom of speech so much. Its likely all pre election brovato. Lets hope.

I never thought I would see a day where the airwaves in Canada were more liberal than those of the US. This is not at all a shot. The freedoms fought for in the US and protected in the US constitution are a foundation for many other countries and it is scarry to see them in my opinion errode.

Due process for American citizens found to be enemy combatants was the first real thing that cought my attention and its kind of kept going from there.

The attempted reopening of the Supreme Court ruling in the Roe vs Wade (not sure of exact name) seems to also be alarming. CNN reported that a lower court is hearing arguments to alter the Supreme Court Ruling. It would seem in the current political/religous climate, even final decisions may not be final. Most seemed conviced it would go nowhere but the chance that it might is aparently causing some concern.

I could be way off and misinterpreting. If I am I appologiaze up front but these are some of the impressions I have of late.

Adding anything like "we don't like gays", "we don't like niggers" or "we don't like moslems" to the constitution is a horrific idea.

I really think it's a bit more complicated than just not liking them.


I for one am more concerned with marriage becoming a joke and being abused than anything else.


I can sit here and name 100's of ways 2 long term friends could buck the system by getting married and collecting on benefits.

I know you can do it now with a female(if you're male),but it would be a LOT easier to do it with same sex friend and just keep it quiet.

I for one am more concerned with marriage becoming a joke and being abused than anything else.
It isn't far from that now but not because of fags. I would like to see marriage become more important to everyone. I don't think gay marriage would hurt anything obviously but straight people don't take their own marriages as seriously as they should right now. Stopping gay marriage isn't going to fix that. You cant force values on a nation if it doesn't have them instinctually anyway. Single parents, multiple step fathers etc .. this stuff is already going on and its not healthy.

People need to stop being so damn selfish and worry about their kids. Relationships are hard and you gotta work at it. Love is only the beginning. Until people start doing that marriage is doomed.

In conclusion Im not a fan of changing the constitution. I think Im pretty conservative. The founding fathers had the right idea and we dont need more things that we cant do.

California's Governor needs to step up and deal with San Francisco. Regardless of the gay issue he needs to apply the state laws and enforce them.

Judges who decide for themselves what is right and wrong, and try to engage in social engineering from the bench
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a judge that doesn't meet those criteria. Especially outside of large cities.
I for one am more concerned with marriage becoming a joke and being abused than anything else.
Like being married by Elvis in Vegas, while drunk, to someone you just met? Old news. Marriage is already a joke, on a daily basis. It's only as serious as the people involved, regardless of gender or whatever else.

It's only as serious as the people involved, regardless of gender or whatever else.
Amen.

Its interesting and semi reassuring that even people who oppose gay marriage are not as open to the constitutional change.

Edina, You do not live here. What is the law of the land in your country?

I know you can do it now with a female(if you're male),but it would be a LOT easier to do it with same sex friend and just keep it quiet.

Why would it be easier with the same sex? And why would anyone bother? As a heterosexual man, I wouldn't want any woman to have the benefits of being my wife, unless I truly loved her. And I sure as hell wouldn't ever get married to a man just for the giggles.

Either way, if we look at tradition, then marrige for love is a rather new thing. Traditionally it was a practical alliance between two families. A arrangement with the woman's father and the man or the mans father. Emotion had very little to do with it. But that was a long time ago, and is now very rare even among heterosexuals. I strongly doubt that such a system would ever develop with gays.

Here's a good parody, btw.
www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1 (http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1)

Edina, You do not live here. What is the law of the land in your country?

Edeina, please. Edina is some bitchy grandmother in some soap opera, and most definitly neither a highelf, nor a mage. ;)

Anyway...
Sweden have civil unions since several years. It's marrige in everything but name. And everyone seem to agree that "registrated partnership" doesn't sound very romantic at all, so it's about to get merged into the system for heterosexual, making it one single orientation-neutral marrige law.

You know, the funny part about this is that the religious right is gonna get all excited and not even realize that Bush and Karl Rove are manipulating them for votes.

I don't know that you need to manipulate the religious right to get them to vote Republican. The two camps have been in a reach around relationship for years now.

The key is getting them out to vote. In this, both parties will be putting out the call.

The constitution has NEVER been a limiting document.

Are you kidding? The constitution has ALWAYS been a limiting document. That's what it does. Amendment 13, for example, takes away the "fundamental" right to own slaves. It's hard to find any part of the constitution that doesn't place limits.

I for one am more concerned with marriage becoming a joke and being abused than anything else.

My next door neighbor just kicked out her 4th husband,and married her 5th...all within a few months.If thats not taking marriage as a joke or abusing it,I don't know what is.


It isn't far from that now but not because of fags. I would like to see marriage become more important to everyone. I don't think gay marriage would hurt anything obviously but straight people don't take their own marriages as seriously as they should right now. Stopping gay marriage isn't going to fix that. You cant force values on a nation if it doesn't have them instinctually anyway. Single parents, multiple step fathers etc .. this stuff is already going on and its not healthy.

Couldn't agree with that any more!I wish more people would take their own marriages seriously,rather then worry what the world will come to if we allow people of the same sex to marry.

Why would it be easier with the same sex? And why would anyone bother? As a heterosexual man, I wouldn't want any woman to have the benefits of being my wife, unless I truly loved her. And I sure as hell wouldn't ever get married to a man just for the giggles.


It is my opinion that 2 guy friends or 2 girl friends would be more likely to get hitched for the benefit of bucking the system.


Why would anyone bother?I'm not sure how it is where you live,but a married couple in America gets countless benefits and breaks that single people do not get.

They get financial aid benefits,tax breaks,insurance breaks,housing help,medical insurance at a MUCH cheaper "family" rate etc etc etc.


There are countless reasons for 2 room mates (usually same sex) to get married and reap benefits from the government.

/shrug,it's just something that i think about.I could be blowing it out of proportion.


Two college buds having financial difficulties having this option,they'd be picking out cakes! :)

It's been about 10 years for me being married. Can you remind me of these benefits:

married couple in America gets countless benefits and breaks that single people do not get.


I forget what it was like single but man being married with no children as of yet I seem to be missing these countless benefits that I never recieved when I was single either...or I could be just used to them by now which is why I am asking.

Not sure for USA, but you get benefits for being married in France if you have children and/or if your husband/wife doesn't work or is "income tax free".

Others for those cases... Same as 2 single persons, afaik.

I forget what it was like single but man being married with no children as of yet I seem to be missing these countless benefits that I never recieved when I was single either...or I could be just used to them by now which is why I am asking.


Heres a few of em. :)



Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

There's TONS and TONS more.

Access to Military Stores
Not in Military doesnt apply to me.

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
My pension is willable to anyone I put down on the paper

Bereavement Leave
Mom dies need time off has nothing to do with being married

Immigration
Got me there marry, can stay

Insurance Breaks
Got me there..nice having cheap car insurance while being
married use to be $180.00 (bad driver ) down to 300 for 6 months on 3 vehicles..also has a lot to do with multi car owner and house insurance though.

Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Legal document can take care of that.

Sick Leave to Care for Partner
If you were not married you wouldnt have a partner to take care of..doesnt apply to single people.

Social Security Survivor Benefits
This is true. Not sure how this would benefit in the situation you stated though..2 college kids looking for some martial benefits? Talking retirement age here bud.

Tax Breaks
Double income no kids...not much of a break imo. Although why would we need a break as well...just because im married I should get a tax break? na

Veteran’s Discounts
Once again applys to military personal only

Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Visitation is prison is by invite only. The prisoner doesnt put you on the list you cant visit them if your GOD. Hospital..once again legal document will take care of that.

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Who ever you put down as beneficiary gets. Could be my best friend.

Think you had some double posting but anyways you get the picture.
While posting and commenting on those benefits you listed I was keeping this in mind reallY:

Two college buds having financial difficulties having this option,they'd be picking out cakes!


Don't see to much for them to gain in that situation at all really. Thanks though for digging up and posting what you did.

Legal document can take care of that.

You must be wrong. Teh Ghey Peeps tell me that they need marriage to solve all of this.

LOL,you asked what are SOME benefits.
If you want specifics,just ask for them.

edeina, you state that sweden has civil unions, the same as marriage except in name. The proposed amendment here wouldn't make civil unions against the law, just marriage in name only. Many companies already recognize civil unions in the States.

Christianity also isn't the only religion that states that marriage is between a man and a woman, just because dubya is a chistian and desires this, doesn't mean that it's only christians that think this is an appropriate measure.

I honestly don't know where I stand on the issue, as a heterosexual, married male, this doesn't really affect me that much. I don't agree with gay marriage, just think it's rather odd(no i'm not a christian so don't brand me that), but I don't know if I support something as large as a Constitutional amendment for it. I believe it should be up to the states to decide this matter.

>>Assumption of Spouse’s Pension

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this benefit if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?

>>Automatic Inheritance

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Automatic Housing Lease Transfer

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Bereavement Leave

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Burial Determination

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Child Custody

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Divorce Protections

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Domestic Violence Protection

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Insurance Breaks

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Joint Adoption and Foster Care

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Joint Bankruptcy

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Certain Property Rights

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Reduced Rate Memberships

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?


>>Sick Leave to Care for Partner

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?

>>Visitation of Partner’s Children

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?

>>Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?

>>Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?

You must be wrong. Teh Ghey Peeps tell me that they need marriage to solve all of this.
Like I said in earlier posts I can approximate most of the marriage rights with other documents but I need to have them on me at the time and the hospital can challange it. We get in a car accident in Utah and I dont have 300 pieces of paper on me and I cant visit him.

Durable Power of Attorney is the document Ibudin is refering to. It gives you the right to make decisions for someone else and write checks for them.

>>"but I don't know if I support something as large as a Constitutional amendment for it. I believe it should be up to the states to decide this matter."

Letting the states decide for themselves sounds like a exelent idea. A federal law against gay marrige would be a very bad idea indeed. But it wouldn't be appaling, like a constitution amendment would.

There have been a lot of very serious bullshit from the whitehouse these last few years. Quite frankly, I find the whole thing extremely alarming. I don't think turning the very constitution into a mockery would be the last step.

I'll pick a random one....


>>Insurance Breaks

Could someone tell me why it's so important that monogamous couples don't get this "benefit" if they happen to be of the same sex? And would you really want someone who is actually just a friend to share this benefit with you?

Same answer we've given before that you probably didn't like. Spend 5k or 10k years showing that monogamous gay/lesbian couples and the children they produce (hmmm...) are important to society.

www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1 (http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1)

To suggest it should be left up to the states ignores the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. No state can vote against gay marriage if another state (Mass.) votes in favor of it.

In light of the heavy passage of Defense of Marriage Act in the US Congress and in many states, the hullaballo over the Amendment is *probably* bigger than it would actually be.

To say Bush is forcing his right wing agenda on the rest of the country also ignores the fact that the Left can't get their agenda passed except through 3 or 4 APPOINTED judges on some state supreme court. The Amendment will be the ultimate recourse for states to flex their rights.

Up until this year, a married couple that both work got no tax break at all, to get the tax break you had to have kids and only 1 of you could work. otherwise you got fuked over by the government if you both worked due to their special version of tax code. I could explain the basics of it if anyone wants to know.

Letting the states decide for themselves sounds like a exelent idea. A federal law against gay marrige would be a very bad idea indeed. But it wouldn't be appaling, like a constitution amendment would.


Good grief Edeina you really have no understanding of our Constitution do you? A Constitutional amendment is "the states deciding for themselves" A federal law/judicial fiat/etc. is appaling precisely because it is NOT the states deciding for themselves.

There are certain legal benefits of being married that can be approximated by having legal papers drawn up. For instance, giving your personal property to a partner, control over your medical care.

There are lots that you can't get. For instance a spouse inherits the personal property, insurance, etc from their other spouse tax free.

The situation of children gets really messy. You can have legal papers drawn up to give custody to the other spouse, however, those can (and have been) challenged by other family members. Generally speaking, unless you are incompetent, or a really bad person a spouse would not loose custody of their child.

To me the scary thing is that the US Constitution and its amendments generally spells out what your rights are and what the government can't do you. This is setting a new a bad precedent.

At the very least, let the states decide. They have had the authority to define and regulate marriage for the last 200+ years and it seems to be working. If there is an amendment to the US constitution like that which is being discussed now there will be no choose for the states or anyone else if 2/3 of the state legislatures ratify it.

Why is it that the republicans are all for "less government" and personal choose unless you choose to choose something that they don't like?

This is setting a new a bad precedent.
So is using 4 judges to get an agenda passed.

let the states decide.
Four judges in Massachusetts did that for all the other states, due to full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. Give one state "rights" and all the other states have to do the same.

And having 2/3rds of both houses of Congresss and 3/4ths of the states ratifying an Amendment is alot more democratic than having 4 judges in one state set an agenda.

Why is it that the republicans are all for "less government" and personal choose unless you choose to choose something that they don't like?
Why can't the left pass their agenda through Congress?

States rights were just something the conservatives were touting because it could undermine what they viewed as a liberal hold on Washington. Unfortunately, that sword cuts both ways.

The only liberal hold on anything is one on liberal activist judges making up new laws.

I thought that congress passed a law that said no state has to recognize another states same sex marriage. As I recall this happened after Hawaii made it legal.

I'm not saying I agree with that, but I thought it happened.

New law made up as an interpretation of the Constitution by a couple of judges is greater than a silly weak law passed by our elected Congress.

With all this ignorance, it's no wonder there are so many liberals in the world.

This is setting a new a bad precedent.
So is using 4 judges to get an agenda passed.
As opposed to the agenda of discrimination the President and religious right hope to add to the Constitution.

Why is it that the republicans are all for "less government" and personal choose unless you choose to choose something that they don't like?
Because the religious right controls the Republican party and considers it their prerogative to legislate morality according to their extreme Christian agenda.

Why can't the left pass their agenda through Congress?
Because the religious right successfully preys on the fears of their consituency, especially with an issue such as this. Homosexual marriage won't affect them at all, but the religious right equates it to the destruction of America. The ignorant react wonderfully to such hyperbole.

The only liberal hold on anything is one on liberal activist judges making up new laws.
First of all, the Constitution as a whole is generally extremely vague for this exact reason. The writers knew that as times changed, adaptions to laws would be made, and such interpretations and adaptions were placed in the hands of the judicial branch. Saying that the idea of the laws being interpretted by Judges is somehow wrong is absurd, but perhaps you can explain another way that the laws have arrived at where they are? Sure Congress passes them and puts them into effect, but the courts can always override them based on constitutionality. The only step beyond that to override the courts is appealing to the highest courts, after which, if no success is met, a Constitutional Amendment can be passed to override the abilities of the Judicial branch to decide. Until that point, the courts do have every right to interpret an open constitution and current laws for constitutionality.



With all this ignorance, it's no wonder there are so many liberals in the world.
Oh the irony. Just curious, but are you ready to discuss this "God" you put so much of your belief and justification into? Or do you just wanna... you know, duck out like before? Just let me know, ok? If so, just define "God" for me real quick so we can begin, because until then, he/she/it does not exist as a viable justification for anything.

Oh the irony. Just curious, but are you ready to discuss this "God" you put so much of your belief and justification into? Or do you just wanna... you know, duck out like before? Just let me know, ok? If so, just define "God" for me real quick so we can begin, because until then, he/she/it does not exist as a viable justification for anything.

God is a omnipotent American Heterosexual White Male who believe in George Bush and the Moral Majority, and who will make everyone who don't share this faith of his burn in boiling feces in hell for ever and ever and ever. Remember that on election day.

Your just jealous Edeina that on election day you will have no say or pull electing the most powerful leader in the world.


Ibudin

their extreme Christian agenda.
We're both a majority, and we're extreme. The same "moral majority" that founded this country.

But now we're suddenly extreme, like an Islamic extremist perhaps? The same correlation, we strap belts of explosives onto our kids to pass our agenda. "Jesus saves! But watch out for junior, he may blow up his school if you don't let him pray to God in class."

Fuck off with your condescencion and bigotry.

Fuck off with your condescencion and bigotry.
Oh, the hypocrisy! Based solely on your religious beliefs you wish to discriminate against a significant portion of the country's citizenry, and I'm the bigot? "Because my god doesn't want you to," and I'm condescending? Just when I thought you couldn't get any more laughable in the expression of your...views, you again exceed my expectations. Bravo.

This was cute, though:
We're both a majority, and we're extreme....

But now we're suddenly extreme...
Well, you just said you're extreme, don't get angry at me over it.

The same "moral majority" that founded this country.
You must be referring to the non-Christians (deists mostly, or do you want to play the quote game again?) who drafted a Constitution that excluded state recognition of religion. Damn those activists!

EDIT: One additionally wonders what the Christian god had in mind for these (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040301-593551,00.html?cnn=yes) folks. Gods should be more decisive with their fabrications.

soledorin,
It is true that I wouldn't bother talking about GWB and the Constitution if he was the president of some random third world country that don't affect my own life in any political, cultural or social way. I would have the same opinions, but I wouldn't bether expressing them. However, one of those three is enough. And most of the americans I know have more or less the same opinions that I do.

akipt,
The self-proclaimed "Moral Majority" is actually a immoral minority. I assume that the majority of the americans count themselves as Christians (hell, even the majority of the swedes do that), but far from all christians are rightwing theocrats. And even in the rightwing theorcrat camp, militants/terrorists are a small minority. Btw, while being a small minotity of a minority, christian militants/terrorists do exist. Even if you chose to disregard the christian racists of Aryan Nations, Ku Klux Klan and so on.

significant portion of the country's citizenry
Two percent does not make a significant portion. If it did, you wouldn't need judges to pass your agenda, you'd use the elected Congress.

I'm the bigot
See? I can do it to you too.

"Because my god doesn't want you to,"
Another misquote. I never said that.

you again exceed my expectations
Thank you!

Well, you just said you're extreme
No, I was being sarcastic. you said we're the majority, and extreme. Which is it?

do you want to play the quote game again?
You cannot even quote me correctly, but let's go there anyway. You listed a bunch of quotes that only gave a reason for our first Amendment. uh duh? And I remember you tried to add in an atheist's quotes as a "founding father" who really had nothing to do with the founding of the country, at least no more than anyone else who fought on the patriot's side.

Stop confusing a "church controlled government" with a "government founded upon morality" The first Amendment prevented the first, not the latter.

Stop confusing a "church controlled government" with a "government founded upon morality" The first Amendment prevented the first, not the latter.
And everyone's morality must equal the morals ordained by your particular religion because?

Stop confusing a "church controlled government" with a "government founded upon morality" The first Amendment prevented the first, not the latter

Was it a Christian morality?
If so, please list the founding fathers and their christian denomination.

And everyone's morality must equal the morals ordained by your particular religion because?
Did I say everyone must agree with me and my views?

Of course you want to be governed by what four judges want, not by your elected assemblies. Oh, but that's only when it fits your own views.

You didn't answer my question.

Here's another one for you to dodge: This thread was started about the Constitution. Exactly why is it that you think you can defend its supposedly religious underpinnings in one breath, while attacking its legislative process in the next? Love it or leave it.

You didn't answer mine.

And what is un-Constitutional about adding an Amendment to it?

its legislative process
Uh, this is exactly what you're circumventing by having 4 judges pass their agenda off on the rest of the country. Perhaps you meant judicial process?

Blah blah, you guys are accusing me of being the minority but then you can't get your agenda passed except from the bench. You are the one that can't have it both ways.

And what is un-Constitutional about adding an Amendment to it
Thats the most ignorant thing I have ever read here, no exceptions.

WTF?

So it's ok four judges are LEGISLATING (******** said it, not me) an agenda but it's NOT cool that I happen to agree that we should add an Amendment to the Constitution, a process that would take 2/3rds of both houses in Congress and 3/4ths of all the States to pass in their respective legislatures to succeed.

Wow, I struck a nerve I think.

********
Who's that?

Ok, if you must resort to semantic games, you're right. I technically should have said judicial.

Regardless, anyone who has education beyond high school level US government classes knows that judges interpret laws on a daily basis. Very many of them rule on the constitutionality of laws. That's their job.

You can quibble over the dictionary.com definitions of judicial and legislative all day, but in the end the fact is that judges very much do have impact on legislature and are supposed to.

Oh, and for everyone's information, the Supreme Court did not obtain the "right" of judicial review (whether or not laws are Constitutional or not) until Thomas Jefferson was president. It ruled for itself and basically said it was the umpire for all law, instead of the intended all branches of government checking on each other (checks and balances.) So saying this was written into the Constitution as part of its framework is just more bullshit spewed by you people.

Two percent does not make a significant portion. If it did, you wouldn't need judges to pass your agenda, you'd use the elected Congress.
Even if only 2% of the country is gay (and some put the figure as high as 10%), I'd say 1 out of every 50 citizens of this nation is a damn significant proportion. Should Native Americans or Jehovah's Witnesses lose their rights because they are a small sub-section of the population?
See? I can do it to you too.
Only, you're doing it to yourself. Only one of us wishes to infringe on the "equal protection under the law" rights of our countrymen due to intolerance, and it isn't me.
"Because my god doesn't want you to,"
Another misquote. I never said that.
And I never equated Christian extremists with Islamic extremists. The difference is that your rationale for denying gay marriage boils down to your religious beliefs.
Well, you just said you're extreme
No, I was being sarcastic. you said we're the majority, and extreme. Which is it?
What I said is that the extremists succeed in inspiring fear into the Christian majority with their nigh-apocalyptic "this is the end of America" hyperbole.
You listed a bunch of quotes that only gave a reason for our first Amendment. uh duh? And I remember you tried to add in an atheist's quotes as a "founding father" who really had nothing to do with the founding of the country, at least no more than anyone else who fought on the patriot's side.
Your memory is failing. You quoted George Washington to show that the founder of our country was a Christian, thus implying that the US is somehow a Christian nation thereby. I responded with a bunch of quotes showing that the Founding Fathers regarded Christianity quite poorly.

If you think it's "cool" to discriminate against a class of citizens due to their sexual orientation, well it's your right. But we need humanity more than religion; religiously based bigotry just isn't up to the task.

Jehovah's Witnesses lose their rights because they are a small sub-section of the population?

What rights would that be? I am not aware of any special rights given to the people who are Jehovah's Witnesses.



Ibudin

Should Native Americans or Jehovah's Witnesses lose their rights because they are a small sub-section of the population?
If either wanted to change the defintion of marriage, yes I would.

The difference is that your rationale for denying gay marriage boils down to your religious beliefs.
Wrong again. When I have said that?

extremists succeed in inspiring fear into the Christian majority with their nigh-apocalyptic
There you go again. I'm not the one advocating change, you are. Therefore you're the extremist radical, not me.

You quoted George Washington to show that the founder of our country was a Christian
No, I quoted Washington to prove that our country was founded upon pillars of morality and freedom, not freedom and religion, nor freedom and reason. Once again you prove you can't quote me accurately.

I responded with a bunch of quotes showing that the Founding Fathers regarded Christianity quite poorly.
No, it proved (and rightly so) that the founding fathers regarded the CHURCH quite poorly, not Christianity. That whole foundation of freedom of religion, not being mandated by some priest or pope somewhere was there intention. They didn't want to throw their beliefs and faith on the ground for some utopia of reason as you're suggesting. It's freedom OF religion that they believed in, not freedom FROM religion.

Oh, and for everyone's information, the Supreme Court did not obtain the "right" of judicial review (whether or not laws are Constitutional or not) until Thomas Jefferson was president. It ruled for itself and basically said it was the umpire for all law, instead of the intended all branches of government checking on each other (checks and balances.) So saying this was written into the Constitution as part of its framework is just more bullshit spewed by you people.
Check out Article III, Section 1. That's the Constitutional text which was interpreted to mean that the Supreme Court had the ability to rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, in the Marbury v. Madison case. They didn't just pull it out of thin air.

What's your point? Are you challenging the validity of judicial review entirely now? Or, just when the whole Constitution thing doesn't suit you?

>>"If either wanted to change the defintion of marriage, yes I would."

So if the law defined marrige as a act between two whites, you would be against changing it to allow native americans and africans from marrying?

>>"It's freedom OF religion that they believed in, not freedom FROM religion."

Does this freedom OF religion include the right to be a atheist or a deist or a buddhist or a hindu or a wicca?

If not, then it's not freedom of religion, just freedom of protestant christianity.

And if freedom of religion include the mentioned groups, then the law should be neutral to religion. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion should thus be the same thing, except maybe that we shouldn't forbid religious symbols/practices as such... but nonne have suggested hst we should!

Oh, and for everyone's information, the Supreme Court did not obtain the "right" of judicial review (whether or not laws are Constitutional or not) until Thomas Jefferson was president.

Man, where does this weird kind of stuff come from?

Does this freedom OF religion include the right to be a atheist or a deist or a buddhist or a hindu or a wicca?
Yes.

then the law should be neutral to religion.
It is.

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion should thus be the same thing
Non sequitor. You and others on here are equating morality to religion. They're not the same thing.

Man, where does this weird kind of stuff come from?
A bunch of white slave owners.

Man, where does this weird kind of stuff come from?

Actually Akipt is absolutely correct with regards to judicial review of constitutional issues. It was an undecided issue until Marbury v. Madison and there was still some question whether the Executive branch would respect the Supreme Court's grab of power in determining the constitutionality of laws. Although the opinion is fairly dry, the circumstances surrounding the opinion and what it meant for American judiciary is quite fascinating.

Edit to add Sanchek's note

That's the Constitutional text which was interpreted to mean that the Supreme Court had the ability to rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, in the Marbury v. Madison case. They didn't just pull it out of thin air.


You will note, however, that the "interpretation" that the Constitution granted review of constitutionality issues to the Supreme Court was done by the Supreme Court itself. It was pretty much pulled out of thin air (at least it was undecided and the Supreme Court decided to grab that power). Because of the circumstances surrounding that case (and the power of the Chief Justice at the time), however, that interpretation was not challenged and has become accepted jurisprudence.

usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm)

The intro shows how Chief Justice Marshall "split the baby" in the Marbury v. Madison case and at the same time grabbed a significant amount of power for the courts. Although it would be unheard of today, at the time of the decision it was quite possible for the Executive or Legislative branch to simply ignore a ruling of the Supreme Court.

Therefore you're the extremist radical, not me.

Are you an extreme reactionary, then?

One can be extreme and not wish change. Also, one can have radical views without wanting change.

I'm not following here.

Judicial review is Constitutionally grounded though. Its origins are in a somewhat gray area (what isn't?), but if it were something that was clearly against either the letter or spirit of the Constitution I doubt it would have survived over 200 years.

at the time of the decision it was quite possible for the Executive or Legislative branch to simply ignore a ruling of the Supreme Court.

And we would hold both branches accountable come next election. There is no such recourse with judges, until they die off or retire.

And I highly suspect that most of the gray area is caused by this despotic trump by our judicial branch.

There is no such recourse with judges, until they die off or retire.
That's just plain not true. Brush up on your facts.

Certainly the judicial branch has no way of enforcing it's edicts without the support of one of the other branches. A president has ignored their findings in the past and got away with it (Roosevelt and his New Deal I believe it was) because the congress backed him and he had popular support. Could a modern president get away with it today? That would depend on the political terrain. I don't think Bush could pull it off. Clinton probably could...heck, he was impeached and stayed in office to the end.

In state courts, it is possible to recall judges by vote during an election depending upon the state. They too are accountable to the public (at least they are in Colorado).

Wrong again. When I have said that?
Okay, let's look at some things you've said:

can you explain whats wrong with them, and therefore wrong with homosexual unions between 2 people

It's immoral to me and the establishment by which our civilization was founded upon.
What establishment do you speak of? Here's a clue:
Yes, it's all about that pesky God guy. Who does he think he is anyway, telling us how to think and live? If we could just get him out of our morals, we might just be able to make the world a better place. After all, we know better than he does don't we?
In the other thread you repeatedly stated that gay marriage was immoral without providing any justification for that view. If it's not biblically based, where does your view originate?
No, I quoted Washington to prove that our country was founded upon pillars of morality and freedom, not freedom and religion, nor freedom and reason. Once again you prove you can't quote me accurately.
Here's Washington's quote again.

"True religion affords to government its surest support. Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

No, it proved (and rightly so) that the founding fathers regarded the CHURCH quite poorly, not Christianity.
I imagine if the Fathers had a higher regard for Christianity, they would have been Christians instead of deists. For better or for worse, views of Christianity are deeply colored by views of Christian churches.

That whole foundation of freedom of religion, not being mandated by some priest or pope somewhere was there intention. They didn't want to throw their beliefs and faith on the ground for some utopia of reason as you're suggesting. It's freedom OF religion that they believed in, not freedom FROM religion.
Talk about misquoting, I never suggested anything of the sort. I demonstrated the Fathers' views that organized religion/Christianity bears a malefic influence on society, particularly when it is a tool of government.
I'm not the one advocating change, you are.

You're advocating discrimination in US society and, perhaps, Bush's proposed amendment. I'm advocating the extension of legal rights. Both are a kind of change.

Why dont Single people get these rights? Why is society discriminatory toward couples?

Maybe because society found out that it was healthier to for people to live in a "family" environment (at least 2) rather than being single with 2 cats (don't look at me!!). And tries to encourage this behavior.

Instead of taking quotes out of context, take this one:
I believe in God and believe we need to look to him (just like our founding fathers) for guidance in our civil society

I never said "God speaks to me and you and this country are going to hell if you don't follow his teachings." I did say, however, that Ethan Allen was burning in hell. But of course, he was an atheist. If he was right and there is no God, then it doesn't matter any way now does it? No hurt feelings.

I imagine if the Fathers had a higher regard for Christianity, they would have been Christians instead of deists.

I demonstrated the Fathers' views that organized religion/Christianity bears a malefic influence on society, particularly when it is a tool of government.

It should be quite easy for you to find a quote from any of them agreeing with the writings of Thomas Paine in "Age of Reason" if you believe they were deists. If you add up all the people who signed the Dec. of Indepenance, worked on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there are well over 200.

Anyway, the only popular founding father who could possibly have been a deist or agnostic was Ben Franklin. But then he believed in God and also prayed that he would directly intervene in the protection of our new Union. A true deist would never ask for God's intervention. Of course maybe he was embarrassed with all those Christians standing around him- maybe he wanted to fit in.

Why dont Single people get these rights? Why is society discriminatory toward couples?
There is an activist group formed to fight for this lol.

Once again the issue with gay marriage isnt straight families. You guys are fucking those up just fine by yourselves.

Maybe because society found out that it was healthier to for people to live in a "family" environment
Seen when what society wants or believes relevant to this debate? Seems a small minority of people seem perfectly happy to change society to suit their own wants.
And yes,, it is WANTS.
Im so sick and tired of people comparing the Civil Rights movement of the 60s with this. That is a discredit and an insult to what was accomplished.

Civil Rights were about a mans rights to walk down the street, or sit at a counter or get a job, or be regarded as a equal human.
This is about who you fuck.

>Civil Rights were about a mans rights to walk down the street, or sit at a counter or get a job, or be regarded as a equal human.
>This is about who you fuck.

Civil rights don't include that?

Civil Rights were about a mans rights to walk down the street, or sit at a counter or get a job, or be regarded as a equal human.
Apparently who you fall in love with voids the "equal human being" part unless its who you want me to fall in love with?

Its interesting how your so preoccupied with sex. You accuse me of being all about sex yet it seems to be you who is obsessed with who I fuck and how. Its a sign of how you view women and marriage.

You wonder why straight people divorce... could it be that some men treat women as sex objects and not someone to care, nurture and love? You inadvertently said that all women are just to be married for sex and there could be no other reason for it.

Marriage is a priveledge, not a right.

Im not obsessed at all. Its not me trying to redefine society in order to sledgehammer acceptance and justification of my lifestyle out of people. Thats why it is HAS to be Marriage, not Civil Unions.

And no Qaman, this isnt about Civil Rights. Unless someone is that Character from SNL (or was it Kids In the Hall) "Hi, Im Rick, did you know Im GAYYYY", or has a "Im Gay" tatoo forcebly place on their forehead, then this has ZERO to do with Civil rights. Nobody is preventing anyone from sleeping or falling in love with whoever they want, going anywhere they want, living wherever they want, working wherever they want. All of a persons basic rights are protected no matter who they fall in love with.

This is about a shifting line of morality. This is about the redefinition of standards and traditions. Hell.. Im all for Civil Unions. They are a good idea, and people who can prove they are in a committed relationship deserve to have them. But Marriage is what it is, you cannot change it, you cannot alter it, you cannot redefine its meaning to suit your personal wants or your desires.

Personally I think that decissions should be taken one step at a time, and evaluated carefully.

Thus, it's better to start out with civil unions, and give them a few years before starting to discus of it should be integrated with marrige or remain a separate system.

I don't think It's not entierly neccesary for the US to take that detour, since other countries have done it allready. But it's quite ok to take that precaution.

Like I said, I think it should be up to the states to decide.

The problem here isn't if gays should be allowed to marry or not. The problem is that the religious right are trying to make their religious values not only law, but part of the constitution. The trend is very alarming, at least in my eyes.

Our religious values are already law.

Like I said, I think it should be up to the states to decide.

Yea, that worked for awhile because everyone was happy with just the civil unions. But that wasn't good enough for them Edeina, so they forced the issue into the Federal arena. Now all the states get to decide (possibly) by way of amending the Constitution.

Yea, that worked for awhile because everyone was happy with just the civil unions. But that wasn't good enough for them Edeina, so they forced the issue into the Federal arena. Now all the states get to decide (possibly) by way of amending the Constitution.
wtf are you talking about? Civil unions would be fine with me but they are NOT legal in like 46 states. What is it that "everyone" wasnt happy with? Who forced anything into the federal arena? The feds stepped in because George Bush didnt like what the states did and wouldnt let them handle it. It does prove that the judges who said the law wasnt constitutional were correct because Bush has to make it constitutional to fix it.

NOT legal in like 46 states
They were deciding weren't they? It was up to the states and I and alot of other people were perfectly content with that.

didnt like what the states did and wouldnt let them handle it.
Uh, hello? 4 state judges forcing their agenda onto the rest of the country is not "letting the states handle it"

>Marriage is a priveledge, not a right.

Actually, the right to marry is a fundamental right. So your view would seem to be wrong.

How is it a fundamental right? Or is this going to boil down to a personal definition battle anyways that nobody really gives a shit about?

>How is it a fundamental right? Or is this going to boil down to a personal definition battle anyways that nobody really gives a shit about?

Nah, SCOTUS actually decided that issue a long time ago, in LOVING v. VIRGINIA.

Here is an excerpt from ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL, a more recent decision relying on that one.

--
The leading decision of this Court on the right to marry is Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). In that case, an interracial couple who had been convicted of violating Virginia's miscegenation laws challenged the statutory scheme on both equal protection and due process grounds. The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Id., at 11-12. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry.The Court's language on the latter point bears repeating:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

"Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
--

Now, you could argue that the courts are wrong about it being a right, but I don't think that argument is going to get very far.

These the same courts that allowed a woman who burned herself with coffee to actually threaten McDonalds to the point of an out of court settlement?

>These the same courts that allowed a woman who burned herself with coffee to actually threaten McDonalds to the point of an out of court settlement?

I don't think that one actually made it to SCOTUS, however, in any case, I would blame that issue more on the lawyers than the courts. Not sure what exactly that has to do with anything anyways, it isn't even slightly relevant. It is the same court that stops police from hauling you downtown after receiving an anonymous tip and beating a confession out of you though.

That case didnt say that marriage itself was a right, but the legal prevention of marriage based on race was illegal. Its authority comes specifically from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which addresses Race, Color, Creed, and Religous Denomination OR ECONOMIC STATUS.

The state still kept its authority to prevent close relatives, minors, and people of the same sex from marriage. To try to extend that ruling to Gay Marriage is a VERY liberal interpretation and violates the spirit of the decision

>That case didnt say that marriage itself was a right, but the legal prevention of marriage based on race was illegal. Its authority comes specifically from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which addresses Race, Color, Creed, and Religous Denomination.

Sorry, but you would be wrong in your analysis. If you read the excerpt I just posted, it states exactly the opposite. The case I posted that excerpt from was from a case where the state was denying a man from marrying due to child support obligations. It was decided against the state. It had nothing to do whatsoever with 'Race, Color, Creed, and Religous Denomination', and was based on the fact the state was denying him a fundamental right, the right to marry.

>The state still kept its authority to prevent close relatives, minors, and people of the same sex from marriage. To try to extend that ruling to Gay Marriage is a VERY liberal interpretation and violates the spirit of the decision

Actually, all of that except the minors issue (minors may have more restrictions placed on their rights than adults) is undecided at this time. None of it has come before the supreme court yet. Oh, and it may or may not be liberal, but the state is going to need to come up with extremely good reasons for denying the right from what I can see from past cases about it.

Did you read the entire ruling?
The leading decision of this Court on the right to marry is Loving v. Virginia (1967). In that case, an interracial couple who had been convicted of violating Virginia's miscegenation laws challenged the statutory scheme on both equal protection and due process grounds. The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. The Court's language on the latter point bears repeating: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival
Thats the important part. That last bold part highlights and shows that this ruling did NOT have homosexual relationships in mind. Existance and Survival. While a same sex couple CAN adopt, the court obviously had in mind the procreation aspect of marriage. Futhermore, adoptive parents arent a necessity of society, as evidenced by many adoptive couples needing to import babies from other nations for adoption.

Additionally this passage from the ruling is very telling
It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings. Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.

Besides, no lawyer worth 2 cents would take this case into court, it is the classic wolf in sheeps clothing for the side of Same Sex Marriage.
A good lawyer would WELCOME the citing of this case. Clearly in the Justices opinion he highlights Procreation as one of cornerstones of marriage and its benefit to society as one of the core reasons it deserves protection.
Same Sex marriages lose this foundation from the start as procreation is not a factor in the giving of the right.
This ruling doesnt just list Marriage as a right, it gives REASONS as to why it is.

>Thats the important part. That last bold part highlights and shows that this ruling did NOT have homosexual relationships in mind. Existance and Survival. While a same sex couple CAN adopt, the court obviously had in mind the procreation aspect of marriage. Futhermore, adoptive parents arent a necessity of society, as evidenced by many adoptive couples needing to import babies from other nations for adoption.

Sorry, but it says nothing of the sort other than wishful thinking on your part. The haven't decided whether or not homosexual couples would be encompassed by the right to marry, and this is fairly silent on it. Perhaps they won't be covered, perhaps they will. Especially when you take the fact the court has upheld inmates right to marry, but allowed restrictions to be placed on their right to procreate, which would seem to be just the opposite view. The right to marry may be linked to the right of procreation in some ways, but it seems to be a entirely seperate fundamental right. In other words, it isn't contingent on two people being able to procreate. Which would mean your view doesn't really stand.

Sorry, but it says nothing of the sort other than wishful thinking on your part.


Or not.


Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.

Ah, so if the state decided that sterile people could not marry, this would be entirely within what they could do then?

I think they would lose. You seem to think that being able to procreate is the only justification for the right to marry, however, it seems to be a seperate right all its own. Which means the state must come up with a very compelling argument in order not to allow it.

While procreation isnt the only reason to get married, it is one of the cornerstones.

This ruling was about procreation. You cant make it into something else, it is what it is.
The State of Wisconson tried to prevent a black man and white woman from marriage on the grounds that the resultant offspring of mulatto children would be at a economic disadvantage. The issue of Procreation is at the heart of the decision and you cannot remove it because you want to.

As far as sterile people being prevented from marriage, That issue isnt at hand, has never (to my knowledge) been brought up and no judge has ever ruled on it. While you are most likely right that a court would strike it down, it would be on entirelly different grounds than this case. Most likely due to a persons right to privacy and not having to make medical records public.

>This ruling was about procreation. You cant make it into something else, it is what it is.

Actually, the ruling had zero to do with procreation, simply with the right to marry which was the only thing being prevented. You read a lot more into the ruling because you want to actually.

>The State of Wisconson tried to prevent a black man and white woman from marriage on the grounds that the resultant offspring of mulatto children would be at a economic disadvantage. The issue of Procreation is at the heart of the decision and you cannot remove it because you want to.

Wow, I read the whole ruling, must have missed that part. In fact, I don't think it actually says anything about the race of defendent in the ruling at all. The heart of the issue was the right to marry, not the right of procreation, no matter how much you want it to be. They are two seperate rights.

>As far as sterile people being prevented from marriage, That issue isnt at hand, has never (to my knowledge) been brought up and no judge has ever ruled on it. While you are most likely right that a court would strike it down, it would be on entirelly different grounds than this case.

Actually, it would be reliant on exactly the same grounds, whether or not the state permissibly denied them the fundamental right to marry.

Wow, I read the whole ruling, must have missed that part.

www.kylewood.com/familylaw/zablocki.htm (http://www.kylewood.com/familylaw/zablocki.htm)

read it again.. SLOWLY this time.. Ill help you with any big words you dont understand.

especially this
STATE ARGUES: The law is necessary to the acomplishment of the permissible (compelling) state interests of "preserving the racial integrity of its citizens" and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride." Also, the state argued that regulation of marriage was traditionally a state function except from federal legislation or control and that the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control under the Tenth Amendment. part

Ah, now I see how you can be so adamantly incorrect. You aren't actually reading the actual opinion, just some poorly written piece of trash that has nothing to do with the actual opinion.

Here is the actual text of the ruling: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/434/374.html (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/434/374.html)

Notice that the part you quoted is actually nowhere to be found in it. I imagine they just cut and pasted the states argument from Loving v. Virgina, since that case actually was about that. It wasn't ultimately decided on the basis of race though.

Also, check out Turner v. Safely which has everything to do with marriage rights and nothing to do with procreation, given that it involves prisoners.

>read it again.. SLOWLY this time.. Ill help you with any big words you dont understand.

I won't need any help with the words, thanks. And I have a feeling that you couldn't help me with them anyways given your track record here.

So you read the opinion and discard all the evidence?
GG William Jennings Bryant!
You of course have more than a civics 101 grasp of the legal system and understand that a judges opinion is based soley on the facts present before him or her? Right? This isnt new information to you is it?
How terribly inconvienent for your half assed attempts to take this ruling out of context.
Its okay.. you are wrong, its really not that big of a deal, let it go and move on. But dont take my word for it, this case will NEVER be cited in an actual case by the gay marriage side for the exact reasons that I listed. They merely march it for ill informed and easily decieved.

>Its okay.. you are wrong, its really not that big of a deal, let it go and move on. But dont take my word for it, this case will NEVER be cited in an actual case by the gay marriage side for the exact reasons that I listed. They merely march it for ill informed and easily decieved.

You might want to read the second case I mentioned before you continue sounding off like an idiot the way you started previously L2. Sorry, but I think my take on it is a lot closer than yours is. Even that crappy site you linked to disagreed with your analysis.

While procreation isnt the only reason to get married, it is one of the cornerstones.
Really I thought the cornerstone was love and that sex and children were the FRUIT of that. Apparently you are just looking for a sex partner that will make the most beautiful babies to get married. Scary how trivialized you have made that.

Single unmarried people spit out babies like mad. Thats a bigger social problem than homos.

Uh, hello? 4 state judges forcing their agenda onto the rest of the country is not "letting the states handle it"
Really? Thats the result of letting the states handle it sorry. I like the word agenda it sounds so official without having to be backed up. What is this agenda? Giving gays the right to marry?

O thats right you dont believe we should have the right to do that. Kinda like those damn women who should never have been allowed to vote, I mean they have a chemical in their brain that makes them crazy right. Those damn inter-racial marriages were the death of America werent they, I mean black people are animals right. I cant believe we let those Japanese people out of the prison camps, I mean they are still suicidal maniac killers right? History repeats its self and you are just being its voice, as so many have before you.

Damn.. its like playing "Whack-a-mole" at the arcade, knock one idiot down another pops up to take its place.
Really I thought the cornerstone was love and that sex and children were the FRUIT of that. Apparently you are just looking for a sex partner that will make the most beautiful babies to get married. Scary how trivialized you have made that.
Ha, obviously you arent married.. Yes. Love is a crucial part of marriage, the most crucial part. But it is FAR from the only necessary part of a successful marriage. Respect, Hard Work, faith... so many other things.

Besides. Apples and Oranges. We arent talking about MY personal view of marriage, thats irrelevant.
We are talking about the courts view of marriage. Love is not something the court can take into account, It's a concept, unmeasurable and undefinable and unique to each person and relationship.
The Court therefore needs other determinations to qualify and define love.

And yes, single unmarried people ARE spitting out babies like mad. And it is a problem. One of the reasons it is a problem is societies acceptance of it. Everything is Okay. Have you been in the halls of an High School lately? Im doing some student teaching and im amazed at whats going on there. 10 years ago I graduated from high school, and I can tell you they are NOTHING like they were.
Open, rampant promiscuity, Kids who say they are gay, then change their mind the next week, then they dont know what they are, all in public.
Kids have enough problems growing up, finding out who they are, but todays society bombards them with relentless sexual imagery. I would rather we had a more healthy European view of sex in society, like its no big deal. A flash of a womans Breast on TV isnt cause to lose your mind. But we as a culture have the most fucked up view of sex.
Gay Marriage is just another confusing signal in a fucked up society. We as a culture have to find a balance toward allowing healthy expression of individuals and retaining a strong tradition and moral grounding. Allowing everything to anyone isnt that.
Thats why Civil Unions would be perfect. But gay Rights activists reject these. Why? Because the goal isnt what they profess it to be. The goal is to change Society into one they deem more favorable.

O thats right you dont believe we should have the right to do that.
You have the same right to gay marriage as you do to crack, weed, prostitution, gambling, polygamy, and bestiality.

But I suppose with another wall knocked down after you get your way, one or two of the others will be next.

I like the word agenda it sounds so official without having to be backed up.
So maybe they didn't have an agenda. It is possible some lawyers stumbled into a Massachusetts courtroom by pure chance one day, and out of the blue for no reason, the judges decided to give them a decision about gay marriage.

Right, no agenda there.

>Thats why Civil Unions would be perfect. But gay Rights activists reject these. Why? Because the goal isnt what they profess it to be. The goal is to change Society into one they deem more favorable.

Actually, it was because civil unions don't confer the same rights as marriage.

Why don't we just remove marriage from the government altogether and just have civil unions in their place, of which marriage would count as one type of it? Or is there some problem with that?

Actually, it was because civil unions don't confer the same rights as marriage.

I'm sorry,
I just have to jump in here for a second


Civil Unions don't confer all the same rights right now, But they could if the federal/state governments chose to make it so.

--Namie

Respect, Hard Work, faith... so many other things.
These things arent part of love? Actually I am in a relationship, are you? Are you married? What do you think love is if not all of those things? Did you think love wasnt hard work? Did you think love was seperate from respect? Faith has nothing to do with love? Wow you must have a different love than I do.

You made my point for me. The government needs to step away from something that is based on what they cannot predict or control.

And I gotta throw in a laugh to Akipt who once again tries to make a totally unrelated connection between gay marriage and "crack use" etc. If you cant tell the difference between marriage rights and drug abuse you need help, not me. You simply cannot pull anything you think is bad out of the air and say "well if you get gay marriage these things are to follow". My post still stands. Letting women vote ... letting interracial marriages happen, none of these things did what everyone claimed they would.

if you want to know little about the mindset of some of the founding fathers,just read up on freemasonry.you might find it rather interesting how much influence they added into the US constitution,among other things.

George Washington was a huge Freemason in his day,he was the Grand master of the Alexandria lodge #39 in Virginia.you can see old paintings of Washington in the capital building in Washington DC.where he is wearing his masonic apron and wearing the masonic regalia,of the Square and Compass.
one painting is of him consecrating the cornerstone to the white house with wine and corn meal,which is a symbolic masonic ritual,wearing his masonic apron.
Benjamin Franklin served for 2 years as the Grand master of the Philadelphia lodge in Pennsylvania.he was also part of the initiation of Voltaire the famous French writer in Paris France in 1778.
john Hancock,Paul revere and a few others.
Tomas Jefferson, there is no documented proof if he was or wasnt a freemason.he was certainly a "free thinker" like most freemasons are.based on alot of what he wrote,he would have agreed with alot of there principals.

if you ever decided to join the masonic order,youd find it very intresting to say the least.the rituals which are based around moral symbology. are acted out like a play, that eventually tells the story of Hiram Abif the artitect/builder of the temple of solomon and how hes murdered by 3 people trying to get the "secert" of his craft.which in the end leads to Hiram being resurected from the dead.so on and so forth.
im still amazed how they memorize an entire book word for word and i mean word for frelling word,like a shakesphere type play.and most of em are 70+ years of age.
heh no wonder so many actors, writers and musicians have been freemasons in the past.

Born in blood by john Robinson,the Hiram Key by Grahm hancock are some nice books on freemasonry.

Also, check out Turner v. Safely which has everything to do with marriage rights

Uh, isn't that about prison visitation rights (or lack thereof)?

>Uh, isn't that about prison visitation rights (or lack thereof)?

No, though it probabaly gets brought up in cases about them because it lays out guidelines for prison regulations where they affect rights. It was challenging two different regulations. One was about regulation governing correspondence between two prisoners. The other was about only allowing prisoners to get married in only a very few circumstances regulated by the prison. They upheld the first regulation, and struck down the second.

>Civil Unions don't confer all the same rights right now, But they could if the federal/state governments chose to make it so.

Of course, that certainly begs the question of, if they would then be exactly the same, why call them something different?

if you want to know little about the mindset of some of the founding fathers
Umm its a good thing we had men of such quality that they did not create a constitution based on what THEY personally wanted, but was representative of the people of whom they represented. Their personal beliefs and values became secondary to what felt was the will of the people.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Of course, that certainly begs the question of, if they would then be exactly the same, why call them something different? <hr></blockquote>

Because of the spiritual connotations marriage has I would think. Why doesn't everyone get baptised? I mean, it's just dousing some babies head with water. Might be a good occasion to get the family together and have some buffalo wings.

The problem is, marriage is not a uniquely judeo-christian concept and there is nothing preventing gays from being spiritual. So that explanation doesn't really hold water.

>Because of the spiritual connotations marriage has I would think. Why doesn't everyone get baptised? I mean, it's just dousing some babies head with water. Might be a good occasion to get the family together and have some buffalo wings.


So your answer is, the reason government should seperate the two even if they mean the same thing is because it is a religious thing? That seems like a *very* odd position for the government to be taking don't you think?

Actually I think they should just call it civil union and leave the interpretation up to the people. Think the only reason it maintains the name "marriage" is because of how romanticized the entire process is. Besides, would you rather tell your friends you're getting married or civilly unionized?

Honestly, the Church should just say "fuck it" and come up with a new name for the whole process.

Honestly, the Church should just say "fuck it" and come up with a new name for the whole process
Which church? The christian one? The Buddist one? The Hindu one?

Just admit you want YOUR religion to dictate governmental procedure. Isnt it about time you start trying to pass a law that its illegal for someone to work on the Sabbath.

Your religiously inspired traditions are what Jesus fought against. His message was freedom from religion, not enslavement to it.

Matthew 23

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Which church? The christian one?<hr></blockquote>

Yes, no shit Sherlock. The governments concept of marriage and the Christian one aren't the same thing. The only thing they have in common is it involves two people.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Isnt it about time you start trying to pass a law that its illegal for someone to work on the Sabbath.<hr></blockquote>

Considering I'm not Jewish, that's a rather amazing comeback. But then again, you'd lose in an epic battle of wits with an apple. Why don't you take the next step and accuse me of trying to 'keep darkie down' like Sanchek?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Your religiously inspired traditions are what Jesus fought against. His message was freedom from religion, not enslavement to it.<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Just admit you want YOUR religion to dictate governmental procedure.<hr></blockquote>

And by suggesting that the Church come up with different terminology for binding together a man and woman's soul under God in order to create less confliction between Christianity and the political agenda of homosexual couples who want the same things as heterosexual couples in a non-religious society accomplishes this how?

Why don't you just go ahead and call me a bigot now because I don't like seafood, because that's about how much sense you're making.

Marriage, between a man and a woman, is recognized and protected by our government because it has an intrinsic benefit to society. We can argue all year long about the many reasons, but the fact remains, our elected government has based rewards for people who sustain a marital relationship upon the structure of a male and female household.

On the other hand now, homosexual marriage wants to benefit from those same rewards without being able to reciprocate an equal benefit to society. The structure is different, the abilities are different, the guardrails are different, and the whole thing is different. So it can easily be understood that the benefits to society (if any) are different, therefore the rewards will have to be different.

If the rewards are different, then how can it be defined the same? If the definition is not the same, why even try to engage in it?

Well that was the first remotely sensible argument I have seen on this thread against same sex marriage Akipt.

I just personally don't think a definition of marriage belongs in the constitution, especially for the purpose of denying it to a particular group of people. It seems against the spirit of the constitution to me. Just my opinion.

IMO laws regarding what is an acceptable marriage from a legal standpoint should be left to the individual states to hammer out.

Well that was the first remotely sensible argument I have seen on this thread against same sex marriage Akipt.

The same thing has been said many times.

He was the first person I noticed to put it in more neutral "secular" terms, not wrapping it in religious trappings. That's what appealed to me. Everyone else seemed to me to be trying to bring "spirituality" into the equation.

Other than the fact he merely assumed his conclusion it would be a good argument. He didn't show any actual diffierences if you actually read it, so I don't see that it is much of an argument. Of course, this begs the question of what is being rewarded in the first place? Afterall, a couple of lifelong dinks get the exact same benefits as a couple that plans to have children. Apparently the reward is for setting up a household with 2 people in it.

What's to assume? A man and woman in marriage is not the same as a man and a man.

Duh? I thought that was obvious.

Considering I'm not Jewish, that's a rather amazing comeback
Well my comment assumed you knew ANYTHING about the Bible at all. The "Jewish" Bible is simply the Christian Old Testament. Its FULL of hundreds of laws that God handed to the Jewish people which included the 10 commandments. All of your crazy talk about SIN comes from these laws. If you talk about SIN you MUST be referring to these. Well the Sabbath law was part of these commandments which spans almost 4 books in the Bible. Or are you just picking and choosing which laws you wanna follow cause you really have no clue?

And by suggesting that the Church come up with different terminology for binding together a man and woman's soul under God in order to create less confliction between Christianity and the political agenda of homosexual couples who want the same things as heterosexual couples in a non-religious society accomplishes this how?
Being that Christianity isn't the only church even among "Christians" your statement was too vague and my question was valid.

But then again, you'd lose in an epic battle of wits with an apple
Apparently this apple knows more about the Bible than you do. You have a habit of saying "haha your dumb I win" which doesn't make your lack of knowledge somehow gain validity.

Why would I call you a bigot at this point? Your post had no bigoted language in it. Do you even know what that word means? I thought we covered that several pages ago.

On the other hand now, homosexual marriage wants to benefit from those same rewards without being able to reciprocate an equal benefit to society. The structure is different, the abilities are different, the guardrails are different, and the whole thing is different. So it can easily be understood that the benefits to society (if any) are different, therefore the rewards will have to be different.

The problem is from a purely legal standpoint you cannot "reward" a sector of society based on their sex because thats discrimination. The "benefit" you speak of doesnt work unless they reproduce. They get MORE money back for that. Why reward them simply for getting married? Single people with no kids and married people with no kids give the same to society, nothing.

What in your opinion do I need to do to EARN the reward of visiting my partner in the hospital?

>What's to assume? A man and woman in marriage is not the same as a man and a man.

>Duh? I thought that was obvious.

Both seem that they could be two people in a relationship to me. Like I said, you are assuming your conclusion. You just did it again.

What in your opinion do I need to do to EARN the reward of visiting my partner in the hospital?
His permission, just like the rest of us. And if he's in a coma, there's not a doctor in this country that would deny you visitation rights anyway.

you cannot "reward" a sector of society based on their sex because thats discrimination.
Not allowing homosexuals to marry is not discrimination based on sex.

The "benefit" you speak of doesnt work unless they reproduce.
Totally untrue. And procreation is just one benefit to society. Healthier and wealthier children and parents are just some of the benefits.

And all these are based on the husband and wife relationship. Not a husband / husband relationship.

Totally untrue. And procreation is just one benefit to society. Healthier and wealthier children and parents are just some of the benefits.
Name one benefit we all get from a married couple with no kids.

Your rewarding men who date women. Not married couples who produce children but simply based on their choice of partner. Thats discrimination. See definition below.

Discrimination (Dis*crim`i*na"tion) (?), n.
[L. discrimination the contrasting of opposite thoughts.]

1. The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting and marking differences. "To make an anxious discrimination between the miracle absolute and providential." Trench.
2. The state of being discriminated, distinguished, or set apart. Sir J. Reynolds

His permission, just like the rest of us. And if he's in a coma, there's not a doctor in this country that would deny you visitation rights anyway.
Seriously how old are you? Doctors deny visitation it on a daily basis. Why would it be an issue if they didnt? Hospital policy is relatives only. If he could give his consent when it mattered most it wouldnt be an issue.

Apkit said:

You have the same right to gay marriage as you do to crack, weed, prostitution, gambling, polygamy, and bestiality.

Gay marriage isn't illegal, whereas the rest of your list is.

Name one benefit we all get from a married couple with no kids.
I'll list just a few:
1. Husband and wife live longer.
2. Husband and wife have better emotional and physical health.
3. Husband and wife have greater incomes.
4. Husband and wife enjoy a better and more satisfying sex life when they stay true to each other.
5. Married women are less prone to be sexually or physically abused by their partners.

Thats discrimination.
You can't play the discrimination card if you're free to marry a woman just like I can. I believe Zehn has stated that several times already.

Doctors deny visitation it on a daily basis.
If you're being denied visitation rights these days, being married won't help that, because this is discrimination if its happening. But seriously, show me some proof. It's a non-issue from all I've heard.

For example, from my personal experience growing up in Hickville Tennessee, population 600.. I had pnuemonia and the guy I shared a hospital room with was homosexual. This was probably 20 years ago and he was allowed to stay overnight with his partner.

I woke up one night and they were in bed together. Of course my parents freaked out, so I got a seperate room. If the backwards, bigoted, hick place that I grew up in can offer you the same courtesy as straight people, I don't see a problem.

4. Husband and wife enjoy a better and more satisfying sex life when they stay true to each other.
This one really made me ponder. Who are you to judge wether homosexual individuals have a worse sex life then straight people? Ever tried it? I never did, and don't plan to, so I wouldn't dare to make this statement.

It is not a "satisfaction" comparison between homosexual and heterosexual sex life. Men and women will have a better sex life than they would uncommitted and out of marriage.

I could have gone into the negatives of homosexual partnerships and all that, but that's another discussion that will only confuse the issue at hand -> A husband and wife marriage benefits society.

1. Husband and wife live longer.
2. Husband and wife have better emotional and physical health.
3. Husband and wife have greater incomes.
4. Husband and wife enjoy a better and more satisfying sex life when they stay true to each other.
5. Married women are less prone to be sexually or physically abused by their partners.

You are ridiculous and unless you live with me you couldnt possibly know these things. All of these things assume you know more than you clearly do.

Husband and wife have greater INCOME? WTF does being straight have to do with having more money? I am friends with a gay couple that are both doctors so odds are they make more than your parents ... I know they make more than mine did.

LOL I have never been physically or sexually abused. I dont know any gay people who have. Where did you get that statistic? I know several straight marriages that ended in physical violence but I cant think of a single gay couple that had this problem.

I know straight people who are 50x more emotionally fucked up than me. In fact I would say that Im not really fucked up at all. Im just a normal guy with a white surburban family who happens to be gay.

Yea your right about the hospital thing ... I guess the person who made this ACLU website was having a momentary hallucination.

www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/protect4.html (http://www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/protect4.html)

You are ridiculous and unless you live with me you couldnt possibly know these things.

From answers to this statement:

Name one benefit we all get from a married couple with no kids.

I gave you list of benefits for married men and women and you twisted it into an assualt on homosexuality.

Or maybe you reject any benefits of marriage to society. If so, then why do you want it?

I guess the person who made this ACLU website was having a momentary hallucination.
The ACLU can make up an issue just like you did. Show us a court document where a homosexual had to petition to see his partner. Or even an article in a newspaper where some doctor refused visitation rights. Like I posted earlier, twenty years ago in Backwoods TN it was a non-issue.

Gass, you really need to cite sources for those crazy assumptions. They go completely against my own (albeit limited) experience with gay couples. Sure, a straight person forced into a gay relationship might suffer those consequences, but to say that about people who are doing what they feel right seems a bit presumptuous

If it's just your own opinion, you shouldn't try to pawn it off as fact.
If you're being denied visitation rights these days, being married won't help that, because this is discrimination if its happening. But seriously, show me some proof. It's a non-issue from all I've heard.

For example, from my personal experience growing up in Hickville Tennessee, population 600.. I had pnuemonia and the guy I shared a hospital room with was homosexual. This was probably 20 years ago and he was allowed to stay overnight with his partner.

I woke up one night and they were in bed together. Of course my parents freaked out, so I got a seperate room. If the backwards, bigoted, hick place that I grew up in can offer you the same courtesy as straight people, I don't see a problem.
Well, it sounds like the guy was fully conscious and able to give verbal consent. That case isn't what Bowler has been talking about.

Either way, small town USA isn't exactly known for being strict when following the rules. It's not the same way in a larger city.
The ACLU can make up an issue just like you did. Show us a court document where a homosexual had to petition to see his partner. Or even an article in a newspaper where some doctor refused visitation rights.
It's so common it's a non-event. I doubt you'd find an entire article about it. They don't write articles about Burger King screwing up and putting mustard on my hamburger either, but that doesn't mean it never happens.

In fact I would say that Im not really fucked up at all. Im just a normal guy with a white surburban family who happens to be gay.


I'm not weird, I just like to suck dick. Pretty sure...what is it...99.9% of the population thinks that's fucked up for a guy.

Gass, you really need to cite sources for those crazy assumptions. They go completely against my own (albeit limited) experience with gay couples. Sure, a straight person forced into a gay relationship might suffer those consequences, but to say that about people who are doing what they feel right seems a bit presumptuous

Umm, hellooooo out there! Anyone home?

Name one benefit we all get from a married couple with no kids. ~ Bowler

I listed five benefits to society that heterosexual couples give EACH OTHER WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO RAISE A CHILD. Communities, government, and the places we work all benefit from it.

Stop trying to twist that into an attack on homosexuality or homosexual marriage.

Either way, small town USA isn't exactly known for being strict when following the rules. It's not the same way in a larger city.
And you have the audacity to say this after you spewed so much hate and uncivil rhetoric on these boards against small town backwards believing myopical religious fanatical "God bullshit" following Southern Baptist bible-thumping pastor Bobs.

Good one Sanchek, you make me laugh.

It's so common it's a non-event. I doubt you'd find an entire article about it.
And you managed to follow up the most preposterously funny comment with the lamest I've read in awhile. You can do better.

So in other words, you have no logical argument whatsoever.

It's assumed that your opinion about the benefits of hetero marriage are true, without proof.

It's assumed that Bowler's concern about being denied visitation rights, based on the rules of the hospitals, is invalid; unless media documentation is provided.

Gee, that makes sense.

edit:
And you have the audacity to say this after you spewed so much hate and uncivil rhetoric on these boards against small town backwards believing myopical religious fanatical "God bullshit" following Southern Baptist bible-thumping pastor Bobs.
I really fail to see any point to this. Like I've posted before, I grew up in a small Southern town. I'm speaking from first hand experience.

I live in a large city now. As far as following the rules goes, there's a night and day difference.

So, homosexuals cannot reap any of the above benefits, thereby benefiting society, if they themselves get married? This list only applies to heterosexuals ?

*edit cuz my sentence was horrid*

Ok, so our government rewards marriage for the hell of it?
Go to the library and look at some of these:

U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001, Table No. 666

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence, National Crime Victimization Survey, May 2000, 4-5, 11

U.S. Census Bureau, "Historical Poverty Tables," Table 4

"Gaining Ground? Measuring the Impact of Welfare Reform on Welfare and Work," The Manhattan Institute, Civic Report 17.

The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1994) p.364.

"Verbal, Physical, and Injurious Aggression Among Intimate Couples Over Time," Journal of Family Issues 23 (May 2002): 523-550

The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (New York: Doubleday, 2000) 97-123

"Marital Status Continuity and Change Among Young and Midlife Adults," Journal of Family Issues 19 (November 1998 ): 652-686

"The Mental Health Continuum: From Languishing to Flourishing in Life," Journal of Health and Social Behavior 43 (2002): 207-222 as cited in The Family in America New Research, October 2002.

"The Association of Sexual Behaviors with Socioeconomic Status, Family Structure, and Race/Ethnicity Among U.S. Adolescents," American Journal of Public Health 90 (October 2000): 1582-1588

Seperation of Church and State.
I dont believe in same sex marrages, but just because i dont doesnt mean noone should.
I dont believe in abortion, but we shouldnt ban abortions because i dont believe in it.
get your heads out of your asses for 1 minute.

So, homosexuals cannot reap any of the above benefits, thereby benefiting society, if they themselves get married?

I haven't discussed this question, contrary to previously twisted remarks...

This list only applies to heterosexuals ?
For the third time, yes.

I live in a large city now. As far as following the rules goes, there's a night and day difference.
So all the redneck bigots moved to the city? Must be an Atlanta thing.

It's so common it's a non-event.
Oh, in case you didn't notice, I put it back in your court to give us a list of homosexuals discriminated against in doctor's visits.

I don't have time today to research all of those, but here's the first one:

http://www.encosia.com/personal/census_chart.gif

The sum of the male house-holder and female house-holder is greater than the happily married couple, in every case. Doesn't say a lot for marriage, huh?

Trying to equate the act of marriage to someone working their way up to a higher earning rate is a pretty shaky argument. One could just as easily claim that those people felt the need to wait until they had developed enough income to handle the extra responsibility of marriage.

I have a feeling that your list of sources is just a copy/paste, but if it's not; would you be so kind as to point out which ones are actually worth my research time? This one was a joke.

"Single Male Householder" + "Single Female Householder" less than "Family with Married Couple"

$26,852 + $17,347 < $56,827

Next?

And of course it was copy/paste.

Actually a funny side note there Sanchek is that 2 men would make more than a man and a woman ... by that chart anyway. Nice try though Akipt but most of that pretty much falls into your "blah blah blah Im ignorant" category.

I'm not weird, I just like to suck dick. Pretty sure...what is it...99.9% of the population thinks that's fucked up for a guy.
LOL well that would make the gay population 0.1% which we know is false based on even the anti-gay studies. It would also assume that there are no straight people who think its okay either.

Which is irrelevant anyway since I was talking about having emotional problems anyway not about being gay. Good for you and reading in context. I dub this the most ignorant statement made thus far.

"Single Male Householder" + "Single Female Householder" less than "Family with Married Couple"

$26,852 + $17,347 < $56,827

Next?

Umm *poke* your point was that gay couples make less money than straight ones do. What NEXT are you waiting for?

Okies, I'm easily confused, so explain to me why Apkit is saying that a couple being married benefits society, yet wishes to deny society these benefits by prohibiting gays from getting married.

If marriage is such a boost to society overall, the flaw in Apkit's logic is obvious.

I was pointing out that the sum of the wife absent and husband absent parts were greater than their combined value. Hence, the road to financial salvation is to get married and divorced as fast as possible. I'm headed to Vegas even as we speak.

I'm about to be a boon to society! I can see it on my resume now: "Was married. Pay me extra."

Obviously, everyone currently married should immediately divorce so their pay goes up and they can provide proper benefit to society. Only then can Gass deem their marriages worthwhile.

"Single Male Householder" + "Single Female Householder" less than "Family with Married Couple"
So basically, if you compare a single guy right out of high school to a mid 50's guy that's been working his way up the ladder for 30 years; the old guy makes more money? GENIUS!

It's obvious that the groups are age biased. People typically get married young. The non-family household group is probably < 30, on average, while the rest are older and farther into their careers. That's why even after removing a husband or wife from the family household, the remaining single partner still makes more than in the non-family group. Even without the glorious, heavenly blessing of marriage to propel their career.

If you blindly copy/pasted this stuff, I'll assume the rest is as meaningless as this was.

LOL well that would make the gay population 0.1% which we know is false based on even the anti-gay studies. It would also assume that there are no straight people who think its okay either.

Sorry, 96% of the population thinks it's fucked up for a guy. happy?

Which is irrelevant anyway since I was talking about having emotional problems anyway not about being gay. Good for you and reading in context. I dub this the most ignorant statement made thus far.

I know exactly what you're talking about. Do you think most people with emotional problems think they have them? I mean really...

Pauline Kale, a writer for the New Yorker, once said about Richard Nixons landslide presidential Election
"I cant believe that guy won, I dont know anyone that voted for him"

Bottom line is this, and the Republicans know this and are helping steer this country into a Culture War, because it benefits them, MOST Americans are opposed to Same Sex Marriage.
The Morality of American society has been going on a steady decline for a number of years. This is a fact, our young people are more fucked up, with more problems and live in a more confusing time than any other. Turn on your TV set. Sex and Violence. Our Kids grow up on this shit. Its ramrodded down their throats from the minute they can turn on the TV by themselves.
Its getting to a point where the is GOING TO BE a huge backlash. And, while this may be a good thing at first, Americans ALWAYS overdo everything, and will eventually become the equivilant of the decline. Everything is cyclical.

So with gay marriage we have something that is more of a "line in the Sand". Many Americans are starting to stand up and say "ENOUGH". Enough of the erosion of what many Americans feel are traditional American values and Society. Enough of allowing any and everything. Enough MTV. Enough pop music glorifying Sex, Drugs, and Violence.

The sad fact is that the Gay rights movement has been extremely succesful in shooting itself in the foot in its defining itself to the American public. Every major city has endured the Gay Day parades. You want one of your kids watching one of those?
I know this isnt reflective of the Majority of Homosexuals. I KNOW 99% of them are normal people who live entirelly normal lives, pretty much like any of us. More "David" from Six Feet Under than "Jack" from WIll and Grace.
But thats not the point anymore.
The American public feels like it has lost control. It cant control whats coming in its homes from TV or Radio, it cant control whats going on in its schools. Once again, Americans are, you guessed it, afraid. And I think they have some pretty good reasons to be this time. Not of Homosexuals, or them being married. Thats not even the point anymore. Its not about Hating Gays, or repressing Gays. Its about being able for people to have a say in the society and the culture they live in. Its about living in a culture that is reflective of who we are.
We as a people are so afraid of living by some sort of mob rule that we have subjugated ourselves to the tyranny of the minority.
If this was just about 2 gay people that loved each other and wanted to get married, then I would be all for it, but thats not what its about anymore.
Its a battle in a war the GWB and friends are going to be stoking the fires of and using to their advantage. Which is unfortunate.

You people are hopeless.

To paraphrase what I've clearly posted above: "A man and woman that are married, whether with child or not, benefit society more than they do seperately."

That's all I've said. Nothing more, nothing less. Has nothing to do with homosexual marriage, because I was replying to Bowlers' "How does a childless marriage benefit society?"

But go on, keep making a big fucking issue out of it as you're want to do.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Well my comment assumed you knew ANYTHING about the Bible at all. The "Jewish" Bible is simply the Christian Old Testament. Its FULL of hundreds of laws that God handed to the Jewish people which included the 10 commandments. All of your crazy talk about SIN comes from these laws. If you talk about SIN you MUST be referring to these. Well the Sabbath law was part of these commandments which spans almost 4 books in the Bible. Or are you just picking and choosing which laws you wanna follow cause you really have no clue?<hr></blockquote>

Aparently you missed that part in the New Testament...y'know the couple dozen books that Christianity is founded around? The part where Christ died, free'd us from sin and pretty much oblitereated the need for the laws of the old testament save as a history lesson?

Now, I'm Lutheran. According to Lutheranism, well...here's the third commandment in it's fullest for us.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You must keep the Sabbath holy.

Q. What does this mean?

A. We must fear and love God, so that we will not look down on preaching or God's Word, but consider it holy, listen to it willingly, and learn it.<hr></blockquote>

Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass, as well as your lovers fist, and read up a bit on scripture. The old law was washed away with the blood of Christ. The ten commandments however were re-instated by Christ before his death (read chapters 5 and 19 of Matthew).

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Why would I call you a bigot at this point? Your post had no bigoted language in it. Do you even know what that word means? I thought we covered that several pages ago. <hr></blockquote>

Because according to our friend Sanchek, I'm a bigot because I defend my position, -not- because I feel I'm right, but because aparently I'm homophobic and close-minded.

The manner in which you responded to me had me believing you had the same impression.

Let's try this again:

CDC: Infant Mortality by Marital Status of Mother (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001702.htm)

Married and Unmarried Parenthood and Economic Well-Being (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage-well-being03/parenthood.htm)

Impacts of Marital Status and Parental Presence on the Material Hardship of Families with Children (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage-well-being03/hardship.htm)

I'll look more tomorrow, but most of the Gov's research and statistics is in PDF now (as you discovered) or in a pay per view Journal of Medicine somewhere.

The old law was washed away with the blood of Christ. The ten commandments however were re-instated by Christ before his death (read chapters 5 and 19 of Matthew).


God called me yesterday and said that the old laws were back in full force.

He also told me he things you should floss your teeth more.

(The above illustrates, in my opinion, why religion should not be used in making law. Ever. Too many variables and crazy people involved.)

A constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to a man and a woman will never pass. It has to get through congress and then the legislatures have their say. It's just not going to happen.

As an aside, I love the amendment process. Instead of letting the judiciary "figure it out" we need to embrace the amendment process in stead of trying to divine what madision et al were really thinking.

The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed but we argue about how many angels fit on the head of a pin (the well regulated militia part) rather than stick to the substance (shall not be infringed).

In summary -- don't invent new law from the ether..if you don't like the Constitution, there is a very tidy system in place to change the law.

No worries Zhen we are safe!


www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar04/212454.asp (http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar04/212454.asp)

Hmmm. An overnight session of partisan wrangling....

I am the new spokesperson for GODCorp LLC.

We are formally requesting that you turn over all of your money to our represenative "Marz".

Thank you for your cooperation.

Aparently you missed that part in the New Testament...y'know the couple dozen books that Christianity is founded around? The part where Christ died, free'd us from sin and pretty much oblitereated the need for the laws of the old testament save as a history lesson?
Well then if you believe that why are you against gay marriage on religious grounds. Once again your making up commandments just like I said. If your not making up commandments how can you follow your last statement and tell me we are sinners.

I also wanna point out that your "fisting" comment was 10x more repulsive than anything I have ever said yet no one commented. Fisting is not something Im interested in and is primarily a straight person practice.

Bowler, I'm sorry about that. I wasn't thinking. That cheapshot wasn't called for.


Ibudin - I just saw that on the news. Hilarious stuff. Knew there was a reason I liked living here, and it wasn't the goddamn weather. 8(

This is nothing that I didnt predict. We will not see gay marriage in our lifetime.

In fact on a constitutionally related note, now that the Constitution of states can be used to restrict rights. Look for more and more freedoms that you enjoy to be stripped away.

This is not a gay issue but has been happeneing for years. The slow drain of freedom in exchange for what is considered "moral safety" or "physical safety" is begining to accelerate.

Mcdonalds will no longer offer Supersized Fries. Cause people are too fat and cant have any personal responsibility. America the Weak (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/02/mcdonalds.supersize.ap/). Time is coming and you can say im crazy when we will start to cannibalize each other for the sake of "policital correctness". The fence just keeps getting tighter and tighter.

Btw - Ibudin what are you safe from?

What Gay marriage would do to You! (http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/0127dl.html)