E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will announce Tuesday whether it will take up a legal challenge to Proposition 8, which amended California's constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
The announcement was expected by 1 p.m. ET.
Prop. 8 has been fiercely contested for almost four years since California voters approved it in November 2008. It declared that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
The state Supreme Court upheld the measure in 2009, but a U.S. district judge overturned it the following year. A three-judge federal appeals panel agreed with that ruling in February.
Watch US News videos on msnbc.com
If the full Ninth Circuit court agrees to hear it, the case could stretch on for many more months; should the court decline, supporters will almost certainly ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Sandusky accusers must use real identities at trial, judge rules
- Army policy makes it difficult for soldiers to get service dogs
- Public transit ridership rises sharply, advocacy group reports
- $63.5 million Wisconsin recall is most expensive in state's history
- One dead, 7 hurt in shooting at Toronto mall
- Killer's corpse dragged from car, eaten by bear
- Video: Crews make aggressive push on New Mexico fire
Leave a Comment:
Here we go again. It's not enough that a poplar vote, and a TON of money that a bankrupt state couldn't afford in the first place, had already decided this issue . Lets rehash it again.
It wasn't the state that decided to put the issue to a vote. It was the anti-gay crowd and the Mormon Church that collected enough signatures to put it on the ballot.
This is going all the way to SCOTUS where Prop 8.,DOMA and the rest of the laws limiting rights of a minority will be declared unconstitutional. Get over it, fundies.
Signed,
Straight married male.
The Mormon church did not place it on the ballot.
The LDS church accepted an invitation from The Coalition to Protect Marriage after the initiative was already on the ballot. This group invited the LDS church to join them.
This is a coalition of multiple churches, not just Mormons.
Source: www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8
They emphasize that "protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people."
Their official standpoint is here: www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
LIke the 9th circuit court could pass on giving an opinion on this one. Watch them agree with the overturn of the people's vote and see what happens at SCOTUS.
That's what courts are for...to decide if laws passed by the people or their representative (legislature) are constitutional. It's part of that whole "checks and balances" thing.
DB Akron
Its how the entire system works to make sure the rights of the minority are not taken away by a vote of the majority.
But selecting rights by popular demand are all the rage so long as the oppressors are not the oppressed.
I wish that the Christian Taliban would realize that pushing/allowing for laws with no basis in reality and lacking a focus on egalitarianism should not be passed.
None of the pushes for same-sex marriage required that specific religious institutions marry same-sex couples, they simply want states to allow and recognize those marriages because of all of the state-federal statutes that surround the treatment of married individuals...which btw still has different treatment compared to simple civil unions.
One of the US's founding tenets was on freedom of religion and government excluding itself from any establishment of religion.
The basis for the banning of same-sex marriage resides exclusively on religious doctrine. Therefore an establishment of religion, therefore unconstitutional
Quod erat demonstrandum?
While I am sure they are sincere in their belief, it's a bit hard to accept given that their stand ultimately hurts innocent gay couples and helps absolutely no one.
It's like showing love, kindness and humanity toward blind people by putting up barriers to make their path more difficult. It isn't kind. It isn't just. It isn't humane.
And it does not exhibit any love for those who are different.
Civil rights should not be put to a popular vote. Many states would still ban interracial
marriage and allow segregation if minority rights were not protected.
The popular vote argument is a red herring. If 51% voted to legalize slavery how would that work out? Democracy is not mob rule.
The Constitution exists "To protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority."
It doesn't matter that the measure went to a popular vote. You don't get to vote on civil rights. At one time the majority supported slavery, taking land from Native Americans and attempting to exterminate them, Jim Crow, denying women the right to vote, school segregation, Japanese internment, etc. Sometimes the majority is wrong and in those cases it is the duty and the obligation of the courts to step in and force the majority to respect the rights of the minority. That is the way our system has worked since 1789.
If you cant vote or make a law about civil rights, why cant a person under 18 vote? Why can someone from 18 to 21 become a soldier and die for their country, but cant drink alcohol? Why can a man have multiple wives?
This is because we can and do vote on what is a right and what is not a right.
First, several people really missed my point of the 9th circuit could never pass putting their stamp of approval on the overturn of a constitutional amendment.
Second, Unforutunately in a Democracy, even with a representative democracy, the intent is that the majority rules. In ours, we keep it from a simple majority dictatorship. The Courts were the weakest because aside from not wanting a dictorial leader, they also did not want the courts forcing their opinion on the nation.
Third, The whole point of these United States was a union that singularly dealt with foreign entities in the areas of treaties and defense. The second was to keep peace between the states who were engageed in commerce wars and other border disputes. It was never that the Fed picked and chose the rights we have. The fore fathers originally were not going to have the bill of rights. The only reason they did so, was to give some basic order and further limit the authority of the Central government.
This being taken to court overthrows the democratic processs when the court refuses to defend the democratic process.
DOMA's intent was to keep one state's decision about abortion, marriage or other issues from being forced upon the other 49.
DB, it sounds like you're still upset that mixed-race couples are free to marry anywhere in the US.
It's very clear that you don't approve of the 14th Amendment or the Incorporation Doctrine.
I believe this is simply an attempt at multiple practices prior to US Supreme Court. It has been clear that many of the recent cases, the minority QUALITY representation has been severly lacking. It is a dress rehearsal, but will the defender of the Prop 8 be serious by bringing their A game and let their arguements heard prior to US Supreme Court? Hmmmm.....
What "A game"? Prop h8 has been heard by several courts now, and no "A game" by the proponents is apparent. The dumb bigots have lost every round.
From a legal standpoint if they had an "A game" they should have already presented it, since they won't be permitted to introduce new issues on appeal.
Dromidaon,
To suggest that The LDS were merely invited by Protect Marriage to join the coalition is disingenuous and offensive as they became the leader and driving force behind the initiative. The LDS Church and its members produced the lion's share of the financial support. Most estimates are in the 20 million dollar range (out of the 40 million dollars raised by all Prop 8 proponents). They recruited the Knights of Columbus (who donated 14 million dollars) to distract and mislead the public and even lied to the government by under reporting the true extent of LDS involvement.
Although the LDS leaders suggested that church members "approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility", they did not follow that advice themselves. The campaign was rife with misinformation, lies and deliberate attempts to spread fear and disrespect toward gay men and women.
Please do yourself and humanity a favor and follow your leaders' suggestions (even if they won't). Understand what it means to be gay from the scientific and biological perspective instead of a religious one. It will open your eyes.
Pretty serious accusations--any sources you can site? Looks more like repeating what you heard without checking it out.
You just don't get it. It's not over until we win. We'll never stop fighting for our freedom.
Never.
next up on the ballot, your right to watch nascar and put junkers up on cinder blocks on your front lawn!
Well doesn't that sound like a bigoted comment? Your response is exatly the type that you would decry your opponents of making!
There's no tyranny here only the minority attempting to assert their will upon the majority. Gays can have their gay unions, civil unions and domestic partnerships with all benefits. Marriage belongs to a man and woman.
Vince-545056 wrote "You don't get to vote on civil rights."
You don't let a few judges legislate them, either.
So heterosexuals who engage in sodomy (and there are more of them than homosexuals who do) are evil, too, I presume? BTW, have you ever had a blow job? If you answered "Yes," then congratulations -- YOU are a sodomite!
Really, Tad? So when gay marriage is legalized, that means that you will be "forced" into a gay marriage?
You and your bigoted ilk do not own the word "marriage".
WRONG. That is EXACTLY what one does when unconstitutional laws -- such as those which deny civil rights, like Prop H8 and DOMA -- are passed. They are challenged in federal courts, where they are found unconstitutional and struck down.
Go to civics class.
Vincent,
They aren't legislating anything. They're interpreting the Constitution and whether Prop 8 falls within its protections, or if it is outside the bounds of our protected rights.
Tad,
Please tell me when anyone has attempted to do any of the following...
1. Be gay.
2. Like gays.
3. Attend a gay marriage.
4. Be okay with gay marriage.
I've said this before, but it applies really well. I don't like Jackie Chan movies. I think they're gross and wrong. Does that mean, that everyone who does shouldn't be allowed to watch them? Because I might have to be exposed to one, for a couple minutes here and there? Get over yourself. Gay people don't have to live in a closet to protect your delicate sensibilities.
Scot,
I'm sure you're very consistant in this belief too, right? Like when your wife/girlfriend wants to give you a BJ, you say no, because it's evil, right?
DB,
And the intent of the 14th Amendment was to no longer allow individual states to decide which people get civil rights and which don't.
@Ippster
Umm, there is no civil right about drinking, second, the age to vote is limited to people who have made it to adult hood who can base their choices on their life experience. I don't want to see a 1 year old trying to vote on a ballot. They can't even read yet let alone vote for someone. Granted there are 18year olds who can't read either, but atleast they can technically comprehend their choices.
An opportunity for wrong to be righted.
Time for a new vote
Might as well put women's suffrage and the 13th amendment on the ballot as well.
This should go wonderfully
The Bible was used to attack women's rights and support slavery, since abusing women and slaves were common in the Bible. Muslims use religion to fight science and human rights. Funny to see the Christian Taliban learning from the Muslim terrorists ,,, they have so much in common.
"since abusing women and slaves were common in the Bible."
And the bible taught against abusing women and slaves. Where in the bible does it say that abusing women and slaves is okay? The Israelites were Egypt's slaves until god overpowered Pharaoh, so if anything, god is against slavery. The "Christian Taliban"? How about I call you a Soviet Union Atheist? After all, the USSR hated religion.
Steve-2352647
Funny to see the Christian Taliban learning from the Muslim terrorists ,,, they have so much in common.
Kind of funny, I thought the Taliban were Muslim, not Christian. Oh wait, it's that New Age thinking going around where 3+3=10.
Try reading some history. The Bible was used to support slavery (Abraham had slaves) and to keep women from getting the right to vote.
You can call me what you want. I am not an atheist. I am not Soviet. I am a Catholic tired of Christian extremists using the Bible to attack others. Jesus never said anything about gay people; Jesus never supported discrimination against anyone. All Christians do not support the Christian extremists anymore than all Muslims support Muslim extremists.
You name yourself Christian Taliban when you use religion to attack those that do not support your views, when you insist on using religion to play politics. If you church wants to play politics, start paying taxes, because you just forfeited your tax free status.
@Steve-2352647
Not to argue, but the same can be used against all religious people who feel their religion is the only right one and goto extremes to make others follow their religion, not just Christian.
Let this go to the SCOTUS.
Then we'll see what is what once and for all.
It will be interesting to see if the 14th amendment (equal protection) works in this case. Because California, even for the shortest of time, allow gay marriage and no longer allows gay marriage under prop 8. So in in passing prop 8 California now has two communities of gay people those that could marry and those that cannot. It is incongruous with the 14th amendment of the US Constitution to allow such a condition to exist. So...what will happen??????
My concern is that they will use the fact that Prop 8 set up two classes of gay couples to narrowly rule on Prop 8 that it is unconstitutional only because it sets up these two classes rather than on the broader question of do gays have the basic civil right to civil marriage under the Equal Protection Clause. That could then leave the door open to a new proposition that not only barred all future gay marriages, but also invalidated all previous gay marriages in the state and thus treat all gays equally.
IMHO, that would be total abrogation of their responsibilities. The issue of equal protection for all who desire to get married is before the public in general and deserves a full and broad ruling. Prop 8 would give the justices the vehicle they need to issue such a ruling.
James
I feel they will rule narrowly. We have a conservative court and it would not be inconsistent with their view to open the window too your concerns of marriage invalidation. While SCOTUS has in the past ruled that marriage is a right, they also have confirmed that it is a states right to regulate marriage. They will not go beyond that ruling under the courts current configuration of justices. I do feel they will confirm the 14th amendment and say you cannot create two classes of people.
However, to ease you fears on marriage invalidation. If California invalidates only legal gay marriages and not the legal heterosexual marriages then under the 14th amendment they have created two separate classes of marriage ones that can be invalidated and ones that cannot, thus unconstitutional. If California wanted to invalidated gay marriage they would have to invalidate all state sanctioned marriages (as to violate the US Constitution) and redefine what the state would then recognize as a marriage substitute. I am not sure people would be willing to vote too invalidate their own marriage to prevent gay marriage.
Interesting hypothesis
I too agree that the SCOTUS will try to rule as narrowly as possible.
It still amazes me that in this day-and-age, we are spending so much time fussing over who can and cannot get married to whom.
We have far more pressing concerns, and I would rather that the US were trending towards becoming more free, and not less so.
Private
That's your opinion. Mine is that is too bad the San Andreas fault doesn't take care of both. I'm fed up with ya and your anything you want attitude. Learning how to hate is a hard thing but it happens. Screw this!!!!
notimpressed-3277250 - You're learning to hate? Well, at least we know that you can learn something.
notimpressed-3277250 - And please explain how this has any thing to do with your man hood or your marriage unless you are unsure of your self or your marriage?
How long before we get first bestiality post?
You just did it on Mon Jun 4, 2012 6:54 PM EDT.
soon...
Just as soon as animals are found to have legal capacity for informed consent. Duh.
Activist judges have no right to overturn the vote of the people. Especially when it becomes a part of the Constitution by means of popular vote, declaring it unconstitutional is an oxymoron.
Vox populi, vox dei.
THE Constitution trumps a state constitution every time. People don't get to vote on other people's rights.
"Activist judges"... straight out of the republican talking point playbook. It's old - come up with something new and original please.
In truth people can be wrong even when they are a majority. Remember slavery? The Civil War? Those were democratically elected leaders and the people at large and they were absolutely wrong. So once more grasp this, majorities can be wrong. Happily, our Constitution saw the problem with that democratically enforced slavery. And it will with the gay rights things too, because those people should have exactly the same protections as I do in things like Social Security, and they don't yet.
Anonymous User
Really? Really? You do know the judges are doing exactly how what the judicial system should.
Actually judges do have the right to over turn the vote of the people if that vote is unconstitutional and removes the rights of a minority.
Do you have any clue as to how jurisprudence works?
It was an opinion gordy.....get with the program.
Oh I'm sorry. I thought we were dealing with actual facts here!
One more step toward equal justice for ALL.
Why do people invoke the term "activist judges" whenever something about rights comes up? That's just asinine to suggest that they are being activists - their job is to weigh in on matters like this, where a group is unjustly treated. Just because they tend to weigh in favor of the Constitution/Bill of Rights doesn't make them activists - it makes them good judges.
In the last 40 years the SC judges have totally changed the way the constitution was interpreted for 200 years. Thus, they have changed the constitution. It is not being interpreted as the signers intended>
Come on - be serious. It's called PROGRESS. The Bible's not interpreted the way it was intended either, lest we be stoned to death for adultery, eating shellfish and wearing cotton/poly blends (which, admittedly, does still deserve a good stoning).
What makes you more of an authority to interpret the Constituton or the intentions of the Founding Fathers than the SCOTUS?
Anything the SCOTUS rules on is an interpretation. Only reason it is more valid is because of the laws of the land.
And SCOTUS rulings IS the law of the land!
Tired,
I'm sure you feel that way about the 2nd Amendment too, then right? In actuality, Jefferson believed that any Constitution is only applicable/valid for about 20 years, and then it becomes outdated. They also left it vague and ambiguous, allowing for interpretation in an ever changing world.
After all, if we interpreted it the same way we did 200 years ago, I wouldn't be able to vote. That'd piss me off.
I hope they take it up so the DOMA challenge can be heard by SCOTUS first. I think this case will be ruled on very narrowly and just like the 3 judge panel they will find that first having a right, then taking it away is unconstitutional - which basically answers NOTHING. The DOMA case, however could provide the watershed verdict that we've all been waiting for.
Let the insane run the country, let the mentally ill people have their way, one step closer for mayhem!.
iF YOU ARE GOING TO FAIR FOR ONE, MIGHT AS WELL BE FAIR FOR ALL.
Yeah get that in your head! might as well have three or four wives added to the ballot, a harem whats the difference than gay marriages?? Tell me whats the diffrerence?? there is none.
You have consenting adults and they are not hurting anybody. same as same sex. so why not??? hmmmm
and dont say the argument is invalid, then so is gay marriage.
Once again, gay people are not asking for anything more than what straight people already have. They're not asking for special rights, or more rights, they're asking for equal rights. If straight people are so passionate about having plural marriages, then they should get out and fight for it. It exists in many cultures and was quite common in the Bible, so I don't really think it's that big of a scare tactic to use against gay marriage. By the way, why is it always assumed it's a man with several wives? Why couldn't it be a woman with several husbands?
Mister Poops - Are you really calling homosexuals "mentally ill people?"
To.Mister"""
I'm still wondering why hasn't the one man one woman thing in DOMA been challenged yet ...the language is pretty clear ...one man.. one woman. ...nothing about multiple marriages and divorces ...if you really want to protect marriage ban divorces ..
The only reason I can think to keep Polygamy (in a legal sense) illegal is because of the mess it would create with some marriage benefits since the system is set up for two people. That problem doesn't come up when it comes to gay marriage because there aren't extra people in there.
Culturally, legally, historically, etc there are many differences between same-sex marriage and polygamy, of course.
And I don't think most people see a reason for polygamy to stay illegal, besides the legal and contractual mess it could create unless marriage rights were restructured to accommodate more than 2 people. If you're trying to get same-sex marriage supporters to balk at giving others rights, you're doing it horribly wrong.
I want to marry 5 women and a goat, we are all consenting adults after all. No discrimination against plural marriages or discriminating against other species.
The SCOTUS already ruled against polygamy and other species can't give legal consent. Any other logical fallacies you'd like to mention?
A whopping big one, and you know it! Or maybe you don't. Which is really pathetic!
Except multiple marriage partners is a completely separate issue from same sex marriage and has already been ruled on by the SCOTUS.
Too bad! Your argument IS invalid, as it is completely illogical and has nothing to do with gay marriage. There is no logical or legal reason to deny gays the right to marry.
Gordy..........another expert or wanta be expert....one of millions in this country including me.
Do you have a point? I don't claim to be an expert. But the validity of my posts stands on the merit of the facts presented.
Mister Poops,
You all, wanna bring up strawman arguments, well here you go...
Let's start with the basic civil rights involved here,
Loving v Virginia, which is applicable because the defense used by the state is the same used to justify the anti-equality case, and PSSST IT DIDN'T HOLD WATER...
Lawrence v Texas, which deals with our right to privacy, implied through the 4th and 9th Amendments...
On top of that, one could make a case regarding the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment, which could also encompass gender discrimination in contract law.
Question #1-
So, if you can, please give me that LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST, the court needed in Lawrence, which would enable the government to limit, at least the 14th, 4th and 9th Amendment rights of an entire group of people?
Continuing, the act of marriage essentially falls under contract law, it has never simply been between one man and one woman, and it predates organized religion. It shouldn't be confused with HOLY MATRIMONY, which is the religous sacrement or sanctifying, or spirituality that's been added over the years.
This is why the STATE issues the lisence, not the church. Why the court oversees divorces, not the church. And, why tons of people are married everyday, without stepping foot in a church. On top of that marriage comes with over 1000 benefits for those who enter into the contract.
That being said...
Question # 2 -
Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT?
Question #3-
AND, since marriage is a legal contract, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH HOLY MATRIMONY, why then, does that one thing from the paragraph above, NOT ban those parties from ALL contract law?
NONE of the bestiality, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, or inanimate objects arguments WILL EVER WORK, logically or legally, until you can answer those questions.
The people have spoken, and in California, surprisingly it was against Gay marriage.
At least we now know who is minority and who is majority.
If you take away the majority vote you may as well throw out the US legal system altogether.
We're not a country of majority rule, VR. And civil rights cannot be put to a vote, since the tyranny of the majority would deny rights to the minority.
Unfortunately Erin the world does not "roll" that way.
The minority will ALWAYS be the minority and will always be set back.
If you do not believe this, watch what happens to whites soon.
Humanity has ALWAYS favored the majority.
Why?
Because, THAT'S who they are.
There is no "tyranny" of the minority.
Problem is, you can't fit a square peg in a round hole.
Viewer_Ready
Actually it does work that way, that is why this is going before the courts. In the west equal rights are there to protect the minority from the majority.
As it stands, the tyranny of the minority denies rights to the majority.
What rights are being denied to the majority? What rights are being denied to ANYONE by legalizing gay marriage?
The majority doesn't have the right to violate the constitution, VR.
Wow, thats some paranoia you have there.
Specifically, what rights is being denied to the majority?
Exactly. It's shocking how people will justify anything (nearly every comment on here is liberal). If CA voted gay marriage down, then why is it wrong for them to appeal? Either we live in America, or we bow to a 2% minority. And that is what really bothers me more than the actual issue. Sorry that a bunch of people are 'heartbroken' that not everyone sees things their way, but it in no way should trump a majority vote.
Actually, it's more like 5-10%.
WRONG. We are not a country of majority rule.
Civil rights should not be put to a popular vote. Many states would still ban interracial marriage and allow segregation if minority rights were not protected.
Hmm, not a country of majority rule. Since when? President, all elected officials are elected by winning the MAJORITY vote. We are a country that has a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
It sucks for you that the majority of the people do not see your life style as something that they want to condone. But the people have spoken.
But in one aspect, we have has become a country not ruled by the majority, it's being ruled by the politcally correct.
Since we first had a constitution, bill of rights, and separation of powers. We're not the ochlocracy you seem to want, we're a constitutional republic.
ErinNJ
What rights are being denied to the majority? What rights are being denied to ANYONE by legalizing gay marriage?
1. Our voice in government.
2. The very fabric and the institution of marriage
"thenight" seems to think his rights are denied when he can't use the state to enforce his sharia laws.
LOL.
@tea1959, I am not sure where you went to school, but you need to demand a refund (although I'm assuming it was probably a public school). Please look up electoral college, and while you are educating yourself on the "since when?" you may want to brush up on a Representative Republic, which is ACTUALLY what the United States of America is.
@thenight, Your rights are NOT being denied. Your rights, as we define them, come from the Constitution, no? The constitution is explicit that the rights of a minority CANNOT be voted on and taken away by the rights of the majority, so there you go. Point one, false.
As for point two, "the very fabric and institution of marriage" is ridiculous. As with most people of limited intellect you have taken a very narrow view of a very large object and declared that to be the only valid view. It is not. If we are to look at the "fabric and institution" then we must look at arranged marriages (are you willing to let someone else pick your bride? the is an enormous part of the fabric of marriage for some cultures). We must look at polygamy, at a required dowry, at a mandatory sentence of death for anyone convicted od adultery, and on and on. The "fabric of marriage has been in the process of being woven for a very long time.
In fact, however, that is all a red hearing. Marriage, as it stands in this country, is a legal contract provided by the government, nothing more. Your church, or other institution of oppression, has no right to grant a valid marriage, except as allowed by the United States Government. As such, the government has a right, under the Constitution, to make sure that ALL of it's citizens are being treated the same. Marriage as a contract coffers thousands of benefits, local, state and federal, to the married couple. They must be extended to all people wishing to marry, and legally able to enter into a binding contract, or they must be declared invalid for those already married. Which would you prefer?
Tea1959, Its an Electoral system, not a majority popular vote. I'm 30 and I know that. Research before you comment.
Thenight, No I don't think you understand that we all have Senators and Representatives to voice our opinions and they vote how they want. If we don't like how they vote because they don't follow our will we have a choice to vote them out in a new election. I say, fire them all for 10 years. Those decisions that we don't like because we feel they are not constitutional or correct, we can then pursue them in the court system. That's what's being done and I feel its correct that it is being done so.
Donna, No Ma'am. I had this conversation with my father. Our court system was designed to address this. All states constitutions must be constitutional under the Federal Constitution. DOMA, if it is declared unconstitutional will nullify the majority vote as there was no legal standing for it. Now, civil rights and equality of adults of age do not get to be subject to states majorities. These rights have to be uniform because of the full faith and trust clause in the constitution. You won't have states deny rights others have laws that grant. Its not legal to do so in any state for other issues and if it were then the Federal Courts would be overcrowded dealing with these issues at the Federal Level. So lets stop and understand what we are saying before we do so.
I served as a United States Marine as a Sergeant. I am fully aware of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights that I swore to defend against foreign and domestic enemies. I also am happy to say I am more that just high school educated. Read and comprehend. Without doing so each of you are subject to the loss of your rights. History always repeats for those who fail to learn about it and prevent it from doing so again. God Speed.
Tea59....you'd better do some reading about popular vote prevailing. Do you remember Al Gore's run against George W Bush? He won the popular vote and still lose the Presidency, or I should say had the Presidency taken from him by the NOTSO Supreme Court.....you know? The same guys who think corporations are people too....
skrekk
"thenight" seems to think his rights are denied when he can't use the state to enforce his sharia laws.
LOL.
Hey skrekk, first off, sharia laws are Islamic. I'm Catholic, no such thing as sharia laws in Catholicism. So get your history of religion right. Oh wait, I guess thats why you got a "F" in history class like most who are ignorant when it comes to world history reading and cultural awareness.
Your "voice" is not being silenced in any way, shape, or form!
Marriage is a civil institution under the perview of the law. And you have not demonstrated how marriage tself would be affected by gay marriage.
And ad hom attacks only show you're in over your head and you know it!
Guess YOU get an "F" in metaphors and analogies.
You must be looking in a mirror, because you certainly are ignorant when it comes to world history and cultural awareness. Civil marriage predates organized religion (including your own cult) by thousands of years, and same-sex marriage was legal in several ancient civilizations. Furthermore, in THIS secular nation, legal marriage is strictly a civil contract.
Our secular government should no more enforce Catholic Canon law than it does uppercase Islamic Sharia law or Jewish Kosher law.
It doesn't matter what religious laws you're trying to stuff down everyone's throats - the lowercase sharia laws of your cult don't belong in our secular law.
And just an FYI......71% of Catholics in the US support marriage equality. Apparently they understand what you don't, that a legal contract isn't the same thing as an irrelevant religious ritual. Marriage and holy matrimony are two different things, as any divorced and remarried Catholic knows.
Our secular government should no more enforce Catholic Canon law than it does uppercase Islamic Sharia law or Jewish Kosher law.
Its spelled Cannon, look it up. Again, ignorance is bliss. Judiasm is called a Torra! If you would like me to educate you even further. Before written law came to being, ancient peoples of long ago have use holy scriptures written in the bible, torra, and the koran long before nations even developed.
Think one should go back to school because I think you slept threw the most important history lessons.
ErinNJ
You must be looking in a mirror, because you certainly are ignorant when it comes to world history and cultural awareness. Civil marriage predates organized religion (including your own cult) by thousands of years, and same-sex marriage was legal in several ancient civilizations. Furthermore, in THIS secular nation, legal marriage is strictly a civil contract.
Take a look back in a history book and you will see that before the word marriage came into being. Ancient cultures used to describe it as a union between a man and a woman. Or typically called a bonding of man and woman. The word holy matrimony can only be traced back to one of the oldest of religions that worshipped only one God. That is called Monotheism before the word holy matrimony was ever used it was called bonding under polytheism. That is the worshipping of many Gods. No contracts were ever signed in fact the only thing that made the marriage legal in those times was a line of silk being crossed over the hands of the man and woman being married.
Irrelevant. What you need to answer is why you think your Christian sharia law should be enforced by the government, even though the 1st Amendment prohibits that.
You also might want to learn about the Lemon Test.
What you need to answer is why you think your Christian sharia law should be enforced by the government, even though the 1st Amendment prohibits that.
I said it once and I will say it again. I am going to say this loud and clear. In Christianity THERE IS NO SHARIA LAWS IN THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION! The SHARIA LAWS are ISLAMIC, THE MUSLIM RELIGION! Now would you like me to draw you a picture if you cannot understand the words that are being written?
Sounds like "thenight" doesn't like the fact that there is no difference between Catholic Canon law, Jewish Halacha law and Islamic Sharia law, as far as the constitution is concerned.
All of your religious laws are sharia laws, and none of your silly bible-babble can be enforced by our secular government.
Thenight still doesn't get metaphors and analogies, either.
BTW, thenight, it's spelled "canon," not "cannon". They mean completely different things.
skrekk
Sounds like "thenight" doesn't like the fact that there is no difference between Catholic Canon law, Jewish Halacha law and Islamic Sharia law, as far as the constitution is concerned.
All of your religious laws are sharia laws, and none of your silly bible-babble can be enforced by our secular government.
ErinNJ
Thenight still doesn't get metaphors and analogies, either.
BTW, thenight, it's spelled "canon," not "cannon". They mean completely different things.
Both of you are wrong
Christian views of the Bible's Old Covenant are central to Christian theology, ethics, and practice. Particularly notable in the New Testament are Jesus' expounding of the Law and the circumcision controversy in Early Christianity. There are differing views about the applicability of the Old Covenant among Christian denominations. Also referred to as Mosaic Law, Divine Law, Biblical Law, God's Law, or the Books of Moses, the term Old Covenant refers to the statements or principles of religious law and religious ethics codified in the first five books or Pentateuch of the Christian Bible. There are diverse views of the issues involved, with many traditional Christians of the view that only parts are applicable, many Protestants with the view that none is applicable and a minority with the view that all are still applicable to believers in Jesus and the New Covenant.
Ummmmm.......so what? None of your sharia laws can be enforced by our secular government.
Your bizarre cult is your problem, not mine and definitely not the government's.
can·on
1 [kan-uh n] Show IPA
noun
1. an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope.
2. the body of ecclesiastical law.
3. the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art: the neoclassical canon.
4. a fundamental principle or general rule: the canons of good behavior.
5. a standard; criterion: the canons of taste.
can·non
[kan-uh n] Show IPA noun, plural can·nons, ( especially collectively ) can·non, verb
noun
1. a mounted gun for firing heavy projectiles; a gun, howitzer, or mortar.
2. British Machinery . quill ( def. 10 ) .
3. Armor . a cylindrical or semicylindrical piece of plate armor for the upper arm or forearm; a vambrace or rerebrace.
4. Also called cannon bit, canon bit. a round bit for a horse.
5. the part of a bit that is in the horse's mouth.
skrekk
Ummmmm.......so what? None of your sharia laws can be enforced by our secular government.
Your bizarre cult is your problem, not mine and definitely not the government's.
Guess you havent been listening to what I have been saying. oh well, small minds do have limited intelligence after all. Unfortunately, it is a constant in the universe!
ErinNJ
I do stand corrected. I pronounced it wrong. It is actually spelled Canaan, after the Canannites of the middle east. Here it is. But I was close.
Canaan (Northwest Semitic knaʿn; Phoenician: 𐤊𐤍𐤏𐤍; Biblical Hebrew: כנען / knaʿn; Masoretic: כְּנָעַן / Kənáʿan; Arabic: كنعان / Kana‘ān) is a historical Semitic speaking region roughly corresponding to the Levant (modern-day Israel, Palestinian territories, Lebanon, and the western parts of Jordan and Syria). Canaan was of geopolitical importance in the Late Bronze Age Amarna period as the area where the spheres of interest of the Egyptian, Hittite Empire and Assyrian Empires converged. Canaan is historically attested throughout the 4th millennium BC; the later Amarna Letters use Kinaḫḫu, while sources of the Egyptian New Kingdom mention numerous military campaigns conducted in Ka-na-na.[1] In modern usage, the name is often associated with the Hebrew Bible, where the "Land of Canaan" extends from Lebanon southward to the "Brook of Egypt" and eastward to the Jordan River Valley.
In so many areas -- you have only admitted to this one.
No, you were flat wrong and you're still flat wrong and utterly clueless. It's "Canon law". Look it up.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
At #13.21 I said "Catholic Canon law", and that's precisely what I meant.
No, you were flat wrong and you're still flat wrong and utterly clueless. It's "Canon law". Look it up.
And yes I looked it up.
Ok, well if you read it then you know there is no sharia laws in it.
oh, by the way, Since I am of British descent we do have a different wording. Sorry if I was taught by a real English teacher who also taught old English
Clearly you didn't look at the Vatican link to their Canon law.
Apparently you still don't understand that our constitution treats Canon law, Sharia law and Halacha law as the same thing. And you seem incapable of understanding a metaphor.
None of your sharia laws can be enforced by our secular government, no matter which bizarre cult they come from.
Seriously, are all Christofascists as dumb as you?
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
In other words, the United States cannot have a state sponsored religion. The first amendment established the freedom of religion to protect the citizens right to practice their religion without fear or prosecution. ie. You wont get beaten up or murdered because your faith is different then someone Else's This goes back when Catholics entered the country prior to the Revolutionary War because the majority of colonials were protestant. The state of Rhode Island was established to protect catholics as well as the state of Maryland for that purpose prior to the war. But, it also protects people from being used in religious human sacrifice, (yeah, there are a few out there.)
Now your thinking well I must be wrong because there is separation of church and state!
Wrong!
If you dont believe me that there is separation of church and state, all you have to do is take out your wallet and look at your money and read the few words that is written on it.
'IN GOD WE TRUST"
God is part of any religion, therefore there is church and state is not separate because of the word God.
Further proof
The declaration of independence written in 1776. If you read the first few lines of it. It will read
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The creator meaning God. Mean Church and religion. Again no separation between church and state.
More proof
How about the song "God bless America" the song congress sang most notably after 9/11
Again putting God which is with church teachings into government (the state) . No separation of church and state.
You only think there is separation of church and state but it only applies to your choice of which religion that you choose to follow without being shunned, presecuted, tortured and killed.
That is the first amendment of the United States.
"thenight", you appear to be as benighted as your name. You might want to learn about the Lemon Test to see why the government can't enforce your sharia laws.
"In God We Trust" has only appeared sporadically on coins since 1864, and on paper money since 1957 -- long after this country's founding. It was only adopted as the US motto in 1956 -- again, long after this country's founding.
Furthermore, it has been challenged:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
The Declaration of Independence is not the basis of our laws and government; it is merely the document by which we declared ourselves a separate nation from England. The use of the word "Creator" in it was a deliberate one by Thomas Jefferson, who left it up to each person's own interpretation as to who -- or what -- that person's "Creator" is.
The "Star-Spangled Banner" may be our national anthem, but no one is required to sing it, or to stand while it is sung (just like the pledge of allegiance is not a required recitation for anyone, nor is anyone required to stand while it is recited by others). "God Bless America" is NOT the national anthem; it is not any kind of "official" song in this country.
Show us where the Constitution -- which IS the complete and entire basis of our laws and government -- makes any mention of God, Jesus, the bible, or any other religious text or deity. You can't, because there is none -- and for a very good reason. We have a separation of church and state in this country (which the Supreme Court has also specifically mentioned in numerous rulings); we are a secular nation; we have freedom OF and FROM religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
The Supreme Court has used the exact words from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists -- "...thus building a wall of separation between church and State..." -- in numerous First Amendment rulings.
Furthermore, the "separation of church and state" in this country does NOT only apply to one's choice of religion; it also applies to one's choice of whether to worship ANY religion at all. That is what the First Amendment is all about: freedom OF and FROM religion.
Your so-called "proof" is ludicrous at best, but mainly it's just pathetic.
I very much enjoyed Thenight misusing canon and cannon in his sentences, it added a whole new context and the fact that he would be so adamant about ensuring the use of mounted-guns and artillery pieces in government legislation is something that at the very least might add some entertainment to those long-winded meetings I typically see on CSPAN
While that doesn't explain your miscomprehension of the word "canon" it certainly explains why you think America's secular government should be more like your quaint theocracy. It also explains why you know nothing about US law. Unlike merrie olde England, the US doesn't have a state religion nor do we enforce the sharia laws of the Anglican Church. Nor do we have an elderly theocratic monarch who heads both the state and the church.
Incidentally, marriage equality is soon coming to your homeland......possibly yet this year. And because you theocratic nuts have foolishly mixed your religion with your state, the solution will likely be to do what Denmark just did - force the state religion to recognize same-sex marriage and permit same-sex religious weddings.
Well.....nothing like voting to discriminate ...opens up a whole new voting block ...who's next
Who Is The Mystery Man Behind Prop 8?
Max Blumanthal
The Daily Beast
November 4, 2008
Who is funding California's Prop 8, the country's most controversial ballot measure? The Mormons' donations are well known, and are a source of outrage among the church's more moderate elements. But little attention has been focused on two of the proposition's biggest individual donors: Elsa Broekhuizen, the mother of Blackwater founder Erik Prince, and Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., the reclusive theocratic millionaire who inherited $300 million from his philanthropist father at age 18.
Though Ahmanson's rhetoric has softened over the years, his politics are derived from the radical Christian Reconstructionist theology of R.J. Rushdoony, a far-right theologian who advocated replacing the US Constitution with biblical law. "God's government prevails," Rushdoony wrote, "and His alternatives are clear-cut: either men and nations obey His laws, or God invokes the death penalty against them." Those eligible on Rushdoony's long list for execution included disobedient children, unchaste women, apostates, blasphemers, practitioners of witchcraft, astrologers, adulterers, and, of course, anyone who engaged in "sodomy or homosexuality."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/who-is-the-mystery-man-be_b_140801.html
This is really taking too much time. Face it conservative and religious friends - black people got their rights, jewish people go their rights, women got their rights. It probably hurts for a few minutes but then we all take a deep breath and realize that it was the right thing to do. Save yourself the pain. Gay people also deserve their rights. It is the right thing to do. It is the American thing to do. It might even be what Jesus would have done if it had occurred to him.
So take a deep breath and do the right thing. You'll be glad you did.
It would hurt a lot less if they relaxed their sphincter.
It is only the hard working person who makes a lot of money that has no rights. He has to give it to the drones and leeches.
Alan.......face it...California is primarily a liberal cesspool. So this liberal cesspool voted against gay marriage. PERIOD....Me, I voted to let them have their ability to marry anyone they want and I am a conservative while you are apparently someone who has their head in the proverbial dark spot.
Jesus said that he did not come to take away the teaching's of the Old Testament but to full fill it, Matt: 5 17-18. The Word says in Lev: 20-13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. You can spin it any way you want but homosexuality is a evil sick disease that will send you straight to hell. This deviant act should not even be used in the union between a married man and woman. You people who are not homosexual but still approve and support it are in essence as guilty as they are and if you claim to be a Christian then you should do as Jesus commanded and read his written word and know that this is an abomination to God. I do not hate the people who do this but I hate with a passion the evil act that they do. I pray for them in the hope that God has not turned them over to a reprobate mind and they will turn from this despicable life. I also do not want these people harmed in any way, but when they are trying to take away my job as a parent in teaching my children the way God wants me to, and to indoctrinate them into believing what is against everything I am trying to teach them, then you are no more thata stranger in the night who is breaking into my home to do my family harm and then you can read whatever you want into the rest of this. When my children are grown then they can make whatever decisions about this subject that they want because it is then their choice.
Jerry,
It doesn't matter what Jesus said. He isn't part of our laws. In fact, I'm free of him, and protected from his teachings.
Can you make a case without using religion? I highly doubt it.
Watermoon,
Your money is going to drones alright. Unmanned ones, that blow up sh** in the desert. If you wanna be ticked about your money getting spent, I'd look there first.
deleted
OMG...let gay people get married and get over yourselves. Allowing gay marriage in several states has shown that is absolutely no consequences on straight marriage or straight people. Enough already. If two ADULT people love each other, they deserve the same rights and benefits as anyone else. Take religion out of the equation, and there is no logical reason to deny it.
The same ninth circuit that has been overturned more times than any other circuit. The same ninth circuit that is wasting a million dollars of taxpayer money for a conference in Hawaii.
Churches should have the right to marry who they wish and not marry those they don't want to marry. If people want to get married, and are of legal age, etc., who cares? It's a contract, people, that's all. Same sex or opposite sex, it makes no difference.
Why not throw in dogs as well. A human being who loves an animal should be allowed to publicly express their bond through the act of marriage.
Dogs...............what a completely irrational and idiotic comparison. Typical.
Weirdscience, that is i like trying to argue against allowing women the right to vote because "IF you allow women the right to vote, then you'll have to allow dogs the right to vote!" Believe it or not, there are very clear distinctions between non human animals and humans, which is why dogs don't have the right to vote, get married, have a trial with a jury by their peers, and freedom of speech. Legalizing marriage of same genders has absolutely nothing to do with the inclusion of changing either the number of parties in the union or inclusion of non-consenting animals or people into the union.
Irrational?? What is so "rational" about two same-sex people getting married? The gods must be crazy....
WeirdScience,
Perhaps you can answer my questions, since you're so keen on strawman arguments...
So, if you can, please give me that LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST, the court needed in Lawrence, which would enable the government to limit, at least the 14th, 4th and 9th Amendment rights of an entire group of people?
Continuing, the act of marriage essentially falls under contract law, it has never simply been between one man and one woman, and it predates organized religion. It shouldn't be confused with HOLY MATRIMONY, which is the religous sacrement or sanctifying, or spirituality that's been added over the years.
This is why the STATE issues the lisence, not the church. Why the court oversees divorces, not the church. And, why tons of people are married everyday, without stepping foot in a church. On top of that marriage comes with over 1000 benefits for those who enter into the contract.
That being said...
Question # 2 -
Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT?
Question #3-
AND, since marriage is a legal contract, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH HOLY MATRIMONY, why then, does that one thing from the paragraph above, NOT ban those parties from ALL contract law?
NONE of the bestiality, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, or inanimate objects arguments WILL EVER WORK, logically or legally, until you can answer those questions.
I can see this whole stupid issue, with all it s ridiculous arguments has to be settled at the U S S C...
That will end all this B S from state to state..
It might.
You have to remember.
This is the UNITED STATES.
And States have the right to be "UN-UNITED".
I can see this coming soon.
"And States have the right to be "UN-UNITED"."
Y'all tried that once before.
Jock, perhaps VR would like you to explain just what happened at the end of that little experiment. I know I'd LOVE to talk about it.
Yes, and we are all bound by the Constitution. So if gay mariage does go before the SCOTUS, they will have to rule in favor of gay marriage. Otherwise, they'll have to overturn the 14th Amendment and the Loving v Virginia precedent.
Nope, you are incorrect...........the SCOTUS decisions are interpretations...........PERIOD>
GCCal, the Supreme Court is specifically charged with interpreting the Constitution as it applies to our laws and the constitutions of the states, and they are the final court of appeals of this country, so what they decide is a bit more than an "interpretation," since there is no appeal beyond them. So what they decide is, in effect, the final decision on anything. PERIOD.
Justices of the SCOTUS are chosen based on their personal opinions that may benefit one party over another....PERIOD.
I agree that it wasn't the Mormon church that put this on the ballot, but they DID pour millions of dollars into the passage. They (church) went as far as extorting money from the church membership, threatening them with excommunication if they didn't give.
Watch "8: The Mormon Proposition"
For the government, any government, to deny couples from entering a marriage contract is wrong. Everyone has a right to a rotten marriage, no matter who ya love.
Lucy, I'd be very wary of the information presented in documentaries of this nature. This is a very biased piece about what happened with Prop 8. Although I'm no longer active in the LDS church, I can say with certainty that any leader that would threaten a member with excommunication if they didn't give money to the Prop 8 campaign would be WAY out of line and would be worthy of disciplinary action himself.
Do you have any first-hand knowledge of such threats?
I'm Mormon. I was living in a different country at the time, but nobody I know who lived in California was ever told that they felt "required" to give money. I can't find anything from the church implying any sort of disciplinary action for not supporting it. In fact, I seem to remember hearing a quote one time that specifically said that members would NOT be subject to disciplinary action if they disagreed with Prop 8, so long as they did not actively try to defame the church, but I can't seem to find it now, so take that with a grain of salt I guess.
For all church official statements on prop 8, see this link: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8
If you're a Mormon and you tithe, some of your money is being used to deny the civil rights of gays, like my daughter.
I hope you're proud.
Sounds like Mormons haven't learned much in the past 50 years. They're still dumb bigots who want the state to enforce their Mormon sharia law.
I wonder how much of Rombot's "CHARITABLE DONATIONS" to the moron church went to this cause...Hmmm, Can you say tax implications? And, really all Rombot gave was to his Moron church, that is not consistent with Christian teachings...ooops I fergot, Moronism is not christian. They have magic underwear, and believe in a numbnut who live on a distant planet.
Romney made a $10,000 donation to the NOM hate group during the Prop h8 campaign. All tax deductible as a "charitable donation".
That's like donating to the KKK and deducting it from your taxes. No wonder he tried to hide it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/mitt-romney-gay-marriage_n_1391867.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-wooledge/mitt-romney-nom-10000-donation_b_1390284.html
The church itself spent about $5000 on Prop 8, most of which went towards travel expenses and such. The vast majority was donated by individual members. My point wasn't about whether or not money was donated; it was simply that members were not required to contribute money, make calls, etc.
http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/48840/
I have patience, the Supreme Court will say enough of this crap. Gay marriage WILL be deemed legal
Rather, Gay Marriage will be interpreted as legal.......
Good enough. And as it should be!
@GCCal - and, in case you missed high school civics, the U.S. Supreme Court's "interpretations" become law. Are you going somewhere with this or are you running laps?
Nobody is being denied from having a relationship. It's where all of this will lead that is a concern. Will ministers who don't want to participate in performing gay marriages (because it's against their beliefs) face persecution? The media already devalues anyone who has full-gospel beliefs regarding homosexuality. Millions of citizens stand to face harm for not agreeing with this agenda (Kurt Cameron for one). If the government didn't give marriage benefits, would this be an issue at all? Is mixing marriage with government mixing church and state? I think this is what gives voters pause. What exactly do you NOT get from the government if you are in a civil partnership instead of marriage? I would really, truly like to hear the facts and numbers. Can someone please do an article on this because I personally feel like it's about agenda, and not really about rights.
Donna, you're delusional. Are Catholic churches forced to perform marriage ceremonies for divorce people? No church would be forced to perform same-sex marriages, either.
No, because in this secular nation, legal marriage is strictly a civil contract.
There are approximately 1,100 federal rights and responsibilities that attach to marriage, but not to civil unions, including the following:
Rights and benefits
Responsibilities
Thank you Erin, that is a very informative list ^.^ Though even if civil unions were exactly the same benefits as marriage, just different, you would run into the problem that the Supreme Court has declared the separate but equal is unconstitutional, because separate is inherently unequal. So if the courts acknowledge a person's orientation as an inherent right, then to argue that "We can forbid gay marriage because we've given them a separate path that is equal, just different than marriage" would be no more legal than to say "We can keep non-whites out of this public school because there is a separate public school that we've built just for them that is equal"
That is exactly what has been argued, and found to be true, in the challenge to these anti-gay marriage laws like Prop H8 and DOMA.
@David Mora - equally to the point, removing the term "marriage" from the existing body of federal, state and local law and substituting "civil union" or some such as many keep demanding is simply impractical. The religious zealots who are confused by the fact that a given term can have different meanings in different contexts are free to substitute another term for "marriage" in their religious context, however. And I thank ErinNJ for the list as well, although I fear it's lost on the "they can have civil unions" crowd who will blindly drone on.
I believe they do. The Catholic church doesn't call it marriage. The official title is Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I have heard other religious types refer to it as holy wedlock. So maybe the term "married" can be reclaimed for the civil institution and the Matrimony and/or Wedlock can be how the optional religious institution can be referred. Not that the religious types are going to go for that. They want to lay claim to the entire landscape as if it all their creation to regulate and guard.
It's obvious to most that legalization of same-sex marriage is a foregone conclusion, what I'm wondering about is which group the bigots will try turn their apparently compulsive need for judging and oppressing on next.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html
Please tell me where this crystal ball is located that allows you to say "It is obvious to most". By the same token I don't have a problem with gay marriage, just with people who think they speak or know what the majority wants when they don't have a clue.
@GCCal
It's eventual as the persistant, human aversion to oppression, suffering, and inequality. Until you can break that, the fight for it will never, ever end.
Where have you been?
A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.
54% would be "most".
And that's just the one's who support it...even some of those who don't support it at the moment recognize legalization of same-sex marriage is more than likely in the near future. Support has been trending upward for well over a decade.
Civil rights should never be determined by a popular vote. Slavery,no womens suffrage,no interracial marriage shoud would still be the law of the land if popular vote ruled
If majority opinion mattered, blacks would still be slaves and women would not be allowed to vote. Gay marriage is a CONSTITUTIONAL issue that is clearly LEGAL under the US Constitution.
What should be banned and made illegal is hate spreading organized religion which is the root cause of all hatred, prejudice, and wars in the world today and historically. Adults who follow a fairy tale written by men to control the poor , the needy, and the less intelligent, should be treated by a psychiatrist and educated in science and proven fact.
Remember that with religious (magical) thinking, things are true unless proven false.
In the REAL world, things are false unless proven true.
The SCOTUS will decide this in favor of Gay Marriage, and then it will be the law of the land.
Once this has been done, the focus should be to put hate mongering religions out of business who have brainwashed the less intelligent.
Why don't the news media just leave this alone it is getting tiresome this story and the problems!!!
The solution is quite simple ... just follow your own comment from an earlier story regarding this issue: "It is always the same post. Jerks with nothing to say ..."