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

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I have a class to conduct now, so I'm going to ask the opposition to do some heavy lifting while Im away, if you please. I'll adress the objections one at a time.

1. One of the objections Ive raised is the threat to religious freedom. Religious people are already demonized re this issue as homophobic, close-minded and bigoted. How do you propose to protect their religious right to believe gay lifestyles are adverse to God's will and act accordingly in speech and deed?

You have the freedom to PRACTICE any religion you wish. You do not have the freedom to have society PRACTICE your religion as well. No one is telling you to marry gay couples in your church, nor are they telling you that you have to 'believe' in it. That's where you freedom is. Your individual freedom has nothing to do with society as a whole.

[mawilson 2,133]

As it stands, there are certain benefits the government bestows specifically on married people.

Yep - higher taxes!

[Dan J 277]

I have a class to conduct now, so I'm going to ask the opposition to do some heavy lifting while Im away, if you please. I'll adress the objections one at a time.

1. One of the objections Ive raised is the threat to religious freedom. Religious people are already demonized re this issue as homophobic, close-minded and bigoted. How do you propose to protect their religious right to believe gay lifestyles are adverse to God's will and act accordingly in speech and deed?

Marriage as it is codified in a particular religion, and marriage as codified in law are two different things. In some countries they really are the same thing, but as we interpret it in the US, they are separate.

When you get married in a church or mosque, you might be "married" by the rules of the religion. However, you will not be recognized as married by the government until you file the marriage certificate. Some people do only get married by law and never have a religious ceremony. They are by law considered married just like anyone who got married under a religious tradition.

This distinction is also important in the discussion of gay marriage. The only change would be to how the law recognizes gay marriage. It would not change your or anyone else's religious tradition over the issue. Churches can refuse to marry a gay couple, but the government should not.

[Peikko 1,575]

Which is the threat to religion? Legal gay unions, or the act of calling such unions 'marriage'?

Not that it matters, there is no threat to your religion, you should not be defining what you believe by what others believe to be true or false. That makes your belief weak and transitory. Is that what you think belief is?

You may believe that what a homosexual believes and practices condemn them to everlasting damnation and you have a constitutionally protected right to believe that, but you have no authority to take that belief and use it to change their behaviour or 'save them from themselves'. No religion is given that protection under the constitution, as has been explained to you add infinitum, there is no state religion so the beliefs and practices of one religion can't take presidence over the others, and indeed the right not to believe in any god is also duly protect.

What the constitution protects and affords to you is the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit, so long as the practice of your religion does not break another law or infringe the rights of another. Being 'disgusted' is not an infringement of your rights, or a threat to your beliefs.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Voting is constitutional and it allows the majority to overtake the minority. Your argument is weak and idealistic.

While voting is undeniably constitutional, the Constitution protects indivudual rights which cannot simply be voted away. The Constitution can be amended to get rid of some or all of those pesky rights but until thatb happens, those rights stand whether the voter likes it or not.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

While voting is undeniably constitutional, the Constitution protects indivudual rights which cannot simply be voted away. The Constitution can be amended to get rid of some or all of those pesky rights but until thatb happens, those rights stand whether the voter likes it or not.

Unfortunately too many people feel that just because a certain 'party' is in power and voted into power by the 'will' of the people, that the party can dictate the way society is. They seem to leave out the constitutional aspect of the whole thing and the rights granted.

It is amusing though, figuring the majority right now is liberal democrats in the house/senate, then it would stand to reason that gay marriage should be easily approved. I mean, since the will of the people elected people who support such ideas...

[Susita 175]

I find it so funny how some who are anti-gay marriage speak of how 'flighty' gay relationships are, yet what choice has society given them? Disallow them the right to legal longevity, yet chastise them for not 'going the distance'. It makes no sense.

I think these are assumptions. I don't think gay relationships are any 'flightier' than any other male/female relationship. There are plenty of gay partners living together for 20+ years (know quite a few of them). They're certainly not going to just 'break up' because they aren't legally allowed to get married.

I would like to know how many gay friends/relatives the people who make these assumptions actually have. My guess would be a big ZERO.

[Fandango 1,440]

I think these are assumptions. I don't think gay relationships are any 'flightier' than any other male/female relationship. There are plenty of gay partners living together for 20+ years (know quite a few of them). They're certainly not going to just 'break up' because they aren't legally allowed to get married.

I would like to know how many gay friends/relatives the people who make these assumptions actually have. My guess would be a big ZERO.

I've heard it personally, and it was mentioned (not verbatim) in this thread about Rosie breaking up...

Maybe 'flighty' is the wrong word, lol.

ETA: I do think not being able to 'legitimize' the union may create pressure on couples. Not all, but def some, imo of course...

Edited March 3, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So I got to page 4 of 8 before I couldn't stand it any longer.

I for the life of me, as a Conservative leaning person, cannot understand what the big hoo ha is about. Banning gay marriage will not make 'teh gays' disappear. It will not prevent a married man/woman leaving his/her partner to pursue a gay lifestyle. It will not prevent homosexuals living together as a married couple.

If the rest of us are expected to get married, I don't see why gays get a free pass I think it's bs that companies are offering 'domestic partner' benefits. That's not fair! If you want the bennies, you should have to get married . I'm saying this very tongue in cheek, btw.

At the end of the day, these people who blather on about the 'sanctity of marriage' should take a good look at the likes of Britney Spears, et al, who have these quickie marriage/annulments. What's that say about the 'sanctity' of it all? If you want to protect the sanctity, focus on your own marriage and realize you cannot control anyone else's.

I find it so funny how some who are anti-gay marriage speak of how 'flighty' gay relationships are, yet what choice has society given them? Disallow them the right to legal longevity, yet chastise them for not 'going the distance'. It makes no sense.

Gays are not 'going away'....giving them the legal rights of a partnership under the eyes of the law can only benefit society as a whole.

:applause:

[Calypso 465]

It makes me wonder... Will married gays not be promiscuous? Philandering may be an inappropriate word. They are not real men after all.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I have a class to conduct now, so I'm going to ask the opposition to do some heavy lifting while Im away, if you please. I'll adress the objections one at a time.

1. One of the objections Ive raised is the threat to religious freedom. Religious people are already demonized re this issue as homophobic, close-minded and bigoted. How do you propose to protect their religious right to believe gay lifestyles are adverse to God's will and act accordingly in speech and deed?

Heavy lifting?

For the speech part, please do voice your discontent about homosexuals. On a side-note, you should perhaps recognize (and I think you did earlier n the thread), that there's really no "gay lifestyle" anymore than there's a white, black, yellow, red or left handed lifestyle. After all, homosexuality is not a choice of lifestyle but a sexual preference one doesn't control. If you see it differently, you may speak your mind openly.

As for the deed, that's even simpler: Do not marry a partner of the same sex.

Next time, let me lift something that requires more than one pinky finger to handle.

[mawilson 2,133]

Big Dog: 1

Homophobes: 0

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Who's blowing the homophobes?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Why would the SCOTUS blow homophobes, don't they know homophobes don't wanna be blowed?

spooky... late again

[spookyturtle 9,466]

spooky... late again

You didn't expect me to back and actually read all of this nonsense, did you? I shoot from the hip.