"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[bodecea]

The 1st amendment forbids the establishment of a national religion, and adherence to said religion. it does nothing to ban people from seeking laws based on their belief structure.

Evidently progressives want to force people to accept their moral code.

The First Amendment prohibits religious belief from becoming US law. This is known as "the separation of church and state". Not everyone believes your religion so it is not "freedom" to impose your religious views on members of the general public through legislation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Writing a law based on a Bible passage which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in order to discriminate against tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the question stands, "Do Teabaggers want to abolish the First Amendment in order to push through their religious laws?"

You are so wrong it is not even funny. Prohibitions on Murder and stealing are in the bible, so I guess laws against both are 1st amendment violations. By your logic they are and must be repealed.

The reason for a law means nothing when it comes to the constitution, the intent is all that matters. If someone passed a law requiring you tithe or join a certain church, THAT would be a 1st amendment violation. Passing a law saying the contract of marriage is defined as one man one woman does not violate the 1st amendment at all.

Evidently progressives want to abolish the 1st amendment via public accommodation laws, but that is another debate.

Another RWr who can't see the difference between Murder and Stealing and Gay Marriage.

And as an added feature, a RWr that thinks that before the bible was written there were no restrictions on murder and stealing.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

In what way am I misinterpreting the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that Congress shall make no law based solely on small-minded bigoted religious bullshit. It doesn't only mean that Congress cannot establish a national religion. Passing a law based on religion which prohibits the freedom of a particular group of people who have not broken any other laws is not Constitutional.

Point out where the right to gay marriage is denied in the US Constitution.

I keep asking for someone to point out where it says, "equal, except ... " but no one can.

 

[KNB]

If voted in by a state legislature then i have no opposition to gay marriage. I oppose the use of courts that create a "right" to gay marriage that does not and has never existed in the Constitution. I also opposed forcing acceptance of gay marriage on people via public accommodation laws.

And again, intent and reason behind a law does not come into play. the action of the law has to be unconstitutional. One can oppose gay marriage based solely on precedent, which is substantial. What the first amendment prevents is the government forcing you from paying for religion, or performing overt religious acts at the behest of the government. it does not prevent laws that are based on religious beliefs that do not fall into the categories above.

The "right" to gay marriage is not denied in the US Constitution, either, so it is a "right" left to the People. If you want to make it a "State's rights" issue then the Federal government has to be involved because if a gay or lesbian couple is married in one state and then move to another state that does not recognize their marriage, there has to be a higher authority to mediate the situation. Since gay marriage is not denied to homosexual and lesbian couples anywhere in the Constitution, you do not have the right to forbid the practice.

It is not guaranteed by the bill of rights or the amendments either. It therefore falls to the state legislatures to define the contract. There is no Constitutional right to gay marriage anywhere in the document.

The federal government has ZERO mandate to regulate the contract of marriage.

And if, by your logic, one state has to recognize the others without any reservations, I guess anyone with a valid gun permit should be able to go to a state like NY that doesnt allow such things. After all, 2nd amendment rights ARE ACTUALLY IN THE DOCUMENT.

We're talking about marriage. If a heterosexual couple is married in one state then that marriage is valid in every state. The same right applies to same-sex couples, otherwise there is not equality under the law.

Why do you oppose gay marriage? Why do you care at all?

 

[KevinWestern]

Its certainly true that some backward cultures deny many basic human rights but again, why should that influence or impact the US? Why must the US move backward?

Again, Luddly - I support gay marriage so I don’t think I need to answer that.

I was just demonstrating that this isn’t necessarily just a “biblical principle”, because if that were the case it wouldn’t exist anywhere but Christian societies.

 

[martybegan]

The First Amendment prohibits religious belief from becoming US law. This is known as "the separation of church and state". Not everyone believes your religion so it is not "freedom" to impose your religious views on members of the general public through legislation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Writing a law based on a Bible passage which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in order to discriminate against tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the question stands, "Do Teabaggers want to abolish the First Amendment in order to push through their religious laws?"

You are so wrong it is not even funny. Prohibitions on Murder and stealing are in the bible, so I guess laws against both are 1st amendment violations. By your logic they are and must be repealed.

The reason for a law means nothing when it comes to the constitution, the intent is all that matters. If someone passed a law requiring you tithe or join a certain church, THAT would be a 1st amendment violation. Passing a law saying the contract of marriage is defined as one man one woman does not violate the 1st amendment at all.

Evidently progressives want to abolish the 1st amendment via public accommodation laws, but that is another debate.

Another RWr who can't see the difference between Murder and Stealing and Gay Marriage.

And as an added feature, a RWr that thinks that before the bible was written there were no restrictions on murder and stealing.

How about reading the drivel being posted by KNB before commenting? i am rebutting his direct statements, where he thinks the 1st amendment bans ANY law if it even has a sniff of a religious reasoning behind it.

I am attacking a line of logic, quite successfully I might add. So bugger off.

 

[KNB]

You are so wrong it is not even funny. Prohibitions on Murder and stealing are in the bible, so I guess laws against both are 1st amendment violations. By your logic they are and must be repealed.

The reason for a law means nothing when it comes to the constitution, the intent is all that matters. If someone passed a law requiring you tithe or join a certain church, THAT would be a 1st amendment violation. Passing a law saying the contract of marriage is defined as one man one woman does not violate the 1st amendment at all.

Evidently progressives want to abolish the 1st amendment via public accommodation laws, but that is another debate.

Another RWr who can't see the difference between Murder and Stealing and Gay Marriage.

And as an added feature, a RWr that thinks that before the bible was written there were no restrictions on murder and stealing.

How about reading the drivel being posted by KNB before commenting? i am rebutting his direct statements, where he thinks the 1st amendment bans ANY law if it even has a sniff of a religious reasoning behind it.

I am attacking a line of logic, quite successfully I might add. So bugger off.

What is your reasoning for opposing gay marriage if not the Bible?

 

[KevinWestern]

In what way am I misinterpreting the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that Congress shall make no law based solely on small-minded bigoted religious bullshit. It doesn't only mean that Congress cannot establish a national religion. Passing a law based on religion which prohibits the freedom of a particular group of people who have not broken any other laws is not Constitutional.

Point out where the right to gay marriage is denied in the US Constitution.

But why do you think valuing only opposite sex marriage is a "religious opinion"? I don't think it is. Again, if it were just a biblical principle - for example - gay marriage would exist in every non-Judeo Christian society. Is that the case? No! The belief that Jesus is the son of God IS - on the other hand - a biblical principle. See the difference?

Again, do I think you should be able to use the bible to justify a law? Of course not! And again, I'm pro-gay marriage.

 

[bodecea]

In what way am I misinterpreting the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that Congress shall make no law based solely on small-minded bigoted religious bullshit. It doesn't only mean that Congress cannot establish a national religion. Passing a law based on religion which prohibits the freedom of a particular group of people who have not broken any other laws is not Constitutional.

Point out where the right to gay marriage is denied in the US Constitution.

Point out where it is a right granted by the constitution first.

and your first statement is complete and utter bullshit.

It's right next to the right to straight marriage.

 

[martybegan]

The "right" to gay marriage is not denied in the US Constitution, either, so it is a "right" left to the People. If you want to make it a "State's rights" issue then the Federal government has to be involved because if a gay or lesbian couple is married in one state and then move to another state that does not recognize their marriage, there has to be a higher authority to mediate the situation. Since gay marriage is not denied to homosexual and lesbian couples anywhere in the Constitution, you do not have the right to forbid the practice.

It is not guaranteed by the bill of rights or the amendments either. It therefore falls to the state legislatures to define the contract. There is no Constitutional right to gay marriage anywhere in the document.

The federal government has ZERO mandate to regulate the contract of marriage.

And if, by your logic, one state has to recognize the others without any reservations, I guess anyone with a valid gun permit should be able to go to a state like NY that doesnt allow such things. After all, 2nd amendment rights ARE ACTUALLY IN THE DOCUMENT.

We're talking about marriage. If a heterosexual couple is married in one state then that marriage is valid in every state. The same right applies to same-sex couples, otherwise there is not equality under the law.

Why do you oppose gay marriage? Why do you care at all?

because in those cases the marriages were identical, man and woman. same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage are simply not the same, no matter how much people try to say they are.

My issue is the open interpretation of what the constitution grants as rights, because if courts can make up rights, they can make up reasons to suppress rights. The new anti gun laws in NY and Connecticut as violations of the 2nd amendment come to mind.

 

[martybegan]

In what way am I misinterpreting the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that Congress shall make no law based solely on small-minded bigoted religious bullshit. It doesn't only mean that Congress cannot establish a national religion. Passing a law based on religion which prohibits the freedom of a particular group of people who have not broken any other laws is not Constitutional.

Point out where the right to gay marriage is denied in the US Constitution.

Point out where it is a right granted by the constitution first.

and your first statement is complete and utter bullshit.

It's right next to the right to straight marriage.

There is no federal right to that either. thus it devolves to the States to define the marriage contract.

 

[martybegan]

Another RWr who can't see the difference between Murder and Stealing and Gay Marriage.

And as an added feature, a RWr that thinks that before the bible was written there were no restrictions on murder and stealing.

How about reading the drivel being posted by KNB before commenting? i am rebutting his direct statements, where he thinks the 1st amendment bans ANY law if it even has a sniff of a religious reasoning behind it.

I am attacking a line of logic, quite successfully I might add. So bugger off.

What is your reasoning for opposing gay marriage if not the Bible?

I oppose the use of the courts to force states to recognize gay marriage. It should be done by the legislature in each State.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The First Amendment prohibits religious belief from becoming US law. This is known as "the separation of church and state". Not everyone believes your religion so it is not "freedom" to impose your religious views on members of the general public through legislation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Well, technically the idea is that you can't favor a single religion - specifically - in law and have that trump the democratic opinion. However, if the society is made up of 100 people and 75 are Christian and hold the "belief" - via influence from the bible - that marriage should only be man/woman, and they vote to keep it that way, I think that is still OK.

Do I agree with it? Of course not, I think any two consenting adults should be able to marry if they want. However, you need to remember that the bible can influence the opinion of a group just as a science textbook might influence the opinion of another. We can't "forbid" that from happening.

No, that isn't okay. The First Amendment was written as it is written specifically to prevent 75 Christians from voting in religious dogma which limits the freedom of the other 25 people. That is the very first rule in the US Constitution. That is why it was written.
the 1st was also written to prevent 25 of the religion of Liberalism or whatever you want to call it to limit the freedom of 75 people...

Writing a law based on a Bible passage which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in order to discriminate against tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the question stands, "Do Teabaggers want to abolish the First Amendment in order to push through their religious laws?"

I don't think the argument is completely Biblical. I think it's more or less "traditionalists" (people who want to keep things as they were) vs. "progressives" (people who want to expand something to include a new group).

The argument is completely biblical because no one can come up with any other reason to oppose gay marriage.

ever hear of 'natural law'......?

.

 

[KNB]

In what way am I misinterpreting the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that Congress shall make no law based solely on small-minded bigoted religious bullshit. It doesn't only mean that Congress cannot establish a national religion. Passing a law based on religion which prohibits the freedom of a particular group of people who have not broken any other laws is not Constitutional.

Point out where the right to gay marriage is denied in the US Constitution.

But why do you think valuing only opposite sex marriage is a "religious opinion"? I don't think it is. Again, if it were just a biblical principle - for example - gay marriage would exist in every non-Judeo Christian society. Is that the case? No! The belief that Jesus is the son of God IS - on the other hand - a biblical principle. See the difference?

Again, do I think you should be able to use the bible to justify a law? Of course not! And again, I'm pro-gay marriage.

There are gay people in every non-judeo-christian society, as there have been since the invention of homosexuality (which predates Christianity by several thousand years). Those people want the same rights and privileges and basic human dignity that is afforded to everyone else. It is time to give them that dignity.

People who oppose gay marriage in the US have to give a valid reason for wanting to stifle gay and lesbians' rights to pursue their own happiness that does not include religious teachings. Since none of them can do that, it stands to reason that their opposition to gay marriage is based entirely on the Bible and therefore cannot be forced into US law no matter how many millions of Christians vote for it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

BTW, it doesn't really matter what Hillary's opinion is any more than Obama's, Boehner's or your next door neighbor's.

What matters is that no one group gets to dictate how the entire country lives.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

It really is that simple because its none of your business what consenting adults choose to do together and the US Constitution really does not say "equal for some but not everyone".

As to the so-called "sanctity" of straight marriage, half of them end in divorce so apparently us straights don't even believe in their sanctity.

 

[buckeye45_73]

In what way am I misinterpreting the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that Congress shall make no law based solely on small-minded bigoted religious bullshit. It doesn't only mean that Congress cannot establish a national religion. Passing a law based on religion which prohibits the freedom of a particular group of people who have not broken any other laws is not Constitutional.

Point out where the right to gay marriage is denied in the US Constitution.

But why do you think valuing only opposite sex marriage is a "religious opinion"? I don't think it is. Again, if it were just a biblical principle - for example - gay marriage would exist in every non-Judeo Christian society. Is that the case? No! The belief that Jesus is the son of God IS - on the other hand - a biblical principle. See the difference?

Again, do I think you should be able to use the bible to justify a law? Of course not! And again, I'm pro-gay marriage.

There are gay people in every non-judeo-christian society, as there have been since the invention of homosexuality (which predates Christianity by several thousand years). Those people want the same rights and privileges and basic human dignity that is afforded to everyone else. It is time to give them that dignity.

People who oppose gay marriage in the US have to give a valid reason for wanting to stifle gay and lesbians' rights to pursue their own happiness that does not include religious teachings. Since none of them can do that, it stands to reason that their opposition to gay marriage is based entirely on the Bible and therefore cannot be forced into US law no matter how many millions of Christians vote for it.

So may question is why gays? why not polygamists? incest, ect?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How about reading the drivel being posted by KNB before commenting? i am rebutting his direct statements, where he thinks the 1st amendment bans ANY law if it even has a sniff of a religious reasoning behind it.

I am attacking a line of logic, quite successfully I might add. So bugger off.

What is your reasoning for opposing gay marriage if not the Bible?

I oppose the use of the courts to force states to recognize gay marriage. It should be done by the legislature in each State.

No because it was already recognized at the federal level with the writing of the Constitution.

 

[buckeye45_73]

BTW, it doesn't really matter what Hillary's opinion is any more than Obama's, Boehner's or your next door neighbor's.

What matters is that no one group gets to dictate how the entire country lives.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

It really is that simple because its none of your business what consenting adults choose to do together and the US Constitution really does not say "equal for some but not everyone".

As to the so-called "sanctity" of straight marriage, half of them end in divorce so apparently us straights don't even believe in their sanctity.

How convenient, why don't liberals use that strategy in any other facet of life?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

But why do you think valuing only opposite sex marriage is a "religious opinion"? I don't think it is. Again, if it were just a biblical principle - for example - gay marriage would exist in every non-Judeo Christian society. Is that the case? No! The belief that Jesus is the son of God IS - on the other hand - a biblical principle. See the difference?

Again, do I think you should be able to use the bible to justify a law? Of course not! And again, I'm pro-gay marriage.

There are gay people in every non-judeo-christian society, as there have been since the invention of homosexuality (which predates Christianity by several thousand years). Those people want the same rights and privileges and basic human dignity that is afforded to everyone else. It is time to give them that dignity.

People who oppose gay marriage in the US have to give a valid reason for wanting to stifle gay and lesbians' rights to pursue their own happiness that does not include religious teachings. Since none of them can do that, it stands to reason that their opposition to gay marriage is based entirely on the Bible and therefore cannot be forced into US law no matter how many millions of Christians vote for it.

So may question is why gays? why not polygamists? incest, ect?

Completely different issues because they can and usually do involve people who cannot make informed decisions about their own lives - children.

 

[Silhouette]

edited. bumped page

 

[ScreamingEagle]

In what way am I misinterpreting the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that Congress shall make no law based solely on small-minded bigoted religious bullshit. It doesn't only mean that Congress cannot establish a national religion. Passing a law based on religion which prohibits the freedom of a particular group of people who have not broken any other laws is not Constitutional.

Point out where the right to gay marriage is denied in the US Constitution.

But why do you think valuing only opposite sex marriage is a "religious opinion"? I don't think it is. Again, if it were just a biblical principle - for example - gay marriage would exist in every non-Judeo Christian society. Is that the case? No! The belief that Jesus is the son of God IS - on the other hand - a biblical principle. See the difference?

Again, do I think you should be able to use the bible to justify a law? Of course not! And again, I'm pro-gay marriage.

There are gay people in every non-judeo-christian society, as there have been since the invention of homosexuality (which predates Christianity by several thousand years). Those people want the same rights and privileges and basic human dignity that is afforded to everyone else. It is time to give them that dignity.

People who oppose gay marriage in the US have to give a valid reason for wanting to stifle gay and lesbians' rights to pursue their own happiness that does not include religious teachings. Since none of them can do that, it stands to reason that their opposition to gay marriage is based entirely on the Bible and therefore cannot be forced into US law no matter how many millions of Christians vote for it.

there are only like 15 of the approx. 200 countries in the world that allow gay marriage....

those 15 are in the Western part of the world.....the part of the world that has lost its Christian moral compass and is decaying and crumbling...