CDZ Support for Gay Marriage grows

[Porter Rockwell]

Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):

"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."

What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)

By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?

You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?

Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.

Who is in this "society" that determines who they want to accept? We all are. You are only one individual in society. An LGBT person who wants to marry someone of the same sex is also just one individual in society. You don't have any great right to speak for all of us. Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court rule on same-sex marriage under the Constitution, a good segment of society has accepted it, including religious institutions.

BTW: if your use of the term "you" means me, I'm a heterosexual woman.

First, my response is generic. So, great you're a heterosexual woman. Now let me answer the rest of your issue:

I am a gun owner that takes Liberty seriously. I've had to defend my life before. But, not all people like firearms. So, I respect that and don't do business with people where me and ccw aren't permitted (sic.) I have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. Others have rights as well.

An employer, under a de jure / lawful interpretation of our Constitution has the Right to run their business as they see fit. Now, I realize that they don't, but I still support their Right and would fight for it if asked. That means they should be able to say no to you if they don't want to do business with you and no if they don't want to hire you. I support that Right even when I'm the one they are saying no to.

If a county court clerk does not want to issue you a marriage license to marry someone of the same sex, then vote against them in the next election. If a state denies you the license, go to another state. If an insurance company does not want to sell you a policy, go to another insurance company. If you cannot find acceptance for something, then society is telling you no.

If you knew someone that was proud of their heritage, but was not unfair toward others, you might get an inkling of what I'm saying. Such an individual would be called a racist - even though they may have black friends. But, if people knew that individual was opposed to inter-racial marriage, they would become persona non grata... any Rights be damned. It is a simple lesson. Sometimes you cannot impose yourself on society. And if there is nowhere you can go to buy what you need or live like you want, apparently society is saying no to you. Marriage is a privilege. That is why you apply for a license. If you apply for a license, you did not have the Right... I defined the term for you in an earlier post. Whether we like it or not, a substantial number of Americans feel their community standards and morals are being jeopardized by gay marriage. It's a big country and everybody needs their own space.

In theory you may be justified in your beliefs, in practice, not so much.

As for the private sector, giving businesses carte blanche in the past led to all forms of discrimination, redlining, etc. A business has an obligation to operate in the public good and not perpetuate the evils of society. A bakery may not be critical but no doctor or hospital should be allowed to refuse service to someone solely based on their race, religion, gender, etc. That obligation is even stronger in the public sphere. If a county court clerk does not want to issue you a marriage license to marry someone of the same sex, even though it is the law of the land, then that clerk is not doing their job and should find another.

Doctors, unlike bakers have to obtain special licenses, be approved by the state and have a duty much higher than a baker. They are, by their nature, subject to a higher standard, so regardless of who you are, they are bound by both an oath as well as standards relative to their licenses to do all they can for every patient.

The baker, OTOH, gets up at the crack of dawn and busts his ass in a business where the pay would make a ditch digger strike. He then has to do a lot of hard work to comply with taxes and so forth. Who he hires, fires, etc. should be his business. He did not go into business to give up his nights, week-ends and holidays to give just anyone a job.

If the county court clerk doesn't want to issue a license, go somewhere else. I did. Some bitch 2 miles from my house didn't want to issue a marriage license because my first and middle names were inverted on my driver's license as compared to my birth certificate. Rather than start a federal lawsuit I told her she was fucking dumb ass bitch (and she is considering I was once a Justice of the Peace and every hack in that courthouse over 50 knows me.)

If someone has a legitimate reason, like it offends their religious beliefs, then go somewhere else at that time and elect someone else in the next election.

Buying, selling, and doing business should be a voluntary act. Sorry, but if that offends you, it's the free market. There are enough millionaire and billionaires of every race, color, creed, sexual persuasion, etc. that they can set up a business that will cater to people just like you and you don't need to try and force someone to do business with you.

That something offends someone's religious beliefs is not a legitimate excuse for not serving someone, particularly if one is a public official. A "believer" who refuses to perform his or her duties and still collects a paycheck is a thief. The onus is on the "believer" to find a replacement or get the job done. Don't try to shove it off on the public, the would-be customer. The "believer" has to take personal responsibility. I've known Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, and all have faced the same problem of holding on to their beliefs while living in a pluralistic society.

Legitimately, we are still a Republic.

 

[Lysistrata]

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."

Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?

Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):

"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."

What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)

By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?

You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?

Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.

"Society determines who they want to accept"


so you have no problem with a christian society hounding and persecuting gays, atheists, muslims, feminists, liberals?

because, as a christian, it doesn't affect you?

you have no problem with OTHER people being hounded, punished, beaten, discriminated against just as long as it doesn't happen to you?

According to polls over the last 20 years the percentage of christian in America is shrinking and the percent on NON_believers is rising.

If we ever get to a point where no believers outnumbers christians can we count on you to shut the fuk up when they start persecuting YOU?

The is the USA

NOT the CHRISTIAN FASCIST DOMINION OF GOD!

YOU do NOT get to decide who to torment

Like it or not America was founded as a Christian nation, not as a theocracy, but as a nation founded on Christian principles and based upon Anglo Saxon jurisprudence... (and that was a reflection of Christian values.) The very first governing document of the New World begins like this:

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country..." (excerpt from the Mayflower Compact of 1620)

So, let me be blunt:

Americans have NO problem with the homogeneous societies like Japan, China, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. But, man, if the United States isn't bending over backward to kiss some minority's ass, you'd think the end of the world happened. Far too many people think we should be the melting pot of the world when our Constitution says quite the opposite. The Preamble of the Constitution states:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

That terminology, according to the United States Supreme Court, applied to members of the white race. In turn, that caused the Republicans to illegally ratify the 14th Amendment. That amendment nullified the Bill of Rights and artificially elevated everyone to some status not anticipated by the founders / framers of the Constitution. Ever since that illegally ratified amendment was passed, America has been at war.

We remain silent and do business with communist countries; we allow other countries to exist that do not buy into the One World / One Race / One Religion utopia that the globalists need to create their Hell on earth. But, America is treated differently. Your accusations are false.

OTOH, a lot of Americans have a fleeting knowledge of their past and don't understand that, why, over the last half century it is the posterity of the founders / framers that have been jerked around, mistreated, and screwed over. The richest 1 percent of Americans control half the wealth. Once you take that old money and globalist money off the table, you see a growing, yet subtle trend to disenfranchise white Christians and now the minorities can crow about the white Christians who are becoming a minority in the land their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty.

Granted, those calling themselves Christians are, for the most part, not fit to claim that title. They have elevated one of those rich 1 percent to the position of Jesus himself and they have made it plain what they would do IF they had any power. But, they don't. They are useful idiots for the globalists. Me, I've been persecuted since I was a kid. I was poor growing up; got denied entrance to a college once for 7/8ths of one point on the entrance exam (would have made the cut with points to spare had I been black and / or female.) I got laid off a job and the company hired blacks to replace us in order to keep their government contract and unemployment was so bad the military was the only place left for guys like me. It's been like that all my life. I used to see the signs that said Equal Opportunity Employer. It was a euphemism for NO whites need apply.

I get tired of hearing the whining and moaning by those who think you can be anything and do anything and impose upon society. If you don't get what you want, you use corrupt politicians. The right is trying to imitate those who have been successful at it. They're failing. But, if somebody came along and wanted to reclaim our Liberties and do so without doing it at the expense of the Rights of others, I'd fight to the death to help the cause. But whites seem to be content to give up their country, abandon their heritage, corrupt their own religious values and give this country to those who least deserve it.

Support for gay "rights" (privileges bestowed upon them by a corrupt government) IS growing. Socialism is accepted by the left and the right. You might be taking over, but IF a war breaks out to restore Liberty (which ultimately happens in the cycles of history), rest assured, I will be on the front lines for the cause of Liberty.

Are you a Christian or are you white? You poor "persecuted" thing. You talk "liberty" but you want to deny it to others. You don't know if you would have passed the entrance exam had it not been for people who didn't look like you taking the exam. Maybe the people who have surpassed you also are Christians, but what's it to ya? You sound like you are a white male who can't accomplish anything by yourself and have a great big chip on your shoulder. Why don't you just go out and accomplish something worthwhile instead of trying to hang on to the bootstraps of long-dead people?

 

[there4eyeM]

and further campaigns to make special groups more equal

So what? Let the people being annoyed by it die off.

Here is the complete post, erroneously cited as being a quotation:

It was never clear why the term "marriage" had to be adopted. It seems merely an attempt to appropriate language. Equal protections should have been enough. But, if the majority doesn't mind capitulating, it isn't very serious.
Still, equal protection must suffice now, and further campaigns to make special groups more equal than others will only serve to deepen the distrust and divides that exist in society.

 

[Lysistrata]

Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."

Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?

Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):

"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."

What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)

By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?

You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?

Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.

Who is in this "society" that determines who they want to accept? We all are. You are only one individual in society. An LGBT person who wants to marry someone of the same sex is also just one individual in society. You don't have any great right to speak for all of us. Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court rule on same-sex marriage under the Constitution, a good segment of society has accepted it, including religious institutions.

BTW: if your use of the term "you" means me, I'm a heterosexual woman.

First, my response is generic. So, great you're a heterosexual woman. Now let me answer the rest of your issue:

I am a gun owner that takes Liberty seriously. I've had to defend my life before. But, not all people like firearms. So, I respect that and don't do business with people where me and ccw aren't permitted (sic.) I have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. Others have rights as well.

An employer, under a de jure / lawful interpretation of our Constitution has the Right to run their business as they see fit. Now, I realize that they don't, but I still support their Right and would fight for it if asked. That means they should be able to say no to you if they don't want to do business with you and no if they don't want to hire you. I support that Right even when I'm the one they are saying no to.

If a county court clerk does not want to issue you a marriage license to marry someone of the same sex, then vote against them in the next election. If a state denies you the license, go to another state. If an insurance company does not want to sell you a policy, go to another insurance company. If you cannot find acceptance for something, then society is telling you no.

If you knew someone that was proud of their heritage, but was not unfair toward others, you might get an inkling of what I'm saying. Such an individual would be called a racist - even though they may have black friends. But, if people knew that individual was opposed to inter-racial marriage, they would become persona non grata... any Rights be damned. It is a simple lesson. Sometimes you cannot impose yourself on society. And if there is nowhere you can go to buy what you need or live like you want, apparently society is saying no to you. Marriage is a privilege. That is why you apply for a license. If you apply for a license, you did not have the Right... I defined the term for you in an earlier post. Whether we like it or not, a substantial number of Americans feel their community standards and morals are being jeopardized by gay marriage. It's a big country and everybody needs their own space.

Who cares that you have a psychological thing about guns. Just don't hurt anyone else and get some counseling.

Having a business is a privilege and is subject to law.

Public officials are expected to do their duty. They function as an arm of the government and are paid by the public, including people who seek marriage licenses. A public official who cannot do his or her job should quit or be fired. It is not a matter of voting them out. They are being paid to do something that they refuse to do, which, underneath, is theft. The public has no obligation to go anywhere but where they are supposed to go. The burden is not on the public. I have to go to the DMV. The office is there. I cannot be refused service. Moreover, one punk does not constitute "society."

Neither do you have any right to claim that you speak for "society." Who is "imposing" what on "society," anyway? You say that "a substantial number of Americans feel their community standards and morals are being jeopardized by gay marriage," but this is of no consequence. They are only some part of society. Others in society have other ideas. Moreover, it is unclear as to why they think so. You and your friends have enough "space," but the rest of us are entitled to our "space," too. Nobody is stopping you from having your bible marriage.

You're being silly. I am victimized by society just like anyone else. I do not represent it. And you making asinine statements because I am pro- gun shows why you should never have a say in a Republic.

Yeah, you're right. If you are "victimized by society just like anyone else," so I am, too. Why should you have a say in a republic and I not, just because you have a preoccupation with guns and I don't? I'm no stranger to guns, beginning when I was about five. But I also had to remove the guns from a mentally ill relative's home when he acted up with me and call the cops, just to prevent a suicide by cop. The police department was grateful. My relative got to live another day, no village cop had to live with the memory of killing him. Don't get so high and mighty.

 

[DustyInfinity]

How does pretend marriage work out for you?

ZING!

excellent!

You have to admit they did not have to torpedo traditional marriage to get equal footing under the law. It was a media driven power play. Republicans were asking for it though by being such A holes on civil unions.

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for decades- how has this torpedoed my 'traditional marriage'?

Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't affect my 'traditional marriage' in the least.

And no- there really was no other way for gay Americans to get marriage equality. As you pointed out the Right went to great lengths to not only prevent gay Americans from marrying- they also went to great lengths to deny them a legal equivalent.

So a few people went to court- and won. No one else's marriage was harmed.

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

Okay we are in agreement that no married people have been harmed- and no one who has a 'traditional marriage' is harmed.

No one is saying that 'rewriting traditions' has no effect- but no tradition has been rewrote- the law has caught up with the rights of all Americans.

You think that the 'correct way' would have been for gay Americans to accept a less than equal equivalent. And you know what- at the time I predicted that gay Americans would have(largely) accepted that alternative. But there was no incentive for gay Americans to fight for 'separate but unequal status'- when they could instead fight for equal status.

We have a history in America of the courts addressing unequal application of the law- and that includes marriage. Going back to Loving v. Virginia, your argument seems to be that since in Virginia, traditional marriages did not include mixed race couples, that the Lovings should have waited for a legislative alternative rather than fighting for their rights through the Supreme Court.

We all have the right to fight against unfair laws through the courts, if the legislators either fail to protect rights, or actively work to deny rights.

And today, gay Americans have the same right to marry who they want to marry as I did when I married my wife. I think that is a wonderful thing.

Of course altering a core tradition is rewriting it. How is a civil union a lesser equivalent? It is pretty clear using the term marriage has nothing to do with rights. I'm on board with those who wish to give everyone civil unions and allow those who wish to have a religious service that option. That makes a lot of sense.

 

[anynameyouwish]

ZING!

excellent!

You have to admit they did not have to torpedo traditional marriage to get equal footing under the law. It was a media driven power play. Republicans were asking for it though by being such A holes on civil unions.

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for decades- how has this torpedoed my 'traditional marriage'?

Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't affect my 'traditional marriage' in the least.

And no- there really was no other way for gay Americans to get marriage equality. As you pointed out the Right went to great lengths to not only prevent gay Americans from marrying- they also went to great lengths to deny them a legal equivalent.

So a few people went to court- and won. No one else's marriage was harmed.

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

Okay we are in agreement that no married people have been harmed- and no one who has a 'traditional marriage' is harmed.

No one is saying that 'rewriting traditions' has no effect- but no tradition has been rewrote- the law has caught up with the rights of all Americans.

You think that the 'correct way' would have been for gay Americans to accept a less than equal equivalent. And you know what- at the time I predicted that gay Americans would have(largely) accepted that alternative. But there was no incentive for gay Americans to fight for 'separate but unequal status'- when they could instead fight for equal status.

We have a history in America of the courts addressing unequal application of the law- and that includes marriage. Going back to Loving v. Virginia, your argument seems to be that since in Virginia, traditional marriages did not include mixed race couples, that the Lovings should have waited for a legislative alternative rather than fighting for their rights through the Supreme Court.

We all have the right to fight against unfair laws through the courts, if the legislators either fail to protect rights, or actively work to deny rights.

And today, gay Americans have the same right to marry who they want to marry as I did when I married my wife. I think that is a wonderful thing.

Of course altering a core tradition is rewriting it. How is a civil union a lesser equivalent? It is pretty clear using the term marriage has nothing to do with rights. I'm on board with those who wish to give everyone civil unions and allow those who wish to have a religious service that option. That makes a lot of sense.

as long as they are equal

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gay Marriage Around the World

Support for equality grows every year with a total of 30 countries legalising it so far. The number increases every year and the countries that are hostile seem to be places which are ruled by religious extremists .

This is backed up by polling which shows support at around 2 thirds in favour in Australia,US and up to 80% plus in Sweden.

I cant see this trend being reversed and can see the majority of nations having similar laws in the next decade.

In the spirit of all men being created equal should the US and EU countries take steps to encourage this ? What would you like to see ?

For myself I think it can be difficult to overturn prejudice and I dont really know whether the stick or carrot is the best way forward.

Thank you very interesting. I have to wonder why Correll thinks its funny.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

ZING!

excellent!

You have to admit they did not have to torpedo traditional marriage to get equal footing under the law. It was a media driven power play. Republicans were asking for it though by being such A holes on civil unions.

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for decades- how has this torpedoed my 'traditional marriage'?

Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't affect my 'traditional marriage' in the least.

And no- there really was no other way for gay Americans to get marriage equality. As you pointed out the Right went to great lengths to not only prevent gay Americans from marrying- they also went to great lengths to deny them a legal equivalent.

So a few people went to court- and won. No one else's marriage was harmed.

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

Okay we are in agreement that no married people have been harmed- and no one who has a 'traditional marriage' is harmed.

No one is saying that 'rewriting traditions' has no effect- but no tradition has been rewrote- the law has caught up with the rights of all Americans.

You think that the 'correct way' would have been for gay Americans to accept a less than equal equivalent. And you know what- at the time I predicted that gay Americans would have(largely) accepted that alternative. But there was no incentive for gay Americans to fight for 'separate but unequal status'- when they could instead fight for equal status.

We have a history in America of the courts addressing unequal application of the law- and that includes marriage. Going back to Loving v. Virginia, your argument seems to be that since in Virginia, traditional marriages did not include mixed race couples, that the Lovings should have waited for a legislative alternative rather than fighting for their rights through the Supreme Court.

We all have the right to fight against unfair laws through the courts, if the legislators either fail to protect rights, or actively work to deny rights.

And today, gay Americans have the same right to marry who they want to marry as I did when I married my wife. I think that is a wonderful thing.

Of course altering a core tradition is rewriting it. How is a civil union a lesser equivalent? It is pretty clear using the term marriage has nothing to do with rights. I'm on board with those who wish to give everyone civil unions and allow those who wish to have a religious service that option. That makes a lot of sense.

Yes civil unions are a lesser equivalent -if not on paper- then certainly in reality. And even if they were equivalent- separate but equal never works. It's high time that people just get over it. Most people don't even think about it much and even fewer are clutching their pears over it. And do not forget that the federal government, since the overturning of Windsor, recognizes "marriage" but not civil unions

As an ally and supporter of gay and Lesbian people, I feel their pain when they are told that they should have been satisfied with civil unions as a compromise and that they are being “divisive” for having pushed for and won the right to marry.


Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people.

“Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all.

This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.


Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents.

Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.


And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.


Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"


All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.


"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect

."

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It was never clear why the term "marriage" had to be adopted. It seems merely an attempt to appropriate language. Equal protections should have been enough. But, if the majority doesn't mind capitulating, it isn't very serious.
Still, equal protection must suffice now, and further campaigns to make special groups more equal than others will only serve to deepen the distrust and divides that exist in society.

In the US, marriage offers various legal rights and privileges. Secular governments should not be sanctioning marriage, that should be in the domain of religions, they should only sanction civil unions. Civil unions provide the rights of marriage without the introduction of any religion. If your church doesn't recognize gay marriage, they don't have to perform one, but that doesn't mean a gay couple can't get a tax break like other couples.

Wrong ! If you are not legally married the federal government does not recognize it for the purpose of any benefits. But it is not about a tax break. Married couples get to file a joint return if that is in their best interest. You don't automatically pay less taxes for being married. Every case is different.

Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that religious people can enjoy the status of marriage, but that the rest of us should be relegated to a civil union. Are you serious? Can you even begin to contemplate the constitutional implications?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Be pretend married. I just roll my eyes

How does pretend marriage work out for you?

ZING!

excellent!

You have to admit they did not have to torpedo traditional marriage to get equal footing under the law. It was a media driven power play. Republicans were asking for it though by being such A holes on civil unions.

Who torpedoed traditional marriage? Are people no longer able to marry someone of the opposite sex? Has it effected the validity of those traditional unions and if so how? If anything it has strengthened the institution of marriage by broadening the base and making it more inclusive

Regarding civil unions ...see post 128. And may I remind you that many Republicans were opposed to ANY form of legal recognition

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Tell me when gay marriage is some kind of threat to my traditional one. Until then I gotta wash my hair. Toughen up buttercups

Children growing up in traditional families fare much better than those who don't. So why promote alternatives?

That is simply not true and I challenge you to provide evidence of your claim. In addition, if you are trying to use that lie to make a case against same sex marriage, it the wrong argument, because gay people- like everyone else- can and do have children regardless of marital status. And having married parent benefits children in many ways

 

[anynameyouwish]

Be pretend married. I just roll my eyes

How does pretend marriage work out for you?

ZING!

excellent!

You have to admit they did not have to torpedo traditional marriage to get equal footing under the law. It was a media driven power play. Republicans were asking for it though by being such A holes on civil unions.

Who torpedoed traditional marriage? Are people no longer able to marry someone of the opposite sex? Has it effected the validity of those traditional unions and if so how? If anything it has strengthened the institution of marriage by broadening the base and making it more inclusive

Regarding civil unions ...see post 128. And may I remind you that many Republicans were opposed to ANY form of legal recognition

and.....

ultimately......

even if "traditional marriage" is torpedoed...

and disappears in a puff of smoke

so what?

we'll all just adjust and move on to some more rational relationship concept

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

and further campaigns to make special groups more equal

So what? Let the people being annoyed by it die off.

Here is the complete post, erroneously cited as being a quotation:

It was never clear why the term "marriage" had to be adopted. It seems merely an attempt to appropriate language. Equal protections should have been enough. But, if the majority doesn't mind capitulating, it isn't very serious.
Still, equal protection must suffice now, and further campaigns to make special groups more equal than others will only serve to deepen the distrust and divides that exist in society.

And my response is the same. I basically agree with you...I just don't care if anyone is annoyed...

 

[Syriusly]

If the county court clerk doesn't want to issue a license, go somewhere else.

[...]

If someone has a legitimate reason, like it offends their religious beliefs, then go somewhere else at that time and elect someone else in the next election.

I agreed with most of your post but not the above. If the county court clerk doesn't want to issue a license, like it offends their religious beliefs, they should go somewhere else. This country is built on the rule of law and the first rule is that individuals don't get to make their own laws and decide for themselves what is a 'legitimate reason'.

Yep-- what if the clerk refused to marry Jews? Or blacks? Or Republicans?
If your public job is to marry people, you should marry anyone who is legally entitled to get married.

If you have a problem marrying Jews or blacks or Republicans or a gay couple- get a different job.

Did it dawn on you that some statutes are unconstitutional and no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law?

Lots of people in jail because they thought a law is unconstitutional and they didn't have to obey it.

In a nation of laws- individuals who decide that the law doesn't apply to them- or that the law is unjust can protest, or refuse to obey the laws- as long as they are prepared to face the consequences of refusing to follow the laws.

History laters decides whether their cause was just or not. There are still those who feel like the civil rights protesters from the '60's were wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

and further campaigns to make special groups more equal

So what? Let the people being annoyed by it die off.

Here is the complete post, erroneously cited as being a quotation:

It was never clear why the term "marriage" had to be adopted. It seems merely an attempt to appropriate language. Equal protections should have been enough. But, if the majority doesn't mind capitulating, it isn't very serious.
Still, equal protection must suffice now, and further campaigns to make special groups more equal than others will only serve to deepen the distrust and divides that exist in society.

Not sure how recognizing that a 'special group' - whether that is Jews or blacks or Mormons or veterans- has the same rights as others makes them 'more equal than others'.

Can you give me an example?

 

[Syriusly]

ZING!

excellent!

You have to admit they did not have to torpedo traditional marriage to get equal footing under the law. It was a media driven power play. Republicans were asking for it though by being such A holes on civil unions.

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for decades- how has this torpedoed my 'traditional marriage'?

Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't affect my 'traditional marriage' in the least.

And no- there really was no other way for gay Americans to get marriage equality. As you pointed out the Right went to great lengths to not only prevent gay Americans from marrying- they also went to great lengths to deny them a legal equivalent.

So a few people went to court- and won. No one else's marriage was harmed.

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

Okay we are in agreement that no married people have been harmed- and no one who has a 'traditional marriage' is harmed.

No one is saying that 'rewriting traditions' has no effect- but no tradition has been rewrote- the law has caught up with the rights of all Americans.

You think that the 'correct way' would have been for gay Americans to accept a less than equal equivalent. And you know what- at the time I predicted that gay Americans would have(largely) accepted that alternative. But there was no incentive for gay Americans to fight for 'separate but unequal status'- when they could instead fight for equal status.

We have a history in America of the courts addressing unequal application of the law- and that includes marriage. Going back to Loving v. Virginia, your argument seems to be that since in Virginia, traditional marriages did not include mixed race couples, that the Lovings should have waited for a legislative alternative rather than fighting for their rights through the Supreme Court.

We all have the right to fight against unfair laws through the courts, if the legislators either fail to protect rights, or actively work to deny rights.

And today, gay Americans have the same right to marry who they want to marry as I did when I married my wife. I think that is a wonderful thing.

Of course altering a core tradition is rewriting it. How is a civil union a lesser equivalent? It is pretty clear using the term marriage has nothing to do with rights. I'm on board with those who wish to give everyone civil unions and allow those who wish to have a religious service that option. That makes a lot of sense.

Laws are not traditions- and traditions are not laws- though sometimes they overlap.

Lets talk about 'traditional marriage'- shall we? For much of American history women lost most of their legal rights when they married- that was part of traditional marriage.

Coverture, Anglo-American common-law concept, derived from feudal Norman custom, that dictated a woman’s subordinate legal status during marriage. Prior to marriage a woman could freely execute a will, enter into contracts, sue or be sued in her own name, and sell or give away her real estate or personal property as she wished. Once she married, however, her legal existence as an individual was suspended under “marital unity,” a legal fiction in which the husband and wife were considered a single entity: the husband. The husband exercised almost exclusive power and responsibility and rarely had to consult his wife to make decisions about property matters. Coverture rendered a woman unable to sue or be sued on her own behalf or to execute a will without her husband’s consent and, unless some prior specific provision separating a woman’s property from her husband’s had been made, stripped a woman of control over real and personal property. Coverture was disassembled in the United States through legislation at the state level beginning in Mississippi in 1839 and continuing into the 1880s. The legal status of married women was a major issue in the struggle for woman suffrage.

So much for 'traditional marriage'

How is a civil union a lesser equivalent? For the same reason that separate but equal really was a 'lesser equivalent'. Civil Unions never gave the full range of legal protection that marriage does. Again as a husband in a traditional marriage, given the choice between the two I would choose marriage because of those additional legal protections that marriage gives both my wife and I- and our children.

Here is the thing- those that still only believe in marriage between a man and women still don't have to marry anyone they don't want to marry. They can still belong to a church- a tradition- that doesn't allow same gender marriage. They are not harmed by same gender couples being able to marry- but same gender couples(and their children) were being harmed by not being able to be married.

 

[Syriusly]

Tell me when gay marriage is some kind of threat to my traditional one. Until then I gotta wash my hair. Toughen up buttercups

Children growing up in traditional families fare much better than those who don't. So why promote alternatives?

That is simply not true and I challenge you to provide evidence of your claim. In addition, if you are trying to use that lie to make a case against same sex marriage, it the wrong argument, because gay people- like everyone else- can and do have children regardless of marital status. And having married parent benefits children in many ways

The folks who gnash their teeth and beat their chest about 'traditional marriage' and children- always seem to have a problem with gay couples- but never seem to have any problem with husbands/fathers abandoning their families through divorce.

Single parent families far, far, far outnumber families with gay parents.

Yet the outrage is always about a child having two fathers- rather than the child whose single father is struggling to keep a roof over their head and manage to make it to teacher parent conferences. I happen to think that children in families with two parents are statistically better off than those raised by single parents- and this is not a knock on single parents.

 

[anynameyouwish]

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

Marriage never harmed gay people. That is just an excuse for you to take a shot at religion. You don't have to change or eliminate tradition to get legal standing or civil unions. It was an aggressive act.

Exclusion from marriage did harm gay people and gave straight people all sorts of advantages that were unavailable to LGBTs. No one has been deprived of celebrating their traditions or believing in their respective religions by allowing LGBTs to marry. The fight to secure LGBTs equal rights was by no means "aggressive."

Why would people decide how to live their lives based on the beliefs of some group that they don't belong to? Do you consult with an Amish leader as to his opinion before deciding to buy a car? Do you abstain from alcohol because Muslims don't drink?

Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):

"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."

What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)

By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?

You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?

Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.

"Society determines who they want to accept"


so you have no problem with a christian society hounding and persecuting gays, atheists, muslims, feminists, liberals?

because, as a christian, it doesn't affect you?

you have no problem with OTHER people being hounded, punished, beaten, discriminated against just as long as it doesn't happen to you?

According to polls over the last 20 years the percentage of christian in America is shrinking and the percent on NON_believers is rising.

If we ever get to a point where no believers outnumbers christians can we count on you to shut the fuk up when they start persecuting YOU?

The is the USA

NOT the CHRISTIAN FASCIST DOMINION OF GOD!

YOU do NOT get to decide who to torment

Like it or not America was founded as a Christian nation, not as a theocracy, but as a nation founded on Christian principles and based upon Anglo Saxon jurisprudence... (and that was a reflection of Christian values.) The very first governing document of the New World begins like this:

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country..." (excerpt from the Mayflower Compact of 1620)

So, let me be blunt:

Americans have NO problem with the homogeneous societies like Japan, China, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. But, man, if the United States isn't bending over backward to kiss some minority's ass, you'd think the end of the world happened. Far too many people think we should be the melting pot of the world when our Constitution says quite the opposite. The Preamble of the Constitution states:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

That terminology, according to the United States Supreme Court, applied to members of the white race. In turn, that caused the Republicans to illegally ratify the 14th Amendment. That amendment nullified the Bill of Rights and artificially elevated everyone to some status not anticipated by the founders / framers of the Constitution. Ever since that illegally ratified amendment was passed, America has been at war.

We remain silent and do business with communist countries; we allow other countries to exist that do not buy into the One World / One Race / One Religion utopia that the globalists need to create their Hell on earth. But, America is treated differently. Your accusations are false.

OTOH, a lot of Americans have a fleeting knowledge of their past and don't understand that, why, over the last half century it is the posterity of the founders / framers that have been jerked around, mistreated, and screwed over. The richest 1 percent of Americans control half the wealth. Once you take that old money and globalist money off the table, you see a growing, yet subtle trend to disenfranchise white Christians and now the minorities can crow about the white Christians who are becoming a minority in the land their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty.

Granted, those calling themselves Christians are, for the most part, not fit to claim that title. They have elevated one of those rich 1 percent to the position of Jesus himself and they have made it plain what they would do IF they had any power. But, they don't. They are useful idiots for the globalists. Me, I've been persecuted since I was a kid. I was poor growing up; got denied entrance to a college once for 7/8ths of one point on the entrance exam (would have made the cut with points to spare had I been black and / or female.) I got laid off a job and the company hired blacks to replace us in order to keep their government contract and unemployment was so bad the military was the only place left for guys like me. It's been like that all my life. I used to see the signs that said Equal Opportunity Employer. It was a euphemism for NO whites need apply.

I get tired of hearing the whining and moaning by those who think you can be anything and do anything and impose upon society. If you don't get what you want, you use corrupt politicians. The right is trying to imitate those who have been successful at it. They're failing. But, if somebody came along and wanted to reclaim our Liberties and do so without doing it at the expense of the Rights of others, I'd fight to the death to help the cause. But whites seem to be content to give up their country, abandon their heritage, corrupt their own religious values and give this country to those who least deserve it.

Support for gay "rights" (privileges bestowed upon them by a corrupt government) IS growing. Socialism is accepted by the left and the right. You might be taking over, but IF a war breaks out to restore Liberty (which ultimately happens in the cycles of history), rest assured, I will be on the front lines for the cause of Liberty.

"Like it or not America was founded as a Christian nation, not as a theocracy, but as a nation founded on Christian principles and based upon Anglo Saxon jurisprudence.."


America is NOT a christian nation


I will ALWAYS have the same rights as you .....



unless you go to jail for killing people.


"but IF a war breaks out to restore Liberty (which ultimately happens in the cycles of history), rest assured, I will be on the front lines for the cause of Liberty."

The fact that you actually believe LIBERTY means denying gays, atheists, muslms, or anyone their rights proves what a dangerously deranged piece of shit you are.

IF that war breaks out and you are on the front lines I sure hope you get what is coming to you

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You have to admit they did not have to torpedo traditional marriage to get equal footing under the law. It was a media driven power play. Republicans were asking for it though by being such A holes on civil unions.

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for decades- how has this torpedoed my 'traditional marriage'?

Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't affect my 'traditional marriage' in the least.

And no- there really was no other way for gay Americans to get marriage equality. As you pointed out the Right went to great lengths to not only prevent gay Americans from marrying- they also went to great lengths to deny them a legal equivalent.

So a few people went to court- and won. No one else's marriage was harmed.

Yes, married people were not harmed, but redefining traditions was unnecessary and harmful. Rewriting traditions does have an effect. It would be much the same to redefine Christmas. While Republicans were begging for this to happen, the proper thing would have been to keep fighting for civil unions. It is like, I can't get what I want, so I will redefine your traditions to get what I want. That was extremely aggressive.

Okay we are in agreement that no married people have been harmed- and no one who has a 'traditional marriage' is harmed.

No one is saying that 'rewriting traditions' has no effect- but no tradition has been rewrote- the law has caught up with the rights of all Americans.

You think that the 'correct way' would have been for gay Americans to accept a less than equal equivalent. And you know what- at the time I predicted that gay Americans would have(largely) accepted that alternative. But there was no incentive for gay Americans to fight for 'separate but unequal status'- when they could instead fight for equal status.

We have a history in America of the courts addressing unequal application of the law- and that includes marriage. Going back to Loving v. Virginia, your argument seems to be that since in Virginia, traditional marriages did not include mixed race couples, that the Lovings should have waited for a legislative alternative rather than fighting for their rights through the Supreme Court.

We all have the right to fight against unfair laws through the courts, if the legislators either fail to protect rights, or actively work to deny rights.

And today, gay Americans have the same right to marry who they want to marry as I did when I married my wife. I think that is a wonderful thing.

Of course altering a core tradition is rewriting it. How is a civil union a lesser equivalent? It is pretty clear using the term marriage has nothing to do with rights. I'm on board with those who wish to give everyone civil unions and allow those who wish to have a religious service that option. That makes a lot of sense.

as long as they are equal

They are not and cannot be equal. See post 128

 

[luchitociencia]

I know what I'm going to say will sound like a joke or an invention.

But, making a review of events related with the establishment of gay marriage in US, a rare event happened: Tyranny took place to make it pass.

Not the will of The People, but a tyrant rejected the vote of The People and manipulated the events to force a legislation approving it.

By principle, an authority can't overcome the vote of The People.

According to the Constitution, The People have the right to form militias and carry arms, to prevent the arising authorities and becoming tyrants thru the abuse of their power. In this case, the people of California are known for having even war tanks and arms of all kind, but they might chicken at the last minute. whatever it happened, they didn't react to the abuse.

The media, for some reason, perhaps to evade shame if the event is reviewed and exposed, even internationally, kept silence and until today is not touching such a remembrance.

Current people in power as well, they know about it but prefer to ignore what happen because is bad example for Americans and specially for people from other countries.

Homosexuals and lesbians are taking advantage of the current silence of authorities and the media.

If someone, like I did, make a review of the winning vote "NO" which happened in California, a vote which was included in the electoral ballot, and was approved to be included by the same Governor of California, a vote choosing the validity of gay marriage in that State. What is going to be discovered is that after the majority of Californians said "NO", the Governor declared null the will of The People calling it "Unconstitutional".

Same president Obama didn't look with good eyes what the governor of California did, In the pictures the president appears with doubts about congratulating the Governor. It was living fire close to a gas station.

A scrutiny of date of the vote, the results saying "NO' as majority, the refusal of the Governor to accept the will of The People, and months later, "the patch up" made by the court to cover up the tyranny from the Governor... the whole scenario shows how for the first time in American history, a man born in a foreign country, became a Governor of California, and became the first tyrant who abused his power rejecting the will of The People and imposing his will instead.

Feel free to make your own review. Events and dates show this sad moment in the history of US.

I guess the same is happening in other countries, it's not the people of those nations but their corrupt authorities the ones approving gay marriage.