Major Blow to Homophobes: SCOTUS Refuses to Block Gay Marriage in DC

[Susita 175]

All political sides are generally guilty of this and when you try and point it out though, you get labeled as a charlatan.

This is true.

I'm hoping that when my kids are adults things are a lot better for them.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm hoping that when my kids are adults things are a lot better for them.

They will be.

[Wyld Blu 35]

The pursuit of happiness for ALL individuals IS in our constitution, and if that means they want to be married to be happy, and they are two consenting adults, I am all for that.

However, at the crux of the argument, let's look at where marriage stems from. Now, correct me if I am wrong, and I am quite sure somebody will, marriage began as a religious ceremony. It started with the church, which may explain the "moral" dilemma many are going through with allowing gay marriage. The government has since stepped in over the many years and afforded married couples with certain privileges that unmarried couples don't receive. If the government is to be involved in any way, they MUST, AS PER THE US CONSTITUTION, afford the same rights to EVERYONE, gay or straight. It is a simple argument.

I, for the life of me, cannot see how two people getting married, same sex or not, will have a direct affect on my life or the life of my marriage. It is simply not my business. It only becomes my business if I am affected directly. I have several gay friends who are married and honestly it has only affected me in a good way. To see two loving, committed people sharing a life together is nothing less than inspiring.

Now, whether or not the government SHOULD be involved is a whole other argument as separation of church and state is also guaranteed by our constitution. So, the question becomes, should a marriage be a religious ceremony, only recognized by your particular church, temple, mosque, whatever, or SHOULD the government continue to be involved, thereby demanding equality for EVERYONE.

The argument that gay marriage is being forced upon you is a fallacy. Nobody is forcing you to support it, believe in it or even agree with it. We ARE simply asking you to respect the law, if indeed it becomes legal. You can close your eyes and frown anytime you are near a gay couple. Hell you can even quote the bible (perhaps the part where it says: Mat 7:1-5 "Judge not, that ye be not judged) to them.

This isn't about what people are doing in the bedroom, this is about the government, now involved in what as an original religious ceremony giving equal rights and privileges to everyone under the constitution.

-Blu

[jundp 191]

Because great societies have fallen when the wise do not speak up against the narcissism of the few.

True. However, wanting equal rights under law is not narcissism.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Wrong.

Government only "recognizes" marriages for tax reasons.

Marriage really has nothing to do with government and two people being as one is as of NO BUSINESS of the government whatsoever.

If the government is going to offer any type of benefits to two people then it has to be uniform across the board.

If you understand the constitution then you truly understand that no state can dishonor a marriage that took place in another state either, whether that state agrees with its 'morality' or not.

Government recognizes marriage for reasons other than taxes.

Government is an element of social order, so the regulation of marriage is a duty it has, and that has been true for centuries the world over.

I'm not sure what you mean by your third comment.

You are referring to the full faith and credit clause. It is not absolute; an example is the variety of gun laws state by state. There are states that have passed Constitutional amendments against same sex marriage to avoid the recognition of same sex unions recognized by other states.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Let's take a look at the arguments that helped maintain miscegenation laws for centuries. It fully covers the opposition to same sex marriage with the exception of the already debunked procreation argument. You can deny the parallels all you want but the arguments against interracial marriage were one and the same as those against same sex marriage. As well, the former was forced on the people by the courts and subsequently accepted (more than 1 in 15 marriages today is between people of different races) and the latter will take same course.

You refuse to acknowledge the fact that objections to same sex marriage are not the same as those for interracial marriage. You are the one in denial. Try to hook me into your false dicotomy, but you will fail.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The pursuit of happiness for ALL individuals IS in our constitution, and if that means they want to be married to be happy, and they are two consenting adults, I am all for that.

However, at the crux of the argument, let's look at where marriage stems from. Now, correct me if I am wrong, and I am quite sure somebody will, marriage began as a religious ceremony. It started with the church, which may explain the "moral" dilemma many are going through with allowing gay marriage. The government has since stepped in over the many years and afforded married couples with certain privileges that unmarried couples don't receive. If the government is to be involved in any way, they MUST, AS PER THE US CONSTITUTION, afford the same rights to EVERYONE, gay or straight. It is a simple argument.

I, for the life of me, cannot see how two people getting married, same sex or not, will have a direct affect on my life or the life of my marriage. It is simply not my business. It only becomes my business if I am affected directly. I have several gay friends who are married and honestly it has only affected me in a good way. To see two loving, committed people sharing a life together is nothing less than inspiring.

Now, whether or not the government SHOULD be involved is a whole other argument as separation of church and state is also guaranteed by our constitution. So, the question becomes, should a marriage be a religious ceremony, only recognized by your particular church, temple, mosque, whatever, or SHOULD the government continue to be involved, thereby demanding equality for EVERYONE.

The argument that gay marriage is being forced upon you is a fallacy. Nobody is forcing you to support it, believe in it or even agree with it. We ARE simply asking you to respect the law, if indeed it becomes legal. You can close your eyes and frown anytime you are near a gay couple. Hell you can even quote the bible (perhaps the part where it says: Mat 7:1-5 "Judge not, that ye be not judged) to them.

This isn't about what people are doing in the bedroom, this is about the government, now involved in what as an original religious ceremony giving equal rights and privileges to everyone under the constitution.

-Blu

Word.

[jundp 191]

PLEASE I BEG OF YOU IF YOU ARE GOING TO TRY TO WRITE LIKE AN EDUCATED ADULT: LEARN HOW TO SPELL THE BIG WORDS CORRECTLY.

/rant over

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Of course there's no right to same sex marriage in the Constitution. There's also no right to interracial marriage in the Constitution. And no right for black people to attend white schools and vice versa. Or for black people to sit anywhere in the bus. Or use the same water fountain as white folk. There are plenty of rights not explicitly spelled out. What the Constitution does guarantee is the equal protection and that one extends to all the states whether they like it or not. That's not being arrogant, that's making sure that everyone enjoys the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. How arrogant of you to want to deny people those rights.

As you said, there is no right to gay marriage, so, by extension, no need to make sure that there is an enjoyment of a "right" that is not guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Did you see how you contradicted yourself in your post?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You refuse to acknowledge the fact that objections to same sex marriage are not the same as those for interracial marriage. You are the one in denial. Try to hook me into your false dicotomy, but you will fail.

You refuse to provide the objections you have, one convincing reason as to why same sex marriage should not be recognized by the government. I'll be happy to talk about those objections if you'd just put them on the table.

[jundp 191]

Aside from the fact that your post eloquently states that which I have neither the patience or the energy to express right now, this:

Now, correct me if I am wrong, and I am quite sure somebody will.

made me laugh out loud. Thank you for that.

[Danno 1,228]

The pursuit of happiness for ALL individuals IS in our constitution, and if that means they want to be married to be happy, and they are two consenting adults, I am all for that.

However, at the crux of the argument, let's look at where marriage stems from. Now, correct me if I am wrong, and I am quite sure somebody will, marriage began as a religious ceremony. It started with the church, which may explain the "moral" dilemma many are going through with allowing gay marriage. The government has since stepped in over the many years and afforded married couples with certain privileges that unmarried couples don't receive. If the government is to be involved in any way, they MUST, AS PER THE US CONSTITUTION, afford the same rights to EVERYONE, gay or straight. It is a simple argument.

I, for the life of me, cannot see how two people getting married, same sex or not, will have a direct affect on my life or the life of my marriage. It is simply not my business. It only becomes my business if I am affected directly. I have several gay friends who are married and honestly it has only affected me in a good way. To see two loving, committed people sharing a life together is nothing less than inspiring.

Now, whether or not the government SHOULD be involved is a whole other argument as separation of church and state is also guaranteed by our constitution. So, the question becomes, should a marriage be a religious ceremony, only recognized by your particular church, temple, mosque, whatever, or SHOULD the government continue to be involved, thereby demanding equality for EVERYONE.

The argument that gay marriage is being forced upon you is a fallacy. Nobody is forcing you to support it, believe in it or even agree with it. We ARE simply asking you to respect the law, if indeed it becomes legal. You can close your eyes and frown anytime you are near a gay couple. Hell you can even quote the bible (perhaps the part where it says: Mat 7:1-5 "Judge not, that ye be not judged) to them.

This isn't about what people are doing in the bedroom, this is about the government, now involved in what as an original religious ceremony giving equal rights and privileges to everyone under the constitution.

-Blu

Why are you so narrow minded to suppose only 2 people would want to be married. Why do you push your religion on other like this?

There are thousands tens of thousands of Multiple person relationships which don't fit your definition of family.

I might also ask Where in the Constitution does the phrase "consenting adults" come from?

What is this liberal claptrap we keep hearing about "consenting adults" as if the only marriage restrictions are those.

in some states 15 year olds can marry.

Incest is covered by other marriage laws why are you people so fixated on the Barney Fwanks of the world?

He is not the only person with a warped idea about sex who needs your voice, why be so timid?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As you said, there is no right to gay marriage, so, by extension, no need to make sure that there is an enjoyment of a "right" that is not guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Did you see how you contradicted yourself in your post?

Actually, no. There's no constitutionally guaranteed right to heterosexual marriage either. What's your point?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The thing is that I've read reasonable and convincing arguments as to why same sex marriage should be legalized. I have yet to see one well formulated, reasoned argument in opposition. Fear and prejudice is all you're getting from those that don't believe in the values of the Constitution. I'd be interested to have someone make a reasonable case in opposition but that just doesn't happen.

I have yet to see an reasonable and convincing argument as to why same sex marriage should be legal. All I see is emotional diatribes and allegations that anyone against it is a bigot. If that's all it takes to create a right where there is none, our nation is doomed.

Actually, no. There's no constitutionally guaranteed right to heterosexual marriage either. What's your point?

My point is that the federal Constitution is not the source of marriage rights for anyone, but then, I'm not the one who keeps erroneously insisting that that Constitution is the basis for granting that right. Marriage is regulated by the states, not the feds.

[Danno 1,228]

Aside from the fact that your post eloquently states that which I have neither the patience or the energy to express right now, this:

made me laugh out loud. Thank you for that.

Actually I laughed too when I read his suggestion that the Gov got involved in Marriage for "tax purposes".

Now that was good.

Someone send him a "time-line" on taxation and the family.