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.
I am sure if you look up the legislative record and documents in support of DOMA as it was being passed, you'd see a lot of support from religious and conservative institutions citing the history of marriage as between a man and a woman, etc. See the beauty of passing DOMA in 1996 was it was way before any states actually allowed gay marriage. In effect, they got together before on a federal level, knowing one day states would allow it, and this was a way to put a block on the states rights issue.
But now that there is a democratic led congress, senate and presidency, DOMA could (and really should) fall. Should be interesting.
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 am against prop 8, and I favor gay marriage, however, if I were in a marriage that wasn't recognized by society, I think I'd be more concerend about the legal rights to which we are entitled (med ins for partner, community property, power of attorney at time of serious illness).
One of these days people will figure out that churches are responsible for a lot of inequality and pain in this world.
kinda sad that on first reading, i read that as 'and palin in this world'...! hahaha. bit synonymous tho.
joe.....i agree, to an extent. have said as much in numerous posts on this thread. however, if you're going to fight the fight, might as well go for what you REALLY want, which is true equality, which equals MARRIAGE rights. i do fully believe it's the right thing to do, not settle for half-measures, b/c while for now sure....get the legal benefits...but always be seen as 'less.'
Woudln't Obama have been considered FOR Prop 8? He was outspokenly against Gay "Marriage".
who cares?
i know his personal belief is that 'nmarriage is between a man and a woman.' however, he does support civil unions, and believes it should be decided at the state level. beyond that, with his prestigious law background, i am sure he could manage to have his personal beliefs, and yet still be for equal rights, and seperate the 2 if need be. just b/c he may believe in marriage in one way, does not necessarily imply he would vote for prop 8 on that, but look at the larger picture.
bottomline tho..i stick with my first comment. who cares what his personal beliefs are on the issue. doesn't make a shit of difference.
when you really look at this issue - it is absolutely about love and tolerance or the lack there of in this world ...
The key word "tolerance". Tolerance does not equal agreement or condoning. I can tolerate dealing with someone who does something that I don't approve of. However, I don't have to condone thier behavior.
If they want funds... I can totally tolerate that. If they want me to say it's "marriage", I won't do that. I'm with Obama on this one, just call it something else. The term Civil Union is fine.
i know his personal belief is that 'nmarriage is between a man and a woman.' however, he does support civil unions, and believes it should be decided at the state level. beyond that, with his prestigious law background, i am sure he could manage to have his personal beliefs, and yet still be for equal rights, and seperate the 2 if need be. just b/c he may believe in marriage in one way, does not necessarily imply he would vote for prop 8 on that, but look at the larger picture.
bottomline tho..i stick with my first comment. who cares what his personal beliefs are on the issue. doesn't make a shit of difference.
He's the President of the U.S. You voted for him. If this is an important issue for you, you most likely would care about his opinion on the subject. If it's not an important issue for you, then it's not.
This whole Obama defense by the Obama supporters is already getting old. Just say you don't agree with his outspoken opinion and move on. It's really that easy.
The key word "tolerance". Tolerance does not equal agreement or condoning. I can tolerate dealing with someone who does something that I don't approve of. However, I don't have to condone thier behavior.
If they want funds... I can totally tolerate that. If they want me to say it's "marriage", I won't do that. I'm with Obama on this one, just call it something else. The term Civil Union is fine.
awwww. well isn't that nice of you...allowing the gays to call their relationships civil unions. you and obama can do that, i will support gays rights to legal marriage.
btw - i don't think they personally give a shit if you 'say it's marriage'......THEY just want the right to it, period, regardless of if you would personally call it that or not. personal beliefs and legal rights, nice when they are synonymous, but they don't have to be, and often aren't...mutually exclusive. thankfully.
He's the President of the U.S. You voted for him. If this is an important issue for you, you most likely would care about his opinion on the subject. If it's not an important issue for you, then it's not.
This whole Obama defense by the Obama supporters is already getting old. Just say you don't agree with his outspoken opinion and move on. It's really that easy.
:rolleyes:
spare me.
i HAVE!
numerous times!
outright said that this, and the death penalty, are 2 issues i disagree with obama. however, on issues of greater importance to me....we are closer in beliefs than any of the other candidates, thus my vote. i don't have a problem admitting i don't agree with him, or anyone, 100%. moving on......
The key word "tolerance". Tolerance does not equal agreement or condoning. I can tolerate dealing with someone who does something that I don't approve of. However, I don't have to condone thier behavior.
If they want funds... I can totally tolerate that. If they want me to say it's "marriage", I won't do that. I'm with Obama on this one, just call it something else. The term Civil Union is fine.
condone? ... i didn't know homosexuality had to have yours or anyone else's consent!?
what you are exhibiting is intolerance - don't kid yourself ... when two people want to live a life with the SAME rights you are entitled to and you want to prevent that - that is intolerance ... i don't need a guy with a white collar or any book to tell me that ...
Obama would not vote for this, at least I could not see it at all. As far as his opinion, well I think he stays "centered" on some of thse issues...just no way I could see Obama voting for this. ..and he would be on the right side of it.
..just call it a civil union..or....sounds much like, hey the blacks have a restroom, it's just a SEPARATE BUT EQUAL restroom. When you try to deny human rights, it's funny how the bullshit and semantics become so transparent so quickly. Let them get married if they want.
Now, how about something pertinent to current issues proposed, that would help quality of life? ........I don't know, foreclosures, the economy, healthcare(the lack of), some refining of alternative energy, then back off some gun control, maybe legalize marijauana, then...........
I still can't imagine when a gay marriage ban becomes a priority.
I suppose that now we have a black president, it becomes increasingly important to target new groups for discrimination. I hope that when I hav grandchildren, at least when they are adults-this will be as facetious as it appears to me today.
condone? ... i didn't know homosexuality had to have yours or anyone else's consent!?
what you are exhibiting is intolerance - don't kid yourself ... when two people want to live a life with the SAME rights you are entitled to and you want to prevent that - that is intolerance ... i don't need a guy with a white collar or any book to tell me that ...
awwww. well isn't that nice of you...allowing the gays to call their relationships civil unions. you and obama can do that, i will support gays rights to legal marriage.
btw - i don't think they personally give a shit if you 'say it's marriage'......THEY just want the right to it, period, regardless of if you would personally call it that or not. personal beliefs and legal rights, nice when they are synonymous, but they don't have to be, and often aren't...mutually
I completely disagree... they totally give a shit if "we" as a collective say it's marriage. That's why they are fighting for... a stinking word. They have both political parties saying they can get funds, via civil unions.
THEY want that word for a reason... they want to have a 'red stamp of approval'. They can keep trying but they won't ever get universal approval. The majority doesn't approve and won't approve. And the WORD "marriage" is not, nor ever will be a civil rights issue. The money... is a civil rights issue, and as I said before both parties support payment, neither support gay marriage.
I have gay friends. They are great people. I support them getting money. I don't support them getting "married". I'm in the majority in my view.
condone? ... i didn't know homosexuality had to have yours or anyone else's consent!?
what you are exhibiting is intolerance - don't kid yourself ... when two people want to live a life with the SAME rights you are entitled to and you want to prevent that - that is intolerance ... i don't need a guy with a white collar or any book to tell me that ...
They don't need my consent at all. They can do as they please.
That said, they are asking for our consent by reaching for the term marriage.
I am FOR Civil Unions which would grant them all the benefits they would get if they were married. Once again, I'm with Obama.
Obama would not vote for this, at least I could not see it at all. As far as his opinion, well I think he stays "centered" on some of thse issues...just no way I could see Obama voting for this. ..and he would be on the right side of it.
..just call it a civil union..or....sounds much like, hey the blacks have a restroom, it's just a SEPARATE BUT EQUAL restroom. When you try to deny human rights, it's funny how the bullshit and semantics become so transparent so quickly. Let them get married if they want.
Now, how about something pertinent to current issues proposed, that would help quality of life? ........I don't know, foreclosures, the economy, healthcare(the lack of), some refining of alternative energy, then back off some gun control, maybe legalize marijauana, then...........
I still can't imagine when a gay marriage ban becomes a priority.
I suppose that now we have a black president, it becomes increasingly important to target new groups for discrimination. I hope that when I hav grandchildren, at least when they are adults-this will be as facetious as it appears to me today.
exactly.
just like one could personally be against abortion for themselves, and yet still SUPPORT a woman's right to choose, to make her own choice....and thus be pro-choice. amazingly, many people ARe able to seperate their personal beliefs from the rights of others. i personally believe, obama is one such person intelligent enough to do so.
They don't need my consent at all. They can do as they please.
That said, they are asking for our consent by reaching for the term marriage.
I am FOR Civil Unions which would grant them all the benefits they would get if they were married. Once again, I'm with Obama.
actually, they are asking for the constitution to be upheld, the bill of rights.....EQUALITY for all citizens, zero discrimination.
they ARe entitled to the term 'marriage' like any other citizen. that it actually got voted down by people within this country is beyond sad, discriminatory, and yes.....against the principles of this country.
btw - i don't know if obama is on 'your side'...personal beliefs do not necessarily correlate with how one may vote on an issue. just sayin'.
glad you and he can agree on at least one thing.
btw- i couldn't care less if you are with the 'majority'...once upon a time, the majority was against equal rights for women, for blacks, denied the right to vote, etc. majority in and of itself, means nothing.
They don't need my consent at all. They can do as they please.
That said, they are asking for our consent by reaching for the term marriage.
I am FOR Civil Unions which would grant them all the benefits they would get if they were married. Once again, I'm with Obama.
well ... the people of california need the consent of their fellow peers and guess what - they didn't get it ...
are you implying that you own the word "marriage" or rather your belief system owns that word?? ...
you do realize that you are prepared to deny the rights we talk about over a word!?? ... is THAT word so important to you that you would choose to deny a couple the same rights you have!??
who cares about obama - it's not like mccain would have voiced differently
I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so forgive me if this has already been answered... but why does anyone think they have the ability or right to control the use of the word "marriage" or the concept it describes?
Edit: I see that polaris just asked the same question:
I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so forgive me if this has already been answered... but why does anyone think they have the ability or right to control the use of the word "marriage" or the concept it describes?
Edit: I see that polaris just asked the same question:
I don't understand this question.
Marriage has a definition. Historically marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
If you ask this question it counts for both sides, imo.
That said, they are asking for our consent by reaching for the term marriage.
I am FOR Civil Unions which would grant them all the benefits they would get if they were married. Once again, I'm with Obama.
No, they do not need your consent. Show me in the Constitution where it outlaws defining marriage as such? Marriage under the law is not a right to be granted to certain peoples, it is a right bestowed to all unless the law states otherwise. The Constitution cannot be any clearer;
"Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another."
...and nowhere else does it mention discriminating on the basis of marriage. Marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman by the framers. It was defined as between a man and a woman by conservatives who decided to use big government to define marriage and a weak-kneed Democratic president. The law is from 1996; we're not talking about ancient history. There is no constitutional basis for denying gay marriage. They don't require your consent or my consent. They have it already, so long as they are a U.S. citizen. If not, there wouldn't have been a need for the Defense of Marriage Act in the first place.
What is your argument that they need 'consent' for marriage? Where in the Constitution does it bear this out? Until 1996, why were we not to assume that as citizens they did not have this right already? As a conservative, I'll assume for the moment that you don't want big government butting into the picture unless absolutely necessary. Why do you stress big government now? Because the only way gay marriage will be outlawed is with big government.
actually, they are asking for the constitution to be upheld, the bill of rights.....EQUALITY for all citizens, zero discrimination.
they ARe entitled to the term 'marriage' like any other citizen. that it actually got voted down by people within this country is beyond sad, discriminatory, and yes.....against the principles of this country.
Doesn't have anything to do with discrimination or equality for all citizens. It has to do with a WORD and its definition. It has to do with the government altering the historical definition of a word in order to appease a community of people. It's not the government's place to define what a word means.
It's not sad, it's not discriminatory and not against the principles of this country. An orange is not an apple. 2 is not 3. A heterosexual union is not a marriage. You are saying it is. I am saying it's not. The majority agree with my definition as does the man you voted for.
It has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. IT HAS TO DO WITH A DEFINITION.
I'm not going to write a book long post and I'm not going to read your book long post either. I skimmed it and I'll be brief.
We have power over the legislative, judicial and executive. In that regard, the gay community needs the majority consent for this issue.
Once again, this is a definition... and you are asking the government to redefine a term.
The gay community can get everything but a "very special word" if they want it. You know and I know they want the word. Why? Because they want to force-feed consent on to the majority. The majority aren't buying it... the politicians have realized this (including the new President)... so, the gay community would be best served taking the term civil union (with all the benefits of marriage) and dealing.
you do realize that you are prepared to deny the rights we talk about over a word!?? ... is THAT word so important to you that you would choose to deny a couple the same rights you have!??
I'm not denying any rights. If they want those rights, you and I know how they can get them.... Civil Unions. Is that word so important to THEM that THEY would choose to not accept the same rights that married couples receive?
I'm not going to write a book long post and I'm not going to read your book long post either. I skimmed it and I'll be brief.
We have power over the legislative, judicial and executive. In that regard, the gay community needs the majority consent for this issue.
Once again, this is a definition... and you are asking the government to redefine a term.
The gay community can get everything but a "very special word" if they want it. You know and I know they want the word. Why? Because they want to force-feed consent on to the majority. The majority aren't buying it... the politicians have realized this (including the new President)... so, the gay community would be best served taking the term civil union (with all the benefits of marriage) and dealing.
You believe we have power over the supreme court?
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]
Doesn't have anything to do with discrimination or equality for all citizens. It has to do with a WORD and its definition. It has to do with the government altering the historical definition of a word in order to appease a community of people. It's not the government's place to define what a word means.
It has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. IT HAS TO DO WITH A DEFINITION.
I must say, since when have we run the country according to the Webster's Dictionary rather than the Constitution? I agree with you wholeheartedly when you say that "it's not the government's place to define what a word means." But that's exactly what the Defense of Marriage Act does. That's what denying marriage to same-sex couples does; it defines the word and government is necessary to define it to exclude others. If we were serious about government getting out of the way of marriage we'd let states define it however they will and follow the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution that allows marriages to be respected everywhere. But you're not going to see that, because they feel that marriage should be between a "man and a woman." If you can show me where the framers made that clear, I'd be happy to abide, but it's not there. Also, as I'm sure you know, a hundred years ago and less marriage was 'defined' as being between a man and woman of the same race. That was how people defined it then; you're going to tell me that it was wise and just to follow that definition?
Why get government involved? Why the need for a Defense of Marriage act at all, if you think government should not be in the business of defining words for people?
I'm not going to write a book long post and I'm not going to read your book long post either. I skimmed it and I'll be brief.
We have power over the legislative, judicial and executive. In that regard, the gay community needs the majority consent for this issue.
Once again, this is a definition... and you are asking the government to redefine a term.
The gay community can get everything but a "very special word" if they want it. You know and I know they want the word. Why? Because they want to force-feed consent on to the majority. The majority aren't buying it... the politicians have realized this (including the new President)... so, the gay community would be best served taking the term civil union (with all the benefits of marriage) and dealing.
I don't really think three paragraphs qualifies as a book-long post but I'll keep it short this time.
Just going to reiterate, if you think government should be in the business of defining and redefining terms you should probably be first in line to call for the immediate removal of the Defense of Marriage Act, as that is exactly what it does.
And I think your last paragraph is just plain wrong. Same-sex couples feel they deserve the right to marry; they're not asking for it. As citizens, it's theirs to begin with. Your idea of 'force-feeding consent on the majority' is just untrue. Every gay couple I know wants the right because they want the right to be married in church and state. Everything else is bullshit.
I don't really think three paragraphs qualifies as a book-long post but I'll keep it short this time.
Just going to reiterate, if you think government should be in the business of defining and redefining terms you should probably be first in line to call for the immediate removal of the Defense of Marriage Act, as that is exactly what it does.
And I think your last paragraph is just plain wrong. Same-sex couples feel they deserve the right to marry; they're not asking for it. As citizens, it's theirs to begin with. Your idea of 'force-feeding consent on the majority' is just untrue. Every gay couple I know wants the right because they want the right to be married in church and state. Everything else is bullshit.
Exactly. Sort of like when African Americans were arguing that they should be defined as more than 3/5 of a person. People who were against calling them a "person" believed that the 3/5 definition was already more than enough, sort of like the "civil union" argument today.
In reality, the right to being a "person" and the right of gays to marry already exists as a fundamental civil right. Whether the laws evolve to reflect that is the question. The supreme court, unlike the either two branches, is an apolitical branch of the government, and is there to protect fundamental rights when majorities and politicians suppress them.
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]
Marriage has a definition. Historically marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
If you ask this question it counts for both sides, imo.
Marriage does have a definition. The word marriage defines a certain type of relationship between two people - it refers to the relationship, not the people in the relationship. If two people have this relationship, who is anyone to tell them they don't or can't, especially based solely on their physical attributes?
I understand that marriage has historically been between a man and a woman. But it has also historically been between people of the same race, class, geographic region, etc. We may think people of different races, classes, or whatever shouldn't get married, but that doesn't change the definition of marriage itself.
Besides, how can we rigidly define marriage based on sex and/or gender when sex and/or gender themselves aren't always so rigidly defined?
Comments
I am sure if you look up the legislative record and documents in support of DOMA as it was being passed, you'd see a lot of support from religious and conservative institutions citing the history of marriage as between a man and a woman, etc. See the beauty of passing DOMA in 1996 was it was way before any states actually allowed gay marriage. In effect, they got together before on a federal level, knowing one day states would allow it, and this was a way to put a block on the states rights issue.
But now that there is a democratic led congress, senate and presidency, DOMA could (and really should) fall. Should be interesting.
kinda sad that on first reading, i read that as 'and palin in this world'...!
joe.....i agree, to an extent. have said as much in numerous posts on this thread. however, if you're going to fight the fight, might as well go for what you REALLY want, which is true equality, which equals MARRIAGE rights. i do fully believe it's the right thing to do, not settle for half-measures, b/c while for now sure....get the legal benefits...but always be seen as 'less.'
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
when you really look at this issue - it is absolutely about love and tolerance or the lack there of in this world ...
who cares?
i know his personal belief is that 'nmarriage is between a man and a woman.' however, he does support civil unions, and believes it should be decided at the state level. beyond that, with his prestigious law background, i am sure he could manage to have his personal beliefs, and yet still be for equal rights, and seperate the 2 if need be. just b/c he may believe in marriage in one way, does not necessarily imply he would vote for prop 8 on that, but look at the larger picture.
bottomline tho..i stick with my first comment. who cares what his personal beliefs are on the issue. doesn't make a shit of difference.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
The key word "tolerance". Tolerance does not equal agreement or condoning. I can tolerate dealing with someone who does something that I don't approve of. However, I don't have to condone thier behavior.
If they want funds... I can totally tolerate that. If they want me to say it's "marriage", I won't do that. I'm with Obama on this one, just call it something else. The term Civil Union is fine.
He's the President of the U.S. You voted for him. If this is an important issue for you, you most likely would care about his opinion on the subject. If it's not an important issue for you, then it's not.
This whole Obama defense by the Obama supporters is already getting old. Just say you don't agree with his outspoken opinion and move on. It's really that easy.
awwww. well isn't that nice of you...allowing the gays to call their relationships civil unions. you and obama can do that, i will support gays rights to legal marriage.
btw - i don't think they personally give a shit if you 'say it's marriage'......THEY just want the right to it, period, regardless of if you would personally call it that or not. personal beliefs and legal rights, nice when they are synonymous, but they don't have to be, and often aren't...mutually exclusive. thankfully.
:rolleyes:
spare me.
i HAVE!
numerous times!
outright said that this, and the death penalty, are 2 issues i disagree with obama. however, on issues of greater importance to me....we are closer in beliefs than any of the other candidates, thus my vote. i don't have a problem admitting i don't agree with him, or anyone, 100%. moving on......
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
condone? ... i didn't know homosexuality had to have yours or anyone else's consent!?
what you are exhibiting is intolerance - don't kid yourself ... when two people want to live a life with the SAME rights you are entitled to and you want to prevent that - that is intolerance ... i don't need a guy with a white collar or any book to tell me that ...
..just call it a civil union..or....sounds much like, hey the blacks have a restroom, it's just a SEPARATE BUT EQUAL restroom. When you try to deny human rights, it's funny how the bullshit and semantics become so transparent so quickly. Let them get married if they want.
Now, how about something pertinent to current issues proposed, that would help quality of life? ........I don't know, foreclosures, the economy, healthcare(the lack of), some refining of alternative energy, then back off some gun control, maybe legalize marijauana, then...........
I still can't imagine when a gay marriage ban becomes a priority.
I suppose that now we have a black president, it becomes increasingly important to target new groups for discrimination. I hope that when I hav grandchildren, at least when they are adults-this will be as facetious as it appears to me today.
applauds!
I completely disagree... they totally give a shit if "we" as a collective say it's marriage. That's why they are fighting for... a stinking word. They have both political parties saying they can get funds, via civil unions.
THEY want that word for a reason... they want to have a 'red stamp of approval'. They can keep trying but they won't ever get universal approval. The majority doesn't approve and won't approve. And the WORD "marriage" is not, nor ever will be a civil rights issue. The money... is a civil rights issue, and as I said before both parties support payment, neither support gay marriage.
I have gay friends. They are great people. I support them getting money. I don't support them getting "married". I'm in the majority in my view.
They don't need my consent at all. They can do as they please.
That said, they are asking for our consent by reaching for the term marriage.
I am FOR Civil Unions which would grant them all the benefits they would get if they were married. Once again, I'm with Obama.
exactly.
just like one could personally be against abortion for themselves, and yet still SUPPORT a woman's right to choose, to make her own choice....and thus be pro-choice. amazingly, many people ARe able to seperate their personal beliefs from the rights of others. i personally believe, obama is one such person intelligent enough to do so.
actually, they are asking for the constitution to be upheld, the bill of rights.....EQUALITY for all citizens, zero discrimination.
they ARe entitled to the term 'marriage' like any other citizen. that it actually got voted down by people within this country is beyond sad, discriminatory, and yes.....against the principles of this country.
btw - i don't know if obama is on 'your side'...personal beliefs do not necessarily correlate with how one may vote on an issue. just sayin'.
glad you and he can agree on at least one thing.
btw- i couldn't care less if you are with the 'majority'...once upon a time, the majority was against equal rights for women, for blacks, denied the right to vote, etc. majority in and of itself, means nothing.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
well ... the people of california need the consent of their fellow peers and guess what - they didn't get it ...
are you implying that you own the word "marriage" or rather your belief system owns that word?? ...
you do realize that you are prepared to deny the rights we talk about over a word!?? ... is THAT word so important to you that you would choose to deny a couple the same rights you have!??
who cares about obama - it's not like mccain would have voiced differently
Edit: I see that polaris just asked the same question:
I don't understand this question.
Marriage has a definition. Historically marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
If you ask this question it counts for both sides, imo.
naděje umírá poslední
historically a burger used to be made with beef ... now, it's made with chicken, duck, horse ... whatever ...
marriage is a union between two people but more importantly how does two gay people getting "married" impact someone else's life?
No, they do not need your consent. Show me in the Constitution where it outlaws defining marriage as such? Marriage under the law is not a right to be granted to certain peoples, it is a right bestowed to all unless the law states otherwise. The Constitution cannot be any clearer;
"Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another."
...and nowhere else does it mention discriminating on the basis of marriage. Marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman by the framers. It was defined as between a man and a woman by conservatives who decided to use big government to define marriage and a weak-kneed Democratic president. The law is from 1996; we're not talking about ancient history. There is no constitutional basis for denying gay marriage. They don't require your consent or my consent. They have it already, so long as they are a U.S. citizen. If not, there wouldn't have been a need for the Defense of Marriage Act in the first place.
What is your argument that they need 'consent' for marriage? Where in the Constitution does it bear this out? Until 1996, why were we not to assume that as citizens they did not have this right already? As a conservative, I'll assume for the moment that you don't want big government butting into the picture unless absolutely necessary. Why do you stress big government now? Because the only way gay marriage will be outlawed is with big government.
Doesn't have anything to do with discrimination or equality for all citizens. It has to do with a WORD and its definition. It has to do with the government altering the historical definition of a word in order to appease a community of people. It's not the government's place to define what a word means.
It's not sad, it's not discriminatory and not against the principles of this country. An orange is not an apple. 2 is not 3. A heterosexual union is not a marriage. You are saying it is. I am saying it's not. The majority agree with my definition as does the man you voted for.
It has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. IT HAS TO DO WITH A DEFINITION.
I'm not going to write a book long post and I'm not going to read your book long post either. I skimmed it and I'll be brief.
We have power over the legislative, judicial and executive. In that regard, the gay community needs the majority consent for this issue.
Once again, this is a definition... and you are asking the government to redefine a term.
The gay community can get everything but a "very special word" if they want it. You know and I know they want the word. Why? Because they want to force-feed consent on to the majority. The majority aren't buying it... the politicians have realized this (including the new President)... so, the gay community would be best served taking the term civil union (with all the benefits of marriage) and dealing.
I'm implying that the majorities belief system should have the ability to define a word. That's what I'm saying.
I'm not denying any rights. If they want those rights, you and I know how they can get them.... Civil Unions. Is that word so important to THEM that THEY would choose to not accept the same rights that married couples receive?
You simply don't care about him because he's not on your side of the issue. It's funny how that works.
You believe we have power over the supreme court?
I must say, since when have we run the country according to the Webster's Dictionary rather than the Constitution? I agree with you wholeheartedly when you say that "it's not the government's place to define what a word means." But that's exactly what the Defense of Marriage Act does. That's what denying marriage to same-sex couples does; it defines the word and government is necessary to define it to exclude others. If we were serious about government getting out of the way of marriage we'd let states define it however they will and follow the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution that allows marriages to be respected everywhere. But you're not going to see that, because they feel that marriage should be between a "man and a woman." If you can show me where the framers made that clear, I'd be happy to abide, but it's not there. Also, as I'm sure you know, a hundred years ago and less marriage was 'defined' as being between a man and woman of the same race. That was how people defined it then; you're going to tell me that it was wise and just to follow that definition?
Why get government involved? Why the need for a Defense of Marriage act at all, if you think government should not be in the business of defining words for people?
I don't really think three paragraphs qualifies as a book-long post but I'll keep it short this time.
Just going to reiterate, if you think government should be in the business of defining and redefining terms you should probably be first in line to call for the immediate removal of the Defense of Marriage Act, as that is exactly what it does.
And I think your last paragraph is just plain wrong. Same-sex couples feel they deserve the right to marry; they're not asking for it. As citizens, it's theirs to begin with. Your idea of 'force-feeding consent on the majority' is just untrue. Every gay couple I know wants the right because they want the right to be married in church and state. Everything else is bullshit.
Exactly. Sort of like when African Americans were arguing that they should be defined as more than 3/5 of a person. People who were against calling them a "person" believed that the 3/5 definition was already more than enough, sort of like the "civil union" argument today.
In reality, the right to being a "person" and the right of gays to marry already exists as a fundamental civil right. Whether the laws evolve to reflect that is the question. The supreme court, unlike the either two branches, is an apolitical branch of the government, and is there to protect fundamental rights when majorities and politicians suppress them.
Marriage does have a definition. The word marriage defines a certain type of relationship between two people - it refers to the relationship, not the people in the relationship. If two people have this relationship, who is anyone to tell them they don't or can't, especially based solely on their physical attributes?
I understand that marriage has historically been between a man and a woman. But it has also historically been between people of the same race, class, geographic region, etc. We may think people of different races, classes, or whatever shouldn't get married, but that doesn't change the definition of marriage itself.
Besides, how can we rigidly define marriage based on sex and/or gender when sex and/or gender themselves aren't always so rigidly defined?
You know we elect who elects. So, yes, absolutely.