New Hampshire might repeal the gay marriage law...

[Seawytch]

Actually, marriage was redefined.

So.....

Yeah...to let people of different races marry.

 

[bodecea]

I don't care what your religion includes. Progressives used the government to impose a change in EVERYBODY'S definition of marriage.

And you keep saying this nonsense about showing me the same sex unions have been understood and recognized...what the hell is that about? I don't recall (or care about) that particular conversation, and what does it have to do with anything at all?

And we don't care what YOUR religion excludes.

Against gay people marrying? Do not go to the wedding, send no gift, ignore the anniversaries! HOW, repeat HOW, does gay marriage, in any way infringe on the rights of heterosexuals? How does it have any impact on their lives?

Exactly.

 

[Peach]

It's all about government redefining a religious, social and societal institution...something the government has no right to do (separation of church and state, remember?)

Incorrect. The 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to private religious entities, only state and local governments. No religious institution can be compelled to marry same sex couples. Consequently there are no Separation Doctrine issues in play.

In the "live free or die state" they don't want government redefining the institution upon which our families are built:

It’s not. Nothing’s being ‘redefined.’ States are required to allow all citizens equal access to the law, marriage law is in no way changed as no changes are needed.

And families are indeed built upon the institution of marriage, headed by both opposite and same sex couples.

Thank you CCG. Hard to imagine those who want FEWER families in the US, and cannot just ignore gay couples. "They might move in NEXT DOOR!". So might a straight couple with LOTS of pit bulls.
********************************************
If I can accept people who go muddin' that park in my parking area, you can accept gay marriage.

 

[Peach]

And we don't care what YOUR religion excludes.

Against gay people marrying? Do not go to the wedding, send no gift, ignore the anniversaries! HOW, repeat HOW, does gay marriage, in any way infringe on the rights of heterosexuals? How does it have any impact on their lives?

Exactly.

Bod, Sea, I cannot "like" your posts but wish I could. This is another issue where I feel compelled to argue for EQUAL RIGHTS. Also, who other Americans choose to marry is NON OF MY CONCERN. (Should those who have inherited genetic disabilities be prevented from marrying? May tall men marry short women?) Marriage has the same definition, regardless of the genetic aspects of the two parties.

 

[Peach]

Actually, marriage was redefined.

So.....

Its been redefined for centuries you stupid fuck.

Fuck you for making this world that much more stupid for you living in it.

Yes, until LOVING v. VIRGINIA blacks could not marry whites in some states.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Thank you. So long as you don't try to legislate my church, forcing it to pay for practices it doesn't condone, hire people it doesn't want to hire, or preach things it doesn't want to preach, we're fine.

No problem...as long as your church doesn't receive federal funding, employ those outside their faith (although they are still subject to employment laws) or rent property to the public ('cause then they are subject to public accommodation laws).

It doesn't matter if they do those things or not. They still couldn't be forced to marry gays if they didn't want to.

 

[Peach]

It's all about government redefining a religious, social and societal institution...something the government has no right to do (separation of church and state, remember?)

You seem to be confusing religious marriage and civil marriage. The government, actually, doesn't have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians when it comes to civil marriage...which is why anti-gay marriage laws keep losing in court.

In the "live free or die state" they don't want government redefining the institution upon which our families are built:

"In a recent poll by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, 59 percent of respondents were either strongly or somewhat opposed to repealing the law, while 32 percent said they supported repeal."

How does what you posted support your claim that NH voters want marriage equality repealed?

You seem to be confusing religious marriage and civil marriage. The government, actually, doesn't have a right to discriminate against gays and lesbians when it comes to civil marriage...which is why anti-gay marriage laws keep losing in court.
*****************************************'
Not quickly enough.

 

[Peach]

It's all about government redefining a religious, social and societal institution...something the government has no right to do (separation of church and state, remember?)

Incredible, how you start off with a lie. My religion included same sex unions within its definition of marriage. I've already shown you how same sex marriage has been understood and recognized in various cultures through thousands of years. But the only thing you're interested in is the government enforcing YOUR religious definition of marriage.

Fortunately, my state is going to be legalizing same sex marriage this Thursday, to take effect January 1 of next year. I am already making plans to hopefully be the first person in the state to officiate a same sex marriage, on January 3, 2012. It will be an honor.

You want to be the first person in the state to officiate a same sex marraige last month when the law doesnt take effect till next year?

TYPO. Middle wrote 2012, instead of 2013. (I AM an expert in TYPOS.)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's all about government redefining a religious, social and societal institution...something the government has no right to do (separation of church and state, remember?)

In the "live free or die state" they don't want government redefining the institution upon which our families are built:

Excuse me, but doesn't living free mean being able to marry who you want?

And yet no one supports Incestuous consensual marriages between 2 consenting adults. Or plural marriages. Go figure.

 

[del]

It's all about government redefining a religious, social and societal institution...something the government has no right to do (separation of church and state, remember?)

In the "live free or die state" they don't want government redefining the institution upon which our families are built:

Excuse me, but doesn't living free mean being able to marry who you want?

And yet no one supports Incestuous consensual marriages between 2 consenting adults. Or plural marriages. Go figure.

i have no problem with it

go figure

start a campaign if you feel your being oppressed

i fully support your right to marry your brothers and sisters

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, until LOVING v. VIRGINIA blacks could not marry whites in some states.

Actually the marriage law wasn’t changed per se, it was the statues that disallowed access to marriage that were struck down by Loving.

The two statutes under which appellants were convicted and sentenced are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial marriages. The Lovings were convicted of violating § 258 of the Virginia Code:

Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.

Section 259, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:

Punishment for marriage. -- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.

Loving v. Virginia

As with same sex couples, therefore, to paraphrase Judge Walker in Perry, all they wish is for their unions to be recognized for what they are: marriages. They seek to neither change nor redefine the law itself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's all about government redefining a religious, social and societal institution...something the government has no right to do (separation of church and state, remember?)

In the "live free or die state" they don't want government redefining the institution upon which our families are built:

"In a recent poll by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, 59 percent of respondents were either strongly or somewhat opposed to repealing the law, while 32 percent said they supported repeal."

U.S. targets food stamp fraud as election looms | Reuters

Marriage was 'redefined' when polygamy was outlawed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How can any civilized person even care if gays are allowed to marry? How backward does a person have to be to be that bigoted?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's all about government redefining a religious, social and societal institution...something the government has no right to do (separation of church and state, remember?)

In the "live free or die state" they don't want government redefining the institution upon which our families are built:

Excuse me, but doesn't living free mean being able to marry who you want?

And yet no one supports Incestuous consensual marriages between 2 consenting adults. Or plural marriages. Go figure.

Polygamy has a longer tradition than monogamy. If you can ban polygamy without screwing up the definition and tradition of 'marriage',

then you can certainly allow same-sex marriage.

 

[del]

And yet no one supports Incestuous consensual marriages between 2 consenting adults. Or plural marriages. Go figure.

i have no problem with it

go figure

start a campaign if you feel your being oppressed

i fully support your right to marry your brothers and sisters

I suspect the Op is a product of incest.

don't go there

 

[Peach]

Yes, until LOVING v. VIRGINIA blacks could not marry whites in some states.

Actually the marriage law wasn’t changed per se, it was the statues that disallowed access to marriage that were struck down by Loving.

The two statutes under which appellants were convicted and sentenced are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial marriages. The Lovings were convicted of violating § 258 of the Virginia Code:

Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.

Section 259, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:

Punishment for marriage. -- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.

Loving v. Virginia

As with same sex couples, therefore, to paraphrase Judge Walker in Perry, all they wish is for their unions to be recognized for what they are: marriages. They seek to neither change nor redefine the law itself.

I referenced the REDEFINING.....uh....argument.

 

[Peach]

As with same sex couples, therefore, to paraphrase Judge Walker in Perry, all they wish is for their unions to be recognized for what they are: marriages. They seek to neither change nor redefine the law itself.
***********************************************
And the rights of those who do not believe those of the same gender should marry will not be impacted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And yet no one supports Incestuous consensual marriages between 2 consenting adults. Or plural marriages.

Unlike laws prohibiting same sex couples access to marriage, laws prohibiting incestuous marriages or plural marriages are legal because they’re based on objective evidence and are applied equally to all, no particular class of persons is subject to exclusion.

 

[Peach]

Excuse me, but doesn't living free mean being able to marry who you want?

And yet no one supports Incestuous consensual marriages between 2 consenting adults. Or plural marriages. Go figure.

Polygamy has a longer tradition than monogamy. If you can ban polygamy without screwing up the definition and tradition of 'marriage',

then you can certainly allow same-sex marriage.

allow same-sex marriage.
**************************************
Why should GAY Americans consider equal rights a GIFT?

 

[Peach]

Excuse me, but doesn't living free mean being able to marry who you want?

And yet no one supports Incestuous consensual marriages between 2 consenting adults. Or plural marriages. Go figure.

i have no problem with it

go figure

start a campaign if you feel your being oppressed

i fully support your right to marry your brothers and sisters

Equality is the soul of liberty; there is, in fact, no liberty without it.
Frances Wright

From the equality of rights springs identity of our highest interests; you cannot subvert your neighbor's rights without striking a dangerous blow at your own.
Carl Schurz

Read more: Equality Quotes - BrainyQuote
Read more: Equality Quotes - BrainyQuote