Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[Mr.Nick]

Actually, what seperates the Liberatarians from everyone else is that we've all actually had a candidate get elected.

Hugs & Kisses,

Your BFF!

Like the guy running for president right now???

Well regardless of which candidate you refer to, Yes Nicky! Both Republicans and Democrats have had their people elected to president! I'm very proud of you for picking that one up!

Yeah he has only been a legislator and routinely elected for 30 years?? not to mention the new wave...

That's right. I forgot just how long Ron Paul had been living off our taxes in that government job!

You mean the guy who refuses to take money from the government and has refused so for 30 years??

 

[JohnA]

They are equal. procreation is not a prerequisit for equality except for in the eyes of the bigots looking for an excuse for self-deluded superiority.

Procreation is the reason the institution of marriage exist. No amount of mindless blather about civil rights and "equality" is going to change that.

The marriage tax break does not exist for procreation. That's what the child tax credit is for.

nonsense your full of shit .
you can procreat with out marriage many societies have
marriage is for to people in love to commit to each other THATS WHAT THE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE vows say ,nothing about having children thats a personal choose some choice to have many some choose to have none
doesnt effect the validity of their marriage either way ......

 

[JohnA]

It absolutely is a civil right as is being proven in Cali right now...

That is one of the dumbest fucking things I have heard...

You may as well say "let the professionals handle it and I will believe them" because you're ignorant to the Constitution...

WTF...

That's why this country is so fucked in the first place..

Why don't you read the constitution and bring me some evidence that supports civil unions or gay marriage??

IMO, If a state wants civil unions I could give a fuck either or - states have a Tenth Amendment right to self legislate.

The Fourteenth Amendment could justify about anything from communism in the US to an eye-for-an-eye criminal system.

Equal protection my ass...

Protection from what???

Lynch mobs or those with political views???

Well see Mr. Nick, the federal government has to get involved in the marriage contract thing because of things like immigration, IRS tax returns, Social Security benefits, transfer gifts without tax penalty, etc.

So where in the Constitution does it say you get to file a joint tax return when you get married but I don't? Where does it say you should inherit your spouse's SS benefits but I shouldn't?

the constitution doesnt not address marriage
it doesnt address the president being married .his religion ,or his sexual preferances
it does however adress taxes

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have no links yet.... but same sex marriage is a go in California again.

So how will that affect you personally? Anyone here want to tell me how this will affect them personally?
I asked my wife and she said she's not going to run out and become a lesbian. I'm not going gay. The dogs are not going cat...

This should explain it.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY]It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married) - YouTube[/ame]



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

And I'm not jumping off a bridge just because I'm told it's the right thing to do.

Not to mention who gives a fuck what a city calls it...

WTF...

What... we should just give a fuck what you call it? You're the one whining: that's not a marriage, it's a union......

You're wrong, as syrenn and WorldWatcher have shown. The government calls it marriage.

ONCE AGAIN A MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE!!!!!

Nope, When "marriage" became part of secular law the concept of whatever it was before was split into two distinct and separate realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage: Those marriages established as a function of a religious organization. There are some religious organizations that recognize same-sex marriages, there are others that do not. There are religious organizations that don't recognize valid Civil Marriages also if the Civil Marriage occurs outside the dogma of the specific religious organization.

Civil Marriage: Civil Marriages are established under the rules and authority of civil government. Individuals can be married by a religious organization, but if they don't follow civil law, then, as it pertains to Civil Marriage - those religious marriages are not recognized for governmental purposes. A couple can be "married" in a Church/Temple/Synagogue, but if they don't obtain the requisite paperwork from the State that marriage is not valid under Civil Law.​

Sacraments (or Religious Marriage) is in the realm of the sponsoring religious organization. Civil Marriage is that defined and recognized under the law.

Calling it marriage would be a first amendment violation....

No it wouldn't. It's not uncommon for words to have multiple meanings and applications which it why it is best to describe the context where one is using the word. For example Religous Marriage is a joining under the auspices of a religious organization. "Cardinal" is another example, when used in the context of a religious organization it means an individual high in the organizations structure, when used in the secular sense it can mean a type of Finch (a bird) or in math to describe a series of numbers used to describe a set.

Marriage was only called marriage because this nation at one point was made up of 99% of God fearing Christians...

Could you imagine our founding fathers or anyone for that matter 75 years ago using language like "gay marriage" or "civil unions?"

So why the FUCK do you think they use the word "marriage?"

Or do you only subscribe to the last 40 years of history???

To the founding fathers, 75 years ago, even 40 years ago the concept of "the internet" wouldn't have existed in the minds of them either, yet we are now typing con computers that access it all the time.

Secular language evolves, oh well.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Marriage is NOT A RIGHT NOR A PROTECTION - It's a CONTRACT!!!!

ONCE AGAIN A MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE!!!!

You can't have it both ways, either "marriage" is a secular contract existing and recognized under the laws of government or it is religious doctrine which has no bearing under secular law.

It would be nice if you picked one or the other instead of trying to play both sides simply to try to argue against law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, consenting, adults not being treated equally under the law.

Per your statements either "marriage" is a secular "contract" in which case the government has no business discriminating based on gender or "marriage" is religous doctrine and the government has no business discriminating between religious institutions who perform different-sex only "marriages" and some of which will perform different-sex AND same-sex "marriages". So which is it?



[DISCLAIMER: Recognizing that Religious Marriage under the doctrine of a religious institution is a separte entity from Civil Marriage under the laws of government is not a problem for me as I've already explained how that works.]


>>>>

 

[Full-Auto]

Marriage is NOT A RIGHT NOR A PROTECTION - It's a CONTRACT!!!!

ONCE AGAIN A MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE!!!!

You can't have it both ways, either "marriage" is a secular contract existing and recognized under the laws of government or it is religious doctrine which has no bearing under secular law.

It would be nice if you picked one or the other instead of trying to play both sides simply to try to argue against law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, consenting, adults not being treated equally under the law.



[DISCLAIMER: Recognizing that Religious Marriage under the doctrine of a religious institution is a separte entity from Civil Marriage under the laws of government is not a problem for me as I've already explained how that works.]


>>>>

Spare us your BS about equal treatment and then using taxpayer in the same line.

 

[Katzndogz]

Marriage is most certainly not a religious doctine. Which religion would that be since the institution of marriage predates modern religion back to cave dwellers?

There is nothing wrong with most of the ideas that you hold that a short course in anthropology wouldn't cure.

 

[High_Gravity]

So if marriage is a religious doctrine, Athiests should not be allowed to get married correct?

 

[WorldWatcher]

ONCE AGAIN A MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE!!!!!

Calling it marriage would be a first amendment violation....

Let's follow this logic, sounds like fun...

First of all lets review what the Constitution says about religion:

"1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."​

The very first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights specifically prohibits Congress (and later through the 14th Amendment, any government entity) from respecting the establishment of religion by forcing the citizenry through the power of government to live by a religious code they do not believe in. The second right listed in the Constitution provides that government cannot force people to exercise a religious belief they do not adhere to or be denied the ability to exercise their religious beliefs by the government. Both of these principles of course are tempered by the fact that exercising ones religion cannot infringe on the rights of others - for example human sacrifices would not be a valid means of exercising ones religion.

So...on to the premises...

Premise:
Because the religious doctrine of some (but not all) religious institutions is that Religious Marriage is between a man and a woman, then the government is required to enforce that doctrine under secular law or it will be in violation of the First Amendment.​

All I can say it is absurd on face value and anathema to the very core principles of liberty and freedom, the idea that the government is in place to enforce religious doctrine of selected religious organizations on it's citizens fly's in the very fact of the idea of religious freedom

************************

Secondly, if you define "marriage" as that which exists under religious doctrine and that the government must honor religious doctrine the you create a secondary Constitutional issue. If the secular government is to recognize only religious marriages then you have some houses of worship that only recognize "marriage" as between a man and a woman. However there are other houses of worship that recognize that Religious Marriage can exist between a man and a woman, a man and a man, and a woman and a woman (and in some cases between a man and multiple women).

If the government is required to recognize Religious Marriage because "marriage" is a religious doctrine, then the government should recognize all "marriages" entered into under religious doctrine whether it be man+man, man+man, woman+woman, or man + multiple-women. If the government must not "respect the establishment of religion" by respecting one religious doctrine over another, then even unpopular religious doctrines would have to be recognized as equal. If the government must not restrict the exercise of religion by recognizing certain exercises of religion over another, then even unpopular religious doctrines would have to be recognized as equal.

The above is not the way secular law works of course and is the very reason that Religious Marriage (i.e. religious doctrine) exists as a separate entity from Civil Marriage (under the law).



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

...law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, consenting, adults not being treated equally under the law.

Spare us your BS about equal treatment and then using taxpayer in the same line.

Personally I'd shit-can the whole tax system and go to a flat tax that applies to everyone equally, no deductions no exemptions.

But that is a different topic all together.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

...law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, consenting, adults not being treated equally under the law.

Spare us your BS about equal treatment and then using taxpayer in the same line.

Personally I'd shit-can the whole tax system and go to a flat tax that applies to everyone equally, no deductions no exemptions.

But that is a different topic all together.



>>>>

I agree on the flat tax system.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Personally I'd shit-can the whole tax system and go to a flat tax that applies to everyone equally, no deductions no exemptions.

But that is a different topic all together.



>>>>

I agree on the flat tax system.

Smart move. You should always agree with me.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Personally I'd shit-can the whole tax system and go to a flat tax that applies to everyone equally, no deductions no exemptions.

But that is a different topic all together.



>>>>

I agree on the flat tax system.

Smart move. You should always agree with me.


>>>>

Meh. You're a Chief, it's required.

 

[mal]

So if marriage is a religious doctrine, Athiests should not be allowed to get married correct?

Strawmen should get knocked the fuck down...

In our Society Marriage can be Religious, but foremost it's a Legal Union that can have Direct Impact on Society if the Couple ProCreates...

Now an Idiot or (3) is going to Regurgitate the, "what about people who can't or don't want to, should they be Denied Marriage like the Gays?"...

Go back and read my Responses to that Tripe.

Not you Personally of course HG...



peace...

 

[G.T.]

Your position is still utter idiocy, and you can go back and read why yourself.

 

[Gadawg73]

Charley Manson murdered numerous people.
And he can get married with NO objections.
But gays can't and folk object to it.
Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here.

 

[g5000]

So if marriage is a religious doctrine, Athiests should not be allowed to get married correct?

Strawmen should get knocked the fuck down...

In our Society Marriage can be Religious, but foremost it's a Legal Union that can have Direct Impact on Society if the Couple ProCreates...

Which is why there are child tax credits. You don't get procreation credits just for being married. Sorry, try again.

See my signature for why there currently is not equal protection under the law for homosexuals.

 

[Katzndogz]

Marriage is not only NOT a religious doctrine but has NEVER been a religious doctrine. Religious ceremonies ask God to BLESS the union, not create it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Charley Manson murdered numerous people.
And he can get married with NO objections.
But gays can't and folk object to it.
Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here.

Not exactly. Charley Manson has to have permission from the prison and an investigation of his intended.

But, you do bring up an excellent point. How married "couples" should be dealt with in prison? Do they get to share a cell? Special accommodation?