Gay marriage legal in MD

[ajhkmr97]

Its still a "national" issue, in so far as what is the status of Someone who lives in Massachussettes (sp?) (where i believe same sex marriage is legal) and then moves to Utah (where it isnt legal).
if its not addressed you are then forcing Utah to recognize same sex marriage.

that was the only reason i agreed with any sort of National Same Sex marriage amendment.

True, I'm not debating whether or not it is a national issue - you are right - it is. What I am debating is whether or not it would make sence for the government to have two different terms/title names that mean that same thing (essentially) and give equal benefits to each. In this case "Marriage Certificates" and "Civil Union Certificates".

The fact that this is a national issue is due to the majority of Americans having a desire to keep religious overtones inter-mixed with legislation. Would you agree?

 

[Bustem' Down]

As much as people try to deny or change history, the United States was founded on largely Christian principles. This quote reflects the statements by many of the founders.

I agree, it was founded with Christian priciple, because that;s who those people were, but not for christian priciples. The foundation was a secular matter.

 

[2ndAmendment]

To the person who thinks "Because you want to force your values on others, how are you any better than the theocratic rules in other nations?".

I do not and cannot force my values on anyone. I do not rule even the slightest of nations. I don't rule much of anything except my own free will. I post scripture from the Bible. You are free, while you live, to believe the Bible or not. It is not my decision, it is yours. Sorry you are so uncomfortable making your own decisions.

 

[ajhkmr97]

That is how it works. I take a woman, I go down to the courthouse, I get a licence to get married. I get a JP to say "You are married." And I walk out, with no ounce of religion involved and it's still called a marrage. There should be no reason why homosexuals should not be able to do the same thing.

"to get married" or to "establish a civil union"?

If "marriage" was origionally an institution of the church - then ONLY a priest can grant a marriage NOT non-clergy.

Here is the question to ask: Do you want to get "unionized" with your partner through Gods law of a "marriage" or Man's law of a "civil union"?

Who's laws are you vowing against - which is another discussion.

Are you vowing to God to honor, respect, your partner in sickness/health....

or

Are you vowing to the Government?



yeah...I know you are vowing to the other person but under what authority are you going to hold yourself accountable to - God or the Government?

 

[SAHRAB]

As much as people try to deny or change history, the United States was founded on largely Christian principles. This quote reflects the statements by many of the founders.

Actually that quote doesnt

Adams is commonly used, as an example, the only problem is John Adams (<--Linky), the second U.S. President rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and became a Unitarian (<--Linky). It was during Adams' presidency that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, which states in Article XI that:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072).

This treaty with the Islamic state of Tripoli had been written and concluded by Joel Barlow during Washington's Administration. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on June 7, 1797; President Adams signed it on June 10, 1797 and it was first published in the Session Laws of the Fifth Congress, first session in 1797. Quite clearly, then, at this very early stage of the American Republic, the U.S. government did not consider the United States a Christian nation.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury to my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. (Dumas Malon, Jefferson The President: First Term 1801-1805. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191)

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. (Richard Emery Roberts, ed. "Excerpts from The Age of Reason". Selected Writings of Thomas Paine. New York: Everbody's Vacation Publishing Co., 1945, p. 362)

Separation of church and state is not something the Supreme Court invented in the 1950's and 60's. The phrase itself appears in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, on Jan 1, 1802.

The Baptist Association had written to President Jefferson regarding a "rumor that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as the national denomination." Jefferson responded to calm their fears by assuring them that the federal government would not establish any single denomination of Christianity as the National denomination. He wrote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State."

 

[vraiblonde]

True, I'm not debating whether or not it is a national issue - you are right - it is. What I am debating is whether or not it would make sence for the government to have two different terms/title names that mean that same thing (essentially) and give equal benefits to each. In this case "Marriage Certificates" and "Civil Union Certificates".

That's ridiculous. We have already established that "marriage" is not a religious union.

What, are you going to now tell the millions of people out there who were not married by clergy that they are no longer "married" but are now something else just so you can prevent gay people from calling themselves by the same term Christians use for their union?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Actually that quote doesnt

And I can find just as many by other founders that express very similar ideas as the one I quoted from John Adams.

Bye to you. I am not here to argue or participate in the "Let's spin up 2A game."

 

[SAHRAB]

That's ridiculous. We have already established that "marriage" is not a religious union.

What, are you going to now tell the millions of people out there who were not married by clergy that they are no longer "married" but are now something else just so you can prevent gay people from calling themselves by the same term Christians use for their union?

Better yet, are you saying the ACLU would have a case against the Government recognition of Marriage, that are performed in religious ceremonies?

 

[SAHRAB]

And I can find just as many by other founders that express very similar ideas as the one I quoted from John Adams.

Bye to you. I am not here to argue or participate in the "Let's spin up 2A game."

Ok have a good day.

oh wait you didnt comment on the fact Adams wasnt a Christian, so using Adams as an example of the Founding Fathers basing our government on Christian Ideals is false

 

[2ndAmendment]

Ok have a good day.

oh wait you didnt comment on the fact Adams wasnt a Christian, so using Adams as an example of the Founding Fathers basing our government on Christian Ideals is false

I will.

Yes, you did. Alzheimer's?

the second U.S. President rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and became a Unitarian

 

[SAHRAB]

I will.

Yes, you did. Alzheimer's?

Uh not sure, but i think you got confused, you were the one that used Adams as an example of our Founding Fathers basing our Government on Christian ideals

 

[2ndAmendment]

Uh not sure, but i think you got confused, you were the one that used Adams as an example of our Founding Fathers basing our Government on Christian ideals

I said you did say he was not a Christian, so who is confused.

I am very familiar with the Adam's family of the Revolution and since. They are my ancestors. He did say that our Constitution would not work for a people that was not convicted by morality and religion.

 

[ajhkmr97]

That's ridiculous. We have already established that "marriage" is not a religious union.

What, are you going to now tell the millions of people out there who were not married by clergy that they are no longer "married" but are now something else just so you can prevent gay people from calling themselves by the same term Christians use for their union?

I disagree. No one has established "marriage" as being a term of the Government or the church. We use the word "marriage" to describe the mutual unionizing of two people - because there has never been any other word/term to describe such the act - until modern times that is - now we have "civil unions" (which are founded by the Government and not the church).

I understand your frustration in what I said and I want to make sure you are not putting words into my mouth. All I said (talking theoretically hence the word IF in the beginning of my sentence) IF the institution of "marriage" was founded in the church then the Government has no place with "marriage". The Government should create "civil unions” - an institution created by the Government - not the church.


“Christians” married by JPs - its an ethics thing and another discussion perhaps. If what I said above lays true then - technically - no they were not “married” but instead contracted under a "civil union" to one another through the Government. Had they gone in front of clergy to be unionized – then yes – I would say that they were “married”.

Again - we call the unionizing of two people "marriage" because no other term for the act was ever created - until now.

Bottom line – I personally think that society needs to adopt two forms of unionizing – “Civil Unions” vs “Marriage”. Akin to having a GED or HS diploma.

 

[vraiblonde]

I disagree.

How can you disagree with a fact???

When you want to get married, you go get a marriage license. And who do you get it from? The state. They don't ask if you are going to be married by JP or clergy - they just issue the license and you must have an officiating person sign it to make it legal.

As far as how God feels about gay marriage, you all should let God worry about that. It's not your job.

 

[Bustem' Down]

That's ridiculous. We have already established that "marriage" is not a religious union.

What, are you going to now tell the millions of people out there who were not married by clergy that they are no longer "married" but are now something else just so you can prevent gay people from calling themselves by the same term Christians use for their union?

That's what I've been trying to get across. Marriage is no longer a religious thing.

 

[Esprix]

Marriage is not really what the gays are after.
they are after the same rights that a married couple has in regard to their personal affairs.

Pretty much, yeah, at least as far as I'm concerned.

They are not after the recognition of God in their union. And since we are looking at bible vs government, they will never have the recognition from God for that union.

To fight to be married the same as those that are joined in the church in the eyes of God is wrong. God will never recognize it as legitimate, and either will the majority of the population.

Depends on where you go to church - there are several religions, including some denominations of Christianity, that have no problem blessing same sex unions.

Esprix

 

[Esprix]

My other question for the gay folks among us, why not drop the word "marriage" since that word seems to be what raises the hackles, and settle for legal civil unions? They'd have the exact same benefit as "marriage" but it's just a different legal terminology.

Here's how I predict this is going to go down:

1. States enact civil union laws
2. Lawsuits are raised when someone has a union in one state and moves to another and want it to be recognized
3. Case goes to Supreme Court, rights are granted under full faith & credit clause
4. States create institution of civil unions
5. Another case is brought to Supreme Court, which finds civil unions to be seperate but equal, which is unconstitutional
6. States change "civil union" to "marriage"
7. World does not come to end

So right now we're at the point where some states have civil unions, some have domestic partnerships, and some actually have marriages, and somebody is going to want those same rights if they move into a state that doesn't have any of those things.

[NOTE: I am not part of The Gay Agenda(tm), so don't ask me for a copy. ]

Esprix

 

[bcp]

and until they were busted for it, the Catholics had no problem letting their gay priests molest little boys in the congregations...


But, that wasnt right either.

the church should not alter the word of God to please the current trend in morality.

do a civil union, and dont try to pretend that it is a marriage under God and you might find a lot less resistance to the whole Idea.

 

[Esprix]

What hurts the gay "cause" is their acceptance and embracing of the mentally ill among them - transgendered, transsexual and various other freaks. Normal gay people should distance themselves from that other faction - then I'll bet you'd see more acceptance from mainstream America. Being gay is unusual enough, but when you see them marching side by side with trannys NOW you want to avoid them.

First, I base my opinions of the transgendered community on the professional psychological research that has been conducted for decades, and as far as the medical community is concerned they are not mentally ill.

Based on that, I'm all for inclusion and stand proudly with my "T" brothers and sisters in my fight for equality and basic human dignity.

Esprix

 

[ajhkmr97]

How can you disagree with a fact???

When you want to get married, you go get a marriage license. And who do you get it from? The state. They don't ask if you are going to be married by JP or clergy - they just issue the license and you must have an officiating person sign it to make it legal.

As far as how God feels about gay marriage, you all should let God worry about that. It's not your job.

I understand what is fact. Yes CURRENT mutual unionizing is called “marriage”. All I am saying is that the government should establish (legislate) a “Civil Union” license. Seeing that so many see “marriage” as an institution of the CHURCH – that is why there is so much controversy on gay “marriages”. They need to be gay “civil unions” and not “marriages”. Both “civil unions” and “marriages” should then have equal benefits.

Saying “marriage” is not a religious term – is an opinion – not fact. Americans who ARE religious would argue that “marriage” is an institution of the church – not government. The Government recognizes marriage for taxation/census purposes – that is the only reason (I think)

I am not talking about how “God feels about gay marriage” – I’ve yet to quote scripture (for one thing) in regards to this – (for a second) my job is to be a citizen (just as you are) and express my opinions as I desire. Besides all that – VRAI - you clam to be “atheist” if I understand right…. Why would you suggest for people to “…let God worry…”? Your wording confuses me. Are you hinting that you have somewhat belief in “God” but overall deny his existence” Perhaps I am seeing too much into that – I dunno. Either way – I am not attacking your comments nor your position/opinions on this issue – I wish I could say that you made me feel the same.

Is it me or am I just saying the same thing over and over again?? Does ANYONE understand what I am saying?