CDZ Support for Gay Marriage grows

[anynameyouwish]

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.

When tradition oppresses people it needs to change.

"When tradition oppresses people it needs to change."


it was traditional to bow to the king.

but the colonists changed that.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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.

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

and further campaigns to make special groups more equal

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

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The world is changing and many just can't accept it. Especially on terms of equality.

Maybe some see the world as a zero-sum game? If someone they don't like wins, that means they must have lost something.

Change comes slowly and is not always welcomed by some. The same people kicking against equality now were probably outraged when black folk got the vote in the 60s.

That is a lie. Equality for blacks is not at all the same as allowing men to marry men.

A better equivalent were the laws that made it illegal for Americans of mixed race to marry each other. Back before Loving v. Virginia, in many states, a black man could marry any woman he wanted- as long as she was black. Before Obergefell, a gay man could marry anyone he wanted, as long as it was a woman.

The legal rational for why both sets of laws preventing mixed race couples, and gay couples from marrying, were the same.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

The aggressive acts were done by the Conservatives who pushed through legislation to specifically deny marriage- and civil unions- to gay couples.
The law still doesn't prevent any religion from regulating marriage within the religion however it sees fit.
Nor has the change in the law changed any traditions.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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; .

The Supreme Court has rejected your argument repeatedly.
Obergefell was just the latest- I believe the fifth- Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court specifically affirmed that marriage is a right.
Loving v. Virginia and Turner v. Safley are among them.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

I have been married for 24 years and have managed to withstand the LGBT "aggression" towards my marriage. In fact I am not aware of any straight couple who have been affected by a Gay marriage. Perhaps you could share your experience in this respect ?

As some wag said- if the legalization of gay marriage has harmed your marriage- you probably are gay.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

Actually the majority of Americans support same sex marriage.There is no credible argument against it.

Yep- matter of fact- after Loving v. Virginia it took Americans far longer to accept and support mixed race marriages than it has taken Americans to accept gay marriages.

Gay marriage is essentially a non-issue now. Even Trump doesn't blow his dog whistle to evangelicals and cons over the issue.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

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?

So this isn't about equal rights? This is about being able to use the specific term marriage? You mention the advantages of marriage, but a civil union would remedy that situation. I'm sorry that LGBTs didn't like the definition of marriage, but they had no reason to alter it. By harm, do you mean they didn't like the fact that they could have the exact same rights with a different term. A different term for a different situation. It doesn't appear this had anything to do with rights. Altering the meaning of one of our oldest traditions was indeed aggressive.

I'm of the opinion only religious organizations should be able to marry people and only governments should offer civil unions. Religious marriages would not be subject to any governmental regulation and, likewise, such marriages should not come with any government benefits (e.g., tax breaks). Only civil unions, essentially contracts between 2 (or more?) consenting adults, would provide those benefits.

Your proposal makes a lot of sense.This squabble on what term to use, "marriage" or "civil union," is ridiculous. But to avoid it, perhaps we should abandon our bifurcated system, in which the government issues a marriage license and then invests religious institutions with the power to give it legal effect, even though the license can also be given legal effect by a ceremony at the courthouse.

It would solve the whole thing if everyone entered into a civil union at the courthouse that would bring their union under civil law, and then those who want to have a religious marriage could undergo the religious ceremony of their choice and be given an official religious certificate called "marriage" in their faith. Jews have a formal religious contract as part of their ceremony that brings the couple under Jewish law. Catholics have a sacramental ceremony that brings the couple under canon law. This should satisfy everybody, including Dusty Infinity. He could have a civil union under state law and a marriage under the laws of his faith.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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?

So this isn't about equal rights? This is about being able to use the specific term marriage? You mention the advantages of marriage, but a civil union would remedy that situation. I'm sorry that LGBTs didn't like the definition of marriage, but they had no reason to alter it. By harm, do you mean they didn't like the fact that they could have the exact same rights with a different term. A different term for a different situation. It doesn't appear this had anything to do with rights. Altering the meaning of one of our oldest traditions was indeed aggressive.

I'm of the opinion only religious organizations should be able to marry people and only governments should offer civil unions. Religious marriages would not be subject to any governmental regulation and, likewise, such marriages should not come with any government benefits (e.g., tax breaks). Only civil unions, essentially contracts between 2 (or more?) consenting adults, would provide those benefits.

And lots of people feel similarly to you. But the court case addressed the current legal situation. And there is no serious move to make civil marriages just civil unions.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

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.

I have been married for 24 years and have managed to withstand the LGBT "aggression" towards my marriage. In fact I am not aware of any straight couple who have been affected by a Gay marriage. Perhaps you could share your experience in this respect ?

As some wag said- if the legalization of gay marriage has harmed your marriage- you probably are gay.

I will give that some thought.

 

[alang1216]

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'.

 

[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.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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'.

This country is NOT built on any rule of law. It is built upon a series of United States Supreme Court decisions wherein they over - rule one law and cause total chaos in another area of the law - they are NOT empowered to over-rule their own decisions, but they do. Presidents are trying to rule via Executive fiat and the country is in shambles.

Bureaucrats don't give a rip about the law. I've been to court many a time because they don't do their jobs. But, ultimately society makes the decisions. You just don't like some of them.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?