Living here in Japan we get to avoid the long lines in November and we just filled out our ballot. One of the items on the list was the latest attempt to make sure only a man and a woman can be married in Florida (a law was not enough). It has some side effects like maybe making any type of living arrangement at any age not to be viewed as legal.
"Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
It is time to go to bed here so I will just leave this one out here - in a few other areas it already was talked about but having the chance to vote on it today I thought I'd give it toss in the new area.
One point I do want to make is that nobody is talking about really protecting marriage because if they did they would not condone people ever having more than one marriage in a lifetime. You can divorce but just not get remarried. Yes you could enter into a "legal arrangement" with someone after your divorce but it could not be called a marriage. Isn't the idea of marriage in the view of those that want to "protect" it something that occurs between a man and a woman for life?
In my view no a church should not be required to marry anyone they do not want to marry - that is church business. The state has no role in what the church does; the state's role in marriage is in the form of a legal contract that should have nothing to do with sexual orientation so unless you want a "church wedding" it should not be a problem for a gay to get married. Remember the same people that would claim a gay marriage is evil would also be ready to take the kids away from many here because someone is bisexual or in the lifestyle.
Off the soapbox and off to bed. Let's hear it on how and why we should protect marriage!
Max & Diane
"Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
It is time to go to bed here so I will just leave this one out here - in a few other areas it already was talked about but having the chance to vote on it today I thought I'd give it toss in the new area.
One point I do want to make is that nobody is talking about really protecting marriage because if they did they would not condone people ever having more than one marriage in a lifetime. You can divorce but just not get remarried. Yes you could enter into a "legal arrangement" with someone after your divorce but it could not be called a marriage. Isn't the idea of marriage in the view of those that want to "protect" it something that occurs between a man and a woman for life?
In my view no a church should not be required to marry anyone they do not want to marry - that is church business. The state has no role in what the church does; the state's role in marriage is in the form of a legal contract that should have nothing to do with sexual orientation so unless you want a "church wedding" it should not be a problem for a gay to get married. Remember the same people that would claim a gay marriage is evil would also be ready to take the kids away from many here because someone is bisexual or in the lifestyle.
Off the soapbox and off to bed. Let's hear it on how and why we should protect marriage!
Max & Diane
I like to always try for simple, if possible,
TALKING POINTS:
1. There are two basic grounds for marriage: law and religion
2. Our Forefathers guaranteed separation of church and state
3. We are a melting-pot mix of many, many religions (and we might as well use the term loosely here)
4. Government cannot recognize or control religion-based marriages.
5. Government-recognized marriage is necessary (as we are currently structured).
6. The only marriage that should be at issue is the government-recognized marriage.
6. Where, in our constitution, does it say that a marriage is between a man and a woman?
TALKING POINTS:
1. There are two basic grounds for marriage: law and religion
2. Our Forefathers guaranteed separation of church and state
3. We are a melting-pot mix of many, many religions (and we might as well use the term loosely here)
4. Government cannot recognize or control religion-based marriages.
5. Government-recognized marriage is necessary (as we are currently structured).
6. The only marriage that should be at issue is the government-recognized marriage.
6. Where, in our constitution, does it say that a marriage is between a man and a woman?
Where in our constitution does it say you have the right to get married?????
Posted By: HIGHWAY1 Reply posted on:
Oct 16, 2008 - 9:53 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in our constitution does it say you have the right to get married?????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm, why would you try to muddy the waters right away? Where the hell does "right" to marriage enter into the discussion? Marriage already exists in the eyes of the government. All responsible citizens who file income tax forms have to declare their marital status. What is your point?
Oct 16, 2008 - 9:53 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in our constitution does it say you have the right to get married?????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm, why would you try to muddy the waters right away? Where the hell does "right" to marriage enter into the discussion? Marriage already exists in the eyes of the government. All responsible citizens who file income tax forms have to declare their marital status. What is your point?
I believe the deal here in Florida is basicly about gay marriage. what was your point?
The point is, because the reasons to outlaw gay marriage are that of a religion and our 1st and 14th Amendments protect us from such legislation, the floridian attempts to outlaw same-sex marriage is unethical and unconstitutional. We have the right to liberty and an unalienable right to equality with respect to those rights to liberty, speech, expression and many others. Since we are not all Christian, those morals or dogma shouldn't apply. PERIOD!
Yes, the bill
This is just getting old. There is nothing on marriage in the constitution period. The biggest objection about gay marriage is morality by the majority(you know majority rules), Then you have insurance companies that do not want to insure gay partners, and right on down the line with other entities. Once gay marriage is allowed some thing the insurance industry could do will to make all policies for one person, in other words lets say for example you get insurance on you and it cost $200. Now you get married and want to cover your new wife, instead of paying say another $100 dollars you would now have to pay another $200. Now comes little Don jr. well there goes another $200. You want to have more children just keep adding $200 for each one. Of course under obama we'll all get it for free. Or I guess what he wants is just to make insurance companies cover everyone to include preexisting conditions. Gee I wonder what that will do to premiums. But then I guess the top 6% would be paying anyway so who cares.
So when the masses felt that the mixing of races was wrong or that the disabled should not be married this was fine? Over 50% of the nation believes in some type of "God" so it would be fine if the law forbid non believers to get married? Smokers can't get married because they are a higher risk for the insurance companies? I miss the logic of taking out one group based on your thinking. I never said that marriage was a right however equal protection under the law does fall under our rights.
HIGHWAY1,
Sanctity or "godliness" of Marriage cannot be applied to law. The 1st Amendment prohibits it. All the legislation trying to prohibit gay marriage is religiously motivated and as such is unconstitutional. I don't care how much you dance around it. It's written in the 1st Amendment. Read it and weep.
-D-
Sanctity or "godliness" of Marriage cannot be applied to law. The 1st Amendment prohibits it. All the legislation trying to prohibit gay marriage is religiously motivated and as such is unconstitutional. I don't care how much you dance around it. It's written in the 1st Amendment. Read it and weep.
-D-
There is no constitutional right to marriage, period. Here is the first and fourteenth amendments as they are written:
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.
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.
Clearly when carefully read, neither of these amendments can be construed to somehow bestow the right to marry whomever one wishes. Marriage can be a religious ceremony but that ceremony has no legitamacy absent a license from the state. Why? Because it is a construct governed by the laws of the state in which you reside. Indeed, many states have vastly different laws governing marriage such as age of consent, some forbid cousins to marry, others allow it (Kentucky allows 2nd cousins, eww) as well as laws forbidding polygamy and bigamy. In truth, the very fact that one must apply for and meet all requirements in order to obtain a license from the state confirms that it is not a constitutional right but a privelege governed by laws akin to a drivers license.
Furthermore, to allow gay marriage would start us down the slippery slope of those who would claim there constitutional rights to be violated. Enter the polygamists, pedophiles, bigamists and in the case of those who live in Oregon- even bestiality. After all, who are we to say that they have no right to be married and find happiness and equality in their chosen lifestyle? Are we to deny the right of all of a man's wives to visit him in the hospital? Are we to deny them medical coverage simply because they are different than us?
You can clearly see the absurdity of their argument when applied to other deviant groups that lack the political clout of the gay lobby. Civil Unions provide all the legal standing and protections granted through marriage with no legal distinction between the two whatsoever.
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.
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.
Clearly when carefully read, neither of these amendments can be construed to somehow bestow the right to marry whomever one wishes. Marriage can be a religious ceremony but that ceremony has no legitamacy absent a license from the state. Why? Because it is a construct governed by the laws of the state in which you reside. Indeed, many states have vastly different laws governing marriage such as age of consent, some forbid cousins to marry, others allow it (Kentucky allows 2nd cousins, eww) as well as laws forbidding polygamy and bigamy. In truth, the very fact that one must apply for and meet all requirements in order to obtain a license from the state confirms that it is not a constitutional right but a privelege governed by laws akin to a drivers license.
Furthermore, to allow gay marriage would start us down the slippery slope of those who would claim there constitutional rights to be violated. Enter the polygamists, pedophiles, bigamists and in the case of those who live in Oregon- even bestiality. After all, who are we to say that they have no right to be married and find happiness and equality in their chosen lifestyle? Are we to deny the right of all of a man's wives to visit him in the hospital? Are we to deny them medical coverage simply because they are different than us?
You can clearly see the absurdity of their argument when applied to other deviant groups that lack the political clout of the gay lobby. Civil Unions provide all the legal standing and protections granted through marriage with no legal distinction between the two whatsoever.
BULLSHIT!!! Man you are so fucking full of it! Again a swinger talking about dievancy HAHAHAHA!! GO AWAY YOU HYPOCRITE! You are breaking Utah's Adultry and Fornication laws. HAHA!
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/76_07.htm
When making laws that take freedom or liberty away from someone, you have to consider the motive as to why. What is the current argument of those proposing the bill to keep marriage a sanctified (godliness) institution??? It's that it violates god's law. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
The "slippery slope" argument is another laughable argument. Pedophilia and homosexual adults marriages are two different things. One involves unconsenting parties, the other involves consenting adults. Polygamy among adults should be allowed and animals can't give consent. So where does that leave your ridiculous argument??? HAHAH What a joke. Read Kinsey. There are not sexual norms in any lots of animals to include us.
So I pose the question, what is a viable argument to not allow two consenting adults to enter into a contract between themselves, that doesn't involve any of us??? You can't say the sexual relationship, because that will happen whether or not the government recognizes them as married. The only thing the law sees is a contract (civil union) . Sanctity of marriage. Your reasoning is that we should deny anyone one majority doesn't approve of, to include blacks. I see that you only want big government in matters that assist the church.
-D-
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/76_07.htm
When making laws that take freedom or liberty away from someone, you have to consider the motive as to why. What is the current argument of those proposing the bill to keep marriage a sanctified (godliness) institution??? It's that it violates god's law. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
The "slippery slope" argument is another laughable argument. Pedophilia and homosexual adults marriages are two different things. One involves unconsenting parties, the other involves consenting adults. Polygamy among adults should be allowed and animals can't give consent. So where does that leave your ridiculous argument??? HAHAH What a joke. Read Kinsey. There are not sexual norms in any lots of animals to include us.
So I pose the question, what is a viable argument to not allow two consenting adults to enter into a contract between themselves, that doesn't involve any of us??? You can't say the sexual relationship, because that will happen whether or not the government recognizes them as married. The only thing the law sees is a contract (civil union) . Sanctity of marriage. Your reasoning is that we should deny anyone one majority doesn't approve of, to include blacks. I see that you only want big government in matters that assist the church.
-D-
A sage piece of advice I once heard is so applicable to you I just have to relate it: "It is better to keep one's mouth shut and let others believe you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
You dont know me or anything about me. You obviously haven't even read our profile, yet you feel confident in calling me a hypocrite and accuse me of violating Utah's Adultery and Fornication laws. What a shame that you have once again resorted to personal attacks, profanity and baseless accusations.
I have violated no law, but find such a law to be a relic of a theocracy whose time passed long ago. I judge no one in regards to their personal decisions as such matters are between partners and partners alone. I respect all lifestyle choices and only ask for that same respect in return. I personally am not a swinger and my wife and I are in a happy committed marriage. Why do you feel the need to attack those who simply have divergnet views from your own? It is sad to see you consistently display such a depth of bitterness and intolerence of others.
You dont know me or anything about me. You obviously haven't even read our profile, yet you feel confident in calling me a hypocrite and accuse me of violating Utah's Adultery and Fornication laws. What a shame that you have once again resorted to personal attacks, profanity and baseless accusations.
I have violated no law, but find such a law to be a relic of a theocracy whose time passed long ago. I judge no one in regards to their personal decisions as such matters are between partners and partners alone. I respect all lifestyle choices and only ask for that same respect in return. I personally am not a swinger and my wife and I are in a happy committed marriage. Why do you feel the need to attack those who simply have divergnet views from your own? It is sad to see you consistently display such a depth of bitterness and intolerence of others.
Read your profile... Orientation: Bi-sexual. How is that possible? You are not bi-sexual unless you've had bi-sexual sex which would make you a fornicator and adulter if you were married. Anything less would be only bi-curious. So you're either a liar or a hypocrite. I think both.
Who are you, the sex police? Does it make you feel big to judge others and call them names? You know nothing about my marriage and yet you have the gaul to come and cal my wife an adulterer an fornicator because she happened to be into women before we met? Look at yourself, criticizing another man's wife because you think that you are somehow morally superior to me? Just because someone has a proclivity towards those of the same sex you think that that gives you license to come into our lives and pass judgement upon us and condemn us as law breakers and hypocrites? You are the agent of intolerance! You are absolutely incapable of debating with class or dignity and are disgraceful in your intolerance and cruelty to those you have never met. You sir, are a disgrace.
"Who are you, the sex police? Does it make you feel big to judge others and call them names?"
<hr>
No it's you that's advocating the denial of two people in love from getting married. It's you judging. So spare me your fucking hypocrisy.
<hr>
"You know nothing about my marriage and yet you have the gaul to come and cal my wife an adulterer an fornicator because she happened to be into women before we met? "
<hr>
Read what you just wrote. You are talking about homosexuals being deviants and not deserving the same liberty to marry as the rest of us, comparing the relationships to beastiality and pedophilia and your wife is partial homosexual. If she had sex before she was with you, she's a fornicator. If she had sex after she's an adulterer. That's how I have the gall. What gives you the gall to dictate to others who they should marry?
<hr>
"Look at yourself, criticizing another man's wife because you think that you are somehow morally superior to me?"
-
"Just because someone has a proclivity towards those of the same sex you think that that gives you license to come into our lives and pass judgement upon us and condemn us as law breakers and hypocrites? "
<hr>
I have no morals. I have Ethics. Morals denote religion or spirituality. I am neither a religious or spiritual person. I believe we all have the right to do what we want in our personal lives, so long as all parties involved are of legal age and consentual. If you want to be a judgmental asshole and think you can dictate to others your morals, I will do the same to you... DOESN'T FEEL GOOD, DOES IT? So I think perhaps you should take your own advice before you hypocritically advocate the republican agenda against the Gay Marriage.
If you definition of disgrace was the in that post, that makes you a dsigrace as well. Wasn't it you that was condemning gay marriage? hmmm.
After all you said:
<hr>
"Furthermore, to allow gay marriage would start us down the slippery slope of those who would claim there constitutional rights to be violated. Enter the polygamists, pedophiles, bigamists and in the case of those who live in Oregon- even bestiality. After all, who are we to say that they have no right to be married and find happiness and equality in their chosen lifestyle? Are we to deny the right of all of a man's wives to visit him in the hospital? Are we to deny them medical coverage simply because they are different than us?"
<hr>
Oh and by bestiality I think you meant UTAH!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324069,00.html
<script>document.write('');</script>
OUCH!
-D-
<hr>
No it's you that's advocating the denial of two people in love from getting married. It's you judging. So spare me your fucking hypocrisy.
<hr>
"You know nothing about my marriage and yet you have the gaul to come and cal my wife an adulterer an fornicator because she happened to be into women before we met? "
<hr>
Read what you just wrote. You are talking about homosexuals being deviants and not deserving the same liberty to marry as the rest of us, comparing the relationships to beastiality and pedophilia and your wife is partial homosexual. If she had sex before she was with you, she's a fornicator. If she had sex after she's an adulterer. That's how I have the gall. What gives you the gall to dictate to others who they should marry?
<hr>
"Look at yourself, criticizing another man's wife because you think that you are somehow morally superior to me?"
-
"Just because someone has a proclivity towards those of the same sex you think that that gives you license to come into our lives and pass judgement upon us and condemn us as law breakers and hypocrites? "
<hr>
I have no morals. I have Ethics. Morals denote religion or spirituality. I am neither a religious or spiritual person. I believe we all have the right to do what we want in our personal lives, so long as all parties involved are of legal age and consentual. If you want to be a judgmental asshole and think you can dictate to others your morals, I will do the same to you... DOESN'T FEEL GOOD, DOES IT? So I think perhaps you should take your own advice before you hypocritically advocate the republican agenda against the Gay Marriage.
If you definition of disgrace was the in that post, that makes you a dsigrace as well. Wasn't it you that was condemning gay marriage? hmmm.
After all you said:
<hr>
"Furthermore, to allow gay marriage would start us down the slippery slope of those who would claim there constitutional rights to be violated. Enter the polygamists, pedophiles, bigamists and in the case of those who live in Oregon- even bestiality. After all, who are we to say that they have no right to be married and find happiness and equality in their chosen lifestyle? Are we to deny the right of all of a man's wives to visit him in the hospital? Are we to deny them medical coverage simply because they are different than us?"
<hr>
Oh and by bestiality I think you meant UTAH!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324069,00.html
<script>document.write('');</script>
OUCH!
-D-