• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

JP Cusick said:
This is the point that government has violated the religious institution of marriage and now marriage is nothing more than an government joke of a marriage.

Now marriage is a temporary contract based only on the government, along with the huge divorce industry.

My own suggestion is for religious people to only get married within their faith under God, and do NOT get entrapped by the immoral and baseless government marriages.

They would lose some government benefits - yes, but that would also give them some protection from the government chopping block for their marriage and for their family.

Just let the homosexuals have the legal marriages since they are now the ones left who see any value to it.



===============================================




The reason there has never been a fight like this before is because the government is now forcing this onto the religion.

The religions are under attack by the State violating the religious authority.

It did not happen before because the government had not invaded the religions before.
Click to expand...

This is all pretty much bull but I will say that I agree with you on one point. For those who feel that marriage belongs to their religion and that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, I absolutely agree that those people should avoid getting legally married and just go through their churches. There are actually some churches who agree and are working toward convincing their clergy to reject signing any marriage certificates from the state. I say "good for them". When they realize that this isn't popular among the people though or when their congregations realize that it is foolish to this, it will end. Or such churches will simply stop growing and likely grow smaller with time.

The majority is becoming less and less religious, especially concerning these sort of things. Practicality trumps religious dogma for many people, which is why there are so many Catholics who use birth control, so many who have always felt it was fine to use birth control, because the tenet is impractical in the minds of most people, even if they agree with what they consider the more important tenets of the Catholic faith (and yes, I'm speaking from what I've seen from my own family).
 
JP Cusick said:
I agree that it is a done deal, and if somehow it ever gets turned back in the future then that would be abrupt and extremely uncomfortable.

My point was simply to include the reality that this action marks the violation of the Church by the State and I see that as noteworthy.

There is no reason why we would not properly morn the huge loss of our old compatriots.

Both religion and marriage have been violated by the State for the purpose of homosexuality.
Click to expand...

But again....no one...no religious organizations made any requests to 'turn back' anything when non-religious persons were married civilly in what you claim is supposed to be a religious institution. And none made...except by the Catholic Church....for adulterers or fornicators to marry....big big sins, just like homosexuality.

This is what I'm questioning? Why did all manner of religiously-based "family" organizations and religions such as LDS spend millions to stop SSM but not the other marriages?

What makes this 'violation' different?
 
roguenuke said:
This is all pretty much bull but I will say that I agree with you on one point. For those who feel that marriage belongs to their religion and that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, I absolutely agree that those people should avoid getting legally married and just go through their churches. There are actually some churches who agree and are working toward convincing their clergy to reject signing any marriage certificates from the state. I say "good for them". When they realize that this isn't popular among the people though or when their congregations realize that it is foolish to this, it will end. Or such churches will simply stop growing and likely grow smaller with time.

.
Click to expand...

I've asked people (not Mr. Cusick) this a few times and never gotten an answer.
 
Lursa said:
What makes this 'violation' different?
Click to expand...
That is because you are mixing different things as the saying goes = Mixing apples and oranges.

The religions and Churches are NOT trying to fight against marriage as all religions promote marriages as it was a religious institution.

The reason for the resistance to the SSM is because the government is forcing that onto the religions and thereby it is the violation of the Church by the State.

Most religions have already declared that they accept the SSM, but that acceptance was given under the threat of force from the gov.

Our gov is like the Godfather movie where they = Make them an offer which they can not refuse.

The religions are really made up of very considerate people, so they were happy to marry non-religious people, and to make a legal and religious marriage for adulterers, and for the fornicators there was the saying of "Making an honest person out of them" by getting them married.

The religions are not the enemy of anyone.
 
JP Cusick said:
The reason for the resistance to the SSM is because the government is forcing that onto the religions and thereby it is the violation of the Church by the State.

Most religions have already declared that they accept the SSM, but that acceptance was given under the threat of force from the gov.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about are you talking about another country? How has government forcing anything on religion and violating the church? How were religions forced under threat by the government?
 
JP Cusick said:
That is because you are mixing different things as the saying goes = Mixing apples and oranges.

The religions and Churches are NOT trying to fight against marriage as all religions promote marriages as it was a religious institution.

The reason for the resistance to the SSM is because the government is forcing that onto the religions and thereby it is the violation of the Church by the State.

Most religions have already declared that they accept the SSM, but that acceptance was given under the threat of force from the gov.

Our gov is like the Godfather movie where they = Make them an offer which they can not refuse.

The religions are really made up of very considerate people, so they were happy to marry non-religious people, and to make a legal and religious marriage for adulterers, and for the fornicators there was the saying of "Making an honest person out of them" by getting them married.

The religions are not the enemy of anyone.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense at all because religions are only involved in marriage with respect to their own churches, ceremonies they perform and which people's marriages within their congregations they recognize as such. That is it, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the government recognizing marriages of any kind. Religions are free to not recognize any marriage the government does, and they are free to also recognize marriages the government doesn't.

Oh, and there are plenty of religions that are the "enemy" various other people, whether you want to recognize that or not.
 
Deuce said:
It's not a violation, nobody took over anything. You've always been able to have a private religious ceremony for whatever you like. Your church can marry two dogs if it wants to, but the government isn't going to recognize it.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm not understand his clams either. What was taken over, wheres the violation?
 
JP Cusick said:
I agree that it is a done deal, and if somehow it ever gets turned back in the future then that would be abrupt and extremely uncomfortable.

My point was simply to include the reality that this action marks the violation of the Church by the State and I see that as noteworthy.

There is no reason why we would not properly morn the huge loss of our old compatriots.

Both religion and marriage have been violated by the State for the purpose of homosexuality.
Click to expand...

You have said this a lot during this thread but I haven't seen any examples yet. Do you have any because I would be VERY much against that type of violation, I'm just no aware of there being any.
 
JP Cusick said:
Under the force of law - yes.

But by no other means.
Click to expand...

You seem not to understand that the laws that force are laws that force SS persons from marrying. If the Supreme court rules against those laws [force]...the laws [force] will be removed. No new law is created...the Force was ended. The force will be lifted. The Force will cease to exist.
 
Cephus said:
What other means matters?
Click to expand...
By the means of respect.

The means of virtue.

By the means of voluntary consent.

Those kinds of means.

They matter far more then most people realize, and at some level they matter to everyone.
 
JP Cusick said:
By the means of respect.

The means of virtue.

By the means of voluntary consent.

Those kinds of means.

They matter far more then most people realize, and at some level they matter to everyone.
Click to expand...

Same sex couples have been getting married in some churches and in general, just not legally recognized, for decades, if not longer. It has always been just as voluntary as opposite couples getting married.
 
LaylaWindu said:
As it should marriage will be allowed for everyone across the nation soon.
Click to expand...

JP Cusick said:
Under the force of law - yes.

But by no other means.
Click to expand...

Cephus said:
What other means matters?
Click to expand...

JP Cusick said:
By the means of respect.

The means of virtue.

By the means of voluntary consent.

Those kinds of means.

They matter far more then most people realize, and at some level they matter to everyone.
Click to expand...


You realize that multiple states (and D.C.) have passed SSCM through legislative action and that multiple states voted in support of SSCM at the ballot box during General Elections correct?

The Presbyterian Church is currently voting on whether to authorize SS religious marriages, currently the vote of the organizations is 77 in support and only 37 against. 86 approvals is required for passage.



>>>>
 
JP Cusick said:
By the means of respect.

The means of virtue.

By the means of voluntary consent.

Those kinds of means.

They matter far more then most people realize, and at some level they matter to everyone.
Click to expand...

None of those matter to the law. Religion hasn't earned respect, it has no virtue and people are perfectly welcome to consent or not consent to the law. They can get married in any church they want and not sign up for legal married status, nobody has any interest in stopping them. So while you're welcome to your opinions, I don't buy any of them.
 
WorldWatcher said:
You realize that multiple states (and D.C.) have passed SSCM through legislative action and that multiple states voted in support of SSCM at the ballot box during General Elections correct?

The Presbyterian Church is currently voting on whether to authorize SS religious marriages, currently the vote of the organizations is 77 in support and only 37 against. 86 approvals is required for passage.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what religions decide. Marriage is a secular institution. Religions can either adopt the same rules for use within their churches or they cannot, it really doesn't make a difference. No amount of religious agreement or disagreement has any impact on the secular application of marriage.
 
JP Cusick said:
I agree that it is a done deal, and if somehow it ever gets turned back in the future then that would be abrupt and extremely uncomfortable.

My point was simply to include the reality that this action marks the violation of the Church by the State and I see that as noteworthy.

There is no reason why we would not properly morn the huge loss of our old compatriots.

Both religion and marriage have been violated by the State for the purpose of homosexuality.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about. Unless the government is forcing people of the same gender to marry, contrary to their religious beliefs, religion has nothing to do with it. It does not affect your religious beliefs one iota for other people to follow their beliefs and marry. That's an insane thought process.
 
JumpinJack said:
I have no idea what you're talking about. Unless the government is forcing people of the same gender to marry, contrary to their religious beliefs, religion has nothing to do with it. It does not affect your religious beliefs one iota for other people to follow their beliefs and marry. That's an insane thought process.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people who think religion is more important than everything else, a person's religious beliefs gives them the right to violate the law and deserves complete freedom to do whatever they want to in the pursuit of their religious beliefs. These people are crazy.
 
Redress said:
From the order:



Zyphlin in part has persuaded me, and this could be what dooms SSM bans. If you take it as gender discrimination, that is that men can do something woman cannot, and woman can do something men cannot, then Intermediate Scrutiny is required and SSM bans fail. The various states have argued that SSM bans pass rational basis review and that is what would be applicable, because SSM bans would not pass higher levels of scrutiny. Going this route lets SCOTUS dodge issues such as whether orientation would be a basis for quasi-suspect class designation, or whether Strict Scrutiny should apply to questions of marriage as a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to dodge anything at this point, nor would it be appropriate. SSM bans are intended as an orientation discrimination above all, not gender based, nor are heterosexuals of the same sex anywhere near as likely to even want to marry.

I see no more basis for SCOTUS to rule this way than it did to rule in Loving that interracial marriage bans denied equal protection to white couples
 
NonConformer said:
The national battle over gay marriage rages on. Hardly a day goes by without yet another legal skirmish somewhere; the most recent one is in Nebraska, I think.

Allow me to break apart this thing we call "marriage". There are really at least two separate aspects:

First there is the love, sex, and romance aspect. To be blunt, the government has no business here. Nothing in the history books, nor the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution, nor the Bible remotely suggest that love, sex, and romance should have governmental oversight.

The second aspect is the legal contract. This contract, signed by both parties, covers matters such as inheritance, survivor benefits, medical decisions, and such. Now it can be argued that government does have role in the enforcement of legal contracts. And I have no problem at all if two, or more, people of ANY relationship choose to enter unto a binding legal contract covering matters like inheritance and such.

The problem arises when said legal contract includes the word "marriage", because by word association, we're now getting into matters of love, sex, and romance, which are clearly out of governmental jurisdiction.

Therefore the solution to this whole same-sex marriage dilemma is obvious: just re-name the darned contract. Call it something that does not include the word "marriage." The name "civil union" has been proposed; sounds Ok by me. And anybody who wants one can have one!

Meanwhile, keep "marriage" about love, sex, and romance, and if two (or more) people want to participate in it, well that's between them, and their God, assuming they believe in God and so choose to involve him too. But keep government out of it.
Click to expand...

Nah, YOU go call YOUR relationship a "civil union." We'll take "marriage"

Separate but equal is never equal. "Civil unions" were a complete farce
 
WorldWatcher said:
You realize that multiple states (and D.C.) have passed SSCM through legislative action and that multiple states voted in support of SSCM at the ballot box during General Elections correct?

The Presbyterian Church is currently voting on whether to authorize SS religious marriages, currently the vote of the organizations is 77 in support and only 37 against. 86 approvals is required for passage.



>>>>
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you quoted me but yes I'm fully aware of that.
 
LaylaWindu said:
I'm not sure why you quoted me but yes I'm fully aware of that.
Click to expand...


I was posting to comments made by JP Cusick, his comments were in response to a post you made as well as another poster.

I quoted both to show context.


>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
I was posting to comments made by JP Cusick, his comments were in response to a post you made as well as another poster.

I quoted both to show context.


>>>>
Click to expand...

oh, ok. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom