Gay Marriage is GO...

[BabyPeterzz]

Hey don't crap all over my thread and the beautiful thing me and BabyPeterzz had going here.

Now that Obummer has decreed that we must get gay married, nullifying both of our trad marriages, we might as well get this over with.

Wanna get divorced, like, next week?

 

[Jamezz]

There are more pressing issues at hand than gay marriage imo

 

[BabyPeterzz]

This guy is burning mad....

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmoveme...l_self_himself_on_fire_in_protest_of_equality

eh...eh?

 

[Tony]

 

[Jamezz]

That pastor is a flat out idiot. The one issue I have with this ruling is that I consider it a clear violation of the 10th amendment. The closer to the people these decisions are made the better. But here we have big Gov't sticking their nose in people's lives again.

 

[Harambe]

u can argue all you want law of the land.

but since the holocaust jews dont trust the laws. they thought the law said move to ghetto yada yada you know the stories

they obeyed everythning. s
so LDS they might also change the sustaining the law part aka obey the law of the land

I like how you just compared people that lost the battle to share the word "marriage" with those that were burnt alive. That was fantastic.

 

[Harambe]

And that was one of the silly arguments against marriage equality. Some people (and I've spoken to plenty) actually believed that churches in states where gay marriage was already legalized were being forced to perform same sex marriages lol.... not true at all.

Then there were the people claiming that eventually it would lead to religions being forced to perform same sex marriages. And that, my friends, is a textbook example of a slippery slope logical fallacy.

It really is. And at that point, if it ever came to that, I'd actually be against it. As someone that has the power to sign marriage certificates and perform ceremonies(which isn't much power at all), if I had a problem with someone's relationship I would refuse to do the ceremony. Anyone who tries to write a law telling me I have to is going to have to fine me.

But you also have to wonder why would a gay couple want to be married in, say, an LDS temple? a place where their union clearly not wanted or respected? No law is going to change that. No amount of armed men coming into a temple and demanding a gay sealing take place is going to change their attitude about it.

 

[Harambe]

That pastor is a flat out idiot. The one issue I have with this ruling is that I consider it a clear violation of the 10th amendment. The closer to the people these decisions are made the better. But here we have big Gov't sticking their nose in people's lives again.

Whether you view gay marriage as a freedom of speech, or religion, is defined and protected by the First Amendment.

Therefore, there is no violation.

 

[Stoked]

There are more pressing issues at hand than gay marriage imo

To those denied these rights and privileges it's a huge deal. Not fixing a problem when we can because some don't consider it the biggest problem is simply bad policy.

 

[Jamezz]

Whether you view gay marriage as a freedom of speech, or religion, is defined and protected by the First Amendment.

Therefore, there is no violation.

What does freedom of speech and/or religion have to do with getting married, please explain. Nobody is keeping any gay person from speaking their mind or joining any religion they want or not want to.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

That pastor is a flat out idiot. The one issue I have with this ruling is that I consider it a clear violation of the 10th amendment. The closer to the people these decisions are made the better. But here we have big Gov't sticking their nose in people's lives again.

And according to the court, the opposite ruling would have been a clear violation of the 14th amendment. The way I see it, the 14th amendment exists so that the 10th amendment can't be used to discriminate or to reduce the civil rights of a portion of its citizenry.

 

[Gameface]

That pastor is a flat out idiot. The one issue I have with this ruling is that I consider it a clear violation of the 10th amendment. The closer to the people these decisions are made the better. But here we have big Gov't sticking their nose in people's lives again.

I believe the founding fathers intended to allow states the ability to form their own legislation on administrative, tax, ordinance type issues. I can't remember who it was who said it, but the idea was that it would hamper the federal government to get tangled up in such mundane issues, while it provides the states with something to do so that they stay away from the more important responsibility of government which is to ensure the rights of all individuals and provide for protection against foreign enemies.

Not sure when the idea that the 10th Amendment gave the right to states over the rights of the individuals within those states, but it is completely incorrect. States do not have the "right" to violate my individual rights. The state's interests do not supercede the rights of individuals.

The term "state's rights" is a misnomer.