Finally some sense is floating to the surface in the US court system. Gay rights will one day be as mundane a topic as interracial marriage (taboo not too long ago all over the place): we'll laugh and remember when, in the olden days, folks like the neighbors couldn't get hitched and have a family. Today, however, the fight is on, with the First Circuit judges bravely taking the issue right to the top court with the sort of confident unanimous decision which brokers no quarrel. The Supreme Court will have to hang themselves out on the most partisan limb ever to reject the logic of this great ruling. The dull, arthritically-conservative members must graphically explain to America how they cannot agree - and I'm betting high that they are chicken of exposing themselves that far Right. No, this may be a turning point in gay/lesbian rights history. The day the case was decided for the Supreme Court - and thus the nation - casting down all anti-gay marriage statutes across the land as unconstitutional. You'll see.
What a superficial and partisan, and conclusory view. Ask yourself, are there two genders or not? If you say yes, then a law based on the necessity of those two genders to interact in matters of family is a rational distinction between two groups of people. If there is a rational basis for a law that favors two-gender marriage, it can't be unconstitutional.
"This ruling that a state can mandate to the federal government the definition of marriage for the sake of receiving federal benefits, we find really bizarre, rather arrogant, if I may say so,"
Tell me, oh great defender of marriage, do mixed sex couples get married for the sake of receiving federal benefits? No wonder the divorce rate is so high.
Patently false. The legal code is the Defense of Marriage Act. A judicial ruling of unconstitutionality is based on a judicial interpretation of the Constitution. My comment, in case you missed the point entirely, has to do with the flawed interpretation of what the Constitution can do. One might, for example, interpret the Constitution to say that all references to gender are discriminatory? That's where this goes, and the last time I checked, there are still two distinct genders on this planet.
For thousands of years, "marriage" has been a formal religious and legal contract between a man and a woman. Now, without the consent of society, courts find it within their purview to change the meaning of that institution, whose primary purpose was the procreation and rearing of children. How arrogant.
If every "person" has the right to marry whomever they please and have that marriage carry the weight of law, regardless of the wishes of society, what is to prevent the legalization of polygamy between consenting adults? Certainly not any historical or societal meaning of the word "marriage".
Men and women are not the same, and they must act together to produce life. If you give women birth control and maternity benefits, that discriminates against men -- only it doesn't because men are biologically different from women. Therefore, a distinction is made between men and women that is rationally based, and it is not unconstitutional.
Many so-called Christians get so worked up over homosexuality, but totally ignore most other activities which the Bible calls sin, such as fornication, adultery, lying, greed, etc. They seem to think that as long as you're not gay, you're on your way to Heaven. The following Bible passage (and many others) puts homosexuality on a par with many other sins, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Cor. 6.10
Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is 'abomination' ('to-w-e-bah': loathsome, detestable)."
Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind,.... By carnal knowledge of them, and carnal copulation with them, and mixing bodies in like manner: this is the sin commonly called sodomy, from the inhabitants of Sodom, greatly addicted to it, for which their city was destroyed by fire: those that are guilty of this sin, are, by the apostle, called "abusers of themselves with mankind", 1 Corinthians 6:9, it is abomination; it is so to God, as the above instance of his vengeance shows, and ought to be abominable to men, as being not only contrary to the law of God, but even contrary to nature itself, and what is never to be observed among brute creatures
ABOMINATION: a-bom-i-na'-shun (piggul, to`ebhah, sheqets (shiqquts)): Three distinct Hebrew words are rendered in the English Bible by "abomination," or "abominable thing," referring (except in Genesis 43:32; Genesis 46:34) to things or practices abhorrent to Yahweh, and opposed to the ritual or moral requirements of His religion. It would be well if these words could be distinguished in translation, as they denote different degrees of abhorrence or loathsomeness.
Oh what a glorious day! Laugh at Jesus. We killed him for a reason. My way is much more progressive and forward thinking. If it feels good, do it. There is no hell. Eat, Drink and be Gay, for tomorrow you die.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
----
What a superficial response! Wow!
Tell me, oh great defender of marriage, do mixed sex couples get married for the sake of receiving federal benefits? No wonder the divorce rate is so high.
Now, without the consent of society
----
Society consents, as it's in our legal code.
----
Which is unConstitutional, and therefore invalid. Try reading the article first.
If every "person" has the right to marry whomever they please and have that marriage carry the weight of law, regardless of the wishes of society, what is to prevent the legalization of polygamy between consenting adults? Certainly not any historical or societal meaning of the word "marriage".
Good luck! How many people do you wish to marry?
How many people do you wish to marry?
This is like a kindergarten. Bye.
Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind,.... By carnal knowledge of them, and carnal copulation with them, and mixing bodies in like manner: this is the sin commonly called sodomy, from the inhabitants of Sodom, greatly addicted to it, for which their city was destroyed by fire: those that are guilty of this sin, are, by the apostle, called "abusers of themselves with mankind", 1 Corinthians 6:9,
it is abomination; it is so to God, as the above instance of his vengeance shows, and ought to be abominable to men, as being not only contrary to the law of God, but even contrary to nature itself, and what is never to be observed among brute creatures
ABOMINATION: a-bom-i-na'-shun (piggul, to`ebhah, sheqets (shiqquts)): Three distinct Hebrew words are rendered in the English Bible by "abomination," or "abominable thing," referring (except in Genesis 43:32; Genesis 46:34) to things or practices abhorrent to Yahweh, and opposed to the ritual or moral requirements of His religion. It would be well if these words could be distinguished in translation, as they denote different degrees of abhorrence or loathsomeness.
---
So are you atheist, or Jewish? Or John Lennon?
He was killed out of greed.
I guess that makes me "homophobic", a term coined by the homosexual community to disparage anyone who disagrees with them.
I believe it has more to do with your being against the Constitutional right to Equal Protection under the law.
Your squeamishness simply doesn't matter - at all.
Acting just like you claim the gays are.
You're a real class act.
/sarcasm
As for alongwaitedfriend, maybe that one will indeed go into some detail. Then we'll know WHY disagreements might arise...