The problem is that many state's don't offer them the same rights. I will use my state as an example. New Jersey offers same sex civil unions, but not marriages. New Jersey's civil unions offer the same rights and benefits as a marriage. So here in Nj there is no movement for same sex marriage because the majority of the gay community doesn't really care about the the terminology, they care about being treated as equals by receiving the same rights and benefits as hetero couples. From my understanding of the California law is that the civil unions do not offer the same rights and benefits as marriage and I'm pretty sure if it did this would be a non-issue.
Lastly, and I know I'm beating a dead horse here, the government has no right interfering in marriage. I find it extremely wrong that any level of government is handing out marriage licenses. All certificates, whether you are hetero or homosexual, issued by the government should be for a civil union, not a marriage.
Ironically, I think I agree with you. I'd prefer that the government just hand out civil unions to everyone. That may actually be the solution. But, once again, they will have a difficult time defining what exactly it is.
My, and I believe the majority of Americans, sole concern with allowing gays to "MARRY" is the term marriage. I want them to receive the same benefits and I think they are entitled to them. I simply believe that the term marriage has religious conotations and moral implications. Also, I think it provides a stamp of approval on the gay lifestyle. I should say... I have friends that are gay. I also have friends who cheat on their wives. I also have friends who steal things... I think you get the point. I don't approve of any of their behavior, but that doesn't mean we can't be friends. It's their business and according to my personal religious belief those forementioned activities are sins. But, when it comes to a term that morally equates something like marriage to something I disagree with.... that's when the problems begin to develop. If the government had nothing to do with marriage... that would probably be best for all.
Ironically, I think I agree with you. I'd prefer that the government just hand out civil unions to everyone. That may actually be the solution. But, once again, they will have a difficult time defining what exactly it is.
My, and I believe the majority of Americans, sole concern with allowing gays to "MARRY" is the term marriage. I want them to receive the same benefits and I think they are entitled to them. I simply believe that the term marriage has religious conotations and moral implications. Also, I think it provides a stamp of approval on the gay lifestyle. I should say... I have friends that are gay. I also have friends who cheat on their wives. I also have friends who steal things... I think you get the point. I don't approve of any of their behavior, but that doesn't mean we can't be friends. It's their business and according to my personal religious belief those forementioned activities are sins. But, when it comes to a term that morally equates something like marriage to something I disagree with.... that's when the problems begin to develop. If the government had nothing to do with marriage... that would probably be best for all.
That's how I personally feel.
Are you actually lumping homosexuality with theft and adultery. No offense man but that is fucked up.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Are you actually lumping homosexuality with theft and adultery. No offense man but that is fucked up.
No, I'm not lumping "homosexuality" in with them. I was trying to say that I consider "acting on homosexuality" a sin. Just like theft is a sin. Just like lying is a sin. Just like adultery is a sin. Just like many other things are sins.
Maybe the examples weren't well drawn out, but it's not f'd up at all. Many people agree with my take.
Anyway, I really don't care if you think a Christian (or in this case Catholic) idea of sin is f'd up. It's what I believe and you are entitled to your own beliefs.
That doesn't even make sense. We elect a President who appoints people with beliefs that align with his/her own. That's the way it goes.
Look, take Justice Blackmun as an example. Here is a guy who, when he was appointd in 1959 by Eisenhower, was a conservative. After years of being on the court and being around the likes of Thurgood Marshall, Blackmun ended up WRITING THE DECISION on Roe v. Wade, and he was considered a liberal by the time he departed.
I'll paste a snippet on Blackmun in this email. The reason this is important is this: justices have lifetime appointments for exactly the reason the Blackmun example exists. Although justices tend to vote their ideologies, they evolve and do not have to answer to ANYONE. Not you, not me, not the president or party who appointed them. Most justices, with rare exception (Scalia) are open-minded and free thinking. There are few guarantees with the court, and that is precisely BECAUSE the court is not a political body. You can argue all you want about some sort of "control" that you believe voters have over the supreme court, but I think what you really mean is that you have "control" over the vote that leads to the president who makes the appointment.
The distinction may be subtle to you, but to a scholar of the court and the history of constitutional law, it is an enormous fallacy to argue that one has control over the courts. Justices evolve with the times, and usually have decades of time to build up a record. During those decades (often a term will be two generations), conservatives become liberal and liberals become conservative, depending on issues. Some justices (O'Connor) are often swing votes precisely because they are unpredictable. Ultimately, if they are good constitutional scholars and justices, they do what's constitutionally correct and not what the party lines would dictate. I have enormous faith in the court because by and large it has shown me that overall, injustices are equalled when you give it time to work. I guess that's why your implication that the court is a political body that has to answer to you, the voter, is relatively outrageous.
quote:
Blackmun's early opinions reflected conservatism, support for law enforcement, and a general deference to government and social institutions. Later he came to demonstrate a growing skepticism about those institutions' effectiveness in relation to the common person. By the mid‐1980s, Justice Blackmun, giving a high level of support for civil liberties claims, had become a regular voting partner of Justices William J. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall. His judicial transformation manifested itself even on matters of criminal procedure, where his initial conservatism had lasted longest. He questioned the Court's search‐and‐seizure positions and disagreed with the Court's haste in upholding death‐penalty convictions, thus bringing his votes into line with his early statement, in Furman v. Georgia (1972), of “distance, antipathy, and … abhorrence” for the death penalty, which for him “violated childhood's training and life's experience” (p. 405).
Blackmun made a number of major contributions to Supreme Court jurisprudence. He was a key player on the question of whether Congress, through the Commerce Clause, could impose requirements on state and local governments, and he wrote for the Court in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) in holding local governments subject to minimum wage requirements, saying that their representation in Congress provided states and localities with adequate protection (see Commerce Power). He also showed he could be the states' friend by allowing them to impose nondiscriminatory, properly apportioned franchise taxes and by supporting state economic policy making if it was not narrowly parochial.
His changing views on judicial federalism paralleled his changes on civil liberties. At first he was unwilling to let state courts provide greater federal constitutional protection than did the U.S. Supreme Court, and he took a restrictive view of federal courts' use of habeas corpus to redress state defendants' claims. Later, however, Blackmun wished to make habeas more available for those pressing federal constitutional claims, and he also gave a broad reading to title 42, section 1983 of the U.S. Code, the primary federal civil rights statute. In his Madison Lectures at New York University Law School in 1984, Blackmun argued strongly that federal courts should work actively to uphold individuals' federal rights asserted in section 1983 cases.
Blackmun's major civil liberties contributions concerned commercial speech, aliens' rights, and abortion. On the question of First Amendment protection for “commercial speech” such as lawyer advertising, he opposed the states' paternalistic position of denying access to information that advertising would provide and argued that consumers ought to have more, not less, information. He took the side of aliens denied welfare benefits without satisfying long residence requirements or barred from holding public jobs (see Alienage and Naturalization). His key opinions opposed states' denying aliens the right to be civil servants, public school teachers, or probation officers; however, he was willing to allow a ban on their being police officers.
Blackmun's best‐known contributions are his abortion opinions, particularly those for the Court in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (1973), in which, respectively, the justices invalidated criminal penalties for performing abortions and established the basic trimester framework for evaluating whether and when the state could impose restrictions on a woman's freedom to obtain an abortion. He was strongly committed to any woman's right to obtain an abortion and reacted strongly against the Court's upholding the government's refusal to provide Medicaid funding of abortions. The strength of his commitment continued through the many cases in which the Court dealt with states' efforts to limit abortion and was nowhere clearer than in his dissent in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989). There he attacked his colleagues for dismantling Roe v. Wade and for “cast[ing] into darkness the hopes and visions of every woman who had come to believe that the Constitution guaranteed her the right to exercise some control over her unique ability to bear children,” creating “inevitable and brutal consequences” with the government again able to intrude improperly into women's lives (pp. 3077–3078).
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
No, I'm not lumping "homosexuality" in with them. I was trying to say that I consider "acting on homosexuality" a sin. Just like theft is a sin. Just like lying is a sin. Just like adultery is a sin. Just like many other things are sins.
Maybe the examples weren't well drawn out, but it's not f'd up at all. Many people agree with my take.
Anyway, I really don't care if you think a Christian (or in this case Catholic) idea of sin is f'd up. It's what I believe and you are entitled to your own beliefs.
You are right, you are definitely entitled to your opinions and whether I agree with them, or think them f'ed up, or not I still respect your right to have them. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that loving someone is a sin.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
You are right, you are definitely entitled to your opinions and whether I agree with them, or think them f'ed up, or not I still respect your right to have them. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that loving someone is a sin.
This is exactly why this place p's me off so much. I just said it, yet I have to type it again lol.
I never said "loving someone is a sin". For Christ's sake, where the hell did I say that? Re-read it.
I said "acting on homosexuality" in my opinion is a sin. Re-read. ACTING ON. That means f_cking.
Someone can be homosexual and not sin at all according to my definition. That said, it's hard not to sin for anyone. I sin just about every day myself by my own definition of sin.
This is exactly why this place p's me off so much. I just said it, yet I have to type it again lol.
I never said "loving someone is a sin". For Christ's sake, where the hell did I say that? Re-read it.
I said "acting on homosexuality" in my opinion is a sin. Re-read. ACTING ON. That means f_cking.
Someone can be homosexual and not sin at all according to my definition. That said, it's hard not to sin for anyone. I sin just about every day myself by my own definition of sin.
Relax sparky. If it makes you feel better I don't understand how to consenting adults engaging in sex is a sin.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
This is exactly why this place p's me off so much. I just said it, yet I have to type it again lol.
I never said "loving someone is a sin". For Christ's sake, where the hell did I say that? Re-read it.
I said "acting on homosexuality" in my opinion is a sin. Re-read. ACTING ON. That means f_cking.
Someone can be homosexual and not sin at all according to my definition. That said, it's hard not to sin for anyone. I sin just about every day myself by my own definition of sin.
well according to the catholic church, you are correct. they do not dscriminate against homosexuals for being homosexuals, god loves all, etc, etc....they are just not meant to ACT on their homosexual urges.
and hey, good for you...the catholic church and whomever else! i personally could not care less what anyone considers a sin, this is not aout religion, it's about law....and access to the LEGAL RIGHT of marriage, for ALL CITIZENS, regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation...you know.....EQUAL RIGHTS.
and hey...beliefs are great...personal beliefs. it;s when someone tries to force their personal beliefs on someone els'es life that it is a 'problem'...and sure, wrong...a *sin* in a legal sense.
well according to the catholic church, you are correct. they do not dscriminate against homosexuals for being homosexuals, god loves all, etc, etc....they are just not meant to ACT on their homosexual urges.
and hey, good for you...the catholic church and whomever else! i personally could not care less what anyone considers a sin, this is not aout religion, it's about law....and access to the LEGAL RIGHT of marriage, for ALL CITIZENS, regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation...you know.....EQUAL RIGHTS.
and hey...beliefs are great...personal beliefs. it;s when someone tries to force their personal beliefs on someone els'es life that it is a 'problem'...and sure, wrong...a *sin* in a legal sense.
If you followed the discussion, he asked for my personal beliefs. That's why they were put forth.
you shouldn't be happy in taking things away from ppl :(
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
This is exactly why this place p's me off so much. I just said it, yet I have to type it again lol.
I never said "loving someone is a sin". For Christ's sake, where the hell did I say that? Re-read it.
I said "acting on homosexuality" in my opinion is a sin. Re-read. ACTING ON. That means f_cking.
Someone can be homosexual and not sin at all according to my definition. That said, it's hard not to sin for anyone. I sin just about every day myself by my own definition of sin.
how can you be a homosexual, be in love with someone, and NOT want to express that through making love? what are you supposed to do, tons of hugging or something?
the thing i never understood about the act being a sin, is that adultery, theft, murder....those are all sins that impact and hurt other people. who else is being harmed when two consentual adults (regardless of gender combo) are having sex?
what does it matter to anybody else what two adults do, i guess that is the part that i can't get past.
You are too much, man. OK, fine. We have "power over the judicial branch."
I guess we also have power over the president's dog, since the president will be adopting him or her. And we also have power over the president's barber, since we elected the president who hires him.
An affair is a sin because you are actually breaking your vow to your partner. You promised your spouse in the presense of God to love, cherish, respect and be faithful to them. Having an affair is breaking that vow.
Spanky was the name of my dog and he died last month. Thanks for rehashing the pain.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I'm definitely no expert in religion, but as far as I know, adultery (gay or straight) is a sin. And adultery includes sex out of wedlock.
So by passing Prop 8, we just increased the number of innocent adulterers who'd actually rather not be adulterers at all. Where is the compassion or logic in that? Unless of course you subscribe to the theory that you can "cure" homosexual people.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
I never understood how sin (a religious concept) ever was involved in deciding legal rights....
Your question illustrates that there are two different types of people. 1. People like you and me who believe the constitution makes sense and should be applied. 2. People who believe that religion should supercede the laws of our country.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
No, it's not ridiculous at all. First, the point in raising these examples was to point out that there's a historical definition.... a union between a man and a woman.
Historically, marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race and class. We've already established that people don't have to be of the same race and class to be married, correct?
You haven't addressed why gender should be any different.
But, the point I am explaining is that both political parties are for offering the same exact benefits via the Civil Union as they would via a marriage.
I don't get why you keep saying this when you know people in civil unions do not have the same benefits as people in marriages. Please address this as well.
An affair is a sin because you are actually breaking your vow to your partner. You promised your spouse in the presense of God to love, cherish, respect and be faithful to them. Having an affair is breaking that vow. .
You asked how two consenting adults engaging in sex was a sin and you just answered your own question... congrats.
Your question illustrates that there are two different types of people. 1. People like you and me who believe the constitution makes sense and should be applied. 2. People who believe that religion should supercede the laws of our country.
Agreed.. I mean religion is a nice addition to laws and rights but laws shouldn't be solely based on and dictated by (basically one set) of religious beliefs.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
My, and I believe the majority of Americans, sole concern with allowing gays to "MARRY" is the term marriage..... I simply believe that the term marriage has religious conotations and moral implications.
Sure, maybe it does. But how is it the role of the government to involve itself with religious conotations and moral implications??
It's not.
As long as no one's rights are being denied, religious issues belong within the realm of the church - not the state.
OK.... all... I've answered about 20-30 posts. I'm tired of repeating the same things so I'm done. Enjoy debating this issue with people who agree with your take.
OK.... all... I've answered about 20-30 posts. I'm tired of repeating the same things so I'm done. Enjoy debating this issue with people who agree with your take.
Signing off...
saveup.
Victory at last.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
OK.... all... I've answered about 20-30 posts. I'm tired of repeating the same things so I'm done. Enjoy debating this issue with people who agree with your take.
Signing off...
saveup.
Haha. Well that's convinient considering that you didn't answer any of my questions.
Why's it up for debate? I would argue that the man and women component are the characterisitcs of the relationship we call marriage.
and i would agree with you. however it is an outdated characteristic and should be re-addressed to include all those who have been discriminated against because they are homosexual. love can not and should never be legislated. i cant for the life of me figure out why homosexuality is so abhorrant to some people. who i choose to love and have sex with is of no concern to anybody but me and the person im fucking. now please dont come in and bring up ridiculous examples of abberant behaviour which we would all agree are just not acceptable. oh and can somebody please explain to me how sex is a sin?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The most frustrating part of this issue is discovering that no matter how well we prove our point or how ridiculous we make the intolerant people opposing gay marriage look...they will not change their minds. Of course we should still fight for equal rights, but I feel like there's nothing we can do to change these people.. just hope that as the younger generations get older, they will have more tolerance. (which is likely, in my opinion)
The most frustrating part of this issue is discovering that no matter how well we prove our point or how ridiculous we make the intolerant people opposing gay marriage look...they will not change their minds. Of course we should still fight for equal rights, but I feel like there's nothing we can do to change these people.. just hope that as the younger generations get older, they will have more tolerance. (which is likely, in my opinion)
fret not! ... the main guy on here thinks sarah palin is qualified to lead the country ... sooooo ...
Comments
Ironically, I think I agree with you. I'd prefer that the government just hand out civil unions to everyone. That may actually be the solution. But, once again, they will have a difficult time defining what exactly it is.
My, and I believe the majority of Americans, sole concern with allowing gays to "MARRY" is the term marriage. I want them to receive the same benefits and I think they are entitled to them. I simply believe that the term marriage has religious conotations and moral implications. Also, I think it provides a stamp of approval on the gay lifestyle. I should say... I have friends that are gay. I also have friends who cheat on their wives. I also have friends who steal things... I think you get the point. I don't approve of any of their behavior, but that doesn't mean we can't be friends. It's their business and according to my personal religious belief those forementioned activities are sins. But, when it comes to a term that morally equates something like marriage to something I disagree with.... that's when the problems begin to develop. If the government had nothing to do with marriage... that would probably be best for all.
That's how I personally feel.
Are you actually lumping homosexuality with theft and adultery. No offense man but that is fucked up.
No, I'm not lumping "homosexuality" in with them. I was trying to say that I consider "acting on homosexuality" a sin. Just like theft is a sin. Just like lying is a sin. Just like adultery is a sin. Just like many other things are sins.
Maybe the examples weren't well drawn out, but it's not f'd up at all. Many people agree with my take.
Anyway, I really don't care if you think a Christian (or in this case Catholic) idea of sin is f'd up. It's what I believe and you are entitled to your own beliefs.
Look, take Justice Blackmun as an example. Here is a guy who, when he was appointd in 1959 by Eisenhower, was a conservative. After years of being on the court and being around the likes of Thurgood Marshall, Blackmun ended up WRITING THE DECISION on Roe v. Wade, and he was considered a liberal by the time he departed.
I'll paste a snippet on Blackmun in this email. The reason this is important is this: justices have lifetime appointments for exactly the reason the Blackmun example exists. Although justices tend to vote their ideologies, they evolve and do not have to answer to ANYONE. Not you, not me, not the president or party who appointed them. Most justices, with rare exception (Scalia) are open-minded and free thinking. There are few guarantees with the court, and that is precisely BECAUSE the court is not a political body. You can argue all you want about some sort of "control" that you believe voters have over the supreme court, but I think what you really mean is that you have "control" over the vote that leads to the president who makes the appointment.
The distinction may be subtle to you, but to a scholar of the court and the history of constitutional law, it is an enormous fallacy to argue that one has control over the courts. Justices evolve with the times, and usually have decades of time to build up a record. During those decades (often a term will be two generations), conservatives become liberal and liberals become conservative, depending on issues. Some justices (O'Connor) are often swing votes precisely because they are unpredictable. Ultimately, if they are good constitutional scholars and justices, they do what's constitutionally correct and not what the party lines would dictate. I have enormous faith in the court because by and large it has shown me that overall, injustices are equalled when you give it time to work. I guess that's why your implication that the court is a political body that has to answer to you, the voter, is relatively outrageous.
quote:
Blackmun's early opinions reflected conservatism, support for law enforcement, and a general deference to government and social institutions. Later he came to demonstrate a growing skepticism about those institutions' effectiveness in relation to the common person. By the mid‐1980s, Justice Blackmun, giving a high level of support for civil liberties claims, had become a regular voting partner of Justices William J. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall. His judicial transformation manifested itself even on matters of criminal procedure, where his initial conservatism had lasted longest. He questioned the Court's search‐and‐seizure positions and disagreed with the Court's haste in upholding death‐penalty convictions, thus bringing his votes into line with his early statement, in Furman v. Georgia (1972), of “distance, antipathy, and … abhorrence” for the death penalty, which for him “violated childhood's training and life's experience” (p. 405).
Blackmun made a number of major contributions to Supreme Court jurisprudence. He was a key player on the question of whether Congress, through the Commerce Clause, could impose requirements on state and local governments, and he wrote for the Court in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) in holding local governments subject to minimum wage requirements, saying that their representation in Congress provided states and localities with adequate protection (see Commerce Power). He also showed he could be the states' friend by allowing them to impose nondiscriminatory, properly apportioned franchise taxes and by supporting state economic policy making if it was not narrowly parochial.
His changing views on judicial federalism paralleled his changes on civil liberties. At first he was unwilling to let state courts provide greater federal constitutional protection than did the U.S. Supreme Court, and he took a restrictive view of federal courts' use of habeas corpus to redress state defendants' claims. Later, however, Blackmun wished to make habeas more available for those pressing federal constitutional claims, and he also gave a broad reading to title 42, section 1983 of the U.S. Code, the primary federal civil rights statute. In his Madison Lectures at New York University Law School in 1984, Blackmun argued strongly that federal courts should work actively to uphold individuals' federal rights asserted in section 1983 cases.
Blackmun's major civil liberties contributions concerned commercial speech, aliens' rights, and abortion. On the question of First Amendment protection for “commercial speech” such as lawyer advertising, he opposed the states' paternalistic position of denying access to information that advertising would provide and argued that consumers ought to have more, not less, information. He took the side of aliens denied welfare benefits without satisfying long residence requirements or barred from holding public jobs (see Alienage and Naturalization). His key opinions opposed states' denying aliens the right to be civil servants, public school teachers, or probation officers; however, he was willing to allow a ban on their being police officers.
Blackmun's best‐known contributions are his abortion opinions, particularly those for the Court in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (1973), in which, respectively, the justices invalidated criminal penalties for performing abortions and established the basic trimester framework for evaluating whether and when the state could impose restrictions on a woman's freedom to obtain an abortion. He was strongly committed to any woman's right to obtain an abortion and reacted strongly against the Court's upholding the government's refusal to provide Medicaid funding of abortions. The strength of his commitment continued through the many cases in which the Court dealt with states' efforts to limit abortion and was nowhere clearer than in his dissent in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989). There he attacked his colleagues for dismantling Roe v. Wade and for “cast[ing] into darkness the hopes and visions of every woman who had come to believe that the Constitution guaranteed her the right to exercise some control over her unique ability to bear children,” creating “inevitable and brutal consequences” with the government again able to intrude improperly into women's lives (pp. 3077–3078).
You are right, you are definitely entitled to your opinions and whether I agree with them, or think them f'ed up, or not I still respect your right to have them. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that loving someone is a sin.
This is exactly why this place p's me off so much. I just said it, yet I have to type it again lol.
I never said "loving someone is a sin". For Christ's sake, where the hell did I say that? Re-read it.
I said "acting on homosexuality" in my opinion is a sin. Re-read. ACTING ON. That means f_cking.
Someone can be homosexual and not sin at all according to my definition. That said, it's hard not to sin for anyone. I sin just about every day myself by my own definition of sin.
Relax sparky. If it makes you feel better I don't understand how to consenting adults engaging in sex is a sin.
well according to the catholic church, you are correct. they do not dscriminate against homosexuals for being homosexuals, god loves all, etc, etc....they are just not meant to ACT on their homosexual urges.
and hey, good for you...the catholic church and whomever else! i personally could not care less what anyone considers a sin, this is not aout religion, it's about law....and access to the LEGAL RIGHT of marriage, for ALL CITIZENS, regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation...you know.....EQUAL RIGHTS.
and hey...beliefs are great...personal beliefs. it;s when someone tries to force their personal beliefs on someone els'es life that it is a 'problem'...and sure, wrong...a *sin* in a legal sense.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
OK spanky...
Is an affair a sin, if both parties consent?
If you followed the discussion, he asked for my personal beliefs. That's why they were put forth.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
the thing i never understood about the act being a sin, is that adultery, theft, murder....those are all sins that impact and hurt other people. who else is being harmed when two consentual adults (regardless of gender combo) are having sex?
what does it matter to anybody else what two adults do, i guess that is the part that i can't get past.
An affair is a sin because you are actually breaking your vow to your partner. You promised your spouse in the presense of God to love, cherish, respect and be faithful to them. Having an affair is breaking that vow.
Spanky was the name of my dog and he died last month. Thanks for rehashing the pain.
Yes.
There is a difference between objects and relationships between objects. That's just basic grammar.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
So by passing Prop 8, we just increased the number of innocent adulterers who'd actually rather not be adulterers at all. Where is the compassion or logic in that? Unless of course you subscribe to the theory that you can "cure" homosexual people.
Your question illustrates that there are two different types of people. 1. People like you and me who believe the constitution makes sense and should be applied. 2. People who believe that religion should supercede the laws of our country.
Historically, marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race and class. We've already established that people don't have to be of the same race and class to be married, correct?
You haven't addressed why gender should be any different.
I don't get why you keep saying this when you know people in civil unions do not have the same benefits as people in marriages. Please address this as well.
You asked how two consenting adults engaging in sex was a sin and you just answered your own question... congrats.
Dumb name for a dog.
Agreed.. I mean religion is a nice addition to laws and rights but laws shouldn't be solely based on and dictated by (basically one set) of religious beliefs.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Sure, maybe it does. But how is it the role of the government to involve itself with religious conotations and moral implications??
It's not.
As long as no one's rights are being denied, religious issues belong within the realm of the church - not the state.
Signing off...
saveup.
Victory at last.
Haha. Well that's convinient considering that you didn't answer any of my questions.
How did I answer my own question. What vow have you broken if you have sex with your same sex partner.
And my dog was the fucking coolest.
and i would agree with you. however it is an outdated characteristic and should be re-addressed to include all those who have been discriminated against because they are homosexual. love can not and should never be legislated. i cant for the life of me figure out why homosexuality is so abhorrant to some people. who i choose to love and have sex with is of no concern to anybody but me and the person im fucking. now please dont come in and bring up ridiculous examples of abberant behaviour which we would all agree are just not acceptable. oh and can somebody please explain to me how sex is a sin?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
fret not! ... the main guy on here thinks sarah palin is qualified to lead the country ... sooooo ...