Why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional

Ned Racine said:

What rings rather clear here on the part of many who think Same Sex Marriage is just another Kindly benevolent step towards a more equal society (???) is that they can in no way be objective on this topic.

Click to expand...

Oh, and you with your comments have room to talk? :roll: Pot... kettle... black.

What he omitted was the assertion that 30 years ago MOST Gays would gladly have accepted Civil Unions without much question. Today this is the reality , but still some want more so the driving factor must be the opposition they know it will bring about.

In other words - the Militants Want the Battle.

Ned Racine said:

What he omitted was the assertion that 30 years ago MOST Gays would gladly have accepted Civil Unions without much question. Today this is the reality , but still some want more so the driving factor must be the opposition they know it will bring about.

In other words - the Militants Want the Battle.

Click to expand...

First of all, I'm a woman.

Second of all, 30 years ago was the 1980s, not the '70s. And you may be right, however, homosexuals have gained a lot in these last 30 years, including nationally being protected from arrest just because of what they do in the bedroom, marriage in some states (and many other countries), protection from discrimination in many states, and even spousal benefits from some companies. With all these positive gains, they have come to realize that they don't have to settle for Civil Unions when they should have real marriages, and they should be legally called marriages. And, no, it is not the militants that want a battle. There is no reason, except to discriminate in order to save someone else from feeling uncomfortable, to not have same sex marriages called marriage.

Also, I am a married heterosexual woman. I don't think any religious person should be forced to preside over a marriage they don't agree with, for whatever reason. I would fight against any such laws, although I truly believe that this would be violating freedom of religion anyway, so I doubt we would ever see this.

Actually We will eventually see some smaller denominations either willingly or coerced into participation in some form in the process of Gay Marriage. It will start small, some Prayers, a few Scriptural readings, a few more than helpful like minded Clergy. Then those not willing to go along will be initially hassled, then litigated against.

I realize some States have suggested specific laws to exempt Religous bodies from having to comply with Same Sex Marriages even if there is a legitimate Marriage License, however there will be a way found around that by some helpful Judge somewhere. Cherry picking the location for such a lawsuit will occur. The activists already know who will not go along with this "Progress" and some are looking forward to a day of reckoning. The LDS Church in California is already in a few legal crosshairs over Prop. 8 and it's funding and I suspect the only reason various Progressive's have not pursued it is because of Gross violations in Open Fund Raising in various Black Churc's over the years concerning Jesse Jackson,Sharpton etc.

Ned Racine said:

Actually We will eventually see some smaller denominations either willingly or coerced into participation in some form in the process of Gay Marriage. It will start small, some Prayers, a few Scriptural readings, a few more than helpful like minded Clergy. Then those not willing to go along will be initially hassled, then litigated against.

I realize some States have suggested specific laws to exempt Religous bodies from having to comply with Same Sex Marriages even if there is a legitimate Marriage License, however there will be a way found around that by some helpful Judge somewhere. Cherry picking the location for such a lawsuit will occur. The activists already know who will not go along with this "Progress" and some are looking forward to a day of reckoning. The LDS Church in California is already in a few legal crosshairs over Prop. 8 and it's funding and I suspect the only reason various Progressive's have not pursued it is because of Gross violations in Open Fund Raising in various Black Churc's over the years concerning Jesse Jackson,Sharpton etc.

Click to expand...

You continue to relate things unrealistically, not to mention make speculations on what might happen. Where's your proof that any church official in the US has ever been forced by the law to perform a wedding that they don't agree with? Social pressure is not the same as being forced by the law to it. If a clergyman is not happy with the policies supported by the congregation of their choice or with the policies that are supported by the heads of his/her church, then they should look for another church or start their own.

Publically funding a political campaign is not considered appropriate for any church since the main reason that churches are given tax-exempt status is to maintain a separation of church and state. Individual church members can fund whatever the heck they wish to fund.

Ned Racine said:

Actually We will eventually see some smaller denominations either willingly or coerced into participation in some form in the process of Gay Marriage. It will start small, some Prayers, a few Scriptural readings, a few more than helpful like minded Clergy. Then those not willing to go along will be initially hassled, then litigated against.

I realize some States have suggested specific laws to exempt Religous bodies from having to comply with Same Sex Marriages even if there is a legitimate Marriage License, however there will be a way found around that by some helpful Judge somewhere. Cherry picking the location for such a lawsuit will occur. The activists already know who will not go along with this "Progress" and some are looking forward to a day of reckoning. The LDS Church in California is already in a few legal crosshairs over Prop. 8 and it's funding and I suspect the only reason various Progressive's have not pursued it is because of Gross violations in Open Fund Raising in various Black Churc's over the years concerning Jesse Jackson,Sharpton etc.

Click to expand...

Wow.

How much do you have to dehumanize a minority group in order to see them as on a quest to politically persecute you for your religious prejudices towards them?

Do you not see the animosity in that?

And to make it all the funner, you won't even allow for the opportunity for compromise despite having Constitutional protection for your views.

That is demented.

I used to be angry at social conservatives, but since I figured out they are all just a bunch of cowards who fear the big, bad gays coming to get their religious freedoms I can't help but find them amusing.

I'm gay and I would fight to the death to protect a church's right to freely practice, even if I don't agree with their message. I'm a living contradiction to your fears. And I love it.

In actuality it will not cause me any massive discomfort if Thousands of Gay Marriages started up like tomorrow all over the USA. However based on Human behavior (aka Human Cowardice) I believe I know exactly where this is headed and again the chief point here is that some will never be satisfied. Some will force themselves upon others. It is not a "Just Live & Let Live" outlook but a determined effort to offend in some cases and to get back at the larger society over past wrongs.

You might easily find some Social Conservative Hypocrisy on this topic BUT you (I believe) will not even begin to reconsider the less than benevolent attitude of certain Gays.

Ned Racine said:

In actuality it will not cause me any massive discomfort if Thousands of Gay Marriages started up like tomorrow all over the USA. However based on Human behavior (aka Human Cowardice) I believe I know exactly where this is headed and again the chief point here is that some will never be satisfied. Some will force themselves upon others. It is not a "Just Live & Let Live" outlook but a determined effort to offend in some cases and to get back at the larger society over past wrongs.

You might easily find some Social Conservative Hypocrisy on this topic BUT you (I believe) will not even begin to reconsider the less than benevolent attitude of certain Gays.

Click to expand...

Oh, I know there are gays who would love to impose social acceptance of homosexuality down everyone's throats. There are also social conservatives who would love to eradicate gays through imprisonment and execution. But I'm not afraid. You know why? Because we have a thing called the Constitution. And that Constitution protects your religious liberties just as much as it protects my life from religious zealots. Hell, in a country where the Westboro Baptist Church was able to get the courts to protect its religious freedom to protest abhorrently at military funerals you are worried those same courts are going to force social acceptance of homosexuality on you?

To say it is laughable would be an understatement. It is nothing but a cop out. You have made gays into a threat in your own mind in order to justify denying them liberties and treating them as inferior. You know what you call that? Dehumanization!

And I'm sorry, but dehumanization is an act of cowardice. You refuse to acknowledge the senselessness of your own fear for the sake of maintaining your own sense of superiority. Good luck with that because a life lived looking down on others is a life wasted for failure to love others.

Possibly you could explain how thinking Same Sex Individuals not getting Legally Married in most States is denying anyone's rights ????? Society has always had it's standards and this is one of them.

More to the point I'd LOVE to believe that most Gays will eventually OPENLY differ from the more contentious & offensive element within the Gay Community - but so far there is little evidence of it. As a matter of fact MANY Vote for individuals they know are both corrupt & incompotant simply because of the particular stance on this matter. Some Politicians have capitalized on this emotional bloc voting.

Ned Racine said:

Possibly you could explain how thinking Same Sex Individuals not getting Legally Married in most States is denying anyone's rights ????? Society has always had it's standards and this is one of them.

Click to expand...

True. But society also has a standard of equal protection under the law. Sometimes differing standards have to be worked out.

More to the point I'd LOVE to believe that most Gays will eventually OPENLY differ from the more contentious & offensive element within the Gay Community - but so far there is little evidence of it. As a matter of fact MANY Vote for individuals they know are both corrupt & incompotant simply because of the particular stance on this matter. Some Politicians have capitalized on this emotional bloc voting.

Click to expand...

You do realize that countries that have legalized same sex marriage have not vanquished the religious liberties of those who oppose it? Canada and Sweden have not become anti religious as a result. Hell, Noway is a Christian theocracy. There are a few isolated cases where religious protesters have run acuff with the law, but virtually every time, the religious protester is the one who wins. There is no basis for you to make the exaggerated claims you are making. Your fear is senseless.

Also, if you want to talk about voting in incompetent people, then explain to me why polls show that there are 6% of people who would vote for O'Donnell in Delware even though they believe she is not suitable to be a Senator? People on both sdies of the political spectrum will vote for the lesser of two evils, even if they percieve the lesser evil to be incompetent or corrupt.

joe six-pack said:

No, you still don't get it.

This civil rights movement for homosexuals is only about legal equality and equal access to public benefits.

Click to expand...

no, for if that were the case then they would be fine weith civil unions, powers of attorney, and the like. since they re not, then what they are after is somethiing different indeed.

cpwill said:

no, for if that were the case then they would be fine weith civil unions, powers of attorney, and the like. since they re not, then what they are after is somethiing different indeed.

Click to expand...

Why should their relationships be termed anything different?

cpwill said:

no, for if that were the case then they would be fine weith civil unions, powers of attorney, and the like. since they re not, then what they are after is somethiing different indeed.

Click to expand...

Haven't we gone over this already? 19 states have Constitutional amendments against civil unions.

CriticalThought said:

How much do you have to dehumanize a minority group in order to see them as on a quest to politically persecute you for your religious prejudices towards them?

Click to expand...

i know. what in the world could possibly give him the idea that the homosexual marriage movement was willing to target religious people with whom it disagrees?


Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife’s purse and then the man’s wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter’s piggy bank and pinch every penny. “We need it for the Wall Street bailout!” they exclaim.

No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?

No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. “Hi, we’re from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!” says the blond one with a toothy smile. “We’re here to take away your rights.” The Mormon zealots yank the couple’s wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license....

Obviously, the first two ads are fictional because no one would dare run such anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim attacks.

The third ad, however, was real. It was broadcast throughout California on Election Day as part of the effort to rally opposition to Proposition 8, the initiative that successfully repealed the right to same-sex marriage in the state.

What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?

Nope.

The Los Angeles Times, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial lamenting that the “hard-hitting commercial” was too little, too late. The upshot seemed to be that if the pro-gay-marriage forces had just flooded the airwaves with more religious slander, things would have turned out better.

At a pro-gay-marriage rally in Los Angeles after the vote, chants of “Mormon scum!”... Envelopes containing white powder have been sent to Mormon temples in California and Utah; vandals hit other temples. Lists of businesses to boycott — essentially Mormon blacklists — have sprung up on the Internet... It’s amazing. Hollywood liberals, who usually shout “McCarthyism!” as a first resort, see nothing wrong with this. If Jews were attacked in this way for giving too much money to a political cause, Barbra Streisand would already have a French passport...

The argument is that Mormons used illegitimate power, in this case money, beyond their numerical standing in the population to secure victory for the measure. Golly, wealthy gay liberals would never do anything like that! I bet they’re not giving a single dime — disproportionate to their numbers in the population — to the effort to overturn Proposition 8 via the courts.

No, it’s just that Mormons are the most vulnerable of the culturally conservative religious denominations and therefore the easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience.

Traditional religion is the enemy anywhere it runs afoul of complete social acceptance of homosexuality. In New Mexico, a wedding photographer was fined nearly $7,000 for refusing to shoot a gay commitment ceremony. The dating site eHarmony, run by evangelicals, was just bullied by gay activists via the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights into starting up a site for gays. The first 10,000 registrants must get six months free.

It’s often lost on gay-rights groups that they and their allies are the aggressors in the culture war. Indeed, they admit to being the “forces of change” and the “agents of progress.” They proudly want to rewrite tradition and overturn laws. But whenever they’re challenged democratically and peaceably, they instantly complain of being victims of entrenched bigots, even as they adopt the very tactics they abhor...

I used to be angry at social conservatives, but since I figured out they are all just a bunch of cowards who fear the big, bad gays coming to get their religious freedoms I can't help but find them amusing.

Click to expand...

hey, whatever helps you denigrate your opposition.

cpwill said:

i know. what in the world could ossibly give him the idea that the homosexual marriage movement was willing to target churches with whom it disagreed?

Click to expand...

Wait? Let me get this right. You are justifying the argument that gays are out to destroy religious liberties based on a political ad?

Also, the wedding photographer has been debunked so many times I hardly wanted to even address it, but I figure I might was well.

New Mexico's Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on basis of sexual orientation. What does that have to do with same sex marriage or even with gays attacking religious liberties?

As far as the white powder, that was a sick joke, but it wasn't anything harmful and it was the act of a single individual. Are you really going to hold an entire group responsible for the act of one person?

Why is it that social conservatives make such an issue out of isolated cases like these?

Hell, if we can go by these standards, then I can argue that the 13 year old who committed suicide recently because he was bullied for being gay is justification to have anti bullying programs in every in the country. You support that, right?

Or do you only care about the isolated cases that support your point of view?

At least in my case somebody actually died! Someone was hurt! Can you cite any cases where people have been physically hurt for opposing same sex marriage? I can name dozens of cases where people have been hurt for being gay in this country.

It's pathetic how biased you are.

winston53660 said:

Why should their relationships be termed anything different?

Click to expand...

exactly! theyre not after mere legal equality for their unions. they want public social legitimization as "the same thing"

cpwill said:

exactly! theyre not after mere legal equality for their unions. they want public social legitimization as "the same thing"

Click to expand...

That really does not answer my question.

the answer to your question is simple; because here in this country we do things via representative government, and the majority of the people do not consider homosexual unions to be 'marriage'.

cpwill said:

the answer to your question is simple; because here in this country we do things via representative government, and the majority of the people do not consider homosexual unions to be 'marriage'.

Click to expand...

Wrong, individual rights out way the will of the majority.

Otherwise anti miscegenation laws would still be enforceable

CriticalThought said:

True. But society also has a standard of equal protection under the law. Sometimes differing standards have to be worked out.



You do realize that countries that have legalized same sex marriage have not vanquished the religious liberties of those who oppose it? Canada and Sweden have not become anti religious as a result. Hell, Noway is a Christian theocracy. There are a few isolated cases where religious protesters have run acuff with the law, but virtually every time, the religious protester is the one who wins. There is no basis for you to make the exaggerated claims you are making. Your fear is senseless.

Also, if you want to talk about voting in incompetent people, then explain to me why polls show that there are 6% of people who would vote for O'Donnell in Delware even though they believe she is not suitable to be a Senator? People on both sdies of the political spectrum will vote for the lesser of two evils, even if they percieve the lesser evil to be incompetent or corrupt.

Click to expand...

I don't defend the O'Donnell Vote , but UNDERSTAND it. Just like I'd rather have a different GOP Candidate in Kentucky than Rand Paul, and I doubt Sharon Angle in Nevada is the wisest choice to send off Harry Reid. Okay (??)

As far as other Western Nations having Same Sex Marriage and the Social Fiber not being torn aart - well , for one most Gays (Internationally Speaking) do recognize that here in the USA is the big battle. Even those in Canada have so far NOT gone after Church's because they realize how it will affect the larger , more significant struggle here in the US. This is not paranoia, but I think an acceptable tactical reality. Once it gets ingrained here with 60% of the World's Lawyers - Watch out.

Ned Racine said:

I don't defend the O'Donnell Vote , but UNDERSTAND it. Just like I'd rather have a different GOP Candidate in Kentucky than Rand Paul, and I doubt Sharon Angle in Nevada is the wisest choice to send off Harry Reid. Okay (??)

As far as other Western Nations having Same Sex Marriage and the Social Fiber not being torn aart - well , for one most Gays (Internationally Speaking) do recognize that here in the USA is the big battle. Even those in Canada have so far NOT gone after Church's because they realize how it will affect the larger , more significant struggle here in the US. This is not paranoia, but I think an acceptable tactical reality. Once it gets ingrained here with 60% of the World's Lawyers - Watch out.

Click to expand...

Let me get this right. There is a conspiracy, whereby gays in other countries are not seeking to destroy religious liberties because they care about what is going on in this country?

:roll: Okey dokes.

What is scary is the fact that there are people like you out there who believe gays are so internationally organized as to carry that kind of agenda. You really, really buy into the "big, bad gays are out to get us" crap. We aren't just inferior, we are boogey men!

Boo! You better watch our or I'm gonna get your religious freedoms!

Not organized - just emotionally charged. Quiet Consensus on this.

Try asking a few Gays Anywhere as to what they'd REALLY like to see and if you have any insight - Well , either you get derision or hostility. Few give an intellectual answer BECAUSE as the presumed Enemy - they really don't think you deserve one.

Ned Racine said:

Not organized - just emotionally charged. Quiet Consensus on this.

Try asking a few Gays Anywhere as to what they'd REALLY like to see and if you have any insight - Well , either you get derision or hostility. Few give an intellectual answer BECAUSE as the presumed Enemy - they really don't think you deserve one.

Click to expand...

I wonder if I seem as nuts as you when I slam social conservatives for what I percieve is their motives and agenda. I hate to admit it, but cpwill may have a point when it comes to this kind of mind reading behavior. Just don't let him know I said that.

I wonder why vauge doesn't just change the name of this forum to the gay forum.

winston53660 said:

Wrong, individual rights out way the will of the majority.

Otherwise anti miscegenation laws would still be enforceable

Click to expand...

wrong, you don't have a positve right to a marriage liscence else all definitions of marriage are unConstitutional

at some point, someone, somewhere, has to define what is and is not marriage for the State. now, given that we live in a representative government, where the people have sovereignty, and that they have made their will on this matter more than abundantly clear; you better have some dang good reasons for why that someone should be an unelected but hopefully sympathetic Judge rather than them.