| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:12 pm |
|
The people voting to define marriage, as I believe is their right, is not a violation of the separation of church and state, whereas the government itself (barring the idea of the "people" are the government) defining it is a violation.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:13 pm |
|
Not all support it, I don't support the ban.... It apears alot of other posters in this topic don't support the ban, do we not have a say? then again, we don't support it so maybe we dont... if the courts keep over turning it then reasonibly, theres confliction, we're not ready to ban it all out right, or even accept it all out right. To go and make it an admendment, which we can't take back, years from now, people will (Just like on other thinks like interracial marrage) be like "Wow... that was stupid"
Can I also re-mention that we have many more important problems to face instead of the country getting thier feathers ruffled over a gay marrage debate?
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:14 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | The people voting to define marriage, as I believe is their right, is not a violation of the separation of church and state, whereas the government itself (barring the idea of the "people" are the government) defining it is a violation. |
So marriage is not a religiously-defined term; it's a popular culture-defined term.
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:18 pm |
|
Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is final. 
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:19 pm |
|
| borgslayer wrote: | | Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is final. |
I'm not debating that. I'm asking, according to whom? The government? The church? The people? The Klingons?
|
|
|
La Forge
Bajoran Colonel
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 2125
Location: Babylon 5
|
| Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:29 pm |
|
I'd say the Klingons.
Anyways...Well, borgslayer, that is what you think. I won't deny your opinion. My views of marriage is just the union between two people. I don't care if one is a man and the other a woman, one a man and the other a man, one a woman and the other a woman, just a union.
However, I respect your opinion.
-------signature-------
You'll never hear me say this again in my life, but...
Go Red Sox!
|
|
|
teya
Commander
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 423
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:25 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | In short, I see it as a violation of the concept of separation of church and state in the sense that it is the government intermingling with religion to such an extent that it's actually changing the definition of a term that is a religiously-defined term. The government should not be getting involved in redefining terms that are based in religion. In that sense it could be seen as unconstitutional.
This is the one general concept that keeps a guy I know from supporting gay marriage. Otherwise he would be one of those people out there trying to legalize it, but instead he believes it's a violation of separation of church and state, thereby making it invalid. |
Could you ask this guy you know what he thinks about the government refusing to recognize the legality of same-gender marriages performed in UU churches? Taking your arguments to their logical conclusion, this is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. These are marriages performed in a church that aren't recognized by the government.
If marriage is a religiously-defined institution, then all marriages performed in churches should be legally recognized.
Of course, marriage *isn't* defined only by religious bodies--if that were true there'd be no civil marriages.
And if marriage were defined by the ability to procreate, then any marriage that didn't produce children--for any reason--would be invalid. Which isn't true either.
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:15 pm |
|
Ok...first. If marriage isn't Government regulated (lack of a better word), then why is the government in charge of handing out marriage licenses?
If marriage is a sacred tradition, then why is our divorce rate so high?
If marriage was defined as the ability to breed, then why aren't the many couples who don't, why don't they get their licenses taken away?
Also, many people about 40 years ago considered marriage to be limited to people of the same skin color. Before that it was religion. In their time, people trying to ban intteracial marriage believed they were protecting its sanctity. Sound familiar? Point is, just as people failed to block interracial marriage, they will fail to block gay marriage. Marriage is about love, and nothing else. If two people love each other, then why can't they
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:13 pm |
|
| Quote: | Washington State Supreme Court to Issue Gay Marriage Decision
The state Supreme Court expects to issue its long-awaited ruling in a case challenging the state's gay marriage ban on Wednesday, justices announced.
The short notice, posted on the court's Web site Tuesday, gave no indication of how the court might rule.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205536,00.html |
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:17 pm |
|
Let's hope the court does the right thing and rules in favor of the people's decision.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:30 pm |
|
This whole thing is so childish and immature and I have lost so much respect for people over this debate. Our ancestors came to America because it was supposed to be a place of opportunity, a place of tolerance! This is throughly disgusting. Why do people have to be so intolorant? I personally think that the governments true reasoning behind not allowing gay marriage is because they lose the income tax. What business does the government have meddling in the lives of the American citizens? NONE. I'm personally so sick of hear the argument "Civil Unions and Marriage are the same thing". If they're the same thing, why not ban all marriage and save ourselves the trouble. Our government can't ban or toy with religion and is not supposed to make laws based on them either. How come our government can discriminate against gays and lesbians, but GOD FORBID we discriminate against blacks and mexicans! America is disgusting.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:29 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | America is disgusting. |
First, get a better grasp of your history.
Secondly, if you're going to use this kind of language, you're out of WN for a week, with one warning.
| Quote: | � Respect
This is not a suggestion, but this is a requirement of all users of this forum, and most especially WN members. When posting anything in WN, you are required to treat others with a certain amount of respect, you are required to treat others ideas and beliefs with respect, you are required to treat countries with their due respect, and you are required to treat other ideologies with respect. We realize that in WN, disagreements are bound to arise between members; therefore this naturally means that this rule must sometimes be enforced more loosely. However, just try to be mature, and you should be fine. |
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:57 am |
|
| Quote: | Wash. court upholds gay marriage ban
OLYMPIA, Wash. - The state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on gay marriage Wednesday, saying lawmakers have the power to restrict marriage to unions between a man and woman.
The 5-4 decision leaves Massachusetts as the only state to grant full marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. It was the latest in a series of significant court rulings favoring gay marriage opponents.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage |
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:13 pm |
|
Yes! Score for the traditionalists! This is an excellent ruling of the Washington Supreme Court. I'm glad that they have maintained the ruling, though I do think the decision should have been given to the people, not the legislature.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:50 pm |
|
5-4. Yikes.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:16 pm |
|
| Quote: | | In its opinion today, the Washington court observed, "Although marriage has evolved, it has not included a history and tradition of same-sex marriage in this nation or in Washington State. � It cannot be overemphasized that our state constitution provides for a representative democracy and that the people, who have consented to be governed, speak through their elected representatives. When no fundamental right or suspect class exists, the public consensus, as evidenced by legislation adopted after robust debate, must be given great deference." |
-------signature-------
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:12 pm |
|
More Same-sex marriage news:
| Quote: | Same-sex couple lose battle to have marriage recognised
A lesbian couple who were married under Canadian law three years ago failed yesterday to have their union declared valid under the law of England and Wales.
In a ringing endorsement of traditional marriage, the senior family judge also dismissed a claim that English law was now incompatible with the couple's human rights. They were granted permission to appeal but ordered to pay �25,000 towards the Government's legal costs.
Source: The Daily Telegraph |
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:25 pm |
|
Good. Another step in the right direction, this time for good o'le Great Britian 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:37 pm |
|
*HISSSSS*
That's my reaction. This is pure BULL that marragies are not being recognized. Why are people so afraid of this?
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:42 pm |
|
| Lord Borg wrote: | *HISSSSS*
That's my reaction. This is pure BULL that marragies are not being recognized. Why are people so afraid of this? |
Their Canadian marriage was automatically recognised as a Civil Partnership which has all the same rights.
So they are basically spending thousands of pounds for a name change
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:03 pm |
|
I don't understand why English law should be forced to recognize Canadian law...that's like saying we should recognize Candian law.
They are not marriages anyways, no matter if Canada calls them that or not. So, they can't be recognized as being something they aren't anyway, at least not without it being a lie.
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:38 am |
|
| Lord Borg wrote: | *HISSSSS*
That's my reaction. This is pure BULL that marragies are not being recognized. Why are people so afraid of this? |
They're being ignorant, and afraid of change.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:40 am |
|
| WeAz wrote: | | Lord Borg wrote: | *HISSSSS*
That's my reaction. This is pure BULL that marragies are not being recognized. Why are people so afraid of this? |
They're being ignorant, and afraid of change. |
Well...it isn't that simplistic... and isn't there a rule in WN to not say mean things about other people's views? I know I've had it used against me... 
But in all seriousness, it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. This isn't a simple "change". This is about beliefs on what is right and wrong.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:40 am |
|
Although I am sure this is the 100th time I have said it...Surely the only ignorant ones are those who think that two people of the same-sex can be "married", when they cannot.
Last edited by Puck on Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:41 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:40 am |
|
| WeAz wrote: | | Lord Borg wrote: | *HISSSSS*
That's my reaction. This is pure BULL that marragies are not being recognized. Why are people so afraid of this? |
They're being ignorant, and afraid of change. |
That's not me. I'm not ignorant, nor afraid of change. I'm just a proponent of tradition in this case
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
