Is Banning Gay Marriage Constitutional?

[thatwhichisnt]

Where do any of us get the power to dictate how another person lives there life, if it does not harm us?

Also, marriage is a church issue and should be handled by them. The reason we got gov involved was to keep control of interracial marriages after the civil war.

 

[Woods]

I'm an Atheist... meaning I affirmatively state that God/Zeus/Yahweh/Vishnu does not exist, and that Jesus did not die to save me from his own anger at sins I could not have committed. As I believe God does not exist, I got married without benefit of Clergy, but I still refer to my spouse as my wife and still consider myself to be married. Marriage is a legal status, afforded certain privileges and responsibilities. If marriage holds some spiritual significance for you, congratulations, but don't expect me to really care.

I'm pretty sure we can find somebody, somewhere, who says that guns are against the natural order because they undermine the evolutionary laws of competition that the biggest and strongest should win.

Next argument up for Natural Laws: The Earth is 6000 years old cause the bible says so, and the Dinosaurs never existed... it's all a conspiracy by the God-haters, and those fossils are pig bones.

 

[Woods]

Where do any of us get the power to dictate how another person lives there life, if it does not harm us?

Also, marriage is a church issue and should be handled by them. The reason we got gov involved was to keep control of interracial marriages after the civil war.

Spoken by someone who actually believes in rights for everyone... not just "people like me."

 

[sawfish]

Just a few thoughts:

1) The union of one man and one woman is not primarily a religious issue. It is a social phenomenon present in every known culture and it transcends all religions. The human desire to enter a committed relationship with another person of the opposite sex is, among other things, nature's motivation for humanity's self-promulgation.

2) The state has no responsibility to give public stamps of approval to love relationships, but to foster societal good through the creation of law. In this context, it has always recognized its responsibility to regulate the institution of marriage as an essential way to do this, particularly given its procreative nature.

3) Homosexual couples, or any other couple or grouping of people, already have the right to enter to enter into many legal and financial contracts that recognize the unique relationship they have, or wish to have, with one another. While there may be room in many states to expand this kind of legal recourse, there is no need to change the definition of the institution of marriage to conform to the desires of other relationships.

4) The minimal number of homosexual couples who have chosen to take advantage of expanded marriage laws is the best proof that its promoters have greater interest in pushing the social acceptance of homosexuality, as such, than in the legal rights that new marriage laws would provide.

5) There is no reason any given homosexual marriage will effect negatively a heterosexual couple's commitment to one another. Nevertheless, redefining marriage to make room for homosexuality, polygamy, or polyamery changes, ever so slowly, the value society places on the unique institution of marriage, including its two natural ends of procreation and complementary union of the spouses. Okay, I know this one is hard to swallow and we'll need more time to examine data.

6) All laws are discriminatory. They discriminate between what is good and bad for society in relation to the question at hand. Laws that define marriage as only between one man and one woman do not discriminate against homosexuals as people, but as their ability to comply with the inherent nature and objectives of the institution being regulated. To compare the acceptance of two men marrying each other with the acceptance of interracial marriage, as some have done, is disingenuous and offensive.

 

[mike308]

Anytime the governemnt requires a license it is a privilege. Therefore what the government states as the requirements to that license is law. The license to marry also grants others license privileges by the State such as tax issues, insurance, inheritance, ownership etc and many other govenment sponsored and forced requirements.

The "covenant" of marriage was hijacked by the State a long time ago. Those covenant marriages were called Sacraments when Christanity was unified. It was between a man and a woman with God for the sole purpose of procreation and fidelity. That is long gone.

Therefore a marriage license in the United States should be given to anyone that pays the fee. I absolutely believe that gay marriage has no place in a moral society but the United States has long past given up morality in society and has become a Marxist/Socialist State hell bent on turning it's citizens into units.

 

[CEHollier]

I'm an Atheist... meaning I affirmatively state that God/Zeus/Yahweh/Vishnu does not exist, and that Jesus did not die to save me from his own anger at sins I could not have committed. As I believe God does not exist, I got married without benefit of Clergy, but I still refer to my spouse as my wife and still consider myself to be married. Marriage is a legal status, afforded certain privileges and responsibilities. If marriage holds some spiritual significance for you, congratulations, but don't expect me to really care.

I'm pretty sure we can find somebody, somewhere, who says that guns are against the natural order because they undermine the evolutionary laws of competition that the biggest and strongest should win.

Next argument up for Natural Laws: The Earth is 6000 years old cause the bible says so, and the Dinosaurs never existed... it's all a conspiracy by the God-haters, and those fossils are pig bones.

That is all Your opinion. IMHO I can affirmatively state you as an athiest are gonna burn in Hell. But that is my opinion. To be taken credibly have some respect for others beliefs.

 

[Baldrik78]

That is all Your opinion. IMHO I can affirmatively state you as an athiest are gonna burn in Hell. But that is my opinion. To be taken credibly have some respect for others beliefs.

It's where all the cool people hang out though!

 

[lefty]

well i guess i will weigh in on this with my opinion. I used to be for gay marriage, i always used the thinking if that is what they want to do then more power to them.

Then i started thinking, most people define marriage as between a man and a woman. I dont know about you but i sure as hell dont want politicians to be able to change the meanings of words whenever they feel like it, because if they do that laws dont matter if you can change what they mean.

That said i sure dont want them to open the can of worms on the whole marriage definition. That is why i am for civil unions with every legal right as marriage.

 

[flamatrix99]

i am for civil unions with every legal right as marriage.

+100 BINGO!

 

[Gus McCrae]

I think if anything everyone should just have a civil union and let your church decide if you can get "married"

 

[Woods]

That is all Your opinion. IMHO I can affirmatively state you as an athiest are gonna burn in Hell. But that is my opinion. To be taken credibly have some respect for others beliefs.

And you're welcome to your opinion... you might even be right.

But notice I'm not saying other people shouldn't be allowed to do this or that based on my opinion.

 

[Hitman]

Next argument up for Natural Laws: The Earth is 6000 years old cause the bible says so, and the Dinosaurs never existed... it's all a conspiracy by the God-haters, and those fossils are pig bones.

This is something neither you nor Christians can prove without some sort of faith in your own logic.

BTW I don't know any Christians who deny the existence of Dinosaurs.

 

[sawfish]

well i guess i will weigh in on this with my opinion. I used to be for gay marriage, i always used the thinking if that is what they want to do then more power to them.

Then i started thinking, most people define marriage as between a man and a woman. I dont know about you but i sure as hell dont want politicians to be able to change the meanings of words whenever they feel like it, because if they do that laws dont matter if you can change what they mean.

That said i sure dont want them to open the can of worms on the whole marriage definition. That is why i am for civil unions with every legal right as marriage.

Hadn't thought of it that way...

 

[Woods]

This is something neither you nor Christians can prove without some sort of faith in your own logic.

BTW I don't know any Christians who deny the existence of Dinosaurs.

I know some... but they are admittedly a fringe group of Christians.

Kind of like the Doomsday/Survivalist/Militia/Neo-Nazi types tend to be a fringe group among gun advocates.

 

[oleheat]

I still have to laugh at how the pro-gay marriage crowd no longer brings up "putting it to a vote"......

 

[Woods]

I still have to laugh at how the pro-gay marriage crowd no longer brings up "putting it to a vote"......

Kind of like how they didn't put Civil Rights in the '60's up for a vote?

Personally, I don't think the rights of others should ever be up to a vote... I know I don't want the Hispanic majority in 2045 deciding what my rights are.

Not cause they are Hispanic, but because it'd be someone from a different worldview deciding what I'm worth. I think I'll pass on that experience.

 

[Witness]

That is all Your opinion. IMHO I can affirmatively state you as an atheist are gonna burn in Hell. But that is my opinion. To be taken credibly have some respect for others beliefs.

May he who is without sin cast the first stone. Judge not for ye shall be judged. Any of these ring a bell?

I find it very funny that someone can condemn another to burning in hell then turn around and request that same person be respectful of your beliefs.

What's worse; forcing your religious beliefs on someone who's life choices have zero effect on you? Or strapping a bomb to your chest in the name of god to destroy the non believers?

 

[blackened1313]

It is funny, if you read the 1st page of replies and then skip to read the very last page.

My $00.02 is anyone should be allowed to get married to anyone. How can we expect to keep the Gov't out of our weapon closet but allow them into the bedroom? they deserve the right to be miserable just like the rest of us.

 

[Woods]

It is funny, if you read the 1st page of replies and then skip to read the very last page.

My $00.02 is anyone should be allowed to get married to anyone. How can we expect to keep the Gov't out of our weapon closet but allow them into the bedroom? they deserve the right to be miserable just like the rest of us.

QFT

 

[Nolacopusmc]

May he who is without sin cast the first stone. Judge not for ye shall be judged. Any of these ring a bell?

I find it very funny that someone can condemn another to burning in hell then turn around and request that same person be respectful of your beliefs.

What's worse; forcing your religious beliefs on someone who's life choices have zero effect on you? Or strapping a bomb to your chest in the name of god Allah to destroy the non believers?

I actually agree with you here. Fixed the bottom for ya.