FINAL ULTIMATUM: On Guns and Same Sex Marriage

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage is religion based and the state wants separation, therefore, they should support same sex unions with civil unions.

Marriage is NOT just religion based. If that were true, it would be required you get married in a religious institution.

Religion is an institution, let me know when you are about to make a real point.

Show me were all marriages in this country have to be religious to be valid.

Dear bodecea:
You miss the point.
Only the LEGAL CONTRACTS need to be validated through the govt.

Not anything to do with marriage, and who we marry and what our choices are.

To be SECULAR and NEUTRAL the govt should technically stay out of marriage
laws, for the reasons you refer to, that govt SHOULD NOT be required to validate a marriage.
Same with not endorsing baptisms, confirmations, communions, etc. through the state.

We register birth and death certificates as NEUTRAL legal matters,
but the baby showers and funeral services are not regulated.

The whole point of sticking with civil unions and domestic partnership contracts
is to keep govt out of the marriage part, so as you say, NOBODY tells anyone else
what constitutes a valid marriage or not. The state should only be concerned
with the legal issues of custody, guardianship, property, legal or business partnerships and terms, etc.

That way bodecea once people have a partnership or legal guardianship
agreement, this is independent of any social or gender relationship between them.
It's about the legal agreement and responsibilities only, which any two parties can consent
to as long as they are legally and mentally competent and of age of consent,
and they agree to the contract, there is no fraud or misrepresentation involved that could void the contract.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Marriage as contract law is the creation of the states, the sole purview of the states, and as such they have the authority to administer that law, the notion of the states ‘getting out of’ the very law they create is ridiculous.

Marriage as religious ritual is the sole purview of private religious organizations, safeguarded from attack by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment – government was never ‘in’ private religious marriage rituals to begin with.

 

[saveliberty]

Marriage is religion based and the state wants separation, therefore, they should support same sex unions with civil unions.

Marriage is NOT just religion based. If that were true, it would be required you get married in a religious institution.

Religion is an institution, let me know when you are about to make a real point.

Show me were all marriages in this country have to be religious to be valid.

Dear bodecea:
You miss the point.
Only the LEGAL CONTRACTS need to be validated through the govt.

Not anything to do with marriage, and who we marry and what our choices are.

To be SECULAR and NEUTRAL the govt should technically stay out of marriage
laws, for the reasons you refer to, that govt SHOULD NOT be required to validate a marriage.
Same with not endorsing baptisms, confirmations, communions, etc. through the state.

We register birth and death certificates as NEUTRAL legal matters,
but the baby showers and funeral services are not regulated.

The whole point of sticking with civil unions and domestic partnership contracts
is to keep govt out of the marriage part, so as you say, NOBODY tells anyone else
what constitutes a valid marriage or not. The state should only be concerned
with the legal issues of custody, guardianship, property, legal or business partnerships and terms, etc.

That way bodecea once people have a partnership or legal guardianship
agreement, this is independent of any social or gender relationship between them.
It's about the legal agreement and responsibilities only, which any two parties can consent
to as long as they are legally and mentally competent and of age of consent,
and they agree to the contract, there is no fraud or misrepresentation involved that could void the contract.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.



Marriage as contract law is the creation of the states, the sole purview of the states, and as such they have the authority to administer that law, the notion of the states ‘getting out of’ the very law they create is ridiculous.

Marriage as religious ritual is the sole purview of private religious organizations, safeguarded from attack by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment – government was never ‘in’ private religious marriage rituals to begin with.

State contracts need to be distinguished by using the term civil union and marriage reserved for religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They don't sell them to ANYONE....If you had actually read and understood PA laws, you'd know that's not a violation.[/QUOTE]

Faggots want different-but-equal treatment, and they want the government to coerce others to that end.[/QUOTE]
And here is an example of the ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate common to most on the right, and why public accommodations laws are indeed necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The difference is between racial and cultural bigotry and discrimination.

If someone is refused service because of their race that if protected by law as discrimination against a persons racial differences which are physical and definable.

However if we are going to allow lawsuits because of cultural differences, like not serving ham & bacon or making a LGBT cake, we now head down a very slippery slope.

Why shouldn't the "gun culture" be allowed to sue the media for discriminating because of the medias targeting the gun cultures right to bear arms?

*****SMILE*****

 

[saveliberty]

They don't sell them to ANYONE....If you had actually read and understood PA laws, you'd know that's not a violation.

Faggots want different-but-equal treatment, and they want the government to coerce others to that end.[/QUOTE]
And here is an example of the ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate common to most on the right, and why public accommodations laws are indeed necessary, proper, and Constitutional.[/QUOTE]

Can I trouble you for a better quote?

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is religion based and the state wants separation, therefore, they should support same sex unions with civil unions.

Marriage is NOT just religion based. If that were true, it would be required you get married in a religious institution.

Religion is an institution, let me know when you are about to make a real point.

Show me were all marriages in this country have to be religious to be valid.

You can call the union whatever you want, doesn't make it a marriage.

Says who? Not the laws of the United States....we are not a theocracy. But I begin to see where your problem is.

 

[saveliberty]

Says who? Not the laws of the United States....we are not a theocracy. But I begin to see where your problem is.

You passed in front of a mirror and looked huh?

 

[bodecea]

Says who? Not the laws of the United States....we are not a theocracy. But I begin to see where your problem is.

You passed in front of a mirror and looked huh?

Well, there is a christian comment right there.

 

[saveliberty]

Says who? Not the laws of the United States....we are not a theocracy. But I begin to see where your problem is.

You passed in front of a mirror and looked huh?

Well, there is a christian comment right there.

There you go confusing sarcasm with religion.

 

[WinterBorn]

Simple answers.

#1 - Short of a constitutional amendment, the 2nd clearly protects the inidividual's right to keep and bear arms.

#2 - The gov't has absolutely no business in the marriage game.