DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Supreme Court: Alabama must allow same-sex marriages, Alabama counties refuse

Perhaps he didn't like having to govern with an illegal decree on the books that is against Kansas Law, so he fixed it and now the Legislature can do as they please.

Republicans don't play around.

[quote]Republicans don't play around.

[quote=PDR]

Nothing says 'we don't play around' like a group led by an orange man who cries if the wind blows the wrong way. [/quote

Oompa Loompa Doo Pa Dee Doo! I've got another puzzle for you!

What do you get when you follow a man, with an exaggerated spra-a-ay tan?

That's all I got, but I thought that was funny!

I laughed audibly.

Hey Anarchy...


Source

Yup...not like civil rights or anything...

How exactly am I confusing you comparing homosexuality to statutory rape?

In one instance, the harm is evident. In the other, the harm is not.

States don't get to do whatever they want. The feds have and will reign them in on civil rights issues.

That's quite obvious for anyone not being obtuse and staying within the context of the subject.

Civil rights laws were passed that make discrimination illegal. What the courts must now decide is whether they view laws against gay marriage discriminatory.

Now my intent is not to pick a side as to what their findings will be. I'm just stating what the issue will boil down to and what it is actually about from the legal perspective. And to this point, courts have sided that it is discrimination.

Now you can take issue with that if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the way the legal system and courts are viewing this issue in their decisions.

I don't make the news, I just report it.

There is a dichotomy between homosexuals and what a state views as consenting adults. You simplified the issue to fit into your rhetoric.

Brownback said Sebelius — a Democrat who went on to serve as President Barack Obama's health secretary — acted "unilaterally" with her order and that any such changes should be made by the state Legislature.

State Rep. Steve Brunk, a Wichita Republican, said Brownback simply "realigned" state government's policies with Kansas law.

abcnews.go.com › Politics

Apparently the New Republican Leadership, as promised, will undo illegal Decrees by those who thought they ruled, thus putting things back where they were, under the law. Now it is up to the States Legislature to make laws again, as it should be.

I believe in laws that protect people against prejudice. Whether that be racial or sexual in nature.

Now I don't really debate some of the things you stated. However, it appears this politician said "Hey, I don't like executive orders, so I'm going to use an executive order."

To me that's very much the pot calling the kettle black to me. Surely if he believes this should be a legislative decision, the current law that was originally an executive order could have been brought up in the state legislature to either be voted out or re-structured without using an executive order.

I believe it just brings into question why he felt that using a tool he claimed not to like in the first place, shows any sincerity on his part.

Well, look who finally got up.

Dixiecrats are not left by any means...

Because 'age of consent' has everything to do with consenting to marry. I'm sorry, you're either ignorant or dishonest. I actually think that you're both.

It has NOTHING to do with civil rights and NEVER has. Marriage isn't a civil right.

Do you even know who Orval Faubus is? Obviously not.

And I don't think that anyone should be treated as second class either. However, some interpret that to mean changing the meaning of words that definitely have a long history and making them mean something completely different than they ever have before. (obviously, until quite recently) That I do object to.

Marriage isn't a civil right. Oops, there goes your argument.

Wasn't he a southern democratic governor?

Could explain the difference without stating that you think I'm stupid?

The meaning of the word doesn't change. Think about it.

So, what exactly did Jesus say about marriage? Have a real definition for me?

Is all this defined by the law of the land or Sharia Law when there is a conflict? We will be visiting the question soon here in the U.S.

Religious institutions should never be required to allow gay marriage. Government should never be allowed to deny it.

The day that government got involved in marriages, and gave benefits for being married, is the day that all people should have gained the right to marry whomever they choose as long as both parties are of legal age and agree to the marriage.

The religious meaning of the word has zero bearing on the government meaning of the word. They are separate things entirely.

Should straight people only be allowed to marry in a church? Because thousands get married every year in courthouses all over the country. Their marriages have zero influence from the church. Are they any less married?

The day that government got involved in marriages, and gave benefits for being married, is the day that all people should have gained the right to marry whomever they choose as long as both parties are of legal age and agree to the marriage.


Is all this defined by the law of the land or Sharia Law when there is a conflict? We will be visiting the question soon here in the U.S.

The day that government got involved in marriages, and gave benefits for being married, is the day that all people should have gained the right to marry whomever they choose as long as both parties are of legal age and agree to the marriage.


Is all this defined by the law of the land or Sharia Law when there is a conflict? We will be visiting the question soon here in the U.S.

Sharia law will not be in the US any time soon. 1st of all, you would need a Muslim majority. Next you would need the constitutional super-majorities necessary to to override the constitution. (or a military conquest) Neither of these is very likely any time soon.

In 2006, 4% of the population claims an "Other" as to their religious affiliation, these being identified as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. We are a long, long, long was from having a Muslim majority (or super-majority) in this country.

As for how Islam deals with the subject of gay marriage ..... in the vast majority of Islamic countries, they don't have to, because gay people are put to death just for saying that they are gay. If you had to assign a word as to their actions towards gay people, I guess "brutal" would begin to cover it.

Many countries throughout the world openly and plainly discriminate horribly against gay people. Prison is one of the more pleasant penalties available for gay people in some of these countries. I seem to recall the US recently putting pressure on Iran(?) who was going to behead a gay person for the crime of being gay. Russia and India are also countries that are rather brutal when it comes to gay people. IIRC, a gay person is still barred from public office in India. Most of the Islamic countries are no more lenient regarding gay people. Afghanistan has the death penalty for being gay ...... yet somehow allows men to have sex with young boys. I don't quite understand that one.

Anyway, as I have continually said, I do not see gay sex as any worse a sin than any other sin. The Bible does say that it is a sin though. It does not warrant any special prohibitions, but it is a sin, and as such, should not be promoted legally, just as other sins should not be promoted legally. We have excused almost every form of sexual sin imaginable in this country. Now, I believe that 2 people should be able to do as they see fit, but that does not mean that I think that we should change the meaning of marriage. I do admit that marriage already has enough problems, and that the institution is nothing like it once was, when people actually married for life, and divorce was a very rare occurrence. However, I do not believe that we should continue to "pile on" by opening up marriage to meanings it never carried before. I believe that marriage has a religious meaning, and even though that meaning has been trampled on by rampant divorce, I do not think that this is a failing of the institution itself.

Anyway, that is my feelings on the matter. I realize that many will disagree. I will say that I have not arrived at this conclusion in a haphazard, nor a rushed and careless, or hateful manner. I have, over the years, tried to carefully consider all sides, and this is what I feel is correct and proper. In the end, this is what we all do, decide what form we feel laws should take based upon what we each feel is correct and proper.

Religious institutions should never be required to allow gay marriage. Government should never be allowed to deny it.

The day that government got involved in marriages, and gave benefits for being married, is the day that all people should have gained the right to marry whomever they choose as long as both parties are of legal age and agree to the marriage.

The religious meaning of the word has zero bearing on the government meaning of the word. They are separate things entirely.

Should straight people only be allowed to marry in a church? Because thousands get married every year in courthouses all over the country. Their marriages have zero influence from the church. Are they any less married?