DOMA decision cited to block Michigan law

[EmperorNapoleon]

A majority of the country.

I don’t recall a national referendum on the issue and the polling data I’ve seen shows support for same-sex marriage in the lead.

There HAS to be a stable moral code. When you start dismantling one part, the whole thing comes down…

There is no one stable moral code and, even if there were, the State has no authority to impose any moral code on the nation. You propose the “Christian” model, but PEW shows that Christians are divided on the issue. It cites 61% of Catholics, 71% of those belonging to unaffiliated denominations, and 37% of Protestants supporting same-sex marriage. It also shows an additional 15% of Catholics, 21% of Protestants, and 5% of those belonging to unaffiliated denominations supporting other legal recognition (such as civil unions).

 

[torch621]

Sounds great, until you realize that the Puritans tried about sixty billion times to completely eradicate Catholic parochial schools in the early 20th century, desperately tried to slander Catholic politicians for most of the past century, etc., etc.

We actually have more religious rights under this cesspool than under the Puritans, believe it or not.

Then we should break off and form our own country. I’m tired of this evil nation. There are days I want to torch the flag now! What Christian could love this country?

 

[torch621]

I don’t recall a national referendum on the issue and the polling data I’ve seen shows support for same-sex marriage in the lead.

There is no one stable moral code and, even if there were, the State has no authority to impose any moral code on the nation. You propose the “Christian” model, but PEW shows that Christians are divided on the issue. It cites 61% of Catholics, 71% of those belonging to unaffiliated denominations, and 37% of Protestants supporting same-sex marriage. It also shows an additional 15% of Catholics, 21% of Protestants, and 5% of those belonging to unaffiliated denominations supporting other legal recognition (such as civil unions).

Well, just goes to show you how effective Satan has been in deceiving people, including you.

 

[SMGS127]

I don’t recall a national referendum on the issue and the polling data I’ve seen shows support for same-sex marriage in the lead.

There is no one stable moral code and, even if there were, the State has no authority to impose any moral code on the nation. You propose the “Christian” model, but PEW shows that Christians are divided on the issue. It cites 61% of Catholics, 71% of those belonging to unaffiliated denominations, and 37% of Protestants supporting same-sex marriage. It also shows an additional 15% of Catholics, 21% of Protestants, and 5% of those belonging to unaffiliated denominations supporting other legal recognition (such as civil unions).

The vast majority of those Catholics are non-practicing. They do not speak for the Church anymore than you, as an agnostic, speak for the Church. In addition, I like to divide the Protestants into the “Puritans” and the “Permissives.” Just because the permissives seek to find a self-serving religion that tells you that you can do whatever you want in life and still be Christian doesn’t mean they’re practicing Christians. Do a survey only including Puritanical Protestants and practicing Catholics, and let me know if it brings up the same result.

In addition, we must always stand up for God’s moral law, even if every other person in the country opposes it. Public recognition of same-sex ‘marriages’ does not make them legitimate, and we need to fight against it. In addition, those who support recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ do not have nearly the same passion or caring on the issue as those who oppose it, on average.

 

[carpenter383]

 

[SeannyM]

Really? Justice Kennedy stated that the only reason to oppose same-sex marriage is bigotry and hatred. And you say that we aren’t being forced to accept it against reason, our consciences, and our Faith? If you want “equal protection”, then show that your relationship is in fact equal by generating a new human life.

This is exactly what is happening now.

I’m a fat smoker with no scuba training - is it “denigrating” to point out that - no matter how much I want the title and benefits - I’m incapable of being a Navy SEAL? I have an aversion to blood and no desire to attend medical school - is it “denigrating” to point out that - no matter how much I want the title and benefits - I’m incapable of being a surgeon? Same-sex couples are missing either male or female individuals - how is it “denigrating” to point out that they are not the same, and therefore should not receive the same benefits?

Wow… Your religion is not the only one… You don’t get to decide what rights people have… They are born with those rights, and just because you disagree does not mean you have the right to impose your beliefs. If I get married to the man I love, it doesn’t hurt you!!! It’s that simple. If I’m not hurting you, you have no valid complaint against me. When you impose your religion on me through our laws, you hurt me! You deprive me of over 1,100 specific benefits and you treat me unequally. Therefore, I have a valid complaint against you.

 

[SeannyM]

Then we should break off and form our own country. I’m tired of this evil nation. There are days I want to torch the flag now! What Christian could love this country?

This one… I love this country with all of my being, even after the decades of hatred I’ve faced, I love it because of what it stands for… It’s not perfect, but it is still great. It may not be the greatest nation in the world, because of the way we treat each other, but it can be… I believe it will be one day.

 

[oldcelt]

This one… I love this country with all of my being, even after the decades of hatred I’ve faced, I love it because of what it stands for… It’s not perfect, but it is still great. It may not be the greatest nation in the world, because of the way we treat each other, but it can be… I believe it will be one day.

I’m with you…I can’t think of a single place where I would rather live, despite the strife we experience from time to time.

 

[SMGS127]

I’m with you…I can’t think of a single place where I would rather live, despite the strife we experience from time to time.

I think that has more to do with how bad the rest of the world is than how well-off America is. We are in a state of constant turmoil; we’ve lost a lot of our rights and we’re continuing to lose more, etc. But we’re still the best country to live in (other than perhaps the Vatican itself, but we can’t exactly just move there). Wishing that we could start a much more unified society does not invalidate our love for what good this country still has left.

 

[torch621]

I’m with you…I can’t think of a single place where I would rather live, despite the strife we experience from time to time.

I can think of a few, sadly none of them exist anymore.

 

[gracepoole]

I can think of a few, sadly none of them exist anymore.

Ah, but I think in the places you might prefer, you’d be battling the Black Death.

 

[SeannyM]

Ah, but I think in the places you might prefer, you’d be battling the Black Death.

 

[Monkey1976]

Wow… Your religion is not the only one… You don’t get to decide what rights people have… They are born with those rights, and just because you disagree does not mean you have the right to impose your beliefs.

Yet it’s perfectly all right to impose the beliefs of your community, simply because they happen to be in fashion? The people of Michigan - using the proper legal means for that state - exercised their right to enact a law defining marriage in a particular way. However, because of the belief of one man - Justice Kennedy - the will of the people has been overturned, and their right to self-determination has been rendered null. Is it justice when one unelected official is cited as the absolute authority above the will of the people?

If I get married to the man I love, it doesn’t hurt you!!! It’s that simple. If I’m not hurting you, you have no valid complaint against me. When you impose your religion on me through our laws, you hurt me! You deprive me of over 1,100 specific benefits and you treat me unequally. Therefore, I have a valid complaint against you.

You are entering into a relationship that is not equal to a male-female relationship. That isn’t religion, it’s biology. Just as 2 does not equal 4, same-sex couples are not equal to married couples. If you claim that they are, can you point to the orifice in a male-male couple designed explicitly for accepting the sperm of a male for the purpose of fertilizing and nurturing an egg cell to birth?

In seeking those benefits without the possibility of a return through the generation of children, there is a net loss to the government. That money has to come from somewhere. Where do you propose it comes from?

Children whose faith teaches them that God/Allah/The Great Green Arkleseizure sees homosexual activity as a grave sin are being taught by the government that their faiths are wrong, yet you claim no infringement upon religious liberty?

 

[epan]

Yet it’s perfectly all right to impose the beliefs of your community, simply because they happen to be in fashion? The people of Michigan - using the proper legal means for that state - exercised their right to enact a law defining marriage in a particular way. However, because of the belief of one man - Justice Kennedy - the will of the people has been overturned, and their right to self-determination has been rendered null. Is it justice when one unelected official is cited as the absolute authority above the will of the people?
You are entering into a relationship that is not equal to a male-female relationship. That isn’t religion, it’s biology. Just as 2 does not equal 4, same-sex couples are not equal to married couples. If you claim that they are, can you point to the orifice in a male-male couple designed explicitly for accepting the sperm of a male for the purpose of fertilizing and nurturing an egg cell to birth?

In seeking those benefits without the possibility of a return through the generation of children, there is a net loss to the government. That money has to come from somewhere. Where do you propose it comes from?

Children whose faith teaches them that God/Allah/The Great Green Arkleseizure sees homosexual activity as a grave sin are being taught by the government that their faiths are wrong, yet you claim no infringement upon religious liberty?

blah, blah, blah.

The legal battle is essentially over. Striking section 2 was the wedge which will invalidate the entire act. The prop 8 ruling is the wedge to strike every state’s initiative. Legally, it is time to move on to other battles.

 

[Monkey1976]

blah, blah, blah.

The legal battle is essentially over. Striking section 2 was the wedge which will invalidate the entire act. The prop 8 ruling is the wedge to strike every state’s initiative. Legally, it is time to move on to other battles.

Should the country have decided to simply “move on to other battles” following Plessy v. Ferguson? After all, the legal battle was “essentially over”.

For one of the few times in its history, the Supreme Court has directly slandered millions of Americans in claiming that the only reasons to oppose same-sex “marriage” are bigotry and hatred. Had they rules the other way, would those advocating for same-sex “marriage” have chosen to “move on to other battles”?

 

[SMGS127]

blah, blah, blah.

The legal battle is essentially over. Striking section 2 was the wedge which will invalidate the entire act. The prop 8 ruling is the wedge to strike every state’s initiative. Legally, it is time to move on to other battles.

Section 2 was left intact. Only section 3 was terminated. States can still deny other states’ “marriages” as shams. I agree that gay ‘marriage’ will be legalized nationwide within a few years, but I think we should stall it out as long as possible just in case.

 

[SMGS127]

However, because of the belief of one man - Justice Kennedy - the will of the people has been overturned, and their right to self-determination has been rendered null.

Not to nitpick, but technically it was the beliefs of two men and three women

 

[SeannyM]

Yet it’s perfectly all right to impose the beliefs of your community, simply because they happen to be in fashion? The people of Michigan - using the proper legal means for that state - exercised their right to enact a law defining marriage in a particular way. However, because of the belief of one man - Justice Kennedy - the will of the people has been overturned, and their right to self-determination has been rendered null. Is it justice when one unelected official is cited as the absolute authority above the will of the people?
You are entering into a relationship that is not equal to a male-female relationship. That isn’t religion, it’s biology. Just as 2 does not equal 4, same-sex couples are not equal to married couples. If you claim that they are, can you point to the orifice in a male-male couple designed explicitly for accepting the sperm of a male for the purpose of fertilizing and nurturing an egg cell to birth?

In seeking those benefits without the possibility of a return through the generation of children, there is a net loss to the government. That money has to come from somewhere. Where do you propose it comes from?

Children whose faith teaches them that God/Allah/The Great Green Arkleseizure sees homosexual activity as a grave sin are being taught by the government that their faiths are wrong, yet you claim no infringement upon religious liberty?

No one wants to make you believe that gay marriage is holy, or moral… But we do want equal protection guaranteed by the constitution. As far as the people of Michigan… they don’t have the right to restrict the civil rights of an entire class of people… In the south the majority of people at one time supported segregation… THEY DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT! Nor do the people of Michigan have the right to restrict the rights of gay people. So yes, justice is served when judges overturn the will of the people. The judges are unelected by the way, so that they are free from any outside influence to interpret the constitutionality of the law.

There is absolutely NO infringement upon religious liberty here… I’m sorry. Islam teaches that there should be no freedom of religion and that everyone should be converted to Islam, so how dare the government allow freedom of religion, it teaches Muslim children that their religion is wrong.

Now as far as my relationship goes, it is completely equal to a heterosexual relationship. The definition of marriage is not determined by biology, it is determined by the state. And, the male body is quite capable of intercourse with males… there are organs appropriately positioned to allow for pleasure for both partners. If you need an Anatomy lesson, I suggest google, because this is not the appropriate forum to go into more depth.

The purpose of civil marriage is stability. It provides stability for the couple by allowing certain benefits. It provides stability for the state because family units are more productive to society, even if they don’t raise children… which is not to say that same sex couples do not raise children… they do. Most of the couples I know that have taken advantage of marriage equality either have, or intend to have children.

 

[SeannyM]

Just more reason the Church should run the country. I’m tired of secularism and I’m starting to think the secular Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

That will never happen, and I will spend my entire career ensuring that the Constitution is upheld. The only chance you would ever have of making this happen is armed revolt, and rest assured there are hundreds of thousands of my brothers and sisters who will stand in your way… and we are VERY good at what we do.

It’s very disturbing to hear this kind of talk from people who are members of a church that in almost all circumstances preaches a peaceful solution to discord. It’s even more disturbing to hear it from someone who is supposedly American. Frankly it’s insulting to those of us who put a uniform on every day.

 

[SMGS127]

No one wants to make you believe that gay marriage is holy, or moral… But we do want equal protection guaranteed by the constitution. As far as the people of Michigan… they don’t have the right to restrict the civil rights of an entire class of people… In the south the majority of people at one time supported segregation… THEY DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT! Nor do the people of Michigan have the right to restrict the rights of gay people. So yes, justice is served when judges overturn the will of the people. The judges are unelected by the way, so that they are free from any outside influence to interpret the constitutionality of the law.

You have just as many civil rights as any heterosexual person. You are free to marry any opposite-sex partner you wish that isn’t closely-related. That is the same right afforded to heterosexual people. Just because you don’t have lust for those of the opposite sex does not give you the right to start a whole new category of marriage that heterosexuals are currently barred from as well.

There is absolutely NO infringement upon religious liberty here… I’m sorry.

Tell that to the Catholic adoption agencies that had to shut down over gay ‘marriage’ laws. Tell that to the Catholic schools that are getting in trouble with the state for teaching that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle.

Now as far as my relationship goes, it is completely equal to a heterosexual relationship. The definition of marriage is not determined by biology, it is determined by the state.

No, no, no, a billion times no. The definition of marriage is not determined by the state at all; it was determined in the Garden of Eden by God in Genesis, and the COVENANT of marriage has stayed the same since. I don’t care what your church views marriage as; I guarantee you they do not agree with the statement “the definition of marriage…is determined by the state.”

And, the male body is quite capable of intercourse with males… there are organs appropriately positioned to allow for pleasure for both partners. If you need an Anatomy lesson, I suggest google, because this is not the appropriate forum to go into more depth.

But those sexual positions are not rightly ordered towards procreation, a necessity for marriage. Sex does not NEED to be procreative (infertile couples can get married), but it does need to be ORDERED towards procreation. That means penetrative, vaginal sex must conclude all intercourse. Clearly you and your boyfriend cannot do that.

May I also ask how lesbians have organs “appropriately positioned” if you want to go that route? Or are you just throwing them under the bus in your mad dash for hedonistic pleasure?

The purpose of civil marriage is stability. It provides stability for the couple by allowing certain benefits. It provides stability for the state because family units are more productive to society, even if they don’t raise children… which is not to say that same sex couples do not raise children… they do. Most of the couples I know that have taken advantage of marriage equality either have, or intend to have children.

The purpose of marriage is, first and foremost, procreation. Yes, it also does create a stable family unit, but its first and foremost mission is procreation. You and your boyfriend cannot and will not ever enter into a Sacramental or valid marriage. Concupiscence is no excuse for violating a God-given Sacrament & covenant.