Running GREEN in Southern Maryland
- Thread starter warner2006
- Start date
That is my point. Some very liberal state like Maryland or Kalifornia would legalize homosexual marriages and some liberal would force Alabama or Kentucky to accept them in Federal court. Slippery slope principle.Ken King said:
But that isn't imposing homosexual marriages on anyone, it's mearly recognizing what one state has made legal and the result is that other states must recognize the legality of that marriage. It is no different then driving priveleges and the many differing laws amongst the states as to when a person can legally drive. I just don't see the slippery slope as Maryland, for instance, still has a law on the books that says a marriage entered into in this state is solely between a man and a woman. That law would have to be over-ridden before any same-sex marriages could be established here.2ndAmendment said:
And then again it is in how the state makes the law, such as the provision in one of the New England states that said that only it's residents could establish the same-sex marriage and people from other states just couldn't hop up there to create one and then hop back to their home state.
We disagree.Ken King said:
2A, someone being in a marriage of any form does NOT impose on you. In fact, it's NONE of your business, NOR will you even know it exists unless you specifically look for it.2ndAmendment said:
I'm sorry, but you talk about being all about the Constitution, so quit interjecting the Bible into our laws. They are two different things.
The founders are the ones that interjected the Bible in our laws. An immoral people cannot live successfully in a republic and they said so.vraiblonde said:
Not true. Many immoral people live successfully in the United States. In fact, they live MORE successfully that the moral do.2ndAmendment said:
Mixing the Bible with the Constitution is no different than any of those theocracies where people aren't free to live and worship as they see fit. If I wanted to live in Iran, I'd go live there.
And one more thing:
To say the US must abide by the Christian Bible is establishing religion, which is expressly forbidden in the First Amendment.
If the Founding Fathers wanted marriage to ONLY be between a man and a woman, they should have written it in.
To say the US must abide by the Christian Bible is establishing religion, which is expressly forbidden in the First Amendment.
If the Founding Fathers wanted marriage to ONLY be between a man and a woman, they should have written it in.
Where did I say you or anyone else must abide by the Bible? I didn't. And the reason our country is so screwed up is that immoral people have perverted what our founders gave us. Would you like me to quote them? You know I can, or you can just look in the "What Our Founders Said" thread.vraiblonde said:
It was my understanding that your anti-homosexual stance was based on your religious beliefs. I thought that because you typically cite a Biblical passage to support your views.2ndAmendment said:
The fact is that marriage is a state institution. You MUST get a license from the state in order to legally marry. And to deny same-sex couples the rights that heterosexuals enjoy is discrimination and you can't do that. If it pertains to a privately owned business or your own personal freedoms, that's one thing - discriminate all you want. But when it comes to the government, if people pay taxes, they should all have the same rights.
Homosexual behavior is an abomination according to the Bible and I believe that wholeheartedly. I do not believe in or support and will never support or recognize a homosexual marriage and I don't care what the law of the land may become.vraiblonde said:
Discrimination occurs all the time. Try being a white, heterosexual, male and see just how even handed employment practices are, government or not.
That is your right. And there's no reason to believe you will be required to support or recognize a homosexual marriage.2ndAmendment said:
Discrimination does occur all the time, but our laws are not supposed to discriminate.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
And THAT is something I'm basically against. Where does the state get off on "licensing" marriage? For centuries, marriage was a religious institution. Somewhere, governments wanted to confer different rights for spouses and married couples, so they decided they needed to validate them officially.
I understand this, from a legal aspect - say, for example, your spouse dies. In the absence of a will, you're entitled to his estate - but you don't have this right if you're just a girlfriend. There's a whole slate of legalities that arrive with 'marriage'.
Now, it used to be you couldn't be buried in a cemtery unless you'd been baptized - and other such rights, back when church and state weren't too far apart. Imagine what kind of mess would exist if 'baptism' rights became so extensive that the government decided it had the right to administer baptisms. And when churches objected to their sacrament being co-opted and used in a way they didn't want, the state would say " hey, you can't collect retirement or health care without your baptismal certificate, so get in line pal".
This is why I am FOR "civil unions" - because it's my belief that that is the ONLY thing the state has business conferring, and that to gain the rights it gives out to married couples, they must also be recognized as a "civil union". Government should get OUT of the marriage business completely, and make civil unions the only criteria. This solves the gay rights/gay marriage issue.
I agree with you. But we're not talking about what should be, we're talking about what is. I'd guess the state started issuing licenses to prevent inbreeding, bigamy and underage marriages. I should look that up because now I'm curious.SamSpade said:
For a country that's so big on freedom of religion, our Founding Fathers didn't really think about legal rights for the non-Christian. It probably didn't occur to them because EVERYBODY was Christian, so what's the big deal? And there probably weren't a whole lot of people coming out as gay in 1787, so that wasn't a consideration either.
But times have changed. We are not a "Christian nation" anymore than if we said we're a "white nation" simply because that's the majority. We're a nation of many different cultures, and our laws need to reflect that and not deny rights to taxpayers because of sexual preferences.
And what's the difference between a marriage and a civil union? Gay rights groups demand that their unions be called marriage, and not civil unions. Traditionals are horrified at the thought of gay unions being called marriage, but are more amenable to civil unions.
What's the difference?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
What's the difference between *your* 'marriage' - and the lady in the Netherlands who married *herself*? Or the one who married a dolphin? Just because the difference is semantical doesn't mean it's insignificant. Religious people are offended because "matrimony" or marriage is one of their most sacred tradtions, and the state confers it upon persons they feel have no business receiving it.
You know, years ago when I was a cult fundamentalist - I'd hear stories about the "Beer Church" or weird baptismal cermonies in made-up churches where people would jump out of piles of SNOW rather than get dunked underwater - they'd have the Lord's Supper made up of beer and pretzels instead of the bread and wine. And some services which seemed excuses for orgies. And understandably I'd be p!ssed, NOT just because these folks were passing themselves off as "Christian" while essentially MOCKING Christianity - they were getting tax-exempt status as well. They were reaping the benefits conferred upon religious ministers even while they did these things clearly as a kind of joke.
What we're seeing is kind of the same thing - the anger that has simmered for decades and longer by churches who didn't mind the fact that the government actually SUPERCEDED their right to confer marriage. (I was surprised to learn that, having never been married before. My minister married me in the sight of GOD, but we weren't *actually* married in the sight of Maryland until the license was signed. We could live together and not "live in sin" - but we couldn't file a joint tax return unless we signed a piece of paper). It was ok, to them, that the government allowed marriage to non-members of their church, or non-believers - not all religions are so gracious, but people realized, look, marriage pre-dates ALL our religions - it's one of the oldest institutions on the planet - who are we to say unbelievers can't be married?
However, they began to be a LITTLE p!ssed when close relatives could marry - or bigamy could be permitted - or - and so on. And they began to ask for laws for these. And you and I *agree* on those. Fast forward to same-sex marriage. This greatly offends religious types, and barring a huge cultural and religious change - that's not ever going to change. It's a brick wall. Just ask the portion of the planet that is Muslim, how likely gay marriage sells in their country. Some things WILL NOT change. The intelligent solution is to get the hell out of religious trappings in our laws.
(BTW - why do we swear on the Bible, in court? I've refused - because it doesn't mean anything to me. Why do we say "so help me God"?)
That is where the misinterpretation and misapplication of the 14th Amendment comes in. Some non classical liberal will file in court to have their homosexual marriage recognized under the "equal protection" clause.ylexot said:
Then why not just say people are legally married by the state, but joined in the sight of God by a minister? That's the best of both worlds. If you want legal marital designation, and God's approval isn't all that important to you, get your license and go to the courthouse. If you want to be joined in the sight of God, and legalities aren't that important to you, get married by a minister and forget the state license.SamSpade said:
Just as the state has no right to confer a religious designation (holy matrimony), the church should have no right to cenfer a legal designation.
And the flipside of that is that churches have no obligation to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone they don't want to. So all this talk of gays bombarding the church, demanding to be married there is just silly.
But see, that is where the 14th has been misinterpreted and often is used to overstep its intent. The intent, when written, was that no state could pass a law that circumvented or abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens conferred by federal statute. It was not to impose the law of one state on another state. That is not to say that case law does not exist that abuses and oversteps the intent because it certainly does.Ken King said:
Goes to the idea that those that do not read and understand the Constitution have no rights because they don't know and understand their rights.
Sad our country has slid so far down the slippery slope and very few have even noticed. We have let lawyers and judges impose their agenda by misusing the law.