Defense Of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional By Second Federal Judge

bravo said:
Didn't you just hear the line, 'marriage should be re-enforced, not re-defined'.......

I don't know and don't really care what Jesus or Allah or Lucifer says about the subject and thats not the business of government.....

But building strawmen to support your agenda ain't gonna do it.....

Divorce is just a legal mechanism of getting out of a contract.....
Click to expand...

Then all people should have the equal right to enter into contracts with rah other as long ad they are adults, and no law should be ble to stop thm.
 
Haiku said:
Marriage is just a contract...everyone who wants to enter into it has the constitutional right to do so. Religious objections should have nothing to do with making law in this country.
Click to expand...

Brilliant minds, my same thoughts.
 
Haiku said:
Marriage is just a contract...everyone who wants to enter into it has the constitutional right to do so. Religious objections should have nothing to do with making law in this country.
Click to expand...



exactly.....and the contract of 'marriage' happens to be universally defined as the contract between one man and one women for century's......if others want different contracts, have a ball.....
 
bravo said:
exactly.....and the contract of 'marriage' happens to be universally defined as the contract between one man and one women for century's......if others want different contracts, have a ball.....
Click to expand...

Then you do not believe in equality under he law. You are using a religious excuse, not a constitutional one.
 
Rana said:
Then all people should have the equal right to enter into contracts with rah other as long ad they are adults, and no law should be ble to stop thm.
Click to expand...


Thats correct if the law says its legal.......its isn't now, and never was a Constitutional right....
 
Which brings us full circle...neither was it legal for different races to marry, or women to vote for example...*sigh*...that dog won't hunt.
 
Rana said:
Then you do not believe in equality under he law. You are using a religious excuse, not a constitutional one.
Click to expand...

I believe 'the union between man and women' that we now call marriage, far predates religion of any kind....
 
bravo said:
Thats correct if the law says its legal.......its isn't now, and never was a Constitutional right....
Click to expand...

The constitution does not list the rights of people, it just states that they should be equality for all under the law. The law can be changed and needs to be changed.
 
Rana said:
The constitution does not list the rights of people, it just states that they should be equality for all under the law. The law can be changed and needs to be changed.
Click to expand...

And they are......men and women, regardless of sexual preference or practice can marry ..... marry means the union between a man and a women.....and its open to all with
some limits defined by law....
 
Food for thought.

You know this was brought to my attention about a month ago, but I have also been guilty of using the label "gay marriage," though I have tried hard to use the more appropriate "same sex marriage" instead.

At this point while talking about the issue I don't think we have any choice but to define it as different from what is understood to be "traditional marriage" in the short term, but much like interracial marriage I hope that soon it will be identified simply as "marriage."

Albeit one with the most FABULOUS cake and decorations ever!
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/05/food-for-thought.html
 
WinterBorn said:
Bestiality is one of the "slippery slope" arguments offered as a reason not to allow gay marriage. It is pure nonsense, but that doesn't stop it from being posted. Although to be fair, this time I didn't see it put up as a legitimate reason against, only as a preemptive argument.
Click to expand...

Besides the argument about marrying animals I've even heard it said gay marriage will lead to someone marrying their mail box. Granted, on the face of it marrying ones mail box may seem a bit strange but consider the following. Take your conservative defined liberal, socialist, at the government tit type of individual. A bi-weekly or monthly check arrives in the mail box. One could say the mail box is the family bread-winner and would make a fine addition to the family.

What I find unusual is it appears conservatives come up with these scenarios first.
 
bravo said:
exactly.....and the contract of 'marriage' happens to be universally defined as the contract between one man and one women for century's......if others want different contracts, have a ball.....
Click to expand...

One man and one woman... except when it isn't. Google FLDS..
 
christiefan915 said:
One man and one woman... except when it isn't. Google FLDS..
Click to expand...

Marriage to multiple women or men has been illegal in the US since the 1870's and not accepted long before that.....whats your point....?

This isn't about religion.....religion can say whatever the hell they want, their saying something doesn't make it legal or acceptable.

In 1856 the Republican party's first national platform denounced polygamy and slavery as "those twin relics of barbarism."

Its illegality is almost worldwide....

Before the 2000, I don't believe same sex marriage was condoned anywhere in the civilized world.....
 
Last edited:
Which is why they want equal rights to marriage, anything less is less in every way. Separate but equal does not equal equality.
 
Haiku said:
Which is why they want equal rights to marriage, anything less is less in every way. Separate but equal does not equal equality.
Click to expand...

thank you for answering Winterborn's question.....he likes to ask it whenever this topic comes up but he never accepts the answer from us.....maybe hearing it from another liberal will make a difference this time.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top