Should The Federal Government Recognize Same SEX Marriages?

[Byron]

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.

[Brian in SLC]

Try this one at the one minute mark:

[Byron]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012...ity-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]

Its evolution, baby...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ort-mainstream

[hank moon]

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.

[JP]

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]

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?

[DOSS]

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]

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.

[DOSS]

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]

[Mooseman70]

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]

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]

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]

Good stuff from Bill O'Reilly:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...servative.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."

[JP]

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

[Aloft1961]

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]

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]

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]

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