Do you believe Same-sex Marriage should be legal in the U.S.?

[parkerbi]

Now, do you believe Polygamy should be legal?
Why or why not on either, if you choose one but not the other please state why.

to all that say yes to gay marriage but no to polygamy are complete idiots. this isnt about children, money, or what you think is gross or not, its what you think everyone who willfully pays taxes should have the right to do in a free country were we claim everyone should have equal rights.

[AFTER9]

Either way what I've noticed is that people fail to distingush between the religous ceremony part and the business law contract between two people part of the equation.
As a detached observer what I've noticed is that the opponents of same sex marriage play on peoples emotions about what a tradition it is. Bride in white,fancy cake all of that stuff which is only a small part of the whole equation.
IMO telling people how to structure their families and having uneven protections and benefits is unfair even insulting. No matter what you call it Marriage, Civil Union,Lifelong Comittment etc etc in a business law sense that seems to be where the real inequity lies.Thats everyday and lifelong not just a one day ceremony.Thats what the real danger seems to be on playing with peoples emotions with these Same sex marriage bans.
These pieces of legaslation To me it all seems to be a smoke screen anyways to keep peoples minds of the real pressiing issues like The economy,healthcare or the wars.

[12voltman59]

As I have stated before in other posts on this subject--speaking strictly in terms of the legal aspects of "same sex marriage"-I am absolutely in favor of it-but in terms of the religious aspect---since we do have "seperation of church and state" here in America---each individual religion is free to decide for itself if that religion is going to sanction the marriage of same-sex partners or not-----they are perfectly free to operate in the way they chose--many churches/faiths will chose not to recognize and perform same-sex marriages and many will--and people will chose their churches and faiths based on what stand the respective churches/faiths select.

That is the way it should be.

[vittoria]

These pieces of legaslation To me it all seems to be a smoke screen anyways to keep peoples minds of the real pressiing issues like The economy,healthcare or the wars.

Pretty much!

[darkeyes]

These pieces of legaslation To me it all seems to be a smoke screen anyways to keep peoples minds of the real pressiing issues like The economy,healthcare or the wars.
Fact is hun...its the lil issues like this that mean so much 2 so many..if we concentrate on jus the big 1s like the economy, healthcare, war etc etc.. then we wud neva c ne change in our society woteva.... the rites a human beins cant b subsumed an lost at the altar a big issues.... they matta 2...

... an 1 point no 1 reely seems 2 pik up on..until ya changes federal marriage law 2 recognise marriage tween same sex cupples as a rite.. an give em all the rites.. ALL the rites an priviliges that they shud hav as citizens.. then even if all 51 states accept an allow same sex marriage.. then yas still only haff way ther....

[shameless agitator]

Either way what I've noticed is that people fail to distingush between the religous ceremony part and the business law contract between two people part of the equation.
As a detached observer what I've noticed is that the opponents of same sex marriage play on peoples emotions about what a tradition it is. Bride in white,fancy cake all of that stuff which is only a small part of the whole equation.
IMO telling people how to structure their families and having uneven protections and benefits is unfair even insulting. No matter what you call it Marriage, Civil Union,Lifelong Comittment etc etc in a business law sense that seems to be where the real inequity lies.Thats everyday and lifelong not just a one day ceremony.Thats what the real danger seems to be on playing with peoples emotions with these Same sex marriage bans.
These pieces of legaslation To me it all seems to be a smoke screen anyways to keep peoples minds of the real pressiing issues like The economy,healthcare or the wars. I've been making exactly this same point for years. I also have to agree with Volty on the separation of church and state. Personally, I don't think there should be any such thing as legal marriage at all. The civil union "compromise" people keep advocating is perfect, but it should apply to straight people as well. You have a civil union for the legal contract & if you want to be married, that should be purely a religious thing.

[darkeyes]

I've been making exactly this same point for years. I also have to agree with Volty on the separation of church and state. Personally, I don't think there should be any such thing as legal marriage at all. The civil union "compromise" people keep advocating is perfect, but it should apply to straight people as well. You have a civil union for the legal contract & if you want to be married, that should be purely a religious thing.
Think ya then run inta danger a havin 2 classes a "union" Agit hun..don necessarily disagree wivya but woetva its called shud b called the same howeva ne cermony is conducted..an given the same rites privilages an obligations... ova ere we hav civil unions or civil onions as me dad calls em wich hav the same rites an obligations but within the wider community a lesser status even than civil weddins conducted at a registry office or elsewer... how many times me heard str8 peeps callin em kid on marriages??

No hun..ya hav unions legally tween peeps they shud b called 1 thing..wot else afta all dus the word marriage mean?? In ne religious or civil sense... thats true equality...

[Lookngood450]

You have a civil union for the legal contract & if you want to be married, that should be purely a religious thing.

I agree with this 100%. Everyone should be entitled to the same legal protections and obligations. But marriage is a religious issue for many (most?) people and each church/religion will have to determine that for themselves.

[void()]

Polygamy & same sex marriage? Yes, it would make life a lot better having these recognized as legal. And yes, I'd appreciate the legal capacity to have both. Excuse the conciseness, must be going.

[eddy10]

All marriages should be illegal. It would cut down on the divorce rate. :rolleyes:

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

If people of the same sex love each other and wish to be married, then I say more power to them! Its their lives, they should be able to live said life without having to hide under society's stigma. Poly people should have the same rights. Just because society frowns upon something doesnt make it wrong as long as every one is happy with it and not having this whole big Jonestown/Waco thing going on.
Society should just butt out on some things and just let people Be.
My humble 2 cents.:2cents:
Cat

[darkeyes]

I just do not believe what I am reading. Here we are discussing gay and bi people being put on an equal footing with str8 people and a civil ceremony being called a "civil union" and only religious bodies allowed to call the legal commitment and union of 2 human beings a marriage?? What a right lot of cobblers. I for one will not stand by and let churches mosques or any one else purloin unto themselves a word which most aptly describes such a union. In this country while we have Civil Unions for non heterosexual people we should still be fighting for the right to call them what they are... a true and proper marriage between two people. It is not simply a play with words and it does not mean the same. In Scots and English law a union of two heterosexual people carried out in a civil ceremony is called a marriage. We deserve the same privilege and dignity afforded to us and our kind. Nothing less is good enough. And I for one will not truck the downgrading of any marriage so performed for 2 heterosexual people being downgraded to "civil union". It means that there are two or even 3 classes of "marriage" and I for one will not wear it... and we as a community should not wear it. It is letting the sanctimonious, the intolerant and the hypocritical win. It defeats what we are trying to achieve. It may not be very important to some of you what we call gay marriage. It certainly is to me.

[captslaprock]

NO........SHOULD BE BETWEEN A MAN & WOMAN

[12voltman59]

As was noted by the California State Supreme Court in its ruling overturning the laws on the books in that state that sought to prohibit same-sex marriage ---there is a legal definiton of marriage that varies from "civil union."

According to the court---legal marriage, at least according to the California state constitution----grants a full set of rights to those who are engaged in it--while civil uniions still have major restrictions that are not comparable to legal "marriage" and would leave those who have civil unions being denied their full rights.

You do have to seperate the legal, governmental meanings of the term marriage from the religious ones---they are not the same thing---

And to reiterate my point above----"the state"--by that I mean all government----needs to recognize full legal marriage to those seeking "same-sex" marriage----the various religions may or may not care to grant the religious form of marriage to those who attend them as they see fit---

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"

[onewhocares]

This subject just came up in a conversation my mother and I had last Thursday as we were on our way from a funeral an hour or so away from where we reside. I had made a comment that how wonderful I thought that singer was ( a ringer for Andrea Bocelli) and how I had approached him to express to him just how much I enjoyed his singing. He was, at that moment, with his partner and I was promptly introduced. Made a most striking couple. My mother made a comment about his being gay. Well...recently my husband came out as gay to me. I have known forever. He has no plans in the near future to tell those around him what he, and I, about personal intimate relationships. I said it makes so little difference to me what someone sexual orientation is. My philospphy is I said that if you are lucky to have found a mate whom you love and who loves you and are lucky to share each others lives as a couple, the gender of the two persons should have no bearing. She promptly stated to me marriage is solely between a man and a woman and for the express purpose of procreation. I asked if she really believed it. She did. So I said..."gee mom, what if I told you that I was gay and that I had fallen in love with another woman? Would you love me any less? Would you treat or respect me any differently? " Her response shocked and saddened me. She said to me that no she would love me, but that she would look upon herself as a failure as a mother. I was aghast. Then she lead onto the subject of marriage..I said well say that if I am gay...does that make the marriage that hubby and I share....22 years this past Sunday any less meaningful or loving? Off she went on the sanctity of marriage and the "religious" aspect, which I too feel that those who chose to select an additional religious ceremony may do so. I do believe that any and all persons, irregardless of the gender should be afforded equal treatment under the law.

I am not sure if the viewpoint expressed by my mother is generational or not, or that her religious convictions have altered her sense of happiness for her children, but it is just an observation I put forth.

Belle

[12voltman59]

Belle--some of what your mum said is generational --but it is also a "world view" thing too----it has really more to do with the ways one thinks of the world----to my mind-and this is not a direct rap on your mum-but to me--your mum's view and those of others who hold it makes me glad I am not a "religious" person who holds such traditional views on things-----I actually feel sorry for them---but of course they would feel (at least I guess I hope they would) feel sorry for those of us who don't think as they do and just figure we are misguided souls.

(the thing is---many who hold such a view don't simply think that--they think we are "sick" and must either be changed or worse if we won't change--meaning that some think we deserve nothing less than death--just ask the Rev. Phelps crowd and those like them)

[FalconAngel]

As was noted by the California State Supreme Court in its ruling overturning the laws on the books in that state that sought to prohibit same-sex marriage ---there is a legal definiton of marriage that varies from "civil union."

According to the court---legal marriage, at least according to the California state constitution----grants a full set of rights to those who are engaged in it--while civil uniions still have major restrictions that are not comparable to legal "marriage" and would leave those who have civil unions being denied their full rights.

You do have to seperate the legal, governmental meanings of the term marriage from the religious ones---they are not the same thing---

And to reiterate my point above----"the state"--by that I mean all government----needs to recognize full legal marriage to those seeking "same-sex" marriage----the various religions may or may not care to grant the religious form of marriage to those who attend them as they see fit---

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"

You have just made the argument that makes the "Defense of Marriage" act, and others like it, unconstitutional.

The idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman is an exclusively Judao-Christian-Islamic thing. The vast majority of the world's religions make no religious distinction; that is, they make no specific statement of definition of marriage.

Now, follow the logic, here;

Under the Dominion Christians, marriage is between a man and woman only and for procreation only.
Using that very specific definition, that means that older people who are married and incapable of procreating are not married; neither are younger couples who are infertile or who choose to not have children are not married.
ANY couple that does not meet those 2 criteria are not married, under that definition of marriage.

There are multiple flaws in the idea of keeping that particular definition of marriage and they are all inter-related.

1. The rule was originally established in the middle ages. It served a couple of purposes then, that no longer apply to society;
a. It gave families better chances at keeping family lines going to future generations in a world in which infant mortality and general population disease/injury mortality rates were extremely high.
b. If all of the children that were born survived to adulthood, then it meant more people that the church could count on as members and subsequently more tithings for the church.
c. In these days, infant mortality is down, medical response, technology and knowledge is light years ahead of what it was then, so general mortality is way down, which has added to the explosion of people on this planet.
d. In these days, we are no longer a predominantly agrarian society, so having large families is exclusively serving personal egos and the church.

2. Having the rule established the church's dominion over the population and the government.

3. Having the church rule the people and the government made the church the real defacto government, not the actual ruling parties. This fact is one of the factors that caused the creation of protestant sects, such a Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, etc.

4. In these days, the only purpose that the rule can serve is to expand the church's power over our secular government and to add to the church's, and consequently, the world's population. More power over the population and government as well as adding to the world's overpopulation issues.

5. As it applies to the American form of Constitutional laws, it is an establishment of a particular religion; a clear and unquestionable violation of the 1st Amendment (what we call separation of church and state).

Therefore, Proposition 8 in California and Amendment 2 in Florida are both violations of the federal constitution and subsequently a violation of state constitutions (which all have to be in compliance with the US Constitution).

Go ahead and ask anyone who is in support of those acts to give you a non-religion based reason why the "defense of marriage act", Prop 8 or Amendment 2 should be the law and they will not be able to answer you.

That is because there is no reasonable justification for preventing anyone, without regard to gender pairing, from marrying.

[planeman]

Absolutely!!! Religion established the theory of a man and a woman in marriage, not nature. The US was created on freedom from the government imposing religion and or religious dogma on the citizens. The right to marry is I believe and expression of speech and therefore there shall be no abridging the freedom of speech, 1st Amendment. I suspect the Supremem Court, if not packed with ultra-right wing idiots, would find that same sex marriage is constitutionally protected. Go for it.:bipride:

[void()]

I knew there was good reason to think FalconAngel was intelligent. But wow!

Interesting points you've presented to say the least. Of course they'll probably burn The Constitution, as the first brigade renders peaceful demonstrators off to GITMO or similar.

[onewhocares]

I knew there was good reason to think FalconAngel was intelligent. But wow!

Was there any doubt?

Belle

[12voltman59]

I definitely feel that those various "defense of marriage acts" both federal and in the states are purely unconstiutional-----and they sure run counter to the intent as expressed by the founding fathers that we have a right to the "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness."

But to those who favor making such restrictions----as I have said before--their claims of otherwise "loving freedom" as they most often do--is nothing more than a hollow shell--a falsehood--a LIE----

They may think they are all about freedom---but they are anything but--they are about using the power of the state to impose on us all--their standards of morality---standards they cannot get everyone to follow by their example and the way they live their lives--they seek to impose those morals and standards by "force."

[allbimyself]

I love have the religious right (won't say conservatives, they are not true conservatives... see 12volt's post about Buckley, Jr) hate big government, but want the government to impose their morality on others.

[nothings5d]

One thing that needs to be kept straight about making polygamy legal is that if someone is already married they should need the written consent of anyone they are married to in order to marry someone else. That would keep it from becoming problematic. If the law was written so that anyone could get married to anyone at any time without the consent of their existing spouse(s) then it could be majorly abused.

[turtle2]

I guess agreeing with someone makes you sound intelligent. “Wow”…lol…lots of words…they just weren’t on topic.

Anyway falcon again I appreciate the debate, however you in this last post all you raised was a bunch of irrelevant dogma about separation of church and state. By the way marriage and their equivalents where established long before the middle ages. But yes they were based in and around the family procreation ability and the rights as to protection around that unit…..as they are today.

Like I said in my last post, that is not really relevant to this post. If you would like to start a new post I’ll be happy to debate and win I might add in that post. Let me re-focus
1. It is the states job to protect religious freedom. Until you amend this it is still the law of the land regardless of how silly you feel religion is.

2. Judicial activism is never the way for anything to be handled. This leads to consequences that are not foreseen. Instead of a lawsuit this should have been a ballot initiative.

3. 6 of 8 supreme courts ruled that defining the word marriage is constitutional with the addition of the federal DOMA act signed by bill Clinton being ratified at the federal level. Guess which two state ruled the it unconstitutional (MA and CA….i guess you could include CT but that wasn’t a supreme challenge)

4. The word marriage will not gain a same sex couple any additional rights that they are not currently afforded under current registered domestic partnership and estate and trust laws. The activist community will gain virtually nothing.

5. The gay activist community has proven it will try to force state and church together(which you claim not to agree with) through lawsuits. These are not slippery slope arguments as they are under current and past litigation.

Please stay on topic but until someone can explain what rights they will gain by prop 8 failing and how they intend to keep church and state separate I think this debate is over. We don’t or shouldn’t vote for or against things based on emotion. I find it very interesting that still nobody has offered any real arguments against what I put forward other than the definition between separation of church and state.

If you look at my posts i haven't really put up a religious angle, but you seem to want to argure against religion i find that very curious. I can't help but wonder if your contempt for religion is what is driving your attack on the word marry?


That is because there is no reasonable justification for preventing anyone, without regard to gender pairing, from marrying.

This is really the whole point of the debate. You are right in that under current CA law people can “Pair” with whomever they want. That is not in question. What is in question is the word tied to the pairing and the lawsuits that will follow.

[qchamp]

Either let EVERYONE get married, or let NONE! Its that simple. If the right isnt given to all, then isnt it discrimination?

The local, state, and federal government have no business in the marriage business. Its all a money maker for the state anyway. Let people be free to choose who they want to spen their life with, and give everything to them.


Tim

[qchamp]

Hey volty, remember, it says PURSUIT of happiness. That doesnt mean you can actually have it. Just says you can try and have it.

Tim

[darkeyes]

Hey volty, remember, it says PURSUIT of happiness. That doesnt mean you can actually have it. Just says you can try and have it.

Tim Chump me luffly..The rite 2 the pursuit of happiness means dus it not that in principle..no legal obstacle shud b put in ya way... it dus
not mean ya hav the rite to pursue the rite for the pursuit of happiness... ya can hav happiness wivout gettin married but for many it is the ultimate sanction of commitment wivout wich that happiness is often constricted..

.. an yea restrictin who an who cannot marry is discrimination.. dus not mean we shud take the ball away an stop the happiness of othas who can...

[void()]

Was there any doubt?

Belle

Not really, although folks do tend to offer surprises. :)

[void()]

"1. It is the states job to protect religious freedom. Until you amend this it is still the law of the land regardless of how silly you feel religion is."

And you have lost the argument by this appeal. The State, in this case being America, grants each person the undeniable right as per birth to have any or no religion at all, at their own discretion. If in my discretion of having no religion I choose to marry and a man and woman, then The State imposes another way to define marrying, it is contradicting itself. "Here you may eat all the free cheese you desire." And "You can only eat this blue cheese." It says all in one breath. Sorry but you can not have The State regulating that everyone can believe what they choose, then The State forcing one mandated load of feces down everyone's throat. The State's job _is_ to protect religious freedom, after all, and everyone's religious freedom. So by forcing a narrowing and exclusive definition of marriage, The State is contradicting its job. Snake biting its own tail ring bells? Curse Socrates.

Might does not always equate to right. And right comes in a variety flavors.

And this is not emotion. It is simple logic. You appeal to an authority, one that you elect to make decisions in your best interests. So it does and it says we can all believe what we choose, there are no limits imposed. Then one day it says limits are imposed, because some people want everyone to believe the same thing/s. Logically this does not compute. It's akin to Disney tossing lemmings off the cliffs to make a film. "Awe cute and adorable free lemmings. Too bad they don't do anything. How about we apply force?"

All ye who doth enter, abandon ye all hope. For this way to madness leads.

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes." - Mahatma Gandhi

For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery. -Jonathan Swift

And it does appear by limiting the definition of marriage, The State is governing without consent. Semantics? Perhaps, yet I hesitate to appealing to such lest it is inferred I be anti-Semitic. Apologies, debates are oft too serious for their own good, forgive the pun from a literal mind. :)

[qchamp]

Fran, its just a joke.

But thats righ, EVERYONE should be able to marry WHOMEVER they want. Man/man, man/woman, woman/woman. Its all good to me.

In fact we are having that on our ballot this year, I belive its amendment 2 here in floory-duh.

Im voting FOR same sex whatever you want.


Tim

[FalconAngel]

I guess agreeing with someone makes you sound intelligent. “Wow”…lol…lots of words…they just weren’t on topic.

Actually, they were on topic and I sound intelligent because I am intelligent as well as being well versed in the Constitution that I swore an oath to defend.

Take a look at the thread title. Everything I said was historic and constitutional precedent using logical and secular reasoning without regard to religious precedent. And simply saying that someone is wrong, with no arguments to support your statement, does not make your statement right. It makes my statements right and true.


Anyway falcon again I appreciate the debate, however you in this last post all you raised was a bunch of irrelevant dogma about separation of church and state. By the way marriage and their equivalents where established long before the middle ages. But yes they were based in and around the family procreation ability and the rights as to protection around that unit…..as they are today.

It isn't irrelevant at all.

I have read the Constitution and had it defined clearly by experts in the field of Constitutional law. From both sides of the discussion. I have a few friends and relatives who are deeply involved in the law at that level.
Yes, marriage and it's equivalent was established long before the middle ages (thousands of years before), but only the Christian church established the rules for what made a legal definition of marriage as being only between a man and a woman and only for procreation, during the middle ages. That was when Church rule was at it's peak of social and governmental control, prior to the rise of the protestant sects during the Renaissance (did I mention that I am a historian?).


Like I said in my last post, that is not really relevant to this post. If you would like to start a new post I’ll be happy to debate and win I might add in that post. Let me re-focus
1. It is the states job to protect religious freedom. Until you amend this it is still the law of the land regardless of how silly you feel religion is.

And therein lies the failing in your argument. The thread is about same sex marriage and should it be allowed. I have argued for it, showing legal and historic precedent, which you have disputed, without factual basis, I must add.

It is the state's, more accurately, the government's responsibility to not violate the "establishment of religion" clause, as found in the first Amendment to the Constitution. All states within the United States are compelled to implement state Constitutions that comply, fully, with the federal Constitution. That includes 1st and 14th Amendment protections.

1. Since marriage is only between a man and a woman and only for procreation, as per the Christian religion, defining it according to that one definition is an establishment of religion and a violation of the 1st Amendment.


2. Judicial activism is never the way for anything to be handled. This leads to consequences that are not foreseen. Instead of a lawsuit this should have been a ballot initiative.

This is no more judicial activism than allowing blacks or women to vote or be given equal protection under the law (as established under the 14th Amendment). It is simply enforcement of those rights to every citizen of this nation. Precisely how is that judicial activism?

Separate but equal was found to be unconstitutional a long time ago.


3. 6 of 8 supreme courts ruled that defining the word marriage is constitutional with the addition of the federal DOMA act signed by bill Clinton being ratified at the federal level. Guess which two state ruled the it unconstitutional (MA and CA….i guess you could include CT but that wasn’t a supreme challenge)

And laws get passed, all the time, that are unconstitutional (ever heard of the Patriot act?). Those laws stay in force until they are challenged in the Supreme court. It does not make them any more legal under the US Constitution.


4. The word marriage will not gain a same sex couple any additional rights that they are not currently afforded under current registered domestic partnership and estate and trust laws. The activist community will gain virtually nothing.

Actually, if you have read Prop 8 (CA) and Amendment 2 (FL), you would see that they are afforded far fewer rights than they already do, as a cohabitant couple. As a matter of fact, both of those amendments reduce the cohabitant rights of opposite gender couples who are not married as well.


5. The gay activist community has proven it will try to force state and church together(which you claim not to agree with) through lawsuits. These are not slippery slope arguments as they are under current and past litigation.

Radical members of the Gay community will try to say that they are excluded from Christianity just like radical Christians claim that our soldiers dieing in Iraq is "God's revenge for protecting Gay rights".
I do not count the radicals among those that I am supporting.
Besides, there are already any number of Gay Christian churches (I have been to one in my area with my adopted sister who is Gay) and most of the rest of the religions, Wicca and Paganism included, do not consider a person's sexuality as a factor in the perceived "goodness", or worth, in "god's eyes".

So bringing up what the radicals are doing is an impotent argument.


Please stay on topic but until someone can explain what rights they will gain by prop 8 failing and how they intend to keep church and state separate I think this debate is over. We don’t or shouldn’t vote for or against things based on emotion. I find it very interesting that still nobody has offered any real arguments against what I put forward other than the definition between separation of church and state.

Actually, no one gains anything if Prop 8 wins, but many people; straight, unmarried couples get hurt, as well, if it fails. No one get's their rights restricted if it fails. As a matter of fact, Prop 8 and Amendment 2 take away unmarried, committed couples rights, reducing those rights to less than that of married couples.
Separate but equal. Sound familiar? If not, then look at the equal rights amendment or the struggle of the Black community in the Southern US.

Here's a prime example of just one way in which Amendment 2 or Prop 8 can screw up the lives of people.
Let's say that you are with an opposite sex partner. You have been together for decades, but never got married. Right now, if that partner is seriously injured in an accident and is in the hospital, you are not allowed to see them or make decisions that the two of you worked out for just such an emergency, but their family can, without regard to your partner's wishes or your wishes. Under Prop 8 and Amendment 2 those violations of your rights, as that person's s/o are upheld, denying you the right to spend time with them, make decisions for their best interest, etc. Partnered, long term couples need those rights, equal to marriage. Maybe you don't want those rights for yourself. That's fine. you don't have to have them, but you should have the option to have them if you should want them. Under Prop 2 and Amendment 2, you will NEVER get those rights, nor would you ever be allowed them.

Does that sound equal to you? It doesn't sound equal to me.


If you look at my posts i haven't really put up a religious angle, but you seem to want to argure against religion i find that very curious. I can't help but wonder if your contempt for religion is what is driving your attack on the word marry?

I'm not arguing against religion, but your statement is typical of the same lame arguments that right wing Christians use to justify their stance on a subject when they have no argument. I've seen that same statement in the subjects of the McCarthy era change to the Pledge of Allegiance, Abortion and now Gay marriage rights.

Let me make this one point perfectly clear;

I am not arguing against religion.
I will say it again; I am not arguing against religion.

I do, however argue against laws that are based in only one or two religions. When we pass a law, based on religion, that is not a universal constant (don't kill, steal, rape children, etc.) in all religions, then we are allowing an establishment of religion, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment.


This is really the whole point of the debate. You are right in that under current CA law people can “Pair” with whomever they want. That is not in question. What is in question is the word tied to the pairing and the lawsuits that will follow.

Do you mean the lawsuits that will equate to a divorce? 50% of all straight couples get divorced. What is it that makes you think that allowing gays to get married will change that percentage of marriages in a way that helps the divorce industry?

In my 48 years, I have met more Gay couples that have been together for 20+ years than straight couples. And some of those gay couples have had children, either from adoption or previous marriage. My daughter's mother is one of them.

The defense of marriage act does not defend marriage, since it doesn't make divorce illegal. Denying Gays the right to marry does not harm marriage in the least and there is no reliable, Empirical statistical data that says otherwise.

What you have been trying, unsuccessfully, to defend is a stance that is based only in Dominion Christian doctrine.

That makes what you defend an establishment of religion; A clear and blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. Let me quote it for you:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now take note of the second part of the underlined portion. It does NOT give free license, to any religion to force their particular and unique doctrines on anyone else. It does, however protect everyone from being forced to follow any one religion's doctrines over their own beliefs and practices.

This takes me back to what I said earlier. The anti-gay marriage movement is based in Dominion Christianity. That makes it an effort by Dominion Christianity to establish their religion as superior to everyone else.....including you and your rights.

Our founding fathers knew this and this is why they put that clause in the Constitution. They saw what religious rule did to Europe.
If you are unfamiliar with what the Christian church and Islam have done as ruling religions, I suggest you refer to the following historical events:
The Crusades, the 30 years war, the 100 years war, the European witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, The events around the Rise of Elizabeth I, the church's doctrine regarding the cause of the Black Plague and my personal favorite, The Church's response to Nicholas Cupernicus' findings that the Earth was not the center of the Universe.

If you can find any non-religious organization that has been fighting Gay marriage (organizations fighting on behalf of religion-based organizations do not count) using arguments that are not based in religion, then I would love to know who they are and how to see what they are basing their arguments on (I'm sure their websites would have that, if they exist at all).

It isn't about religion at all; it is about wanting the same rights as every other citizen. Not separate, but equal. Same and equal.

Or do you believe that your rights are unimportant because of your gender or sexuality? I don't believe that those criteria justify denying anyone equal protection or equal rights.
Dominion Christians see gay marriage as an attack on their religion and want it restricted. Because of that, DOMA, which was created by Dominion Christians, is in fact, a violation of the 1st Amendment because it is based in that single religion with no secular support whatsoever.

If being treated as an equal without regard to gender or sexual orientation is too much to ask for, then perhaps the Constitution is (as Bush and Clinton have both said) just an inconvenient piece of paper.
To me, it is only inconvenient to those that wish to curtail human rights and, since I swore an oath to protect it, I will make sure that it stays inconvenient to tyrants like that.