Oh Lookie, Another Republican trying to Stop SCOTUS Decisions on Marriage.

[ringpriest]

I get that you think this, but it isn't true. The state's management of marriage is the only thing that makes marriage meaningful to society in general. Otherwise, it would be as culturally relevant as, say, a bar mitzvah. It would be a fun party with no greater social meaning outside your family.



It doesn't matter if a right is "constitutional" or not. See the 9th Amendment, which clearly states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". That there are rights in the Constitution does not mean that rights that aren't in the Constitution somehow aren't rights. As anyone who's taken a cursory glance at the Constitution should know.

As for the actual legal backing? Loving v. Virginia;

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

Marriage is a fundamental right, in the United States of America. Bringing up its lack of presence in the Constitution is itself an unconstitutional attack on the right to marry, due to the 9th Amendment.

These are facts. They aren't theory, or rhetoric. It's very clear, in the USA; marriage is a legal right. This has been codified under the law for decades.

Republicans treat the Constitution like they treat the Bible - as a source of pithy lines to support what they want to do anyway. Reading it, understanding it as a whole, or acknowledging part of it they don't like is anathema.

[Slybak]

I'm not sure who is worse; the person who seeks to restrict the right to something to just themselves, or the person who would give up their own rights because they don't want other people to have them as well. The first is merely arrogant entitlement. The second is pure spite.

[Orbitus]

The only reason the government recognizes marriage is purely because of taxes, legal inheritance, and handouts, welfare. If there were a flat tax. And, all legal b.s. could be handled through a written contract. I would be happy. The government shouldn't be involved at all in this mess.

Sorry but a flat tax wouldn't simply abolish all marriage laws. Flax tax is pants on head retarded anyway.

[Dolus]

Prove it IN COURT, without anecdotal evidence.

As in, build a solid case that two guys/girls got married to get a green card/etc.

Please.

Here are four right here.

http://www.uscis.gov/news/news-relea...aud-conspiracy

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry but a flat tax wouldn't simply abolish all marriage laws. Flax tax is pants on head retarded anyway.

Provide me a well articulated and thought out alternative that doesn't resemble the progressive tax paradigm.

[Lenonis]

Here are four right here.

Maybe I got lost in the argument but I'm not sure what this is supposed to be a point about?

Is the issue that people abuse things so no one can have them? That's sounds a lot like people who advocate removing welfare because a small amount abuse it. It just doesn't hold water. You deal with the abuses and leave the system for those who use it appropriately.

[ramayana1423]

The Republican Party is hilarious. I'm sure there are a lot of good, reasonable, rational Republicans out there, but the loudest, most outspoken members of the party are complete and utter insane people. The Republican Party will continue to flounder and be a laughing stock until those rational people take back control of their party's image.

[namelessone]

Federal government shouldn't mandate peoples religious beliefs, states should have the right to decide for themselves, you can always vote these people out of office in your state. This goes for other things besides marriage.

State government has no business mandating someone's religious beliefs either. No one should decide someone else's religious beliefs.

[Korlok]

You're now making arguments that have already been refuted up-thread. Repeatedly - I guess you're living up to your name. (And maybe hoping for a job on Faux News someday? )

I'm really starting to believe that, like Masark said, "get rid of all marriage rather than let 'the gays' have it" is going to be the Conservative fallback rallying cry for the next couple of election cycles. I've little doubt that it is a cynical ploy, but at the same time, I think it's illustrative - much like ISIS or any other pseudo-religious deluded fanatics throughout history, the zealots will destroy everything rather than share, or question their own blinkered pet version of reality.

An eye for an eye leaves the world blind, and all that? It is rather funny how easily humans can ignore something that goes against their beliefs, regardless of whom it may hurt or the consequences involved.

[Dolus]

There are two ways of looking at this from a religious perspective.

People that use their religion to ban it.
People that use their religion to support it.

The people that want to ban it, are not going to be required to marry anyone in their church, either way this goes.
The people that want to marry people of the same sex, are currently not allowed in some states, and would be allowed if the court rules in favor of marriage equality.

There are a few sects of Christianity and Judaism that support marriage equality. Right now, some state governments are denying their rights to legally perform these marriages, which is going against the religion.

Perhaps, a viable solution is a "civil union." A union given the same protections legally of traditional marriage. This should acquiesce both sides.

[Endus]

Perhaps, a viable solution is a "civil union." A union given the same protections legally of traditional marriage. This should acquiesce both sides.

No, that's a "separate but equal" piece of nonsense.

We have a word for those kinds of "civil unions". That word is "marriage". We don't need a second system, when marriage works just fine.

Those who disagree are free to not get gay married, and that is where their rights end.

[Dolus]

No, that's a "separate but equal" piece of nonsense.

We have a word for those kinds of "civil unions". That word is "marriage". We don't need a second system, when marriage works just fine.

Those who disagree are free to not get gay married, and that is where their rights end.

So, it's not about equality. Sounds like you're simply following Varnell's stance...

"...the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."



That will never happen. It could change the minds of a few already secular people... but that's about it. Christianity has taught that homosexuality has been an abomination since the beginning. As have other religions.

The Didache
"You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born" (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).

Clement of Alexandria
"All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians" (Exhortation to the Greeks 2 [A.D. 190]).

Tertullian
"[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities" (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"[T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle. . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon—oh shame!—and looked upon with pleasure. . . . Nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion" (Letters 1:8 [A.D. 253]).



Trying to force acceptance never works. This was even articulated by Supreme Court justices.

[Wells]

That will never happen.

Buddy, it is happening.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/resour...rriage-polling

Evangelical Millenials: Pollster and Former Romney Director of Data Science, Alex Lundry, found that 64% of self-identifying Evangelical millenials support same-sex marriage.

Catholics: A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted February 23-27, 2013 shows 62% of American Catholics are in favor of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples.

[Endus]

So, it's not about equality.

No. It is. Separate-but-equal isn't "equality", in the first place, which is why it's been rejected as an option.

Trying to force acceptance never works. This was even articulated by Supreme Court justices.

Citing ancient bigots really doesn't prove anything other than that ancient people were bigots. And plenty of ancient cultures had no issue with homosexuality, to boot. It's just a completely irrelevant statement to make.

You can't force a bigot to stop being a bigot. But you can normalize the stuff he's a bigot about, leading to a future where his kids no longer support his bigotry.

It's worked for women's rights, and minority rights, and there's no reason it won't work for gay rights. Doesn't mean there won't be bigots, but they'll be much fewer in number, and they'll have fewer and fewer means by which to act on their irrational hatreds.

[Adam Jensen]

So, it's not about equality.

How is granting equal rights not equality? I mean, suppose all states make gay marriage legal. How is there still inequality in marriage between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage?

[Elegiac]

How is granting equal rights not equality? I mean, suppose all states make gay marriage legal. How is there still inequality in marriage between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage?

Freedom is slavery.

[Edorien]

Actually no. None of that is true. None of the laws or constitution are based on Christian laws. Otherwise we would allow slavery again, rape, torture, genocide, murder, stoning, infanticide, etc. So yeah no. No law is made based on the bible because that is in direct violation of the first amendment. We are a SECULAR nation, not a Christian nation.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/...sed-bible.html
http://www.jdnews.com/opinion/letter...bible-1.155707

It's worse that that. Not only the US laws aren't based on the Bible, but the first of the 10 commandments is actually in total contradiction with the First Amendment of the Constitution. "You shall have no other god before me" directly opposes freedom of religion.