Page 21 of 149 FirstFirst ... 1119202122233171121 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 1483

Thread: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

  1. #201
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Id argue that freedom of speech covers that

    Now there is a different tact....do tell.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #202
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Where in the Constitution does it say anything concerning atrernative life styles?
    Nowhere. But by the same token, it doesn't condemn alternative lifestyles either. So where is this justification to ban active participation in a government sanctioned institution?

    There isn't one. But what else do we have to do except fight back using the same system?
    Call me old fashioned, but I don't recall granting the SCOTUS legislative authority.
    I never once advocated that they should.


    These are government entities that you are up against. Their pocket book is limitless. I think you have to win the hearts and minds of the voter to win overall.

    You may think that, but if you saw first hand what happened here in California this last election, you would understand that the major opposition is these family values lobbies and their source of funding does have a limit. How often do you think they are gonna go to their churches and ask for a "special offering" to raise money against gay marriage before people just say, "screw it. I don't have to marry a homo so it doesn't matter to me."


    Thank you.





    Gone about in the proper way, I see no reason to disagree. But, a subversion exists when you speak of law through judicial fiat IMHO.
    I think it's necessary to combat the opposition that is trying to use judicial fiat to stop us from doing what is not currently illegal.


    Using your own definition here, tell me how the supposed "right to marry" is not negated as destructive to society as you define it above.

    ***Personally, I don't think it would necessarly be, but rather if gone about in the heavy handed way you describe, I think it would be.****


    j-mac
    First, I never stated there was a right to marry. There isn't a "right to marry" for gays or straights. But there is a right to equal treatment by our government and if the government is going to grant legal, financial, and social privileges to heterosexuals for marrying, then there is no choice but to grant those same privileges to homosexuals who marry.

    With that out of the way, I need you clarify the rest of what you are asking. I'm not understanding what it is you want me to explain...

  3. #203
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I don't think that these arguments have any merit at all. However, if one wanted to open that door, the argument could go along religious grounds, since the term "Married" is most often affiliated with a church ceremony. Could not one argue civil unions with all the legal bindings of an actual church ceremony are one in the same?


    j-mac
    The problem with this idea is that the outcome of a Justice of the Peace wedding (i.e. non-religious ceremony) is marriage. Therefore the precedence has already been set that marriages do not have to be religious. Therefore if non-religious ceremonies can be marriages, why can't gay marriage? You can't use religion as a crutch anymore on marriages.

    Me personally, I think all government sanctioned unions should be civil unions and then let whatever institution (religion or not) call them marriages.
    Last edited by TheNextEra; 12-16-09 at 05:06 PM.

  4. #204
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    The problem with this idea is that the outcome of a Justice of the Peace wedding (i.e. non-religious ceremony) is marriage. Therefore the precedence has already been set that marriages do not have to be religious. Therefore if non-religious ceremonies can be marriages, why can't gay marriage? You can't use religion as a crutch anymore on marriages.

    Me personally, I think all government sanctioned unions should be civil unions and then let whatever institution (religion or not) call them marriages.
    This would be nice, and much easier, though you know some hard core folks would still bitch...about a ****ing WORD.

  5. #205
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Now there is a different tact....do tell.


    j-mac
    We all have freedom to expresion via the first

  6. #206
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Nowhere. But by the same token, it doesn't condemn alternative lifestyles either. So where is this justification to ban active participation in a government sanctioned institution?

    There isn't one. But what else do we have to do except fight back using the same system?

    I think you always have alternatives to 'in your face' style politic. One way that has been very effective, in the NE anyway, is to highlight more monogamous couples that have benefited the local society, instead of the flamboyant.


    I never once advocated that they should.

    I may have misinterpreted, Sorry if that is the case.


    You may think that, but if you saw first hand what happened here in California this last election, you would understand that the major opposition is these family values lobbies and their source of funding does have a limit. How often do you think they are gonna go to their churches and ask for a "special offering" to raise money against gay marriage before people just say, "screw it. I don't have to marry a homo so it doesn't matter to me."

    I never have. But then again I don't buy that you marrying 'Steve' is going to cause a rift in my marriage. Plus, I think that if you are committed, then you should be able to enjoy the ups, and the downs.


    I think it's necessary to combat the opposition that is trying to use judicial fiat to stop us from doing what is not currently illegal.

    then what of the votes that have taken place? throw them out?


    First, I never stated there was a right to marry. There isn't a "right to marry" for gays or straights. But there is a right to equal treatment by our government and if the government is going to grant legal, financial, and social privileges to heterosexuals for marrying, then there is no choice but to grant those same privileges to homosexuals who marry.

    Ok, what you are talking about is the issuance of a Marriage license right? Also the priviliages that current married couples enjoy from marriage right? Then what about a civil union?


    With that out of the way, I need you clarify the rest of what you are asking. I'm not understanding what it is you want me to explain...

    Well, you listed off some things in your response like: Division politics, yet you say that now is the time that the gay community use that as a tactic. also, personal adherence to tradition, would seem to fly in the face of the gay argument.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  7. #207
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    This would be nice, and much easier, though you know some hard core folks would still bitch...about a ****ing WORD.
    Of course they would, but at least there wouldn't be any legal ramification of the argument like there is now. It would be considered opinion, instead of legal precedence.

  8. #208
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    The problem with this idea is that the outcome of a Justice of the Peace wedding (i.e. non-religious ceremony) is marriage. Therefore the precedence has already been set that marriages do not have to be religious. Therefore if non-religious ceremonies can be marriages, why can't gay marriage? You can't use religion as a crutch anymore on marriages.

    Me personally, I think all government sanctioned unions should be civil unions and then let whatever institution (religion or not) call them marriages.

    Exactly my point. My wife and I have been married for 23 years. It was a civil union, largely because the church priest was too mired in the old ways of the church to lend the church's blessing. I haven't been back, and after he screamed at me that it would never last. I'd love to invite him to our 25th anniversary in two years.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #209
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Of course they would, but at least there wouldn't be any legal ramification of the argument like there is now. It would be considered opinion, instead of legal precedence.
    Well I suggest you call your Congressional Reps and tell them of this brilliant idea. Since separation of Church and State is a pretty good grounds for this, I think you might even get your name on the bill.


    HR 9999 NextEra Public-Marriage Bill...I can see it now...

    We could try and do something like Germany, at least I think they still do this, where if you wish to get married you are required to get married by the state (i.e. legal and binding union in the eyes of the law) and then you have the option to get married in a church or religious ceremony if you want to.

  10. #210
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,756

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I'm not even concerned that GM is being shot down in other areas. As long as a few States have it for now, that is a great first step. It will provide a working model for other States that have fears or are simply on the fence to show them that households with gay partnerships are as normal and functional as heterosexual setups.
    Some areas of the nation will never see gay marriage. Others will. America is not a one size fits all country. The states can decide if they want it or not. As for the Federal government, it's none of their damn business.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •