From a Catholic Website:
...
Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth concerning human sexuality and the dignity of persons.
the WHOLE moral TRUTH. what does that mean??
if i am engaging in sexual acts without the intent of abusing the other person(or myself ) in any way, then thats all the moral truth ill be needing thanks very much men who dont even engage in any sexual practises let alone so called moral sexual practises.
as for this:
Any sexual activity outside marriage with others or alone is gravely evil.
looks like im going to hell. if only i actually believed it existed. :rolleyes:
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." ~ Barrack Obama
Why would anybody disagree with the man that America voted into office?
"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." ~ Barrack Obama
Why would anybody disagree with the man that America voted into office?
"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." ~ Barrack Obama
Why would anybody disagree with the man that America voted into office?
...
To answer your question... I believe it's because , as Americans, we don't have to automatically agree with anyone... even if that person was elected as our president.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause.) Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition?
SEN. OBAMA: No, I would not.
REV. WARREN: Why not?
SEN. OBAMA: (Applause.) Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution. It's been a matter of state law that has been our tradition. Now, I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are.
I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or a different view. (Applause.)
...
To answer your question... I believe it's because , as Americans, we don't have to automatically agree with anyone... even if that person was elected as our president.
exactly.
even as a supporter of obama, while he most closely represents my pov out of all the candidates before the election, his position on the death penalty, and on gay marriage, we don't agree. i am happy he at least supports civil unions, but i would far prefer he fully support gay marriage. besides the fact, his 'personal' view if his own, just like anyone else. as long as he publicly supports what's right...it's all good.
I heard it because of African Americans this didn’t pass. Church goers. So it really comes down to religion. Ironic because they had to struggle for their rights and here they are telling somebody they can’t get married.
*~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*
SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause.) Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition?
SEN. OBAMA: No, I would not.
REV. WARREN: Why not?
SEN. OBAMA: (Applause.) Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution. It's been a matter of state law that has been our tradition. Now, I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are.
I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or a different view. (Applause.)
SEN. OBAMA: (Applause.) Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution. It's been a matter of state law that has been our tradition. Now, I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are.
what the heck does this mean??
i was unaware gays visiting the hospitalised was an issue.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
wow i guess this is why this thread has died over the past few days....no loudmouths now huh
What the fuck are you talking about? Threads die all the time. They run their natural course. But since you asked, I think Obama is full of shit on this issue.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." ~ Barrack Obama
Why would anybody disagree with the man that America voted into office?
Do you agree with the person you voted for 100%? That is an extremely week argument you have there.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
wow i guess this is why this thread has died over the past few days....no loudmouths now huh
Just because some politicians says so doesn't mean that he is right. I don't care what your religious beliefs are it is discrimination and no amount of bible passages or politicians supporting it will change that fact.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Just because some politicians says so doesn't mean that he is right. I don't care what your religious beliefs are it is discrimination and no amount of bible passages or politicians supporting it will change that fact.
well heres everyones big chance. instead of whining on a pearl jam message pit and calling other people bigots and discriminators.....go march on the future president (A PERSON THAT PROB 90% OF YOU PEOPLE VOTED FOR) and call him out to his face. get a bunch of you, make some signs, and hit the streets in DC, ohhhhhhhhhh thats probably too much work for something is so sensitive to you and that you all care so much about about
well heres everyones big chance. instead of whining on a pearl jam message pit and calling other people bigots and discriminators.....go march on the future president (A PERSON THAT PROB 90% OF YOU PEOPLE VOTED FOR) and call him out to his face. get a bunch of you, make some signs, and hit the streets in DC, ohhhhhhhhhh thats probably too much work for something is so sensitive to you and that you all care so much about about
Well I for one didn't vote for him and I'm doing my part here in my home state to help people like my brother get equal rights. Obama has no business getting involved in this issue as it is not a federal issue, so protesting Obama is fucking useless.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Obama said that for him personally, marriage is between a man and a woman. OK, fine. He is entitled to have a personal opinion on that. Just because your president thinks of marriage as between a man and a woman does not have any implications on the constitutionality of proposition 8.
He also said he does NOT support a constitutional amendment, and that it should be left to the states. There is nothing particularly offensive about leaving it up to the states. In fact, that would lead to the repealing of the "Defense of Marriage Act" in my opinion.
Leave it up to the states but enforce the US Constitution when the states screw it up. In California, our courts got it right but the people got together and violated the US constitution. So the federal courts have to correct that. That is what "should" happen, but who knows how it will play out.
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]
well heres everyones big chance. instead of whining on a pearl jam message pit and calling other people bigots and discriminators.....go march on the future president (A PERSON THAT PROB 90% OF YOU PEOPLE VOTED FOR) and call him out to his face. get a bunch of you, make some signs, and hit the streets in DC, ohhhhhhhhhh thats probably too much work for something is so sensitive to you and that you all care so much about about
What are you saying? You mean because Obama himself thinks marriage is a man and a woman? That makes no difference. I think there are a lot of people who can distinguish between what marriage PERSONALLY means to them on teh one hand and on the other hand what the law should allow on a state level based on equality. The only thing that ultimately matters is whether state law is in accordance with the constitution, and that is what will play out in the months and years to come.
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 did a little research and found that marriage licenses started coming into affect in the early to mid 1800's, here in the states. The states justified the issuance on marriage licenses as a mean to prevent the spread of disease, to prevent marriage under duress, and to provide both parties a grace period to make sure that they where making the right decision. No where does it state that the state issued these licenses to prevent a marriage based on ethnicity, sexual preference or race. Up until the 1960's marriage licenses where used to prevent mixed racial marriages.
Also or most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the seventeenth century, Christian Churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows — even without witnesses — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I did a little research and found that marriage licenses started coming into affect in the early to mid 1800's, here in the states. The states justified the issuance on marriage licenses as a mean to prevent the spread of disease, to prevent marriage under duress, and to provide both parties a grace period to make sure that they where making the right decision. No where does it state that the state issued these licenses to prevent a marriage based on ethnicity, sexual preference or race. Up until the 1960's marriage licenses where used to prevent mixed racial marriages.
Also or most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the seventeenth century, Christian Churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows — even without witnesses — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
Thank you. Yeah, as I have posted the history of marriage shows it is far from the bond of love between a man and a woman that people claim it to be. I have nothing against marriage as an institution, but it's historically been mostly about the estates of the two families, not the bond between the individuals.
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 did a little research and found that marriage licenses started coming into affect in the early to mid 1800's, here in the states. The states justified the issuance on marriage licenses as a mean to prevent the spread of disease, to prevent marriage under duress, and to provide both parties a grace period to make sure that they where making the right decision. No where does it state that the state issued these licenses to prevent a marriage based on ethnicity, sexual preference or race. Up until the 1960's marriage licenses where used to prevent mixed racial marriages.
Also or most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the seventeenth century, Christian Churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows — even without witnesses — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
funny how much THAT has changed!
interesting stuff.
i was not aware of the history of american marriage licences, merely the history of marriage say in europe, middle ages, etc....and the familial contracts and arrangements of such.
Interesting article.
I found it the most interesting that they're protesting outside of churches...good. Now churches are getting a taste of their own medicine for protesting outside abortion clinics.
Chicago 2000 : Chicago 2003 : Chicago 2006 : Summerfest 2006 : Lollapalooza 2007 : Chicago 2009 : Noblesville (Indy) 2010 : PJ20 (East Troy) 2011 : Wrigley Field 2013 : Milwaukee (Yield) 2014 : Wrigley Field 2016
Interesting article.
I found it the most interesting that they're protesting outside of churches...good. Now churches are getting a taste of their own medicine for protesting outside abortion clinics.
One of these days people will figure out that churches are responsible for a lot of inequality and pain in this world.
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]
One of these days people will figure out that churches are responsible for a lot of inequality and pain in this world.
I would disagree. Religion, or churches, are not the cause. It's the people who run said institutions and fill it's seats who are guilty of this. The core message of Christianity has been warped by man.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I would disagree. Religion, or churches, are not the cause. It's the people who run said institutions and fill it's seats who are guilty of this. The core message of Christianity has been warped by man.
Yeah, I'll have to agree with him on that one. Not all Christians are guilty of hate-filled unjust acts; just a vocal minority of them.
Chicago 2000 : Chicago 2003 : Chicago 2006 : Summerfest 2006 : Lollapalooza 2007 : Chicago 2009 : Noblesville (Indy) 2010 : PJ20 (East Troy) 2011 : Wrigley Field 2013 : Milwaukee (Yield) 2014 : Wrigley Field 2016
I would disagree. Religion, or churches, are not the cause. It's the people who run said institutions and fill it's seats who are guilty of this. The core message of Christianity has been warped by man.
Well of course if you boil everything down, it's man. Churches and religion are man-made. I thought that was implied, but I think some would argue that churches were ultimately invented by God or whatever. My point was that it is not surprising to see that the church was one of the central figures behind this example of injustice, since it is not the first time nor will it be the last. Religion and the church have done some good things in the world, I think, but recently most of what I see is pain and destruction coming from organized religions throughout the world.
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]
So, I don't know if it was brought up earlier in this thread, but it turns out I was dead wrong about the legality of same-sex marriages in states other than the ones in which they were performed. Some of us here thought same-sex marriages in Massachusetts for example would have to be honored everywhere due to the full-faith and credit clause. Not so, thanks to President Clinton, Bob Barr and a Republican Congress. The Defense of Marriage Act signed in 1996 does two things, apparently;
-No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
-The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
For all intents and purposes, it seems to act as a federal banning of gay marriage, and it directly violates the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. Same-sex marriages, not forbidden in the Constitution, are now not to be recognized? I honestly don't understand how there is a legal argument for this. In the United States, you need a reason to make something illegal as opposed to make something legal. States that make such laws as the federal Defense of Marriage Act do so in violation of federal law, and since federal law always trumps state law in areas where they are contradictory, any law that prohibits same-sex marriages is by definition unconstitutional. There is no good legal justification; not 'upholding the Constitution', not 'states' rights'. The only answer here is that they are legislating discrimination.
So, I don't know if it was brought up earlier in this thread, but it turns out I was dead wrong about the legality of same-sex marriages in states other than the ones in which they were performed. Some of us here thought same-sex marriages in Massachusetts for example would have to be honored everywhere due to the full-faith and credit clause. Not so, thanks to President Clinton, Bob Barr and a Republican Congress. The Defense of Marriage Act signed in 1996 does two things, apparently;
-No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
-The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
For all intents and purposes, it seems to act as a federal banning of gay marriage, and it directly violates the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. Same-sex marriages, not forbidden in the Constitution, are now not to be recognized? I honestly don't understand how there is a legal argument for this. In the United States, you need a reason to make something illegal as opposed to make something legal. States that make such laws as the federal Defense of Marriage Act do so in violation of federal law, and since federal law always trumps state law in areas where they are contradictory, any law that prohibits same-sex marriages is by definition unconstitutional. There is no good legal justification; not 'upholding the Constitution', not 'states' rights'. The only answer here is that they are legislating discrimination.
Yeah, I mentioned DOMA a couple of times. DOMA actually violates the Full Faith & Credit Clause. Many think that the democratic legislature and president will repeal DOMA. That would be a dagger to proposition 8. But yeah, right now DOMA stands in the way of the Full Faith & Credit Clause, as well as the 14th Amendment.
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]
Yeah, I mentioned DOMA a couple of times. DOMA actually violates the Full Faith & Credit Clause. Many think that the democratic legislature and president will repeal DOMA. That would be a dagger to proposition 8. But yeah, right now DOMA stands in the way of the Full Faith & Credit Clause, as well as the 14th Amendment.
Maybe I just haven't been paying as much attention; how do conservative supporters defend this bill and things like Proposition 8? I doubt many people are as blatant as to come out and say "it's because we hate gay people." Maybe I was giving them too much credit by assuming they had to have some kind of legal argument.
Comments
...
Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth concerning human sexuality and the dignity of persons.
the WHOLE moral TRUTH. what does that mean??
if i am engaging in sexual acts without the intent of abusing the other person(or myself
as for this:
Any sexual activity outside marriage with others or alone is gravely evil.
looks like im going to hell. if only i actually believed it existed. :rolleyes:
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
catholic guilt....it's not a myth
Why would anybody disagree with the man that America voted into office?
routine was the theme..
there aint gonna be any middle any more
To answer your question... I believe it's because , as Americans, we don't have to automatically agree with anyone... even if that person was elected as our president.
Hail, Hail!!!
REV. WARREN: Define marriage.
SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause.) Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition?
SEN. OBAMA: No, I would not.
REV. WARREN: Why not?
SEN. OBAMA: (Applause.) Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution. It's been a matter of state law that has been our tradition. Now, I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are.
I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or a different view. (Applause.)
Here's the link to read the whole thing: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/08/transcript_of_obama_mccain_at.html
exactly.
even as a supporter of obama, while he most closely represents my pov out of all the candidates before the election, his position on the death penalty, and on gay marriage, we don't agree. i am happy he at least supports civil unions, but i would far prefer he fully support gay marriage. besides the fact, his 'personal' view if his own, just like anyone else. as long as he publicly supports what's right...it's all good.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I heard it because of African Americans this didn’t pass. Church goers. So it really comes down to religion. Ironic because they had to struggle for their rights and here they are telling somebody they can’t get married.
routine was the theme..
there aint gonna be any middle any more
what the heck does this mean??
i was unaware gays visiting the hospitalised was an issue.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What the fuck are you talking about? Threads die all the time. They run their natural course. But since you asked, I think Obama is full of shit on this issue.
Do you agree with the person you voted for 100%? That is an extremely week argument you have there.
Just because some politicians says so doesn't mean that he is right. I don't care what your religious beliefs are it is discrimination and no amount of bible passages or politicians supporting it will change that fact.
routine was the theme..
there aint gonna be any middle any more
Well I for one didn't vote for him and I'm doing my part here in my home state to help people like my brother get equal rights. Obama has no business getting involved in this issue as it is not a federal issue, so protesting Obama is fucking useless.
He also said he does NOT support a constitutional amendment, and that it should be left to the states. There is nothing particularly offensive about leaving it up to the states. In fact, that would lead to the repealing of the "Defense of Marriage Act" in my opinion.
Leave it up to the states but enforce the US Constitution when the states screw it up. In California, our courts got it right but the people got together and violated the US constitution. So the federal courts have to correct that. That is what "should" happen, but who knows how it will play out.
What are you saying? You mean because Obama himself thinks marriage is a man and a woman? That makes no difference. I think there are a lot of people who can distinguish between what marriage PERSONALLY means to them on teh one hand and on the other hand what the law should allow on a state level based on equality. The only thing that ultimately matters is whether state law is in accordance with the constitution, and that is what will play out in the months and years to come.
Also or most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the seventeenth century, Christian Churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows — even without witnesses — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
Thank you. Yeah, as I have posted the history of marriage shows it is far from the bond of love between a man and a woman that people claim it to be. I have nothing against marriage as an institution, but it's historically been mostly about the estates of the two families, not the bond between the individuals.
funny how much THAT has changed!
interesting stuff.
i was not aware of the history of american marriage licences, merely the history of marriage say in europe, middle ages, etc....and the familial contracts and arrangements of such.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Schwarzenegger spoke up... for the protesters ...
Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Interesting article.
I found it the most interesting that they're protesting outside of churches...good. Now churches are getting a taste of their own medicine for protesting outside abortion clinics.
One of these days people will figure out that churches are responsible for a lot of inequality and pain in this world.
routine was the theme..
there aint gonna be any middle any more
I would disagree. Religion, or churches, are not the cause. It's the people who run said institutions and fill it's seats who are guilty of this. The core message of Christianity has been warped by man.
Yeah, I'll have to agree with him on that one. Not all Christians are guilty of hate-filled unjust acts; just a vocal minority of them.
Well of course if you boil everything down, it's man. Churches and religion are man-made. I thought that was implied, but I think some would argue that churches were ultimately invented by God or whatever. My point was that it is not surprising to see that the church was one of the central figures behind this example of injustice, since it is not the first time nor will it be the last. Religion and the church have done some good things in the world, I think, but recently most of what I see is pain and destruction coming from organized religions throughout the world.
-No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
-The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
For all intents and purposes, it seems to act as a federal banning of gay marriage, and it directly violates the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. Same-sex marriages, not forbidden in the Constitution, are now not to be recognized? I honestly don't understand how there is a legal argument for this. In the United States, you need a reason to make something illegal as opposed to make something legal. States that make such laws as the federal Defense of Marriage Act do so in violation of federal law, and since federal law always trumps state law in areas where they are contradictory, any law that prohibits same-sex marriages is by definition unconstitutional. There is no good legal justification; not 'upholding the Constitution', not 'states' rights'. The only answer here is that they are legislating discrimination.
Yeah, I mentioned DOMA a couple of times. DOMA actually violates the Full Faith & Credit Clause. Many think that the democratic legislature and president will repeal DOMA. That would be a dagger to proposition 8. But yeah, right now DOMA stands in the way of the Full Faith & Credit Clause, as well as the 14th Amendment.
Maybe I just haven't been paying as much attention; how do conservative supporters defend this bill and things like Proposition 8? I doubt many people are as blatant as to come out and say "it's because we hate gay people." Maybe I was giving them too much credit by assuming they had to have some kind of legal argument.