Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court! - Page 9
   

       The Horse Forum > Life Beyond Horses > General Off Topic Discussion

Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court!

This is a discussion on Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court! within the General Off Topic Discussion forums, part of the Life Beyond Horses category

    Like Tree127Likes

     
    LinkBack Thread Tools
        03-28-2013, 12:43 AM
      #81
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Allison Finch    
    While they probably won't say same sex marriage is guaranteed by the constitution, they CAN say that laws banning it are in violation of the protections implied by the constitution. The same way that slaves were freed, women could vote etc.
    A million thank yous here! Repealing DOMA would get rid on the ban on gay marriage, not say any state has to recognize one. To me it's a step in the right direction, especially in the ways of getting ALL the benefits from marriage in states where gay marriage IS legal. Repealing DOMA would put gay marriage back on neural territory.

    For the record the other key argument is that gay people are NOT trying to infiltrate religious marriage. We want to been seen as equal in the eyes of the law. Currently there is no legal union that gives ALL the benefits of marriage. The church, and all other religious sects, are PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS no one can force them to do anything.

    Also, has anyone said how allowing gay marriage will effect them on a personal level? How does it negatively impact your life? How would this alter the course of your life? Gay people not being able to reproduce has nothing to personally do with you. Being a sin doesn't personally effect you. There are so many reasons I hear, but really none of them are truly detrimental to your personal life.
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
    Sponsored Links
    Advertisement
     
        03-28-2013, 12:43 AM
      #82
    Trained
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Allison Finch    
    ...While they probably won't say same sex marriage is guaranteed by the constitution, they CAN say that laws banning it are in violation of the protections implied by the constitution. The same way that slaves were freed, women could vote etc.
    You mean, by amending it? That would be the 14th for slavery, and the 19th for women to vote. And BTW, the laws for both of those were changed in many places before the Constitution was amended. Just as some states have decided to support homosexual marriage...

    When did the Constitution start having protections that covered gay marriage? What was found there that had been hidden for the last 200+ years? And why isn't this being addressed in CONGRESS, or the other state legislatures?

    Why do you need a court to make up a law? Why do you need one judge to find what no judge had found before him for 200+ years? And why do you like living under judicial tyranny, and fear the popular vote?
         
        03-28-2013, 12:47 AM
      #83
    Trained
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SlideStop    
    A million thank yous here! Repealing DOMA would get rid on the ban on gay marriage, not say any state has to recognize one...
    DOMA defines the meaning of marriage for federal law. Why is Congress not allowed to define the meaning of the words it uses in a law? Hint - they do it all the time!

    And actually, there is a section of DOMA that I think is NOT up for review, that says states do not have to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states. If overturned, that WOULD force all states to recognize homosexual marriages. And as often is the case, it would be doing it by getting a 5 - 4 vote by unelected judges, rather than doing it in a democratic fashion.
         
        03-28-2013, 12:53 AM
      #84
    Green Broke
    Sorry bsms it should read " A million thank yous here! Repealing DOMA would get rid on the ban on gay marriage, not say any state has to legalize it..."

    Don't know why I put that, probably because I've been up since 5:15. I'm pretty much over tired at this point.
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
        03-28-2013, 12:57 AM
      #85
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JustDressageIt    
    Metro-sexual =\= gay.

    Good lord. Please play again.


    I am so looking forward to the day when we can look back on this as being as ignorant as prejudice against black people or people of colour.
    Yes, please play again!

    Amen... Hope I'm alive to see it in my lifetime!
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
        03-28-2013, 01:39 AM
      #86
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JustDressageIt    
    Metro-sexual =\= gay.

    Good lord. Please play again.


    I am so looking forward to the day when we can look back on this as being as ignorant as prejudice against black people or people of colour.
    I look forward to the day no one is searching for something to twist into a "prejudice" statement so they can act like they need to correct it for the good of society.
         
        03-28-2013, 03:39 AM
      #87
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SlideStop    
    DOMA, The defense of marriage act. Is that not a law that has everything to do with defending marriages? How are we definitely the word marriage here: a traditional religious ceremony wedding a man and woman. What does this mean? There is a LAW defending religious marriages. The law states

    "Under the law, no U.S. State or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns."

    Now how can anyone here read the above and say "Just get a civil union!" The LAW clearly states gay people WILL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE! If civil unions are the same we wouldn't be having this debate. I don't give a rats fart about a religious ceremony quite honestly, I just what the same benefits everyone else gets to share!



    For your first point please see the above. Next, obviously no one will be able to force any private religious institution to marry anyone. Period. If you think that this is the reason behind this whole gay marriage thing your SADLY mistaken.

    Not exactly sure where you got gays think religion is evil from....? My girlfriend was raised with religion, my best friend was raised with religion and I know several couples with children who also follow faith. I in no way shape or form think religion is evil. I for one was never raised with religion, not for or not against. As a younger adult I find myself gravitating towards religion. It leaves a bad taste that they nit pick over stupid things, but that's just my opinion. I do like to believe there is a God. A person who will judge me biased on my moral character, not on who I love.

    And yes, it does come down to financial/medical/etc type things. I (will be) working **** hard as an RN to provide for my family. I have no interest in physically having kids and having kids is one of my girlfriends biggest dreams. Guess who's going to be brining in the benefits? Me. Why SHOULDN'T she be covered? Bottom line is love is already there!



    Also, what does IRAN of all places have to do with ANYTHING here. They are still working on equal rights for women... Which happened about 100 years ago here. Instead of me looking at Iran why don't you look at Argentina (2010), Belgium (2004), Brazil, Canada, Denmark (happiest people in the world, seriously), Iceland, Mexico, Netherlands (one of the first), Norway, Portugal, south Africa, Spain, and Sweden. Now most of these countries are on OUR level! Not backwards Iran, really??
    Posted via Mobile Device
    OMG, so if someone is married by the justice of the peace - no state recognizes their marriage?? Marriage laws do not require a religious ceremony, nor is any religious affiliation of any sort required to get married. If you think that is not the case, you are sadly mistaking.

    I didn't say all gays think religion is evil. But, if that is how you would like to read it, have at it. However, if you trouble yourself to read the thread you might notice that some seem to think that religion dictates the laws.

    Since you didn't get the comparison w Iran, I will expand. Iran's laws concerning gays are 100% religious based. The US's are not. If someone wants to make the argument that marriage laws shouldn't be based on religious teachings in the US - they have NO argument b/c the church does not pass laws, and no religious affiliation of any kind is required to get married! However, if one feels they have no reason to live unless they can argue that the church shouldn't dictate marraige laws, they are IN LUCK...b/c, again...Iran's laws concerning gays are 100% religious based and are in fact dictated by "the church". In that country, it would be ill advised for gays to openly demand laws be changed and to be treated differently. That is what gay marriage is - demanding to be treated differently. Like I said before, no couple of the same sex can get married, regardless of sexual preference..it is equal treatment and equal treatment is the law.

    I never implied or stated I thought that gays wanted gay marriage so they could be married in the church of their choice, and if you think I did you are sadly mistaken. There is little point in making straw man arguments.

    I said it boiled down to benefits, and you seem to have gotten that in addition to your straw man argument. If your friend had a child, why wouldn't the father be responsible for medical? That is the law. By whatever method, it isn't as if there is no married couple that can't afford children and choose not to have them, or do and struggle b/c they have no benefits.

    I find it rather interesting that the culture of every country you named as "on our level" is either a direct result of western civilization, or was heavily influenced by it. And, the place you call "backward" is not (not now). Not to mention it is terribly prejudice of you to call them backward.
         
        03-28-2013, 08:01 AM
      #88
    Banned
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Allison Finch    
    Don't worry, Those who disagree with some people here all get the same treatment.
    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
    Missy May likes this.
         
        03-28-2013, 08:28 AM
      #89
    Green Broke
    When compared to our culture, yes, they are backwards. Every thing over there is run pretty much OPPOSITE of the way they are here. Like you said, their laws are biased on religion, I would hardly call them a free nation and they are is no such thing as democracy there. All facts. So how is that prejudice (a preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience) ? It's no more prejudice then you forming an opinion of about gay people biased on your experience with two men you labeled as metro-sexual.

    First off, she is my G I R L F R I E N D, not a friend. I'm in love with her, we sleep in the same bed, we have sex together, we are in a monogamous relationship, we support each other, I'd trust her with my life, and we want to have a family together! She is by no means only my "friend" and more then your husband/wife is just your FRIEND.

    If we choose to have kids NO the father WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE. Ever hear of adoption or a sperm bank? I'm pretty sure they just don't fork over the life long medical benefits card after signing the consent paper work. By whatever means I'm bringing children into the world I am responsible! Sure, single parents struggle all over the world, but where not single parents. We ARE a couple. Financial status of every couple is important, gay or straight. There will be struggling parents REGARDLESS of sexuality. So why should I not even have a CHANCE at providing medical/financial/other benefits to my kids? Because other people are struggling as parents too? Hate to be insensitive, or prejudice, or whatever (and I WAS one of those kids in a house like this) but of you make a poor choice (divorce, having kids when you can't afford it, etc) then you have to live with the consequences (no medical ins, or causing "struggle"). Gay people don't even have that RIGHT to obtain that stability, so WHY deny them biased on the premise that there are lots of struggling parents?
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
        03-28-2013, 08:32 AM
      #90
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Missy May    
    I look forward to the day no one is searching for something to twist into a "prejudice" statement....
    Like the "prejudice" Iran statement you cleared up for me? See you can be the change too! ;o)
    Posted via Mobile Device
    BaileyJo likes this.
         

    Thread Tools

    Similar Threads
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    Supreme Court upholds health care law kitten_Val General Off Topic Discussion 151 07-04-2012 07:40 PM
    Marriage described through a horse race - Warning, vulgar language!! mliponoga Jokes and Funnies 10 12-21-2010 09:49 PM
    Pre arranged marriage? LOL Heybird Horse Pictures 7 12-21-2009 06:56 PM
    Court Venue rider4life422 Horse Law 5 06-22-2009 06:16 PM



    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:49 AM.


    Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
    Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0