Same-Sex Marriage

[FreakyLocz14]

I personally have no objection to allowing individual states to legalize same-sex marriage without laws like DOMA trying to set a federal definition of marriage. In order to ensure that we have a small, limited, constitutional government that respects our liberty, we need to keep government regulation out of our personal relationships.

 

[Komodo Rogue]

I personally have no objection to allowing individual states to legalize same-sex marriage without laws like DOMA trying to set a federal definition of marriage. In order to ensure that we have a small, limited, constitutional government that respects our liberty, we need to keep government regulation out of our personal relationships.

Yeah, I agree with you and your level-headed, sensible idea. After all, people are not going to agree any time soon, and the federal government has no business dictating these matters to the state (unless the judiciary, NOT legislative or executive, rules that state laws banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional).

I wonder why such a sensible approach hasn't been adopted by politicians around the country?

The same reason abortion, flag burning, issues involving separation of church and state, immigration, and other contentious issues that have been around for decades still haven't been given a sensible compromise:

Because Democrats and Republicans are the only players in the game, and stupid non-issues like same-sex marriage is one of many terrible side-effects of having a two-party system. In this case, the issue isn't likely to be resolved any time soon because Democrats and Republicans always need tons of money and conflict over same sex marriage is a HUGE source of political donations to both parties.

If someone running for political office said "If I win, I'm going to introduce a bill that will make it legal to whip homosexuals" or "If I win, I'm going to introduce a bill requiring all homophobes to [edited out] every Tuesday," then the political candidate would surely have money pouring in from private donors.

Not only can the media make a huge stir over this and get even more people involved and donating and arguing with their fellow americans, but it has an added bonus of distracting us from debating more important issues like the federal budget, the federal reserve, international policy, etc.

Sorry for taking your post kind of off topic, but that is the answer to your question, at least from my understanding. Neither the blue team nor red team stand to benefit from these trivial issues reaching a resolution, and they are both incredibly aware of it.

I suggest these two movies. The first is a short, cute video that explains in simple language why the two-party system is bad news, and the second is a long, boring documentary that is somewhat sensationalist but nevertheless informative and makes you look at political affairs much differently. WARNING: second video may make you feel cynical and hopeless to change things - but remember the first video, and spread the word on the alternative vote

 

[RiverOfIce]

Wow something we are actually going to agree on. But unfortunately, equality is not in the realms of the states, constitutionally, it is the responsibility of the federal government.

Being with the preamble of the constitutions we see why it is written which fall directly in the path of equality and same sex marriage.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The bolds point out the problem with states setting up laws the directly effect the tranquility, welfare, and liberty of the people of the united states.
The preamble alone directly states that the constitution was created, and the federal government, to create a justice system to insure tranquility, general welfare, and liberty for the people. If the state sets up a law that interferes with the welfare, liberty and tranquility of the people of the united states, the constitution was created to over ride that law creating peace between the states. The whole point of this document was for that purpose.

The bill of rights, is those over riding features of the constitution that was created to force the states to change the laws to make a better union. The bill of rights was created a different document, attached but separate from the constitution, so that it could be updated and changed to create a better system.

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.

Amendment 10 is very clear that the constitution was created to make sure that states are limited by federal powers. These powers are directly related to tranquility, freedoms, liberties, and general welfare of the people.

After the original ten, and minus the 25th, 22nd, and 20th amendments directly relate to how states are allow to treat their citizens.

For example, the 14th amendment is written to forbid discrimination of any citizen in any given state, regardless of the laws of that state. LGBT are being discriminated in almost every state, maybe not to the extent in which the 15th amendment was written, but they are being discriminated against.

In fact, reading strictly from the constitution amendment 14, and I quote

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Marriage is a legal contract in the united states, not religious one. You can get married in the united states with out ever, in your whole life, stepping a foot into a church. The legal contract of marriage offer liberties, laws regarding property, privileges and immunities, and protections of laws, that can not be gained unless marriage is allowed.

Since denying a person the right to marriage, you are denying him/her the right to privileges, (ie hospital visits, filing joint taxes, ect). By denying liberty, you can not get married, is a direct limitation to a persons liberty, they are not free to do as they choose. Marriage dissolves the lines of property to an extent greater then all contracts, even prenuptials. In the united states, wifes and husbands can not be force to testify against each other, by denying LGBT the right to marry, you are deny thing the full protection of law. In every word of the 14th amendment you are violating the sprint, the ideals, and written word of the constitution and bill of rights by allowing states to deny same sex marriage.

Same sex marriage is not about religion. In fact, I would love it if religion would stay out of it. It is about a legal contract between two adult humans and the federal, state, and private companies. Liberty can not have a moral exception to it. You can not say, you can marry anyone you want, except if they are black, jewish, gay, blue eyed, or irsh. But besides all that you are allowed to marry who you want.

Same sex marriage is about a contract. A liberty to enter into a contract is being denied and is in violation of the 14th amendment of the constitution of the united states.

If you truly support the constitution of the united states, you have to fully support the right for everyone that is of sound mind and age to enter into a contract with anyone for any reason which is legal under federal law. You can not have a state deny that right to enter into a contract for purely religious reason, because that would violate the founding principles of the document that was created as the bed rock of our society, (and the 10th amendment).

 

[Vihzel]

In my opinion, it is inevitable that gay marriage will be legalized across the entire US through the Supreme Court as many other civil rights issues have been dealt with in the same manner. I forgot who said it but one of the top leaders in the fight against legalizing gay marriage admitted a couple weeks ago that it was a "losing battle".

Like the civil rights battles of women and African Americans... I believe this will be seen as the same way in history. Time is on the side of gay marriage advocates as acceptance of gay marriage is much higher amongst younger individuals.

For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage

If history is bound to repeat itself, the group fighting for civil rights will ultimately win. Like I told my brother who was so disappointed when Prop 8 passed (which is now unconstitutional by a CA Supreme Court judge)... "Time is on our side. This fight is only in its beginning. We will win. It may be 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 20, or even 50 years. Look at how long it took for women to be able to vote and African Americans to receive their civil rights."

Example on interracial marriage by Gallup:

For 25 years, majority of Americans disapproved since the first Gallop poll.

 

[Dark Jedi]

I say if they want to get married more power to them. It affects me in no way. Nothing says it has to be between a man and a woman. I will say the gay marriages will pass sooner than the legalize mj.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

I think any couple - gay or straight - has the right to be miserable ... oops, i mean married.

 

[Wei55zach]

What about marriage between man and dog, woman and horse??????

 

[Trevorr722]

What about marriage between man and dog, woman and horse??????

As to those examples, horses and dogs are not citizens of the United States and are not protected by the constitution.

 

[TheBrit]

What about marriage between man and dog, woman and horse??????

I think you might be in the wrong forum...

 

[Trevorr722]

I myself am a huge supporterof equal rights and same sex marriage. The federal constitution, in its ownn words states the the federal government cannot constitutionall make laws regarding same sex mariage or marriage of any kind. It is not a power granted to federal government or denied to the states.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Wow something we are actually going to agree on. But unfortunately, equality is not in the realms of the states, constitutionally, it is the responsibility of the federal government.

Being with the preamble of the constitutions we see why it is written which fall directly in the path of equality and same sex marriage.



The bolds point out the problem with states setting up laws the directly effect the tranquility, welfare, and liberty of the people of the united states.
The preamble alone directly states that the constitution was created, and the federal government, to create a justice system to insure tranquility, general welfare, and liberty for the people. If the state sets up a law that interferes with the welfare, liberty and tranquility of the people of the united states, the constitution was created to over ride that law creating peace between the states. The whole point of this document was for that purpose.

The bill of rights, is those over riding features of the constitution that was created to force the states to change the laws to make a better union. The bill of rights was created a different document, attached but separate from the constitution, so that it could be updated and changed to create a better system.



Amendment 10 is very clear that the constitution was created to make sure that states are limited by federal powers. These powers are directly related to tranquility, freedoms, liberties, and general welfare of the people.

After the original ten, and minus the 25th, 22nd, and 20th amendments directly relate to how states are allow to treat their citizens.

For example, the 14th amendment is written to forbid discrimination of any citizen in any given state, regardless of the laws of that state. LGBT are being discriminated in almost every state, maybe not to the extent in which the 15th amendment was written, but they are being discriminated against.

In fact, reading strictly from the constitution amendment 14, and I quote

Marriage is a legal contract in the united states, not religious one. You can get married in the united states with out ever, in your whole life, stepping a foot into a church. The legal contract of marriage offer liberties, laws regarding property, privileges and immunities, and protections of laws, that can not be gained unless marriage is allowed.

Since denying a person the right to marriage, you are denying him/her the right to privileges, (ie hospital visits, filing joint taxes, ect). By denying liberty, you can not get married, is a direct limitation to a persons liberty, they are not free to do as they choose. Marriage dissolves the lines of property to an extent greater then all contracts, even prenuptials. In the united states, wifes and husbands can not be force to testify against each other, by denying LGBT the right to marry, you are deny thing the full protection of law. In every word of the 14th amendment you are violating the sprint, the ideals, and written word of the constitution and bill of rights by allowing states to deny same sex marriage.

Same sex marriage is not about religion. In fact, I would love it if religion would stay out of it. It is about a legal contract between two adult humans and the federal, state, and private companies. Liberty can not have a moral exception to it. You can not say, you can marry anyone you want, except if they are black, jewish, gay, blue eyed, or irsh. But besides all that you are allowed to marry who you want.

Same sex marriage is about a contract. A liberty to enter into a contract is being denied and is in violation of the 14th amendment of the constitution of the united states.

If you truly support the constitution of the united states, you have to fully support the right for everyone that is of sound mind and age to enter into a contract with anyone for any reason which is legal under federal law. You can not have a state deny that right to enter into a contract for purely religious reason, because that would violate the founding principles of the document that was created as the bed rock of our society, (and the 10th amendment).

If the only issue here is the ability to enter into a contract that grants all of the same rights and privileges as marriage, than most states already do this under either a civil union or a domestic partnership law. Marriage is a function of the states, not the federal government. I don't recall my aunt being married "by the power vested in me by the United States of America", rather, the priest married her "by the power vested in me by the State of California".

 

[RiverOfIce]

I myself am a huge supporterof equal rights and same sex marriage. The federal constitution, in its ownn words states the the federal government cannot constitutionall make laws regarding same sex mariage or marriage of any kind. It is not a power granted to federal government or denied to the states.

Where? Please copy and paste where the constitution states that!

If the only issue here is the ability to enter into a contract that grants all of the same rights and privileges as marriage, than most states already do this under either a civil union or a domestic partnership law. Marriage is a function of the states, not the federal government. I don't recall my aunt being married "by the power vested in me by the United States of America", rather, the priest married her "by the power vested in me by the State of California".

No, no they do not. Most states not only do not have a contract that allows marriage to same sex couples, but a few have laws that directly forbid it. That is a contract between two people, united states as a whole, and the federal government.

Once again, marriage is a federal recognized contract, regardless where you get married, that contract is carried with you from state to state. If what you are saying is true, every state you moved, you would be officially unmarried once you enter that state. Do not confuse the right to marry as being the same thing as the right to discriminate. Once a straight couple is married, they are equally married in all the jurisdictions of the united states. Any federal law written to for married couples, they are protected under.

Civial unions can not be entered into by same sex couples in 47 states. Domestic partnerships are only allowed with in a state to simplify legal standings in which kids or property is being disputed and only allowed with straight couples. LGBT are not protected by civil unions and domestic partnerships in 47 states. The problem with both of them is they can be regulated outside of the normal perception of the citizen. When you create a different category that can be changed at the will of the majority of the population, you are creating a second class citizen. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are not usually entered into willingly, but as a mean of simply domestic laws.

The constitution is very clear on this point, the state does not have the right to discriminate against something that is seen as a vital and normal part of civilian life.

And priest has nothing too do with legal marriage. You never have to see a priest once to get married, and you never have to see a priest to get a divorce. If you choose to see a priest to get married, he can ceremoniously marry you but until you sign the contract and file it with the state, you are not legally married.

You can see a priest, sign the marriage license, and tear it up and you are still not married. But if you see a judge, sign the marriage license, and file it, you are legally married.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Where? Please copy and paste where the constitution states that!


No, no they do not. Most states not only do not have a contract that allows marriage to same sex couples, but a few have laws that directly forbid it. That is a contract between two people, united states as a whole, and the federal government.

Once again, marriage is a federal recognized contract, regardless where you get married, that contract is carried with you from state to state. If what you are saying is true, every state you moved, you would be officially unmarried once you enter that state. Do not confuse the right to marry as being the same thing as the right to discriminate. Once a straight couple is married, they are equally married in all the jurisdictions of the united states. Any federal law written to for married couples, they are protected under.

Civial unions can not be entered into by same sex couples in 47 states. Domestic partnerships are only allowed with in a state to simplify legal standings in which kids or property is being disputed and only allowed with straight couples. LGBT are not protected by civil unions and domestic partnerships in 47 states. The problem with both of them is they can be regulated outside of the normal perception of the citizen. When you create a different category that can be changed at the will of the majority of the population, you are creating a second class citizen. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are not usually entered into willingly, but as a mean of simply domestic laws.

The constitution is very clear on this point, the state does not have the right to discriminate against something that is seen as a vital and normal part of civilian life.

And priest has nothing too do with legal marriage. You never have to see a priest once to get married, and you never have to see a priest to get a divorce. If you choose to see a priest to get married, he can ceremoniously marry you but until you sign the contract and file it with the state, you are not legally married.

You can see a priest, sign the marriage license, and tear it up and you are still not married. But if you see a judge, sign the marriage license, and file it, you are legally married.

Whether it be a priest or a judge who performs the marriage ceremony they are still doing it under the authority of the state they are in and not under the authority of the federal government.

California's domestic partnership law is identical to civil marriage in the rights and responsibilities it bestows upon the couple who enter into the partnership. I understand that not every state is like that, but even if all 50 states, DC, and all United States territories legalized same-sex marriage, those couples would still not be able to benefit from the federally recognized benefits of marriage until DOMA is repealed or declared unconstitutional. I am hoping that DOMA is done away with soon so the states can be the only ones that define what marriage is. If the federal government wants to provide tax benefits for married couples, that's fine. They don't have the right to define what marriage is, imo.

 

[RiverOfIce]

Whether it be a priest or a judge who performs the marriage ceremony they are still doing it under the authority of the state they are in and not under the authority of the federal government.

California's domestic partnership law is identical to civil marriage in the rights and responsibilities it bestows upon the couple who enter into the partnership. I understand that not every state is like that, but even if all 50 states, DC, and all United States territories legalized same-sex marriage, those couples would still not be able to benefit from the federally recognized benefits of marriage until DOMA is repealed or declared unconstitutional.

But you are still ignoring the fact that the federal government is part of that contract. The federal government basis the status of marriage for taxs, loans, and legal protections.

Because a state wants to discrimate against a population, the federal government can not stand by and watch.

If a stated wanted to start slavery again, under your ideals, that would be perfectly ok? Why?

Once you are married, you are married in they eyes of the state and federal government, now if you want to say that marriage is only defined with in a state and can not cross boarders or has any fuction with the federal government and all the laws with the the states, then I would agree with you.

But marriage offers privillages that can not be granted until the federal government steps in.

Let me give you a little example. Federal loans for school. If a 18 year old person decides to go to school. The federal, state, and local loans she can apply for is directly related to her/his marriage status. If they are married, the financial aid applied to them only counts against THEIR earned money, between the married couple. IF they are not married, the financial money counts against THEIR PARENTS earned money.

LGBT can not enter into marriage in most states. Not being able to marry will directly effect their abiality to enter college. Where as a straight person that has been disowned by a parents but married, could get full college aid. A LGBT couple would still need to have their parents income count against them even if they are disowned by those parents.

College aid is one of the many differences between Straight couple and LGBT.

Another example. Lets say your partner gets into a serous auto accident. A married couple has the legal right and authority, automatically, to make legal and medical decisions, in ANY state of the union over their marrage partner. For every LGBT, they have zero legal recourse in the same event. If a married LGBT couple from a state that offers legal LGBT marriage enters into a state that does not have those protections. The LGBT have zero legal authority over their life partner. In fact the hospitals are legally required to ignore anyone that does not have the proper legal papers.

Once again, a case where the federal government has to step in to assure liberty is available to its people.

Lastly, states do not have that right you are giving them. We fought a war over this very subject. The south was defeated and the north imposed the right to enforce governmental rule over the states in terms on how they treat their citizens. If you believe the south and the discrimination that it stands for is ok, then great.

No state has the right to discriminate against to own people, the 14th amendment and the reason we fought the civil war directly forbids that.

 

[Homan13PSU]

Wow something we are actually going to agree on. But unfortunately, equality is not in the realms of the states, constitutionally, it is the responsibility of the federal government.

Being with the preamble of the constitutions we see why it is written which fall directly in the path of equality and same sex marriage.

When an wedding officiant marry's someone they say "by the power vested in me, by the State of X", not "by the power vested in me by the United States."

Same sex marriages are solely issues left up to the individual states and not the Federal Government or Supreme Court to "legalize".

 

[FreakyLocz14]

But you are still ignoring the fact that the federal government is part of that contract. The federal government basis the status of marriage for taxs, loans, and legal protections.

Because a state wants to discrimate against a population, the federal government can not stand by and watch.

If a stated wanted to start slavery again, under your ideals, that would be perfectly ok? Why?

Once you are married, you are married in they eyes of the state and federal government, now if you want to say that marriage is only defined with in a state and can not cross boarders or has any fuction with the federal government and all the laws with the the states, then I would agree with you.

But marriage offers privillages that can not be granted until the federal government steps in.

Let me give you a little example. Federal loans for school. If a 18 year old person decides to go to school. The federal, state, and local loans she can apply for is directly related to her/his marriage status. If they are married, the financial aid applied to them only counts against THEIR earned money, between the married couple. IF they are not married, the financial money counts against THEIR PARENTS earned money.

LGBT can not enter into marriage in most states. Not being able to marry will directly effect their abiality to enter college. Where as a straight person that has been disowned by a parents but married, could get full college aid. A LGBT couple would still need to have their parents income count against them even if they are disowned by those parents.

College aid is one of the many differences between Straight couple and LGBT.

Another example. Lets say your partner gets into a serous auto accident. A married couple has the legal right and authority, automatically, to make legal and medical decisions, in ANY state of the union over their marrage partner. For every LGBT, they have zero legal recourse in the same event. If a married LGBT couple from a state that offers legal LGBT marriage enters into a state that does not have those protections. The LGBT have zero legal authority over their life partner. In fact the hospitals are legally required to ignore anyone that does not have the proper legal papers.

Once again, a case where the federal government has to step in to assure liberty is available to its people.

Lastly, states do not have that right you are giving them. We fought a war over this very subject. The south was defeated and the north imposed the right to enforce governmental rule over the states in terms on how they treat their citizens. If you believe the south and the discrimination that it stands for is ok, then great.

No state has the right to discriminate against to own people, the 14th amendment and the reason we fought the civil war directly forbids that.

The government can actually discriminate, to an extent. The government is not barred from all discrimination. In order to discriminate against LGBT people, the government's discriminatory action must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

 

[RiverOfIce]

When an wedding officiant marry's someone they say "by the power vested in me, by the State of X", not "by the power vested in me by the United States."

Same sex marriages are solely issues left up to the individual states and not the Federal Government or Supreme Court to "legalize".

Please read the whole thread before you state something that has been talked about to death.

The government can actually discriminate, to an extent. The government is not barred from all discrimination. In order to discriminate against LGBT people, the government's discriminatory action must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

But that extent is already established in the court of law. The federal government can not discriminate against established law. Marriage between two adults of sound mind is already legal in all 50 states, but the government has decided to place a moral penalty on it. As it was already posted the government banned states from denying interracial marriage because it was basis on moral opinion.

Once again, the state laws are limited to with in the state boarders. Once the contract leaves the states it is a matter of the federal government to enforce that contract. Once the federal government accepts that contract as law, it becomes a federal matter. Under your opinion, marriage should only apply to the state in which they where married in, which means that a person could get married in every state to a different person and be 100% legal. Under that idea, the federal nor any other state should not validate marriage outside of its boarders. Does that make any sense you?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

But that extent is already established in the court of law. The federal government can not discriminate against established law. Marriage between two adults of sound mind is already legal in all 50 states, but the government has decided to place a moral penalty on it. As it was already posted the government banned states from denying interracial marriage because it was basis on moral opinion.

Once again, the state laws are limited to with in the state boarders. Once the contract leaves the states it is a matter of the federal government to enforce that contract. Once the federal government accepts that contract as law, it becomes a federal matter. Under your opinion, marriage should only apply to the state in which they where married in, which means that a person could get married in every state to a different person and be 100% legal. Under that idea, the federal nor any other state should not validate marriage outside of its boarders. Does that make any sense you?

First, can you please stop comparing same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. It is insulting to African-Americans.

The Supreme Court's reasoning for banning interracial marriage was because the state governments could not demonstrate a compelling government interest in having such a ban, and that the ban is narrowly tailored and is the least restrictive means necessary on the rights of those wishing to get an interracial marriage in advancing whatever interest they claimed.

We really don't have any Supreme Court cases on same-sex marriage to look at for precedent, so only time will tell whether reasons like the possibility of homosexuality being forced upon school children, churches possibly being sued for denying to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, and churches possibly losing their tax-exempt status is a legitimate government interest and if limiting civil marriage to heterosexual couples is rationally related to advancing that interest.

 

[Dark Jedi]

First, can you please stop comparing same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. It is insulting to African-Americans.

The Supreme Court's reasoning for banning interracial marriage was because the state governments could not demonstrate a compelling government interest in having such a ban, and that the ban is narrowly tailored and is the least restrictive means necessary on the rights of those wishing to get an interracial marriage in advancing whatever interest they claimed.

We really don't have any Supreme Court cases on same-sex marriage to look at for precedent, so only time will tell whether reasons like the possibility of homosexuality being forced upon school children, churches possibly being sued for denying to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, and churches possibly losing their tax-exempt status is a legitimate government interest and if limiting civil marriage to heterosexual couples is rationally related to advancing that interest.

Ummm who says for it to be an interracial marriage the one party has to be african american? Your comment is insulting to every ethnic group.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Ummm who says for it to be an interracial marriage the one party has to be african american? Your comment is insulting to every ethnic group.

It is no secret that antmiscegenation laws were put in place as a part of the Jim Crow South's attack on the liberties of its African-American citizens.

Regarding my earlier claim that comparisons of black civil rights to the LGBT movement are offensive, apparently many blacks (at least in California) are offended by such comparisons.
70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds - latimes.com

 

[Dark Jedi]

It is no secret that antmiscegenation laws were put in place as a part of the Jim Crow South's attack on the liberties of its African-American citizens.

Regarding my earlier claim that comparisons of black civil rights to the LGBT movement are offensive, apparently many blacks (at least in California) are offended by such comparisons.
70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds - latimes.com

An interracial marriage is not only A Caucasian and an African American. As I said again your comment is insulting to all ethnic groups.

 

[RiverOfIce]

First, can you please stop comparing same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. It is insulting to African-Americans.

The Supreme Court's reasoning for banning interracial marriage was because the state governments could not demonstrate a compelling government interest in having such a ban, and that the ban is narrowly tailored and is the least restrictive means necessary on the rights of those wishing to get an interracial marriage in advancing whatever interest they claimed.

We really don't have any Supreme Court cases on same-sex marriage to look at for precedent, so only time will tell whether reasons like the possibility of homosexuality being forced upon school children, churches possibly being sued for denying to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, and churches possibly losing their tax-exempt status is a legitimate government interest and if limiting civil marriage to heterosexual couples is rationally related to advancing that interest.

Actually same-sex and interracial are the same subject, interracial marriage has been brought up in every legal finding against banning same sex marriage.

AS for your straw man arguments, they show you are down to mud slinging stead of facing the issues.

Now where in school do you learn what marriage is. They simply dont teach it. In fact, even in sex education, they do not cover what marriage is. The ANY church can deny marriage based on religion, and ZERO effect has happen to any church. If you walk into a non jewish church and demand a jewish wedding, they will just kick you out. There are churches today that forbid interracial marriages, and they still get everything every other church does.

Discrimination based on religion is illegal, but given the simple fact that churches are PRIVATE organizations and ARE NOT required for marriage makes them exempt from any possible imposing from the government.

Once again, homosexuality is a real thing. We can have a debate on teaching sexual education is school in a different thread. But we are NOT talking about a love between two people here. We ARE TALKING ABOUT a legal contract between two consenting adults, the 50 states of the union, and the federal government.

We are not talking about morals, religion, and private companies.

If you want to start another thread on that subject, then go ahead. But you will not use straw man tactics to get this thread off subject.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Actually same-sex and interracial are the same subject, interracial marriage has been brought up in every legal finding against banning same sex marriage.

AS for your straw man arguments, they show you are down to mud slinging stead of facing the issues.

Now where in school do you learn what marriage is. They simply dont teach it. In fact, even in sex education, they do not cover what marriage is. The ANY church can deny marriage based on religion, and ZERO effect has happen to any church. If you walk into a non jewish church and demand a jewish wedding, they will just kick you out. There are churches today that forbid interracial marriages, and they still get everything every other church does.

Discrimination based on religion is illegal, but given the simple fact that churches are PRIVATE organizations and ARE NOT required for marriage makes them exempt from any possible imposing from the government.

Once again, homosexuality is a real thing. We can have a debate on teaching sexual education is school in a different thread. But we are NOT talking about a love between two people here. We ARE TALKING ABOUT a legal contract between two consenting adults, the 50 states of the union, and the federal government.

We are not talking about morals, religion, and private companies.

If you want to start another thread on that subject, then go ahead. But you will not use straw man tactics to get this thread off subject.

My arguments are based on statutes and past decisions, so they are not straw man arguments.

California schools must teach about marriage. California Education Code section 51933 dictates that any school district that provides comprehensive sexual health education must teach

 

[Homan13PSU]

Please read the whole thread before you state something that has been talked about to death.

What, are you the arbiter on who can and can't participate in a conversation?

 

[Isthmus]

so based on what I'm reading in this thread it seems like everyone who has posted thus far (except for the guy wanting to marry his dog), seems to think that Gay marriage is an idea who's time has come. The argument seems to be about the appropriate mechanics of making it happen (state or federal intervention).

Does that sound about right?