|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Supreme Court likely to advance gay marriage but stop short of broad ruling By Pete Williams, Justice Correspondent, NBC News After two days of highly anticipated courtroom arguments about same-sex marriage, a sweeping ruling on gay rights seems unlikely from the U.S. Supreme Court. But when decisions in both cases come in late June, the result may nonetheless be an important one for advocates of same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court appeared ready to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act during Wednesday's oral arguments but it was a different story for Prop. 8 with Justices signaling that they may take a narrow approach to avoid setting a national precedent on the issue of same-sex marriage. California Attorney General Kamala Harris discusses. Though it's risky to predict how the court will rule based solely on comments by the justices during the oral arguments, one outcome seemed probable -- a decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. "A decision saying that DOMA is unconstitutional because it discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation, and requiring the federal government to give full recognition to the existing marriages of same-sex couples, would be a huge victory," said Paul Smith of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Jenner & Block. He was in the courtroom when the justices took up the Proposition 8 case on March 26. Ten years earlier to the day, Smith stood before the justices to argue the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated state laws criminalizing homosexual conduct. In the challenge to California's Prop 8 -- the state constitutional amendment enacted by voters in 2008 that limits marriage to one-man-one-woman couples -- the justices seemed to be searching for a way to avoid a decision. One possible outcome: declaring the case procedurally flawed and sending it back to California, where a lower court decision found Prop 8 unconstitutional. That would allow same-sex marriage to resume there without setting a precedent for other states. During Wednesday's argument on DOMA, by contrast, at least four of the justices suggested that the law improperly discriminates against gay couples by blocking the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in the states that permit them. Elena Kagan read from a House report that said Congress passed DOMA to express its "moral disapproval of homosexuality." Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the 1,100 federal benefits denied to same-sex couples water down their relationships to "skim-milk marriages." Rodell Mollineau, president of American Bridge and former spokesman to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Washington Post political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson and National Review's Washington, D.C. editor and CNBC contributor Robert Costa join The Daily Rundown to talk about the same-sex marriage debate and give their shameless plugs. Sonia Sotomayor asked if members of Congress could create any "class of people they don't like" and deny them benefits. Stephen Breyer asked what justification would permit treating gay marriages differently. The fifth vote to strike down DOMA seemed likely to come from Anthony Kennedy, whose comments throughout the argument reflected a concern that Congress had no authority to define marriage, a power reserved to the states. Former solicitor general Paul Clement, representing the House Republicans who came forward to defend DOMA, said the law was proper because it dealt only with the government's own definition of marriage in federal laws. For that reason, he said, the question of federal power was "not a DOMA problem." Justice Kennedy disagreed. "I think it is a DOMA problem. The question is whether or not the federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage," he said. Kennedy said DOMA was "not consistent with the historic commitment of marriage, and of questions of the rights of children, to the states." Even if Justice Kennedy's focus on the limits of federal power constrains the court's ruling in the DOMA case, avoiding a full-throated declaration that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional, advocates of gay rights say it would still send a powerful message. "I think it's enormous," said Mary Bonauto of GLAD, a pioneer in gay rights litigation, of the possibility that DOMA would be struck down. "This is a law that has the effect of discriminating only against married same-sex couples. And anytime you eliminate a double standard based on sexual orientation, it matters," she said. And Paul Smith of Jenner & Block says such a decision could lay the groundwork for future legal challenges to state laws that forbid same-sex couples to marry. "While it's not the same thing as requiring states to let people get married, it will push the momentum forward," he said, and could have an effect on lawsuits now pending that challenge bans on same-sex marriage in Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and Oklahoma. http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/201...oad-ruling?liteThe title pretty much says it all, IMO. I don't think the court is coming to come down with anything earth-shattering. I think some of the opposing justices were the ones who voted to hear this - they know the case will be lost, and the longer the wait, the worse it will be. I would expect DOMA to be gone, which will be a big step, but I don't think there's going to be a resounding move one way or the other. It will probably be kicked back to states.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
So, I haven't really followed this too closely, as I'm not a big fan of intolerance and lack compassion for your fellow human beings. We are talking about getting married in a church right, not civil unions? A marriage recognized by the church?
Common sense says the gays have a right, nationwide, to be awarded the benefits given to heterosexual couples. Please tell me we don't have Americans looking to deny civil unions.
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
We are talking about getting married in a church right, not civil unions? A marriage recognized by the church?
Not quite.
We are talking about state or federally recognized marriage.
Even a landslide victory for gay rights advocates in this situation wouldn't entail a church being forced to marry someone in their domain.
But again, I don't think these two cases are going to blow the door open one way or another. If I had to guess, I'd say they strike DOMA,:but kick the rest down to the states.
Quote:
Common sense says the gays have a right, nationwide, to be awarded the benefits given to heterosexual couples. Please tell me we don't have Americans looking to deny civil unions.
In many cases, civil unions, don't really award the same benefits, economically and in terms of other matters pertaining to one's life.
And they're not all that prevalent at this time, state-wise, though I don't think much will happen on that front, as gay marriage will most likely be legalized federally within the next five years or so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Quote:
Even a landslide victory for gay rights advocates in this situation wouldn't entail a church being forced to marry someone in their domain.
So if the issue of forcing a church to marry a gay couple was brought before the court would it be the religious freedom rights of gays v the religious freedom rights of the church?
Would a court be allowed to decide a case like that?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,522
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,522 |
It irks me that this is even before a federal body. The court should kick it back to the states since marriage is completely a state issue.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
The justices are incredibly conflicted about kicking it back to the states. Both sides of the court talked about this a lot. Mainly boils down to "If we don't make a sweeping change across the country, we'll keep getting these cases" or "Do we even have the power, from the constitution, to make this mandated for all states". A small minority on the court seems to want to keep DOMA. The majority of them seem to be against it.
Personally, I don't see the problem with two consenting adults joining each other in marriage. I'm not sure why gender really matters. The whole "sanctity of marriage" argument holds no water due to the divorce rate in America.
I get religions have their own beliefs. But, many things exist in America which are against others religious belief. People can eat pork, Americans eat meat during Lent, etc. The touchy part comes down to same-sex marriages in churches which don't believe in same-sex marriage. Religious freedom is paramount to our country but isn't non-discriminatory practices a foundation of our country, too? (Sure, you can argue The Framers didn't believe women, slaves, the underclass and people of other color never deserved the same rights but that's a different discussion for another topic.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Even a landslide victory for gay rights advocates in this situation wouldn't entail a church being forced to marry someone in their domain.
So if the issue of forcing a church to marry a gay couple was brought before the court would it be the religious freedom rights of gays v the religious freedom rights of the church?
Would a court be allowed to decide a case like that?
I would imagine that at some point down the line, you may see a few lawsuits in that regard, but I don't think they would get very far, and I don't think it would become a prevalent issue.
A gay couple would have no basis for an argument on the grounds of religious freedom. A church or religion would.
Hell, a church doesn't have to marry a straight couple in their domain if they don't want to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
OK, I am no lawyer ..... so bear with me while I run through this fairly convoluted mess of things running through my head.
If I am reading things correctly, then the following assumptions appear to be headed for affirmation by the Court ......
The Federal Government has no right and/or ability to regulate and/or decide what marriage is, or is not.
Since marriage is a state rights issue, then each state has to decide for itself what constitutes marriage, and what laws define marriage.
If gay marriage is not a protected right under the Constitution at the federal level, will it be Constitutionally protected at the state level?
If it is a Constitutionally protected right at the state level, then why run through the inevitable 50 court cases, with Supreme Court appeal certainty?
This seems like a massive kicking the can down the road, with massive resources involved in defending state Constitutions and laws, which would be senseless if the Court says that gay marriage is a right protected under the Constitution.
However, on the other hand, if the Supreme Court rules that the federal government cannot regulate marriage, and it is a states rights issue ... and that each state's Constitution is the overriding and controlling document for what marriage is, and is not, in each state ...... then the various propositions and amendments might be Constitutional ..... and we might have 50 different definitions of marriage, and maybe a 50/50 mis of states who allow/disallow gay marriage.
This appears to be quite a mess, and growing. I am at the point where they would just decide and be done with it.Either gay marriage is a right in all 50 states ..... or it is not. This mix and match mess we have today is ridiculous.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Just another hugel voting block the liberals have created.  I wonder who in the heck is watching "The Bible" on the History channel, supposidly  there were 10 million viewers?
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
Just another hugel voting block the liberals have created.
I wonder who in the heck is watching "The Bible" on the History channel, supposidly there were 10 million viewers?
Yeah because Liberals "created" the gay population
Besides that, what the Bible says should have absolutely nothing to do with what The Supreme Court Rules. There is no place for legislation of morality in The Supreme Court.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Just another hugel voting block the liberals have created.
Are you serious about any of this? Or is this to get a rise out of people?
First and foremost, DOMA was brought about by the GOP. The Democrats didn't really have it on their radar. And they had no qualms about it. Clinton signed it.
This issue was really brought to the forefront even further by the GOP, most effectively by Karl Rove. It was used as a wedge issue that would bring out religious voters. It was a very astute and effective measure.
Say what you will about your opinions or feelings on the matter, but it's primarily the GOP that has driven the issue into the spotlight. They wanted it there, as for a long time it was an electoral tool to their advantage.
As time has gone on, the political clout has begun to shift.
Say what you will about the voting bloc, but it was energized and brought into the spotlight by the GOP. This has been their issue since the mid-1990's.
In the end, they all deserve a great deal of scorn. No side has really been out there on the issue of gay rights until it became politically viable to do so.
All of this 'my opinion has changed over time' stuff ... it can be understood to an extent, because we all grow and change and mature ... but most of it is just snakes in the grass. If tomorrow, it wasn't politically viable, most would have a change of heart' again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 |
I cannot for the life of me see why this is even an issue. Two people wish to love and cherish each other. Why is that even debatable? What the heck does anyone care for? It's two people. Plain and simple. In this day and age, we are still worrying about how we can discriminate against someone for any reason? Seriously?
Ugh....
Let people marry whomever they choose. They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us.....
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Quote:
Are you serious about any of this? Or is this to get a rise out of people?
You'll have to excuse Nillcreek. He's been verklemmpt ever since Mittens lost the election after having his hopes raised by everyone on every type of media stream. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
Just another hugel voting block the liberals have created.
I wonder who in the heck is watching "The Bible" on the History channel, supposidly there were 10 million viewers?
just because they are watching it, doesn't mean they believe in it or are Christians. ..just saying...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
I wanna get this right out front.. I'm a 61 year old straight guy.. having said that.
Why do we need courts to tell us who we can love and marry? I guess I'm confused as to why there is a need for any laws pro or con.
Two people sit before a judge, say the "I Do's" and the deal is sealed.
What do some old dudes and dudesses sitting there in black robes in DC have to do with who a person falls in love with.
Personally, I think it's odd to love someone of the same sex, but I don't find it my place to tell them they can't.
I don't think it's any of my business.
Just my 2 cents.. FWIW
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Quote:
Quote:
Just another hugel voting block the liberals have created.
Are you serious about any of this? Or is this to get a rise out of people?
First and foremost, DOMA was brought about by the GOP. The Democrats didn't really have it on their radar. And they had no qualms about it. Clinton signed it.
This issue was really brought to the forefront even further by the GOP, most effectively by Karl Rove. It was used as a wedge issue that would bring out religious voters. It was a very astute and effective measure.
Say what you will about your opinions or feelings on the matter, but it's primarily the GOP that has driven the issue into the spotlight. They wanted it there, as for a long time it was an electoral tool to their advantage.
As time has gone on, the political clout has begun to shift.
Say what you will about the voting bloc, but it was energized and brought into the spotlight by the GOP. This has been their issue since the mid-1990's.
In the end, they all deserve a great deal of scorn. No side has really been out there on the issue of gay rights until it became politically viable to do so.
All of this 'my opinion has changed over time' stuff ... it can be understood to an extent, because we all grow and change and mature ... but most of it is just snakes in the grass. If tomorrow, it wasn't politically viable, most would have a change of heart' again.
I see your two faced on this issue. 
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
Two people sit before a judge, say the "I Do's" and the deal is sealed.
What do some old dudes and dudesses sitting there in black robes in DC have to do with who a person falls in love with.
Dudesses doesn't really work, I think it's old dudes and really ugly old chicks.
The men in the world need to step back and rethink this one a bit, well the men who prefer women and have kids need to. If the SC strikes down DOMA and the feds recognize same sex marriages, great for the gays they win the right to change the label and gain some federal benefits, but there may be a benefit for straight men.
With Prop 8, I'm all for states rights but this one can get messy. If people are married in a state that recognizes same sex marriage then move to a state that doesn't, are they no longer legally married? They are federally legal but not locally? How about their company(s), they may no longer have to recognize them as a couple and their benefit structure changes? Does it matter what state the company incorporates in? Or a plethora of other goodies that will cause your head to spin.
If the SC knocks down prop 8 straight men may finally have their day in court. Until now, straight men with kids have been on the losing side in divorce court. Courts will change though, they will now find themselves deciding children's fate from two fathers or two mothers or two whatever they're labeled. A court who now decides the fate of children from a heterosexual couple, in favor of the women, could be seen as discriminating against the man as being suitable for the role of custodial parent. For the most part men have felt discriminated against for a long time and it was the rare case where the man is awarded primary custody. Generally, she got the house and he got the shaft. Knocking down prop 8, in time, would give straight men a fighting chance for their kids.
If this is the tool that finally brings men's rights to the forefront in custody hearings, I'm all for it.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Just another hugel voting block the liberals have created.
Are you serious about any of this? Or is this to get a rise out of people?
First and foremost, DOMA was brought about by the GOP. The Democrats didn't really have it on their radar. And they had no qualms about it. Clinton signed it.
This issue was really brought to the forefront even further by the GOP, most effectively by Karl Rove. It was used as a wedge issue that would bring out religious voters. It was a very astute and effective measure.
Say what you will about your opinions or feelings on the matter, but it's primarily the GOP that has driven the issue into the spotlight. They wanted it there, as for a long time it was an electoral tool to their advantage.
As time has gone on, the political clout has begun to shift.
Say what you will about the voting bloc, but it was energized and brought into the spotlight by the GOP. This has been their issue since the mid-1990's.
In the end, they all deserve a great deal of scorn. No side has really been out there on the issue of gay rights until it became politically viable to do so.
All of this 'my opinion has changed over time' stuff ... it can be understood to an extent, because we all grow and change and mature ... but most of it is just snakes in the grass. If tomorrow, it wasn't politically viable, most would have a change of heart' again.
I see your two faced on this issue.
How so?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,480
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,480 |
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
marriage is all of the above.
the lesbian/gay community pay their taxes just like every other american in this country.
i don't even see why this is an issue.
mill, if you don't support same-sex marriage, then you should support gays not paying taxes, seeing as though they don't get the same civil liberties as everyone else.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Quote:
Quote:
Are you serious about any of this? Or is this to get a rise out of people?
You'll have to excuse Nillcreek. He's been verklemmpt ever since Mittens lost the election after having his hopes raised by everyone on every type of media stream.
Oh my God,  he's back from Weinerville (in disguise).  
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,522
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,522 |
I have yet to see you enter into a constructive, intellectual debate with anyone on this board about your viewpoints. I don't see any legit point behind throwing zingers without constructively backing them up.
It makes no sense to make a comment then tell people it's not worth discussing....
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Just clicking... It's funny to see in the 12 years I've been on these boards some things never change. It's also good to see that they do. 
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
just clicking...
Note 1(unrelated): I think we need to remind the new members that there are rules on this board. So far, I have seen masked profanity and now name calling.
Note 2(related):
California Prop 8 Issue:
I think the SCOTUS boots this one as there is an issue that it shouldn't have been at the court level to begin with, which means that gay marriage will be legal in California. The only other decisions I can see will only be good for gay marriage. I don't think they are going to rule that gay marriage can be banned in California. They are either going to boot it or rule it unconstitutional.
None of the arguments made against gay marriage were nothing but "my religion doesn't allow it." or "tradition is tradition and it should remain." Then there is the "marriage is for procreation" argument which was later to show the hypocritical nature of those arguing against gay marriage as they tried to say a couple of 50 year straight people could get married. But in the end, their arguments might have meant nothing considering that the standing of those arguing against gay marriage might not have any standing. There is no freedom of religion argument here to begin with as allowing gay marriage does not affect one's right to practice their religion as they do not need to recognize gay marriage whereas the gov't could.
DOMA:
I think this will come to in equal rights issue and it will get struck down. I haven't listened too much on this one to get any more detail.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Just asking? Why is it gays and lesbians never identify themselves in these discussions? 
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
For the same reason you don't identify yourself as clueless.
Why would it matter?
I would think if this issue were to be only discussed by non-hetero people it would have been solved decades...centuries ago.
It's a liberty you claim they shouldn't have. Are you speaking as an expert on gay and lesbian relationships?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,513
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,513 |
Quote:
Just asking?
Why is it gays and lesbians never identify themselves in these discussions?
Why would they need to?
<><
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Quote:
For the same reason you don't identify yourself as clueless.
Why would it matter?
I would think if this issue were to be only discussed by non-hetero people it would have been solved decades...centuries ago.
It's a liberty you claim they shouldn't have. Are you speaking as an expert on gay and lesbian relationships?
Don't get yourself in a tizzy ,I was just asking. Wouldn't they be proud? You seem to be making a lot of defensive assumptions that show a lack of maturity.
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
I seriously doubt there are many gay or lesbians who gain their pride from their sexual orientation. Just like as a straight man my sexual orientation plays no role in my pride.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Quote:
I seriously doubt there are many gay or lesbians who gain their pride from their sexual orientation. Just like as a straight man my sexual orientation plays no role in my pride.
gay pride
Noun
A sense of dignity and satisfaction in connection with the public acknowledgment of one's own homosexuality.
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
Wouldn't they be proud?
Proud of what?
Edited....I see. Do you assume every gay person feels the need to have "gay pride"? Does every straight person have "straight pride"?
I think you have those people on both sides. You have the gay people that put those stupid rainbow flags all over their cars. You have straight people that put those stupid stick families on their rear windows. Then you have the majority of people that just live their lives and mind their own business.
Last edited by DawgMichelle; 04/01/13 10:26 AM.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
For the same reason you don't identify yourself as clueless.
OK, while I don't really like personal attacks, I kind of found this hilarious.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
It is not now ; nor has it ever been , a good idea to ram your values , morals, beliefs , politics, religion down the throat of others ! .. I realize that it it is " in Vogue " to question or even make light of the Founding Fathers ; But they set this Country up a certain way for a reason ...
Why is it necessary for the Federal Govt. to have such sweeping powers ?? If you don't like the way folks live down in Alabama , move to Vermont ! If you think Gun control is the way your State should go , move to NY .. This my way or the highway by both the left and right is killing us ( the Nation )
I must be a Dinosaurs : I'm all about individual and if need be States Rights ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,523
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,523 |
".I see. Do you assume every gay person feels the need to have "gay pride"? Does every straight person have "straight pride"?"
At my age,when I get "straight" I'm proud as hell.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Just asking?
Why is it gays and lesbians never identify themselves in these discussions?
well, I'm straight and I identified myself as such right off the bat.
But I honestly don't see what difference it makes. Again, I still don't understand why we are even seeing this in the courts.
Do you dislike Gays and Lesbians? if so why? What business is it of yours who loves who? why do you or anyone else feel the need to stick their collective noses into their business.
Are you gonna respond or are you going to do what you've been doing since joining this board.. Make a comment then run and hide?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
or are you going to do what you've been doing since joining this board.. Make a comment then run and hide?
Looks to be so...
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,007
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,007 |
I saw a funny billboard in NYC once. It said if you dont believe in gay marriage dont get gay married 
Joe Thomas #73
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
No one is arguing about who gay people can, or cannot love. The question is about marriage, and all rights that accompany marriage.
I maintain that I see no reason why gay couples should not have the right to enter into a union with all of the rights of marriage, but that marriage itself should maintain its traditional meaning.
The sad thing is that I bet that this type of law could pass in almost every state. Religious people have watched marriage become far more temporary than they would like overall, and do not want the tradition of marriage to be further eroded by changing it to mean something that it has never meant before. I bet that a civil union law would pass in a great number of states almost immediately. Some states would be resistant because of their own traditional beliefs, but they are not going to pass anything anyway. Many states on the fence regarding gay marriage would probably support civil unions. I support civil unions, with all rights and responsibilities of marriage, but without an implied religious aspect that almost every church, and most church going people would find unacceptable.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
I'm still not sure why using a word hurts anyone else....a marriage of two people is just that, no matter what sexes are involved. It's a word. We all make our own definitions for it, it seems. Choose one and be happy with it in your own relationship and move on with life. As far as eroding the tradition of marriage.... How on EARTH would THAT happen?!
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Now Nittcreek you know me well enough to understand the "don't be so emotional!!!!" tact doesn't work with me.
It's a very rational and valid point.
Why does it matter?
If I don't own a gun am I not permitted speak up for gun rights? Are gun owners required to participate discussions about guns?
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The Supreme Court & Gay
Marriage
|
|
