Should The Federal Government Recognize Same SEX Marriages? [Archive]

Byron

03-26-2013, 06:07 PM

Man, Acca...you're going BIG lately! Threading up the HEAVY stuff!

So here's the deal...hopefully most (around here at least) are paying attention to the nuts and bolts of this thing.

Bottom line: The people of California voted to not allow gays to be married. A judge from the 9th district appeals court overruled the vote...so the voters did it AGAIN, except this time they made an AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION forbidding gay marriage. In other words, "Do you hear us now, Mr. Judge?"

Turns out the judge responsible for all this came out of the closet and wants to marry his boyfriend.

This Supreme Court decision is a big deal...really big. If they go along with striking down Prop. 8, then law can be dictated by philosopher king judges...usurping the will of the people. That is NOT COOL!

Personally, I'm ambivalent in regards to this...I think the gay community and their supporters should keep trying, again and again if necessary, to convince a majority of the voters in their respective states to go along with their program. If you listen to the talking heads and pundits in the media, it's only a matter of time anyway.

DON'T SCREW WITH THE SYSTEM! Do it just like we did with marijuana here in Colorado...A MAJORITY VOTE, NOT SOME DICTATE BY SOME JUDGE.

If the SCOTUS goes along with this, then we will be seeing our Constitution being shredded before our very eyes. That's it...the meat and potatoes of this whole thing.

accadacca

03-26-2013, 06:42 PM

Man, Acca...you're going BIG lately! Threading up the HEAVY stuff!
:amazon:

The minions seem to be in full affect on this one...

http://www.awn.com/files/imagepicker/5086/Minions.jpg

Scott P

03-26-2013, 07:37 PM

Accadacca, do you own one of these shirts by chance?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Nv13pWzimEc/TmENBM0YQzI/AAAAAAAADgM/13u3E59Na-Y/s1600/i_live_to_stir_the_pot_tshirt-p235758243249441515t5tr_400.jpg

accadacca

03-26-2013, 07:47 PM

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001799903/413245165_Beavis_fire_answer_1_xlarge.gif

Sombeech

03-26-2013, 08:40 PM

64730

Mtnseeker1

03-26-2013, 10:50 PM

They should seems they are all F a g g words

But if I was married at least in my own head Why should I not have the same tax breaks as those that are married to the op sex?
I'm not sure how the courts will see this in the future Say two girls / guys break up and should be allowed to split this or that or say?

As a straight I guess I just don't understand the old ways. They are people too. And I for one have a daughter that this affects.

DOSS

03-27-2013, 05:02 AM

DON'T SCREW WITH THE SYSTEM! Do it just like we did with marijuana here in Colorado...A MAJORITY VOTE, NOT SOME DICTATE BY SOME JUDGE.

If the SCOTUS goes along with this, then we will be seeing our Constitution being shredded before our very eyes. That's it...the meat and potatoes of this whole thing.

But this is the system, the courts are there especially the supreme court to make sure that laws that are passed meet the expectations of the constitution. Just because the majority of people in the 1960's thought lynching blacks was ok doesn't mean that it was a good thing (glad the courts ignored the majority there).

I love that more people get all up in arms about the constitution being shredded by potential gay marriage rulings than our government stating that they can use drones to kill an american citizen without a trial... People really have their priorities a little goofy me thinks.

03-27-2013, 05:21 AM

Why should I not have the same tax breaks as those that are married to the op sex?
That's what civil unions are for.

People really have their priorities a little goofy me thinks.
:nod:

Deathcricket

03-27-2013, 09:38 AM

But this is the system, the courts are there especially the supreme court to make sure that laws that are passed meet the expectations of the constitution. Just because the majority of people in the 1960's thought lynching blacks was ok doesn't mean that it was a good thing (glad the courts ignored the majority there).

I love that more people get all up in arms about the constitution being shredded by potential gay marriage rulings than our government stating that they can use drones to kill an american citizen without a trial... People really have their priorities a little goofy me thinks.

x2 beat me to it, lol. My facebook feed is filled with people raging about this, it's like some huge distraction or something.

Plus I'm more excited for MJ to be legal than gay buttsecs. I've tried both and MJ is much more enjoyable although I wouldn't turn either down. :2thumbs:

Sombeech

03-27-2013, 10:46 AM

You couldn't turn me down if you tried.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Sombeech

03-27-2013, 12:10 PM

Hey can somebody remind me what SCOTUS is?

No I shan't google it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Deathcricket

03-27-2013, 12:19 PM

Hey can somebody remind me what SCOTUS is?

No I shan't google it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Supreme Court of US

accadacca

03-27-2013, 01:59 PM

:roflol:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/600378_10151332997570785_921923800_n.jpg

Brian in SLC

03-27-2013, 02:28 PM

Bottom line: The people of California voted to not allow gays to be married. A judge from the 9th district appeals court overruled the vote...so the voters did it AGAIN, except this time they made an AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION forbidding gay marriage. In other words, "Do you hear us now, Mr. Judge?"

Turns out the judge responsible for all this came out of the closet and wants to marry his boyfriend.

This Supreme Court decision is a big deal...really big. If they go along with striking down Prop. 8, then law can be dictated by philosopher king judges...usurping the will of the people. That is NOT COOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banni ng_same-sex_unions_by_type

But, was ok when SCOTUS ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment, eh?

Ha ha.

There's will of the people, like, some folks thinkin' its ok to own slaves. Then there's that constitution.

Peoples' constitutional rights trump the will of some people? Majority rules only apply when folks' rights aren't being trampled on, I suppose.

Will be interesting to watch.

03-27-2013, 02:31 PM

the government should recognize same sex marriages.
They already do, in DOMA :haha: Tweak DOMA, allow civil unions and be done with it.

Byron

03-27-2013, 06:17 PM

Just because the majority of people in the 1960's thought lynching blacks was ok doesn't mean that it was a good thing (glad the courts ignored the majority there).

That's funny...I was unaware that a MAJORITY OF PEOPLE living in the 1960s were down with lynching blacks. In FACT...no offense Doss, that statement is retarded.

Didn't we drive this whole civil rights/the gay thing is equitable to the black thing straight into the ground in another gay thread a few weeks ago? For people like you, this seems to be point #1 on this thing...

Tell ya what, Doss. I challenge you go find pictures of gay men and/or women with snapped necks swinging from trees, or having dogs set upon them, or being beaten by cops with batons, or being blasted with fire hoses, or businesses having signs saying "NO GAYS ALLOWED", or "GAY ENTRANCE ONLY". Go ahead, Doss...set me straight.

I suppose activist judges turning the will of the people on it's head doesn't bother you either, eh? I wonder how you'll take it when you, and a majority of people in your state vote on a ballot issue, it wins and then some judge shuts it down. You want to have your cake and eat it too, at least in this regard...until the day comes that you have to choke down a wad of crow. Be careful what you wish for.

I'm not concerned too much with the DOMA...I'm focused entirely on the California debacle...that's the important one. I'm presuming that you are familiar with Prop 8...but with statements like the one you posted, I'm thinking you might want to dig a little deeper. Again, not trying to hurt your feelings here, pal.

Kiss, kiss...

Brian in SLC

03-27-2013, 06:40 PM

Tell ya what, Doss. I challenge you go find pictures of gay men and/or women with snapped necks swinging from trees, or having dogs set upon them, or being beaten by cops with batons, or being blasted with fire hoses, or businesses having signs saying "NO GAYS ALLOWED", or "GAY ENTRANCE ONLY". Go ahead, Doss...set me straight.

64769

64772

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/salt-lake-city-ut

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-12-5676-crime-and-prejudice.html

Sombeech

03-27-2013, 07:11 PM

That's funny...I was unaware that a MAJORITY OF PEOPLE living in the 1960s were down with lynching blacks. In FACT...no offense Doss, that statement is retarded.

Mainly just the democrats lol

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Byron

03-27-2013, 07:47 PM

Sorry Brian...I'm unconvinced. Pretty weak, actually.

It's a bummer that those guys got beat up, but people get beat up everyday for all kinds of reasons. A couple years ago, while waiting for the light at an intersection, the car next to me bumped the car in front of him. The guy that got bumped got out and started pounding on the guy that hit him...no damage to the cars, as he barley tapped him. The guy was in a real bad mood, I guess. These were two white guys.

An entire race of people being segregated is one thing, gays being all bent because they can't get what they want "right now" is another.

Like I said, show me the lynchings, no admittance signs and thrashing dogs...otherwise they can take their "bypass the will of the majority" and shove it...pun intended.

In answer to the OP's question..."Should the Federal Government recognize same sex marriage?" The answer is NO...let the states decide. Specifically, the voters. Even the great Barrackus Obammus said so. Suck on that.:haha:

Brian in SLC

03-27-2013, 08:21 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQGMTPab9GQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQttSCKC7Fs

Try this one at the one minute mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPWCDF55CVM

Byron

03-27-2013, 09:49 PM

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/obama-endorses-marriage-equality-federalism

Just like any other slimy politician, the guy talks out both sides of his mouth. So one must wonder, where does he fall on this thing, exactly?

Brian in SLC

03-27-2013, 10:03 PM

Its evolution, baby...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/timeline-gay-marriage-support-mainstream

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrp3wihDrXQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uPmRpX3KME

hank moon

03-27-2013, 10:24 PM

Like I said, show me the lynchings, no admittance signs and thrashing dogs...otherwise they can take their "bypass the will of the majority" and shove it...pun intended.

Today's lynchings don't necessarily involve trees and ropes (or groups of people) but they are no less fatal. Lots of suicides out there. A few highly publicized straight-up murders (e.g. Matthew Shepard). What you call "real" lynchings are no longer common b/c law enforcement is a little more law-focused and transparent these days. Lynchings of the past were technically illegal, but rarely, if ever, prosecuted. So today's killing is a little more personal. So what? People are still dying b/c of who they are.

I don't see any bypassing the will of the majority here. Not sure where that's coming from. Current polls indicate unprecedented levels of support for same-sex marriage.

03-28-2013, 04:10 AM

So, suicides will drop with gays if they're allowed to marry? The f%^$ it will. Something tells me it's more of an internal struggle than that of being married. Again, civil unions will work just fine, no need for changing the definition over the past 2000 years.

Kent K25

03-28-2013, 09:24 AM

DOSS

03-28-2013, 11:09 AM

The main thing I've heard from supporters is that the government shouldn't be allowed to stop 2 consenting adults from getting married regardless of sex, etc...

Well what about 5 consenting adults? We shouldn't stop the polygamists then.

What if the 2 consenting adults are father and son? Cousins? Mother and daughter, etc...

If we're going to allow consenting adults to get married who are we to say which ones can and can't? Wouldn't that be the same "discrimination" taking place against gays right now?

Where do we draw the line on marriage? Because from what I hear from supporters, we shouldn't be drawing the line at all. If they don't approve of any of the above marriages, wouldn't that be hypocritical?

What about banning all marriage across the board making marriage actually illegal and unrecognized for all people.. and instead just have legal contracts for things like care if you become an invalid, money sharing etc.. skip the whole marriage thing all together, no tax breaks for marriage or children and if 5 consenting adults wanted to have a legal contract regarding who took care of who in their old age and how money was to be split so be it.. if a mother and daughter wanna have some kind of legal contract regarding money and care etc, let them.. Marriage does not = sex it is a legal contract and is also used as a religious affirmation.. lets get the government totally out of the marriage business and just let existing contract law do the job instead.

Mooseman70

03-28-2013, 12:49 PM

DOSS

03-28-2013, 02:07 PM

Marriage is not a civil right. Marriage is a religious civil liberty, but not a right granted by government. Marriage should never have become regulated by the government to begin with, and they most certainly should not have any expanded reach in additional regulation now. There is no Constitutional allowance that invites the U.S. government to define a religious covenant of marriage.

you are right, but religions do not have a monopoly on marriage.. Unions between two people have been happening since long before any of the monotheistic religions began using them.. this isn't about changing the religious covenant.. this is about the government recognizing and providing the same civil liberties for contractual unions (that have up until now been called marriages in the US only for conveniance but not as a implication that the government was involved in religion).

Byron

03-28-2013, 08:11 PM

http://www.trbimg.com/img/turbine/la-ol-gay-marriage-scotus-battle-of-the-signs--007/102/102x102

Mooseman70

03-29-2013, 02:48 PM

you are right, but religions do not have a monopoly on marriage.. Unions between two people have been happening since long before any of the monotheistic religions began using them.. this isn't about changing the religious covenant.. this is about the government recognizing and providing the same civil liberties for contractual unions (that have up until now been called marriages in the US only for conveniance but not as a implication that the government was involved in religion).

This whole issue isn’t about gay rights. Those on the left don’t give a crap about gay rights. If you recall, it was the left that instituted "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" and it was a group of Republicans that helped lead the charge to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Those on the left haven’t done much, if anything, for gays but to offer that community lip service and lack of action. Leftist groups may say they are fighting for marriage "equality”, the LMAObama administration makes marriage an economic hit, but with crappy policies. Ever heard of bait and switch? The left doesn't care about gay rights, but they will surely pretend to if they can use that as a wedge to pry citizens from religious influence and churches. Why do you think that is? Maybe it's because it is a lot easier to convince the citizens in this day and age that their civil liberties fall under the control of man or government if religion is portrayed as anachronistic. That is the goal, period. Once the government controls your rights, then your existence as an individual is pretty much done and over with, and your new life as a statist serf can then begin. Marriage "equality” isn'ta right-wing/conservative value or tactic. Anything where the solution is an open door invitation for the government to intervene in our lives should be looked at with extreme caution.

Deuce

03-29-2013, 05:41 PM

That's funny...I was unaware that a MAJORITY OF PEOPLE living in the 1960s were down with lynching blacks. In FACT...no offense Doss, that statement is retarded.

Didn't we drive this whole civil rights/the gay thing is equitable to the black thing straight into the ground in another gay thread a few weeks ago? For people like you, this seems to be point #1 on this thing...

Tell ya what, Doss. I challenge you go find pictures of gay men and/or women with snapped necks swinging from trees, or having dogs set upon them, or being beaten by cops with batons, or being blasted with fire hoses, or businesses having signs saying "NO GAYS ALLOWED", or "GAY ENTRANCE ONLY". Go ahead, Doss...set me straight.

I suppose activist judges turning the will of the people on it's head doesn't bother you either, eh? I wonder how you'll take it when you, and a majority of people in your state vote on a ballot issue, it wins and then some judge shuts it down. You want to have your cake and eat it too, at least in this regard...until the day comes that you have to choke down a wad of crow. Be careful what you wish for.

I'm not concerned too much with the DOMA...I'm focused entirely on the California debacle...that's the important one. I'm presuming that you are familiar with Prop 8...but with statements like the one you posted, I'm thinking you might want to dig a little deeper. Again, not trying to hurt your feelings here, pal.

Kiss, kiss...

So what about just attending the same University....

Deuce

03-29-2013, 05:48 PM

IMO, government should get out of the marriage business. It is a religious thing.... Government only recognizes civil unions for consenting adults.....everyone(gay, straight, whatever) gets the same benefits afforded such a union.

hank moon

04-04-2013, 10:50 AM

Good stuff from Bill O'Reilly:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/04/bible_thumpers_and_gay_marriage_bill_o_reilly_is_r ight_about_conservative.html

"Kelly: Take the religion piece out of it for this, because there is no arguing that. The Christian religion teaches what it teaches. The Bible says what it says, I mean about marriage.

O’Reilly: But our policy shouldn't be made by that.

Kelly: I know. So take that out of it. What I'm saying is that when you ask—for example, I had an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. [I asked] ‘What is it about … calling a gay union a marriage that offends you? How does it hurt a traditional or a heterosexual marriage?’ And I didn't hear anything articulated that was particularly persuasive. …

O’Reilly: I agree with you 100 percent. The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals: … ‘We're Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.' That’s a compelling argument. And to deny that, you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible."

04-04-2013, 11:32 AM

Watching the clip before that with Laura and his use of "Bible Thumping". He didn't want to hear that he offended people.

Aloft1961

04-12-2013, 04:29 PM

OK - was eating lunch in the Red Iguana (SLC) the other day. Beside me are two men - white 50s - talking about the Defense of Marriage Act. One says " you know allowing gays to marry will mean they'll have to legalize bestiality ... Other guy says yea, it like when they let colored folks marry white people. I'm not making this up ... But I bit my tongue when the comment - yea, who knows where that will lead - polygamy? - bubbled up into my mind.

Aloft1961

04-12-2013, 04:36 PM

A gay mayoral candidate in Mississippi was beaten, dragged and burnt to death about a month or so ago. Same place where civil rights workers were killed fighting for the rights of blacks.

Sombeech

04-14-2013, 08:57 PM

Is there anybody in this thread who supports Federally recognized Gay Marriage, that also would support Polygamy?

Just curious if your motives are strictly politically rooted, or if you really do support marriage between consenting adults.

Iceaxe

04-14-2013, 10:17 PM

DOSS

04-15-2013, 05:50 AM

I support marriage between consenting adults, including polygamy and same sex.

My problem with polygamy is all the illegal crap that goes along with many forms of it like child abuse, rape, forced marriage, servitude and welfare fraud.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

X2
as for all of the negatives of polygamy those all happen in regular marriages as well but do seem to occur more when people have to operate outside of the law to follow their religion.... Oh and if the next argument is about bestiality (as seems to happen).. if the only thing that is stopping you from humping your dog are the laws on the books you may want to get mental help not necessarily worry so much about who anyone else is marrying

Sombeech

04-15-2013, 11:11 PM

DOSS

04-16-2013, 03:20 AM

So just to be clear, you do support the practice of polygamy?

I mean, if you're going to say "as long as child abuse doesn't occur" than you should support Gay Marriage "as long as child abuse doesn't occur", correct? Or is it only not ok in Polygamy, whether or not it's religious or not.... or should we only support Polygamy as long as it's not religious?

:cool2:
I don't think that the "Child abuse issue" was a caveat but more a tangent item similar to how people think that if gay people get married it will somehow damage their marriage, just a tangent that really doesn't change the fact that one supports people of all religions or lack of religions to have a legal binding marriage in the form of their choosing.

Don

04-16-2013, 08:37 AM

I support marriage between consenting adults, including polygamy and same sex.

My problem with polygamy is all the illegal crap that goes along with many forms of it like child abuse, rape, forced marriage, servitude and welfare fraud.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Agreed. As long as they're between consenting adults I don't see the problem with poly-amorous relationships. And hopefully legalization will help to normalize the practice and bring it out of the shadows where all that 'illegal crap' can hide.

And while I like the idea of the government only doing some form of social contract and leaving marriage (if wanted) to the religious institutions it would be difficult, if not impossible, to transition because marriage is already recognized in law and court precedent. How do you transfer all that to the new social contract?

DOSS

04-16-2013, 08:51 AM

Agreed. As long as they're between consenting adults I don't see the problem with poly-amorous relationships. And hopefully legalization will help to normalize the practice and bring it out of the shadows where all that 'illegal crap' can hide.

And while I like the idea of the government only doing some form of social contract and leaving marriage (if wanted) to the religious institutions it would be difficult, if not impossible, to transition because marriage is already recognized in law and court precedent. How do you transfer all that to the new social contract?

Transfer them like any other change in law.. some kind of grandfather clause allowing people so many years to file a new "social contract" or they would get automatically placed under a generic "social contract" that would transfer all current marriages to the new "social contract" and then allow religious institutions to create their own religious institution of marriage but would not be recognized by the "state" moving forward, those people would also have to file a "social contract" that was separate from the religious institution of marriage.

This would allow the religions to continue their practices similar to a baptism and yet allow people to have a equality of rights that are not being held back due to religious intolerance to their lifestyle etc.

Iceaxe

04-16-2013, 09:23 AM

I agree, bring polygamy out of the shadows and a lot of the problems will disappear.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Iceaxe

04-16-2013, 10:31 AM

I agree, bring polygamy out of the shadows and a lot of the problems will disappear.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Don

04-17-2013, 09:44 AM

Transfer them like any other change in law.. some kind of grandfather clause allowing people so many years to file a new "social contract" or they would get automatically placed under a generic "social contract" that would transfer all current marriages to the new "social contract" and then allow religious institutions to create their own religious institution of marriage but would not be recognized by the "state" moving forward, those people would also have to file a "social contract" that was separate from the religious institution of marriage.

This would allow the religions to continue their practices similar to a baptism and yet allow people to have a equality of rights that are not being held back due to religious intolerance to their lifestyle etc.

I'm with you; I still like the idea. But it just seems easier and less hassle to just offer equality for all citizens under the current system. Either way, bring on the equality.

DOSS

04-17-2013, 10:26 AM

I'm with you; I still like the idea. But it just seems easier and less hassle to just offer equality for all citizens under the current system. Either way, bring on the equality.

I would rather just bring on the equality but I don't know about the idea of less hassle. This way would separate the secular from the religious taking away the argument that the religious groups have completely (not that I agree it is much of an argument but meh).

Don

04-18-2013, 03:01 PM

An article in Slate magazine dated 15 April 2013 about legalizing polygamy: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

accadacca

06-26-2013, 08:14 AM

:roflol:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/600378_10151332997570785_921923800_n.jpg

I guess this worked and here we go again....validation. :roflol:

Don

06-26-2013, 12:46 PM

I guess this worked and here we go again....validation. :roflol:

Or maybe DOMA was unfair and unconstitutional all along?

Don

06-26-2013, 12:56 PM

It'll be interesting to watch how this plays out in Utah over the next few years. Given that the Mormon church has supported housing and employment protections (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705343558/Mormon-Church-backs-protection-of-gay-rights-in-Salt-Lake-City.html?pg=all) for LGBTQ in Salt Lake, and they've dramatically cut off their calls for activism and funding (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/prop-8-mormons-gay-marriage-shift); maybe Utah won't be the last the change.
Or maybe 14 years go by between the civil rights act and God realizing blacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism) should have full rights as members of his church...