Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[josh987654321]

Because they are not different in any way that can be constitutionally regulated.

Isn’t marriage constitutionally regulated? and in regards to marriage they are very different, as a homosexual union is clearly different to a hetrosexual one, why would the law play into a false equality? what do people stand to gain by equating two unions under the same word as marriage when they are in no way equal? how can anyone view a homosexual union as the same as a hetrosexual one, the difference is very noticable, the same sex marriage argument is illogical, why don’t they just use a different word?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Isn’t marriage constitutionally regulated?

Depends on what, specifically, you’re referring to.

…and in regards to marriage they are very different, as a homosexual union is clearly different to a hetrosexual one, why would the law play into a false equality? what do people stand to gain by equating two unions under the same word as marriage when they are in no way equal? how can anyone view a homosexual union as the same as a hetrosexual one, the difference is very noticable, the same sex marriage argument is illogical.

In your opinion, they are morally different. The State cannot constitutionally whittle away the right to privacy based on nothing but a moral opinion and an unequally applied standard.

 

[josh987654321]

Depends on what, specifically, you’re referring to.

I don’t know too much about the law, I just use common sense, which I wish more people would do, the human anatomy of a man and a woman is physically very different, why are people trying to make equal a homosexual union and a hetrosexual union which are obviously two very different unions?

In your opinion, they are morally different. The State cannot constitutionally whittle away the right to privacy based on nothing but a moral opinion and an unequally applied standard.

What do people hope to gain by equating two very different unions, under the same word as marriage? why not just use a different word?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I don’t know too much about the law, I just use common sense, which I wish more people would do, the human anatomy of a man and a woman is physically very different, why are people trying to make equal a homosexual union and a hetrosexual union which are obviously two very different unions?

Invasion of privacy.

What do people hope to gain by equating two very different unions, under the same word as marriage? why not just use a different word?

Because then you would be establishing an unconstitutional “separate but equal” institution.

 

[Dawnia]

The State cannot constitutionally whittle away the right to privacy based on nothing but a moral opinion and an unequally applied standard.

The right to privacy has nothing to do with getting a marriage license from the State. Marriage is a publicly recognized relationship. Hence the reason marriage records are public record.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The right to privacy has nothing to do with getting a marriage license from the State. Marriage is a publicly recognized relationship. Hence the reason marriage records are public record.

It does if your argument is that the State can regulate the sexual relationship within that marriage.

 

[Dawnia]

It does if your argument is that the State can regulate the sexual relationship within that marriage.

Actually, they can to a point, but you have to get that far first. The gender of the parties still matters in all but 9 states. Until SCOTUS comes down and says that gender is irrelevant to marriage…it is still a relevant requirement whether you like it or not.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Actually, they can to a point, but you have to get that far first.

We already know from Lawrence vs Texas that the State cannot discriminate in such a way.

The gender of the parties still matters in all but 9 states. Until SCOTUS comes down and says that gender is irrelevant to marriage…it is still a relevant requirement whether you like it or not.

For now and relevant doesn’t mean constitutional.

 

[Dawnia]

We already know from Lawrence vs Texas that the State cannot discriminate in such a way.

For now and relevant doesn’t mean constitutional.

(Edit: Sorry read your comment wrong. Never mind.)

One example of the State regulating the sexual relationship in a marital setting is rape. As long as the State can prove a viable public interest in restricting said activity, courts will uphold it. Even laws that discriminate against a specific class can be upheld if the State can jump the extremely high hurdle set for such cases.

The only ones with the power to deem it unconstitutional is SCOTUS. So until they say otherwise, which isn’t likely to happen anytime soon, it is constitutional.

 

[JimG]

The fact that the acts of homosexuality are very different to the acts of hetrosexuality?

The fact that a homosexual union is very different to a hetrosexual union and should not be equated under the same name as ‘marriage’?

The fact that it’s just stupid to try and equate the acts of homsoexuality to the acts of hetrosexuality because they are two very different acts and unions?

The fact that marriage is there to provide children with the right to a mum and a dad to the best of the parents ability?

What else do you need?

Thank you for reading
Josh

Requiring that the same term of marriage be applied to same sex relationshps is rather like requiring that henceforth Jack Daniels will be called “water” because just like H20 it is a liquid. Calling opposite things by the same name is simply a falsehood.

 

[josh987654321]

Requiring that the same term of marriage be applied to same sex relationshps is rather like requiring that henceforth Jack Daniels will be called “water” because just like H20 it is a liquid. Calling opposite things by the same name is simply a falsehood.

I think people like Rossum are trying to claim that they are already different, such as Catholic Marriage and Civil Marriage, but even Civil Marriage still needs a distinction between a homosexual union and hetrosexual union because of how different they are and with regards to JimG’s analogy and how people like Rossum will view it, I think ‘Jack Daniels’ is like ‘Civil Marriage’ and ‘Water’ is like ‘Catholic Marriage’, they are both a liquid just as both are ‘marriage’ because it’s between a man and a women.

But to expand that definition of marriage from a man and a woman to two men or two women is like going further to say that a liquid is now the same as a solid in regards to JimG’s analogy, because the two unions are just so very different from one another when it comes to the word marriage.

That’s why we are all jumping up and down, because the difference between a homosexual union and a hetrosexual union is so large that it’s outrageous for people to try and equate them, the difference is not negligible such as Catholic Marriage, Civil Marriage, Anglican Marriage or Protestant Marriage etc, because they are all still between a man and a woman.

So with your analogy JimG, id say it’s more like equating a liquid to a solid, saying that a solid will now be refered to as a liquid, or that the word liquid will now include solids, that’s how illogical I see the same sex marriage argument.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[_Abyssinia]

Blacks don’t believe gay rights are the same as civil rights: poll

 

[GaryTaylor]

“By a two-to-one margin, blacks reject the notion that homosexual rights compare with the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and '60s, according to a new poll commissioned by Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television.”

Amen, and I also reject the notion that Obama is one of these great civil rights leaders of that period. So I would be in agreement with the majority here.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Isn’t marriage constitutionally regulated? and in regards to marriage they are very different, as a homosexual union is clearly different to a hetrosexual one, why would the law play into a false equality? what do people stand to gain by equating two unions under the same word as marriage when they are in no way equal? how can anyone view a homosexual union as the same as a hetrosexual one, the difference is very noticable, the same sex marriage argument is illogical, why don’t they just use a different word?

Thank you for reading
Josh

Does government have a right to regulate friendship?
Does the government have the right to regulate whether friends have sex?
Does the government have the right to regulate whether friends have sex for life?
So, does government have a right to regulate marriage?

If marriage were really in the state’s domain then we could have time-delineated marriages. We could have lifetime licenses, 20 year licenses, 2 year licenses. Child support is a separate issue that can be handled with or without reference to marriage, and is done so every day. So why does the state only recognize marriage that is for all intents and purposes meant for life? It can only be because it realizes that marriage is a religious institution, not a state creation, The state really has no business in marriage, much less attempting to redefine its meaning.

 

[josh987654321]

Most homosexulas are fertile, but choose not to have children. How do they differ from heterosexuals who are fertile but choose not to have children. In particular, what legal reasons are there to distinguish between the two in civil law.

rossum

This is what really gives me the irates, because it’s true, there are many reasons to distinguish between homosexual unions and hetrosexual unions when it comes to marriage, however in regards to the law, apparently they are blind to them, because of what the below quote by EmperorNapoleon say’s.

Invasion of privacy.

You see, Invasion of privacy, means that the law is removing key information with regards to making the discrimination between hetrosexuality and homosexuality with regards to marriage, the law is blind to the truth of homosexuality because it is apparently unlawful ‘Invasion of privacy’ to see the truth and in doing so cannot make an informed decision.

Viewing this situation through the eye’s of the law is like firing when crippled and blind, if you cannot take into account the sexual acts that make the two unions differ so much, with the excuse of ‘invasion of privacy’ they cannot make an informed decision, where are peoples common sense? because that’s what id like to see, not all of these damn excuses as to why we cannot use common sense and the facts to make an informed decision with regards to the law.

Anyone ever watch ‘Crimson Tide’? It feels like that, those arguing for same sex marriage are like Gene Hackman, they are following the correct protocol, e.g. viewing it with regards to the law and connot make a just discrimination, and people who are against same sex marriage are those like Danzel Washington, who use their common sense and just know that protocol is wrong in such a situation, e.g. who know that the sexual acts of homosexuality makes a homosexual union and a hetrosexual union very different and therefore means a just discrimination should be made in regards to using the word marriage.

Don’t let the protocol of the law blind you to the reality of the situation.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

This is what really gives me the irates, because it’s true, there are many reasons to distinguish between homosexual unions and hetrosexual unions when it comes to marriage, however in regards to the law, apparently they are blind to them, because of what the below quote by EmperorNapoleon say’s.

Then if there is no reason to distinguish between them in law, then you will have a difficult time getting people to pass laws that distinguish between them. I accept that you see a religious distinction between them, but that on its own is not sufficient to justify a distinction in law.

In this case I see the right to equal treatment before the law winning the argument, at least as far as the civil law is concerned.

rossum

 

[JamesCaruso]

Then if there is no reason to distinguish between them in law, then you will have a difficult time getting people to pass laws that distinguish between them. I accept that you see a religious distinction between them, but that on its own is not sufficient to justify a distinction in law.

In this case I see the right to equal treatment before the law winning the argument, at least as far as the civil law is concerned.

rossum

There should be no civil argument, because marriage does not belong under the purview of the state in the first place. The origin of marriage is religious, not governmental. Equal treatment under the law should only apply to state granted rights. If the state wants to grant equal treatment to married people and people joined in other arrangements, that’s different, but this whole thing is about marriage and whether the state should have the power to change its meaning should be decided against the state.

 

[josh987654321]

Then if there is no reason to distinguish between them in law, then you will have a difficult time getting people to pass laws that distinguish between them. I accept that you see a religious distinction between them, but that on its own is not sufficient to justify a distinction in law.

In this case I see the right to equal treatment before the law winning the argument, at least as far as the civil law is concerned.

rossum

No, It’s not just religious reason’s, the religious reasons say that the sexual acts of homosexuality are wrong however it’s the obvious reason that the sexual nature of a homosexual union and a hetrosexual union makes them vastly different unions, so vastly different that obviously people are going to be outraged when the law tries to group them together under the same word as marriage, it’s common sense, even athiests should be able to see that logic.

There should be no civil argument, because marriage does not belong under the purview of the state in the first place. The origin of marriage is religious, not governmental. Equal treatment under the law should only apply to state granted rights. If the state wants to grant equal treatment to married people and people joined in other arrangements, that’s different, but this whole thing is about marriage and whether the state should have the power to change its meaning should be decided against the state.

Dead right, Marriage is a religious word, you can’t take a religious word and remove the religion from it, the law shouldn’t have anything to do with the word marriage becuase it’s not a word for them to define and they are Ignorant of it’s meaning, you can’t take a religious word, remove the religion from it and than make up your own definition of it, the whole reason for all of this opposition is the word marriage, if they just used a different word people wouldn’t be in so much opposition to it, but I don’t know what the chances of that happening are.

It’s just outrageous to equate two completely different unions together under the same word as marriage and the sexual nature of a homosexual union and a hetrosexual union makes them vastly different from one another.

If the law doesn’t take into account the sexual nature of both unions, than it is removing key information to make a just discriminiation and cannot make an informed decision on the issue, because the sexual nature is what makes both unions so vastly different and why it’s outrageous to equate them both under the same word as marriage.

Thabk you for reading
Josh

 

[PRmerger]

http://oi45.tinypic.com/29uvcs1.jpg

Best. Post. EVER!!

 

[kelvinf]

Jeremy Irons On Gay Marriage: ‘Could A Father Not Marry His Son?’ (VIDEO)

Academy Award winning actor Jeremy Irons said Wednesday that while he doesn’t have much of a strong opinion either way on same-sex marriage, he believes it poses interesting questions, including whether allowing same-sex marriage would open the door for interfamilial relationships.

“Could a father not marry his son?” Irons asked HuffPost Live host Josh Zepps. Irons argued that “it’s not incest between men” because “incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don’t breed,” and wondered whether same-sex marriage might allow fathers to pass on their estates to their sons without being taxed.

“It seems to me that now they’re fighting for the name,” Irons said of advocates for same-sex marriage as opposed to civil unions. “I worry that it means somehow we debase, or we change, what marriage is. I just worry about that.”