|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:36 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:42 pm
|
WickedRentSpringAwakening
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:47 pm
 |
|
|
 |
WickedRentSpringAwakening Je Suis La Vie Yeah, religion is totally involved... I think we should ban all marriages and just give Civil unions to any union so long as long as its between persons who can give consent. I was soo mad when Prop 8 passed in california... mainly cause I live there... its totally not constitutional... stressed Marriage is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution therefore, under the 10th Amendment, making it a state issue. The federal government has no control over marriage, except in DC because DC is run by the federal government, unless they pass laws that every state has to follow. Unfortunately for now, it is Constitutional. sad It is morally wrong to limit someone's rights and privileges, but it isn't un-Constitutional. (Sorry, I'm sort of a Civics junkie razz )
It actually goes against the first amendment since it limits the rights of religion. =P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:04 pm
|
|
|
|
Captain_Shinzo WickedRentSpringAwakening Black: Constitutional amendment bans same-sex marriage, civil unions, and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons Dark Red: Constitutional amendment bans same-sex marriage and civil unions Red: Constitutional amendment bans same-sex marriage Pink: Constitutional amendment grants legislature authority to ban same-sex marriage Image edited out.Thoughts? I find this extremely disturbing. I believe that religion is involved.
So it makes a lot of sense that the only reason people really oppose same sex marriage is for religious reasons... >.<' |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WickedRentSpringAwakening
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:12 pm
|
|
|
|
Captain_Shinzo WickedRentSpringAwakening Je Suis La Vie Yeah, religion is totally involved... I think we should ban all marriages and just give Civil unions to any union so long as long as its between persons who can give consent. I was soo mad when Prop 8 passed in california... mainly cause I live there... its totally not constitutional... stressed Marriage is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution therefore, under the 10th Amendment, making it a state issue. The federal government has no control over marriage, except in DC because DC is run by the federal government, unless they pass laws that every state has to follow. Unfortunately for now, it is Constitutional. sad It is morally wrong to limit someone's rights and privileges, but it isn't un-Constitutional. (Sorry, I'm sort of a Civics junkie razz )
Actually, marriage involves government rights, soooo, it doesn't technically have to do with religion, therefore still making it constitutional. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:44 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:19 pm
|
|
|
|
WickedRentSpringAwakening Captain_Shinzo WickedRentSpringAwakening Je Suis La Vie Yeah, religion is totally involved... I think we should ban all marriages and just give Civil unions to any union so long as long as its between persons who can give consent. I was soo mad when Prop 8 passed in california... mainly cause I live there... its totally not constitutional... stressed Marriage is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution therefore, under the 10th Amendment, making it a state issue. The federal government has no control over marriage, except in DC because DC is run by the federal government, unless they pass laws that every state has to follow. Unfortunately for now, it is Constitutional. sad It is morally wrong to limit someone's rights and privileges, but it isn't un-Constitutional. (Sorry, I'm sort of a Civics junkie razz ) Actually, marriage involves government rights, soooo, it doesn't technically have to do with religion, therefore still making it constitutional.
I think he was saying that banning marriage would be against the first amendment (though I'm not sure why he quoted your post instead of Je Suis La Vie's). And if he wasn't, I'm putting it forward now.
Though marriage is not solely limited to religion, it is a religious institution in many different religions. Therefore, to ban marriage would be a ban on certain religious practices. The free exercise clause makes such a proposition unconstitutional.
However, one could simply separate the religious and legal aspects of marriage, saying that "marriage" can only be granted by a religious institution, and "civil unions" can only be granted by the government. By doing this, the state could offer equal rights to same sex couples as opposite sex couples with (hopefully) less bitching about "ruining the sanctity of marriage." Those who wish to be married in a religious sense would see to that on their own, but the state would not recognize it in any way. In order to receive the privileges granted by the state, they would also need to secure a civil union.
Of course, what gives religions sole rights to the word "marriage"?
(I'm honestly asking this. If anyone has any information on the origin of the word "marriage" of non-religious examples of marriage in earlier history, I think it would make a great discussion point.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:27 pm
|
|
|
|
Call Me Apple Je Suis La Vie Yeah, religion is totally involved... I think we should ban all marriages and just give Civil unions to any union so long as long as its between persons who can give consent. I was soo mad when Prop 8 passed in california... mainly cause I live there... its totally not constitutional... stressed I dont like this idea. Its like saying.."If I cant have the cookie, NO ONE CAN!" Childish, to me. Everyone should have the right to marry whoever they want that is over 18 years old and willing. I also HATE how each state's laws are different. It's bullshit.
I disagree with states having different laws being bullshit. The whole point of states being able to decide certain laws for themselves was that what's best for one state might not be what's best for another (example: sales tax vs. income tax as a main source of revenue). Now, I do think that some laws that are left up to states should be established by the federal government. Gay marriage is one of those issues I feel the federal government should decide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WickedRentSpringAwakening
|
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:50 am
|
|
|
|
garra_eyes WickedRentSpringAwakening Captain_Shinzo WickedRentSpringAwakening Je Suis La Vie Yeah, religion is totally involved... I think we should ban all marriages and just give Civil unions to any union so long as long as its between persons who can give consent. I was soo mad when Prop 8 passed in california... mainly cause I live there... its totally not constitutional... stressed Marriage is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution therefore, under the 10th Amendment, making it a state issue. The federal government has no control over marriage, except in DC because DC is run by the federal government, unless they pass laws that every state has to follow. Unfortunately for now, it is Constitutional. sad It is morally wrong to limit someone's rights and privileges, but it isn't un-Constitutional. (Sorry, I'm sort of a Civics junkie razz ) Actually, marriage involves government rights, soooo, it doesn't technically have to do with religion, therefore still making it constitutional. I think he was saying that banning marriage would be against the first amendment (though I'm not sure why he quoted your post instead of Je Suis La Vie's). And if he wasn't, I'm putting it forward now. Though marriage is not solely limited to religion, it is a religious institution in many different religions. Therefore, to ban marriage would be a ban on certain religious practices. The free exercise clause makes such a proposition unconstitutional. However, one could simply separate the religious and legal aspects of marriage, saying that "marriage" can only be granted by a religious institution, and "civil unions" can only be granted by the government. By doing this, the state could offer equal rights to same sex couples as opposite sex couples with (hopefully) less bitching about "ruining the sanctity of marriage." Those who wish to be married in a religious sense would see to that on their own, but the state would not recognize it in any way. In order to receive the privileges granted by the state, they would also need to secure a civil union. Of course, what gives religions sole rights to the word "marriage"? (I'm honestly asking this. If anyone has any information on the origin of the word "marriage" of non-religious examples of marriage in earlier history, I think it would make a great discussion point.)
Marriage, at this point, can be administered by a religious official or by a government official (justice of the peace) or by a commander of an army or navy or air force battalion. Marriage has many rights that go with it that a civil union does not, therefore, it isn't a religious issue. We are talking here about the marriage rights of government such as visiting a spouse in the hospital, having life insurance on said spouse, you get the idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:47 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:03 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:12 pm
|
|
|
|
Semiremis WickedRentSpringAwakening Thoughts? I find this extremely disturbing. I believe that religion is involved. I don't find it disturbing, it actually makes perfect sense. Once homosexuality started to become sort of mainstream and was brought out into the open you see more violence towards gays and you see a more noticeable opposition which wasn't all that visible to begin with because there was no need for it. So basically what I'm saying is the data doesn't actually imply that we're becoming a theocracy. It's more likely just the opposition becoming visible because of a perceived threat being more visible and imposing. Religion is always involved in a country ruled by law and by people where the majority of those people consider themselves to be a part of one religion or another. It's a part of the average persons life and it influences their lives and subsequently their decisions.
Amen
but since I don't live in USA It really doesn't bother me |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
