Court Rules On Same-Sex Unions

[dgridley]

'Committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statues.'

At this point, the Court does not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples.'

Developing story at the Drudge Report.

 

[HHDomains]

Churches and/or members of it should be allowed to choose not to conduct gay/lesbian marriages. Just as they should not dictate to the others in society, neither should they be dictated to. Plenty of Rabis, Priests, Clerics etc have and will continue to marry couples who so choose to marry the same sex - and others will always refuse and that should be their inherent right.

I have no problem with a church refusing to commit the ceremony as long as they don't mind giving up their tax free status.

 

[cityforums.com]

Just look to history ... everything repeats itself

... your proof is the gay movement.

 

[HHDomains]

Just look to history ... everything repeats itself

... your proof is the gay movement.

What is repeating?
The "gay movement" is proof of what?

Your statement makes no sense.

 

[cityforums.com]

it's already happening and has been happening in America and dozens of other nations for hundreds of years. So why is this some kind of wedge to deny others their rights today?

Not sure if you agree that,

If one person chooses to love 2 or more persons at the same

time, the state should not interfere.

 

[whitebark]

Not sure if you agree that,

If one person chooses to love 2 or more persons at the same

time, the state should not interfere.

This is convoluted reasoning at its best. Some hang to their religious ideals and say no to gay marriage, yet when other religious people who have as articles of their own faith the right to marry more than one person they should be denied their right under their religion.

So what these people are saying loud and clear is this - my religion trumps other religions therefor it makes the rules for all others. Thus the state should interfere on my religious belief's behalf.

Polygamy is deep rooted in places like Utah and some even some places here in Canada - for example Bountiful BC. Has Utah or BC fallen apart? Has society ceased to exist, and is moral decay so bad that both the American state and the Canadian province no longer function?

The application of law in civil society rests around harm - prove the harm being done in the case of a man having two wives, or a woman with two husbands etc.

 

[cityforums.com]

Polygamy was perfectly acceptable in the old world and

in my humble opinion no state should interfere. What

is the difference if I love 20 people over a life time or

if I love the same 20 people simultaneously ?

 

[DN Tycoon]

No state or government or outside entity should get between people and their personal lives!

 

[cityforums.com]

No state or government or outside entity should get between people and their personal lives!

I agree !

 

[CrazyTech]

To all you Constitutional scholars out there quoting our beloved Constitution, remember that marriage is a privilege and not a right. So no, that quote does not cover marriage. When you're born, you're not born with the natural right to be married.

That's all I will say in this thread and this is the last time I'll view it. You can argue all you want all day long. Enjoy.

 

[HHDomains]

To all you Constitutional scholars out there quoting our beloved Constitution, remember that marriage is a privilege and not a right. So no, that quote does not cover marriage. When you're born, you're not born with the natural right to be married.

That's all I will say in this thread and this is the last time I'll view it. You can argue all you want all day long. Enjoy.

How very brave of you.
Make a useless point and run away with your tail between your legs.
What a great contribution.

Anyway, to those with the balls to actually discuss the issue:

No state or government or outside entity should get between people and their personal lives!

Why do we have states or governments or laws then?

You cannot make a blanket statement like this without accepting that you are suggesting that murder should be allowed and drug use should be allowed and drinking and driving should be allowed etc, etc, etc.

 

[whitebark]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061025/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

Sad to live in NJ. :td:

Didn't know that human beings getting equal rights equals "sad to live in NJ".

If we look back into American history how many times would have such comments been made? There was indentured servitude - slavery. There was not allowing anyone without land the right to vote. Then there was not allowing women to vote. There was not allowing blacks or Native Americans the right to vote. All the way through people would have muttered the same line - "sad".

Watch for this news to dominate American news - when they should be focused on losing their constitutional rights in regards to the permanent suspension of habeas corpus. NJ just gave an electoral gift to the Republican party.

 

[briman1970]

Marriage is not a religious entity it is a legal one.
Churches should have to abide by the laws of the land or lose their tax exempt status.

In modern times it is, for the most part, both. Marriage is a union that is formally recognized by the state. In the majority of cases, the bond itself is set by the religious affiliation and beliefs of the participants.

I have no problem with a church refusing to commit the ceremony as long as they don't mind giving up their tax free status.

When and if the state finally recognizes gay marriage, it will be in it's purely civil form. They will not, and can not, dictate whether any church must perform the actual wedding ceremony for a same-sex couple. Religious ceremonies are based on the beliefs and customs of that particular sect/denomination. Separation of church and state goes both ways, fortunately.

 

[whitebark]

In modern times it is, for the most part, both. Marriage is a union that is formally recognized by the state. In the majority of cases, the bond itself is set by the religious affiliation and beliefs of the participants.

When and if the state finally recognizes gay marriage, it will be in it's purely civil form. They will not, and can not, dictate whether any church must perform the actual wedding ceremony for a same-sex couple. Religious ceremonies are based on the beliefs and customs of that particular sect/denomination. Separation of church and state goes both ways, fortunately.

That's exactly how it has worked itself out in Canada. But our rightwing is determined to revisit a done deal and is bringing the issue before a vote once again. They will be defeated once again mind you, but the point remains.

 

[HHDomains]

Separation of church and state goes both ways, fortunately.

Fortunately, separation of church and state does not include allowing the church to ignore the laws of the land.

 

[Barrucadu]

What do people have against gay marriage?
Someone I know is getting married (need I say he is gay :P) and i'm happy for him.

 

[dgridley]

You've got a good head on your shoulders, WhiteBark... proud to know you...

Didn't know that human beings getting equal rights equals "sad to live in NJ".

If we look back into American history how many times would have such comments been made? There was indentured servitude - slavery. There was not allowing anyone without land the right to vote. Then there was not allowing women to vote. There was not allowing blacks or Native Americans the right to vote. All the way through people would have muttered the same line - "sad".

 

[-db-]

How very brave of you.

Make a useless point and run away with your tail between your legs.
What a great contribution.

Anyway, to those with the balls to actually discuss the issue:

Once again, you are insulting and trying to pick a fight with SwampFox.

Those type comments and attitude will not be tolerated any longer, HH. Everyone here is tired of dealing with your anger problem. Either make the necessary personal adjustments (aka Check Yourself) or you won't be here much longer, because I will personally (virtually) escort you out the front door of NamePros next time it happens. And for the record, I issue less warning points, and ban less members than our staff average, so this is not a case of an over-zealous person on duty. On the contrary, it's a simple case of -- enough is enough!

Thanks to Denver (SwampFox) for not taking HH's bait. You deserve a pat on the back for turning the other cheek, as often as you have. I know it hasn't been easy.

This thread is closed. No offense to Dgridley, a great member (who started it).
.