Post Reply
Page 1 of 70  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 70 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Federal court rules centerpiece of gay marriage law unconstitutional
2 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2012 - 11:54AM #1
Druac
Posts: 11,554
www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/fede...


A federal appeals court ruled Thursday against a central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, a groundbreaking decision that tees up a potential battle before the Supreme Court. 







The unanimous decision once again brings the issue of gay marriage to the fore of the nation's political debate. It comes just a few weeks after President Obama announced his support for gay marriage -- in the wake of that announcement, some gay advocacy groups have stepped up pressure on Washington to fight DOMA. 




Jesus Is My Savior...He Saves Me From REALITY!
---------------------------------------------
We created god in our own image and likeness!
[George Carlin]
---------------------------------------------
"Reason & Logic" - A Damn Good Slogan!
---------------------------------------------
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, an American physicist
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2012 - 11:58AM #2
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Interesting article, even if I don't agree with most of it, from the standpoint of rights. One is given the privilege of marriage, it isn't a right.


Anyway, despite the tone of the article, gay marriage will have zero effect on this election. With the dismal job numbers of today, Obama will undoubtedly welcome any distraction from the really poor economy we have now, so they will play things up like this, but this isn't going to mean much come November.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2012 - 1:42PM #3
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,655

Jun 1, 2012 -- 11:58AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Interesting article, even if I don't agree with most of it, from the standpoint of rights. One is given the privilege of marriage, it isn't a right.





The Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you, and has, on 14 separate occasions, declared that marriage IS a "basic civil right".


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2012 - 2:50PM #4
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,589

Jun 1, 2012 -- 1:42PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


Jun 1, 2012 -- 11:58AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Interesting article, even if I don't agree with most of it, from the standpoint of rights. One is given the privilege of marriage, it isn't a right.





The Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you, and has, on 14 separate occasions, declared that marriage IS a "basic civil right".


 




Loving v. Virginia, 1967:


"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."


My suspicion is that anti-gay Wingoism is going the way of Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the subject of Loving

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2012 - 2:53PM #5
Druac
Posts: 11,554

Jun 1, 2012 -- 11:58AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Interesting article, even if I don't agree with most of it, from the standpoint of rights. One is given the privilege of marriage, it isn't a right.


Anyway, despite the tone of the article, gay marriage will have zero effect on this election. With the dismal job numbers of today, Obama will undoubtedly welcome any distraction from the really poor economy we have now, so they will play things up like this, but this isn't going to mean much come November.




You have the right to the privileges...whereas they don't because they are being discriminated against for NO GOOD reason. Call it what you will...it still boils down to that reality.


No doubt on the distraction...I would if I were him.


Of course, until we all start over consuming again (demand rises), jobs are going to be very slow at coming back and probably never will be where they were before this. Common sense tells those of us who don't jump on the partisan band-wagon that this is the reality in terms of jobs in America...our consumption levels were really never sustainable...particularly win you factor in the fact that our economy is based on CONSTANT growth...lame really, that anyone would expect that to last forever or even would want that to be the norm again. We realy need to be going in the opposite direction.



"It was really shockingly low," said Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist for the National Federation of Independent Business, who said small businesses have pulled back from hiring because they aren't getting more customers.




 


money.cnn.com/2012/06/01/news/economy/ma...

Jesus Is My Savior...He Saves Me From REALITY!
---------------------------------------------
We created god in our own image and likeness!
[George Carlin]
---------------------------------------------
"Reason & Logic" - A Damn Good Slogan!
---------------------------------------------
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, an American physicist
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2012 - 6:41PM #6
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Jun 1, 2012 -- 2:53PM, Druac wrote:


Jun 1, 2012 -- 11:58AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Interesting article, even if I don't agree with most of it, from the standpoint of rights. One is given the privilege of marriage, it isn't a right.


Anyway, despite the tone of the article, gay marriage will have zero effect on this election. With the dismal job numbers of today, Obama will undoubtedly welcome any distraction from the really poor economy we have now, so they will play things up like this, but this isn't going to mean much come November.




You have the right to the privileges...whereas they don't because they are being discriminated against for NO GOOD reason. Call it what you will...it still boils down to that reality.


No doubt on the distraction...I would if I were him.


Of course, until we all start over consuming again (demand rises), jobs are going to be very slow at coming back and probably never will be where they were before this. Common sense tells those of us who don't jump on the partisan band-wagon that this is the reality in terms of jobs in America...our consumption levels were really never sustainable...particularly win you factor in the fact that our economy is based on CONSTANT growth...lame really, that anyone would expect that to last forever or even would want that to be the norm again. We realy need to be going in the opposite direction.



"It was really shockingly low," said Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist for the National Federation of Independent Business, who said small businesses have pulled back from hiring because they aren't getting more customers.




 


money.cnn.com/2012/06/01/news/economy/ma...




Others have pointed out that I am wrong about the right, so I will cede the point, though it is hard to come up with this right, when making a comparison between interracial and same sex marriage.


Regardless, there are very good reasons for denying such marriages. The biggest is that it fundamentally changes the meaning of marriage, the single greatest anti poverty and child rearing arraingment in history. On a personal note, it also is one of the long line of anti male devices that the left throws our way. Certainly dual male couples would be allowed, but the primary ideal falls under the auspice of Maureen Dowd, who has flat out stated that we don't need males.


On consumption, you have missed the point. Consumption need not happen here in the US. Since WWII, we have been the worlds buyer of last resort. That sort of thing is needed. However, it is time to let another nation, such as China become that, IMO. If that happens, the US trade deficit becomes a surplus, and jobs are created here, along with the usual wage pressures of a low unemployment rate.


If one looks at Western Europe, we see something analogous to what you want, but they have chosen a slow decline, as long as their children aren't too much worse off than they are, they are ok with it. One of many reasons I don't want the US to be like them. What you argue for is the destruction of wages, worldwide mass starvation and deprevation, and a life even in nations like the US of a substantially worse world for our children than ourselves. Not too many would agree with you in this regard on either side of the aisle.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2012 - 6:57PM #7
Druac
Posts: 11,554

Jun 1, 2012 -- 6:41PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Jun 1, 2012 -- 2:53PM, Druac wrote:


Jun 1, 2012 -- 11:58AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Interesting article, even if I don't agree with most of it, from the standpoint of rights. One is given the privilege of marriage, it isn't a right.


Anyway, despite the tone of the article, gay marriage will have zero effect on this election. With the dismal job numbers of today, Obama will undoubtedly welcome any distraction from the really poor economy we have now, so they will play things up like this, but this isn't going to mean much come November.




You have the right to the privileges...whereas they don't because they are being discriminated against for NO GOOD reason. Call it what you will...it still boils down to that reality.


No doubt on the distraction...I would if I were him.


Of course, until we all start over consuming again (demand rises), jobs are going to be very slow at coming back and probably never will be where they were before this. Common sense tells those of us who don't jump on the partisan band-wagon that this is the reality in terms of jobs in America...our consumption levels were really never sustainable...particularly win you factor in the fact that our economy is based on CONSTANT growth...lame really, that anyone would expect that to last forever or even would want that to be the norm again. We realy need to be going in the opposite direction.



"It was really shockingly low," said Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist for the National Federation of Independent Business, who said small businesses have pulled back from hiring because they aren't getting more customers.




 


money.cnn.com/2012/06/01/news/economy/ma...




Others have pointed out that I am wrong about the right, so I will cede the point, though it is hard to come up with this right, when making a comparison between interracial and same sex marriage.


Regardless, there are very good reasons for denying such marriages. The biggest is that it fundamentally changes the meaning of marriage, the single greatest anti poverty and child rearing arraingment in history. On a personal note, it also is one of the long line of anti male devices that the left throws our way. Certainly dual male couples would be allowed, but the primary ideal falls under the auspice of Maureen Dowd, who has flat out stated that we don't need males.


On consumption, you have missed the point. Consumption need not happen here in the US. Since WWII, we have been the worlds buyer of last resort. That sort of thing is needed. However, it is time to let another nation, such as China become that, IMO. If that happens, the US trade deficit becomes a surplus, and jobs are created here, along with the usual wage pressures of a low unemployment rate.


If one looks at Western Europe, we see something analogous to what you want, but they have chosen a slow decline, as long as their children aren't too much worse off than they are, they are ok with it. One of many reasons I don't want the US to be like them. What you argue for is the destruction of wages, worldwide mass starvation and deprevation, and a life even in nations like the US of a substantially worse world for our children than ourselves. Not too many would agree with you in this regard on either side of the aisle.




NO...it DOES NOT change the "meaning of marriage". It can mean anything you want it to mean...even RIGHT NOW. It may change YOUR definition of marriage and what you want it to mean, but it won't change YOUR marriage and what it means and will not change it for anyone else.


My marriage is as legal as yours, and my marriage means something way different than it means to most Christians...as it has NOTHING to do with a god or even procreation, but EVERYTHING to do with the love between two individuals…we just happen to be of the opposite sex.


ROFL...now it has morphed into a war on men!?!?!? WTF?


Even China's economy is slowing down....guess why...because WE are not over consuming like we did before. :)


The fact that not too many would agree with me actually bolsters my conviction in this sense...most people like to ignore reality.



Jesus Is My Savior...He Saves Me From REALITY!
---------------------------------------------
We created god in our own image and likeness!
[George Carlin]
---------------------------------------------
"Reason & Logic" - A Damn Good Slogan!
---------------------------------------------
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, an American physicist
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2012 - 7:10PM #8
TENAC
Posts: 25,663

Jun 1, 2012 -- 6:57PM, Druac wrote:


Jun 1, 2012 -- 6:41PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Jun 1, 2012 -- 2:53PM, Druac wrote:


Jun 1, 2012 -- 11:58AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Interesting article, even if I don't agree with most of it, from the standpoint of rights. One is given the privilege of marriage, it isn't a right.


Anyway, despite the tone of the article, gay marriage will have zero effect on this election. With the dismal job numbers of today, Obama will undoubtedly welcome any distraction from the really poor economy we have now, so they will play things up like this, but this isn't going to mean much come November.




You have the right to the privileges...whereas they don't because they are being discriminated against for NO GOOD reason. Call it what you will...it still boils down to that reality.


No doubt on the distraction...I would if I were him.


Of course, until we all start over consuming again (demand rises), jobs are going to be very slow at coming back and probably never will be where they were before this. Common sense tells those of us who don't jump on the partisan band-wagon that this is the reality in terms of jobs in America...our consumption levels were really never sustainable...particularly win you factor in the fact that our economy is based on CONSTANT growth...lame really, that anyone would expect that to last forever or even would want that to be the norm again. We realy need to be going in the opposite direction.



"It was really shockingly low," said Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist for the National Federation of Independent Business, who said small businesses have pulled back from hiring because they aren't getting more customers.




 


money.cnn.com/2012/06/01/news/economy/ma...




Others have pointed out that I am wrong about the right, so I will cede the point, though it is hard to come up with this right, when making a comparison between interracial and same sex marriage.


Regardless, there are very good reasons for denying such marriages. The biggest is that it fundamentally changes the meaning of marriage, the single greatest anti poverty and child rearing arraingment in history. On a personal note, it also is one of the long line of anti male devices that the left throws our way. Certainly dual male couples would be allowed, but the primary ideal falls under the auspice of Maureen Dowd, who has flat out stated that we don't need males.


On consumption, you have missed the point. Consumption need not happen here in the US. Since WWII, we have been the worlds buyer of last resort. That sort of thing is needed. However, it is time to let another nation, such as China become that, IMO. If that happens, the US trade deficit becomes a surplus, and jobs are created here, along with the usual wage pressures of a low unemployment rate.


If one looks at Western Europe, we see something analogous to what you want, but they have chosen a slow decline, as long as their children aren't too much worse off than they are, they are ok with it. One of many reasons I don't want the US to be like them. What you argue for is the destruction of wages, worldwide mass starvation and deprevation, and a life even in nations like the US of a substantially worse world for our children than ourselves. Not too many would agree with you in this regard on either side of the aisle.




NO...it DOES NOT change the "meaning of marriage". It can mean anything you want it to mean...even RIGHT NOW. It may change YOUR definition of marriage and what you want it to mean, but it won't change YOUR marriage and what it means and will not change it for anyone else.


My marriage is as legal as yours, and my marriage means something way different than it means to most Christians...as it has NOTHING to do with a god or even procreation, but EVERYTHING to do with the love between two individuals…we just happen to be of the opposite sex.


ROFL...now it has morphed into a war on men!?!?!? WTF?


Even China's economy is slowing down....guess why...because WE are not over consuming like we did before. :)


The fact that not too many would agree with me actually bolsters my conviction in this sense...most people like to ignore reality.







NO...it DOES NOT change the "meaning of marriage". It can mean anything you want it to mean..



lololol....just look at your statement!  It has no meaning and at the same time it means anything you want it to mean!?


Since when?



I love it when the left begins to lose it.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2012 - 7:30PM #9
arielg
Posts: 9,116

NO...it DOES NOT change the "meaning of marriage". It can mean anything you want it to mean...even RIGHT NOW. It may change YOUR definition of marriage and what you want it to mean, but it won't change YOUR marriage and what it means and will not change it for anyone else.



Everybody know what marriage means and has always meant.  That is why it takes so much  effort and mental gymnastics  to try to change the meaning. All arguments  based mainly on the notion that everybody is entitled to everything. Not exactly what equality means.


Lawyers love it.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2012 - 8:04PM #10
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,149

For forty years I have been using words in writing reading, talking,etc. And a made words a primary and major tool in my profession. I have studied word used in writing, reading, an oral communication. I have learned to pay attention to ways a person uses a word or does not use a word of certain. I use words in writing, reading, an oral communication. I have studied word origins and word meanings. I have studied word changes, nuances, and changing meanings and the implication of how several meaning of words are used.


I have learned how to listen to what people say and do not say and what they want to say.


Often what we do not say or write or how we do not , expresses our thinking better than what we say or write


Changing the traditional meaning of marriage: Which tradition?, How old of a tradition? Is a cultural adaptation a change? If it is, is it detrimental to the culture?


Did polygamy ruin marriage? Did abandonment of polygamy ruin the meaning of marriage? Did allowing interracial marriage damage it?


Is a fear of demeaning marriage the issue or is it something else?


Marriage between cultures bring more acceptance and nonsustaining of cultural differences.


Marital mixing of races, religions, cultures , brings about acceptance of the differences.   

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 70  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 70 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook