E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIllinois State Sen. Heather Steans discusses the gay-marriage bill she hopes to bring to a floor vote this month.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to tackle gay marriage in a matter of months, but legislative action this week in Rhode Island and Illinois shows that supporters aren't in wait-and-see mode.
Buoyed by ballot victories in four states in November, they're now on the offensive in two more; wins would mean that more than 20 percent of Americans live in places that have approved same-sex marriage.
Opponents are pushing back hard to make sure that doesn’t happen, even as they express confidence that the nation’s high court will rule in their favor when it weighs in on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8.
“Everyone is looking at the Supreme Court. What happens then defines a lot of more about what happens next in the fight,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.”
“We’re gonna win that and then there’s going to be a state-by-state fight, and our record on that is amazing.”
The scope of any Supreme Court decision is far from clear. They could rule that every American is entitled to the right to same-sex marriage or they could allow states to keep bans on gay marriage or they could do something in between.
In the meantime, gay-marriage advocates are pressing the issue at the state level. In addition to Rhode Island and Illinois, lawmakers in Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island reportedly could consider the issue later this year.
“There’s always risk when you go to the Supreme Court. You never want to put all your eggs in one basket,” said Janson Wu, staff attorney at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.
Wu has been busy in Rhode Island, where bills to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed were introduced in both chambers of the legislature and where the speaker of the House has promised a floor vote this month.
Both sides agree the measure is likely to pass the House. Wu says he’s “cautiously optimistic” of a win in the Senate, followed by the governor’s signature, while Brown says, “I think we’re going to stop the bill.”
In Illinois, a Senate Committee voted 8-5 late Thursday for a gay-marriage bill, but then delayed a full-floor vote. There may not be action on it for weeks.
Jim Young / Reuters
Mercedes Santos, right, hugs her partner of 21 years, Theresa Volpe, after a vote on a bill to approve gay marriage in a committee hearing at the Illinois State Capital.
Sen. Heather Steans, the sponsor, told the Associated Press that it’s a matter of “when, not if” the measure will pass, with Democrats controlling the Senate 40-19.
“This is never going to be an easy one, but it’s only going to get easier,” Steans said, citing growing acceptance of marriage equality among lawmakers and constituents across the state.
Brown scoffed. “If she had the votes, there would have been a floor vote,” he said. “They called off the session. This is a major victory for supporters of traditional marriage.”
Still, his group isn’t taking any chances.
It vowed to form a state political action committee and spend $250,000 to defeat Republican lawmakers who vote for gay marriage in Illinois, crowing that it helped defeat four GOP state senators who supported the bill that passed in New York.
Nine states, accounting for 15.8 percent of the U.S. population, according to the Human Rights Campaign, have approved gay marriage. A total of 38 states have either a state law or constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
States still up for grabs include New Jersey, where the Legislature approved same-sex marriage and Republican Gov. Chris Christie vetoed it, and where a lawsuit that would force recognition of gay marriage is still pending.
Before the debate in the Garden State is resolved, the Supreme Court will probably have ruled on the two cases it agreed last month to take up. It will hear a challenge to the federal law known as DOMA, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples, and the challenge to Proposition 8, the voter initiative that banned gay marriage and was overturned by state courts.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Fiscal cliff deal includes at least $67.9 billion for special interests
- Sen. Crapo pleads guilty to DWI, seeks 'forgiveness'
- Profanity-laced YouTube video gets officer fired
- Video: ‘Pecs,’ ‘legs,' ‘frisking’: Biden works the room at photo-op
- Court voids rape conviction because woman not married
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Who care's what people do with there genitals. They have every right to get taxed to death like the rest of us.
America look above your crouch line, Look me in the eye's dam it ! Try finding a cure for cancer or something.
Why have genitals never been part of the conversation about marriage until same sex marriage was the conversation? It's because marriage is not about genitals. It's about legal rights.
the supreme's will rule its a state problem !
let the people vote what they want after all it is what they want when they vote ! unless you live in California when it was voted on twice and was defeated both times until a gay judge ruled that voters dont count and allowed it to happen anyways !
ME, I dont care anymore, however what I do care about is when you vote a certain way THAT should be the law.
Except that civil rights cannot be put to a vote, Mike, because the tyranny of the majority cannot deny rights to the minority -- which is what has happened in California and other states where same-sex marriage was put to a vote in the past.
@Erin - Fortunately, marriage is NOT a civil right. It's a government contrivance and as such can be regulated by government. Homosexuality is disgusting.
To..You.."""
Oh they got a website huh...go there often
Fortunately the US supreme court disagrees with you, and has repeatedly said that marriage is a basic civil right.
However the more important civil right is equal protection of the law and that's the reason you bigots are losing in court on this issue, just like you nutballs lost 45 years ago on the mixed-race marriage issue.
WRONG. The Supreme Court disagrees with you, and their word on this trumps your insignificant, pathetic mewling.
HomosexualityHomophobia is disgusting. -- Fixed that for you.Actually heterophobia dominates the gay community. I remember searching out and punishing the gays who used to sneak into the Army so they could have sex with young men/women. They were always afraid they would be caught practicing their pervisions. You developed "gaydar" after awhile. But we got most of them out for the betterment of the emilitary and the country.
I am gay and in my 60s, and I must confess that I've never met a gay person who didn't have many, many loved ones who were heterosexual. I've also never met a gay person who wanted to prevent heterosexual couples from getting married.
When my partner of many years and I married in a religious (but not legally-recognized) ceremony several years ago, we were surrounded by our heterosexual family members, friends and members of the congregation. There were actually relatively few gay people present. And when Question 6 passed in the recent election in Maryland, we were immediately congratulated by our straight friends and neighbors who had largely made it happen. We are greatly to them all, and count many of them among are dearest friends.
Sorry, but you'll have to look pretty hard to find a "heterophobe" here.
Peace.
"Heterophobia"? LOL.....I don't see gays trying to deny the civil rights of straight folks.
Just an FYI, the vast majority of the people supporting marriage equality are straight folks like me, many of us with gay kids, gay friends and gay employees.
Homophobic freaks like you are in the minority today.
Within a year the Supreme Court is going to get gay marriage federally recognized, and then it's only a matter of time til it spreads to all 50 as old people die off and religion thankfully dies off even more.
Erin: It's funny how a majority vote is suddenly defined as "tyranny" when it doesn't go your way. If this country subscribed to your self-serving definition then Obama should be out and Romney in, right? What's the difference?
Mike is 100% right...when an issue has been put to a vote, the result of that vote should be upheld and aggressively protected.
Where you're confused is that you seem to think that gay-marriage is a civil right, in which case the majority cannot deny the minority that which is theirs based on the Constitution. However, gay-marriage is not a civil right and it never has been, so sorry to disappoint you.
So tired of wading through liberal, revisionist history...
No, Mike is WRONG, and so are you. We are not a country of majority rule; we are not a democracy. If that were true, slavery would still be legal, women would still not be allowed to vote, and interracial marriage would still be illegal.
WRONG AGAIN. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" in Loving v. Virginia, and has applied that ruling in at least 14 other cases since then -- and it has also been found to apply in the various challenges to laws banning same-sex marriage in the various court cases, and you bigots are consistently LOSING in those courts.
BTW, same-sex marriage has been a right in several ancient civilizations, and among our own Native Americans. So sorry to disappoint YOU (actually, I lied -- I enjoy disappointing bigots).
Isn't that just too bad for you bigots.
Hate to break this to you, Erin, but you're actually the bigot. Your posts show clearly that you hate everyone who disagrees with you, yet don't you declare for the "party of tolerance?"
Hypocrite much?
By the way, personal freedom, voting and mixed "heterosexual" marriage are defined as civil rights protected by the Constitution. This is not the case with gay marriage which, I guess is too bad for bigots like you, huh?
I don't "hate" anyone who disagrees with me; in fact, some of my closest friends do, on this and other issues. However, they do not advocate for the denial of rights to a group of people simply because they do not "approve of" or "agree with" their sexual orientation, as bigots like you do -- and THAT'S what makes you a bigot.
Where is "mixed 'heterosexual' marriage" defined as a civil right in the Constitution?
EPIC FAIL.
Your entire argument is an EPIC FAIL, sweetie.
Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman - period. It doesn't say between a man and a woman of the same color, therefore SCOTUS ruled correctly in allowing mixed-race marriage between men and women.
I was trying to make the same point earlier but succinctly. Sorry it confused you.
And don't fool yourself . . . you most certainly are a bigot, it's just that you, like most liberals, try to justify your bigotry by looking in the mirror every day and chanting over and over, "I have right on my side, dammit! I have right on my side, dammit!"
Wrong! Here's the legal definition of marriage:
The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.
Note that it doesn't specify between genders. And the states are starting to "define" marriage as also between same sex couples. EPIC FAIL dear!
You're wrong in at least 9 states and quite a few countries. In a few months it'll be at least 11 states and 1/3rd of the US population which has access to marriage equality.
No surprise though that the bigoted states today are the very same states which denied mixed-race marriage not that long ago. Dumb bigots never change their stripes - they've always thought some Americans should be treated as 2nd-class citizens.
The Supreme Court ruling did not specify that marriage is between a man and a woman; it specified that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, at that time, DOMA did not exist -- and it basically does not exist now, since it is about to be overturned (and already has been found unconstitutional by EVERY federal court in which it was challenged).
ROFLMAO! Whose rights am I in favor of denying? Unlike you, I am not so threatened by homosexuals and same-sex marriage that I would deny them equal rights, as you would.
Still an EPIC FAIL, cupcake.
Prior to 1967, there were many states that held interracial marriage as an illegal act. In the US Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia, the court ruled that any law prohibiting interracial marriage violated the US Constitution.
Since it has been used as a precedence in many cases since, it is likely that proponents of gay marriage will cite Loving v. Virginia in their brief. Also, I hope that regarding DOMA, they bring up the fact that laws that discriminate based on marital status should be ruled unconsitutional as well. Specifically, making married couples and non married couples pay different tax rates.
I really do not see any cases where the US Supreme Court can cite in upholding current state laws that prohibit "same sex" marriage. The only thing that they can rely on is what the state has interpreted to be the definition of a marriage.
Nukeman,
Here is why marriage IS a civil right...
First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,
Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the 14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd be gender.
So, since marriage is a legal (that means law) contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, based on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law.Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO.
Also, the logic that gay people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in their defense, again just turn gender to race.
The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.
Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th and 4th Amendments. In a the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said this...
Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract, that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits. In order to enter a legal contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.
Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.
Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.
Fourth, there are very few limited reasons for the government to discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.
So....
The real question, those making the case for continuing the gender based discrimination of DOMA is, what is that compelling state interest? And before we start talking about marrying appliances, nephews, sheep, or dead people, ask yourselves this...
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? Why would gay marriage lead to the repeal of the laws we have on the books, banning all those things?
Or, in easier terms...
Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that?
And technically, the burden of proof is on those limiting rights, (the anti-marriage equality folks), so you all should really be making the case, not us.
That's not an issue before the court, nor is it unconstitutional in any sense since unmarried couples can marry to access those rights and privileges (.....or at least opposite-sex couples can do that).
For similar reasons people who don't hold mortgages aren't able to claim the mortgage tax credit.
Yes. Yes it does.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
http://www.livescience.com/13409-myths-gay-people-debunked-sexual-orientation.html
http://guymeetsworld.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/gay-myth-7-gays-are-pedophiles-molesters/
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978430711
http://www.wcupa.edu/_SERVICES/stu.lgb/Documents/MythsandRealitiesofGayMenandLesbians.pdf
Let me guess. You don't have any sources showing CAUSALITY, between those two things.
http://www.telegram.com/article/20110429/NEWS/104299840/1246
So, carryingconcealed, if the state you lived in put up banning guns for a vote and a majority voted to ban them in your state, would happily had in your firearms because that's what the majority wanted, or would you be headed into court screaming about the second amendment?
I think we all know the answer.
You totally missed the point of why they want to get married. A married man and woman actually pay less taxes than a same sex couple. THAT'S THE FRIGGEN POINT!!!!!!
"Fortunately, marriage is not a civil right."
Arguable at best. How can you deny a tax-paying citizen's right to his pursuit of happiness, freedom of religion, and equality under the law?
Can the moderators ban "youcanthandlethetruth4". That person's posts are insulting and belligerent.
Who cares! What I'm hoping for is that I'll stop being taxed more because I'm single just so my money can be given to some married couple who most likely have a larger combined income than I do. Just because I'm single doesn't mean my bills are lower than married couples, I have to maintain a home and pay my bills just like they do and without someone else coughing up their money for me.
Marriage is between two consenting adults. When are you poor bigots going to understand this?
WRONG. The medical and scientific communities disagree with you, and their word on this trumps your insignificant, pathetic rants.
Yet homosexuals have existed in approximately the same percentage of the population since humankind has existed, and here we all are. BTW, you are not qualified to judge what is "normal".
LYTING DEMOCRATS.. most of you opponents oppose gay marriage because some one as Ignorant as you said so.. Jerry Falwell was a big sinner,, taking a lot of this in his way.. gluttony is one of the 7 deadly sins
how many evangalist have hadf to step up and face the music being homosexuals, being child molesters,and a lot more... Priests that belong in jail for eons, for molesting children but for some reason they get protected..
many couples sin by having sex before marriage, unwed births most would consider those women sluts..
but it seems to be ok with the hetros couples living together unwed are big sinners .. and GOD will punish all of the above bigots and hypocrites
Wow, the hate and bigotry exhibited in this post by supposedly "enlightened" and "tolerant" liberals is unbelievable.
Guess what, bigots? Just as you have a right to support homosexuality, others have the right to not support it, and they further have the right to express that right at the voting booth. Of course, if you had your way you would remove that right, right?
How do you keep from choking to death on your own hypocrisy?
I do not understand why some Americans try to rule over the rest. As long as you live your life as you choose, let others do the same. You do not beleive in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. Let those who do get married.
project much?
As a Christian, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but that is my own personal belief and I do not try to force those beliefs on others. If gay people want to marry, I do not condone it, but that is their own business.
But I also think that I should be able to state my beliefs without being attacked and called a homophobe, bigot, etc., etc.
I have a gay family member who has a live-in partner. I love him dearly and admire him for his personal accomplishments. Though I do not agree with his lifestyle, it does not change the way that I feel about him.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I thought that the constitution was made up by the will of the majority of the people. Not Congress or the courts. If the majority of voters in the state want same sex marriages so be it. If not, There's no law that says that same sex couples can't move to a state that allows it. It's not up to a single judge to disregard the majority. I have friend & family that or gay & it never has affected my choice of how i live. I have been married to the same lady for 49 years now & honestly don't know whether or not i would support same sex marriages. If not, it would be mainly because of the attitudes & displays that are shown on television from places like San Francisco. Live the life you want but don't flaunt it in my face.
It doesn't matter if people find homosexuality disgusting. Hell, everyone has the right to state an opinion. But under no circumstances should these opinions or beliefs be used to squash the civil rights of a human being. And anyone that tries to do that deserves to have their civil rights revoked.
So marriage is a life stlye? What lifestyle? Married to the person you love is wrong? And why do so many hetro people worry about the bedroom so much? I do not care to even think about my neighbors sex life. None of my business. Why so many would prefer to hate than to see two people who love each other marry. Being in a gay marriage is no more or less about sex than straight one. The ones being the most bigoted are ones whose minds are always in some one else's bedroom. myob and quit trying to deny rights to people.
Sarah-3043284 ---First I like the way you attempt to turn the interpretations to fit your mold but I must cite the very part of the ruling you conveniently forgot. How can marriage of the same gender be, "fundamental to our very existence and survival" if it applies to same gender. I point to the same argument you loonies use in saying the majority does not rule. Try if you would some time reading about what type of system we do in fact have. It is based totally on majority rule. For example here is a direct interpretation from the man who wrote the Constitution.
"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:60
Since liberals cannot understand it maybe they should read it. Using tactics of punishment and force it is those who use the law to gain their advantage by minority rulings. This type of liberal bypassing of the conscience of the majority is in fact against the very principles this country was founded on. It is not 100% fair nor perfect but it is applicable. As far as the race issue it is only the left who shouts in anger at those who would disagree accusing them of racism instead of recognizing a difference of opinion and by far the most racist group of people I have ever met. I have seen the liberals version of the world and it reminds me of the high school bullies I despised. Peace, love and understanding are words liberals neither use or live by, causes, agendas and supposed self importance are what you live by and it is reflected by your own interpretations. To be very direct, you are bored and have lots of free time so you fill it with all the supposed wrongs you need to correct.
"will of the majority of the people"...Which year are we talking about? 200 years ago "the majority" would have voted IN FAVOR OF slavery. 100 years ago "the majority" would have voted AGAINST women's voting rights. 60 years ago the vote would have resulted in separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites. 10 years ago the majority would have voted against same-sex marriage, but even today, more and more people are accepting it. The courts are there to make sure CONSTITUTIONAL rights are protected, regardless of the flip-floping of the "will of the majority".
This is important why, and for the whole of the US population why? I don't think so, we have real issues for this country besides that gay crap. That gay stuff will not pay for the bills nor will it bring in any revenue for anything.
What is the matter with American folks to put all this effort into something that is NOT important for the rest of the USA???
If you want to be gay, go ahead, what do I care. But stop making an issue out of you wanting to be different. I am tired of hearing about your meaningless plight for nothing.
It should just be a simple vote. That's it. It shouldn't effect anything jobs or economic related. Just make it legal and move on to more important things that aren't about limiting the right of others based on bigotry. Honestly, I don't understand why some people will go so far out of their way just to slight others because of some discriminatory principle near and dear to their twisted hearts. Why does it matter what other people do with other people so long as they are as responsible about it as any other couple? It shouldn't negatively effect anything. I'm not gay. I'm straight, with no interest in ever having a gay relationship for myself. But I don't care what other people do with their relationships so long as they are responsible about it. The same thing goes for straight couples. I don't care what they do so long as they are responsible about it. Why does it matter if they are gay or straight? I don't see a reason to oppose it. What's most disturbing is all these people who rail and wail about government taking away their freedoms are often (not always but often) are often the same ones who go out of their way to try to limit the rights of gay people.
Why? Why oppose it? It makes no sense to waste your time opposing something which won't even effect you. Nor does it make sense to limit those freedoms most people in this country claim they value so much.
I predict the Supreme Court will rule in favor of marriage equality by a slim majority, effectively killing DOMA and allowing previously married gay couples to enjoy their rights and benefits of marriage at the federal level. It will open the door wide for the remaining states to move to a position where the decision of whom you marry is left up to the individual - not the state. This will happen as sure as I know the sun will rise tomorrow. It is inevitable and there is no sound, logical, legal reason why it shouldn't be that way. Until someone can prove that allowing gay couples to marry harm, endanger, or detract from any other individual or couples rights or privileges, then there can be no reasonable or rational argument to contest allowing gay couples to marry. It is only an issue based solely on religious convictions and dogma.
@Sarah-3043284, your post #1.22 is excellent and well written. Hard to believe people still attempt to argue against such well written facts.
I think the people against legalized gay marriage might be suffering from some unnatural, probably mutant, state of mind. This isn't the people who don't believe it because of religious reasons, but the people who are making up reasons it shouldn't be allowed under the law in a country with freedom of religion.
Maybe natural selection is weeding them out. Time marches on.
And don't be ludicrous enough to tie being anti-gay marriage for non-religious reasons to conservatives. Just tie it to stupid people who like to pretend they are smart.
I'm gay, liberal, left-wing, Democrat and so, of course, I support marriage equality and am glad to see it advancing forward, despite what the homophobes want.
I also support making divorce legally virtually impossible. Divorce should only be allowed under three conditions: 1) abuse; 2) adultery, and 3) abandonment (i.e., one of the spouses "gets bored" and wants out). In all three cases, the abuser, adulterer and abandoner should pay and lose everything to the former spouse and not be allowed to remarry. In every case of friends or acquaitances, divorce has happened because one of the spousers was an abuser, adulterer or abandoner and got to keep half of everything because of "no fault." There is no such thing as "no fault" divorce; someone is at fault, and that person should pay through the nose with the loss of everything and no right to remarry. The injured gets everything and gets to remarry if he/she so chooses. What about those couples where there is no abuse, adultery or abandonment, when "we just don't love each other anymore?" Tough. You stay legally married and bare all the responsibilities thereof. You deal with it, especially when there are children involved. Divorce is what has destroyed marriage in this country, not two people of the same sex getting married. And I know that among those who oppose marriage equality and who got divorced and remarried, it was because they were abusers, adulterers or abandoners (and they blow it off by saying Jesus forgave them).
Same-sex marriage equality: yes. Divorce: no. That will protect and defend marriage.
You bigots have the right to refuse to support homosexuals and equality, but you do not have the right to vote on the civil rights of others -- as is provided in our Constitution, since we are not a democracy.
Nope -- you are free to be as bigoted as you want to be; it only helps OUR side when courts and lawmakers hear the depth of your irrationality.
It's an obamanation
If you think you deserve special legal rights and privileges which are denied to people you want to treat as 2nd-class citizens, you're the very definition of a bigot.
And if you think the government should enforce your Christian sharia laws, you're a Christofascist.
Apart from that, no one really gives a crap what you personally think of gays.
We have a constitution, a bill of rights, and a judiciary in order to prevent the tyranny of the majority over a disfavored minority.
That means even the people you bigots hate get the same legal rights as you.
No scientific study has ever conclusively stated that homosexuality is solely biological. It is currently believed to be the product of environment and possibly biology. Any study to date concerning homosexuality has been written in the language of probability. The homosexual community is begging
the question since its inception as homosexuality is ideologically, not biologically, based. A gay gene has never been discovered, Levy never said their was, and in all probability never will be. Yes, there is homosexuality in the animal world, but there's also cannibalism.
You can't change your sex or the sex you were intended for, and homosexuality has virtually no biological purpose in the first place. Human beings have an entire reproductive system, not a simple climax button. Due process was created in 1868, as part of reconstruction, to protect the rights of freed slaves and applies to what are known as suspect classes.
The SCOTUS has historically never granted suspect status to homosexuals. I've never seen a homosexual denied the right to vote, made to ride in the back of the bus, or given a separate drinking fountain. The ninth amendment of the constitution basically allows states to make their own decisions and generally leaves the federal government out of it. The Bowers vs hardwick decision stated that homosexuality isn't protected by the constitution. Generally speaking, Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, but there's no fundamental right to same-sex marriage as homosexuality isn't rooted in America's history or tradition. Homosexuality is not 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty'.
Generally, the only way homosexuals ever garner support is to intermingle homosexuality in with some
verbal gymnastics about equality, justice, or love. It's never taken to mean same sex sex relations. Apart from activist judges any legislation made in favor of homosexuals is generally done in the context of basic civil rights but not necessarily in favor of homosexuality. As for same sex marriage, it might interest people to know that Homosexual males have statistically been shown to be less monogamous than their heterosexual counterparts, and homosexual relationships aren't exclusively monogamous. Meaning they involve more than two people.
I wish one gay person would explain to me why go state to state? why do this on the basis of rights? when very simply: if there is separation of church and state, Then NO state has the right to marry ANYBODY. the states would only be allowed to give contracts of co-habitation. The church should be the only entity to be able to use the word marriage. If EVERYBODY had the same document of cohabitation, then all people would have their equal rights. then you would save millions of dollars trying to fight 50 times. and millions of hours of human time. I believe that what gay people want is right. But I think they are doing this the hardest way possible. just wondering why.
Seriously, I've never seen one person make so many wrong arguments and so many false statements. Like that one, above.
If your statement was correct -- "Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman - period." -- then it wouldn't be legal and recognized already in over 10% of the US States, and growing. But it IS legal, therefore your statement is patently false.
What is wrong with you people? Are you simply pretending to be stupid/ignorant, or is it an actual mental condition for you?
Let me be blunt.......
I don't believe in same sex unions. I don't believe in giving rights to same sex unions.
I feel most sorry for children of same sex unions...... A same sex union can provide a loving environment, true, however.....a child of two fathers will never know what its like to be lovingly held in his mothers arms, a child of two fathers will never know what its like to have a mother be there to comfort and guide them, the way only a mother could. Likewise, a child of two mothers will never know what its like to be lovingly picked up into his fathers arms, a child of two mothers will never know what its like to have a father be there to comfort and guide them, the way only a father could.
A same sex union can provide a loving environment, true, but a same sex union can not provide these fundamental principals of a man/woman union that a fundamental family and marriage is built upon, and truly means.
Unless your a test tube baby, most gays and lesbians came from a "fundamental", man/woman relationship. You had a father, you had a mother. What happened after that, is your story.
Whats next.....? I can see it now.The gay unions with children, will protest "Mothers Day", the lesbian unions with children, "Fathers-day" because it's biased against their beliefs and lifestyle.
Do what you want behind closed doors, your entitled to that...and that's it!.
Leave the children out of the equation.
Well DUH! They aren't allowed to marry!! And since everyone here seems to agree that the act and bond of getting married strengthens a relationship, anyone denied that strengthening bond is going to be less monogamous than the people in strengthened, married relationships that you compare them to! (and yet, even those males in straight, married relationships have an amazingly high rate of infidelity, and a high rate of divorce...)
in any event --- jesus h nipple, get real... what an incredibly foolish comparison and statement to make.
Okay, let's all get married so we can save money on taxes!
No thanks, been there, done that, it's not worth it, won't do it again!!
You'll spend all the money you saved on taxes to the lawyers, trying to get out of it!
LOL @ 7minutes2midnight. All your comments are the same arguments made about the children of interracial couples back in the 1960's -- when bigots/haters like you failed to hold that back.
You were wrong then. You are still wrong now. You are all falling slowly, the way of the neaderthal.
And I don't feel sorry for any of you. Every time a bigot like you dies off, the world is a better place for it. We don't need any more Archie Bunkers.
WRONG. There are many studies that conclusively state that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of biological, hormonal, and environmental factors. Besides, what difference does that make?
Neither has a straight gene; what's your point?
WRONG AGAIN. Some scientists believe that it is an evolutionary guard against overpopulation. Moreover, infertile people have no "biological purpose," either -- so again I ask, what's your point?
No, but the Supreme Court has granted suspect status to gender -- and anti-same-sex marriage laws are discriminatory on the basis of the relative genders of the parties.
So I guess that means it never happens, because YOU'VE never seen it. /s
Homosexuals can be and are fired from jobs, denied housing, denied loans, etc., simply because they are homosexual.
Apparently you have never opened a history book or learned about incorporation doctrine.
And that was explicitly overruled in the Lawrence v. Texas decision.
WRONG AGAIN. See that same Lawrence v. Texas decision, as well as Loving v. Virginia -- both of which have been found to be applicable to the current challenges to DOMA and other anti-same-sex marriage laws.
Can you really be so clueless? No wonder you bigots keep LOSING in the courts.
LMAO @ morgan.... What part of my statement is untrue that.....
"a child of two fathers will never know what its like to be lovingly held in his mothers arms, a child of two fathers will never know what its like to have a mother be there to comfort and guide them, the way only a mother could. Likewise, a child of two mothers will never know what its like to be lovingly picked up into his fathers arms, a child of two mothers will never know what its like to have a father be there to comfort and guide them, the way only a father could"
That is an unarguable fact and has nothing to do with race. And its unfortunate that a child will grow up never having a mother to rely on and a father to rely on, as God intended.
Oh wait, let me guess.....your an atheist and don't believe in God or divine creation. No shock here............If you say you do believe in God..... your just fooling yourself and I quote Pasquale "God mad man in his image and man returned the favor." You cant twist the Bible to fit your needs,wants, desires or lifestyles.
Though your right we dont need any more "Archie Bunkers", likewise we dont need any airhead "Edith Bunkers" as well!
Irvmani, posting an OPINION is NOT the same as posting LAW, even though you attempt to do so by quoting an interpretation to fit YOUR mold. Since Republicans cannot understand that, maybe they should read the law. Using tactics of punishment and force (albeit the NRA, the Christian Right, etc., against Republicans in office to sway their votes or vote them out in favor of those who will follow their rhetoric), it is those who use the law to gain their advantage by minority rulings. This is typical of Republicans bypassing of the conscience of ALL Americans which is in fact against the very principles this country was founded on. I have seen the Republicans' faux-christian version of the world and it reminds me of the high school bullies I despised. Peace, love, understanding and democracy, are words liberals use and live by. Self importance over everything/everyone else is what you live by and it is reflected by your own interpretations. To be very direct, you are bored and have lots of free time so you fill it with all the supposed 'rights' you need to project from another time period by a man who didn't like the Bible, so he 'created' his OWN version. By your own interpretations, that would mean the NRA, their lobbyists, and their 4+ million 'minority' members have no say as far as what the majority of Americans want concerning changes needing made, yet keeping the basic principles of the 2nd Amendment intact for ALL.
Irvani,
Because the gender, same as the race, is not what makes it fundemental. It's the union, that's important.
Then explain to me why we don't vote on things like abortion, segregation, suffrage, due process...
Irrelevant. I could quote a thousand different Jefferson quotes. They don't matter.
Blah, blah, blah, ALL personal opinion. It means nothing.
I do get bored easily. You got that right.
Funny to see someone with conceal carry in their name in favor of majority rule above all as conceal carry has been defeated by referendum in a couple states only to have the state legislatures over ride the voters. Somehow I doubt you think majority rule should apply in those case. anyway, that is neither here nor there, the whole reason why the supreme court will have to legalize gay marriage is because government got involved in it in the first place. You did yourselves in, you can't create a government institution and then exclude one group of citizens from that construct. It is why everytime it has gone before a state supreme court, even in states that are not typically socially liberal like iowa (notice I said socially liberal), the courts have ruled against laws prohibiting gay marriage. If you ruled against it, your credibility regarding the interpretation of the law and constitution would be completely shot. I think Scalia is probably the only person on the court who puts his conservative credentials that far above his total credibility. It is a difficult social issue for many, but with regards to the constitution and the law, it is pretty black and white and will be made legal because of the equal protection clause as there is not a legitimate compelling social interest to deny it. I agree with a guy who posted earlier, get the government out of marriage, and stop making me as a single person subsidize married people and their bratty snot nosed offspring.
@Sarah. Thank you for the well written, well thought out posts. While I totally disagree with you and SCOTUS on this one, I do enjoy seeing your thoughts.
Homosexuality is a perversion.
And you can't pass legislation through religion either, but you still fight tooth and nail to do so.
Isn't putting your God on our currency, oaths and pledges enough?
Yet forcing your religion onto others seems OK with you, correct?
Fact? Don't you mean religious bias? Until you can separate your religion from our laws, you have no place in this discussion. Better yet. When you can have your god physically present for the discussion, I will continue to view you as a religious zealot.
You heterosexual arguments couldn't be any more biased, could they? Why not bring up all the children abandoned by these loving heterosexual families? All the children aborted by these loving heterosexual families. All the children abused by these loving heterosexual families.
But I guess when all that neglect, abuse and abandonment is part of your gods plan, who are you to dispute that, right?
I fully expect some religiously biased reply. Maybe I'll burn in your hell, right? Or perhaps I'll be turned into a pillar of salt for not needing religion in order to do right by others?
Then again, all that religion you have seems to have made you judgemental and hateful. Doesn't your good book say something about passing judgement and the self righteous? Pack for a very hot afterlife.
If you propose to believe that you have the moral imperative and authority to determine how others live, beware the consequences when others believe they have the same.
Every law that is made reduces freedom and liberty. And you would think our government has more pressing issues to deal with.
No, people invading my home and decreeing what is or isn't the correct form of love between two people is the perversion. Stay the f*ck out of other people's lives. What they do is none of your business. Feel free to "fear the fag" if that's the way you are. But there is not a single line in the Constitution that gives you the right to interfere in their lives. And yes, doing your best to deny them the same rights and protections hetero couples enjoy IS interfering.
If gays would come about this whole ordeal a little different, they may be able to work a compromise. Most Americans don't want this and trying to force it down our throats, gays will get more resistance! I'm against it just like the rest, trying to force Americans to accept your alternative lifestyle choice is offensive. But, just like the rest of the liberal movement, they are all about whats good for them! I would be for something like tax breaks of a real marriage (that's what this is all about, right? That is what is spewed in every gay marriage argument!) but I will never accept gay marriage! This is not something for 9 people to consider! This is the vote of the people and majority rules! ........@ NYMike, your an idiot and twisting all that is righteous and christian is disgusting and offensive! The Bible teaches that people like you will come along and as time goes by, more and more are showing up. This is coming to pass! You cant disprove God's existence so you throw out a few self indulging points and lewd basis to aid in your attempted destruction of the Word. Your liberal movement has been trying for decades to find other life beyond earth to denounce Christianity and other God loving faiths.....ya that's has been successful hasn't it?
WRONG. The majority of Americans support equality; you bigots are a dying breed.
So when did you make the "lifestyle choice" to be heterosexual? And what is the heterosexual or homosexual "lifestyle choice"?
WRONG AGAIN. Civil rights cannot be put to a vote; we are not a country of majority rule.
You have shown us all who the REAL idiot is, and it is certainly not anyone who supports equality. God and the bible do not make the laws in this secular nation -- and YOU can't prove that God exists.
There's no such thing as a "supporter of traditional marriage." There are people that have their own lives to live but instead they work vehemently to deprive others of the same. The so-called supporters of traditional marriage are people that can't mind their own business.
skrekk,
I never said that I thought gay people should be denied any rights. In fact, I implied just the opposite when I said that if gay people want to marry then that is their business.
It is amusing that you call people homophobes and bigots who disagree with your views when you are most definitely an angry, bigoted Christophobe. It is people like you who actually thwart the gay agenda.
NYmike - The majority of my original point is about gay unions raising children......
"a child of two fathers will never know what its like to be lovingly held in his mothers arms, a child of two fathers will never know what its like to have a mother be there to comfort and guide them, the way only a mother could. Likewise, a child of two mothers will never know what its like to be lovingly picked up into his fathers arms, a child of two mothers will never know what its like to have a father be there to comfort and guide them, the way only a father could"
You don't seem to offer your opinion on the topic, its only when I mention my religious belief that you strongly have an issue with.
You reply with me forcing "your religion" against "our laws"........This country and its laws, were founded on religious belief's and as of the latest polls taken.... 84% of Americans still believe in God.
You are the minority. Yet you talk of "religious bias"??? The majority of Americans disagree. You and those who think like you are the ones vehemently "tooth and nail" trying to "force" their agenda onto the majority of the others.
If someone here is a "zealot" its you......a typical raving atheist zealot.
WRONG. This country was NOT founded on any religious beliefs; it was found on, among other things, freedom OF and FROM religion. The fact that the majority of Americans are Christians is meaningless (BTW, the percentage is actually about 73%, not 84%). If we were founded on religious beliefs, as you claim, show us where the Constitution mentions God, Jesus, the bible, or any other religious deity or text.
John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
Since we are not a country of majority rule, who is in the minority is also irrelevant. And exactly what is being "forced" on you or anyone else?
And if you want information on same-sex parenting:
American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2006
While you are a typical christo-bigoted nutjob.
The Christian "RIGHT" took a little issue that would have extended equal protection of marriage and family law to a minority of tax paying American citizens and somehow . . . as entitled CHRISTIANS do, made it ALL about THEM. Now every person in America and some beyond, feel that they're also entitled to weigh in on the matter.
America is embroiled in this drama, shouting about being FORCED to accept T.H.I.S. and having T.H.A.T. SHOVED down their throats all the while decrying the delusional loss of their religious freedom -- AS IF -- it actually has A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G whatsoever to do with them.
It doesn't.
************* IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU! *************** IT NEVER WAS! *************
I've seen surviving partners lose everything to bereaved parents looking for someone to blame.
I stood helplessly by and watched, as a friend was forcibly evicted from his home with nothing but the clothes on his back, desperately pleading for the right just to take his own dog. In the end he lost everything he'd ever loved and worked for to the desperate, angry parents of a man they hadn't seen or talked to since they kicked him out of the house at the age of sixteen.
In what twisted vision of America could this ever be right or just?
Your hatred and disgust about gay people is irrelevant. Your opinions and sensibilities aren't important in this issue because it has ZERO effect on your lives.
IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU!
ErinNJ - You state "This country was NOT founded on any religious beliefs"....are you serious????
FACT#1 - The Declaration of Independence declares that "..we are endowed by OUR CREATOR, with certain unalienable rights..."
FACT#2 - The Supreme Court, which governs our laws, starts every session with the Marshal saying "God save the United States and this honorable court"
FACT#3 - The Supreme Court building itself contains a sculpture of Moses holding The Ten Commandments. Those same commandments are also found engraved over the Chief Justices chair and on the bronze doors of the Supreme court, thus affirming the Judeo–Christian roots of our American legal system.
FACT#4 - The Lincoln Memorial, we as a nation, built to honor and recognise our great leader. We inscribed on the walls of the memorial the Gettysburg Address, which states "..that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth in freedom" Also inscribed is his second address which mentions God 14 more times.
FACT#5 - In the rotunda of the U.S.Capitol Building hangs a painting titled Religion, honoring the role of God in the founding of our nation. In the Cox corridor in the House wing of the Capitol are carved the following words "America! God shed his grace on thee". Also in the House chamber is the inscription "In God We Trust". At the East entrance of the Senate Chamber is "Annuit coeptis" which is Latin for God has favored our undertakings. “In God We Trust” is also written over the South entrance.
FACT#6 - the motto "In God We Trust" has been used, uninteruppted, on U.S. currency since 1864.
FACT#7 - The Star Spangle Banner, which contain the lyrics "In God is our trust." was selected as our National Anthem, played officially during the raising of the American flag and other appropriate military occasions, as well as every major sporting event.
You seriously cant argue the facts that the history of this country is rich in religion with the centrality of God and his role in the founding of this great nation.
Demonstratably false! This country was founded on the Constitution, and not on any religious ideology. I defy you to prove otherwise!
An argumentum ad populum. Beliefs do not make our laws, nor do they equal fact.
Fact: The DoI does not establish our system of laws or government. The Constitution does, which makes NO REFERENCE to any deity or religious ideology! Also, the term "Our Creator" is an ambiguous term meant to apply to the individual's beliefs, and not the contry as a whole.
Fact: there is NO LAW which required fealty to any god or establishes god as central to our country and laws!
Fact: The SCOTUS has the Roman numeral I-X referring to the first 10 Bill of Rights. Moses is depicted as a lawgiver, along with other historical figure. It is not meant as a recognition of religious fealty! Also, our legal system is based on English Common Law, which predates widespread christianity in Europe by 200 years!
Fact: That memorial was built long after the Founding Fathers had died, and has NO bearing on our government or laws. Also, Lincoln was not a Founding Father!
Fact: religious displays have no relevance to our laws or government, nor does the COnstitution itself make any such refernce or indication.
Fact: That motto was not the original motto. The original motto, established by the Foundin Fathers, was "E. Pluribus Unum." In God We Trust was placed due to pressure from christian fundamentalists!
Fact: The Star Spangled Banner is just a song and not a law of the land!
I just did and proved you wrong on all points!
FACT 1: The use of the word "Creator" was deliberate, so that each person reading the Declaration could decide for him/herself exactly who that "creator" is. However, the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document of this country; the Constitution is the basis for our laws and government.
FACT 2: This is an example of "ceremonial deism," which is a legal term for religious statements and practices deemed to be merely ritual and non-religious through long customary usage. It is simply the way the Marshal of the Court opens the proceedings.
FACT 3: As Gordy points out, this is a depiction of Moses (and other historical figures, including Confucius and Solon) as a lawgiver; the title of the sculpture is "Justice the Guardian of Liberty" by Herman McNeil, and was intended to be a symbolic representation of the three eastern civilizations upon which our laws were derived. The tablets held by Moses are BLANK, with no inscription. The symbols I-V and VI-X on the doors represent the Bill of Rights, NOT the 10 Commandments.
FACT 4: The Gettysburg Address was not a founding document of this nation, nor was Abraham Lincoln a Founding Father. In fact, Lincoln was not very religious at all:
Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis
FACT 5:
http://aoc.gov/capitol-buildings/capitol-rotunda
There is no painting titled "Religion" listed there; no such painting appears in the Rotunda of the US Capitol.
As far as the Cox corridor is concerned, the Capitol was built AFTER the founding of this country, and those are words from the song "My Country 'Tis of Thee".
Regarding "In God We Trust," it is another example of ceremonial deism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
FACT 6: WRONG. In the first place, its use has not been uninterrupted since 1864, but only since 1956, when it was adopted as the official motto and was added to paper currency as well as coins. Prior to that, its use on coins had been interrupted several times.
See my previous paragraph (Fact 5) regarding the motto's use as an example of ceremonial deism.
FACT 7: "The Star-Spangled Banner" did not become our national anthem until 1931, long AFTER the Founding Fathers were in their graves.
I can -- and DO -- maintain that we were not founded on any Judeo-Christian principles, as John Adams himself stated in 1797.
You have got to stop getting your misinformation from christo-bigoted websites. Try actually reading a history book.
Regarding 7minutes2midnight's well-researched post, Gordy ended his not-very-well-researched response with, "I just did and proved you wrong on all points!"
Uh, no you didn't. All you did was prove once again that a liberal is a sore loser, and will say literally anything to try and make a point to include gross exaggeration, ignoring facts and, of course, outright lying, even when that point is completely and utterly without merit.
Congratulations, 7minutes2midnight, your intention was to support your assertion that at the time of this country's founding, almost everyone and everything was deeply influenced by religion, and you made your point very well.
As for Erin, what do you say to someone who trolls until she sees something she disagrees with, then responds with, "WRONG!" and proceeds to paste some nonsense from Wikipedia?
It is, however, quite entertaining to watch the self-loathing, American-hating, left-wing zealots froth at the mouth whenever they read a post that does not jive with their own beliefs. They can't hit Google and Wikipedia fast enough. :-)
By all means, prove any of my points wrong!
And he's still wrong!
That's because I did. Where's your "research?" 7minutes didn't research anything either, nor did he reference anything from any original, primary sources to support his claims. All he did was cite christian revisionist tripe. The same kind I've seen many times before.
What were you saying about trolling? All you've done is post baseless asseriuons and accusations, without any value or actually proving anything!
Sorry, I didn't mean to mischaracterize your comment since it was clear that you support equal legal rights (the only thing I really care about).
However, I was mostly responding to this part of your comment:
Simply put, if you don't want to be called out as a bigot then don't loudly proclaim your bigoted views. Otherwise quit your whining - you're like David Duke saying he thinks blacks are subhuman, then complaining when he gets called a racist.
carryingconcealed, you are new here, but please mind the Code of Honor.
You are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1.
"a child of two fathers will never know what its like to be lovingly held in his mothers arms"
Not necessarily true and totally irrelevant. A child can have a biological father in a relationship with another man while still sharing custody with the biological mother. You are an idiot.
" a child of two fathers will never know what its like to have a mother be there to comfort and guide them"
Not necessarily true and totally irrelevant. A child can have a biological father in a relationship with another man while still sharing custody with the biological mother. You are an idiot.
"the way only a mother could."
Not a fact. Pure gender bias. You are an idiot.
"Likewise, a child of two mothers will never know what its like to be lovingly picked up into his fathers arms, a child of two mothers will never know what its like to have a father be there to comfort and guide them, the way only a father could"
Once again, totally irrelevant and untrue.
"That is an unarguable fact"
Wrong again, Bob.
"and has nothing to do with race"
Has nothing to do with marriage either, idiot.
"And its unfortunate that a child will grow up never having a mother to rely on and a father to rely on,"
Ever heard of single parents? Widowed parent? Orphans? Idiot.
"as God intended."
God doesn't exist. You are a brainwashed idiot.
"Oh wait, let me guess.....your an atheist and don't believe in God or divine creation."
I am an atheist. By the way, atheists don't believe in any gods. We are atheists. That means we don't believe in divine creation either. Your statement was redundant. Idiot.
"No shock here............If you say you do believe in God..... your just fooling yourself and I quote Pasquale "God mad man in his image and man returned the favor." You cant twist the Bible to fit your needs,wants, desires or lifestyles."
Argument from authority.
"You cant twist the Bible to fit your needs,wants, desires or lifestyles."
Sure you can. People (including the Pope) do it all the time. Especially, when they want your money and/or vote.
You're a hopeless idiot that is fractally wrong.
While you have proven...NOTHING, except that you can bloviate with the best of them.
But please (and I know you're not going to answer these questions, either, just as you haven't answered any direct questions that have been put to you), tell us where any of us who support equality have "grossly exaggerated," "ignored facts," or "lied". Make sure you support your response with reliable, unbiased, peer-reviewed evidence.
The fact that YOU find our points "completely and utterly without merit" is further proof of how important they are.
The only "point" made was the one on top of his/her head -- and yours. S/he used erroneous references and blatant lies to support his/her assertions (including the one about the painting titled "Religion" in the Capitol -- there is no such painting in the Capitol, as I pointed out with a citation from the website of the Architect of the Capitol, which is light-years ahead of whatever christo-bigoted website you and 7minutes apparently rely on, as far as credibility is concerned).
So we still have nothing but your uninformed, uneducated opinion that we, who actually bother to use credible resources (not just Wikipedia, although that is credible enough as long as citations are provided) are uninformed and uneducated bigots, when you are clearly projecting your own inadequacies (or at least some of them; there is not enough time for you to project ALL of your inadequacies, I'm sure) onto us.
So sad and pathetic you are -- how it must suck to be you.
ERIN/GORDY/CYN and all the WAY left..... gay/atheist/liberals....et all....
This country, and its 13 original colonies, were established by the Declaration of Independence in 1776, separating these united states from British rule, a full nine (9) years before the Constitution was ever drafted!
The Declaration was authored by one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and signed by many others including John Adams, John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin.
Our founding fathers BELIEVED in a divine CREATOR and SAID SO in this document.
The fact that we list, mention, honor and make reference to GOD in every important aspect of our existance since the beginning of our nation solidifies the FACT....we are "One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".
BTW Cynsturb - My point is ideally, a child should/needs to be raised with a mother and father figure for the stability of the child. Our good President Obama has stated this many times and so has most every other president before him.
A Question: if all things were equal on both scales, except gender, which do you think would be more beneficial to raising a child: a man/woman union or a same sex union? Thats my point and we should always strive for that outcome (man/woman) and not diminish its value.
The Declaration of Independence is merely the founding document of this country, 7minutes; it is not the governing document of this country, which is the Constitution.
WRONG. They believed in a "Creator," not a "divine Creator" -- and there is NO MENTION of a "divine Creator" in the DOI. Furthermore, the word "Creator" was used deliberately, so that each person reading the document could interpret that word as s/he believes, whether it means God, or our parents, or whatever the reader chooses to make it.
Here is how the Founding Fathers felt about religion in general, and Christianity in particular:
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor
"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor
The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." -- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." --- Thomas Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787
"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." --- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803
"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --- Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." --- Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816
"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object." --- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson
Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible]. Thomas Paine
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. Thomas Paine
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. Thomas Paine
Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions. George Washington
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]
Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792
If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.... George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority. George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)
“And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together…” - [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]
“Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.” - [James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., Jauary 1774]
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” - [Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]
I have examined all the known superstitions of the World, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world...The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. Thomas Jefferson
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. Thomas Jefferson
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. Thomas Jefferson
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison, 1785
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." James Madison, letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." James Madison, 1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches
“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” - [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (James Madison, Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (James Madison, Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (James Madison, Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (James Madison, Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." Benjamin Franklin
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England." Benjamin Franklin
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." Benjamin Franklin
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin, in Poor Richard's Almanac
From John Adams, in his publication "A Defence (sic) of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
As Copley painted Chatham, West, Wolf, and Trumbull, Warren and Montgomery; as Dwight, Barlow, Trumbull, and Humphries composed their verse, and Belknap and Ramzay history; as Godfrey invented his quadrant, and Rittenhouse his planetarium; as Boylston practised inoculation, and Franklin electricity; as Paine exposed the mistakes of Raynal, and Jefferson those of Buffon, so unphilosophically borrowed from the Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains those despicable dreams of De Paw — neither the people, nor their conventions, committees, or sub-committees, considered legislation in any other light than ordinary arts and sciences, only as of more importance.
Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.
Here's an excerpt from James Monroe, when he declared in a legal proclamation, his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785)
Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy.
In the first place, the Pledge of Allegiance was not formally adopted by Congress until 1942, and it has been edited at least four times since its composition. Second, NO ONE is required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, nor is anyone even required to stand while it is recited. Third, the phrase "one nation under God" was added to the Pledge in 1954.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_.22under_God.22
And the medical and scientific communities disagree with you:
American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2006
It might make you look just a little less ignorant if you actually did some research before you post, but I doubt it -- you seem to be beyond help.
Too bad for Christofascists like you that they also believed in a secular government and deliberately left your imaginary friends and bible-babble out of our constitution and laws.
In fact the only mention of religion in the original constitution is a negative one in Article VI.
Yes, but it's the Constitution which established our system of government and law. The DoI merely establishes our sovereignty as a nation and lists our grievances with the King of England.
They also believed in a separation of church and state, as they were also passionate secularists who felt the individual's religious beliefs was their own business and no one elses! The Founders did not intend for their beliefs to translate into the government or to be applied to all citizens!
"God" is neither mentioned in the DoI or especially in the Constitution!
You do know "under god" was not in the original pledge? It was added in the 1950's. But hey, keep showcasing your ignorance of history and civics for all to see.
A child needs loving, nurturing parents. Gender is more or less irrelevant!
That's a trick question. Both are equally beneficial. Studies have also shown that children raised by same sex parents develop just as well as those raised by hetero couples.
"A Question: if all things were equal on both scales, except gender, which do you think would be more beneficial to raising a child: a man/woman union or a same sex union? Thats my point and we should always strive for that outcome (man/woman) and not diminish its value."
I don't believe it makes a difference. Given the fact that not all men are the same, not all women are the same, not all men take on the dominant male role typically associated with gender roles, and not all women take on the submissive female role typically associated with gender roles.
I live in reality, not a 50's fantasy Leave it to Beaver world. There is absolutely no reason to believe that an opposite sex couple is any more beneficial than a same sex couple. Your average gay couple is far more beneficial than ANY divorced, hetero couple. Don't try to delegitimize a same sex couple's relationship just because you think its icky.
"we are "One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
As others have stated, the phrase "under God" was inserted into the pledge in 1954 out of cowardice by the McCarthyists that were fearful of Americans being so free that they could even be free to be godless communists (even though none of them ever were).
From Wikipedia:
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist,[3] and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850–1898). The original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American nationalism by selling flags to public schools and magazines to students.[4][5][6][7]
Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows:[8][9]
Gordy/schrek/erin/cyn - The overwhelming majority of Americans, of which a recent Gallup poll results prove:
- 86% of Americans believe in "A God".
- 70% believe in "the devil"
- 75% believe in "Angels"
- 81% believe in "Heaven"
The above fact states that approx 8 out of 10 Americans share this opinion and go on to offer proof in the fact that we honor God in our official statements, motto, anthems, currency and ceremonies. You ignorantly dismiss most as "ceremonious" which is a slap in the face of 8 out of 10 Americans. This isn't ceremonious, this is the majority of Americans honoring our belief in our "God".
Who do you think you are.....??? That you think your thoughts are more intelligent and insightful than the majority of the people surrounding you.
Arrogant. That what you are.
Soul-less for another.
For you to believe you actually have a soul would counter your belief.
Draw a circle, and then draw a circle inside the original circle. This is an amoeba. To your way of thinking, this is your great, great ,great ancestors who came from pond scum and gave you life. Sad you really believe that.
If you truly believe that there is no God, no devil, no Heaven and no Hell......., I challenge you, or any non believer atheist to say OUT LOUD, "satan reveal yourself to me"......
YOU WONT....and you know why you wont....and don't say it because "I don't believe and its ridiculous"....YOU WONT because inside of you, a little part of you (your soul, which till now you have ignored) is afraid of the possible outcome....and the other reason YOU WONT is if you acknowledge fear of the devil, the opposite must be true that there is a God.
What I truly hope you pray..... is that GOD reveal himself to you.....
7minutes, it sounds like you're afraid of your imaginary friends.
Are you afraid of dust bunnies too?
An argumentum ad populum. It wouldn't matter if 100% of people believed in your god. This is still a secular country.
It only proves that most people believe in a god. Nothing more. it doesn't translate to a national or official endorsement or fealty to god. You seem unable to make that distinction.
And you ignorantly, perhaps willfully too, dismiss the fact that the Constitution makes us a secular country and establishes a separation of church and state.
My thoughts coorelate with those of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution!
This coming from someone who thinks their belief is somehow valid or precedent.
That means nothing, 7minutes: we are not a country of majority rule, and we are and have always been a secular nation, not built or founded upon any Judeo-Christian, or Christian-only, beliefs. The Supreme Court itself has said that the mention of "God" on our currency, as well as the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, is not evidence that we are a "Christian nation".
You have still not shown us where the Constitution EVER mentions God, Jesus, the bible, or any other religious text or deity -- if we are, as you claim, a "Christian nation," founded upon "Christian principles". In particular, pay attention to Article VI of the Constitution, which states:
Then pay close attention to the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states:
What ANYONE believes regarding the existence of God, the devil, or any other religious matter is his/her business, NOT yours, as explicitly stated in the First Amendment. YOU are the arrogant one for attempting to impose your own dogma and belief in fairy tales on every citizen of this country, which violates OUR First Amendment rights. I deny your God, as is my right. Furthermore, our government denies your God, as did many of our Founding Fathers (did you even bother to read the quotes I supplied above?).
Of course, there is always the quote from John Adams himself:
Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
You can scream and whine about it until the cows come home, but it will not change the facts, which are that the US is not now, nor has it ever been, a "Christian nation," built on "Christian principles".
7minutes
i took your challenge.. i am at work and went outside and actually yelled "satan reveal yourself to me" .. and i waited... i waited.... i waited... i actually waited 30 mins until my boss came outside wondering what i was doing..
still - NO SATAN !
um, does that mean he didn't hear me ? shall i email him ? text ? send a telegram ? what's the best way to get ahold of satan ?
maybe i didn't shout it enough ? do i have to do a dance or something ? do i have to wear something special or specific ??
why didn't he answer ?? is he busy with everyone else's requests ?
i don't know..
but what i do know, is the lack of evidence keeps my non-belief :) so thanks !!!! :)
Yes, I am, as there is no such thing as a soul. But your attempt at a snub is obvious too.
That's basically the reality of things.
Sad that you believe otherwise.
You presume too much. Prove there is a god or satan!
Yeah, not gonna happen!
Are you serious with this, Sally?
carryingconcealed, you are new here, but please mind the Code of Honor.
You are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1.
Bigot is a favorite term of almost every single liberal on this board, yet you suspend me for merely throwing it back at someone who called me bigot at least ten different times?
Be careful you don't smack the side of your head when you tip over from leaning too far left. Or don't be careful, either way...
Erin has to be one of the most life ignorant and hopelessly brainwashed people I've ever seen.
when one repeats the lie that Our founding fathers were not Christians. They were deists,
atheists, and agnostics, you can't help but just sit back and shake your head in dismay.
The pilgrims, as you will recall, were, Christians fleeing
Europe in order to escape religious persecution, and they literally began their
stay in their new land with the words, “In the name of God, Amen.”
The pilgrims were followed to New England by the Puritans,
who created bible-based commonwealths. Those commonwealths practiced the same
sort of representative government as their church covenants. Those governmental
covenants and compacts numbered more than 100, and were the foundation for our
Constitution.
New Haven (Connecticut) and Massachusetts were founded by
Puritans who wanted to reform the Church of England, who later became known as
Congregationalists. Roger Williams founded the colony of Rhode Island based on
the principle of freedom of conscience. Pennsylvania was established by William
Penn as a Quaker colony. Maryland was a haven for Catholics from Protestant
England.
America was indeed founded by bible-believing Christians and
based on Christian principles. When they founded this country, the Founding
Fathers envisioned a government that would promote and encourage Christianity
All but two of the first 108 universities founded in America
were Christian. This includes the first, Harvard, where the student handbook
listed this as Rule #1: “Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly
pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God
and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus
Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles
of the Ten Commandments."
In 1777. Continental Congress voted to spend $300,000 to
purchase bibles which were to be distributed throughout the 13 colonies! And in
1782, the United States Congress declared, “The Congress of the United States
recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.
So our
founding fathers did believe in GOD and used the moral principles of the ten
Commandments to form our laws. Bibles were use in schools to teach our children
to read
It is the radical, regressive American left which is constantly attempting to dismantle
the moral values of the American culture - founded in the Judeo-Christian ethic
- to replace them with amorality or even blatant paganism. The left hates any
moral values but its own and is intent upon shoving them down the throats of
everyone, all the while hypocritically pontificating about their designated
enemies supposedly doing what the left is truly doing.
The treaty of tripoli is the oldest canard you libs play.
Using that one document as the basis in understanding the
why behind our country’s dominant religion is simplistic.
Faith flourishes most
sincerely without government interference.
While America was not founded as a theocracy, her founding
was shaped by Christian moral truths and not by secular ideas that stemmed from
our colonial roots.Our founders firmly believed that our laws must coincide
with God’s ordained moral standards and that human laws took a back seat to
moral laws.
The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was meant to show respect to
the Muslims for their chosen religion. We assured them we were not like
Christian countries of old insofar as we would not engage a “Holy War” against
them. We assured them our government was not founded on the Christian religion
as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or
tranquility of Musselmen . Thus, we read Article XI:
“As the government of the United States of America is not in
any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen and as the said
States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from
religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing
between the two countries.”
It is important to note that the Article XI refers to the
federal government and that religious considerations are left solely to the
state governments. It is also important to note that each states’ constitution
as first formed is decidedly Christian. I can cite each one of those if you would
like.
While the Treaty of Tripoli contained the controversial
Article XI, other treaties negotiated at the same time with Algiers and Tunis
did NOT contain similar clauses.
WRONG. Our Constitution was based on English common law, and documents like the Magna Carta.
Whatever their personal religious beliefs, the Founding Fathers were enlightened enough to want to prevent future generations from enduring the religious persecution to which they and/or their families had been subjected, which is why they did NOT found this country on any "Judeo-Christian" beliefs, or on any religious beliefs AT ALL -- which is why our Constitution, which is the governing document of this nation, makes NO mention of God, Jesus, the bible, or any other religious text or deity.
Apparently, you have never heard of incorporation doctrine, or the Supreme Court ruling in Lemon v. Kurtzman. And while each state's constitution may contain religious requirements, such requirements are invalidated by Article VI of the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
Furthermore, the version of the Treaty of Tripoli which was adopted by the US Congress contains Article 11 in full.
http://www.alternet.org/story/155985/5_reasons_america_is_not_--_and_has_never_been_--_a_christian_nation?page=0%2C1&paging=off
Attention MODERATOR SALLY.....
How can you justify suspending "carringconcealed" for his post below, yet blindly and freely allow ErinNJ to incessantly use the same rant, on the same string on the same subject! .
carryingconcealed, you are new here, but please mind the Code of Honor.
You are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1.
Below are ErinNJ's posts.......
#1- I lied - I enjoy disappointing bigots - Isn't that just too bad for you bigots. #1.14 - Fri Jan 4, 2013
#2- as bigots like you do -- and THAT'S what makes you a bigot. #1.16 - Fri Jan 4, 2013
#3- When are you poor bigots going to understand this? #1.37 - Sat Jan 5, 2013
#4-You bigots have the right to refuse to support homosexuals. #1.55 - Sat Jan 5, 2013
#5-No wonder you bigots keep LOSING in the courts. #1.66 - Sun Jan 6, 2013 #1.78
#6-you bigots are a dying breed. #1.78 - Sun Jan 6, 2013
#7-While you are a typical christo-bigoted nutjob. #1.82 - Sun Jan 6, 2013
#8-So sad and pathetic you are -- how it must suck to be you. -#1.92 - Mon Jan 7, 2013
ErinNJ violated "The Code of Honor" specifically rule #1, on every post and if you take action against carringconcealed for this violation, the same justice must be served to this individual as well, And deservingly so.
"Gordy/schrek/erin/cyn - The overwhelming majority of Americans, of which a recent Gallup poll results prove:
- 86% of Americans believe in "A God".
- 70% believe in "the devil"
- 75% believe in "Angels"
- 81% believe in "Heaven""
So what.
Argumentum ad Majorum or argumentum ad popularum.
How many people still believe Elvis is alive? How many people believe Bigfoot exists? Lochness Monster? Leprachauns? Saddam Husein was responsible for 9/11? How many people believed the Earth was flat 1000 years ago?
It demonstrates mass gullibility.
"The above fact states that approx 8 out of 10 Americans share this opinion and go on to offer proof in the fact that we honor God in our official statements, motto, anthems, currency and ceremonies."
In God We Trust wasn't added to coins until 1864, paper currency until 1954, and was adopted as our national motto until 1956 when it replaced E Pluribus Unum. Even though 90% of the population approve of this, it is still unconstitutional.
One nation under god wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance (written by a socialist) until 1954. Also unconstitutional.
"You ignorantly dismiss most as "ceremonious" which is a slap in the face of 8 out of 10 Americans."
The fact that you cannot demonstrate the existence of ANY god yet force your religion practically everywhere is a slap in the face to REASON and the 20% of non-believers of your god.
"This isn't ceremonious, this is the majority of Americans honoring our belief in our "God"."
Surprisingly, most Christians do not attend church on a regular basis and less than 1% actually follow the teachings of Christ. Most Christians claim that most other Christians are not true Christians. Either way it is horse@!$%# so blow it out your ass.
"Who do you think you are.....??? That you think your thoughts are more intelligent and insightful than the majority of the people surrounding you."
I am an atheist and a thoughtful person. I don't believe things to be true unless they have been demonstrated as true (i.e. I don't believe in fairy tales or the supernatural). That is who I am. People who are more intelligent than 80% of the population will eventually comment here. I am one of them. It's not my fault or my problem that you are somewhere in the 80%. Deal with it.
"Arrogant. That what you are."
No. Just realistic.
"Soul-less for another."
There is no reason to believe souls exist. To assert otherwise, without evidence, is arrogance and ignorance preying on people's fear of death.
"Draw a circle, and then draw a circle inside the original circle. This is an amoeba. To your way of thinking, this is your great, great ,great ancestors who came from pond scum and gave you life. Sad you really believe that."
That is a gross over-simplification of Evolution, but facts support it. There is no evidence that contradicts Evolution. Find any, ANY AT ALL, and you would be the most famous person in the world.
"If you truly believe that there is no God, no devil, no Heaven and no Hell"
Some religious sects believe Hell is non-existence. In that respect, I believe in THAT Hell or Hell, Michigan from which I live an hour away.
"......., I challenge you, or any non believer atheist to say OUT LOUD, "satan reveal yourself to me"......"
Done that. Your post soon followed.
"YOU WONT....and you know why you wont....and don't say it because "I don't believe and its ridiculous"....YOU WONT because inside of you, a little part of you (your soul, which till now you have ignored) is afraid of the possible outcome....and the other reason YOU WONT is if you acknowledge fear of the devil, the opposite must be true that there is a God."
I'm not afraid of your boogeyman. Crom laughs at your Four Winds.
"What I truly hope you pray..... is that GOD reveal himself to you....."
Tried that. Nothing happened. Either it doesn't exist or it is a coward.
Your god is an immoral character. I am more moral than God. If Satan exists (I have no reason to believe he does), he has convinced you and all other Christians that he is God, and God is just observing while shaking his head at the absurdity of the human imagination.
Carlin 14:1 "A fool has said in his heart, there is a god."
"Do what you want behind closed doors, your entitled to that...and that's it!.
Leave the children out of the equation."
What do children have to do with marriage? I've known married couples that never had any kids.
project much?
Thanks for the back-up, 7minutes2midnight, but Sally isn't going to respond to your post or do anything about that filthy mouth of Erin's. She's leans just as far left as the majority of the liberals on this board, and is every bit as hypocritical.
The party of tolerance, fairness and acceptance...what a friggin' joke!
THANK YOU... "carringconcealed" for backing me up against these left agenda IDIOT BIGOTS....
THANK YOU.... left agenda IDIOT BIGOTS for waiving your flag so proudly we, WE, THE MAJORITY can see you in the light to ULTIMATELY squash your, IDIOTIC BIGOT belief's back to before the "stone age" from whence your "fantasy-reality" began......... Can you say...."BIG-BANG!"......I knew you could.
And Finally to Sally, The moderator........I purposly just broke "Rule #1", not like "carringconcealed" who you SUSPENDED for one (1) flagrant "bigot" retort...., No, I broke "Rule #1" like "ErinNJ" who incessantly attacked with the same BIGOT rhetoric, over and over again, post after post, yet was given a free pass.
Do you job fairly, equally and justly....or dont do it at all!
In the first place, the majority does not rule in this country (too bad for all the christo-bigots). Second, YOU are the one who is fantasizing and delusional; we are not now and have never been a "Christian nation" -- we are and have always been a secular nation (again, too bad for the christo-bigots, who would try to force us to believe otherwise).
You still have not shown us where the Constitution mentions God, Jesus, the bible, 10 commandments, or any other religious text or deity. Because you can't.
You still have not shown us where the Founding Fathers stated that this country was founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs, or even that they were "devout Christians". Because you can't.
In fact, we have shown you that the exact opposite is true, using facts and quotes to back that up. While you have...nothing but you and Carryingconcealed and your twisted, revisionist history.
Time for you two to stop playing on the computers and let the adults continue with their conversation.
Time for you to stop spreading your misinformation and lies.
7minutes2midnight, do yourself a favor and don't waste your time on erin (lowercase intentional). Like most liberals she kicks and screams and stomps her feet when she doesn't get her way or you don't agree with her (WRONG!) and, like most liberals, will say absolutely anything to pound her point home, regardless of the fact that most of her points are completely without merit.
As soon as she stated that this country was not founded on a strong belief in God that should have been your first clue to just ignore her, as that picnic basket is obviously missing some important items. I don't personally believe in God but still recognize that Christianity is infused in almost every facet of life in this country, and has been since its founding. As usual though, in typical liberal fashion erin believes that if she says something enough and fervently clicks her ruby slippers together, it'll eventually come true.
So sad...
Yet you still can provide NOTHING that proves me wrong.
I don't care if you agree with me or not; the fact remains that you're WRONG, and the courts agree with my side.
Try throwing your tantrums with those who care.
Because she happens to be right and you have yet to actually prove her wrong in that regard!
Odd comment from someone who doesn't believe in god, yet thinks this is a "christian country." I would hope a supposed atheist would be better educated regarding American history and civics.
And yet, christianity (or any religion/deity) is NOT referenced at all in the Constitution, which is the founding document of this country. Go figure!
And in typical troll fashion, you provide nothing to support your claims or refute hers, and instead resort to name calling and ad hom attacks.
Doesn't matter whether it's referenced in the Constitution or not, gordy. I didn't say that our Constitution was steeped in Christianity, I stated that God is pervasive in almost every single facet of our society, and has been since it's founding. I don't have to believe in God to recognize this as a truth, just as I don't have to be a Buddhist to understand how important that religion is to many Japanese and their culture dating back to before the Shogunate period. Now what part of that is difficult for you to understand?
You liberals fancy yourselves so friggin' intelligent with your fifteen paragraph responses referencing every legal case you can Google - relevant or not. Yet at the end of the day, the foundation of your party is comprised of rainbows, unicorns and a voting base of parasites sucking billions out of this country every year, and giving absolutely nothing back, and who will eventually bankrupt this country (Think Greece). Of course, you don't care as long as you get your entitlement programs, your gay marriage, your abortions, and all those other personal rights you think you deserve but aren't willing to lift a finger to defend.
Congratulations, what a bunch of intelligent winners you all are.
Uh yeah, it DOES matter, as do SCOTUS interpretations of the Constitution!
It's in individual beliefs. That's where god's pervasiveness ends.
You just need a better understanding of civics and hitory!
And apparently you're not, as our references is apparently over your head then, and blows away evey one of your arguments! And I'm not liberal!
Strawman argument!
Another Strawman!
Far more than you it seems! And you still haven't proved Erin or myself wrong yet. All you seem able to do is rant and toss out ad hom attacks.
Stating an argument ostensibly in the form of "facts," which are in actuality contrived or manipulated, doesn't make you intelligent, it just makes you think you're more intelligent than you actually are.
I don't need misrepresentation of facts, gross exaggerations and outright lies to substantiate my point, I only need simple math. Are you ready?
- Less than half the people in this country pay taxes.
- The majority of those people not paying taxes are on some form of entitlement program, most of them become parasites sucking the blood out of our economy, and of course they vote democrat to ensure they don't lose those freebies.
- The democrats know this so they continue to increase entitlements and lessen the qualification requirements to ensure they pad their voting base. This, by the way, is the only reason the libs ever win an election.
- Eventually as taxes continue to increase on the minority who actually pay them in order to pay for these liberal-sponsored entitlement programs, the entrepreneurial spirit will be sucked out of our country and the incentive to work hard and succeed will be disappear, which is always the inevitable ending to socialism.
- When this happens the bottom will fall out of our economy, and when the lazy, unskilled, entitled parasites no longer have a check coming every month, anarchy will consume this country and all the rainbows and unicorns in the world won't save naive zealots like you.
However, when it's all over my kind will still be here, junior, because we're shooters, and we know how to survive. And when we start over again, and we will, your kind won't have the balls to ever open your filthy mouths again to spew the putrid, liberal pablum that ruined our country in the first place, because you'll know that if you do you'll get put down like the rabid, self-serving, entitled, unthinking mongrels that you are.
Enjoy the destruction of our country while you can because your time in the spotlight is going to be short-lived.
utter bullsh!t
more utter bullsh!t
proven bullsh!t, the wealthiest control an evewr increasing portion of all of the economy, and the rest are scrambling for the pieces, remember, the wealthiest are paying a LOWER percentage of their income than you or I are
when the top 1% controls 99 of all the wealth (at 85% right now and increasing) the results will be exactly the same (don't know how my font changed here, haven't clicked "bold")
hey jacka$$, I own and I'm a damn good shot too, and don't take lightly to being threatened by ignorant zealots
Spoken like a true zealot.
Of course, if you want to actually attempt to substantiate your ignorance with something more intelligent than "utter bullsh!t" we're all listening, but you won't because what I said is the absolute truth. You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else on this worthless forum. Just because liberals want to ignore the reality of the world they live, it doesn't change the facts.
And here's a thought for you, jacka$$ (see how we can all do that, junior?), being a good shot and having the balls to shoot when you need to are two entirely different things. My guess is that you're just another loud-mouthed pu$$y like most other liberals. You believe you're owed everything and should have an unlimited number of personal, unimpeded rights, yet you won't lift a finger to fight for or defend those rights.
Now go ahead and lie and tell everyone how you're a former green beret.
resorting to pre-school tactics now are you? "I know you are, but what am I?".
the so-called "47%" still pay taxes, they pay sales (state tax), gas tax, multiple other federal taxes to some degree , so they Do still "pay taxes", and taxing their income won't pay for much, since they account for about 15% of all of the income earned in the country
btw, that's more than half that DO pay income taxes, 53% pay income taxes, but math isn't your strong point, is it?
and that HALF OF AMERICANS HOLD A LOUSY 1% of ALL the WEALTH IN AMERICA!
look it up, or are you too lazy or afraid to see the reality?
my guess is that you can't get it up so you have to go and buy long cylindrical objects to replace your non-functional manhood. and your frustrtation is so extreme that you need to use the term of the thing that you can't satisfy (ie, "pu$$y) without even realizing that you are showing what a withered, impotent slob you really are.
nah, I was a nuke MM in the Navy
Let the Gays Marry.
So they can be as miserable as the rest of us.
No more keeping quiet. Homosexuality is an abomination.
No more keeping quiet.
HomosexualityHomophobia is an abomination.Fixed that for you.
Obviously you were able to post bail, YouCant.
Source? Oh, and please PROVE that all of them were homosexual in your source.
Thanks (I think!), freethinker! I will say this, though: My partner and I have been together for decades-- probably longer than some on this board have been alive. And we couldn't be happier. We are truly blessed. Not sure who exactly finds marriage to be miserable, though I've certainly heard that joke before!
A few years ago, we had a religious ceremony-- it was actually in the very same chapel in the very same temple where my partner had become bar mitzvah many years earlier! Even many of the people in the pews were the same-- if a bit older. ;-)
And it was wonderful. Now we will have our marriage recognized legally, by the state, so that we are no longer legal strangers to one another. I expect that to be a whole lot less moving emotionally than our religious marriage was, but we'll see, maybe not!
In any case, I'm still waiting for the 'misery' to begin. It's been a LONG time coming, and so far, we are 'miserable' in exactly the same way my parents were. Which is to say, very, very blessed.
Peace.
Linguist I couldn't be happier for you.
From what I've seen, many homophobic people are miserable in their marriages.
I think that's the problem:
"How dare they be happier than me, its an abomination"
Just my theory, because i guarantee they don't personally know any gay people.
What right does anyone have too deny anyone else their happiness. ESPECIALLY in America.
Well, according to the Old Testament, most of which most modern Christians choose to ignore, it is indeed an abomination, and states that gays should be executed. To be consistent, the marriage equality opponents should be seeking capital punishment for gays, like they are in Uganda. But an increasing majority of us understand that 3,000-year-old mythology is not a sound basis for modern lawmaking. Inevitably, we shall join our Canadian cousins with marriage equality. "Failure is impossible."
The Pops saying it is ok to kill gays makes him evil. Period. This is why I hate religion.
What is disgusting is the prevalence of the myth of some connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, when in fact, the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.
That's because the vast majority of people are heterosexual.
Dunno. Why don't you ask Boner?
Why dont we just offer free psychological fix those who are gay? Sure seems easier that going through all this.
amen..lol let em have the misery
Thank you Erin. I am NOT afraid of homosexuals, just believe that homosexuality is a perversion.
What is disgusting is the prevalence of the myth of some connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, when in fact, the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.
While the majority of cases may be committed by heteros(maybe they are ashamed to come out and say they are bisexual or gay), the gay community is overrepresented based on the percentage they represent in the population. eg - 30% of pedophilia cases are linked to homo/bisexuals yet they represent less than 5% of the population. frc.org
ohwell, the FRC is an anti-gay hate group, so the fact that you're quoting their debunked nonsense tells us exactly where you're coming from.
Lol....If gays would come about this whole ordeal a little different, they may be able to work a compromise. Most Americans don't want this and trying to force it down our throats, gays will get more resistance! I'm against it just like the rest, trying to force Americans to accept your alternative lifestyle choice is offensive. But, just like the rest of the liberal movement, they are all about whats good for them! I would be for something like tax breaks of a real marriage (that's what this is all about, right? That is what is spewed in every gay marriage argument!) but I will never accept gay marriage! This is not something for 9 people to consider! This is the vote of the people and majority rules!
WRONG. The majority of Americans support equality; you bigots are a dying breed.
So when did you make the "lifestyle choice" to be heterosexual? And what is the heterosexual or homosexual "lifestyle choice"?
WRONG AGAIN. Civil rights cannot be put to a vote; we are not a country of majority rule.
One of the things that really pisses me off are those that believe there were "good ole days" that have been destroyed by liberals. There were good ole days but they were only good for a very small number of "good ole boys." Ask a non-white person how good they thought those days were.
I know, right?
If only those blacks, Jews and women had also been willing to compromise on their civil rights we could still be living in a straight white Christian man's paradise.
I'm sure you would love that.
Why is it that conservatives are so adamant about protecting the rights that they value, such as gun ownership and religious freedom, but care so little about the rights of others? Progressives have fought for generations for women's rights, racial equality and marriage equality and have been opposed by conservatives every step of the way. We will win this one too, but as before it might take awhile.
It will be a while for us in MO. About 40% of people here voted for Idiot Akin. I'll be nice and just say we have a lot of uninformed voters.
inmissouri
"Uninformed" is a very kind description of that 40%. I prefer the term "willfully ignorant."
- Max Planck, 1949
Dr. Planck was talking about scientific progress, but the same applies to cultural progress as well.
don,
I'm conservative on many positions, but I support gay rights. I really hate that, in America today, the religious right has managed to associate evangelical religious fanaticism with conservatism. Yes, many conservative people are also religious fanatics, but there are many others like me that only want less government involvement in our lives.
I think some conservative men are terrified that if gay marriage becomes legal, their wives will leave them for other women.
If this guy honestly believes that this won't pass in Rhode Island, he is just flat crazy. What the American Taliban forgets is that us actual Republicans that reside in the Northeast believe in equality for all. It is an American right, real Republicans don't pick and choose which ones to uphold. The American Taliban does that, not us. Chris Christie 2016!
Um, Chris Christie vetoed the marriage bill in NJ...
That's because he says that he would be willing to put it to a popular vote and let the state decide.
Stro
Rights are not properly decided by popular vote. Popularity is what kept slavery legal for so long (especially since the enslaved did not have the right to vote).
@Ron - Just curious. How would you define "Religious Fanatic"?
I define it as someone like you who thinks your cult belongs in my life, or who wants the government to enforce your bizarre sharia laws.
If you religious fanatics kept your cult where it belongs - in your own life - there wouldn't be an issue.
Not marriage, civil union. Why not? Agenda? Countless reasons for civil unions, none for marriage other than the acceptance of sexual lifestyle. My bad, civil unions with entitlements.
I agree, bob. Do away with Marriage. The government should only recognize civil unions for everyone, and the religious agenda will no longer affect US law.
skrekk said: "If you religious fanatics kept your cult where it belongs - in your own life - there wouldn't be an issue."
Wow, there you go again with the religion bashing. I haven't been on this board long, but almost every post I see from you is 1) angry and 2) attacking someone else's belief in their God. What gives, were you raped by a Catholic priest or something?
Regarding your comment above, you may find it interesting to know that that's exactly how some of us feel about the whole gay thing. Just because others may try and convince themselves that it's natural and acceptable, doesn't mean that everyone else has to buy into that garbage. I don't happen to believe in God, though I certainly respect other people's right to do so, but in spite of not fitting into the bigoted mold you try and fit everyone into who disagrees with you, I don't see anything natural about a man putting his penis into a hole that another man craps out of.
So here's a thought...since gay-marriage and the gay lifestyle is not defined anywhere as a civil right, why don't you gays and gay supporters keep it where it belongs - in your own life. See how neatly that applies to just about everything?
Except that you don't own the word "marriage," bob, and civil unions are explicitly outlawed in several states -- plus the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate" is not "equal".
It's not the belief that is being attacked; it's the attempt to use that belief to justify something as unjustifiable as bigotry and discrimination.
Kind of makes you wonder why so many heterosexuals do it -- even more than homosexuals do.
Since "marriage" IS defined as a "basic civil right," and "homosexuality" has been found to be a "basic civil right," why don't you bigoted nutjobs and anti-gay supporters keep it where it belongs -- in your own asses, which seems to be where your brains are.
Gays don't give two @!$%#s about the acceptance of bigots like you, bob; it's all about equal treatment under the law.
I believe the term is theophobe for skrekk. Erin: I know what I say. I think you should shorten your posts, then it will reveal that you really don't say much. Answer the query? logic not moral grounds or fairness.
Bob, YOU may "know" what you say, but no one else has yet reached your level of incoherency.
Answer the QUERY!
Erin: Rather than having to wade through the constant self-serving spin of your exhausting posts, please provide the current definition for marriage, and then go away until you can find an actual argument you can support with facts, and not just the fiction you're being force-fed by your party.
And regarding your comment, "Kind of makes you wonder why so many heterosexuals do it -- even more than homosexuals do." Can you stop just making sh!t up to fill in the numerous gaps in your argument?
You first.
Unlike you bigots, I don't have to resort to lying to make my case:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/almost-half-of-heterosexuals-under-45-have-anal-sex-says-cdc-report/news/2012/01/06/32836
http://nymag.com/nightlife/mating/25988/
Apparently you've never heard of the 1st Amendment and thus don't understand why your silly sharia laws can't be enforced by our secular government. It's also abundantly clear that you don't agree with the 14th Amendment and instead want some Americans to be 2nd-class citizens.
Call me crazy, but I think my gay daughter should have exactly the same legal rights as her straight parents, and that straight folks shouldn't have special rights and privileges.
What's funny is that dumb bigots like you are the very same people who opposed mixed-race marriage not very long ago.
Carry,
We're not trying to restrict liberty. We don't have to make a case for the expansion of freedom. YOU have to make a case for why you're attempting to limit rights. So what is that case???
bob
Civil unions are not marriages. You believe that the rights of some citizens should be different than the rights of some other citizens. I don't. You need to explain why you won't grant these people "full" rights. What did they do wrong to have rights denied them?
Don: Do you even know what your talking about? Right? Wrong! I did say civil unions with entitlements. The cohabitation issues can be settled with an attorney without being conjoined.
§650. Findings and purposes:
1. Findings. The people of the State of Maine find that:
A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of
inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and
promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support
of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that
the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in
traditional monogamous marriage.
Do you remember Maine? The laws of almost all states have a variation of this very definition. Now it does not apply to civil unions. The courts have have been blind to the law, it doesn't suprise me. P.S. The act on consummating marriage and the definition thereof is also quite impossible.
Many states explicitly require by law consummation of marriage for the vows to be considered valid. They include Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin.
What is consummation you ask? Its legal significance arises from theories of marriage as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners, or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together, or both, and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married.
WRONG. The federal courts have already ruled that the state has no compelling secular in promoting personal moral views and beliefs, and that trumps any state law.
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml
The people and the state of Maine do not accept it as it is contrary to definition. Federal judges have ignored the law in numerous instances, and I am not surprised. Your stance is all laws should be federal and states rights should be abolished? All states should cease to exist and be given district status. P.S. Marriage is not a right. Sexual practices cannot be considered a minorty. Civil unions are the correct term. WOW is not acceptable , because of implications of the detriment to society. P.S. You don't have to look things up just ask me, as I have a book of knowledge.
The SCOTUS disagrees!
More like they interpret the law!
Where did she say that?
Marriage has nothing to do with sex or sexual practices.
Civil unions is not acceptable because it is not marriage, or recognized as such. And it's also a case of separate but equal, which is unconstitutional!
bob
Short answer: Both you and the State of Maine are wrong. I have confidence that someday Maine will change its position on the matter. I have no confidence that you will ever change.
Gord: Your lack of comprehension is do to your biased opinion. I posed a question, That is what this thing means "?". They interpret that any individual has the right to marry whoever they wish? Implications? Wrong again; sex is what consummation is, look it up. Fallacy, sexual choice cannot be a minority, there for separate but equal should not be applied. That is the law, I am not interested in what the scrotum says. P.S. unlike you guys I don't need to make-up what you say to prove my point, most of the time you do it for me.
don: What does it matter what the people of Maine say anyway? Their state rights are irrelevant, according to your scrotum.
Apparently internets Bob is now the final legal say in all matters, and SCOTUS doesn't matter. The best thing about Bob, though, a couple days ago he was on here calling Westboro a bunch of idiots, yet he's completely unaware that he's NO BETTER than them.
I don't know about you, but I stopped buying the, "Because I said so" reasoning when I was, like, five.
And I answered your question!
Again, what does sex have to do with marriage? Is sex a requirement for marriage or vice versa?
Apparently, you confuse choice with orientation. Big difference!
Separate but equal is a constitutional matter and is always applicable!
And why should anyone take your opinion of the law over that of the SCOTUS? Fortunately, your opinions does not make or interpret law. Nor do they have any applicability in the law. The SCOTUS' does however! So what you're interested in or accept is irrelevant!
Did you have a point? it sounded like some mindless rant. And point out specifically where we made anything up!
It is (or will be) when it violates the Constitution or SCOTUS precedent!
bob
YOU have decided to define same sex couples as "minorities" based on sexual orientation. That is what YOU use as justification to deny them marriage rights. Those of us who disagree with you believe that any ADULT should be able to marry the ADULT of his or her choice. Whether consummation is even part of that marriage is up to the couple to decide.
And concerning the State of Maine, they have taken an incorrect and, I believe, unconstitutional position which I believe they will change, just as states changed their positions that supported slavery and banned interracial marriage. It's called progress, and it will leave you behind.
Actually that's completely false.
Consummation is an explicitly Catholic religious concept, and while it was present in the laws of a number of states at one time it's no longer enforceable or no longer present at all in state law.
No sex whatsoever is required for any marriage to be valid, just a signed legal contract, the informed consent of both parties, a state witness, and the payment of the license fee. The only issue would be one of contract fraud where a person makes substantive misrepresentations in order to gain marriage, which could include misrepresentations about sexual capability.
Since Maine is now a marriage equality state, it looks like you've quoted an archaic version of the statute or the statute needs to be updated to reflect current law.
I don't understand why some so-called 'conservatives' object to the creation of 'special rights' for minorities (including LGBT citizens) and their solution is to create civil unions based on the notion that they're the same as marriages, but separate.
But then, there are a lot of paradoxes in conservative logic: "keep government out of my personal life" - except other people's bedroom, uterus, religion, etc.
So simple , yet a lot of you still cannot grasp what is being said, because you refuse to listen. Case in point;
The scrotum is a part of a male's body located behind the penis. The scrotum is the sac (pouch) that contains the testes, blood vessels, and part of the spermatic cord.
Do you get the pun now? I said I don't care what the scrotum said, and you people don't skip a beat with the mindless dribble. WOW! P.S. those laws are on the books or I would not have pointed it out. You are right though the Federal judges have decided states rights do not matter, nor does sexual lifestyle. Implications?
Charles Manson could theoretically have an orientation as would Jeffery Dahmer. Still want to stick with orientation? The act defines the label not the orientation.
You just don't get it, that's all. Behavior in and of itself does not define the underlying pathology or mental condition.
It's not about sex, dummy. It's about love. And therefore, it's about equal protection under the law.
Gord: stick to facts of law, sperate but equal does not apply, because types of sex does not make one a minority. Now if your speaking of individual rights then you must agree with me on interpretation of status will have broad implications. If you have a closed or narrow view on who may benefit from new definition of marriage, it only means you wish to avoid the issue. If you get what you want that is all that matters.
tim: discussing why someone has a label? Love is also not a constitutional right. protection from what? all covered by hiring an attorney and civil unions. Labels describe what you do, now think about the word homosexual.
The institution of marriage confers specific civil rights that are guaranteed by law. Creation of a separate institution of 'civil union' that confers those same civil rights, i.e. equal rights, by definition creates a separate but equal institution.
And it's wrong. It's corrupt. It's simple bigotry. It labels a minority as distinct from the majority by virtue of their legal rights to choose one institution over another.
The word homosexual describes who you are, not what you do. Now think about the word Caucasian.
Sexual choice, preference, orientation, or any other term you want to use makes the act, practice, or partner in no way a minority. Again civil unions is the correct term and should be sufficient if you receive your entitlements you seek. All of societal norms and laws should not be changed to benefit a special interest group. P.S. Merriam said: Homosexual
1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
Wouldn't you just love for me to be wrong? Tim, calling names and being oblivious to all else is pitiful.
Tim: What makes you think I am white? My avatar? Such big words Caucasian, I haven't heard that since the third grade. Do you describe others with the term for their features? Probably do, as you must be a bigot yourself.
It isn't, since the Supreme Court ruled that "separate" is not "equal".
And you don't own the word "marriage".
It's not to benefit a "special interest group" -- the change will benefit ALL consenting adults.
I can't believe anyone can be so clueless.
Consenting adults covers a lot of options, do you deny that?
If "civil unions" are sufficient why don't you dumb bigots use them, and us normal people will all use marriage?
Good luck Bob getting your civil union recognized between states, by the feds, or internationally.
I guess your special interest group can petition for recognition of civil unions as they are already present. Shouldn't be to hard for change to be made. P.S. Already thinking worldwide. WOW! Do they know?
equal rights for gay people can easily be achieved by taking Marriage out of the states hands completely.
make it civil unions for all, gay or straight. let the church struggle with marriage. The states never should have been allowed to get involved in church business. my tax money should not be spent trying to deny people their rights to be equal.
You have completely confused the civil contract that is marriage with the religious rite that is holy matrimony.
No, Bob, there is one more reason: equal rights/equality under the law. People, straight and gay, feel that Equal Rights and Equality Under the Law are more important than the ridiculous need of cultists to write their bronze age, outdated religious/mythological dogma into our legislation.
Absolutely not. Churches don't own marriage now, it is foolish to give the goddam cults in this country ownership of ANYTHING. christ on a biscuit -- they can't even be trusted with the children of their own parishioners without raping tens of thousands of them!!
Correct. Given the more than 50% divorce rate, an inestimable number of divorce lawyers make millions upon millions each year as a result of traditional, monogmaous marriage!
Well, I didn't call anyone names, but if the shoe fits...
I said nothing about you, any more than you said anything about me when you said this:
I said consider the word 'Caucasian', because it is a description of what someone is, not how they behave.
But one could easily make the case that anyone is a bigot who thinks that equal protection under the law as it applies to marriage does not apply to a certain class of people, which is the essence of your case. It is equivalent to miscegenation, frankly, with many of the same old arguments being used to support it.
Nice try.
tim: you called me a bigot on more than one occasion I on other hand only questioned if you might be a bigot yourself. Tell me the other two monikers for race, and if you use them in conversation?
morgan: I think you might have been with the Captain for one to many. I personmelly have not used religion in my arguments because I know how it pains those that cannot except the possibility of perfection.
P.S. morgan: it is good that you seek out the information I have provided to reiterate the truth. The choice of the monogamous quote is an inspirational selection. Inestimable!
Erin: No, No I am not confused. I have stated in complete sentences, and given reasons why. Civil unions is the correct term.
morgan: typo in personally, sorry.
I did no such thing. The word has been used frequently by others here, but I searched this entire topic and this is the only time I used any form of the word (3.41):
But, as I said subsequently, if the shoe fits...
However, when I said "consider the word Caucasian", you did say this about me:
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually made it past the third grade, perhaps you should work on your vocabulary, not to mention reading comprehension.
Finally, and for your information, merely describing someone with the term for their features is not a form of bigotry. However, using someone's features against them to deny their civil rights, including sexual orientation, is.
Just how far did you get in school, anyway?
tim: homosexual is a label, caucasian is a category. In some peoples case's on here I think they would prefer title's like Queen or King. Of course you know I am just being a Joker about that and it is not in a mean spirited way. However you really should keep the comments about your religion or lack there of out of this discussion. Some of us are dealing with facts and the truth. I freely admit I have theories about adverse reactions becoming prevelant in society when everyone is allowed to do as they please, as it is their right by the 14th amendment.
tim: take out of context to fit your triaid. However, I will chalk it up to semantics in play, I said in sentence "probaly" now we both know what that word means, it is like you implying by my statements I am a bigot. We have bantered before.
If you want to think of them that way, fine, but that's your construction and it has no bearing on reality. Just as much as someone might be Caucasian (or any other race), they might also be homosexual (or not). If so, that is simply what they are.
Is there another tim on here that I'm just not seeing? I have said nothing about my religion or lack thereof. I think you're confusing me with someone else, frankly.
The 14th Amendment does not guarantee the right of everyone to do as they please. It guarantees equal protection under the law - such that as much as anyone is allowed to do something within the law, everyone is.
tim: Again you try to deny the label. Label describes an act or what something does. A category is a generic term for many possibilities. Oh did I forget to put morgan in there? I hope you don't take offense to a generalization of pro-homosexual pundits who spew religious and sometimes racial and economic status insults. I did not, nor do I think how someone has sex is a right. That is in a nutshell, the minority rights you are looking for and it does not exist. P.S. Do you remember calling me DUMMY?
Homosexuals do not have sex any differently than many heterosexuals. It is not about sex.
You simply refuse to admit that being gay is who some people are - it is not a choice, it is not how they choose to have sex, it is a normal, natural characteristic of some people, akin to race or eye color.
To deny someone their civil rights because of who they are is bigotry. Period.
WRONG. People are labeled for how they look, and for what they are, not just for how they act.
Erin: Some of that is true. Yet the fact remains homosexual describes what they do. Did you read what Merriam said? Look? I couldn't think of a label, do you have one that is a label for looks that is not a discription but a label?
tim: what is the difference that seperates homosexuals from all others? You want minority status this question is paramount. My contention is the act defines label.
The difference that separates homosexuals from all others, as you put it, is merely the bigotry to which they are subjected by people with opinions like yours. Labels are irrelevant.
From "all others"? I don't know what that would be, but I do know what separates a straight man like myself from my gay daughter - I'm attracted to the opposite sex, and she's attracted to the same sex. In other words we're both attracted to women.
Another difference is that I have full civil rights while she doesn't.
Can no one answer this question with the logic of truth? Use the label, it will guide you to the answer. It is the act which differentiates.
skrekk: Loving something is different from the act. Do not answer with only half the truth.
WRONG, bob; it is not "act" which differentiates: it is the attraction. One can be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual without ever having sex at all.
Wrong. Notice what all three have in common? This reminds me of how Bill Clinton kept saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman Monica Lewinsky."
Bob, get a dictionary. It is not the act, it is the attraction.
You are the only one who insists otherwise.
No No No its not the attraction. Can't you even admit it if you are homosexual or does that illuminate the reason if you have sexual relations with the same gender it labels you a ???? Homosexual! See that isn't hard is it. People have been trying to seperate the act from the label, but the label is because of the act.
Actually, bob, I'm heterosexual. And I would be a heterosexual, even if I had never had sex, just as a homosexual or bisexual person is that way whether s/he ever has sex.
WOW! I have to explain everything. I made a statement about why someone would be called any type of sexual. How do you know it is a statement? There is a little word in sentence alluding to that fact. The word is "if" someone calls you this it is because of the act. Why you would assume it pertains to you? Unless of course you yourself may have latent homosexual tendicies to participate in those indeavors. P.S. name, label, lifestyle, etc...
bob, if someone is attracted to another of the same sex, they are homosexual,(or bisexual if they want sex with both genders) even if they have never had sex with anyone at all. really freaking simple, you're just too dense to comprehend this simple concept
Mark, I've tried to explain it to him, on this thread and many others -- he just doesn't get it. To him, it's "the act" that defines what a person is.
Bat@!$%#-crazy is what bob is.
I don't see the need for the religious fanatics to control how people marry. Seems like a control freak issue.
I am neither a religious fanatic nor a control freak. I just believe homosexuality is disgusting.
So you'd like to deny a person's civil rights because they're not attracted to the same people you are?
That makes no sense whatsoever. Sounds like you really are a religious fanatic and a control freak.
Nukeman, you have every right to think homosexuality is disgusting, and I fully support your right not to practice it. The problem is, just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to keep others from liking or practicing it.
For nukeman. One could say the same thing for a married couple in their 80s. They're still not denied any rights with regards to marriage.
Nukeman -- Here's a thought, if it bothers you . . . don't. do. it!
Nukeman, I think fat hairy men in speedos are disgusting, but should that stop them from getting married?
Anything skrekk believes in is somehow defined as a basic human right whether it's supported by law or not, and anything someone else believes in that opposes these beliefs is somehow defined as bigotry and hate, even when it IS supported by the law. Interesting...
I believe we've found our true bigots on this board...
Carryingconcealed, I think Shrek feels about the anti- gay people the same way you feel about the anti-gun people. Perspective?
i think guy on guy is disgusting, but then i've seen many straight couples I don't want to visualize doing that thing either lol As long as people keep their sex in private, I don't care what they do, or to whom.
So what. I believe sex between two people like John Goodman and Roseann Barr is disgusting. I can't even stand to see two obese greaseballs like that make out in public -- in airports, malls, restaurants, etc. I'm guessing that nobody wants to watch YOU, nukeman, with your wife -- making out or having sex either. It would probably disgust most to see you in the act...
But, disgsuting or not ---- being disgusted by something doesn't mean it should be illegal or that it should be banned. Lucky for you!
So, get over it.
Thanx for all your feedback. You all should note that I do not call out any names. I merely state that homosexuality is a perversion.
Right.....you "don't call out any names", you just slander and defame all gay people.
Sounds like you're a true Christian, and a follower of Fred Phelps.
America marches forward!
Such old news here in Maine. Once it passed, seemed like a big relief. The sky isn't falling yet and we don't expect it to.
yep, here in vermont civilization marches on, straight people still marry those of the opposite gender, etc.
Seems the same here in Washington. Hetero people are still marrying heteros. Marriage has yet to crumble under the weight of equal rights for all. Now if everyone in the nation could get on the 'equal rights' bus, and quit squabbling about it, maybe we could get on to something really important, like the national debt for instance.
Vermont: See above; not legally married in Vermont. Consummation of marriage, not possible.
Consummation of marriage, not legally relevant.
Consummation is a religious concept, and no state requires it today. Sorry Bob, your bizarre cult is completely irrelevant to marriage in the US.
See list above skrekk, and take foot out of mouth. FACT: Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this). WOW! How do you keep all of these misnomers in your head concerning information readily available? Come into the light of free knowledge and discussions without bearing false witness, if you can.
Bob, take YOUR foot out of your mouth, and your head out of your ass. Consummation does not require orgasm; it only requires penetration. So even in states that require consummation, all that is legally required is penetration.
Erin: singing a new tune? Did you try to find irrefutable evidence that I was incorrect?
You're simply wrong, Bob. No state can require sexual consummation today. I don't know where you got your list, but it's wrong. I suspect you got your list from the same erroneous source where you got your faulty info about Maine's statutes.
The concept of "consummation" hasn't been a legal issue for a very long time, otherwise prisoners without conjugal rights and certain disabled persons would be unable to marry. Simply put, "consummation" is a religious concept not a legal one today. It comes from Catholic Canon law, and was never properly part of secular law. Today the Lemon Test would prohibit its application.
skrekk; Reading classes are available at your local community college. Why don't you brush up on skills as they are not up to snuff at times. State of Maine, seek and you shall find. What I reiterate is these laws are on the books, I did not say they were enforced, as a number of sodomy laws are still present. Keep trying to sound important and self-righteous, but do so only after you have exhausted all means of proving me wrong factually.
LMAO. What a fraud...
Perhaps you should constrain your comments to only include laws which are currently on the books and enforceable, rather than archaic laws which are no longer present in a state's code, or which are moot or unconstitutional?
Truly, your entire bogus derail about "consummation" and your ignorant comments about Maine's statutes reveal that you don't know anything at all about the law. All you seem able to do is copy and paste outdated and debunked crap from anti-gay web sites.
I have been looking at all the current Vermont Statutes and have yet to find where, if you don't have sex with your spouse, your marriage is invalid.
Could someone please point me to the ones Bob is talking about?
mike: I posted state of Maine ss means state statue 650, note there are also revised statues, but not this one. I suppose if you can't prove me wrong you will get validation from your comrades. I notice a lot of magazine articles and scientific studies done with a vested interest by troubled souls. I try to use only legitimate references in this debate about sexual debauchery. P.S. I love the study about the animals and insects, worms and such. Results were induced. skrekk: actually I try to use the same gay material as you do. I find it proves my point most effectively.
P.S.morg: fraud means deceit. I was truthful and it is written, so shall it be you are the perpetrator of deception.
Remember the Federal Scrotum say's state's rights do not matter, neither do their laws.
It's amusing to see opponents of gay marriage still be optimistic. They are doomed, and there is nothing they can do about it, because their position is so untenable, other than being grounded in bigotry, and america is growing socially more liberal at a very fast pace.
Twenty years ago even the democrats supported DOMA...if you had bet money that 20 years later we'd have gay marriage available in multiple states, you could have made a fortune....
20 years ago moral fiber meant something. Now it is just a joke to most people who believe they are allowed to do whatever they feel like. Working out well isn't it? War, corruption, theft, unaccountability for murder, and the absence of modesty, compassion, and the portrayal of debauchery as acceptable throughout society. Children have been impressed upon to follow these lack of ideals to the logical end.
I really don't care if guys want to pack the fudge, or girls like to lick the lick....just don't keep shoving it in my face and broadcasting it like its a grand revelation that the U.S. is or should be proud of...In actuallity its whats bringing this country to its knees (no pun intended)...Our morals are being eroded and thats going to destroy us....
If talking about marriage equality means you choose to think about sex, that's your problem. It's not about sex, it's about love, and equality, and nothing else.
Get your mind out of the gutter, pervert. ;-)
civil unions can be the remedy; agree? I know your answer, why not?
Because separate but equal is never equal. It's not very complicated, you just don't get it.
If there's no difference between marriage and a civil union, then there's no need for the dichotomy. If there is a difference, then they're not equal.
Bob, learn how to communicate in complete sentences; agree?
Tim: I already have made it quite clear that a special interest group is not a minority and the law giving a minority ruling to a sexual preference is not constitutional right. P.S. Erin I believe you can read between the lines and understand all intent of message. Even if you have to make it up or add filler.
Bob, so you don't want the gov. to regulate guns. But you want the gov. to regulate sex? are u kiddin me? the moral majority is neither. And if being gay is a sin, then let god deal with it. stop trying to do gods job. try doing god's work instead.
You seem to be of the opinion that sexual orientation (not 'preference') is a choice. It is not. In order to be considered a 'special interest group', the group would have to share a common (special) interest. A minority, however, describes a subset of the population based upon who the members of that group actually are.
Sexual orientation is not an 'interest.' It is who they are.
Deal with it.
orientation is what you do to find your way, Both “orient” and “orientate” are verbs meaning to align or position yourself; Now the position you have taken is a sexual one.
George pauljohn: I want the government to protect American interests period. Sex has already been deregulated to a point where almost anything is condoned. P.S. Gods Job? WOW! Here is some info to munch on . I am not a righteous man nor do I use religion to admonish selfish behavior of individuals looking for special rights for that behavior. What's next? Small groups are a minority and deserve special treatment because of their behavior?
Sarah: I believe you have stepped over the line comparing me to Westboro. I have a number of vile and disgusting things I could compare you to, but I won't as I think you are sadly in need of a heart, courage, and the strawman thing.
o·ri·en·ta·tion
[awr-ee-uh n-tey-shuh n, -en-, ohr-] Show IPA
noun
1. the act or process of orienting.
2. the state of being oriented.
3. an introduction, as to guide one in adjusting to new surroundings, employment, activity, or the like: New employees receive two days of orientation.
4. Psychology, Psychiatry. the ability to locate oneself in one's environment with reference to time, place, and people.
5. one's position in relation to true north, to points on the compass, or to a specific place or object.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orientation?s=t
orientation
Main Entry:
direction
Part of Speech:
noun
Definition:
course, route
Synonyms:
aim, angle, area, aspect, bearing, beeline, bent, bias, current, drift, end, inclination, line, objective, orientation, outlook, path, point of compass, proclivity, range, region, road, set, side, slant, spot, standpoint, stream, tack, tendency, that-a-way, tide, track, trajectory, trend, viewpoint, way
http://thesaurus.com/browse/orientation?__utma=1.533387337.1349046509.1357509834.1357519312.21&__utmb=1.3.9.1357519315088&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1349046509.1.1.utmcsr=%28direct%29|utmccn=%28direct%29|utmcmd=%28none%29&__utmv=-&__utmk=235026945
Erin: OK? and.... The ship is sailing and there's no one at the helm. Your point?
You'd think when the majority of people in a state vote against something, that that would be the end of it. Now apparently the peoples vote doesn't matter at all, it is all up to the supreme court...interesting.
that's because we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. In a constitutional republic, people don't vote on rights, and courts enforce that concept. Its not "interesting", its fundamental knowledge of our legal system.
Conservative,
You're right, the people's vote doesn't matter a lick when it comes to civil rights.
OK, Vermont. But I honestly don't like the Federal government trying to take over the rights of a state. If the majority of the population in a state vote on an amendment to a constitution to ban gay marriage, and then the State legislature changes the State Constitution, what gives the Supreme Court the right to interfere? I had this crazy thought one time that "We the people" mattered and that states could make decisions without The federal government involved,, guess I was wrong.
I appreciate your concern about the rights of people and states vs the federal gov't, which clearly is expanding its role in general.
in this case I support the idea of the right to marriage being pushed down from the top, since marriage is such a fundamental part of our culture (and legal system).
The Constitution.
I had this crazy idea that we had a 14th Amendment and equal protection as a civil right in this country.
You absolutely are wrong when it comes to how our country runs in regards to these types of issues.
I just think that when ever the courts start ruling on major things there will always be tons of upset people, I mean imagine if had a Conservative Supreme Court and in NY, a state that allows gay marriages, a group of Conservatives went to the supreme court to get them to ban gay marriage.Now if the supreme court did choose to ban gay marriage, could you imagine the outrage? But That's the way it works. I just think that it is best for the people to decide delicate issues like this, so that the majority are not left upset and bitter because of the few.
But I do see your point also, it is a major part of "the American way". I just differ on what I think the Supreme Court should handle.
On this particular issue, it will all be moot relatively soon....in a few years, the "gay marriage debate" will produce shrugging of shoulders, just like letting women vote does now.
conserv.biased- That's basically what the civil war was about. The union won, federal trumps state. And basic civil rights are one of those things that have to be forced through. If we only went state by state on each issue, there could be states where anyone who isn't an adult white male is the property of an adult white male. Some states might abolish slavery, but only allow voting for men. Some states might forego business regulations and allow children to work in sweat shops. Just because a popular vote would end up one way doesn't mean it's right.
The "Conservatively Biased" fallacies:
1. "when the majority of people in a state vote against something,"
and that something is other people in a state, it can never be the end of it. Limiting someone else's civil rights never stands for long. See: Maine. Two different votes of "the people." Two different outcomes. You want your marriage to be on-again, off-again, depending on a vote of strangers ("the people")?
2. "I honestly don't like the Federal government trying to take over the rights of a state"
So, did you have concerns about the Federal DOMA law that instructs states what to do, or not do?
3. "If the majority of the population in a state vote on an amendment to a constitution to ban gay marriage..."
That's the problem. No majority of people in any state has had the guts to put that phrase in any ballot measure - "this is a ban on gay marriage." They hide behind language that talks about anything, but gay marriage. Shows a glaring lack of conviction, honesty, and even faith in what they do.
4. "states could make decisions without The federal government involved, guess I was wrong"
The federal and state governments are comprised of three branches - executive, legislative, judicial. Only 14 of the states that have constitutional amendments have had a ballot measure that originated with "the people" only. And if something involves a constitution, the judiciary ("the government" as you call it) gets involved.
5. "I just think that it is best for the people to decide delicate issues like this, so that the majority are not left upset and bitter because of the few."
A mob does a better job than a judge for "delicate issues"? (!)
I've never met the people you say are "upset and bitter" because I married another man at city hall in San Francisco in 2008 after being together 40 years. I didn't have to ask them for permission to marry. They mind their own business. That's been tradition for a very long time.
Try walking down a street and asking total strangers, if you should or can get married. Then tell me they think you are "conservative," "biased," or even rational.
@inmissouri - First we never really had a "civil war". Second the only thing that conflict proved was that the North had a bigger army and was willing to us it. The Constitutional question of states rights was never addressed by the SCOTUS. And third, I believe in the case of homosexuality you are confusing a "right" with a "privilege". Marriage is not a right.
First, what you "believe" is irrelevant, and bull@!$%#. Second, the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" -- and they have a much bigger stick than you do.
Get over it.
Your argument grants all types of unions to take place as people will have independent preferences including ones you will not be able to object to on moral or biological grounds. Implications of that are boundless and even if I used logic I could not anticipate the choices people will challenge the courts with. The position you take is consenting partners for criteria. WOW! Wide Open Weddings.
Yes, Bob, if you let gays marry, next thing you know, people will be trying to marry toasters.
Of course the same logic was used to keep blacks from marrying whites.
I am stating constitutional rights of all individuals wishing contractual unions. You wish to compare your buffoonery to that? Sad.
Gee, bob, those are the same dumb arguments the dumb bigots tried to use against interracial marriage in the 1960s -- and they're still just as dumb, and just as unsuccessful. No wonder you dumb bigots keep LOSING in the courts, if that's all you've got.
Yet you call it "buffoonery"? When YOU are the one who started the "buffoonery"!
Erin: you would make a great Ghost writer; you are always rewriting what people state to fit your story line. I have to admit you would make a good fiction author. In all of my posts there is one constant, one point, one question. Why not contractual unions? Insult me, interpreter my words as you wish. The only thing proved by your statements are you are obnoxious, and your defense does not hold water.
Erin: because you didn't realize who I was speaking to I have taken the liberty to get the meaning of buffoonery for you. Now you can decide who I was adressing by its meaning. Maybe?
Buffoonery: 3. A
ludicrous or bumbling person; a fool.
Nukeman,
Outside of SCOTUS ruling about 14 times that marriage IS a civil right, we are also dealing in privacy and equal protection here. Both, undeniably, civil rights.
Second, YES states rights were dealt with, by a little something called the incorporation clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the Supremacy Clause.
It's pretty cut and dry.
Bob, you epitomize the term "buffoon". Marriage IS a "contractual union". It is and has always been a civil contract.
And because you really ARE that clueless, I'll let you in on a little secret: you are posting on a public discussion forum, which anyone can read and respond to.
Slow; anyway the response was for toaster, which is ludicrous. Again my observation regarding your inability to distinguish something plain as day. Taz, one of the minions of your network made a statement to me. I answered you jumped in yap-yap-yap. Answer QUERY? I must apologize if I make you feel bad when I prove you are misguided many times in understanding my free speech. However, it is of your own doing.
conservativelybiased14, google search "tyranny of the majority". It's not an abstract phrase. It was discussed in detail by the framers of the Constitution and by James Madison in particular in Federalist 10. A pure democracy is a rule by mob, which means that emotional opinions by a majority could have a tremendous impact on the lives of any minority. That is why our government is considered a Federal Constitutional Republic. This guarantees that the rights of any minority are protected from the whims of the majority.
Your right to dislike homosexuality is not in dispute. You're free to hate whomever you want, but you don't have the right to deny others equal protection of the laws -- in this case, existing family law, specifically.
Ok-since this ridiculous discussion is to allow people who DECIDE to be gay to be MARRIED and have rights and priviledges of marriage couples. I want to speak my mind and say that IF they "can" be married with marriage priviledges of taxes, insurance, etc. then it should be allowable that people who live together or just date to have the same shared priviledges. It Is only right that if this ludicrous garbage of two same sex people can merge their lives with legal rights that two people unmarried with children or unmarried who live together should also recieve the tax rights, insurance rights, and other allowances. Because they are literally just two single people "playing like a family-only with legal rights. They are still single people because they are two of the SAME EXACT HUMAN SEX. So if two people who were not intended to be married can have these rights then two persons who are not married and have had children or who live together prior to marriage should have the same priviledges. So if you wanted equality that would ultimately be equality! That ALL people be treated fairly-not get an additional assistance for being sexually incompatible with the opposite sex. As far as rights, I think that we should review how many rights everyone else is losing with gay marriage. I am a parent and I reserve my right to tell my children that gay living is wrong! I was told by a gay the other day my children have the right to decide if they are gay-when he asked the 10 yr old if he liked boys or girls-I promptly called the police-at that point I decided that he was a sexual predator discussing sexual propaganda with an underage child! So as I say-add equal rights for parents and regular (non-gay)relationships to this same sex bill and see how that goes over!
It is a shame that your grasp of reality is not as keen as your grasp of language. Your argument about "all types of unions to take place as people will have independent preferences including ones you will not be able to object to on moral or biological grounds" is specious. The argument is about civil rights under the 14th Amendment, equal treatment under the law. This has nothing to do with contract law.
right wingers are very quick to defend the concept of the "republic" because they say it keeps the tyranny of the masses in check for political reasons, but now in gay marriage, they want the republic to be pure democracy. republicans are just plain funny.
Comment # 9 deleted, weird AIDS death derailing.
Civilization,our culture is founded on the family unit.A man,a woman, and their offspring.It doesn't change however many studies you paste.It doesn't change because marriage is 'a modern construct'.It doesn't change because 'gay marriage' was inconcievable to-those guys and they didn't mention it.It doesn't change because we've trained our children to accept everyone for who they are.You can take the law at face value and be entirely correct.And 100 % wrong
Civilization was founded on kings and slaves and women and children being property. time to rip up the constitution and return to the good old days!
And yet I'm guessing you can't make a legal, secular argument with any non-biased credible evidence to support your position.
THAT'S why it changes.
You're absolutely right,we used to have kings and queens so that justifies we have gay marriage.Great leap-you pretend gays don't have civil liberties Also,sarah,you're right,of course.The subjective input of virtually everyone who has ever lived in our society does not a legal construct make.Advantage -gaydom
It's great they way you pick and choose what 'dragons'' to slay.None of what i said could be coutermanded by your arguements
See, this is where you need to provide a source for all those MULTITUDES of SUBJECTIVE personal opinions. Regardless of that, however, you're right, SUBJECTIVE does not a legal construct make.
Hence you are losing this battle.
None of what you said could be countermanded by anyone's arguments, because none of what you said has been shown to be anything but your personal opinion.
Hey Sarah! I'm really enjoying your thoughtful and educated responses. Keep up the good work.
Did the founders of our "culture" plan on divorce? Guess that was "inconceivable" too, huh?
Divorce at about 50% of marriages changes quite a lot of our "culture."
Read about the the number of children abandoned, in orphanages, or put to labor all their lives back when the country started, then tell us about our "culture" and any founders intents.
Maybe the moslems are right, this country is a garbage pit
Ninety-eight percent of pedophiles identify as heterosexual.
AZ,
Thanks, buddy!
If a man has sex with another man, he is a homosexual. If a man has sex with a boy, he is a pedophile.
There is a difference. Accept and move on.
Seconded. Nice work.
No, he's a pedophile. There's a difference. The typical profile for a pedophile is a middle-aged married man, (hopefully) without children of his own. That is, he's a heterosexual, and self-identifies as such.
Look at Sandusky - he's quite typical. A jock. The "Man's man" type.
You just don't understand the pathology involved, that's all.
In our Society, we have a method of legally forming a relationship with anyone of our choosing, no matter what they are or what Gender. It is called a Partnership. Everything in writing. What two people do with each other is NO concern of the Govt. and approved. But no, this is NOT what they want. Why? Perhaps because one Partnership is NOT equal to another and can't say, but the Constitution says that equality means equality, for everything. They essentially want to form a Partnership but want to be equal to the Greatest Institution on Earth under the guise of equality. The word 'partnership' don't work in their favor, but the word "Marriage" can get more of what others have. Like a small company wanting everything that Goldman Sacs have. Same thing. Piity.
They were prescient to the extent they 'dreamed' one day this would apply to homosexuals of course
Seriously, I could barely even follow your little diatribe.
Which is a business entity, not governed by family law that bestows 1,000+ benefits on married people, which aren't available to civil unions or business partnerships.
The Constitution says equality for everyONE, not everything. Perhaps that's why you're so confused???
They want to be equal to the University of Michigan football program??? All kidding aside, I assume you're speaking of marriage. So make your case. Why SHOULDN'T they be equal to you in regards to marriage? What makes you special?
You mean they can get the SAME as what you have. My, my, my, you have quite the ego, don't you?
Kudos, Sarah!
To dan""""
When the term Civil Unions for gays was being bantered about some time ago ..it was preachers who screamed from every pulpit that Civil Unions = Gay Marriage and after the word marriage entered into it ..all hell broke loose
Ummmm.....that's what equal protection of the law means, that gays and straights get to use the exact same legal contract of marriage, the same driving and fishing licenses, the same mortgage contracts, etc.
I realize that it frustrates you bigots, but that's what our constitution requires.
pained1 What the F@@k you talking about?
Normal people don't hang out at pedophile web sites like you do, YouCantHandleTheTruth4.
Do the police and your neighbors know about your predilection?
Youcanthandlethetruth4 really really likes NAMBLA considering hes quoted them many times in order to argue his personal hatred for homosexuality. Looks like we got a pedophile on the board here and his name is Youcanthandlethetruth4.
If you think about it, youcanthandlethetruth4 is a memeber of NAMBLA, and he hates homosexuals. Really, he hates himself for being a homosexual pedophile. Should we feel sorry for him?
I say no.
Also let me just say that as a homosexual myself, I am NOT a pedophile. Homosexual pedophiles like youcanthandlethetruth4 are not to be seen as what is normal for homosexuality. You cant lump him in with the rest of us.
Greatest Institution on Earth? You sound like you're talking about the NFL or something.
Anyone who thinks a marriage is the same as a legal partnership has never been through a custody battle. This isn't about the 'guise' of equality, whatever that means. It's about actual equality - it's about recognizing that LGBT people are absolutely, completely equal to everybody else in every way under the law.
Because they are. It's that simple.
As a demographic, Gay people commit the fewest crimes of all groups in america. they have one of the highest income rates per capita. and they never wear white after labor day. So stop hating these people. I don't particularly like the idea of man on man, but it ain't my business. If it's a sin, let god deal with it. you or I have no right to judge anyone. and that's all i have to say about that.
You need to work on the courts that hold sperm donors to gay couples as responsible for child support as irresponsible.
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/02/3990711/state-trying-to-make-sperm-donor.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070510075415AAhpelh
All this clamoring for so called 'rights'.
This whole progression/procession of freaks/perverts coming out and claiming them will never end.
We haven't seen anything yet, just wait, it will get extremely ridiculous (insane).
"This whole progression/procession of freaks/perverts coming out and claiming [rights] will never end."
Yeah! Look at all those women, racial and ethnic minorities, the disabled, seniors, military vets, gun owners - all claiming their rights. Where does it end?
"freaks/perverts"? You are stupid.
Thanks for clarifying... ridiculous/ insane; at least it indicates that you know the people that might possibly agree with you and their lack of basic English. You could of made it easy on all by just saying "stupid".
"So called Rights"?!! These "so called rights" number over 1,000 that "straight" married couples are afforded (for you , given) by the government. They include the right to hospital visitation in times of sickness, estates, and inheritance. If you think that a "gay" relationship (10, 20, 30, 40 + years) is less valid in terms of caring, compassion, and commitment, you are wrong, and shame on you.
As a "freak/pervert" I can assure you that I am a better person, in heart and soul, than you could ever be.
@AZ - You throw the word "right" around very liberally. Don't confuse the things you list as equal to the rights addressed in the Constitution.
Homosexuality is disgusting.
Well, it's good to know that, based on the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a civil right.
Hope that makes you feel better!
Nukeman, your words are disgusting, but the Constitution still protects your right to say them.
And marriage is a right, which is protected by the constitution!
Nukeman,
What you think is "disgusting" is irrelevant. No one cares about what grosses you out. Your sensibilities don't dictate our laws.
I will guarantee you, what is happening in the bedrooms of gays, happens in the bedrooms of heteros just the same. People try new things, watch porn, try more new things, this feels good so let's try that....it's all the same. And don't even try telling me different, the ramifications of said activity lands many in the OR in equal proportions. Sex can get messy, slippery, strange positions you name it...things happen and I've seen some straight porn in my day that is pure strange. Much worse that I ever tried with my husband and now girlfriend.
Youcan't: Are you kidding? 'Normal' people do all kinds of 'normal' things. Just because you never thought of them, or just because those 'things' gross you out, does not make them abnormal. Try reading some of the research on the subject. You will find a new 'normal' world out there. Try some of the ideas; you might find you enjoy them.
Publica....DNFTT...he's a rereg of many names and haunts gay stories. Reported.
If you use the ignore button...it's really liberating. This ones not worth the time of an argument. BUT DON'T OPEN HIS RESPONSES OR ignore won't be liberating.
Why? Because as far as I know it, there's no difference between the behaviors of homosexuals that is any different than those of heterosexuals, except their choice of partners.
Article above: "The scope of any Supreme Court decision is far from clear. They could rule that every American is entitled to the right to same-sex marriage..."
I doubt the Supreme Court decision would say, or be interpreted as "every American is entitle to the right to same-sex marriage. That's a stretch and very poor wording for what the court decision may mean.
The court is being asked if principles of equal protection and due process apply to gay and lesbian Americans.
P.S. No gay couple I know got married because someone was pregnant. That's about the only difference I see between married gays and married straights. When they do, gay married couples choose to have and raise kids. Could make a noticeable difference between the two groups and how well their kids do. We'll see.
The article phrasing is correct.
One analysis is that a denial of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional gender discrimination based on the relative gender of one's spouse, similar to how a denial of mixed-race marriage is racial discrimination based on the relative race of one's spouse.
That means every American should have the right to marry regardless of the race or gender of the prospective spouse.
Skrekk, You seen to label people bigots because they don't believe the way you do. I suppose that after this is settled that you will also support relationships between men & boys, mothers & sons, incest & even humans & animals because their minority's.Will people who oppose that be bigots too? As i stated before, I have friends & family who are gay & i have no problem with them. I just don't like it being shoved in my face through the media. It's not about the law either. The courts no longer follow the constitution. The judges this day & age seem to follow the views of the people who appoint them to their positions. People who were raised in the 50's & 60's all have different views of people today. That was with the governments blessings too.You cannot expect use to look at issues the same as you. That doesn't make us bigots.
Also when you say that the courts protect the rights of the minority, just remember that finding a judge who agrees with you is a lot like doctor shopping. If you look long enough you will find one who agrees with you.
Unlike dumb bigots, I don't confuse an adult consensual relationship with the rape of children and animals. Nor do I confuse sex with a legal contract.
Funny how you bigots are using the exact same moronic arguments you used to fight against mixed-race marriage.
And yet, no one on the side of equality has had to "shop" for judges that agree with us -- yet every judge thus far has.
What is even more ludicrous is when un-educated Bible thumpers misinterpret a 2000yr old book of fairy tales to justify their bigotry.
DECRIMINALIZE POT so we can all live in Peace and Harmony.
Is that too big a price to pay to ease the pain and hatred.
Happiness and contentment is the goal but gets sidetracked by Negative human characteristics.
2000 plus years of fighting and dying has shown we're on a Fail path to Righteousness.
Take another hit. We're not talking about that here. ;-)
Isn't it BRIAN Brown (not "Bill") from NOM? Truly, the level of journalism these days is at the bottom.
We forget the bottom line: homosexuality is sexual perversion. We must return to basics. Once we do that the stupid marriage debate goes away. How can people who engage in aberrant behavior think for a nanosecond that marriage can take place between same-sex couples. It can't!
Too bad for you religious freaks that gays are legally having sex regardless of whether you nutballs approve.
Merely your opinion? BTW, have you ever engaged in oral or anal sex? Aren't those perversions too?
OK: Marriage is a basic civil right and there's no logical or legal reason to deny gays the right to marry!
Behavior bewtween consenting adults is not a basis to deny them marriage. Plus you seem to confuse behavior with orientation.
You don't get to decide what constitutes a marriage.
You are behind the times on that one LR. Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexualit.
Just because you deem it otherwise does not make it so.
What exactly does the National Organization for Marriage ( NOM) do anyway...is it like some kind of organized wedding planner thing
Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination."
PRAISE GOD!!
Deuteronomy 21:18-21......"Kill your disobedient children."
PRAISE GOD!!
Your becoming more of a "BIBLICAL ILLITERATE" everyday
"This isn't referring to young children. Just notice, it says the person is a 'glutton and a drunkard,' so it is referring to a young adult who is old enough to drink. Also notice that the son was not put to death until he was brought to trial before “the older men of his city.”
This was done in Bible times as a last resort to someone who was repeatedly wicked & is an example of how important it is to discipline (lovingly, of course) children. An undisciplined child has no boundaries & becomes selfish at the expense of other people. In fact, usually he/she does not fit in well with society & cannot interact well with other people. On the other hand, a child that is lovingly disciplined is confident & social. Children need boundaries & this is explained to them."
Suggesting that you should stone a person to death for being disobedient, or even a drunk, is horribly evil. It is murder. Period.
(for reference)
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
King James Version (KJV)
18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Taziar
Suggesting that you should stone a person to death for being disobedient, or even a drunk, is horribly evil. It is murder. Period.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not in God's eyes, and he wrote the Bible so take it up with him, after all sin is punishable by death.
========================================================================
I guess that's why sane people think your imaginary friend is a violent psychopath. No wonder your cult is losing members.
I'm not at all surprised that you worship such a creature, given your vile views.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Read This:
"www.end-times-prophecy.org/bible-prophecy-and-probability.html"
and get back to me and explain how these "MEN" knew the future and predicted these prophecies 900 years before they came true.
==============================================================
To..Walter"""
Ahhh...Who wrote the bible...? ....and translated it again and again and rewrote and rewrote and rewrote it again and again...to reflect the social and political mores of the times
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and it still say's the same thing, over and over again, the Dead Sea Scrolls "PROVE" that, again and again.
====================================================
God wrote not a damn thing. Men did and changed it over and over.
The Dead Sea Scrolls make that statement totally false.
=============================================
Not really. And what about the parts that were simply left out? Did God send revisions during the 4th Century?
Deuteronomy also says that it's an abomination for women to wear men's clothes, for Christ's sake. Well, let's all go put a stop to that right away, shall we?
You'd have to be a complete idiot to take the Bible literally.
and the "true believers" continue to spout their delusion that everything is perfect with their flawed book.
just ask the taliban
Good point Mark! And let's not forget that there is no evidence that God wrote the bible. We have very ancient manuscripts written by "God knows who" and then translated by the prevailing power brokers of the dark ages who were apparently very astute at deciphering the mind of God while not exactly being known for social justice, fairness, and concern for their fellow man.......
tim-2799493
You'd have to be a complete idiot to take the Bible literally.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No you don't, you have to believe that God is smarter then you.
=============================================
Please explain why women wearing men's clothing is a behavior equivalent to homosexuality, as Deuteronomy clearly states.
There is a very long list of this sort of silliness that is beyond rational explanation, and not simply because God is so much smarter than us. It's because the Bible was written by a bunch of bronze-age nomads as a means of establishing some basic rules of social order and hygiene, which has been elevated to an unrealistic and totally unsupportable status of a message direct from the Supreme Being - a superstition, nothing more.
The message of the Bible is valuable and important, but to think it is literal is absurd.
tim-2799493
Please explain why women wearing men's clothing is a behavior equivalent to homosexuality, as Deuteronomy clearly states.
There is a very long list of this sort of silliness that is beyond rational explanation
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Only because you and I are sheep in God's flock, sheep are stupid you know, why do you think God had to send us a Shepard.
=================================================================
The message of the Bible is valuable and important, but to think it is literal is absurd.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
See above, until you accept God and his plan you are Matthew 7:13-14 material.
===========================================================
Great, then please explain why women wearing men's clothing is equivalent to homosexuality, and assuming you choose to interpret identical Biblical expressions differently, why?
Please try to do so without talking down to your audience again. The 'holier than thou' routine compromises the validity of everything else you say. I'm sure there's something in the Bible about that kind of arrogance too. Let me know if you'd like me to look it up for you.
not following you here at all.
================================
Let's try again. Deuteronomy says that homosexuality is an abomination. It also says that women wearing men's clothes is an abomination.
Why are these two things morally equivalent and do you object as much to one as the other?
tim-2799493
Let's try again. Deuteronomy says that homosexuality is an abomination.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
God don't what no fags in his house, he hates them.
=================================================================
It also says that women wearing men's clothes is an abomination.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
that has to do with role reversal and Armour for battle, which I believe in.
=============================================
Why are these two things morally equivalent and do you object as much to one as the other?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
to God they are, he has put them in the Bible, and I do believe in the Bible.
==================================================================
because it's man's responsibility to be the head of the house hold and to defend it.
====================================================================
Well, IMHO, that's just nuts. You can believe whatever crazy sh!t you want to, but you don't get to use your beliefs to deny anyone else their civil rights, including the rights that come with marriage.
The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation.
Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788
[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore... never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Well good thing all that is null and void because now we have a little something called the 14th Amendment and incorporation. Otherwise, we'd still be stuck with segregation, a lack of rights for women, yada, yada, yada... You've been watching too much Mike Huckabee.
Hi Reverend Larry,
I have missed you. The Constitution , Bill of Rights and Common Sense are all common agreements the the original colonies agreed to in order to be called states. The "civil War" was fought as a continuation of the question of State's Rights vs Government Regulation. Sarah made many good points in that we are not called the individual states of the US, but are in fact a part of a nation where we are bound by common laws designned to protect the individual's rights under these laws. I see states like my home state of Tennessee where archaicic prejudices and religious based hatred is still rampant even though there are Gay Judges, politicians and so forth hiding under the same shield of secrecy that protects Pedophiles and sexual predators.
We need a new awakening where we objectively look at what we believe and ask if we really want to digress 3000 years where we bring stoning and public execution back as a matter of doing God's work. Anyone who can read and takes the time to do so can look at the History of the Old Testament and see that it was written purely as a tool to control the masses of people and to provide an income for the religious institutions and priest.
PS Jesus asked me to deliver a message. He said to stop using his name to inspire hate. He said his father's house has many rooms.
Love and Affection,
Lazarus
Warren, do you live in another world where the argument is about gay rights at the very basic level and then rant about the legalization of POT? Somehow I think you got into the wrong thread on the 'Vine.
As for gay marriage and equality, let them lose everything in a divorce just like the rest of the people who get same divorce. Why should we be miserable if we are married to a person of the opposite sex, get a divorce, and then get the shaft (male or female). Leave marriage alone. It's between two people, regardless of sex.
In all retrospect gay marriage means nothing because all these same-sex couples will be either divorced and/or married but separated within 2 years.
So sorry we have to talk abouts laws, constitution, etc when this is just a simple "right" two adults should have that want to enter into a contract with each other. How can anyone that calls themselves an American feel they have the right to tell two adults they can not marry ( or civil union ) in this the United States of America. Homosexuals are citizens of the United States and should not have to deal with discrimination in any form. This is an outrage that anyone would TRY and defend their homophobia and call themselves an American.
homosexuals are citizens of the United States and should not have to deal with discrimination in any form. MGM...so are brothers and sisters , but by law they cannot marry either ...because it too, is morally WRONG
Thank You!
It is morrally incorrect.
"Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination."
PRAISE GOD!!"
I didn't lie with a man. I was on all fours.
Since when is sex a requirement in marriage?
That's the most intelligent thing you've ever said "Walter."
Leave marriage alone. It's between two people, regardless of sex.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I CAN marry my sister then, what about my horse and don't give me any crap about "informed consent" either I sit on her back in the saddle, she informs me that it's OK to ride her, doesn't she.?
Still using the same old slippery slope fallacy Walter?
gordy327
Still using the same old slippery slope fallacy Walter?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
gettin' slipperyer (if that is a word).
====================================
Yes you are.
Has a horse cashed a check yet, Walter??? Maine, New York, Washington, Iowa, Maryland... Come on, it must have happened by now.
Sarah-3043284
Has a horse cashed a check yet, Walter??? Maine, New York, Washington, Iowa, Maryland... Come on, it must have happened by now.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
you have to be able to cash a check to get married or give informed consent to get married?
just want to make sure I understand today's STORY.
===========================================================
Walter,
How soon you forget. A check is a contract where you need informed consent in order to enter the agreement. Just like marriage. Last time we talked, you claimed that if gays got married, than humans could marry animals. When I brought up the fact that animals couldn't because they don't have informed consent, and pointed to the example that gay check cashing didn't lead to animal check cashing, you claimed it would.
So has it???
http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2012/12/09/15791843-were-so-proud-same-sex-couples-wed-in-washington-for-first-time
There's the link to your asinine argument. It starts at comment number two.
Walter, just buy the horse if you want to have sex with it. No need for a ceremony. Just stay inside the barn please...
Sarah-3043284
Walter,
How soon you forget. A check is a contract where you need informed consent in order to enter the agreement. Just like marriage.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So riding her is not an agreement between us, why not, and I got informed consent.
===============================================================
Last time we talked, you claimed that if gays got married, than humans could marry animals. When I brought up the fact that animals couldn't because they don't have informed consent
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
see above, sitting on her back is informing her that I would like to ride her and she didn't buck me off so she consented, what don't you understand.
and pointed to the example that gay check cashing didn't lead to animal check cashing, you claimed it would.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
so your saying riding a horse on her back and riding a gay person are the some things.
==============================================================
So has it???
http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2012/12/09/15791843-were-so-proud-same-sex-couples-wed-in-washington-for-first-time
There's the link to your asinine argument. It starts at comment number two.
So has it???
http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2012/12/09/15791843-were-so-proud-same-sex-couples-wed-in-washington-for-first-time
There's the link to your asinine argument. It starts at comment number two.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
because there's no slippery slope until you pass gay marriage.
========================================================
Justsayin64
Walter, just buy the horse if you want to have sex with it. No need for a ceremony. Just stay inside the barn please...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
exactly, so gays can just have sex and stay in the closet, right?
and besides that I want my employer to cover the vet bills, what don't you understand.
=================================================================
So what's different about a marriage contract, as opposed to other contracts, that will lead to this?
No, Walter, you won't be able to marry your horse or sister as a result of same-sex marriage.
But I do agree that comments should be more specific than versions of "anyone should be able to marry who they want" or "everybody has the right to marry the person of their choice, period", because even though it's not intended as open-endedly as you're presuming it can come across that way.
I do not care if you marry your horse, its OK with me.
I had the opportunity to discuss matters with one of these anti-gay religious hypocrites last year when she was out knocking on doors trying to get a judge removed because he voted to overturn a ban on gay marriage. She was the most hate filled, dishonest person I had ever met, really opened my eyes to the new republican party. I now keep a loaded shotgun by the door in case another one shows up, they're that insane.
well armedwombat- aren't you the sweet liberal bigot?
How is she a bigot?
she hates conservative Christians and is willing to murder them if they come to her door
Well, I thought Christian conservatives were supposed to be armed to the teeth so they could shoot those with whom they disagree, and defend themselves from an over-reaching government. The knife cuts both ways, Larry.