Amendment Banning Gay Marriage?!?!?!

[OCP]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font

class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Who cares hetero couples live together w/o getting married.

<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Not true.... most states deem it a \'common law marriage\' after living

together as a couple from anywhere between 5-7 years.

But its the state that governs the law... NOT the federal

government, just as it should be.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

yeah, ok. You kinda got me

there except no one stays together that long. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Mtnjim]

In California there are \"civil unions\". These can be between same sex couples (any age) of hetero couples (as

long as one partner is 62 ? 65? I forget--talk about age discrimination). In California there is no diference

between \"civil union\" and \"marriage\", they are equal. However in Federal eyes there are 1049 laws that are

rights recognized in \"marrage\" but not for \"civil unions\". These include taxes (fileing jointly) , Social

Security, and Medicare. I believe people are looking for \"marrage\" so as to not be discriminated against.

[CptKipling]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
If you are against abortion, don\'t

get one!
If you are against gay marrage, don\'t marry one!
Unfortunately, there are some people who think

everyone should live by their beliefs, and no other!

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Can\'t

agree more (well, unless your talking about things that affect other people, like Pancho said).

There are a few

good things that have come from Religion (direcion, guidence, comfort, etc.), and I\'m saying that not being a

religious person myself. Marriage is another one of those good things.

[Kari]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font

class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Who cares hetero couples live together w/o getting married.

<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Not true.... most states deem it a \'common law marriage\' after living

together as a couple from anywhere between 5-7 years.

But its the state that governs the law... NOT the federal

government, just as it should be.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Only 13 states now have common

law marriage... one of them is NOT CA.

[Kari]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
In California there are \"civil unions\". These

can be between same sex couples (any age) of hetero couples (as long as one partner is 62 ? 65? I forget--talk about

age discrimination). In California there is no diference between \"civil union\" and \"marriage\", they are

equal. However in Federal eyes there are 1049 laws that are rights recognized in \"marrage\" but not for \"civil

unions\". These include taxes (fileing jointly) , Social Security, and Medicare. I believe people are looking for

\"marrage\" so as to not be discriminated against.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Yes.

Exactly. Also for the public acknowledgement of the committment.

[Kari]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
There are some religious people on this board - at

least I know of one - so I think we shouldn\'t keep trashing it over and over out of respect for something very

important to them, even if we don\'t agree.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Well, most of the

arguements against, on this board, are constitutional-- not religious.

I would concur with a constitutional

amendment that limited federal powers FURTHER. There is the amendment that outlawed slavery as an institution, of

course. But, not one that gave control of state rights and duties to the feds.

[Kari]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font

class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Let them get married and then when they get divorced and have to start paying

alimony and child support maybe they will not think it is such a great idea. Who cares hetero couples live together

w/o getting married. Whay can\'t gays be happy with that as well. Marriage is a dying institution anyway.



<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

It is all about wanting to have the choice to determine on their

own whether marriage is a good thing or not.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Also about

legalities, such as access to a spouse\'s health care insurance coverage.

[OCP]

Kari, You are thinking too hard. slow down and take a deep breath. There isn\'t that better?

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Sexyredhead]

I don\'t support gay marriage. I believe marriage is a religious ceremony, and I believe my religion

does not condone homosexuality. Therefore I believe it would be against the \'law\' of my religion to marry

homosexuals.
However, I also do not support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Why? Because again, I

believe marriage is a religious ceremony, and I do not want the government regulating what I can do where or when in

my religion.

This does not mean I hate gay people. The doesn\'t even mean I won\'t talk to them or be

friends with gay people.

These are my beliefs and my opinions on this, and I refuse to argue about them. But

opinions were asked for, and I\'m giving mine. Flame away.

[Elana]

good reply, SRH [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[belgareth]

SRH,

That\'s exactly the point. You have every right to your religous beliefs and the government

should never infringe on them. But not everybody has the same religous beliefs and the government should not

infringe on a person\'s belief that approves of gay marraige either.

I\'m not religous so from my

perspective, the whole thing seems a huge waste of time. Why are all these people so worried about something that is

none of their business? Don\'t they have more important things to do than fight about who can and cannot get

married?

[Sexyredhead]

I realize that not everybody has the same beliefs I have. So if gay marriage comes to a vote, I would

vote against it, because a vote in favor would be a public sign of approval, IMO, and I do not. BUT, I\'m sure

someone who is in favor of it would vote for it.

There are a couple of things going on with this. One is that

many Christians are speaking out because if they don\'t speak out, it will be seen as approval. The same as if

they were voting for it. And this is the same thing many other groups do when they don\'t agree with something

going on. Also, many Christians feel they are being unfairly discriminated against because they have been quiet on

many things for so long, and they feel this is a time and place where they need to speak out.

[CJ01]

Christians are being discriminated? They are the ones who go around dicriminating others and they´ve been doing

this for 2000 years now. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] Victorian times were the worst and we

can still feel the effects today. The church is just too hypocritical and criminal, as well as sexist for my

personal taste. It´s all about power and telling others what they cannot do. One of the worst things is that

Christianity consists of two groups who even fight and kill each other, so how am I meant to believe in such an

institution?
The ten commandments aren´t too bad especially some of them but beyond that it´s all nonsense imho

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Christians also say that you should love others, but when some

do it´s not okay because the love the ´wrong´ person. What a load of crap.

I don´t see the point of marriage

anyhow, it´s just a piece of paper but if people want to get hitched up, let them if it makes them happy. You don´t

have to go and do it yourself.
I don´t see the big deal, surely there´s more important issues to deal with and

things to do to improve...well everything I guess.

[CJ01]

The

only that I don´t like about gay marriage is that even though when a guy tells you he´s married, you still can´t be

sure if he´s straight or not [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] This makes things

tougher and confusing [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]



PS what if the law does

get changed, what will happend to the gay couples who are already married? Or couples from abroad go the US to live

or on holiday how will this affect their `status?´ Any ideas?

[bjf]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
In California there are \"civil unions\". These

can be between same sex couples (any age) of hetero couples (as long as one partner is 62 ? 65? I forget--talk about

age discrimination). In California there is no diference between \"civil union\" and \"marriage\", they are

equal. However in Federal eyes there are 1049 laws that are rights recognized in \"marrage\" but not for \"civil

unions\". These include taxes (fileing jointly) , Social Security, and Medicare. I believe people are looking for

\"marrage\" so as to not be discriminated against.

<hr /></blockquote><font

class=\"post\">

SRH:

I completely agree with you in the seperation between church and state.

However, the aforementioned post illustrates why under the CURRENT system, marriage goes beyond religion. Since

taxes and benefits are a very secular concern, marriage is no longer just a religious ritual but a form of financial

protection.

It is not like all of the people who are getting married, or even most of them for that matter,

are including your religion or any religion in the process.

The people want to grow old together knowing that

them and their loved one will enjoy all the benefits that you and your loved one will have.

Denying them this

is saying their commitment and love for each other is not as strong what a man and a woman can have. Even if you

feel that is true, considering the divorce rate, the commitment and love between heteros is not necessarily strong

in the case of marriages, considering the divorce rate of those marriages.

I am not going to inject my

personal opinions on whether marriage should or shouldn\'t be allowed for gays, other than what I previously said,

I believe it should be a state issue. I thougth Federalism was all based on giving states the right to choose most

of its laws. Since this isn\'t a black and white issue, why would the Federal Government be interfering with it?

Oh. That Bush guy, whose personal religious convictions make it a black and white issue.

Anyway, I just

wanted to re-shine the spotlight on the real issues at stake, because I think you are missing them.

I also

have a question for you.... If a gay couple went to a place of worship from your relgion and asked them if they

could go through the relgious ceremony for marriage, would/do they do it?

If they don\'t, then it would

seem like the ban you desire is already intact. If the marriage doesn\'t have your religion\'s stamp on it,

what is the problem?

[CJ01]

I

think a big problem is that the people in the government are so reliously inclined, they have always used (or even

abused) it to improve their `image´ so people think Ah, he goes to church etc and talks of god, so he must be a

good person and thus worthy of my support.
Religion has no place in government affairs and how a country ought to

be run IMO but the united states really aren´t the only ones on this train.

[Elana]

Maybe we should lock this thread. A lot of feelings get hurt when someone\'s religion is bashed.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[bjf]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Maybe we should lock this thread. A lot of feeling

get hurt when someone\'s religion is bashed. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Maybe we shouldn\'t. I said before (specifically for SRH) not to bash

religion so much. Complaining about bringing religion into politics is seperate entirely, however, and isn\'t

telling her that she shoudnt have the right to practice what she believes.

[Elana]

OK....you guys can continue. I am out of here. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
There are

much more fun topics going on. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[bjf]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
OK....you guys can continue. I am out of here.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
There are much more fun topics going on.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Don\'t be like

that.

[Sexyredhead]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />

I completely agree with you in the

seperation between church and state. However, the aforementioned post illustrates why under the CURRENT system,

marriage goes beyond religion. Since taxes and benefits are a very secular concern, marriage is no longer just a

religious ritual but a form of financial protection.

It is not like all of the people who are getting married, or

even most of them for that matter, are including your religion or any religion in the process.

The people want to

grow old together knowing that them and their loved one will enjoy all the benefits that you and your loved one will

have.

Denying them this is saying their commitment and love for each other is not as strong what a man and a

woman can have. Even if you feel that is true, considering the divorce rate, the commitment and love between

heteros is not necessarily strong in the case of marriages, considering the divorce rate of those marriages.

I am

not going to inject my personal opinions on whether marriage should or shouldn\'t be allowed for gays, other than

what I previously said, I believe it should be a state issue. I thougth Federalism was all based on giving states

the right to choose most of its laws. Since this isn\'t a black and white issue, why would the Federal Government

be interfering with it? Oh. That Bush guy, whose personal religious convictions make it a black and white

issue.

Anyway, I just wanted to re-shine the spotlight on the real issues at stake, because I think you are

missing them.

I also have a question for you.... If a gay couple went to a place of worship from your relgion and

asked them if they could go through the relgious ceremony for marriage, would/do they do it?

If they don\'t,

then it would seem like the ban you desire is already intact. If the marriage doesn\'t have your religion\'s

stamp on it, what is the problem?


<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

I do get the issues here. I

just don\'t agree to the way they are being argued. I have a right to my opinion just the same as you do to yours.

Telling me that a lot of people don\'t agree with me and that\'s why I should vote in favor of something I

don\'t agree with is basically telling me to not voice my opinion on something.

Saying that marriage isn\'t

as strong an institution as it used to be also isn\'t a valid argument. That\'s like saying, \"Well, we know

there\'s something wrong with homosexuals getting married, but marriage isn\'t worth anything anymore anyway,

so what would it hurt?\" I still believe in the institution of marriage, and just because a lot of people don\'t

think it means anything anymore, doesn\'t mean EVERYBODY believes that.

The problem with gay marriage being a

states issue is that federal law atm states that if one state passes a law, that other states must honor it. So if a

gay couple went to say, California and got married, and came back home to say, Idaho, Idaho would have to recognize

that marriage as valid. What if the people of Idaho voted against gay marriage? According to federal law, they would

still have to honor the marriage. So it\'s not really a case of states\' rights. As the law presently stands,

anybody can just go to a state that allows gay marriage and come home saying the marriage must be honored.

As

to whether I should be ok with something because it doesn\'t have my religion\'s \'stamp\' on it is another

bad argument. As I stated in the beginning of this post. I do not agree with gay marriage. That is MY belief. When

it comes to voicing my belief, I\'m not speaking for anybody else. Just myself. It doesn\'t matter to me whether

the marriage is religious or not, I don\'t agree with it. Therefore asking me to agree with it just because they

may not be Christian has nothing to do with whether or not it would make it ok for me.

[belgareth]

There are a lot of strong feelings being expressed here. Should we lock this thread? I don\'t want to

but also don\'t want it turned into a fight that gets a lot of feelings hurt.

What do you folks think?

[Sexyredhead]

It\'s up to you. I\'m not going to argue this anymore. Especially since I said I wasn\'t gonna.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I\'m not going to change my mind and I doubt anyone else

will.

[bjf]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Saying that marriage isn\'t as strong an

institution as it used to be also isn\'t a valid argument.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">



Sorry, never said this. Not even close.

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />



The problem with gay marriage being a states issue is that federal law atm states that if one state passes a law,

that other states must honor it. So if a gay couple went to say, California and got married, and came back home to

say, Idaho, Idaho would have to recognize that marriage as valid. What if the people of Idaho voted against gay

marriage? According to federal law, they would still have to honor the marriage. So it\'s not really a case of

states\' rights. As the law presently stands, anybody can just go to a state that allows gay marriage and come

home saying the marriage must be honored.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">



</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
It doesn\'t matter to me whether the marriage is

religious or not, I don\'t agree with it. Therefore asking me to agree with it just because they may not be

Christian has nothing to do with whether or not it would make it ok for me.

<hr /></blockquote><font

class=\"post\">

The sentiment of \"Not for gay marriage?: Don\'t get one.\" is obviously something you do

not agree with.

IMO, states and religions should decide whether gay marriage is okay for those specific states

and religions, and not for any others.

[franki]

I

don\'t think it needs to be locked (yet). Discussion has been pretty civil up to here, although it is a

difficult/emotional topic.

[bjf]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
There are a lot of strong feelings being expressed

here. Should we lock this thread? I don\'t want to but also don\'t want it turned into a fight that gets a lot

of feelings hurt.

What do you folks think?

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

What, this

wasn\'t being discussed when people felt it was okay to discriminate against gay couples.

So why is this being

brought up when religion comes into the equation?

Elana was just trying to protect her friend.

[belgareth]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font

class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
There are a lot of strong feelings being expressed here. Should we lock this

thread? I don\'t want to but also don\'t want it turned into a fight that gets a lot of feelings hurt.

What

do you folks think?

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

What, this wasn\'t being discussed when

people felt it was okay to discriminate against gay couples.

So why is this being brought up when religion comes

into the equation?

Elana was just trying to protect her friend.

<hr /></blockquote><font

class=\"post\">

It was brought up a while back when religion was discussed and that thread was removed from the

public venue completely. I am asking opinions here and intend to respect the majority view. I assume your reply to

my question is a firm NO.

[bjf]

Yea. That is a vote for no, but once again, I don\'t think religion specifically is being attacked. It was at a

certain part of the thread, but that all got quelled once something was said.

The issue of whether religion

belongs in goverment is more of what is being raised, and that is entirely different.

[CJ01]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Maybe we should lock this thread. A lot of feeling

get hurt when someone\'s religion is bashed.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> But this thread is

not about `bashing´ ,but it ought to be possible to voice an opinion and feelings about religion somewhat.

Especially seing as religion(s) criticise and make their opinions known too. So it should be okay, especially when

there´s actual facts in play......... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

So, what about my

question? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[belgareth]

That\'s true, it is about whether religion belongs in government. IMO it does not but I am not

rabidly opposed to the degree that some of the more fanatical are. After all, our country was founded on principles

taught in many fine religions. It would be nice if the principles could be observed without the need to select one

particular flavor of religion or even to associate them with religion at all.