|
On March 01 2013 17:24 pbjsandwich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:20 Pholon wrote:On March 01 2013 16:51 kafkaesque wrote:
I still don't think they should get married.
Obviously they should be allowed to and I'm happy that they are, but I never understood why they would want to when the civil union brings the same benefits. Gays getting married before the Church is akin to African Americans joining the Ku-Klux-Klan or jews joining the Nazi party.
The catholic church has been discrimatory towards gays for two thousand years, why would you ever find it appealing to get married "before god"? A commited, loving relationship surely doesn't need this "yes-I-do"-pageantry... Why are you associating marriage with the church? I'm pretty sure Obama is just addressing people being able to get married before the state. yeah I think that guy's post is hilarious This isn't akin to african americans joining the ku klux klan but rather the civil rights problems we were having pre 1960s This is discrimination being done by the government and everyone against it is somehow justifying it publicly through their religion and politics it's really sickening
What? I'm all for equal rights...
|
The real question is if un-elected, life term members of the judiciary are going to once again decide on large scale societal change not put before Congress, or voted AGAINST by the people of the states, because it's what they want. It should be thought long and hard about what is a "right." We throw this word around now so easily. IF marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman, then homosexuals don't HAVE that right. This is what annoys me. We are redefining words for and institutions for our own purposes. I don't think society has debated this for long enough to take any sort of action yet. (Though I personally have already decided, both as an issue of rights and morality).
|
On March 01 2013 17:35 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:33 pbjsandwich wrote:
Did anybody say it was either all encompassing or unchangeable?
But everyone is equal under the law
That isn't apart of the bill of rights but it is in the constitution and the fact that it is being violated is terrible You were trying to claim that it lists all unalienable rights which for that to be the case it would have to be all encompassing and probably unchangeable.
I never said ti had all of them
But it is a piece of paper that has civil rights listed on it.
There is a framework to work with there
and beyond the bill of rights the constitution does a pretty good job
but for SOME REASON it's ok to discriminate against gays because of.....?
Not really sure
|
On March 01 2013 17:37 kafkaesque wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:24 pbjsandwich wrote:On March 01 2013 17:20 Pholon wrote:On March 01 2013 16:51 kafkaesque wrote:
I still don't think they should get married.
Obviously they should be allowed to and I'm happy that they are, but I never understood why they would want to when the civil union brings the same benefits. Gays getting married before the Church is akin to African Americans joining the Ku-Klux-Klan or jews joining the Nazi party.
The catholic church has been discrimatory towards gays for two thousand years, why would you ever find it appealing to get married "before god"? A commited, loving relationship surely doesn't need this "yes-I-do"-pageantry... Why are you associating marriage with the church? I'm pretty sure Obama is just addressing people being able to get married before the state. yeah I think that guy's post is hilarious This isn't akin to african americans joining the ku klux klan but rather the civil rights problems we were having pre 1960s This is discrimination being done by the government and everyone against it is somehow justifying it publicly through their religion and politics it's really sickening What? I'm all for equal rights...
I'm not saying you weren't but I thought your comparison and argument were kind of funny
|
On March 01 2013 17:37 kafkaesque wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:24 pbjsandwich wrote:On March 01 2013 17:20 Pholon wrote:On March 01 2013 16:51 kafkaesque wrote:
I still don't think they should get married.
Obviously they should be allowed to and I'm happy that they are, but I never understood why they would want to when the civil union brings the same benefits. Gays getting married before the Church is akin to African Americans joining the Ku-Klux-Klan or jews joining the Nazi party.
The catholic church has been discrimatory towards gays for two thousand years, why would you ever find it appealing to get married "before god"? A commited, loving relationship surely doesn't need this "yes-I-do"-pageantry... Why are you associating marriage with the church? I'm pretty sure Obama is just addressing people being able to get married before the state. yeah I think that guy's post is hilarious This isn't akin to african americans joining the ku klux klan but rather the civil rights problems we were having pre 1960s This is discrimination being done by the government and everyone against it is somehow justifying it publicly through their religion and politics it's really sickening What? I'm all for equal rights...
Yeah, i know what you mean. But there's the thing called principle. A gay man is not different than any other man. If you label him or deny him something, it's kinda not equal. I can understand why they don't want that.
It's a bit like being allowed to drive a moped because it gets you from a to b, but you're denied driving a car because some idiotic book says so. I would be pissed about that (even though i might be okay with just riding a moped, denying me the option though would piss me off seriously).
|
When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters.
He announced his personal support for gay marriage last year but has said the issue should be governed by states.
Which to me sounds more like: "The states should govern the issue as long as they do what I want them to do."
There was a democratic vote in which the majority apparently sided against gay marriage, and now Obama wants to take a dump on that democratic process by asking the supreme court to intervene. I'm surprised that more people aren't offended that our right as citizens to vote for that which we desire is honored by the government.
Another example of the federal government taking a dump on the democratic process at the state level is the case of Angel Raich. Under California law, Raich was allowed to grow marijuana for medicinal use, but the federal government took a dump on California law and confiscated and burned Raich's marijuana plants. There was a lot of outrage about this case, and it is basically the same thing that is happening here, just on a different issue. State decides what is best for the state. Federal Government disagrees and will attempt to force the state into submission.
Sickening~
|
When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters.
The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way.
I'm surprised that more people aren't offended that our right as citizens to vote for that which we desire is honored by the government.
Wait, i didn't see that. I'm blown away by that ignorancy, i can't even tell how idiotic a statement like that looks. There's a democratic vote to deny a minorities right to marriage? The vote was idiotic in the first place, it should not be up to you if harry from two streets down the road can marry his friend george.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On March 01 2013 17:46 Joedaddy wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. Show nested quote +He announced his personal support for gay marriage last year but has said the issue should be governed by states. Which to me sounds more like: "The states should govern the issue as long as they do what I want them to do." There was a democratic vote in which the majority apparently sided against gay marriage, and now Obama wants to take a dump on that democratic process by asking the supreme court to intervene. I'm surprised that more people aren't offended that our right as citizens to vote for that which we desire is honored by the government.
I think Obama is addressing rights here - so it doesn't have much to do with the democratic process.
|
I don't know what you're talking about but the Supreme Court was going to have to take this case either way....
Your whole idea of states rights is just so weird and out dated. Yeah It's a philosophy but to expect this current government to run that way is.....ridiculous? The federal government is the powerhouse and has been for awhile.
|
On March 01 2013 17:46 Joedaddy wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. Show nested quote +He announced his personal support for gay marriage last year but has said the issue should be governed by states. Which to me sounds more like: "The states should govern the issue as long as they do what I want them to do." There was a democratic vote in which the majority apparently sided against gay marriage, and now Obama wants to take a dump on that democratic process by asking the supreme court to intervene. I'm surprised that more people aren't offended that our right as citizens to vote for that which we desire is honored by the government. Another example of the federal government taking a dump on the democratic process at the state level is the case of Angel Raich. Under California law, Raich was allowed to grow marijuana for medicinal use, but the federal government took a dump on California law and confiscated and burned Raich's marijuana plants. There was a lot of outrage about this case, and it is basically the same thing that is happening here, just on a different issue. State decides what is best for the state. Federal Government disagrees and will attempt to force the state into submission. Sickening~
You are forgetting, according to many of the loudest people, this is a civil "rights" issue. It's too important, the banning is too immoral to be decided by the clearly bigoted people of the states! This requires action! This is similar to abortion. Country split? Varying states have different laws? No matter! This is SO important that in this case, the un-elected, unaccountable court NEEDS to step in and act! When society doesn't back you up the normal way, you get someone else to do it. Happened many times.
|
On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way.
I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o
|
Also as a Californian the whole Proposition program we have here is one of the most idiotic things to exist in American government. The fact that this proposition went through is not some kind of fair representation of what should happen but more like some kind of political win in a terrible terrible system
|
I agree with most things, but I can't stand the idea of leaving it to the states. To me marriage seems like something that you can't really have in some states and in others. I would much rather have federal law legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
|
On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o
Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue. Also it does not only disagree with me, but with basic human rights AND your own frikkin constitution (-> separation of church and state).
|
On March 01 2013 17:59 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue.
... I was referring to the mythical "separation of Church and state." The Justice who wrote the opinion was the Catholic hating FDR appointee named Hugo Black. Fun guy. Nothing to do with blacks.
As to rights and the Constitution, I have a feeling you really don't know the history of either. Look into it. Or don't. Doesn't matter, so long as you don't comment on American stuff pertaining to it.
The wall of separation is a purely judicial invention, unfortunately.
|
On March 01 2013 18:01 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:59 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue. ... I was referring to the mythical "separation of Church and state." The Justice who wrote the opinion was the Catholic hating FDR appointee named Hugo Black. Fun guy. Nothing to do with blacks.
I lost you now, maybe im too tired after being up for too long. I don't hate on church (even though i'm not a believer), i don't hate blacks, stuff like that. I'm just saying, it's not your government that is a problem, but the church interfering with it ("marriage" a bible thing and stuff like that).
Also, why exactly is gay marriage banned in (parts of) the US in the first place?
Edit: you're right, i misunderstood the separation of church and state part, after reading up (a bit) on it. Does not change the fact that the church should not interefere with laws, and a law against gay marriage is solely based on religious believes.
|
|
|
Russian Federation367 Posts
Seems like USA is going to hell.
|
On March 01 2013 17:51 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:46 Joedaddy wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. He announced his personal support for gay marriage last year but has said the issue should be governed by states. Which to me sounds more like: "The states should govern the issue as long as they do what I want them to do." There was a democratic vote in which the majority apparently sided against gay marriage, and now Obama wants to take a dump on that democratic process by asking the supreme court to intervene. I'm surprised that more people aren't offended that our right as citizens to vote for that which we desire is honored by the government. I think Obama is addressing rights here - so it doesn't have much to do with the democratic process.
I think Obama sees the writing on the wall of what is already being addressed in the judicial system and is taking advantage of it for political gain. The issue of gay marriage, specifically in California, is being challenged through the judicial process, and has been for years.
I predict that gay marriage is going to be legalized in every state in time, but that process needs to play out without the interference of the federal government. If it doesn't, you're going to have situations in the future where the federal government doesn't agree with you on issues (like marijuana) and they will have even more precedent to intervene and impose their will on you the citizen. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say, "I support gay marriage, so I support intervention at a federal level," and then disagree with the federal government intervening on other issues where your position is in conflict to the office of the president.
|
Why would this even be on the vote? It should already be given. You dont vote for minorities to have equal rights, so why would you vote for gays to have equal rights? There is nothing wrong with two same sex couple marrying, like what do non-supporters think will happen when gays can marry? World ending? People are still as discriminating as ever, just about different things now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
