Joshua B
Member
Yes it's true. I am for happy marriages. :lol:
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
I am for gay marriage!
- Thread starter Joshua B
- Start date
M
MsMtSnow
Guest
Ha ha
Haha. And I was about to go all postal.
But yes, I am for happy marriages as well.
Jess
Haha. And I was about to go all postal.
But yes, I am for happy marriages as well.
Jess
riverc0il
New member
uh oh....... this one could get ugly..... :argue:
lmao
lmao
MtnMagic
New member
I'd rather go skiing, shoeing, or hiking.
Stephen
New member
"Moderates are like agnostics. They've never bothered to find out and are scared to make a stand because they may be wrong" -a friend of mine
SilentCal
Member
This issue could be a sounding board for the next general election. I don't think it will come down to a constitutional amendment that the President is asking for. The arguement that I do no understand is that when someone says that the Bible says "Marriage is between a man and a women" (not sure the exact quote). Then taking the arguement further by asking the government to make laws with that particular doctrine in mind. Isn't there supposed to be separation of Church and State? Since when does religion form the basis of laws in this country. That's why I believe there will be no action from the federal government on this issue. Personally, I have no problem with gay marriage. There are some gay couples out there who could be much better parents than some heterosexual couples that I know. I bowl with someone who is gay and her and her partner are quite devoted to each other. What's wrong with being loved by someone? I myself would never go in that direction but who am I to say to someone who can love them and who can't.
riverc0il
New member
Since when does religion form the basis of laws in this country.
since when has religion NOT formed the basis of this country? the country was founded by a bunch of god fearing land owning puritans, not atheists. look on the back of your coin and paper money, "In God We Trust." recite the pledge o' allegience. it's even in the constitution or declaration of independance i believe...
don't confuse not being founded on religion with seperation of church and state. seperation of church and state simply says that the government can't side or back (verbally or financially) with any religions. when you are not a religious person, you really understand how much god really is a part of the state, despite the so called seperation.
back on topic, i think the bottom line issue here is that it's a state issue. this country was also founded on local control. although it's been gradually worn away, this is an issue that each state should grapple with in my opinion. if one state wishes to define this civil issue, let them. and let the free thinkers more else where and let the civil war begin. okay, that's a bit harsh...
here's my bottom line if they want to make this a religious issue: the sanctity of marriage? what the hell could gay people do to destroy this concept of marriage any more than straight people have??? over 50 percent of married couples say "till death do us part" then go screaming to their lawyers about who's getting the money, who's getting the house, and who's getting the kids. i say let's see what the gays can do with marriage, might be able to show us a thing or two about how it's suppose to be done. they'll sure as heck taking that marriage vow more serious than 50% of americans do already.
since when has religion NOT formed the basis of this country? the country was founded by a bunch of god fearing land owning puritans, not atheists. look on the back of your coin and paper money, "In God We Trust." recite the pledge o' allegience. it's even in the constitution or declaration of independance i believe...
don't confuse not being founded on religion with seperation of church and state. seperation of church and state simply says that the government can't side or back (verbally or financially) with any religions. when you are not a religious person, you really understand how much god really is a part of the state, despite the so called seperation.
back on topic, i think the bottom line issue here is that it's a state issue. this country was also founded on local control. although it's been gradually worn away, this is an issue that each state should grapple with in my opinion. if one state wishes to define this civil issue, let them. and let the free thinkers more else where and let the civil war begin. okay, that's a bit harsh...
here's my bottom line if they want to make this a religious issue: the sanctity of marriage? what the hell could gay people do to destroy this concept of marriage any more than straight people have??? over 50 percent of married couples say "till death do us part" then go screaming to their lawyers about who's getting the money, who's getting the house, and who's getting the kids. i say let's see what the gays can do with marriage, might be able to show us a thing or two about how it's suppose to be done. they'll sure as heck taking that marriage vow more serious than 50% of americans do already.
Stephen
New member
Could someone show me the part of the constitution where it says "separation of church and state"?
-T
-T
riverc0il
New member
you're right, those exact words are not in the original constitution. nor are those exact words in the first amendment. but neither are a lot of other words that most people associate with those documents. the rule of law tends to be based on interpretation and precident though, and the words "speration of church and state" is essentially a short hand way of summing up all the legal briefs, law documents, decisions, etc. associated with how our legal system and government currently view the relationship between organized religion and a governing body. even if the words are not written in those documents, they are essentially still there in interpretation and years of court decisions.
severine
New member
I love when marriage becomes a religious issue--especially since it was initially not much more than a financial arrangement. I remember being shocked initially when I discovered in one of my college philosophy courses that marriage wasn't even church sanctified until about the 14th Century or so... that's a long time before that when the church had no say/no interest in what marriage is or was supposed to be because of its tendency to be more like selling off your daughters than sending them off into happy, loving marriages. In fact, companionable marriage (marriage for love) is a relatively new concept in itself, coming about in the late 18th/early 19th Centuries, and mainly only among wealthy families initially.
The point? Ideas over what a marriage should/shouldn't be are constantly changing. I don't think a Constitutional Amendment is the way to go, for several reasons. #1 I have no opposition to gay marriage. As was noted above, I've known plenty of gay relationships that were much healthier than hetero ones. Why deny them the same rights hetero couples have? Which brings me to #2, isn't this supposed to be the land of the free? I know civil rights for quite a few groups are relatively recent, but still, I don't think the right move for the "land of the free" in the 21st Century would be to alienate a good portion of its citizens and keep from them some of the same basic rights other Americans have. Why shouldn't a loving couple be able to get married, regardless of the sex of the members of the couple? What harm does it do to you? It's not your life, it's not for you to decide.
And then there's the religious movement that says homosexual relations are unnatural and sinful. But what about "judge not, lest ye be judged?" Why are they so willing to throw stones even though they too are not sinless?
This is a very touchy subject...I thought pro-life/pro-abortion was bad, but I've come across more people who feel very strongly about this issue than the abortion one, surprisingly. My feeling is that they are not hurting anyone by getting married. In fact, it enables the couple to lead more normal lives, to which they are entitled as residents of this country. I say let it be... it's not for George Bush to decide, and it certainly doesn't warrant an amendment to the Constitution.
The point? Ideas over what a marriage should/shouldn't be are constantly changing. I don't think a Constitutional Amendment is the way to go, for several reasons. #1 I have no opposition to gay marriage. As was noted above, I've known plenty of gay relationships that were much healthier than hetero ones. Why deny them the same rights hetero couples have? Which brings me to #2, isn't this supposed to be the land of the free? I know civil rights for quite a few groups are relatively recent, but still, I don't think the right move for the "land of the free" in the 21st Century would be to alienate a good portion of its citizens and keep from them some of the same basic rights other Americans have. Why shouldn't a loving couple be able to get married, regardless of the sex of the members of the couple? What harm does it do to you? It's not your life, it's not for you to decide.
And then there's the religious movement that says homosexual relations are unnatural and sinful. But what about "judge not, lest ye be judged?" Why are they so willing to throw stones even though they too are not sinless?
This is a very touchy subject...I thought pro-life/pro-abortion was bad, but I've come across more people who feel very strongly about this issue than the abortion one, surprisingly. My feeling is that they are not hurting anyone by getting married. In fact, it enables the couple to lead more normal lives, to which they are entitled as residents of this country. I say let it be... it's not for George Bush to decide, and it certainly doesn't warrant an amendment to the Constitution.
severine
New member
SilentCal said:
This country was founded by Protestants (namely Puritans) seeking to escape religious persecution elsewhere... of course its laws were based on religion, and a Christian religion no less. With that in mind, what about all the residents of this country who are Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, atheists, etc? They get absolutely no representation in the laws of this country, yet must abide by the same ones. It just goes to show you how much this country has evolved since its inception. Ideas are constantly changing, as are the people who come up with them. What is shocking today will be insignificant a century from now. Another good reason to not have a Constitutional amendment in this case... Shouldn't they be saved for more serious issues, like ensuring freedoms aren't infringed instead of restricting the freedoms of a growing group of American citizens?
ChileMass
Active member
Thankfully, Article 1 of the Bill of Rights has been accepted sufficiently broadly by the legal/legislative world that even though the Founding Fathers based early American law on religious traditions, the concept of separation of church and state was also accepted early on as crucial to maintaining a democratic system that works for everyone, not just Christians. Therefore, all people, regardless of religious affiliation (or, more importantly these days, non-affiliation) have equal rights under the law, and that's a very good thing.
I mean, I can fully understand why, in this weird modern world, lots of people are going back to traditional religion. If it helps get you by, that's great - everybody needs something. However, it becomes extremely important to remember that not everyone shares the same cultural background (European) or religious interests (Judeo-Christian) in this country. Everyone who is here legally basically has the right to do whatever they want under the law. Now, current law does not support gay marriage, but that doesn't mean it can't. Things change. It used to be illegal for women to speak in church and in some other public places (e.g., courts). Kids under 21 couldn't vote until 35 years ago. Blacks were legally enslaved for 300 years and until 1964 in many areas of the US had their legal movement restricted. These were discriminations that were legal in our lifetimes!! But times change. The issue of gay marriage isn't consitutional or religious. It's about discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. It was subsequently updated to include sex and age. Those were elements deemed to be omitted by the original law. What needs to happen is a further updating of Civil Rights law to recognize sexual orientation as a protected class.
Oh yeah, and then the state courts will need to agree to stay out of people's bedrooms and allow people who commit to each other to be married. Unmarried couples (gay or straight) have a 5x separation rate over married couples. It's good public policy and good for families. Religious people should be in favor of anything that strengthens families. Gays should be able to marry and exist in a free democracy without discrimination or second-class status.....
My $.02
I mean, I can fully understand why, in this weird modern world, lots of people are going back to traditional religion. If it helps get you by, that's great - everybody needs something. However, it becomes extremely important to remember that not everyone shares the same cultural background (European) or religious interests (Judeo-Christian) in this country. Everyone who is here legally basically has the right to do whatever they want under the law. Now, current law does not support gay marriage, but that doesn't mean it can't. Things change. It used to be illegal for women to speak in church and in some other public places (e.g., courts). Kids under 21 couldn't vote until 35 years ago. Blacks were legally enslaved for 300 years and until 1964 in many areas of the US had their legal movement restricted. These were discriminations that were legal in our lifetimes!! But times change. The issue of gay marriage isn't consitutional or religious. It's about discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. It was subsequently updated to include sex and age. Those were elements deemed to be omitted by the original law. What needs to happen is a further updating of Civil Rights law to recognize sexual orientation as a protected class.
Oh yeah, and then the state courts will need to agree to stay out of people's bedrooms and allow people who commit to each other to be married. Unmarried couples (gay or straight) have a 5x separation rate over married couples. It's good public policy and good for families. Religious people should be in favor of anything that strengthens families. Gays should be able to marry and exist in a free democracy without discrimination or second-class status.....
My $.02
Actually, nothing needs to be done at all in terms of new law. This is Part 1 of the 14th Amendment, adopted just after the Civil War:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
No matter how you view the activity behind the desire for gay marriage, the amended American constitution has mandated equal protection for all citizens for over 130 years.
If I can marry, you can marry.
I don't recommend it though. Cuts into your hiking big-time.
Bill Maher -- Face it, after a year or two, it's all same-sex marriage. The same sex all the time.
My own opinion is that it adds stability to society, especially within an emerging and increasing group of people. Might have kept my brother from dying of AIDS.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
No matter how you view the activity behind the desire for gay marriage, the amended American constitution has mandated equal protection for all citizens for over 130 years.
If I can marry, you can marry.
I don't recommend it though. Cuts into your hiking big-time.
Bill Maher -- Face it, after a year or two, it's all same-sex marriage. The same sex all the time.
My own opinion is that it adds stability to society, especially within an emerging and increasing group of people. Might have kept my brother from dying of AIDS.
Charlie Schuessler
New member
"Separation of Church and State"?"
Go to http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html
And you will find:
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Go to http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html
And you will find:
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Similar threads
