Gay Marriage Dilemma

[go_utes01]

I don't see a problem with polygamy being legal.

Age concerns me because, I believe, we have a moral responsibility to protect minors. Consanguinity is also a concern due to the potential harm to third parties (the children).

Just curious because you said, "all churches the right to perform marriages according to their beliefs and to have those marriages recognized equally or not at all."

[rockpond]

Just curious because you said, "all churches the right to perform marriages according to their beliefs and to have those marriages recognized equally or not at all."

Yep. If there is a church out there seeking to make a case for the marriages of blood relatives, I'm open to hearing it. But those would be my concerns with the types of marriages you brought up.

How about you? Your thoughts on it?

[go_utes01]

Yep. If there is a church out there seeking to make a case for the marriages of blood relatives, I'm open to hearing it. But those would be my concerns with the types of marriages you brought up.

How about you? Your thoughts on it?

I think the government should get out of the marriage business all together. I do not understand why people would want the state to sanction/recognize/validate their personal relationships. Consenting adults should be allowed to form whatever relationships they desire and enter into contracts to protect their rights and define their obligations. Allow churches/communities perform whatever ceremonies/parties they want. Let people define terms however they prefer. I don't believe that the tax code should be used to incentivize behavior, based on declining marriage and birth rates, I think there is a good argument that it isn't working very well anyways.

[rockpond]

I think the government should get out of the marriage business all together. I do not understand why people would want the state to sanction/recognize/validate their personal relationships. Consenting adults should be allowed to form whatever relationships they desire and enter into contracts to protect their rights and define their obligations. Allow churches/communities perform whatever ceremonies/parties they want. Let people define terms however they prefer. I don't believe that the tax code should be used to incentivize behavior, based on declining marriage and birth rates, I think there is a good argument that it isn't working very well anyways.

I agree with that. I think that this current SCOTUS case was destined to happen the moment that the government got into the marriage licensing business.

[Darren10]

And it removed the ability for gay couples to have legally recognized marriages in CA.

Nope. A federal judge in a homosexual relationship whom himself desired to be married tohis partner overturned Prop 8. That made a state issue into a federal issue. Rarely a good thing. Even if it did, so what? The LDS Church stood for keeping traditional marriage, you know, the way it's always been in the US. Supporting Prop 8 also helped to prevent the federal government from mingling into church affairs, which it should be. Prop 8 forced nothing upon any church. It only denied legal status to whom those a few churches who performed same sex marriages. It also helped to bring order to California, especially from San Fransisco. but, again, a federal judge made sure that order wasn't implemented.

Churches being forced to recognize same-sex marriages is speculation.

Speculation based upon lots of historical fact, especially that in the US, once legal status of anything is obtained, lawsuites fly like the wind. The downward slope towards the state dictating upon religion, which is already happening with the Affordable Healthcare, is logical, forseable, and based on educated predictions. That sad day is waiting upon our doorstep.

Within our temples and our meetinghouses we perform marriages that are legally recognized. Those who hold religious beliefs affirming gay marriage do not share in that ability in CA as a result of Prop 8.

You independent clause is correct. Temple sealings are legally acknowledged. The dependent clause is also correct in that Prop 8 in and of itself denied legal status to gay marriages performed in California. but what Prop 8 did NOT do is force any church to accept that which they deem filthy and abominable. Legalizing gay marriage will. That's a huge difference between the two sides. But, ike I said, the federal goverment thus far has done a good job in making sure Prop 8 has no legal teeth.

Again, speculation. You have no knowledge that churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

Where in the constitution does it state that marriage is defined as one man and one woman?

That's not at all what I meant by saying, "People have to actively stand up and enforce the Constitution. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman does precisely that ." My mentioning of the Constitution was in response to your citing the First Amendment, apparently in an attempt to confort those worried about the state infringing upon religious freedom, as a means to keep churches safe from the government. I say it will do no such thing unless We the People stand up and make sure that does not happen. Universal Heathcare is already infringing upon freedom of religion by mandating churches to provide abortifacients and birth control to people which they help to pay for healthcare insurance. The federal government, as an organic entity, does not care about people's rights, it cares about its own power. Give it some and it will use it. That's the danger in allowing homosexuals to marry. Government will grow and naturally it will grow more with its newfound powers. It does fundamentally alter the nature of our nation.

It does however say: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Exactly. That's what I desire to preserve. Prop 8 did NOT infringe upon that right. The Constitution also says that powers not given explicitly to the federal government belongs to te states. That's where the power to define marriage comes in.

And I agree... we should actively stand up and enforce that... including giving all churches the right to perform marriages according to their beliefs and to have those marriages recognized equally or not at all.

Certainly you do not truly mean, "those marriages recognized equally or not at all". I hardly think you'd include Yearn for Zion in that category. And the fact that you do not opens up the question as to why not? That's precisely one point where you lose your argument.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Darren10

[Calm]

This is nothing other than U.S. v. Reynolds being replayed only with us fighting against religious freedom instead of for religious freedom.

Reynolds vs. US was about keeping the government out of determining what was and wasn't appropriate for a religious society to do, they weren't looking for the government to recognize what they were doing. It seems to me that the current situation is the opposite...wanting the government to be involved, to give official recognition.

[Danzo]

I don't see a problem with polygamy being legal.

Age concerns me because, I believe, we have a moral responsibility to protect minors. Consanguinity is also a concern due to the potential harm to third parties (the children).

So you do believe we should legislate morality

[CASteinman]

So you do believe we should legislate morality

Pretty much everyone believes in legislating morality.

Edited April 2, 2013 by CASteinman

[TAO]

Pretty much everyone believes in legislating morality.

Yep. We just all disagree on which morality to legislate, and when to legislate it. =p

[Tacenda]

I am saying that the ones who commit suicide might be.

I don't think so Danzo.....I wonder if you or Darren10 and others will listen to the end. P.S. I doubt these boys were mentally ill.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Tacenda

[california boy]

These are the real reasons why people are changing their minds about gay marriage.

SENATOR MARK KIRK (R-IL) COMES OUT FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY

Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) has come out for marriage equality.

Said Kirk on his website:

When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others.

Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this Earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back-- government has no place in the middle.

Kirk is the second Republican Senator to come out for marriage equality, joining Ohio's Rob Portman. A marriage equality bill is currently under consideration in Illinois, awaiting a vote in the House.

With Senator Mark Kirk's (R-IL) recent statement, there are now 50 U.S. Senators (48 Democrats and two Republicans) who support marriage equality and 50 who have not yet evolved.

As Josh Israel at Think Progress notes, "with Vice President Joe Biden the tie-breaker, this marks the first time that a majority in the U.S. Senate has endorsed same-sex marriage."

Edited April 2, 2013 by california boy

[Danzo]

These are the real reasons why people are changing their minds about gay marriage.

With Senator Mark Kirk's (R-IL) recent statement, there are now 50 U.S. Senators (48 Democrats and two Republicans) who support marriage equality and 50 who have not yet evolved.

As Josh Israel at Think Progress notes, "with Vice President Joe Biden the tie-breaker, this marks the first time that a majority in the U.S. Senate has endorsed same-sex marriage."

Read more: http://www.towleroad.../#ixzz2PLu49U2H

IF the majority support this, why do we need a judicial decision?

[Danzo]

I don't think so Danzo.....I wonder if you or Darren10 and others will listen to the end. P.S. I doubt these boys were mentally ill.

[media=]

Perhaps you showed me the wrong video.

I was nothing I heard to support or refute whether these people were experiencing mental illness.

I didn't hear anything to suggest that allowing same sex marriage would have saved these peoples life.

According to the video this person killed him self because his sexual orientation was publicized.

If I understand your logic correctly, this could have been avoided if no one knew about this boys sexual orientation.

[CASteinman]

Yep. We just all disagree on which morality to legislate, and when to legislate it. =p

Exactly so. As for me -- I say we legislate my morality.

[california boy]

And another senator comes out this week.

SENATOR TOM CARPER (D-DE) COMES OUT FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY

Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) has come out for marriage equality in a post on Facebook:

As our society has changed and evolved, so too has the public's opinion on gay marriage – and so has mine. I pray every day for God to grant me the wisdom to do what is right. Through my prayers and conversations with my family and countless friends and Delawareans, I've been reminded of the power of one of my core values: the Golden Rule. It calls on us to treat others as we want to be treated. That means, to me, that all Americans ultimately should be free to marry the people they love and intend to share their lives with, regardless of their sexual orientation, and that's why today, after a great deal of soul searching, I'm endorsing marriage equality.

[california boy]

And a congressman comes out for gay marriage this week as well. Here are his reasons.

DELAWARE'S SOLE CONGRESSMAN JOHN CARNEY COMES OUT FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY

Delaware's only Congressman John Carney Jr. (D) came out for marriage equality in a statement on his website yesterday.

Writes Carney:

“I’ve supported Delaware’s journey toward marriage equality because I believe the law should recognize the committed relationships of same-sex couples. As a Catholic and as an elected official, I’ve been dedicated to striking the balance between honoring the religious sacrament of marriage, while allowing same-sex couples to enjoy legal recognition of their committed relationships.

“That’s why -- starting as Lieutenant Governor -- I supported civil unions, culminating with the passage of Delaware’s civil union law in 2011. And that’s why I support marriage equality in Delaware.

“I continue to respect and support the rights of religious institutions to define marriage in accordance with the tenets of their faith. However, I do not believe it is right for the government to treat couples differently based on their sexual orientation. Marriage equality will ensure that same-sex couples in Delaware receive the same treatment under the law.

“For over a generation, we as a society have honored the truth that separate is not equal. On the surface, this may just sound like a debate about words. But marriage is also symbolic -- it gives honor to a lifelong partnership in a way that civil unions do not. This June, I will be married 20 years. I know that marriage is about commitment, love, and mutual respect.

“All Delawareans should have the privilege of participating in this institution.”

A marriage equality bill is expected to be introduced there sometime this year.

[Stone holm]

Reynolds vs. US was about keeping the government out of determining what was and wasn't appropriate for a religious society to do, they weren't looking for the government to recognize what they were doing. It seems to me that the current situation is the opposite...wanting the government to be involved, to give official recognition.

U.S. v. Reynolds was brought because Reynolds had entered into a polygamist marriage contrary to the laws of the Federal government which applied to the territory at the time, and they attempted to defend it using the free exercise clause as a shield. They lost on an obtuse cultural argument. The difference here being exactly what?

[Stone holm]

IF the majority support this, why do we need a judicial decision?

Whether the majority supports something or opposes something should have nothing to do with whether it is a Constiutionally protected right, that is the whole point of such rights to protect against the tyranny of the majority.

[CASteinman]

Whether the majority supports something or opposes something should have nothing to do with whether it is a Constiutionally protected right, that is the whole point of such rights to protect against the tyranny of the majority.

No matter what it is, it is always a majority vote that decides things. Even rights.

[CASteinman]

And a congressman comes out for gay marriage this week as well. Here are his reasons.

Political. Irrelevant to this board.

[CASteinman]

Consanguinity is also a concern due to the potential harm to third parties (the children).

Uh huh. Lets suppose that a father and a son want to get married... and 'gay marriage' as it is called is approved. That would be OK with you.

[Danzo]

Whether the majority supports something or opposes something should have nothing to do with whether it is a Constiutionally protected right, that is the whole point of such rights to protect against the tyranny of the majority.

Every marriage law until about 10 years ago, was unconstitutional?

Did the constitution change in the last 10 years?

[Danzo]

Uh huh. Lets suppose that a father and a son want to get married... and 'gay marriage' as it is called is approved. That would be OK with you.

I think that is their point. No sin should be illegal. Of course not tolerating such a loving relationship would be the real sin for them.

[california boy]

Political. Irrelevant to this board.

Evidently you did not read the reasons why these political figures are changing their minds about supporting gay marriage. They have real reasons for changing their minds that are secular reasons, not religious. They are the same kinds of reasons that have shifted the majority of Americans to support gay marriage. Fathers will marry their sons, people wanting to marry barnyard animals, churches will be forced to marry gays, gays already have the right to marry, etc. arguments are not winning anyone over.

When is the last time you read about a one of our legislatures who supported gay marriage, deciding that there were better arguments to not allow gay marriage? There is a reason why this constant change towards gay marriage has been happening in this country for the past 15 years. People are getting better educated about this issue. They are hearing both sides of the argument, and quite frankly they are no longer falling for some of the ridiculous arguments you are still trying to propose as legitimate arguments that will hold up in a court of law.

Every time this issue goes back into a courtroom, the trend towards supporting gay marriage rights goes up just a little more. The best thing that could have ever happened to marriage equality was the passing of Prop 8. It got the discussion talked about and discussed openly in the light of day. And that, my friend is why marriage equality is winning.

[CASteinman]

Evidently you did not read the reasons why these political figures are changing their minds about supporting gay marriage. They have real reasons for changing their minds that are secular reasons, not religious.

Again, this is political, not related to this board.