- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Jack
- Thread starter Trampled Underfoot
- Start date
You not being passionate about it doesn't offend me.
Sorry that the tax issue has you down in the dumps. I hear Hedgehog had a brilliant idea that if gay marriage passes, to tax them heavily. That sounds like it may help your situation, if the people electing same sex marriage pay more, than surely your taxes can come down a little. Go run and sign Hedge's petition on that topic.
Good night! I'll check back tomorrow for you to point out all the times I've called people a bigot.
Sorry that my opinion doesn't meet with your approval....I don't see anything wrong with the public voting state by state on this.... I feel that the people have the right to voice their opinion on what should go on in their state....When it comes to my turn to vote I will vote pro-marriage for the gays & live with whatever the voter decides as I have in the past....
GW,
I don't know how the Court truly feels but there has to be a certain amount of discomfort that goes along with ruling on such a thing, especially when sitting SCJ Clarence Thomas' marriage was illegal when he was born. I also think other judges love this kind of stuff. An opportunity to leave a fingerprint on history, right or wrong, fits nicely on their plate.
Another issue I have is that I don't believe for a moment that most people don't have a problem with giving them federal benefits. Contrarily, I believe that is a major sticking point for many of those that oppose it.
There are polygamists in Utah and Pennsylvania right now.
Also, traditional marriage is not one woman one man. Maybe one wife at a time. I wonder which one of Newt Gingrich's wives was the "traditional" one. I hardly think we are at a point in our history where we can start spouting off about the sanctity of marriage when the last few generations have done everything they can to pervert and dilute it, but the "tradition" of marriage started with a club to the head too. Things change.
Also, I think you are confusing marriage and matrimony. Holy Matrimony is sanctified and performed by the churches.
The Federal Government is not going to nor can they force any church to observe and perform any marriage that violates their beliefs. They don't have the authority to do that.
Unfortunately, I hear this a lot though and it typically comes from people that either don't care, such as yourself, or people that either choose to or are naturally ignorant of the facts.
The worst part of it is that the bottom line in the entire argument is one simple question of does the Federal Government establish Homosexuals as less than a citizen by denying them nothing more than the same CIVIL rights to them as we allow to a Russian mail order bride that moves to the U.S. just in time to divorce her internet husband and remain in the U.S. and remarrying two or three more times.
Can you imagine how it must feel to know that a lesbian can be in a committed relationship for twenty years only to see her partner pass away. Two weeks later her deceased partner's siblings send a notice of eviction to her or sue her for settlement of their estate. Do you really feel that this country or any of the citizens within it, that includes all duly elected citizens presently sitting in Congress, have the right to discriminate and segregate anybody simply because of who they spend their nights with? That's my thing. I just don't think we need to re-address the whole 3/5's of a person again.
Yeah come to think of it a friend of mine lost her life partner to cancer, they did live together for over 20 years, house and other valuables in deceased name, Siblings told her to "get the fuck out." She was devastated and never realized or fathomed that happening.
Just a shame and a low down dirty move
pretty much disagree with a good bit of this(except for the last paragraph)...but i think i need to reiterate one thing.....i`m fine (as i`ve said multiple times in this discussion) with a contract,be it civil union or partnership between same gender couples... ...and i believe that a large majority of folks agree with this(based on my own anecdotal observation)...i`m also fine if gay marriage becomes law(it`s just not something i`m passionate about) .....i really don`t think that the majority of people in a liberal state like california pass prop 8 because they`re against gay`s having access to equal protections in regard to some sort of civil contract...we `ll have to disagree...
as far as the federal gov`t not being able to force any church to go against doctrine by forcing it to perform gay marriages,again i disagree...
if a church or religious institution refuses to marry a same sex couple after some sort of national legislation passes,how long before a lawsuit gets filed by someone or some group?...obviously not very long..it`s already happened......the litigation goes on and on and on.....back in the day,mormons were jailed,had their property seized and were denied the right to vote....for being polygamists... sounds crazy,but it`s history.......
http://godfatherpolitics.com/3231/c...go-against-beliefs-your-church-might-be-next/
filing numerous lawsuits against a religious organization(possibly endangering their tax exempt status) because they won`t tow the line isn`t all that far fetched..i know there isn`t much empathy in here for religion or religious organizations,but,like it or not, it`s a real issue that affects a shitpot load of people...
it`s just not as easy an issue as you`re representing...if doma gets struck down , the feds will be faced with the decision to recognize or not recognize different marriage standards from different states.....if it recognizes state definitions as written,that won`t jibe with the equal protections clause(citizens being treated differently for bennie and tax purposes etc)....
so say that the gov`t applies a national standard based on the broadest possible definition of marriage...that means that the voters of some states would have imposed their will on voters of other states where voters have decided differently (flying in the face of the 10th amendment)...more litigation to follow...(unless the supreme court figures out a way to render some sort on all-encompassing,totally unambiguous roe v wade type decision....don`t hold your breath on that one)...
didn`t mean to get too deep into the weeds,but,it`s just not a simple issue....
I would have done the same thing if I was her sibling, she was just her roommate :shrug:
I don't know, she was more than a room mate, they would of got married had they been able to. There must be a reason she didn't will it her to her lover, maybe she didn't want the kids to resent her in the grave. IDK, but I certainly would not of kicked her out. Harsh
- Mar 2, 2006
- 4,794
- 120
- 0
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Dude,
You are dead wrong on this. The U.S. Government cannot force any religious institution to recognize and perform any ceremony. Religious freedom is written into the constitution and that is not going to change. This is strictly about the issuance of a marriage license. That is it.
The government is not trying to identify marriage or matrimony or anything of that nature, it is already identified. What this is about is that the Federal government will recognize that the civil union, this is what you have to apply for a marriage license for, will be recognized by the fed and all the same rights and benefits afforded to those that are in a "gay" marriage as those that are in a soon to be divorced marriage. If you really look hard enough you will also see that the Fed restricts the requirement of one state to recognize a marriage from another state. State legislation can still be passed that restricts state benefits only.
Sorry GW but you are dead wrong on this particular issue. No way the Fed can make any church perform a ritual that it doesn't support.
Hope this helps,
FDC
Whatever Scott. No you wouldn't have because she would have kicked the hell out of you if you tried. A skinny crack whore stripper was able to mug you imagine what a heavy set bull dike would do to you.
There is a big difference in trying to be funny or stir the pot and just being plain ignorant. That was ignorant. If your sister were in a lesbian relationship for over twenty years you wouldn't have even known she died because you two wouldn't be talking. Ignorance isn't fucking funny dude.
Also Weasie,
That link is about an Administrative Law decision that is state not federal based. It was a Judges finding that the church was being discriminatory toward a lesbian couple for not providing them with a church wedding. That judge cannot force the church to do so, he cannot impose any criminal penalty. He also tried to remove it's tax exempt status which was appealed already and Governor Christie has already stated that he will veto any legislation that arises from it because the STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS PROHIBIT SUCH ACTIONS.
Dude,
Blogs don't always check all the facts. Just saying.
That link is about an Administrative Law decision that is state not federal based. It was a Judges finding that the church was being discriminatory toward a lesbian couple for not providing them with a church wedding. That judge cannot force the church to do so, he cannot impose any criminal penalty. He also tried to remove it's tax exempt status which was appealed already and Governor Christie has already stated that he will veto any legislation that arises from it because the STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS PROHIBIT SUCH ACTIONS.
Dude,
Blogs don't always check all the facts. Just saying.
If they just lived together for 20 years they could have just been good friends or roommates? :shrug: unless they presented themselves as husband and wife
