Thank you Supreme Court...

It isn't about love - its about an intentional decision by a small minority to redefine a subject (and word) using the power of government to make the rest of society accept their view - when in reality it shouldn't be a governmental issue to start with.

Same old rubbish which that poster has already shot down himself when he previously made the claim
To recap, the early church moved into the marriage business which at the time was a purely government issue.
It was a case of a small minority redefining a subject using the power of government to make the rest of society accept their view.

[August]

I say government shouldn't to be in the marriage business regardless of the genders involved.

I say government shouldn't to be in the marriage business regardless of the genders involved.

Good idea.
Just get the government to withdraw all the laws where marriage has a bearing, then get them to make up a couple of thousand new laws to cover the vast multitude of situations which have just been put in legal limbo.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No they didn't, they ruled that the formula used to apply Section 5 was out of date.
So they issue no ruling on section 5 but ruled that section 4(b) was unconstitutional unless it is updated.

Of course, you would jump on a typo. 4 not 5* They did say it was unconstitutional, read the decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...12-96_6k47.pdf

[Bubblehead1980]

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the states, decision is correct in it takes feds out of marriage but the sweeping activist language is troubling.Court did not define homosexuals as a suspect class either.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the states, decision is correct in it takes feds out of marriage but the sweeping activist language is troubling.Court did not define homosexuals as a suspect class either.

Marriage is not a privilege granted by the states. They may withhold their official recognition of a marriage but they cannot stop someone from marrying.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the states.

Gotta disagree with you. Marriage is a civil contract between consenting parties. As such, it should not be the realm of the state to decide who can or cannot consent to enter into a contractual understanding with another (or other) consenting person.

The idea that it is a "right" or a "privilege" are both part of what has caused the issue to even exist. The issue is not about what people do in their bedrooms - if it were you would have the "bible thumpers" demanding that sodomy laws be enforced. The issue is an attempt to redefine a traditional word that has its earliest significant references found in religious texts. For example, both Christianity and Islam claim Adam and Eve as the "origins" of humanity. While neither text states clearly that they were married, they both show a picture of a married couple. Their son, Cain is the first specific mention of marriage in religious texts. There are no known non-religious texts or records that would predate the religious claims.

There are truly 2 different issues here - one is an intentional attack on a religious commitment in an attempt to redefine in and thus modify the religious acceptance of homosexuality. That is simply a wrong action attempted by proponents of "gay marriage". The second is the reality that a civil union between two (or more) consenting adults is not the business of anyone else - be it the church, the state, or the neighbors down the street. As such, society (including churches and states) should back the heck out of what people do in their own bedrooms provided it is between consenting adults.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Well, I'm gonna throw a monkey wrench into all this by speculating that it probably all boils down to taxes in the end, ergo government involvement.

[Stealhead]

Honestly marriage is a very complex issue and means different things to different people.Simply reading the Wikipedia article on marriage would make that obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Gotta disagree with you. Marriage is a civil contract between consenting parties. As such, it should not be the realm of the state to decide who can or cannot consent to enter into a contractual understanding with another (or other) consenting person.

The idea that it is a "right" or a "privilege" are both part of what has caused the issue to even exist. The issue is not about what people do in their bedrooms - if it were you would have the "bible thumpers" demanding that sodomy laws be enforced. The issue is an attempt to redefine a traditional word that has its earliest significant references found in religious texts. For example, both Christianity and Islam claim Adam and Eve as the "origins" of humanity. While neither text states clearly that they were married, they both show a picture of a married couple. Their son, Cain is the first specific mention of marriage in religious texts. There are no known non-religious texts or records that would predate the religious claims.

There are truly 2 different issues here - one is an intentional attack on a religious commitment in an attempt to redefine in and thus modify the religious acceptance of homosexuality. That is simply a wrong action attempted by proponents of "gay marriage". The second is the reality that a civil union between two (or more) consenting adults is not the business of anyone else - be it the church, the state, or the neighbors down the street. As such, society (including churches and states) should back the heck out of what people do in their own bedrooms provided it is between consenting adults.

Okay, marriage as a religious thing simply does not matter here, because it does not count for everyone as we have separation of church and state and not everyone is governed by religion.Some of us are religious, some of us are atheists like myself, I could care less if a man in a robe etc performed a ceremony.I am speaking of legally recognized marriage by a state, which issues a marriage license which entitles you to said privileges.Marriage, much like a driver's license is a privilege, state's set their standards, as long as it does not deny said privilege on grounds of say race or gender or other members of a suspect class.Homosexuals are not a suspect class, so denying them a marriage license is not illegal.However(not sure about all but just saying), I believe most state's laws that do not allow gay marriage simply define marriage as between a man and a woman, really the same thing as saying you must be 16 and pass a driving test to obtain a license or that you can not marry your sister etc. Gun ownership is a RIGHT, freedom of speech is a RIGHT, marriage , in the civil marriage, legal sense, is not.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by August

Marriage is not a privilege granted by the states. They may withhold their official recognition of a marriage but they cannot stop someone from marrying.

Yes, it is a privilege.Sure, they can't stop you from having a ceremony but the privilege is the legal benefits and recognition that come along with it, they may grant or deny based on if you meet the criteria they set for a marriage license.Some state's say you must have different equipment, other's do not, it's up to them as long as it is not denied on basis of race, gender, etc.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Yes, it is a privilege.Sure, they can't stop you from having a ceremony but the privilege is the legal benefits and recognition that come along with it,

Sorry, government handouts will never be what defines a commitment as intimate as a marriage between two people.

Of course, you would jump on a typo. 4 not 5* They did say it was unconstitutional, read the decision.

Perhaps you should have read the decision.
Even your attempt at correcting your mistake fails.
Perhaps you are right, maybe those people teaching you law really do know nothing. It would certainly explain a lot.

Sorry, government handouts will never be what defines a commitment as intimate as a marriage between two people.

So being "next of kin" is a government handout?????

For example, both Christianity and Islam claim Adam and Eve as the "origins" of humanity. While neither text states clearly that they were married, they both show a picture of a married couple. Their son, Cain is the first specific mention of marriage in religious texts. There are no known non-religious texts or records that would predate the religious claims.

You are correct that it doesn't state that they were married, however it doesn't imply that they were married either so that picture is one you are drawing for yourself.
Cain is indeed the first mention of marriage, but he had to go to the land of Nod to get married. Which suggests that the religious community in Eden didn't have marriage but the ungodly masses living in the other place did. So your religious text clearly undermines the claim you are trying to put on it.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Cain is indeed the first mention of marriage, but he had to go to the land of Nod to get married. Which suggests that the religious community in Eden didn't have marriage but the ungodly masses living in the other place did. So your religious text clearly undermines the claim you are trying to put on it.

Might as well be a reflection of exogamic traditions, though.

[Oberon]

In the name of Kane!