which is more destructive to the sanctity of marriage?

[yiostheoy]

To answer the original question though, of the old moldy thread --

adultery and infidelity is what threatens "the sanctity" of marriage the most.

Gays and lesbo's have nothing to do with it.

 

[yiostheoy]

The defense of marraige act will no longer be enforced by our government. Thank God for small favors. First let me say that the government has absolutely no business in the lives of it's citizens churches and especially their bedrooms. The next thing to do now is to get the churches out of our bedrooms.

Which is more destructive to the "sanctity of marriage"? Gay marriage or divorce? IMO it must be divorce. The divorce rate is over 50% in this country, and I recognize that repeat offenders artificially inflate that number, but not by that much.

The gay community is realatively small but compared to the press they get and the outrage directed at them for wanting the same rights as everyone else (as per the constitution) is unbelievable. You can see just about every reverend, priest, or pastor condemn the gay community and rail against them. They have gone far into the political arena to try and guarantee they do not get equal rights i.e. marriage. Why would they do this? IMO it is because organized religion has become an elitist organization. They need to make themselves feel superior to everyone else. This is why everyone else is going to hell but them and their particular brand of religion.

Divorce, is the third rail of religion. Pastors, preists, and reverends rarely, if at all, ever talk about divorce. Why is that? IMO it is because they do not want to loose their congregation. If they were to turn the same effort and energy they use against gays, against their own parrishoners, for divorcing they wouldn't have a congregation left. It is true that in the bible the appostles gave exceptions and reasons for divorce, but Jesus and God never did, hmm....can you imagine a priest saying "I'm sorry, but you can't get divorced because what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, Jesus says." The reply would be even funnier, "But Paul said...." I didn't realize that Paul trumps Jesus?

So the question I have is what is more destructive to the institution of Marriage? Homosexuals or Divorce?

Republicans at it again

White House staff secretary Rob Porter has resigned following newly published reports alleging that he physically abused his two ex-wives.

Porter resigned from his position on Wednesday, the White House confirmed.

Porter’s ex-wife, Jennifer Willoughby, said he emotionally, mentally and physically abused her, according to a report in The Daily Mail. After getting into an argument with her in 2010, Porter allegedly pulled her from the shower by the shoulders and yelled at her.

Colbie Holderness, Porter’s first wife, alleged that he punched her in 2005.

“He threw me down on the bed and punched me in the face,” Holderness told The Intercept. “I think he was shocked that he had lost control to that extent.”

Holderness provided photos to the publication showing a black eye she said she sustained during the incident.


Ryan Grim

✔@ryangrim

Senior White House aide Rob Porter physically assaulted two ex-wives, they tell @theintercept. Full story to come in the morning.

His first wife, Colbie Holderness, provided these photos from a vacation they took together in Florence, Italy:

1:53 AM - Feb 7, 2018

• 
  4,299
• 
  5,292 people are talking about this

Old thread resurrected for no apparent reason.

They knew you would show up if it was resurrected......

... apparently so Sherlock !!

 

[Moonglow]

All I can say about the sanctity of marriage is...

 

[sealybobo]

To answer the original question though, of the old moldy thread --

adultery and infidelity is what threatens "the sanctity" of marriage the most.

Gays and lesbo's have nothing to do with it.

Not spousal abuse? I guess you think she had it coming

 

[boedicca]

#metoo, feminist studies, and the other feminazi nonsense that demonizes men does far more damage than either of the two poll choices

 

[sealybobo]

The defense of marraige act will no longer be enforced by our government. Thank God for small favors. First let me say that the government has absolutely no business in the lives of it's citizens churches and especially their bedrooms. The next thing to do now is to get the churches out of our bedrooms.

Which is more destructive to the "sanctity of marriage"? Gay marriage or divorce? IMO it must be divorce. The divorce rate is over 50% in this country, and I recognize that repeat offenders artificially inflate that number, but not by that much.

The gay community is realatively small but compared to the press they get and the outrage directed at them for wanting the same rights as everyone else (as per the constitution) is unbelievable. You can see just about every reverend, priest, or pastor condemn the gay community and rail against them. They have gone far into the political arena to try and guarantee they do not get equal rights i.e. marriage. Why would they do this? IMO it is because organized religion has become an elitist organization. They need to make themselves feel superior to everyone else. This is why everyone else is going to hell but them and their particular brand of religion.

Divorce, is the third rail of religion. Pastors, preists, and reverends rarely, if at all, ever talk about divorce. Why is that? IMO it is because they do not want to loose their congregation. If they were to turn the same effort and energy they use against gays, against their own parrishoners, for divorcing they wouldn't have a congregation left. It is true that in the bible the appostles gave exceptions and reasons for divorce, but Jesus and God never did, hmm....can you imagine a priest saying "I'm sorry, but you can't get divorced because what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, Jesus says." The reply would be even funnier, "But Paul said...." I didn't realize that Paul trumps Jesus?

So the question I have is what is more destructive to the institution of Marriage? Homosexuals or Divorce?

Republicans at it again

White House staff secretary Rob Porter has resigned following newly published reports alleging that he physically abused his two ex-wives.

Porter resigned from his position on Wednesday, the White House confirmed.

Porter’s ex-wife, Jennifer Willoughby, said he emotionally, mentally and physically abused her, according to a report in The Daily Mail. After getting into an argument with her in 2010, Porter allegedly pulled her from the shower by the shoulders and yelled at her.

Colbie Holderness, Porter’s first wife, alleged that he punched her in 2005.

“He threw me down on the bed and punched me in the face,” Holderness told The Intercept. “I think he was shocked that he had lost control to that extent.”

Holderness provided photos to the publication showing a black eye she said she sustained during the incident.


Ryan Grim

✔@ryangrim

Senior White House aide Rob Porter physically assaulted two ex-wives, they tell @theintercept. Full story to come in the morning.

His first wife, Colbie Holderness, provided these photos from a vacation they took together in Florence, Italy:

1:53 AM - Feb 7, 2018

• 
  4,299
• 
  5,292 people are talking about this

Old thread resurrected for no apparent reason.

They knew you would show up if it was resurrected......

It’s simple really. When I see a republican cheated or beat his wife I search for the words sanctity of marriage. I love to remind them their outrage over Monica was fake. I’m the Larry flynt of usmb.

Trump is the worst husband too. Sanctity of marriage hah! Stormy Daniels says what?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The defense of marraige act will no longer be enforced by our government. Thank God for small favors. First let me say that the government has absolutely no business in the lives of it's citizens churches and especially their bedrooms. The next thing to do now is to get the churches out of our bedrooms.

Which is more destructive to the "sanctity of marriage"? Gay marriage or divorce? IMO it must be divorce. The divorce rate is over 50% in this country, and I recognize that repeat offenders artificially inflate that number, but not by that much.

The gay community is realatively small but compared to the press they get and the outrage directed at them for wanting the same rights as everyone else (as per the constitution) is unbelievable. You can see just about every reverend, priest, or pastor condemn the gay community and rail against them. They have gone far into the political arena to try and guarantee they do not get equal rights i.e. marriage. Why would they do this? IMO it is because organized religion has become an elitist organization. They need to make themselves feel superior to everyone else. This is why everyone else is going to hell but them and their particular brand of religion.

Divorce, is the third rail of religion. Pastors, preists, and reverends rarely, if at all, ever talk about divorce. Why is that? IMO it is because they do not want to loose their congregation. If they were to turn the same effort and energy they use against gays, against their own parrishoners, for divorcing they wouldn't have a congregation left. It is true that in the bible the appostles gave exceptions and reasons for divorce, but Jesus and God never did, hmm....can you imagine a priest saying "I'm sorry, but you can't get divorced because what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, Jesus says." The reply would be even funnier, "But Paul said...." I didn't realize that Paul trumps Jesus?

So the question I have is what is more destructive to the institution of Marriage? Homosexuals or Divorce?

Let's be honest here, OK? People who prefer having sex with the same gender want special rights. They already have equal rights.

I think they are both equally destructive.

That is a boatload of bovine excrement! How exactly did gays have equal rights before marriage equality?

 

[ding]

The defense of marraige act will no longer be enforced by our government. Thank God for small favors. First let me say that the government has absolutely no business in the lives of it's citizens churches and especially their bedrooms. The next thing to do now is to get the churches out of our bedrooms.

Which is more destructive to the "sanctity of marriage"? Gay marriage or divorce? IMO it must be divorce. The divorce rate is over 50% in this country, and I recognize that repeat offenders artificially inflate that number, but not by that much.

The gay community is realatively small but compared to the press they get and the outrage directed at them for wanting the same rights as everyone else (as per the constitution) is unbelievable. You can see just about every reverend, priest, or pastor condemn the gay community and rail against them. They have gone far into the political arena to try and guarantee they do not get equal rights i.e. marriage. Why would they do this? IMO it is because organized religion has become an elitist organization. They need to make themselves feel superior to everyone else. This is why everyone else is going to hell but them and their particular brand of religion.

Divorce, is the third rail of religion. Pastors, preists, and reverends rarely, if at all, ever talk about divorce. Why is that? IMO it is because they do not want to loose their congregation. If they were to turn the same effort and energy they use against gays, against their own parrishoners, for divorcing they wouldn't have a congregation left. It is true that in the bible the appostles gave exceptions and reasons for divorce, but Jesus and God never did, hmm....can you imagine a priest saying "I'm sorry, but you can't get divorced because what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, Jesus says." The reply would be even funnier, "But Paul said...." I didn't realize that Paul trumps Jesus?

So the question I have is what is more destructive to the institution of Marriage? Homosexuals or Divorce?

Let's be honest here, OK? People who prefer having sex with the same gender want special rights. They already have equal rights.

I think they are both equally destructive.

That is a boatload of bovine excrement! How exactly did gays have equal rights before marriage equality?

They had the same restriction placed on them as everyone else.

Blacks after the 13th Amendment were denied marriage by Democrats.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The most destructive thing to the sanctity of marriage is marraige itself.

Without a doubt!

Anyone who doesn't think so has obviously never been married.

I don't think so and I've been married for 30 years. Sorry to hear that your life sucks

 

[ricechickie]

The defense of marraige act will no longer be enforced by our government. Thank God for small favors. First let me say that the government has absolutely no business in the lives of it's citizens churches and especially their bedrooms. The next thing to do now is to get the churches out of our bedrooms.

Which is more destructive to the "sanctity of marriage"? Gay marriage or divorce? IMO it must be divorce. The divorce rate is over 50% in this country, and I recognize that repeat offenders artificially inflate that number, but not by that much.

The gay community is realatively small but compared to the press they get and the outrage directed at them for wanting the same rights as everyone else (as per the constitution) is unbelievable. You can see just about every reverend, priest, or pastor condemn the gay community and rail against them. They have gone far into the political arena to try and guarantee they do not get equal rights i.e. marriage. Why would they do this? IMO it is because organized religion has become an elitist organization. They need to make themselves feel superior to everyone else. This is why everyone else is going to hell but them and their particular brand of religion.

Divorce, is the third rail of religion. Pastors, preists, and reverends rarely, if at all, ever talk about divorce. Why is that? IMO it is because they do not want to loose their congregation. If they were to turn the same effort and energy they use against gays, against their own parrishoners, for divorcing they wouldn't have a congregation left. It is true that in the bible the appostles gave exceptions and reasons for divorce, but Jesus and God never did, hmm....can you imagine a priest saying "I'm sorry, but you can't get divorced because what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, Jesus says." The reply would be even funnier, "But Paul said...." I didn't realize that Paul trumps Jesus?

So the question I have is what is more destructive to the institution of Marriage? Homosexuals or Divorce?

Let's be honest here, OK? People who prefer having sex with the same gender want special rights. They already have equal rights.

I think they are both equally destructive.

That is a boatload of bovine excrement! How exactly did gays have equal rights before marriage equality?

They had the same restriction placed on them as everyone else.

Blacks after the 13th Amendment were denied marriage by Democrats.

Blacks were denied marriage? Can you link to something that supports that?

 

[ding]

The defense of marraige act will no longer be enforced by our government. Thank God for small favors. First let me say that the government has absolutely no business in the lives of it's citizens churches and especially their bedrooms. The next thing to do now is to get the churches out of our bedrooms.

Which is more destructive to the "sanctity of marriage"? Gay marriage or divorce? IMO it must be divorce. The divorce rate is over 50% in this country, and I recognize that repeat offenders artificially inflate that number, but not by that much.

The gay community is realatively small but compared to the press they get and the outrage directed at them for wanting the same rights as everyone else (as per the constitution) is unbelievable. You can see just about every reverend, priest, or pastor condemn the gay community and rail against them. They have gone far into the political arena to try and guarantee they do not get equal rights i.e. marriage. Why would they do this? IMO it is because organized religion has become an elitist organization. They need to make themselves feel superior to everyone else. This is why everyone else is going to hell but them and their particular brand of religion.

Divorce, is the third rail of religion. Pastors, preists, and reverends rarely, if at all, ever talk about divorce. Why is that? IMO it is because they do not want to loose their congregation. If they were to turn the same effort and energy they use against gays, against their own parrishoners, for divorcing they wouldn't have a congregation left. It is true that in the bible the appostles gave exceptions and reasons for divorce, but Jesus and God never did, hmm....can you imagine a priest saying "I'm sorry, but you can't get divorced because what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, Jesus says." The reply would be even funnier, "But Paul said...." I didn't realize that Paul trumps Jesus?

So the question I have is what is more destructive to the institution of Marriage? Homosexuals or Divorce?

Let's be honest here, OK? People who prefer having sex with the same gender want special rights. They already have equal rights.

I think they are both equally destructive.

That is a boatload of bovine excrement! How exactly did gays have equal rights before marriage equality?

They had the same restriction placed on them as everyone else.

Blacks after the 13th Amendment were denied marriage by Democrats.

Blacks were denied marriage? Can you link to something that supports that?

That's why they wrote the 14th amendment.

 

[ricechickie]

Link?

 

[ding]

Link?

I don't have a link. I have knowledge inside my brain.

After the 13th Amendment, Democrats played games with the law. They said, OK, you are free, but you are not citizens and you don't get the rights of citizens.

Which is what led to the 14th and 15th Amendments.

Look it up for yourself. Or not. I couldn't care less.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Divorce should be outlawed. You pledge "till death do you part" and that's it. FOREVER.

Are you fucking serious??!! THAT would be the destruction of marriage. People just would not do it.

They had the same restriction placed on them as everyone else.

•

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


O

n cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).

Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

 

[ding]

Divorce should be outlawed. You pledge "till death do you part" and that's it. FOREVER.

Are you fucking serious??!! THAT would be the destruction of marriage. People just would not do it.

They had the same restriction placed on them as everyone else.

•

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


O

n cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).

Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Cool story, bro.

I believe they are seeking special rights. They can get married just like everyone else.

 

[ricechickie]

Link?

I don't have a link. I have knowledge inside my brain.

After the 13th Amendment, Democrats played games with the law. They said, OK, you are free, but you are not citizens and you don't get the rights of citizens.

Which is what led to the 14th and 15th Amendments.

Look it up for yourself. Or not. I couldn't care less.

I’ve been trying to look it up and I haven’t found anything that says blacks couldn’t marry after the 13 Amendment.

Sorry if the knowledge inside your head isn’t conclusive enough for me. No doubt it’s my fault.

 

[ding]

Link?

I don't have a link. I have knowledge inside my brain.

After the 13th Amendment, Democrats played games with the law. They said, OK, you are free, but you are not citizens and you don't get the rights of citizens.

Which is what led to the 14th and 15th Amendments.

Look it up for yourself. Or not. I couldn't care less.

I’ve been trying to look it up and I haven’t found anything that says blacks couldn’t marry after the 13 Amendment.

Sorry if the knowledge inside your head isn’t conclusive enough for me. No doubt it’s my fault.

I couldn't care less if you believed it, Rice.

My world does not revolve around what you do or do not believe.

Heck, go ahead and believe the exact opposite. I'm sure the 14th and 15th Amendments were all about nothing.

 

[ricechickie]

Divorce should be outlawed. You pledge "till death do you part" and that's it. FOREVER.

Are you fucking serious??!! THAT would be the destruction of marriage. People just would not do it.

They had the same restriction placed on them as everyone else.

•

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


O

n cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).

Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Cool story, bro.

I believe they are seeking special rights. They can get married just like everyone else.

It used to be that the right to marriage was restricted to couples of the same race. Damn those mixed-race couples for wanting special rights!

 

[ricechickie]

Link?

I don't have a link. I have knowledge inside my brain.

After the 13th Amendment, Democrats played games with the law. They said, OK, you are free, but you are not citizens and you don't get the rights of citizens.

Which is what led to the 14th and 15th Amendments.

Look it up for yourself. Or not. I couldn't care less.

I’ve been trying to look it up and I haven’t found anything that says blacks couldn’t marry after the 13 Amendment.

Sorry if the knowledge inside your head isn’t conclusive enough for me. No doubt it’s my fault.

I couldn't care less if you believed it, Rice.

My world does not revolve around what you do or do not believe.

Heck, go ahead and believe the exact opposite. I'm sure the 14th and 15th Amendments were all about nothing.

YOU made the assertion. I can’t find a source to support it, and you refuse to. And you’re going to get pissy over it?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Divorce should be outlawed. You pledge "till death do you part" and that's it. FOREVER.

Are you fucking serious??!! THAT would be the destruction of marriage. People just would not do it.

They had the same restriction placed on them as everyone else.

•

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


O

n cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).

Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Cool story, bro.

I believe they are seeking special rights. They can get married just like everyone else.

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. By the way, you, like gay folks are free to marry someone of the same sex. Nothing special about that.