Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
RavenHawk

DOMA & Gay Marriage

57 posts in this topic

Before it comes out today, how much would anyone bet that the SC will basically punt? They will decide that it is not an area for the Federal Government and will put it in the hands of the states. And I think that would be the right call. It is not the Federal Government’s place to regulate social issues as long as each state respects rulings of the others, then Federal Government has no place dictating how people live their lives.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before it comes out today, how much would anyone bet that the SC will basically punt? They will decide that it is not an area for the Federal Government and will put it in the hands of the states. And I think that would be the right call. It is not the Federal Government's place to regulate social issues as long as each state respects rulings of the others, then Federal Government has no place dictating how people live their lives.

Hey! I've been wondering where you have been....

I agree with 'ya on that. It should not be up to the Federal Government, but the individual states themselves. The government has no right (according to the Constitution) to tell people how to live their lives....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey! I've been wondering where you have been....

I’m around. With my work, I’m lucky if I can focus on one thread at a time. I was off in the religion forum trying to seek honesty. As expected, I never got it.

I agree with 'ya on that. It should not be up to the Federal Government, but the individual states themselves. The government has no right (according to the Constitution) to tell people how to live their lives....

Correct but, where I think the Feds do have authority is if a gay couple get married in a state that allows gay marriage and then moves to a state that does not, then the feds should ensure that that couple can observe and enjoy their full rights. This is one area that the Fed can usurp the authority of the state but the state still holds the ban on gay marriage.

To prevent couples that live in a ban state from going to a allow state to get married, that state should respect the laws of the ban state and not allow the marriage.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm around. With my work, I'm lucky if I can focus on one thread at a time. I was off in the religion forum trying to seek honesty. As expected, I never got it.

Correct but, where I think the Feds do have authority is if a gay couple get married in a state that allows gay marriage and then moves to a state that does not, then the feds should ensure that that couple can observe and enjoy their full rights. This is one area that the Fed can usurp the authority of the state but the state still holds the ban on gay marriage.

To prevent couples that live in a ban state from going to a allow state to get married, that state should respect the laws of the ban state and not allow the marriage.

My sister in law, has a friend whose gay, and he put something on his Facebook, which said, "So cousins can marry in North Carolina, but gay's can't..." My mother in law, who was reading it, showed it to my father in law (who is from North Carolina) and he went, "Yeah, that's right!" lol

:)

You have to admit, it was pretty funny...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking news:

5 to 4 on both, DOMA is unConstitutional and gay marriage is legal in California. I can see new law suits against Obamacare on similar principles. Justice Roberts is turning out to be a brilliant mastermind.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good rulings today and I'm glad they split the way they did so we don't have to hear about the "evil conservatives who hate gays". Personally I think we've got a pretty good Court right now.

On the larger matter, I just wish government at all levels would get out of the marriage business all together. Marriage should be a religious construct. Government should simply recognize civil unions as legal relationships and stop at that. Anyone then wanting to get married can then do so - whether in front of a priest, rabbi, a Jedi Master, or Ingrid the Queen of the Forest Nymphs. Or, they can choose not to have to have an invisible dude or dudette in the sky give their relationship a big old thumbs up.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.”

Today it was determined that the Federal Government has the power to define the term marriage.

It now appears that all it takes is love.

If you love someone, you can marry them. period.

Its all about equal rights regardless of whether anyone else agrees with the morality of the union.

I would like to hear someone explain to me why Polygamy should be a felony in the USA when the SCOTUS has determined that "Love" is all that matters.

Where are their "equal rights".

For the record, i agree with Polygamy about as much as i do Homosexuality. I dont.

But would like to know how someone can support one but not the other.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.”

Today it was determined that the Federal Government has the power to define the term marriage.

It now appears that all it takes is love.

If you love someone, you can marry them. period.

Its all about equal rights regardless of whether anyone else agrees with the morality of the union.

I would like to hear someone explain to me why Polygamy should be a felony in the USA when the SCOTUS has determined that "Love" is all that matters.

Where are their "equal rights".

For the record, i agree with Polygamy about as much as i do Homosexuality. I dont.

But would like to know how someone can support one but not the other.

For hetrosexuals, your opinion on the 'morality' of the union doesn't matter. A 20 year old woman can marry a 90 year old man and vice versa and your opinion on the union (or any other form) would not matter one bit. A straight couple can marry for love and it's not bit of difference what you think about it. You can't force them not to marry. So why should a gay couple marriying be subject to your morality? Why is love a good enough reason for straight people but for gay people it's somehow not enough?

Laws also have a habit of changing. It wasn't too long ago that people were decrying interacial marriage as being immoral. We grew out of that when the law was overturned.

I really wish people would stop bringing polygamy up though, that's a seperate issue that will be dealt with seperately.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.”

Today it was determined that the Federal Government has the power to define the term marriage.

It now appears that all it takes is love.

If you love someone, you can marry them. period.

Its all about equal rights regardless of whether anyone else agrees with the morality of the union.

I would like to hear someone explain to me why Polygamy should be a felony in the USA when the SCOTUS has determined that "Love" is all that matters.

Where are their "equal rights".

For the record, i agree with Polygamy about as much as i do Homosexuality. I dont.

But would like to know how someone can support one but not the other.

Capt. Amerika, this is supposed to be a free nation, but it isn't because of bigots. If someone isn't bothering you, then mind your own business.

For the record, I don't think any government should be involved in any marriage or union between people. I don't think the government or others should even feel they have the right to tell someone they can't do something because of their 'moral standards'.... If someone isn't hurting anyone else, don't worry about it.

With that said, I think your name and views are ironic when referencing the ideals of America, but spot on when referencing this overreaching government. If two dudes want to make out with each other and get married in their church, cult, boys club, etc, then so be it. If some farmer finds his sheep attractive, so be it. If 7 people all want to get married together in their little club, who are you to take your own 'moral high ground' and think you can stop it?

I just wish all bigots were out in the public like the Westboro Baptists, so I could snap a few pictures, and 50 years down the road, that same picture would be displayed for the hateful (and losing) side of these current civil rights issues.

Hope that defeat today to your side tastes really bitter for a long time.

Edited by Daughter of the Nine Moons
5a. Personal attacks: Attack the point being presented, not the person who is making it.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many on who lean heavily to the right in here is against gay marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or marry a cow, let them....

I know a few guys who've done that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a few guys who've done that.

:w00t: LMAO....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing missing though is *consenting adults* so it’s not just about love. Marriage *IS* a contract. And I don’t object to polygamy but I think it should be common sense that determines how far it goes. Why not have one woman and two men married? Perhaps the wealthier you are, the more spouses you can maintain (it’s good to be the king). But 1 man and 12 women or 5 men and 9 women? Really?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only if the cow can give an intelligible verbal or written consent and is over 18.

I know this is a joke, but unfortunately some people really use this as a bullet point.

My retort to those people: A farmer having relations with his livestock is by far more humane than the process of slaughter. Also to note, the cow is by far bigger than the farmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, as someone who is right leaning, this is a blow for the freedoms the US proudly proclaims to be built upon.

Now the only rule is "do both parties consent?", which is good and what the rule of a free nation should be - it's protecting that sanctity of that choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. There is so much hatred and vitriol in this post. I pray for your soul...

Thanks... The more breath and time you waste praying for me, the less time you have to restrict someone else's civil liberties.

IMO, as someone who is right leaning, this is a blow for the freedoms the US proudly proclaims to be built upon.

Now the only rule is "do both parties consent?", which is good and what the rule of a free nation should be - it's protecting that sanctity of that choice.

So let me clear this up... This is a blow to freedoms because we didn't ban something? Makes sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me clear this up... This is a blow to freedoms because we didn't ban something? Makes sense...

It's less the "didn't ban" that's the blow for freedom, but what they didn't ban. It's a massively contentious issue, it's one of those issues that will define a generation or more of people (see also: sufferage and civil rights).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's less the "didn't ban" that's the blow for freedom, but what they didn't ban. It's a massively contentious issue, it's one of those issues that will define a generation or more of people (see also: sufferage and civil rights).

Still confused by what you're communicating, you're sounding redundant.

I saw this as a huge gain in freedom, freedom from the religious bigots that are still prevalent in our societies. Freedom from a dogma that was developed over 1700 years ago (one that the people who try and uphold know little about).

Just because a prejudice is backed by a mainstream religion, doesn't make it less prejudice. Just because a bigot has a mainstream religion behind him, doesn't make him less of a bigot.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's less the "didn't ban" that's the blow for freedom, but what they didn't ban. It's a massively contentious issue, it's one of those issues that will define a generation or more of people (see also: sufferage and civil rights).

What do you mean? Curious to see where your going with this. Mind you, I'm not as "on top of it" as you are. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

race+mixing+gay+marriage+protest.jpg

Is this the company people want to be a part of? I'm the one that was called hateful :-*

Edited by green_dude777
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Capt. Amerika, this is supposed to be a free nation, but it isn't because of bigots. If someone isn't bothering you, then mind your own business.

For the record, I don't think any government should be involved in any marriage or union between people. I don't think the government or others should even feel they have the right to tell someone they can't do something because of their 'moral standards'.... If someone isn't hurting anyone else, don't worry about it.

With that said, I think your name and views are ironic when referencing the ideals of America, but spot on when referencing this overreaching government. If two dudes want to make out with each other and get married in their church, cult, boys club, etc, then so be it. If some farmer finds his sheep attractive, so be it. If 7 people all want to get married together in their little club, who are you to take your own 'moral high ground' and think you can stop it?

I just wish all bigots were out in the public like the Westboro Baptists, so I could snap a few pictures, and 50 years down the road, that same picture would be displayed for the hateful (and losing) side of these current civil rights issues.

Hope that defeat today to your side tastes really bitter for a long time.

Nice rant, but I think you missed the point of his post, he was just asking why trumpeting gay marriage is held as moral but the same people might consider polygamy immoral. Whether his questioning is legitimate or not is another question in and of itself. Personally from what I can tell the same people who fight against gay marriage are the same people that have a problem with polygamy, because it isn't defined as marriage in their interpretation of what ever holy book they believe. But I agree with you, the fact that government is even involved in such civil liberties is a complete waste of time, energy, and tax dollars. If Americans could just drop the bigotry and realize that majority has no say in individual rights of minority groups, and class everyone as equals, with no one group having more or less rights than any other, this country could actually solve real problems.

Edited by Daughter of the Nine Moons
fixed quote
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.”

Today it was determined that the Federal Government has the power to define the term marriage.

It now appears that all it takes is love.

If you love someone, you can marry them. period.

Its all about equal rights regardless of whether anyone else agrees with the morality of the union.

I would like to hear someone explain to me why Polygamy should be a felony in the USA when the SCOTUS has determined that "Love" is all that matters.

Where are their "equal rights".

For the record, i agree with Polygamy about as much as i do Homosexuality. I dont.

But would like to know how someone can support one but not the other.

Nice rant, but I think you missed the point of his post, he was just asking why trumpeting gay marriage is held as moral but the same people might consider polygamy immoral. Whether his questioning is legitimate or not is another question in and of itself. Personally from what I can tell the same people who fight against gay marriage are the same people that have a problem with polygamy, because it isn't defined as marriage in their interpretation of what ever holy book they believe. But I agree with you, the fact that government is even involved in such civil liberties is a complete waste of time, energy, and tax dollars. If Americans could just drop the bigotry and realize that majority has no say in individual rights of minority groups, and class everyone as equals, with no one group having more or less rights than any other, this country could actually solve real problems.

Thanks.

The only thing I didn't answer directly from his quote "I would like to hear someone explain to me why Polygamy should be a felony in the USA when the SCOTUS has determined that "Love" is all that matters.", was indirectly answered with "For the record, I don't think any government should be involved in any marriage or union between people. I don't think the government or others should even feel they have the right to tell someone they can't do something because of their 'moral standards'.... If someone isn't hurting anyone else, don't worry about it."

I furthered my rant to end any of the upcoming flimsy arguments the rest of the bigots would've chimed in with. The best one I got was this no point post;

Wow. There is so much hatred and vitriol in this post. I pray for your soul...

Personally, I think marriage in general is pointless and just a money grab. It had its use 100+ years ago because women were treated like property. From the time the Church of England was formed, marriage has been slowly falling from its original point. Women can divorce their husband now, they can also own property, and they even get to learn to read and write in today's Western World. They are allowed to be professionals and equals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still confused by what you're communicating, you're sounding redundant.

I saw this as a huge gain in freedom, freedom from the religious bigots that are still prevalent in our societies. Freedom from a dogma that was developed over 1700 years ago (one that the people who try and uphold know little about).

Just because a prejudice is backed by a mainstream religion, doesn't make it less prejudice. Just because a bigot has a mainstream religion behind him, doesn't make him less of a bigot.

What do you mean? Curious to see where your going with this. Mind you, I'm not as "on top of it" as you are. ;)

what Green Dude said.

Basically, this is a Good Thing for the concept of America as a land of Freedom.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am Straight!

I am Right leaning!

My Faith in Christ is strong!

And this has been a GREAT Day!

A Great Victory for all that is Good and Right.

Ever since the 110th Congress was seated, nothing has gone the way it should have. 3 Jan 2007 was the day when the cloud of Dark Energy enveloped this nation and the light was extinguished. Is this just a ledge on the spiral down or have we hit bottom and are just beginning the path back to Common Sense, Righteousness, and Prosperity?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For hetrosexuals, your opinion on the 'morality' of the union doesn't matter. A 20 year old woman can marry a 90 year old man and vice versa and your opinion on the union (or any other form) would not matter one bit. A straight couple can marry for love and it's not bit of difference what you think about it. You can't force them not to marry. So why should a gay couple marriying be subject to your morality? Why is love a good enough reason for straight people but for gay people it's somehow not enough?

Laws also have a habit of changing. It wasn't too long ago that people were decrying interacial marriage as being immoral. We grew out of that when the law was overturned.

I really wish people would stop bringing polygamy up though, that's a seperate issue that will be dealt with seperately.

Possibly it will be dealt with "separately" but in reality our law is a cumulative deal.... precedence is all important. My biggest problem with this ruling is where it can and probably WILL lead our country in time. His point is very valid. Would you have a problem for example if a polygamist attorney or doctor had 5 wives and accompanying children, and had the misfortune to up and die without enough insurance to provide for them? Should social security choose ONE spouse to care for? Or do we pay for benefits for all concerned? A small issue in some ways but when it becomes MILLIONS of Americans being affected....

And what happens in 20 or 30 years when gay marriage is accepted as interracial marriage is and a member of NAMBLA wants to wed his 11 year old love of his life? These considerations are valid - far from being hysterical. My point is WHO gets to decide on the morality or harm of such unions once the original definition of a marriage is vacated? Some things really are better left as is I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.