Marriage or Civil Union
- Thread starter PowerON
- Start date
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
I've been following it, and I agree. It is cause for grave concern.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
Berry
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,022
- Reaction score
- 2
Well if I have learned anything in my life time it is that morals and values are for sale and that politicians are the biggest prostitutes of all. Politics is a game played for power and money is the Mad Queen.
There are rumors out here in California that legalizing, and taxing, marijuana, prostitution, and gambling, is seen as a possible way out of the money crises -- And are being considered.
Show them gay marriage can turn a profit or save a bundle and prop 8 won't stand a chance.
There are rumors out here in California that legalizing, and taxing, marijuana, prostitution, and gambling, is seen as a possible way out of the money crises -- And are being considered.
Show them gay marriage can turn a profit or save a bundle and prop 8 won't stand a chance.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
Exactly. A shame that there is a price on morals.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2004
- Messages
- 10,309
- Reaction score
- 0
Care to share why you are gettin' nervous ? What's it all about, if you don't mind me askin' ?
Currently the CA courts are starting hearings to decide whether or not to overturn Prop 8. I'm getting nervous because usually with hearings like this, they try to predict how each judge will vote based on the questions they ask at the hearings. Right now, it sounds like the majority of judges are going to vote to let Prop 8 stand, and are trying to decide what to do with the 18,000 couples who had gotten married before the vote. So I'm nervous
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 44,482
- Reaction score
- 448
Does judge can take away or void the marriage license for 18,000 couples that got marriage license in last year?
The short answer is: yes. They completely have the power to do that. It doesn't sound like they want to, which is good, but also tricky. The judges don't want to invalidate all those marriages, but if they pass Prop 8, they will be putting into the state constitution that marriage can only be defined as between a man and a woman, which would be hard to do while leaving those marriages safe.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2004
- Messages
- 10,309
- Reaction score
- 0
I see, okay. Umm, I am sure some people don't want see Constitution bein' attack. That Constitution is all about morality and religion for people who stand their values and keep that way.
Isfoster, I know there's one thing that's funny to some people who don't feel it is a proper way to marry the same sex from the church or pastor/priest -- because, that's like God is marryin' to the same sex couples WHILE He is Holy, you know ? Umm... it's not right to some people who perspect it. God is not a homosexual and that He okay it. That's not how it works. THAT is the problem. Marriage is belonged to God for a man and woman that He gave, not the same sex people, because of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were the opposite sex, not same sex. THAT picture should give to some people to recognize when Adam and Eve were first created on earth. That's the custom/traditional for centuries/decades. The foundin' fathers already recognized it and that was how the Constitution was made.
Church and state will always stay separate.
I'd rather not get into a religious discussion which will just get the thread locked, but if you're actually interested in this issue, I'd be more than happy to continue over pm's.
All I'll say here is that the argument you are presenting does not keep church and state separate. A marriage ceremony and a marriage certificate are two very different things. To restrict one part of the population from obtaining a legal certificate because of religious views (which I'd be happy to discuss elsewhere), is doing the exact opposite of separating church and state. If you personally, or your church didn't want to perform a marriage ceremony, no law would make them. Right now, if I wanted to have a church perform a ceremony for me and my girlfriend, they are absolutely allowed to. The issue is whether or not the government will give us the little piece of paper that carries all the rights and recognition on the legal side of things. And whether or not they do that should have absolutely nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs. It would be like saying that we shouldn't be allowed to get driver's licenses because some people are Amish and their religion leads them to avoid modern technologies. Their beliefs aren't supposed to affect the laws for everyone else. That's the point of keeping church and state separate.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2004
- Messages
- 10,309
- Reaction score
- 0
I'd rather not get into a religious discussion which will just get the thread locked, but if you're actually interested in this issue, I'd be more than happy to continue over pm's.
Okay, we can discuss this matter in PMLand.
All I'll say here is that the argument you are presenting does not keep church and state separate. A marriage ceremony and a marriage certificate are two very different things. To restrict one part of the population from obtaining a legal certificate because of religious views (which I'd be happy to discuss elsewhere), is doing the exact opposite of separating church and state. If you personally, or your church didn't want to perform a marriage ceremony, no law would make them. Right now, if I wanted to have a church perform a ceremony for me and my girlfriend, they are absolutely allowed to. The issue is whether or not the government will give us the little piece of paper that carries all the rights and recognition on the legal side of things. And whether or not they do that should have absolutely nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs. It would be like saying that we shouldn't be allowed to get driver's licenses because some people are Amish and their religion leads them to avoid modern technologies. Their beliefs aren't supposed to affect the laws for everyone else. That's the point of keeping church and state separate.
I am not exactly sure, if I completely understand the means of marriage ceremony AND marriage certificate .....
That " marriage ceremony " is a new to me, but I do know what the " marriage certificate " is. Don't you mind to explain a little bit about marriage ceremony ? I find it very interestin'.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 69,284
- Reaction score
- 142
marriage ceremony is just a wedding party between you/hubby and the families/friends. marriage certificate is the official recognition by government.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2004
- Messages
- 10,309
- Reaction score
- 0
Ahhh - I gotcha now. So, supposely if, I decide wanna a marriage ceremony -- am I require to have a marriage certificate through a pastor/priest ? Or it is not necessary because, of families/friends are witnesses to marriage ceremony ?
Can I ask a pastor/priest to perform us without marriage certificate in church ? I am not sure, if that is required.
My fiance prefers marriage ceremony. He thinks the government is full of crap over the piece of paper. He prefers "witnesses" and that's good enough.
I am learnin'.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 44,482
- Reaction score
- 448
Your post is very interesting about religious stuff that based on marriage.
I would like to discuss via PM too.
I'm Christian too, no longer to be atheist or non-religion anymore.
Ahhh - I gotcha now. So, supposely if, I decide wanna a marriage ceremony -- am I require to have a marriage certificate through a pastor/priest ? Or it is not necessary because, of families/friends are witnesses to marriage ceremony ?
Can I ask a pastor/priest to perform us without marriage certificate in church ? I am not sure, if that is required.
My fiance prefers marriage ceremony. He thinks the government is full of crap over the piece of paper. He prefers "witnesses" and that's good enough.
I am learnin'.
In order for a married couple to have federal rights AS a married couple, they must be issued a marriage certificate by the State.
A couple can get married in a church and not get a marriage certificate (though this doesn't really make a lot of sense, and I am assuming it is probably rare).
A couple can also go down to a court house and sign a marriage certificate. They then are recognized by the federal government as being "married" and receive federal rights.
Gay people can go into a church that performs gay marriages and get married. That never has been, and never will be the issue (though that's what the crazy conservatives would have you believe). However, gay people cannot go to a court house and get a marriage certificate from the State (unless you are in Massachusetts or Connecticut), and therefore do not receive the state rights that come with being married. This is wrong.
What is even MORE wrong is that unless DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is overturned (gooooood luck), gay couples who DO have a marriage license from the State (Mass. or Conn.) will STILL not be recognized as married by the Federal Government. They will have State rights, but not Federal rights.
Hope this all makes sense.
Oh, and just for fun.....
If God had meant for man to smoke, he would have made Adam and Weed.
If God had meant for people to have fake hair, he would have made Adam and Weave
If God had meant for Superman to be here, he would have created Adam and Reeves
If God had meant for there to be swords, he would have created Adam and Sheaths
If God had meant for Jerry Mathers to have a career, he would have created Adam and The Beav.
:roll:I'm just too lazy to write this all out again, but in case people missed it (or just forgot), I already covered why there is really no question that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. I still haven't heard any good responses to that argument, but I'll keep waiting. 
http://www.alldeaf.com/war-politica...ght-ban-same-sex-marriage-17.html#post1158765
http://www.alldeaf.com/war-politica...ght-ban-same-sex-marriage-17.html#post1158765
I didn't read the whole thread but here are my thoughts on this...
I am 100% in favor of gay marriage, this whole "separate but equal" scenario didn't work during Jim Crow and most definitely won't work today. There is a group of people that suggest and feel that their religious scriptures should speak on behalf of everyone and I couldn't disagree more.
You can believe what you want and how you want to, I just don't understand the logic in trying to prevent other groups of people from marrying just because your religion dictates so. For instance, I may not be a fan of propeller hats but how I overcome this is by not wearing propeller hats, I don't go out of my way to prevent everone else from wearing such hats just because I feel it's 'bad'
...and besides, the origins of marriage were never sacred to begin with, in other words, religion just adopted marriage...not create it....marriage (if we're going to define it by it's origins) was more about property values and lines of succession, not love as it's looked upon today
I am 100% in favor of gay marriage, this whole "separate but equal" scenario didn't work during Jim Crow and most definitely won't work today. There is a group of people that suggest and feel that their religious scriptures should speak on behalf of everyone and I couldn't disagree more.
You can believe what you want and how you want to, I just don't understand the logic in trying to prevent other groups of people from marrying just because your religion dictates so. For instance, I may not be a fan of propeller hats but how I overcome this is by not wearing propeller hats, I don't go out of my way to prevent everone else from wearing such hats just because I feel it's 'bad'
...and besides, the origins of marriage were never sacred to begin with, in other words, religion just adopted marriage...not create it....marriage (if we're going to define it by it's origins) was more about property values and lines of succession, not love as it's looked upon today
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 45,080
- Reaction score
- 322
