Federal judge rules that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is not. Did you stop reading at that "crack"? I said that I commit sins as well. My point was that I cannot judge your sins without judging my own and that I believe that your sin is no worse than any of the sins I commit.

Immie

You commit sins too? Yeah, when you post your hateful rants about gay people and others you dislike. Your religious tenets are the toilet of belief systems.

Hateful rants? Have you been reading my posts to TM or something?

I have not posted any hateful rants about gay people... at least not in a long time.

Immie

touche!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Blah, blah, blah.

Are you going to participate in the conversation or pontificate?

I believe in Civil Unions for all. It maintains the separation of church and state and is fair to homosexual couples which I believe is the issue here.

I believe any homosexual couple should be allowed to be married in a church if they so desire, however, I do not believe that any church should be forced to marry gay couples if it goes against their beliefs, plain and simple.

Now, get over yourself.

Immie

You believe in civil unions for all the wrong reasons. I say the churches should stand on their own. Tax religion. It, Religion, is nothing but another vice for emotional cripples, pederasts, drunkards, thieves, and other misfits.

You are welcomed to your opinion, but you know what they say about opinions.

....

Immie

yeah, they say abortion, gay marriage and other things should be illegal because of public opinions

 

[Immanuel]

You believe in civil unions for all the wrong reasons. I say the churches should stand on their own. Tax religion. It, Religion, is nothing but another vice for emotional cripples, pederasts, drunkards, thieves, and other misfits.

You are welcomed to your opinion, but you know what they say about opinions.

....

Immie

yeah, they say abortion, gay marriage and other things should be illegal because of public opinions

I used to say abortion should be illegal, but then after thinking about it and realizing that making it illegal would solve nothing, I changed my pov. Personally, I, like the vast majority of human beings both pro-life and pro-choice, would like to see abortion be extremely rare (I'd use "safe, legal and rare") but that has been adopted by people who don't like me. The more rare the better. That will not be accomplished by over-turning Roe v. Wade. Education and changing the minds of people is the only way I can see to accomplish that goal.

As to Gay Marriage, my opinion on that has changed as well. I used to be ambivalent. Then when I started listening to intelligent gay people on sites like this one and their arguments, I began to realize that they had a point, it was not up to the government to discriminate against them. I do not believe the government should force churches to ordain gay people or to marry them, but I do believe that churches that have come to grips with this issue should be allowed to do so while churches (such as my own*) that have not should be free to remain as they are so long as they do not persecute.

Bodecea stated she was married in a church. I don't understand where she gets the idea that I have a problem with that as I have not stated that I did.

Other issues? Not sure where to go with that one since I don't know what those issues are in your mind.

Immie

* My church is not perfect. There are a few things that I would like to see changed. I can't say that ordaining homosexuals or marrying them is one of those things, but I do recognize that neither the organized church to which I belong nor I are perfect.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You are welcomed to your opinion, but you know what they say about opinions.

....

Immie

yeah, they say abortion, gay marriage and other things should be illegal because of public opinions

I used to say abortion should be illegal, but then after thinking about it and realizing that making it illegal would solve nothing, I changed my pov. Personally, I, like the vast majority of human beings both pro-life and pro-choice, would like to see abortion be extremely rare (I'd use "safe, legal and rare") but that has been adopted by people who don't like me. The more rare the better. That will not be accomplished by over-turning Roe v. Wade. Education and changing the minds of people is the only way I can see to accomplish that goal.

As to Gay Marriage, my opinion on that has changed as well. I used to be ambivalent. Then when I started listening to intelligent gay people on sites like this one and their arguments, I began to realize that they had a point, it was not up to the government to discriminate against them. I do not believe the government should force churches to ordain gay people or to marry them, but I do believe that churches that have come to grips with this issue should be allowed to do so while churches (such as my own*) that have not should be free to remain as they are so long as they do not persecute.

Bodecea stated she was married in a church. I don't understand where she gets the idea that I have a problem with that as I have not stated that I did.

Other issues? Not sure where to go with that one since I don't know what those issues are in your mind.

Immie

* My church is not perfect. There are a few things that I would like to see changed. I can't say that ordaining homosexuals or marrying them is one of those things, but I do recognize that neither the organized church to which I belong nor I are perfect.

I apologize for misunderstanding you on some levels, yet you raise more questions than you answer.

---

If your opposition to abortion was faith based (I have a view that many times it's much more complicated and people hide behind faith in order to cover up unconscious urges and feels in regards others and their personal choices), it seems odd that you would go and drop the position you held just because of the reality on the ground -- that banning it, making it illegal, solves very few if any issues.

The marriage debate, as a legal issue, has gotten my attention. I lived in Massachusetts when Marshall handed down the state Court's decision. I understand the arguments on all sides. What I have an issue with is the debate over words, terms, meanings: marriage/civil union.

The state already recognizes civil unions. A civil ceremony is called a marriage for the purposes of civil statutes and benefits and the census and...on...and...on...all because the government is a civil arm of society. Marriage is not a religious term. While religions may define what constitutes a marriage for the purposes of faith, religions do not get to define what terms mean in the greater society -- in the civil sphere.

I personally consider the compromise of civil unions for all, or the state out of marriages to be unacceptable, but that may be just what is needed to keep society from going over a cliff -- compromise. But what is in the best interests of political partisans is not what is in the best interests of society as a whole.

 

[bodecea]

No, you are completely wrong... I'm not surprised.

Please explain why you are trying to change my words.

I stated that the State has no business being involved in marriage, not mine and not yours. Why is that a problem for you?

Immie

And then you throw in the "I believe you are committing a sin" crack....Why is my marriage a proble for you?

It is not. Did you stop reading at that "crack"? I said that I commit sins as well. My point was that I cannot judge your sins without judging my own and that I believe that your sin is no worse than any of the sins I commit.

Here is what I said, please read it all:

IMHO, the only thing that matters, besides your happiness is your relationship with God. I believe you are committing a sin. How that affects your relationship with God, I cannot say. I cannot and will not claim to have defeated sin in my life and do not expect that you can either. I believe that our sins will, or maybe I should say have been, dealt with and our faith is the issue at hand.

What I was saying is that we are both sinners. My sin is no better nor worse than your own. Your faith is what is important in this discussion not your sins.

Immie

Of course, now you backtrack. The "we're all sinners" comment is a lame attempt at explaining that shot you took at me and the church we got married in. I know it...you know it.

 

[Immanuel]

And then you throw in the "I believe you are committing a sin" crack....Why is my marriage a proble for you?

It is not. Did you stop reading at that "crack"? I said that I commit sins as well. My point was that I cannot judge your sins without judging my own and that I believe that your sin is no worse than any of the sins I commit.

Here is what I said, please read it all:

IMHO, the only thing that matters, besides your happiness is your relationship with God. I believe you are committing a sin. How that affects your relationship with God, I cannot say. I cannot and will not claim to have defeated sin in my life and do not expect that you can either. I believe that our sins will, or maybe I should say have been, dealt with and our faith is the issue at hand.

What I was saying is that we are both sinners. My sin is no better nor worse than your own. Your faith is what is important in this discussion not your sins.

Immie

Of course, now you backtrack. The "we're all sinners" comment is a lame attempt at explaining that shot you took at me and the church we got married in. I know it...you know it.

You are way off based.

The "we're all sinners" was included in the first comment I made to you about it.

I know it and you know it.

I have absolutely no problem with your church or your marriage. There was no "shot" intended on my part.

By the way: What shot was that?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

yeah, they say abortion, gay marriage and other things should be illegal because of public opinions

I used to say abortion should be illegal, but then after thinking about it and realizing that making it illegal would solve nothing, I changed my pov. Personally, I, like the vast majority of human beings both pro-life and pro-choice, would like to see abortion be extremely rare (I'd use "safe, legal and rare") but that has been adopted by people who don't like me. The more rare the better. That will not be accomplished by over-turning Roe v. Wade. Education and changing the minds of people is the only way I can see to accomplish that goal.

As to Gay Marriage, my opinion on that has changed as well. I used to be ambivalent. Then when I started listening to intelligent gay people on sites like this one and their arguments, I began to realize that they had a point, it was not up to the government to discriminate against them. I do not believe the government should force churches to ordain gay people or to marry them, but I do believe that churches that have come to grips with this issue should be allowed to do so while churches (such as my own*) that have not should be free to remain as they are so long as they do not persecute.

Bodecea stated she was married in a church. I don't understand where she gets the idea that I have a problem with that as I have not stated that I did.

Other issues? Not sure where to go with that one since I don't know what those issues are in your mind.

Immie

* My church is not perfect. There are a few things that I would like to see changed. I can't say that ordaining homosexuals or marrying them is one of those things, but I do recognize that neither the organized church to which I belong nor I are perfect.

I apologize for misunderstanding you on some levels, yet you raise more questions than you answer.

---

If your opposition to abortion was faith based (I have a view that many times it's much more complicated and people hide behind faith in order to cover up unconscious urges and feels in regards others and their personal choices), it seems odd that you would go and drop the position you held just because of the reality on the ground -- that banning it, making it illegal, solves very few if any issues.

My opposition is faith based. What is the goal, to win some contest and to get abortion banned or to save lives: the lives of the babies AND the lives of the mothers? My belief is that the lives of both mother and baby are valuable and need to be protected. Winning the debate over abortion is not going to save one life unless we change the hearts of mothers first.

The marriage debate, as a legal issue, has gotten my attention. I lived in Massachusetts when Marshall handed down the state Court's decision. I understand the arguments on all sides. What I have an issue with is the debate over words, terms, meanings: marriage/civil union.

The state already recognizes civil unions. A civil ceremony is called a marriage for the purposes of civil statutes and benefits and the census and...on...and...on...all because the government is a civil arm of society. Marriage is not a religious term. While religions may define what constitutes a marriage for the purposes of faith, religions do not get to define what terms mean in the greater society -- in the civil sphere.

I personally consider the compromise of civil unions for all, or the state out of marriages to be unacceptable, but that may be just what is needed to keep society from going over a cliff -- compromise. But what is in the best interests of political partisans is not what is in the best interests of society as a whole.

My belief is that the best way to solve this problem is to create civil unions for all. After all, that is basically what we have now. Therefore, rather than call it "marriage" call it civil unions instead and then allow churches, such as Bodecea's church to sanction marriage within their congregations. If the state would allow "gay marriage" that is basically what would happen anyway.

However, under no circumstances do I believe that the state should force the Catholic Church to perform marriage ceremonies that are against their beliefs.

Immie

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

My opposition is faith based. What is the goal, to win some contest and to get abortion banned or to save lives: the lives of the babies AND the lives of the mothers? My belief is that the lives of both mother and baby are valuable and need to be protected. Winning the debate over abortion is not going to save one life unless we change the hearts of mothers first.

---

My belief is that the best way to solve this problem is to create civil unions for all. After all, that is basically what we have now. Therefore, rather than call it "marriage" call it civil unions instead and then allow churches, such as Bodecea's church to sanction marriage within their congregations. If the state would allow "gay marriage" that is basically what would happen anyway.

However, under no circumstances do I believe that the state should force the Catholic Church to perform marriage ceremonies that are against their beliefs.

Immie

I must say your position on abortion, while being faith based, is very sophisticated and supportable. You can have you religious based beliefs and still not infringe upon others with force of the state.

you have done something rare here. You've earned my respect in only a few short posts. I did help though, I bothered to listen tow hat you are saying instead of focusing on your personality or the caricature of those who often take your position.



The state would never try and force the Catholic Church or any other church to do something. The state may take away tax payer funds because the churches are in violation of state was or regulations. That is a different issue.

Maybe the churches need to stop accepting tax payer funds, even stop accepting non profit status. Maybe it is time for the churches to stand on their own.

The gay marriage opposition from the churches is bigotry masked with compassion.

Roman Catholic Bishop Lynch, of South Carolina, during the Civil War, was a spokesman for the Confederacy. One of Lynch's personal beliefs was that Negro slaves would be like children without support---free yet lost---so slavery was better. He was right about former slaves being thrown out into the cold. But his beliefs were based on bigotry.

"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops." -an old saying I learned from seminarians

btw, Lynch was exiled in Europe when the war ended. He was granted some kind of amnesty and came back to SC and started the first organizations that helped the freed slaves. )a good man with a good heart and a head full of bigotry)

 

[Immanuel]

My opposition is faith based. What is the goal, to win some contest and to get abortion banned or to save lives: the lives of the babies AND the lives of the mothers? My belief is that the lives of both mother and baby are valuable and need to be protected. Winning the debate over abortion is not going to save one life unless we change the hearts of mothers first.

---

My belief is that the best way to solve this problem is to create civil unions for all. After all, that is basically what we have now. Therefore, rather than call it "marriage" call it civil unions instead and then allow churches, such as Bodecea's church to sanction marriage within their congregations. If the state would allow "gay marriage" that is basically what would happen anyway.

However, under no circumstances do I believe that the state should force the Catholic Church to perform marriage ceremonies that are against their beliefs.

Immie

I must say your position on abortion, while being faith based, is very sophisticated and supportable. You can have you religious based beliefs and still not infringe upon others with force of the state.

you have done something rare here. You've earned my respect in only a few short posts. I did help though, I bothered to listen tow hat you are saying instead of focusing on your personality or the caricature of those who often take your position.



The state would never try and force the Catholic Church or any other church to do something. The state may take away tax payer funds because the churches are in violation of state was or regulations. That is a different issue.

Maybe the churches need to stop accepting tax payer funds, even stop accepting non profit status. Maybe it is time for the churches to stand on their own.

The gay marriage opposition from the churches is bigotry masked with compassion.

Roman Catholic Bishop Lynch, of South Carolina, during the Civil War, was a spokesman for the Confederacy. One of Lynch's personal beliefs was that Negro slaves would be like children without support---free yet lost---so slavery was better. He was right about former slaves being thrown out into the cold. But his beliefs were based on bigotry.

"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops." -an old saying I learned from seminarians

btw, Lynch was exiled in Europe when the war ended. He was granted some kind of amnesty and came back to SC and started the first organizations that helped the freed slaves. )a good man with a good heart and a head full of bigotry)

Since my comment is based solely on the below quote, I am pulling it out.

The gay marriage opposition from the churches is bigotry masked with compassion.

I find this hard to agree with because I don't see this opposition as being "masked with compassion". For a church to profess its love for all human beings but then to state that some human beings (I will use the homosexual community as an example) are not welcome until they repent just seems outrageous to me. Why would someone "repent" to become just like someone that obviously despises them.

My belief is that the church should throw its doors open to even the worst sinners as Christ did for the Apostle Paul and then share the Law and the Gospel with them The Law that states that they are sinners followed by the Gospel that proclaims that freedom from those sins is available through the Blood of Christ. It seems to me to defeat the purpose of the church to exclude people that the church sees as sinners or should I say those who are openly sinners because we are all sinners.

True compassion would be to welcome those in the homosexual community who profess faith in Jesus Christ as brothers and sisters and then where necessary help them to strengthen their faith. I know that there are biblical passages that some who are more Theologically versed than I am would use to dispute that, but that is how I feel.

My own church is guilty of the above. I don't agree with all of its dogma, but I am closer doctrinally to it than others I have found.

Immie

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Mother Church has compassion. It's compassion masks much. It's compassion for sinners is what had Bishops trying to help the pederasts. The goal was good. The church just forgot that protecting itself was an act that caused it to lose compassion for future victims.

Compassion is a good thing, but like they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."


--

gotta run

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Verdict on Healthcare Reform Bill Still Divided

49% approve
46% disapprove

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

60% favor repeal, 36% oppose

America is deeply divided on the issue so the point is that Dante has no point, which is nothing new.

Rasmussen.....

Ad Hominem.......

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Verdict on Healthcare Reform Bill Still Divided

49% approve
46% disapprove

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

60% favor repeal, 36% oppose

America is deeply divided on the issue so the point is that Dante has no point, which is nothing new.

another dope using a poll to back opinion as if it were a static thing?

So you're calling PJ a dope after you thanked him for posting a poll?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

60% favor repeal, 36% oppose

America is deeply divided on the issue so the point is that Dante has no point, which is nothing new.

another dope using a poll to back opinion as if it were a static thing?

So you're calling PJ a dope after you thanked him for posting a poll?

pay attention, and maybe you'll get IT.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

60% favor repeal, 36% oppose

America is deeply divided on the issue so the point is that Dante has no point, which is nothing new.

Rasmussen.....

Ad Hominem.......

Lookie here everyone!!!!!! Tazzie has learned a new phrase.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I still like this ruling. It can be applied to many federal laws

 

[bodecea]

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

60% favor repeal, 36% oppose

America is deeply divided on the issue so the point is that Dante has no point, which is nothing new.

Rasmussen.....

Ad Hominem.......

Nope...your source has a well-deserved bad rep.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I still like this ruling. It can be applied to many federal laws

You act like the ruling covers new ground. It doesn't. Each federal or state law would be argued on a case by case basis with different arguments. I doubt there will be as many stupid laws as DOMA in the future, unless of course the culture warriors get to guide the debates again. Clinton and others had second thoughts after backing this abortion.

 

[bodecea]

I still like this ruling. It can be applied to many federal laws

You act like the ruling covers new ground. It doesn't. Each federal or state law would be argued on a case by case basis with different arguments. I doubt there will be as many stupid laws as DOMA in the future, unless of course the culture warriors get to guide the debates again. Clinton and others had second thoughts after backing this abortion.

IMO, Clinton and the Dems knew it was bad law but it got the Rabid Right Wing off their backs for a bit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I still like this ruling. It can be applied to many federal laws

You act like the ruling covers new ground. It doesn't. Each federal or state law would be argued on a case by case basis with different arguments. I doubt there will be as many stupid laws as DOMA in the future, unless of course the culture warriors get to guide the debates again. Clinton and others had second thoughts after backing this abortion.

IMO, Clinton and the Dems knew it was bad law but it got the Rabid Right Wing off their backs for a bit.

On the surface it would appear that way as it does with don't ask don't tell, but bad policy makes for shitty results and bad laws makes for bad policy.

I give Clinton some Dems and some Republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to having their motivations questioned on things like DOMA.

 

[CurveLight]

It's funny how people who bitch about protecting "marraige" have not had a problem with DOMA not preventing legalized pedophilia in the form of a 50 year old fuck up marrying a 14 year old. Marriage has never had a single definition.

Anyways, I disagree with the judge in that in seems to violate the 14th as much if not more than the 10th.