My very wise Mother used to tell us, (before going to Confession.) You can fool me, you might even be able to fool Father. BUT you will NEVER be able to fool GOD. Make a sincere Confession.That doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do, weed legalization isn’t the right thing to do and yet a drug that messes up reason is being legalized for stupid reasons. Why do we need pot heads walking around everywhere? I am only sorta new to this but I will give you what I noticed to be right, no matter what box you put it in, gay marriage will always be wrong, you can say it is their right, but no matter what I won’t allow it because marriage is between a man and a woman. That is why marriage was invented, strictly for those 2 people male and female. If you change it, it just allows others to redefine the original marriage of it.
One question I have for the forums is that if two male and females get married but can’t have kids does that destruct the meaning of marriage, since a lot of people here said it was for procreation? What would be the meaning of it in this case? Please respond to this. I don’t like arguing.
The Framers probably didn’t intend to recognize the right to marry to same-sex couples, just like they didn’t intend to recognize the right to vote to women. I’ll ask again - what difference does it make? Doesn’t the fact that they built an amendment process into the Constitution suggest that they recognized their own fallibility? Are we really supposed to let the ethos of the 18th century guide us here?I am quite certain that the “right” for two men to marry was not intended to flow from anything written in the US constitution.
I cannot imagine that such a thing could be a right now but not then!
Exactly. They built an Amendment process into the Constitution. If we want same sex marriage to be in there, let’s have an amendment proposed and ratified authorizing same sex marriage. It’s obvious that the authors of the 14th Amendment had no intention of authorizing same sex marriage. The amendment would have failed had that been the case. So, bring on the same sex marriage amendment!The Framers probably didn’t intend to recognize the right to marry to same-sex couples, just like they didn’t intend to recognize the right to vote to women. I’ll ask again - what difference does it make? Doesn’t the fact that they built an amendment process into the Constitution suggest that they recognized their own fallibility? Are we really supposed to let the ethos of the 18th century guide us here?
My argument applies just as much to the people who wrote the 14th Amendment as it does the people who wrote the Preamble. The statement that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” means something. It matters not at all what, specifically, the authors of the 14th Amendment had in mind (or didn’t) when they were writing it.Exactly. They built an Amendment process into the Constitution. If we want same sex marriage to be in there, let’s have an amendment proposed and ratified authorizing same sex marriage. It’s obvious that the authors of the 14th Amendment had no intention of authorizing same sex marriage. The amendment would have failed had that been the case. So, bring on the same sex marriage amendment!
Yes. It doesn’t matter what the authors thought they were saying. Their intent has no standing. A current Court can arbitrarily determine that the words mean something that would have left the authors aghast. So, is that a government of laws, or of men? In effect, no amendment process is needed, since a future court can determine that what is written now means this instead of that. SCOTUS constitutes its own continuing mini-constitutional convention.My argument applies just as much to the people who wrote the 14th Amendment as it does the people who wrote the Preamble. The statement that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” means something. It matters not at all what, specifically, the authors of the 14th Amendment had in mind (or didn’t) when they were writing it.
We’ve been through this. But I’ll do it again for you. Marriage is central to Christian morality. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery extends not only to my own behavior, but affirming and endorsing somebody else’s. I don’t really expect you to understand it on a religious level, although it would be a sign of goodwill if you’d try. However, anybody, of any faith or no faith, can understand that being forced to pretend 2 men are the same as husband and wife is the very thing that happens when we are forced by law to call it marriage.“Pretend” how? By selling them insurance? By selling them flowers and cakes for their weddings? Let’s leave aside the fact that businesses are obliged to follow certain non-discriminatory practices - let me repeat the question that you got cute and dodged earlier - what does your God care about such things? He knows what you actually think about it - does He really care what you pretend to think about it to remain within a law you’re obliged to obey?
I don’t think a man can “marry” his border collie. But if he came into my bakery and ordered a cake for a reception following his “wedding” to his border collie, I’d just sell it to him. The fact that neither I, nor any church, nor the government, recognizes this as a marriage is irrelevant to me.
I think this is a terrific idea and I applaud this effort!!The solution to the problem has actually just been introduced by a legislator in Oklahoma. They want to put the ability to marriage back in the hands of the clergy instead of the government. It’s actually a great bill that all states should create and approve. So if your in the US please call your congressman and see if they can Introduce similar legislation. Remember there are Christian denominations that believe and authorize gay marriage so those with that proclivity can get what they want to. Atheists and such can get a common law marriage and everyone’s happy. Do I agree with gay marriage? No but I don’t want the government to tell me what’s marriage and what’s not. This bill fixes that problem.
Well, I think you and your Mom are looking at the issue backwards, and that is how most people are looking at it, because it is presented backwards in the media constantly. I call that propaganda, and it works. For example, you are not voting for something to be illegal if it doesn’t exist yet. You’re either voting for or against a change in the law. If no civil union law has been passed yet, that doesn’t mean it’s “banned”, it just hasn’t been voted in yet. The gay advocates have discovered a very effective ploy though. They start with something they want, and demand it by claiming it is a “right”, not a new change they are asking you to sign onto. It’s a very odd way of looking at it, but it serves the gay advocate very well because it sounds like they are being denied their rights, when in actuality whether or not it is their right is what is actually under consideration. It’s a very clever way to advocate for something and it’s been very effective. It’s fooled a lot of people, so don’t feel bad that it has fooled you. If gays want civil unions, or want the definition of marriage redefined, they should have to put forth that proposal and ask society to approve it. This is exactly how the law applies to everybody else too.What is banned? Civil unions for gays are banned in some states, in others there is no way any gay can be allowed to have any sort of legal union with another gay. This is separate from calling marriage strictly between male and female, this is just legal stuff.
Also I have no liberal, or gay friend. I usually just talk to my mom and about this and I just make sure i have a strong case to give to others and then she inserts doubts and I bring them here so we could make sense of them and so that I can also come to a conclusion soon.
But yes I agree that marriage should be between man and woman. But doesn’t that violate our nations motto of saying our citizens have their rights and freedoms. If we are going to vote for something to be illegal we need to be looking at what we violate in our constitution.
Is it proposed to amend the Constitution to explicitly clarify the position of the US population on marriage?The Framers probably didn’t intend to recognize the right to marry to same-sex couples, just like they didn’t intend to recognize the right to vote to women. I’ll ask again - what difference does it make? Doesn’t the fact that they built an amendment process into the Constitution suggest that they recognized their own fallibility? Are we really supposed to let the ethos of the 18th century guide us here?
I don’t read anywhere in there a right for 2 men to marry.My argument applies just as much to the people who wrote the 14th Amendment as it does the people who wrote the Preamble. The statement that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” means something. It matters not at all what, specifically, the authors of the 14th Amendment had in mind (or didn’t) when they were writing it.