Does a Gay Marriage ...

Geek

Geek

New Member
camily said:
Wait a minute, wouldn't that make Kain, Geek and me...........GAY??????
Click to expand...


Ok, I have the pillows, Kain make a lot of jello, and camily get the thongs...We will meet at Bustem's. And bdh802345623.. look the other way sweetheart :love:
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
That right there...

bdh802 said:
I am certainly not narrow minded and sheltered. I am just too smart to believe the liberal media, have a great moral stance, and really wish our country would put this whole issue on a national ballot.
Click to expand...

..is a great point. Let's look at it.

The point of Constitutional law, a Bill of Rights and a representative form of government are to recognize that democracy, the desires of the majority, is a grand form of government while at the same time controlling the anarchy of the majority. In our nation, 3 wolves and 1 sheep don't get to vote on what's for dinner.

We, the majority, can have ANYTHING we want in this nation, as long as it is Constitutional; in other words, we follow our agreed upon rules. If we lack the will to do so, from the people, to our representatives, to the executive and the judicial, we can make slavery legal in absolute defiance of the Constitution. If the will to do what we say (and wrote) exists in great enough strength, we can end slavery on Constitutional grounds.

If we put gay marriage on a national ballot, it would, from what I gather, likely not be approved because a solid majority of we, the people, see marriage as between a man and a woman. We just see it that way.

If we look at it from a Constitutional standpoint, it's pretty hard to see where marriage can be legal for some but not for others because there is no more gender qualification in our Constitution than their is a race, creed or color qualification.

Now, it is nothing short of asinine to get all worked up over gay marriage as it is nothing but an inconvenience compared to slavery. That, however, is a matter of degree, not right and wrong. If 'X' is wrong, it's wrong no matter whether it's the most pressing issue of the day or the least.

So, therein lies the debate; how important is this? That's where our representative form of government comes along; it is the barometer of public opinion of how 'hot' an issue is. Does something need to be talked about? Acted upon? Kicked around some? Shelved?

Look at the history of slavery. We took almost 90 years to do one of the most basic things our law says; recognize that we are all created equal. Some would say we're still not there in thought, but we sure are in law. We fought a war over it. We killed one another over the legal proposition of the equality of man under our law.

Let's move on to another comparison, abortion. It doesn't matter where one stands on abortion to see that it was decided in a fashion antagonistic of the Constitution and thus, the people. It not only was not voted on at a national level, it was imposed by another branch of the government, the judiciary, and in a fashion at that that guaranteed to not resolve it; a right to privacy. It's readily seen that a human death occurs in abortion and it is pretty readily seen that forcing someone to carry a child to term and caring for it is not something the Constitution addresses. A debate was in order, however long it took, which the court denied. The negative affects of this are felt today.

A national ballot on gay marriage would be no more helpful than a national ballot on slavery in 1776 or abortion in 1976. As painful and difficult as it was, not one person has the slightest doubt how they view slavery today; unConstitutional. The same cannot be said of abortion because we did not have the debate. It is as painful and messy as slavery in it's own way but certainly not of the magnitude, the go to war magnitude, of slavery.

So, my point is, that if we want to resolve gay marriage as a people, an issue that is nothing compared to slavery and little more compared to abortion, let's just have the debate. Let it publicly be argued over whether it is a state or federal issue. Let's have our institutions wrangle over it, as is their design. This includes, but is not exclusive to our courts. Let it be messy. Let people get it out of their system. let it take time.

Blacks waited 90 years for the chains to be removed from their hands and a good many more for them to be removed from peoples minds. How long did women wait for full citizenship?

People who's distinguishing characteristic is a chosen activity as regards this issue, who they want to marry, is not the grave issue of the day but it does deserve to be addressed in such a fashion as when we get done, it's accepted as we view slavery and gender equality, not some never ending sore spot like abortion nor in a fashion that amounts to no more than a public opinion poll. If that's the way we worked, pure democracy, we'd have no Constitution.
 
K

Kain99

Guest
Geek said:
Ok, I have the pillows, Kain make a lot of jello, and camily get the thongs...We will meet at Bustem's. And bdh802345623.. look the other way sweetheart :love:
Click to expand...
I'm in baby! :lmao:
 
Bustem' Down

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
Larry Gude said:
..is a great point. Let's look at it.

The point of Constitutional law, a Bill of Rights and a representative form of government are to recognize that democracy, the desires of the majority, is a grand form of government while at the same time controlling the anarchy of the majority. In our nation, 3 wolves and 1 sheep don't get to vote on what's for dinner.

We, the majority, can have ANYTHING we want in this nation, as long as it is Constitutional; in other words, we follow our agreed upon rules. If we lack the will to do so, from the people, to our representatives, to the executive and the judicial, we can make slavery legal in absolute defiance of the Constitution. If the will to do what we say (and wrote) exists in great enough strength, we can end slavery on Constitutional grounds.

If we put gay marriage on a national ballot, it would, from what I gather, likely not be approved because a solid majority of we, the people, see marriage as between a man and a woman. We just see it that way.

If we look at it from a Constitutional standpoint, it's pretty hard to see where marriage can be legal for some but not for others because there is no more gender qualification in our Constitution than their is a race, creed or color qualification.

Now, it is nothing short of asinine to get all worked up over gay marriage as it is nothing but an inconvenience compared to slavery. That, however, is a matter of degree, not right and wrong. If 'X' is wrong, it's wrong no matter whether it's the most pressing issue of the day or the least.

So, therein lies the debate; how important is this? That's where our representative form of government comes along; it is the barometer of public opinion of how 'hot' an issue is. Does something need to be talked about? Acted upon? Kicked around some? Shelved?

Look at the history of slavery. We took almost 90 years to do one of the most basic things our law says; recognize that we are all created equal. Some would say we're still not there in thought, but we sure are in law. We fought a war over it. We killed one another over the legal proposition of the equality of man under our law.

Let's move on to another comparison, abortion. It doesn't matter where one stands on abortion to see that it was decided in a fashion antagonistic of the Constitution and thus, the people. It not only was not voted on at a national level, it was imposed by another branch of the government, the judiciary, and in a fashion at that that guaranteed to not resolve it; a right to privacy. It's readily seen that a human death occurs in abortion and it is pretty readily seen that forcing someone to carry a child to term and caring for it is not something the Constitution addresses. A debate was in order, however long it took, which the court denied. The negative affects of this are felt today.

A national ballot on gay marriage would be no more helpful than a national ballot on slavery in 1776 or abortion in 1976. As painful and difficult as it was, not one person has the slightest doubt how they view slavery today; unConstitutional. The same cannot be said of abortion because we did not have the debate. It is as painful and messy as slavery in it's own way but certainly not of the magnitude, the go to war magnitude, of slavery.

So, my point is, that if we want to resolve gay marriage as a people, an issue that is nothing compared to slavery and little more compared to abortion, let's just have the debate. Let it publicly be argued over whether it is a state or federal issue. Let's have our institutions wrangle over it, as is their design. This includes, but is not exclusive to our courts. Let it be messy. Let people get it out of their system. let it take time.

Blacks waited 90 years for the chains to be removed from their hands and a good many more for them to be removed from peoples minds. How long did women wait for full citizenship?

People who's distinguishing characteristic is a chosen activity as regards this issue, who they want to marry, is not the grave issue of the day but it does deserve to be addressed in such a fashion as when we get done, it's accepted as we view slavery and gender equality, not some never ending sore spot like abortion nor in a fashion that amounts to no more than a public opinion poll. If that's the way we worked, pure democracy, we'd have no Constitution.
Click to expand...

An excellent post. I am one who firmly believes that it is a State's right in this decision. Of course I'm a supporter of a weak fed with strong states like how I envisioned the government should be set up. I don't think the issue will ever be satisfactorly settled in my life time, because like abortion, political parties se it as a soapbox and platform to split the voting public and keep people firmly on thier side.
 
aps45819

aps45819

24/7 Single Dad
ylexot said:
I still say that the government should have nothing to do with marriage AT ALL.
Click to expand...
but "marriage" is the sanctioning of a union by a governing body, either religious or civil.
 
ylexot

ylexot

Super Genius
aps45819 said:
but "marriage" is the sanctioning of a union by a governing body, either religious or civil.
Click to expand...
It wasn't always that way and it doesn't have to be that way.

History of Marriage
The act, formality, or ceremony by which the marriage union is created, has differed widely at different times and among different peoples. One of the earliest and most frequent customs associated with the entrance into marriage was the capture of the woman by her intended husband, usually from another tribe than that to which he himself belonged. Among most primitive peoples this act seems to have been regarded rather as a means of getting a wife, than as the formation of the marriage union itself. The latter subsequent to the capture, and was generally devoid of any formality whatever, beyond mere cohabitation. But the symbolic seizure of wives continued in many places long after the reality had ceased. It still exits among some of the lower races, and until quite recently was not unknown in some parts of Eastern Europe. After the practice has become simulated instead of actual, it was frequently looked upon as either the whole of the marriage ceremony or an essential accompaniment of the marriage. Symbolic capture has largely given way to wife purchase, which seems to prevail among most uncivilized peoples today. It has assumed various forms. Sometimes the man desiring a wife gave one of his kinswomen in exchange; sometimes he served for a period his intended bride's father, which was a frequent custom among the ancient Hebrews; but most often the bride was paid for in money or some form of property. Like capture, purchase became after a time among many peoples a symbol to signify the taking of a wife and the formation of the marriage union. Sometimes, however, it was merely an accompanying ceremony. Various other ceremonial forms have accompanied or constituted the entrance upon the marriage relation, the most common of which was some kind of feast; yet among many uncivilized peoples marriage has taken place, and still takes place, without any formal ceremony whatever.

By many uncivilized races, and by most civilized ones, the marriage ceremony is regarded as a religious rite or includes religious features, although the religious element is not always regarded as necessary to the validity of the union. Under the Christian dispensation marriage is a religious act of the very highest kind, namely, one of the seven sacraments. Although Luther declared that marriage was not a sacrament but a "worldly thing", all the Protestant sects have continued to regard it as religious in the sense that it ought normally to be contracted in the presence of a clergyman. Owing to the influence of the Lutheran view and of the French Revolution, civil marriage has been instituted in almost all the countries of Europe and North America, as well as in some of the states of South America. In some countries it is essential to the validity of the union before the civil law, while in others, e.g., in the United States, it is merely one of the ways in which marriage may be contracted. Civil marriage, is not, however a post-Reformation institution, for it existed among the ancient Peruvians, and among the Aborigines of North America.
Click to expand...
I just don't see regulation of marriage as a governmental duty. :shrug:
 
aps45819

aps45819

24/7 Single Dad
ylexot said:
It wasn't always that way and it doesn't have to be that way.
History of Marriage I just don't see regulation of marriage as a governmental duty. :shrug:
Click to expand...
The "civil" unions are sanctioned by the government vs a church.
The gubberment can't do anything with out a set of rules

If you'd like to try the "capture" method, try the Brass Rail about 0130 Sunday. Be advised that your "bride" might not reconize your union after noon the same day.
 
B

Bronwyn

Guest
On a side note... One man One woman law, also applies to Bigamy, including the religious practices of the Mormans in the past. In the state of Maryland, Bigamy is a felony, and can be punished by up to nine years in Prison. :popcorn:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top