Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Jul 3, 2013.
Bring them on. Time to get these discriminatory laws off the books.
I agree, bring it on.
But just to be clear, so that the tangents aren't flying all over the place, Friedman ruled that the case should go forward to the Michigan Supreme Court, not SCOTUS. SCOTUS did, for all intents and purposes, punt on any ruling against states' laws on same sex marriage. That's one reason why they didn't say anything on Prop. 8, outside of the merits issue.
SCOTUS' ruling on DOMA will be interesting to watch in this case, but this is actually the case everyone is waiting for: Plaintiffs arguing the right case, Defendants having legal standing. Questions now:
Justice Kennedy had jurisdiction over the 9th Circuit, which is why he ruled on the immediate request to keep the ban in place until the 25 days had expired. What Circuit does Michigan fall under, and which SCOTUS justice has jurisdiction?
This now brings the ballot initiative/voter referendum process into play. Would a ruling in favour of the plaintiffs kill the ballot initiative process?
Finally, with SCOTUS punting on the bans, saying that it is a States' issue and not a federal one, Would this mean that if the appeals process runs its course, the Federal Circuit Michigan reports to would not take the case, let alone SCOTUS? It was different with Prop. 8 because of the Merits issue, and that SCOTUS hadn't had a case like this in front of them before. But now?
Opinions, resident lawyers?
This clearly shows that only the extreme far right will get any support by opposing gay marriage. The midterms and 2016 will force candidates into taking a side.
Hopefully they won't pass this.
Would be a shame to remove states rights and if people of a state don't have same sex marriage they shouldn't be forced into it.
I'm not going to say much more but keep up the good fight.
What about the citizenry of those states? Don't they have rights?
Do you really believe that states have the right to discriminate?
To the majority of the American population, gay marriage is a done deal and its only older, white males who oppose it. What's your reason?
Whenever one side is personally invested in an issue and the other is merely uncomfortable with the idea for whatever arbitrary reason, the eventual outcome requires minimal clairvoyance. Trying to fight them on it is just a waste of tax dollars to placate an older generation. The reality of it is that the opponents aren't directly affected, so it's only a matter of time before they grow tired of fighting it. They should move on to a cause that isn't a matter of delaying the inevitable.
Regarding states rights, the way politicians argue on that often depends on the issue. In this case there are certain things that they will not win. They won't prevent anyone from receiving federal benefits over the long term, as they aren't determined at the state level.
What do you mean? As in straight people will be forced into gay marriages?
Just so you don't go into defensive mode, I'm not trying to twist your words. There aren't many other ways to interpret your words that I highlighted.
There's one obvious way to interpret his words: that states shouldn't be forced to issue same sex marriage licenses if their public is against it.
Why should a majority be allowed to vote on the rights of a minority? Everyone knows that will not end up in a fair decision.
Your argument is the same argument that was brought up during the interracial marriage issue 50+ years ago.
Why not just stay out of a persons personal life instead?
So tax paying gay citizens shouldn't have the same rights and benefits as straight tax paying (and non-tax paying) citizens? Why the reason for the discrimination?
EDIT: Here is some information for you. Gay is not a choice. Ever. If it was I'd be straight because I wanted the typical life of having a wife, kids, a job and a house, but that wasn't in the cards for me. God had other plans.
As a gay Christian I can tell you that "pray the gay away" doesn't work. If you're meant to be gay, your gay and there's no reason anyone should be discriminated against because of it.
If your against gay marriage because of religious reasons (even though God makes gay people), then you should also be against eating shellfish, wearing clothes of two different blends, cutting your hair, and any number of other things in Leviticus. If you're not then I have to question if religious reason is really the reason for opposing gay marriage.
Twisting of words has already begun.
I'll just say I don't think anyone should be denied rights.
Also gay christian is an oxymoron (unless they are celibate for life as its not the actual homosexuality that's a sin according to Christianity but the sexual part of it but that's another post...)
That's like a Jewish Nazi or a black klansman
Somehow I get the feeling that if I asked you for actual anti-gay quotes from the bible you'd come around with old testament stuff (the base for a religion 99.9% contradictry to what christianity is supposed to be about).
Either that, or some obscure letter written by a self proclaim apostel 100 A.D.
Should states be forced to recognize marriages from other states? (homosexual or heterosexual)?
Who are you to tell anyone who is and is not a Christian? Do you truly believe believe that your personal interpretation of the Bible is the only interpretation? How do you reconcile denying equal rights to others with the teachings of Jesus?
Your first part there is an argument that has always fascinated me. That people are a certain way and that we are just mindless robots along for the ride.....its an interesting thought. I don't think its true by any stretch.....but I know many who are of that opinion.
We all have our lot in life and things that we struggle with. Be it sexual sin, compulsive habits, gluttonous habits....whatever it may be. We all have things that we are naturally pre-disposed to. If we are going to call ourselves Christ followers though we can't just act on every feeling and idea that pops in our head just because it feels right. If it doesn't line up with the teachings of Jesus....we're supposed to resist.
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS ONLY AN ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANS. IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE....THEN OBVIOUSLY NONE OF THIS APPLIES TO YOU. TO OUR ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC FRIENDS ON HERE.....THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR NOT JUMPING DOWN MY THROAT.
I do agree though that discrimination shouldn't be the law of the land, but you're never going to separate some Christians away from the New Testament definition of marriage and the term marriage we use in our society. A good middle ground I think would be to our government completely out of the marriage business all together. Let the government issue civil union certificates to any two consenting adults and be done with it. If someone wants to have a traditional marriage ceremony after that....then go to their local church and have at it. Everyone wins.....equal rights for all and Christians get to hold onto "traditional marriage".
You know any sin-less Christians? Me neither.....and I know some very Godly men and women.
We all have our flaws. We all have our struggles. We don't always walk the line like we're supposed to.
It's the reason why we're so grateful for the sacrifice that Jesus made for us on the cross and the redemption that it brought. We'd be up the creek without that.
Where does the New Testament define marriage? And, why should christians be allowed to define marriage? Nobody is forcing a church to marry people they don't want to. I honestly don't see the basis for your argument.
This to me is the important question. If you get married in any state, should all states recognize it? Particularly, can states be selective in recognizing it. For example, in MA, they allow gay marriage but the state doesn't distinguish between gay marriage and non-gay marriage, it's all just marriage. Now, a state like NE is basically choosing to only recognize a subset of all MA marriages, namely those between one man and one woman. I'm not sure how states can only selectively recognize marriages performed in other states, and not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.
And if they are allowed to only selectively recognize other states' marriages, what is stopping them being selective in other areas. For example, NE could refuse to allow anyone without a NE drivers license to drive on NE roads, since they could argue that each state has their own driving rules and holding a NE drivers license is the only way NE can be sure you understand NE driving rules. Or, if they aren't required to accept marriage certificates issued my other states, they could theoretically not need to accept birth or death certificates, or divorces, issued by other states either.
I think in the end, even if a state is not wanting to allow for gay marriage to be performed in their state, I think they are going to have to recognize all marriages that are legally performed in other states due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
I never said they were. My point is that the pro-gay marriage side says what they are fighting for is equal rights. The other side says they want to protect "traditional marriage". My aim is to find a solution that works for everyone.
If the desire for gay marriage is really about equal civil rights and not about thumbing your nose at Christians or whoever else is opposed to gay marriage.....then this solution should be acceptable. If the desire against gay marriage is really about protecting this definition of "traditional marriage" and not about some sort of bigoted hatred of gay people.....then this solution should be acceptable.
Do you have some polling data to back up that claim or is it just the usual anti white male bigotry?
Alternatively, let government keep the word marriage, and the church can have holy matrimony.
Edit: But I agree with you, separating the church idea of marriage and the government idea of marriage would go a long way to help things.
Other oxymorons thanks to Leviticus:
Pork eating Christians
Shellfish eating Christians
Mixed fabric wearing Christians
Well shaven Christians
Women who aren't a virgin on their wedding day Christians
How were your words twisted? If you don't want words twisted, then say what you want to say without being vague. The only way I interpreted what you were saying was that you don't want gay marriage to be legal.
...unless a state decides they want to do so.
You specifically said that people shouldn't be "forced into same-sex marriage". Who on earth is ever forced into a same-sex marriage? Oh, that's right, they aren't. But because some people are scared of it, you agree that rights of others should be removed based on the feelings of the first.
If you are saying that you think a state should be able to ban same sex marriage due to the will of 51%, then you are saying that you think some people should be denied rights. Either that, or you don't think it's a right.
I don't think there's another way to "twist" it.
I would say that Christian is an oxymoron. Do you know any, any, Christians who follow the Bible to the letter? Do you? Hell, how many do you know that are Christian any more than "I go to church on Sunday and pray sometimes when a friend's child is sick"?
I know many non-Christians who out-moral many Christians. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality.
Which then flies in the face of his "I don't think anyone should be denied rights". And do you really think the rights of people should be decided by a 51%/49% vote?
This is why I pretty much despise the very thought of "states' rights". Sometimes I wonder if instead of "The United States of America", we should rename ourselves to "The 50 States of America". Some things are fine to decide on the local level, but things such as peoples' right to marry and have their marriages recognized should be country-wide.
No one ever said people were forced into same sex marriage, but they are trying to force states into it and that's just wrong.
If the state doesn't want same sex marriage to be legal it shouldn't be forced, period.
Yes it should, this is one of those times the state should not and will not have the option.
Would you agree with that statement too?
<insert completely ignorant statement here about black rights are completely different from gay rights because gays HAVE A CHOICE>