Colorado votes NO to gay marriage

[clevergirl]

No dear, this has nothing to do with religion.

This has to do with government and benefits.

You're still free to practice your religion.

No, dear, this has everything to do with religion. Matrimony "marriage" is a covenant made between a man and a woman. A covenant instituted by God.

As I stated, the "government benefits" in the state of Colorado had already been granted by referendum in 2006. Any homosexual couple can go out and have a civil ceremony and have these "benefits". But the act of "marriage" is an act that has historically been granted between a "man and a woman". It is an institution that is historically religious.

That is why even the president (despite all of his evolving) is in agreement with Mitt Romney that this is a states right issue.

Religious Freedom is infringed upon when its rights and practices are forced upon conscientious objectors- as it regularly is. link

So you disagree with the supreme court when they said separate was not equal

I would absolutely LOVE the Supreme Court of the US to hear a case- Eventually they will.

Your statement does not address nor counter mine.

 

[clevergirl]

Anyone, preacher or justice of the peace, performing a marriage ceremony says, "by the power invested in me from state of". Marriage is a legality, not a religious.

That's right- and as I stated: when passing a "law" legalizing what is a religious act forcing homosexual marriage to be accepted- it forces some persons to act against their conscience- religious freedom is then infringed upon. If laws exist that grant the homosexuals the benefits of marriage...why must laws be changed to cater to a special group- when it then infringes upon a Constitutionally protected one?

Homosexual marriage is a back door attack on religious freedom.

So according to you allowing churches who want to marry gays do so is an attack on religious freedom.
Are you really so stupid that you think not forcing everyone to follow your religion means we are atttacking freedom

First off, you must have missed the link touting the infringement of religious conviction in states that have passed homosexual marriage laws.

I have no legal problem with an obviously apostate church marrying homosexuals if they choose to. My problem is with legislating homosexual marriage.

 

[starcraftzzz]

No, dear, this has everything to do with religion. Matrimony "marriage" is a covenant made between a man and a woman. A covenant instituted by God.

As I stated, the "government benefits" in the state of Colorado had already been granted by referendum in 2006. Any homosexual couple can go out and have a civil ceremony and have these "benefits". But the act of "marriage" is an act that has historically been granted between a "man and a woman". It is an institution that is historically religious.

That is why even the president (despite all of his evolving) is in agreement with Mitt Romney that this is a states right issue.

Religious Freedom is infringed upon when its rights and practices are forced upon conscientious objectors- as it regularly is. link

So you disagree with the supreme court when they said separate was not equal

I would absolutely LOVE the Supreme Court of the US to hear a case- Eventually they will.

Your statement does not address nor counter mine.

You claim civil unions mean we dont need gay marraige. However if you beleive that theyn you believe that separate is equal

 

[starcraftzzz]

That's right- and as I stated: when passing a "law" legalizing what is a religious act forcing homosexual marriage to be accepted- it forces some persons to act against their conscience- religious freedom is then infringed upon. If laws exist that grant the homosexuals the benefits of marriage...why must laws be changed to cater to a special group- when it then infringes upon a Constitutionally protected one?

Homosexual marriage is a back door attack on religious freedom.

So according to you allowing churches who want to marry gays do so is an attack on religious freedom.
Are you really so stupid that you think not forcing everyone to follow your religion means we are atttacking freedom

First off, you must have missed the link touting the infringement of religious conviction in states that have passed homosexual marriage laws.

I have no legal problem with an obviously apostate church marrying homosexuals if they choose to. My problem is with legislating homosexual marriage.

See this si the problem you think making it so your religious convictions aren't forced on everyone is an infringement on your rights

 

[clevergirl]

So according to you allowing churches who want to marry gays do so is an attack on religious freedom.
Are you really so stupid that you think not forcing everyone to follow your religion means we are atttacking freedom

First off, you must have missed the link touting the infringement of religious conviction in states that have passed homosexual marriage laws.

I have no legal problem with an obviously apostate church marrying homosexuals if they choose to. My problem is with legislating homosexual marriage.

See this si the problem you think making it so your religious convictions aren't forced on everyone is an infringement on your rights

I do not ask any homosexual to have my convictions- just not to trample on them with "faux" rights.

 

[starcraftzzz]

First off, you must have missed the link touting the infringement of religious conviction in states that have passed homosexual marriage laws.

I have no legal problem with an obviously apostate church marrying homosexuals if they choose to. My problem is with legislating homosexual marriage.

See this si the problem you think making it so your religious convictions aren't forced on everyone is an infringement on your rights

I do not ask any homosexual to have my convictions- just not to trample on them with "faux" rights.

No you're asking them to follow your convictions because them not doing so some how tramples your rights

 

[clevergirl]

So you disagree with the supreme court when they said separate was not equal

I would absolutely LOVE the Supreme Court of the US to hear a case- Eventually they will.

Your statement does not address nor counter mine.

You claim civil unions mean we dont need gay marraige. However if you beleive that theyn you believe that separate is equal

Homosexuals; polygamists; pedophiles; rapists; murders; thieves; etc- all have equal marriage rights as I do. What homosexuals want are "special rights". They want to be seen as a"special" class- even if that means infringement on religious freedom. Homosexuals are not a "special" class. They are merely a group of people that prefer abnormal sexual relations. We should not legislate because of sexual deviations from the norm.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Colorado did the same in the early 90s when they amended their constitution disallowing homosexuals equal access to anti-discrimination laws.

The amendment was later invalidated by the Supreme Court. The same will happen to this measure.

Anyone, preacher or justice of the peace, performing a marriage ceremony says, "by the power invested in me from state of". Marriage is a legality, not a religious.

Correct. The 14th Amendment’s requirement of equal protection of the law applies only to public sector entities, private entities such as religious institutions are not subject to the requirement, and may refuse their marriage rituals to same-sex couples. Marriage law, just as with anti-discrimination laws, must be available to everyone equally.

That's right- and as I stated: when passing a "law" legalizing what is a religious act forcing homosexual marriage to be accepted- it forces some persons to act against their conscience- religious freedom is then infringed upon. If laws exist that grant the homosexuals the benefits of marriage...why must laws be changed to cater to a special group- when it then infringes upon a Constitutionally protected one?

Homosexual marriage is a back door attack on religious freedom.

You’re terribly confused on this – the last thing same-sex couples wish is for marriage laws to be ‘changed,’ indeed, they want marriage laws to remain exactly the same. Nothing is being forced on anyone, no religion is being ‘infringed upon,’ the equal protection requirement applies only to the secular aspect of marriage law, not the religious doctrine.

 

[clevergirl]

See this si the problem you think making it so your religious convictions aren't forced on everyone is an infringement on your rights

I do not ask any homosexual to have my convictions- just not to trample on them with "faux" rights.

No you're asking them to follow your convictions because them not doing so some how tramples your rights

I do want my Constitutional rights protected- I could not care less how homosexuals might feel about my convictions. They obviously do not share them- but neither do atheists.

 

[starcraftzzz]

I would absolutely LOVE the Supreme Court of the US to hear a case- Eventually they will.

Your statement does not address nor counter mine.

You claim civil unions mean we dont need gay marraige. However if you beleive that theyn you believe that separate is equal

Homosexuals; polygamists; pedophiles; rapists; murders; thieves; etc- all have equal marriage rights as I do. What homosexuals want are "special rights". They want to be seen as a"special" class- even if that means infringement on religious freedom. Homosexuals are not a "special" class. They are merely a group of people that prefer abnormal sexual relations. We should not legislate because of sexual deviations from the norm.

I see so according to you allowing gays to marry the person they want to of which they can't do and you can means they want special rights.
So basically you want to discriminate against people because they are not like you so basically your e a racists

 

[starcraftzzz]

I do not ask any homosexual to have my convictions- just not to trample on them with "faux" rights.

No you're asking them to follow your convictions because them not doing so some how tramples your rights

I do want my Constitutional rights protected- I could not care less how homosexuals might feel about my convictions. They obviously do not share them- but neither do atheists.

Where int he Constitution does it say you have the right to have the goverment force everyone to follow your convictions.

 

[clevergirl]

That's right- and as I stated: when passing a "law" legalizing what is a religious act forcing homosexual marriage to be accepted- it forces some persons to act against their conscience- religious freedom is then infringed upon. If laws exist that grant the homosexuals the benefits of marriage...why must laws be changed to cater to a special group- when it then infringes upon a Constitutionally protected one?

Homosexual marriage is a back door attack on religious freedom.

You’re terribly confused on this – the last thing same-sex couples wish is for marriage laws to be ‘changed,’ indeed, they want marriage laws to remain exactly the same. Nothing is being forced on anyone, no religion is being ‘infringed upon,’ the equal protection requirement applies only to the secular aspect of marriage law, not the religious doctrine.

No, I am not. Indeed as the link I provided shows private citizens can and are penalized for conscientious objections. The first time I read about one law suit was a Bed and Breakfast who refused to give a newly married homosexual couple a room in their facility due to their religious convictions.

You can claim all day long that there is no infringement, but the facts do not support you. Even a public employee should be allowed a conscientious objection without fear of being fired.

 

[clevergirl]

No you're asking them to follow your convictions because them not doing so some how tramples your rights

I do want my Constitutional rights protected- I could not care less how homosexuals might feel about my convictions. They obviously do not share them- but neither do atheists.

Where int he Constitution does it say you have the right to have the goverment force everyone to follow your convictions.

No one is forcing you to share my convictions no matter how many times you say it or stomp your feet. When you are arrested because you do not "
believe" like I do, let me know and I'll eat my words.

 

[Avatar4321]

I see so according to you allowing gays to marry the person they want to of which they can't do and you can means they want special rights.
So basically you want to discriminate against people because they are not like you so basically your e a racists

They already can marry the person they choose. They are simply required to abide by the eligibility process the rest of us are.

They are allowed to marry anyone who:

1) Is the opposite gender
2) Is not currently married
3) Is not a blood relation
4) is above the age of consent.

Just like every other person in the United States is.

But they don't want to marry. If they did, they would comply with the law. What they want is that society as a whole changes the legal and technical definition of marriage to include the relationships they want contrary to thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, revelation, and law.

You can call a cat a dog all you want. That can't wont magically become a dog simply because you call it one. You can call a circle a square all you want. It's still going to be a circle.

Not only that, but they can already create whatever relationship they want to create. If they want to make a covenant with each other and call it a marriage, there is no law stopping that.

No the issue is whether the government recognizes those unions. The only reason it recognizes marriage as it is because of important policy interests. Namely the perpetuation of the species. Same sex relationships cannot provide the same policy interest.

The left has worked hard at obscurring the real issue in this debate and tying an emotional component to it. But the truth will set you free.

 

[starcraftzzz]

I do want my Constitutional rights protected- I could not care less how homosexuals might feel about my convictions. They obviously do not share them- but neither do atheists.

Where int he Constitution does it say you have the right to have the goverment force everyone to follow your convictions.

No one is forcing you to share my convictions no matter how many times you say it or stomp your feet. When you are arrested because you do not "
believe" like I do, let me know and I'll eat my words.

Currently in almost every state you and other conservatives are forcing all churches to not be aloud to marry gays

 

[starcraftzzz]

I see so according to you allowing gays to marry the person they want to of which they can't do and you can means they want special rights.
So basically you want to discriminate against people because they are not like you so basically your e a racists

They already can marry the person they choose. They are simply required to abide by the eligibility process the rest of us are.

They are allowed to marry anyone who:

1) Is the opposite gender
2) Is not currently married
3) Is not a blood relation
4) is above the age of consent.

Ah so they can marrry anyone they choose unless unless...

Just like every other person in the United States is.

But they don't want to marry. If they did, they would comply with the law. What they want is that society as a whole changes the legal and technical definition of marriage to include the relationships they want contrary to thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, revelation, and law.

Oh so they want to be allowed to marry but dont want to marry....
Yes thousands of years of wisdom and tradition such as women not being able to vote and blacks being slaves

Not only that, but they can already create whatever relationship they want to create. If they want to make a covenant with each other and call it a marriage, there is no law stopping that.

North Corliina just made that illegal

No the issue is whether the government recognizes those unions. The only reason it recognizes marriage as it is because of important policy interests. Namely the perpetuation of the species. Same sex relationships cannot provide the same policy interest.

I see so according to you the government should ban marriage unless you have kids

The left has worked hard at obscurring the real issue in this debate and tying an emotional component to it. But the truth will set you free.

Yes you claiming that we can only marry if we have kids is the left obscurring

 

[Sunni Man]

I see so according to you allowing gays to marry the person they want to of which they can't do and you can means they want special rights.
So basically you want to discriminate against people because they are not like you so basically you're a racist

Homos aren't a race.

They may be a new sub species; but they are not a race.

 

[clevergirl]

Where int he Constitution does it say you have the right to have the goverment force everyone to follow your convictions.

No one is forcing you to share my convictions no matter how many times you say it or stomp your feet. When you are arrested because you do not "
believe" like I do, let me know and I'll eat my words.

Currently in almost every state you and other conservatives are forcing all churches to not be aloud to marry gays

? The act of marriage is historically a "religious" rite. If a church wishes to provide a ceremony for homosexuals they do so as apostates- No one is arresting them for doing so. In states where allowing homosexual marriage has been made law- Your statement makes no sense.

 

[Soulless65]

They may be a new sub species; but they are not a race.

Fuck you

 

[Sunni Man]

They may be a new sub species; but they are not a race.

Fuck you

Must be a fudge packer??