So the Senate finds this important. Shows how our government lacks leadership. The budget sets there not done. Well over a month behind. Our new security and terror bill sits there not being debated. The energy bill that can help with jobs just sits there. But even with polls showing 68% of us don't find Gay Marriage a hot topic. Well the Majority takes time to play election year BS. Real important issues just sit. Boy we need more then a new president.
Gay Marriage Debate! WOW!
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
so, if gay marriage is legalized, I have a question. Obviously, many preachers/priests/clergy are going to refuse to marry a man and an man or a woman and woman. This will be considered unlawful, correct? Do we then put these folks in jail for breaking the law? Fine them? Will the churches have their tax exempt status stripped? Lots of repercussions here, it's important to discuss.
Six, they will get sued for not receiving their civil rights and eddie the clown will become a billionaire :scared
SixFive said:
I don't believe that would be illegal, but I could be incorrect as I'm purely speculating. Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. It's just that almost everyone chooses to bring religion into it. So I think that if, in that situation, churches would choose not to wed gay couples they would be allowed to as protection of separation of church and state. But the state couldn't refuse to marry them and and their legal rights as a married couple would be protected.
Like I said, I may be wrong but that would be my unresearched assumption.
BJ:
Would tend to agree with you. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a legal license much the same as a hunting and/or fishing license. Hence the term marriage license. Like any license, it can be revoked (divorce). Ironically, revocation of this license is currently being investigated by Mrs. Ctownguy and Mrs. Freeze. Clergy can (and do to this day) refuse to marry any couple for any reason. Information Mrs. Ctownguy and Mrs. Freeze wish they had on their respective wedding days.
Eddie
Would tend to agree with you. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a legal license much the same as a hunting and/or fishing license. Hence the term marriage license. Like any license, it can be revoked (divorce). Ironically, revocation of this license is currently being investigated by Mrs. Ctownguy and Mrs. Freeze. Clergy can (and do to this day) refuse to marry any couple for any reason. Information Mrs. Ctownguy and Mrs. Freeze wish they had on their respective wedding days.
Eddie
I would think the 2 people who would be most interested in gay marriages would you two guys, DJV and Eddie. Now you guys can get married and go buttfawk while one of you complains on mjs.
Saint I bet you would like divorce debated instead. Why not a law that said your stuck with the bitch you brought. Seems that would fit a Saint. And would be just as stupid. It's a dam shame the senate doesn't listen to the people and do some real work.
Last edited:
I just have to love the fact that Mr. Bush is planning on changing the constitution to make sure that gay marriages won't 'ever' be legal.
Another fine example from the "Leader of the FREE world"!!
Another fine example from the "Leader of the FREE world"!!
djv said:
It's really a shame that Judges don't listen to the people either.
A little background on how we got to his point is helpful. In 1996, a liberal state court in Hawaii threw out that state's laws against same-sex marriage. Lawmakers around the nation knew that if a few judges in Hawaii could destroy the traditional definition of marriage, judges anywhere could and would do it. Within months, a law that defines marriage for the federal government as the union of one man and one woman, and prevents states from being forced to recognize contrary definitions ? which lawmakers thought would solve the problem ? passed both houses of Congress by veto-proof majorities and was signed by President Clinton.
It was called the Defense Of Marriage Act, and it caught on like wildfire. Within eight years, 38 states had adopted their own DOMAs, and five other states had inserted DOMA language into other laws.
Many thought the issue was settled once and for all, but, again, activist judges ? this time in Massachusetts ? took power away from the people of that state and declared same-sex marriage legal. Other activist officials started thwarting the will of the people and breaking the laws in their states and began issuing same-sex licenses. Homosexual couples from many states traveled to Massachusetts to be "married" ? mayhem resulted.
Exclusive: Today, Americans are rising up to make their voice of reason heard ? citizens in Michigan, Montana, Arkansas and Oregon have gathered enough signatures to put state constitutional amendments protecting marriage on the fall ballots, and North Dakota and Ohio are close. Michigan organizers expect the measure to pass by a 2-to-1 margin or more, with 80 percent of Republicans and more than half the Democrats in the state planning to support it.
In seven other states ? Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah ? legislators voted to put pro-marriage amendments on ballots this fall. To find out where your state stands and to get a full state-by-state accounting, simply log on to heritage.org.
American citizens seem to understand instinctively what's at stake here. Marriage has meant one man and one woman in every successful nation on Earth since the beginning of mankind. Marriage is about propagating not just the human race, but also the values of a society, the difference between right and wrong.
By promoting social order, it creates a safety zone for the man and woman involved as well as for their children. A raft of social science research shows that children who grow up in households where the mother and father are married have the best chance at a good life. They earn more, learn more, get in trouble less and have fewer problems with drugs, alcohol or abuse.
Unfortunately, many of the senators ready to debate the amendment this week do not understand its importance. Thanks to the efforts of Sens. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Zell Miller, D-Ga., and their co-sponsors, senators at least will get the facts, and will be forced to take a stand on whether or not they believe the issue is even worth debating.
Many senators say they oppose same-sex marriage, but don't see the purpose in an amendment. Perhaps these senators are just afraid to take a stand. But when a few activists judges around the nation are determined to redefine this most basic of human institutions through court decisions which thwart the will of the people, our elected officials must take a stand on whether or not they believe voters should determine this issue for themselves. Unfortunately, we've now reached the time where the only way ? I repeat ? the only way to protect marriage and civil society as we know it is to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Redefining marriage ? the most basic of human institutions ? is akin to reprogramming the DNA of a nation. This week is a crucial one in who will determine our future.
Rebecca Hagelin is a vice president of The Heritage Foundation, a Townhall.com member group.
Same old shit from a tired old system that again is floundering in muck, why even debate this issue at this point in time dont we have more pressing concerns like finding Bin Laden and solving the quagmire in Iraq? Both Dems and Reps get black eyes on this one, it's a waste of tax payers monies and again this is propaganda uses to polarize the country. Personally, I could give a shit if they allow gay's to have a civil union and all these people screaming about how sacred marriage why dont they invest the time in figuring out why this holy vow is failing at around a 50% clip in marriages that fail? If the system is so sacred why is failing so badly? If you allow the constitution to be changed over this issue then you are setting a trend to allow the constitution to be changed against other races, groups etc..and the next time it could be you or me singled out because we are Irish, French, etc instead of just the queer as folk folks!
You seriously have to be joking, rite?!!
You don't know of any marriages of 'one man and one woman' that didn't work out?? That were wrong?
Values of society?? huh? The difference b/w a man who marries another man for love, and a desperate man who marries a fat/ugly/dumb chick, is what exactly???
As for the 'successful nations' building on marriage!!..You might want to go and check the stats for marriage in our 'successful nations', and compare them with 'backward' nations that rely on arranged marriages to move on.
Might be interesting for you to find what the comparative divorce/seperation rates are.
You gunna tell me that 'every man and every woman' that gets married are in 'love'!!??
Have to totally agree with the original theme of the thread, in that there are a million more important things to debate than this.....Last thing we need is a president (and yes, it's the same here!!) that is living in the 1940's.
MrChristo said:I just have to love the fact that Mr. Bush is planning on changing the constitution to make sure that gay marriages won't 'ever' be legal.
Another fine example from the "Leader of the FREE world"!!
I'm not for any constitutional ammendment, but denying gay marriages at least will stop the endless domination and forced implementation of private agendas brought on by small groups the by way of ridiculous lobbying.
FREEdom is not synonymous with libertinism. How often we choose to confuse those two topics as long as they appear conveninent to us. Also, not everything that might "feel good" for one is necesarilly "legal" material. Many lawyers have been making a field day based on that "politically correct" view. The morality of homosexuality is not even a discusision point, the only discussion is the right or not to for any individual to consumate a legal contract, in this case Marriage.
In this country laws have extreme repercussions, from setting important precedents to changing people's legal status which can have enormous effects on anyone's civil and financial situation. Perhaps in your "village" laws come and go, but in this country, for good or bad, laws wield utmost power and personal interpretation of the law are a most powerful tool.
Democracy = Majority rule (through representatives). And majority does not mean whatever opinion people have today or just last week or what is fashionable lately.
Here's what I dont get other than the voter's how are the folks in the House and Senate graded for job performance? Is their actually a third party organization that has some type of scorecard to tally just how each person is doing or do we just have to rely on our own gut insticts? Where I live we have a Republican Ralph Regula whom has been our represetative for as long as I have been alive and in the past 6 months the surrounding counties that he represents have lost nearly 7500 jobs as Timkens, Hoover Company and Rubber Maid all have closed their doors or had permanant lay offs. What I dont understand is why we seem to have no comment from this guy as to what the hell he plans to do but yet the local fish wrap has a front page story of him and his wife rehabbing some old building in a ghetto to become the First Ladies of Presidents Museum! Hell I voted for the guy but I am really disappointed that he has had no response as to what he plans to do and was wondering if there is some agency or third party that monitors these guys?
MC, it's not just one rep that causes all those economic problems, it's all the dorks in Washington.
I agree with some of your posts on how some aspects of our system of gov't have to be changed.
The one thing that pisses me off more than anything is the federal gov has become an elitist class unto itself. It doesn't matter Repub or Dem or Indepent these elected officials have set themselves apart and above every other citizen in this country. I can guarantee our Forefathers did not have this in mind when they envisioned a representative gov. They did so under the ideas of what is in the Constitution, all men are created equal and the elected officials to the Fed Gov are not equal to all other citizens in the country.
Better healthcare, better pension plans, career in politics that is paid very well with expenses and all these perks voted on by themselves for themselves.
These people get to Wash and they become a class unto themselves and so far apart from the regular guy that it is immoral. They do not live under the same laws we do and they definitely vote themselves much better perks and security.
It is a travesty and needs to be changed or nothing will ever get done to truly be better for the American people. :soapbox:
I agree with some of your posts on how some aspects of our system of gov't have to be changed.
The one thing that pisses me off more than anything is the federal gov has become an elitist class unto itself. It doesn't matter Repub or Dem or Indepent these elected officials have set themselves apart and above every other citizen in this country. I can guarantee our Forefathers did not have this in mind when they envisioned a representative gov. They did so under the ideas of what is in the Constitution, all men are created equal and the elected officials to the Fed Gov are not equal to all other citizens in the country.
Better healthcare, better pension plans, career in politics that is paid very well with expenses and all these perks voted on by themselves for themselves.
These people get to Wash and they become a class unto themselves and so far apart from the regular guy that it is immoral. They do not live under the same laws we do and they definitely vote themselves much better perks and security.
It is a travesty and needs to be changed or nothing will ever get done to truly be better for the American people. :soapbox:
Ctownguy,
Thats exactly my point this government has become spoiled by the perks that it enjoys and the american people have been the one's holding the bag! There is no way our forefathers ever dreamed that the constitution that they penned would be trampled on by a select few of the elitist and used against the have nots! There has to be some kind of watch dog group that monitors these guys and there actions, I want to know is there any guy Rep, Dem or Ind that got elected that was an average Joe in the past 15 years? McCain seems like he is a guy that is down to earth but was he wealthy before he was elected? These guys need to be held accountable for this bitter partisian that has polarized our country and while I dont care for Bush the Dem's are wrong in blaming him solely!
Thats exactly my point this government has become spoiled by the perks that it enjoys and the american people have been the one's holding the bag! There is no way our forefathers ever dreamed that the constitution that they penned would be trampled on by a select few of the elitist and used against the have nots! There has to be some kind of watch dog group that monitors these guys and there actions, I want to know is there any guy Rep, Dem or Ind that got elected that was an average Joe in the past 15 years? McCain seems like he is a guy that is down to earth but was he wealthy before he was elected? These guys need to be held accountable for this bitter partisian that has polarized our country and while I dont care for Bush the Dem's are wrong in blaming him solely!
CTG and I don't agree much but we do here. MC you and I to. One way to send a message to these cats in DC. Give them term limits. No one serves any longer then we let the President 8 years. Folks say you do that no one will run for office. As we say here at MJ's, you want to bet. The only find tuning I would do is 2 terms for the Senate. No more of this 20 To 35 years stuff. Look at some these guys hanging on into there 80's and not even in there right mind anymore.
As for bennies. All we should ask for is what they give them selfs. I think we all deserve that.
As for bennies. All we should ask for is what they give them selfs. I think we all deserve that.
bjfinste said:
That's a big problem w/ this issue... marriage is a religious institution that has been adopted and governed legally. Marriage in the religious sense has been around way longer then it has existed legally. There will be some legal issues for churches, etc. because people will be offended by any refusal of them to wed there, but the bottom line is that the churches can't and won't be penalized because of their respective beliefs... any attempt to do this legally would violate the 1st amendment
CTown Guy is on the money with his assessment of the bumbling fools in both houses. Whether they are Dems or Repubs, they are very different than the rest of us. On one hand, the fact that they are far better educated than the populace as a whole is probably a good thing. On the other hand, they consist of a highly disproportionate number of lawyers, and that probably is a bad thing. Regardless, they pay nothing into a pension plan but reap unheard of riches for relatively little in terms of years of service. The perks are incredible and if not coming in, a huge percentage are millionaires on their way out. Few bear any resemblance to you or to me -- and therein lies the problem. Like Bush, like Kerry - our rulers have become almost unto a class of their own.
I am not for amendment either and would not be necessary if they followed Edwards beloved constitution he says he follows he dwells on.
I believe it starts out "We the People" the problem is liberal judges-lawyers-ACLU find ways to inplement laws against the will of "We The People"
How do you think We the People and our founding fathers would vote on
Gay marriages-promtoting child porn sites-kicking boys scout out of San Diego parks but allowing gays in-Pledge of allegence-In God we trust.
All these were initiated despite will of "We the people"
--and remember when you vote that the groups agenda that intiates this BS will grow stronger with 1-2 punch liberal/attorney ticket.
While the vote defeat did not make they say the fight is not over--Certainly will solidify the gay vote for Dems again--but maybe some will like the reb approach of trying to slam bill down their throats 1st time around and in the back door later
I believe it starts out "We the People" the problem is liberal judges-lawyers-ACLU find ways to inplement laws against the will of "We The People"
How do you think We the People and our founding fathers would vote on
Gay marriages-promtoting child porn sites-kicking boys scout out of San Diego parks but allowing gays in-Pledge of allegence-In God we trust.
All these were initiated despite will of "We the people"
--and remember when you vote that the groups agenda that intiates this BS will grow stronger with 1-2 punch liberal/attorney ticket.
While the vote defeat did not make they say the fight is not over--Certainly will solidify the gay vote for Dems again--but maybe some will like the reb approach of trying to slam bill down their throats 1st time around and in the back door later
Last edited:
You know something. I'm kinda leaning to supporting Dogs That Bark as this forums resident psycho. The good Doctor has been relatively quite lately. Dogs continues to create posts with out and out lies in them. In my view, the race for biggest liar is getting close.
One other thing, you joke about my respect for the Constitution. It is obvious you have none for that document as you insist on placing your will and your view on what is right above all. The irony flag waver is that the groups you and that other nazi Ferdville despise are the ones that protect the principles of that document.
In addition, individuals who condemn lawyers as you and Ferdville do demonstrate ignorance by making such statements. But then again the continuous manner in which your post non-answers to my posts indicate you missed your calling as an insurance agent and rather should have sought employment with Carl Rove.
Where is the link to the servicemen who served with Kerry spindoctor. I didn't think so.
Eddie
Eddie
One other thing, you joke about my respect for the Constitution. It is obvious you have none for that document as you insist on placing your will and your view on what is right above all. The irony flag waver is that the groups you and that other nazi Ferdville despise are the ones that protect the principles of that document.
In addition, individuals who condemn lawyers as you and Ferdville do demonstrate ignorance by making such statements. But then again the continuous manner in which your post non-answers to my posts indicate you missed your calling as an insurance agent and rather should have sought employment with Carl Rove.
Where is the link to the servicemen who served with Kerry spindoctor. I didn't think so.
Eddie
Eddie
Last edited:
