Author Topic: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court  (Read 16595 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Carla_M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • just a nobody who likes it that way
Some people love controversy. I must admit to being one of them. I don't respond much to building topics here because I'm no where near being able to build what I would like and all I have are questions, no answers. I like some of the information here and have printed much to PDF files for future reference. There's even controvery between methods used by some builders. I've learned a lot from the two Dons.

Corporations urge Supreme Court to embrace gay marriage

From todays Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-court-gaymarriagebre91q0ig-20130227,0,7571188.story


For the record I believe it is about time. Some of my best most loyal and dependable friends are in long term monogamous gay or lesbian relationships.


"More than 200 businesses will urge the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to strike down a federal law that restricts the definition of marriage to heterosexual unions.

Lawyers representing the businesses said they would file a brief in the case.

Companies including Microsoft Corp, Google Inc, Starbucks Corp and Pfizer Inc are among those that joined the brief. Others included Aetna Inc, Amazon.com, Inc and Citigroup Inc.

Thomson Reuters Corp is another signatory. The Reuters news agency is part of Thomson Reuters.

The companies want the Supreme Court to strike down a key provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Separately, lawyers representing another group of employers, including some of the same companies, had said already that they planned to file a brief on Thursday in a related case that questions a California law that bans gay marriage.

The two cases are to be argued before the Supreme Court on March 26 and 27.

In the brief filed on Wednesday, attorney Sabin Willett wrote that DOMA "requires that employers treat one employee differently from another, when each is married, and each marriage is equally lawful."

DOMA does not create any uniformity nationwide, Willett said, because 12 states in total either authorize same-sex marriage or recognize marriages that have been performed in other states.

That creates a burden for employers, particularly those who do business nationwide, he added.

Willett also wrote that the law forces companies to discriminate, sometimes in contravention of their own internal policies and local laws, when dealing with healthcare plans and other benefits.

"We must do all of this in states, counties and cities that prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and demand equal treatment of all married individuals," he added.

In briefs already filed in support of marriage being restricted to heterosexual unions, business interests have not been represented. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has not taken a stand on the issue."
The personal dietary habits of people kill more frequently than firearms. Eat healthy and carry a gun.

Offline NM_Shooter

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,788
  • Sometimes I sit and think. Mostly I just sit.
I find it odd that the LGBT community tends to hate anything to do with Christianity or traditional religion, yet they want to be recognized as "married" which is first and foremost a religious ceremony.  So I guess I am more inclined to be less resistant to using the term "civil union" as opposed to marriage.  I know this is merely semantics. 

I also am somewhat confused by the LGBT movement, which seems to be focused to make the world convinced that alternative sexual lifestyles are normal and healthy.  Which I feel they are not.  Don't get me wrong... it is none of my damn business what somebody wants to do in private on their own property.  But don't come into my home via entertainment or schools via the legal system and start to teach how this is normal and healthy.  It isn't.  It is hedonistic at best.  Look at any of the pro-gay demonstrations / marches that happen..... it is frequently a freak show of scantily clad alternative types who merely are there to revel in their own individual sexuality. 

A few years ago, I remember the Hispanic protests regarding the treatment of illegal residents.  They protested, disrupted traffic, trashed parks, shut down businesses, and generally promoted anarchy.  I would be more inclined to respectfully listen to their arguments and help them formally join our community if they were working together for the good of the community.  Heck, same with the occupation protesters.  Sort of same with LGBT.... make your cause more about love than about sexuality. 

I am frustrated that LGBT groups and liberal causes are forcing their lifestyle onto conservatives.  It tends to be an "in your face whether you like it or not" sort of situation.... much like the recent attack on the morality stance of the Boy Scouts.  Rather than go and start their own scouting organization which would be less discriminating in terms of morality, and no association to divinity of any type, they have to attack the Boy Scouts... and demand that they change their policy.  WTH?  I see the same thing with the term "marriage".  Same with the chik-fil-a story.  Don't like it that the store supports traditional marriage?  Go eat somewhere else.  Call it a civil union or something other than marriage.  Leave conservative traditions alone.

I am perfectly fine if we want to find a way by which a non-married person can have a civil union with someone else (hetero or not) which results in the second party having access to benefits of the first.  I do not believe that sexuality needs to be a criteria for any of this.   License it, charge them fees to make a union, and charge them fees to separate.   

Anyone who stands in opposition is a declared a homophobe.  What nonsense.
"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"

Offline Carla_M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • just a nobody who likes it that way
Good to see somebody with a thought they wanted to express on this. I thought this was just not comfortable enough for everyone. Some of the displays paraded in some LGBT demonstrations do seem a little over the top or in your face, for certain. But then so are the displays presented by the westboro baptist church. Both, though they make many people angry and uncomfortable, are a guaranteed right here in the USA. So from time to time our resolve for true personal freedoms has to be tested it seems.

Here’s my viewpoint. I believe any law that declares marriage can only be between a man and a woman is wrong because it impinges on my rights under constitutional amendments. We are guaranteed the freedom to decide our religious choice. That includes the choice of choosing no religion. There’s no drop down menu to choose from.

It seems to me that all the pronouncements that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman have their roots in theology. I am a non believer although I was raised in a seemingly normal practicing devout catholic family, but that is another sordid story and irrelevant here. I do not believe there ever was a god. I believe religion is an invention of men to comfort the unknown and to control people.

So I take offense at being made to obey a law that has its roots in religion. That’s pretty much it.

Is it normal for same sex people to have intimate personal relations? I think so. In the non human animal world evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior has been documented in over a thousand species. Why should people be forced into opposite sex restrictions?

Is it healthy? When mental health is included I’d say a resounding Yes is the correct answer. I have family members who “turned out” to be gay and lesbian. I have close friends who are lesbian and gay couples and some who are bisexual. I also have numerous friends and relatives who are in heterosexual relationships. An old friend from school days is a male to female transgender. She is now a better adjusted and more happy, less self destructive person.

To my knowledge none of these people have ever marched in one of the in your face LGBT pride parades When I meet them for a lunch or dinner or a hike or a camping trip or whatever social event they seem as ordinary as most heterosexual people are.

The saddest thing about all these people is that many, maybe all, have lost long time friends and even family members because they can not see past their own learned prejudices.

I believe governments, at all levels, have no business caring about what we do in our bedrooms. None. No law should discriminate against any person. We’re all supposed to be equal before the law. Equal as in not being discriminated against. A law based in ancient religious teachings has no purpose in todays world.

Thanks for being the first with the self confidence to voice their convictions.

We do have some commonality. I own guns and have a CCW which confounds many people I’d call friends. My female lesbian cousin and her partner also have guns and CCW. We believe strongly in the right to own and carry firearms. Not your typical screaming liberal.
The personal dietary habits of people kill more frequently than firearms. Eat healthy and carry a gun.

Offline NM_Shooter

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,788
  • Sometimes I sit and think. Mostly I just sit.
Well, that's pretty much a stretch in constitutional interpretation.

What if you wanted to create your own religion that included cruelty, human sacrifice, or something equally heinous?  Are you arguing that your choice of religion or lack of it allows you to do whatever you want?

I like to believe that we hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than that of the sexuality of animals.  My neighbor's dog has moments of indiscretion and like to lick himself when he is at the park around children.  Should we follow suit and allow people to do the same?

Of course not.  Using examples of beasts being bestial, or using religion freedom to be hedonistic or cruel is no defending argument. 

Also, associating the Westboro nuts as representative of the majority of right winger folks is also somewhat weak.  That is a group that is completely denounced by all true Christians and the vast majority of conservatives.  However, most (all?) LGBT parades are focused on displays of their sexuality.  I don't believe I have ever heard an LGBT group speak out against the public displays of sexual weirdness during their gatherings.  They accept it and as such it is an accurate representation of their collective morals. 

You point out that marriage has its roots in theology.  I agree.  So why the demand to call civil unions "marriage" instead of "unions"?  I suspect because those who seek this want acceptance and endorsement that what they are doing is normal and acceptable.  In their own minds they have doubt, but if the government endorses it, then it must be ok. 

Let's put this to the acid test.  One condition or the other... absolute hyperbole on this.  What happens to the human race if we insist that all humans practice heterosexuality only?  What happens to the human race if we practice homosexuality only?

That which merely makes someone feel good is not sufficient to be called morally acceptable.  If we only pursue that which makes us feel good, we will find ourselves living in complete anarchy very quickly.

Saying that it is normal for same sex people to have intimate relations is not a well defined statement.  If you are saying that it is normal for them to have intimate sexual relations, then I disagree.  You will have a very hard time supporting that statement.

BTW, many folks believe that Christians hate homosexuals.  This is not true.  We hate the sin, not the sinner.  We believe that sexual acts performed outside of marriage (even between heterosexual couples) is a sin.  I understand that lots of folks feel otherwise. 

Once again, I am not going to march in the streets denouncing homosexuals.  I am not going to march in the street promoting heterosexuals.  I'd like that the LGBT community show me the same courtesy. 

I've got friends who are lesbian also.  Heck, I built a portal on their shop at no cost for them when one was out of work and needed space to start an art business.  They are decent folks and I like their company.  I've never seen them act inappropriately, nor have I heard them promote their choice of sexuality.  As conducted, we have mutual respect for each other, and we get along fine. 

I'm simply not interested in what they do in the privacy of their homes, as long as they keep it in their homes.  If they were to show up at my house promoting that lifestyle, or demanding religious recognition by insisting that we use the term marriage, things would change fast. 










 
"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"

Offline Huge29

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Welcome to the CP-Forum
You stole the words right out of my mouth NM!  What a contradiction to want a guarantee of a religious transaction/covenant/ordinance, yet say any law based on religion is irrelevant.  I have more relatives, coworkers and friends that are in this group than anyone, so don't give me any ignorance line, please.  I think they should have any legal rights to their mate such as inheritance and spousal priviledge, but that is NOT marriage.  Call it a civil union as it already exists.  I love the line of stay out of our bedroom, don't forbid our freedoms, yet now they want to stuff it down out throats.  I am with NM, whatever two consenting adults do behind locked doors concerns me zero, but don't piss down my back and tell me its raining.  Ok, I am done. 

Offline Huge29

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Welcome to the CP-Forum
I forgot to mention, it looks like you have copied and pasted a large part of an article, if not disregard this, but if you have that is a major copyright violation that can get the site owner in big trouble.  That is the kind of thing that gets attorneys to call site owners and make big threats; it is written like an article, so I am not sure what is and what is not. 

Offline MushCreek

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,119
I'm pretty much in line with NM Shooter. As a Christian, I consider homosexuality a sin, BUT- it's none of the government's business. I worked with a lesbian, and learned that she couldn't visit her gravely ill life partner in the hospital because it was 'family only'. That's just not fair, and it's not fair that my wife and I enjoy spousal benefits that same-sex couples in a committed relationship are denied. I also agree that 'marriage' implies religious sanction as well as governmental. 'Civil union' with all spousal benefits sits better with me.

Where do I draw the line? If my church had an openly gay pastor, I'd have to move on. If they started 'marrying' gay couples, same thing- I'd move on. I have nothing against 'normal' gay people (is that an oxymoron?) and have had gay friends. I do take issue with the flamboyant characters in gay pride parades that just serve to increase prejudice. I'm on the fence about gay couples adopting children. I know that people don't necessarily 'turn gay' when exposed to homosexuals, but do we really know what the  long-range effects are of growing up straight in a gay home? There are a lot of crazy folks out there; at least some of them are that way because of some aberration in their upbringing.
Jay

I'm not poor- I'm financially underpowered.

Offline Squirl

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,154
It is about the law, not religion.

The vast majority of the Jewish faith recognizes and has gay marriage.
When you base laws on religion alone, it is usually a clear cut violation of what most of the founders considered as the most important aspect of the constitution.  So much so, they put it as the very first thing in the bill of rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

The case most likely to prevail is the case out of the First Circuit.  The district court had originally held that the Federal Government had no authority to interfere (DOMA) with a states right to allow gay marriage.  It was an interesting read.  It broke down the history of marriage laws by state since the founding of the country.  Interestingly only New Hampshire is the only state that never had a marriage law discriminating against race.  Go New Hampshire. 

The circuit court overruled them.  It held that the Federal Government discriminating on who can be married by gender being the basis of the decimation was a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.  "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  In every jurisdiction where gay marriage or civil unions are legal at the state level, the Federal courts have decided that DOMA violates the rights of the people in those jurisdictions. 

This is currently docketed for the Supreme Court.

I don't normally make predictions, buy I would guess that the Supreme Court will likely overturn DOMA.  It has had such clear and well written unanimous legal decisions out of the district and circuit courts.  My expectation is they will craft their legal argument to only overturn it for individuals in states that recognize gay marriage.  I would not expect they would be so bold as to hold a Loving v. Virginia style holding and overturn it at the state level in states that ban it.

I would expect three justices dissenting.  Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.  Under originalism, the justices like to theorize the intent of the drafters at the time that the clause of the constitution was drafted.  Under that theory of law the Fourteenth Amendment was only intended to apply to black people.  It would not apply to any other race, and never apply to gender.  At the time of its drafting no woman in America even had the right to vote.  Congress had to pass a constitutional amendment to even give women the right to vote, so there is no way to assume that the drafters had intended the fourteenth amendment would apply to gender. 

Theorists under the plain language interpretations took the word "Equal" in the constitution to mean equal.  They have been applying that as a legal theory since the 1970s.  So under their interpretation that makes men and women equal under the law rather than just two men of different races.

Arguments based on “because my religion says so” are usually ignored by the court.

Offline Carla_M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • just a nobody who likes it that way
It is about the law, not religion.

That is precisely the point I have been trying to make. It's about our laws and the constitution they are based on. The argument is not about what anyone likes or dislikes, it is not about being comfortable or uncomfortable.



We, in the USA have separation of state and church, a wall of separation is the term used.

The church used to be the custodian of records of births, marriages and deaths. They do not have that power anymore.

The government has been the custodian of records and charge taxes for the various permits and licenses for a very long time now.

There is no requirement to have any religious belief to obtain a marriage license from the state.

(There is also no requirement that a couple applying for a marriage license express a desire to have children. I toss that in for free as many argue that since same sex couples can not procreate they should not be allowed to marry. That’s ludicrous as opposite sex couples have no requirement to reproduce.)

If the state prohibits marriage of same sex couples has crossed the line between separation of state and church. A law that states same sex couples can not marry is discriminatory, same as the old laws that separated whites and blacks, or the laws that prevented women from voting.

Using a purely religious text or concern to preclude a group of people from a civil institution is unconstitutional as well as an abridgement of the separation of church and state ideal.



Marriage for heterosexuals and civil union for same sex couples?

That creates different classes of people. If anyone believes that is fine you may as well go further and say there should be “Marriage, First Class” for heterosexuals who profess a religious choice, “Marriage, Second Class” for heterosexuals who declare they are atheists, and “marriage, third class” for homosexuals, with possible sub classes for those who have some religious beliefs and those who have none. If you think that is ridiculous then maybe you are able to understand my opinion on the matter.
The personal dietary habits of people kill more frequently than firearms. Eat healthy and carry a gun.

Offline mgramann

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
We, in the USA have separation of state and church, a wall of separation is the term used.

The church used to be the custodian of records of births, marriages and deaths. They do not have that power anymore.

The government has been the custodian of records and charge taxes for the various permits and licenses for a very long time now.

There is no requirement to have any religious belief to obtain a marriage license from the state.

(There is also no requirement that a couple applying for a marriage license express a desire to have children. I toss that in for free as many argue that since same sex couples can not procreate they should not be allowed to marry. That’s ludicrous as opposite sex couples have no requirement to reproduce.)

If the state prohibits marriage of same sex couples has crossed the line between separation of state and church. A law that states same sex couples can not marry is discriminatory, same as the old laws that separated whites and blacks, or the laws that prevented women from voting.

Using a purely religious text or concern to preclude a group of people from a civil institution is unconstitutional as well as an abridgement of the separation of church and state ideal.

I'd rather the government stay out of marriage altogether, as I don't see any benefit for it to be involved, and I'll leave my opinion at that.

I do, however, take issue with the argument made above.  Religions sometimes have a role or definition as it relates to marriage.  Government sometimes has a role or definition as it relates to marriage.  It is a false argument to say that this similarity means there is a link between the two.  To say the separation of church and state is violated by such a law, a concrete link needs to be established, not just a similarity. 

Offline MountainDon

  • Administrator
  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,861
  • Jemez Mountains, NM; that's pronounced HEY-mess
    • My 15.75 x 30 Jemez Cabin
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2013, 09:25:28 AM »
  Religions sometimes have a role or definition as it relates to marriage. 

I'll stick my nose in... The quote above is only true IF you believe in or are a follower of that particular religion. There are many religious tenets which must be / should be followeed by the practitioners of the particular faith. Some are restricted to a single faith, some are more widespread.

During Lent Catholics are required to abstain from meat; more precisely the fleah of warm blooded animals. Hence fish are fair game. So are reptiles I guess. As a non Catholic I have no obligation to do the same.   Similarly those of the Jewish faith participate in male circumcision for religious based reasons. I do not have to follow that practice either.

I can follow the argument made for the definition of marriage for same sex couples by applying the same cold logic. Carla and Squirl make an excellent point, IMO. The question of 'should same sex marriage be permitted' is a question of civil law. Religious traditions have no place being mixed into civil law in a country where state and church are clearly to be separate from one another. 

We all have the right and freedom to practice a religion of our choice without state interference. That should clearly extend to choosing no religion and hence to not being forced to follow rules that apply only to those of any particular faith.

If emotion and personal beliefs and opinions are removed from the equation I believe the answer becomes more clear.
Just because something has been done and has not failed, doesn’t mean it is good design.

Offline mgramann

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2013, 09:42:57 AM »
I think you misunderstood that comment.  I'm critiquing the argument that this is a Separation of Church and State violation.  My point is that correlation does not equate to causation.  In other words, just because some religions do not condone homosexuality, does not mean that is why some governments do not condone it.  The laws could just as easily exist because the majority of the population supports this law, and where they get their view is their own business.

If the law was written for the purpose of upholding Christian or Muslim law, then it would be in violation of Separation of Church and State.  If the law is written in support of popular opinion, that is another thing entirely.  I would say that most laws that congress enact are based upon this premise-popular opinion.  The problem is sometimes this popular opinion is wrong.

Again, my feeling is that government has no need to be involved in marriage.  There is no benefit in it.

Edit:Laws against murder exist in religion.  By having a law against murder in government does that equate to a violation of SoCaS?  No-because it is based upon popular opinion.  (Obviously I'm not equating the two, other than for the purpose of making my point about popular opinion)
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 10:02:34 AM by mgramann »

Offline UK4X4

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 944
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2013, 10:18:30 AM »
"We, in the USA have separation of state and church"

It should stay that way- and not be eered to one faith or another- but I think think the US has already succumbed - Darwin in school anyone ?

Being a wordly chap and even modeled as a young man- I have come across Homosexuality in many forms

Its everywhere- not one country on the planet I've visited does not have it

Mulsim Christian-hindo Budist- makes no diference

Even saw it in the Saudi Royal family when I worked on a fedship out of florida

bannned- unlawfull-against religion or state-

It exists - its been with us for years and I don't see that changing anytime soon

want to get married - fine feel free

I get hassled more by religious people trying to covert me

than having people knock on my front door and being being invited to the local gay bar. ;D


religion to me is a belief system that helps in keeping communities healthy and living together in harmony

A set of guidelines or social laws or taboo's

Wether it be God, Mohammed,  Buda  the sun or an Annaconda.

I suppose you could call me agnostic- I try to treat people as I expect me to be treated

Carma while sounding rather hippy'ish seems to work - the Budists seem to live well with each other

Even attended the Krishna temple in Miami beach once- quite an evening out !

Tolerance and acceptance of peoples beliefs and customs would go a long way down the road of global peace

religeous fervor and diferences have caused most of the worlds worse conflicts and massacres- all in the name of some figorative overlord.

I don't have a ponytail - don't got to my local santeria witches for readings, juggle snakes or take Holly comunion on a weekly basis either


Sorry if I offend - its not my nature or will - just explaining a travellers view of the world from my perspective :-[




Offline Carla_M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • just a nobody who likes it that way
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #13 on: March 22, 2013, 10:18:53 AM »

Again, my feeling is that government has no need to be involved in marriage.  T

Exactly! And that extends to just taxing the application process, issuing a license and recording the pertinent facts. No need for government to define that marriage must meet any criteria such as a man and a woman couple only.
The personal dietary habits of people kill more frequently than firearms. Eat healthy and carry a gun.

Offline NM_Shooter

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,788
  • Sometimes I sit and think. Mostly I just sit.
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2013, 11:29:29 AM »
This got fun in a hurry  ;D

So... somebody please explain to me why gays so desperately want to use the term "marriage" instead of "civil union".  Given that "civil union" would grant the participants the same benefits as "marriage".

This is precisely what pisses me off about their movement, and their attacks on conservative organizations.  Rather than forming their own, they insist on changing mine. 

Anybody have an answer for why the desire to be called "marriage"?

-f-

P.S.  Regarding the Jewish faith accepting same sex marriage, the above comment is not entirely accurate : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_and_Judaism
"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"

Offline Carla_M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • just a nobody who likes it that way
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2013, 12:41:53 PM »
... somebody please explain to me why gays so desperately want to use the term "marriage" instead of "civil union".  Given that "civil union" would grant the participants the same benefits as "marriage".

Because a civil union does not bring the same benefits a marriage. They are different with different rights and privileges.


The Immigration Service does not recognize civil unions. Those is a civil union can not sponsor his or her non-American opposite-sex spouse for immigration into this country. Even legally married gay and lesbian couples cannot sponsor their spouses for immigration because of the Defense of Marriage (DOMA) law.

The IRS does not recognize civil union. Those in a civil unions may incur tax penalties. Because of DOMA, same-sex couples have to file single on their federal tax returns.

Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. This is not the case with Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships. If someone has a Domestic Partnership, that union is recognized by some states and not others. Some states have even ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in other states, because their states have no such legal category.

How’s that for a start as to why marriage for lesbians and gays is a good idea?  “Married” is a legal status that allows couples to receive many benefits both from the federal government and state governments that individuals living in civil unions do not.

This seems to contrvene the 14th amendment, under Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
The personal dietary habits of people kill more frequently than firearms. Eat healthy and carry a gun.

Offline Carla_M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • just a nobody who likes it that way
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2013, 12:48:04 PM »
P.S.  Regarding the Jewish faith accepting same sex marriage, the above comment is not entirely accurate : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_and_Judaism


So, some branches of Judaism do and others do not. I think the point is some do. I guess that means we can both use the same reference to reinforce our points of view.  :)


It may be "fun" for you but it is not so much fun if you were on the other side of this fence.
The personal dietary habits of people kill more frequently than firearms. Eat healthy and carry a gun.

Offline mgramann

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2013, 12:50:59 PM »
Let's speak hypothetically for a moment.  What if a law was passed, that made civil unions eligible for all of the same rights and privileges as marriage?  Legally identical, but different in title.

Offline Carla_M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • just a nobody who likes it that way
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2013, 01:22:24 PM »
Why do some feel we need different names?  I suppose it could work, but it seems cumbersome and unnecessary. ???  Hey, let's go with two classes, two names: civil union and church union. Do away with the term marriage altogether and start all over.


But yes, if there was a complete foolproof guarantee that the two were the same in all meanings, for me the suggestion by mgramann could work for me. But no weasel language anywhere that let's an insurance company or whatever makes exclusions.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 01:41:33 PM by Carla_M »
The personal dietary habits of people kill more frequently than firearms. Eat healthy and carry a gun.

Offline NM_Shooter

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,788
  • Sometimes I sit and think. Mostly I just sit.
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2013, 01:42:26 PM »
The term marriage vs. union then is one of policy. 

So why not place your efforts in changing the policy of civil union instead of changing the policy of marriage?

I'm guessing because it is an easier target; those who wish to change it simply don't care regarding the feelings of conservatives who have strong feelings about this.  That, and they really, really want the endorsement of that term.

Another example of "shove it in your face" attitude of LGBT groups. 

If you are going to use a fence analogy, please only improve on your side of the fence.  And don't move the fence. Having those on the other side insisting that I make changes on my side of the fence is where my primary complaint resides. 

"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"

Offline Squirl

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,154
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2013, 05:13:56 PM »
The vast majority of the Jewish faith recognizes and has gay marriage.

In the United States even though every synagogue is a separate entity and has no national unity, they generally associate under various schools of practice.  The three largest, representing probably 90% of the U.S. Jewish population are Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform.  Orthodox Jews make up about 10% of the Jewish population. All national Jewish faith organizations except orthodox have filed Amicus briefs in these cases.
http://publicreligion.org/2013/03/the-morning-buzz-jewish-groups-file-briefs-in-favor-of-same-sex-marriage/

When I say the vast majority, I mean every single national organization except one.

Maybe the people of my faith like it to be called marriage, because that is what it is in our religion.

It is all besides the point.  Courts have to interpret the law and decide whether it is constitutional. 
The facts before it are like this.
A female couple married in a state which allows and recognizes same sex marriage.
One spouse survives the other.  Under IRS rules the widow would not have to pay tax on assets left to her. Instead the IRS comes in and takes the money because, even though they were legally married, the federal government is only allowed to recognize marriages of individuals of opposite genders. The written law of the internal revenue service and over 1000 other laws of the united states confer benefits to being “married” or “spouse”, not “civil union” or “domestic partner.”
 
The question before the court has been this, “Does congress have the power under the Constitution of the United States to override state and religious law and discriminate which marriages it chooses to recognize based solely on the gender of the individuals in those marriages?”

So far every single judge appointed by both political parties from all Federal Courts in these cases has found that to be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.  It is the Supreme Court's turn to weigh in.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 05:29:19 PM by Squirl »

Offline Squirl

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,154
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2013, 05:24:49 PM »
Let's speak hypothetically for a moment.  What if a law was passed, that made civil unions eligible for all of the same rights and privileges as marriage?  Legally identical, but different in title.

Sure. 

If only we had some type of legal precedent for that.  When the "equal protection of the laws" part of the constitution was used to create two different equal classes.  Under that theory as long as they were equal, you could keep them "separate" under the law.  This way you could have two "separate" sets of laws but every one would be treated "equal."  Then it would be constitutional.  To bad our county has no legal precedent for that.  Sounds like a novel argument, maybe someone should put that in a legal brief.

In reality a separate class under the law would be a big step forward.  Sometimes it can take a hundred years and the national guard before the term "Equal" actually means equal.

Offline Huge29

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Welcome to the CP-Forum
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2013, 08:13:12 PM »
We, in the USA have separation of state and church, a wall of separation is the term used.
I just read my pocket version of the constitution front to back I can't find any such use of this term; can you enlighten me as to where this term originated? 
And again, no religion is trying to get into government it is very much the opposite.  For a group so determined for the government to stay out of their bedroom....only when it is convenient to the discussion at hand at that moment??   This group is trying to make the govt intervene into religion and what is religious and change the very definition of a religious topic and infringing upon religion; don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.  This group does need something done, but it is not by changing a religious term, they need to start their own union.  They are not at all sincere in their desires of what their true intentions are.   

Offline NM_Shooter

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,788
  • Sometimes I sit and think. Mostly I just sit.
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2013, 08:26:13 PM »
In the United States even though every synagogue is a separate entity and has no national unity, they generally associate under various schools of practice.  The three largest, representing probably 90% of the U.S. Jewish population are Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform.  Orthodox Jews make up about 10% of the Jewish population. All national Jewish faith organizations except orthodox have filed Amicus briefs in these cases.
http://publicreligion.org/2013/03/the-morning-buzz-jewish-groups-file-briefs-in-favor-of-same-sex-marriage/

When I say the vast majority, I mean every single national organization except one.

Maybe the people of my faith like it to be called marriage, because that is what it is in our religion.


Orthodox Jews reject it
Reconstructionist have it as a wash.  Some do, some don't. 
Conservatives.  Some reject it as the term marriage, but approve "Commitment" ceremonies.
 "Reform" (read : "Liberal", or "progressive"... a modern movement that seems to believe that the will of man and society is more important that that of God) accept it.  Hey... what feels good today? 

Once again, if you start letting folks vote on how they want to conduct themselves, it is a bit like letting liberals vote on how much to pay themselves from the treasury.   

I too believe that the supreme court will find in favor of the LGBT and grant them the endorsement of "marriage", as I think that the court errs on the side of liberalism. 

I am OK with civil unions allowing benefits to same sex partners. Call it a marriage and that movement has my full opposition.   



"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"

Offline NM_Shooter

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,788
  • Sometimes I sit and think. Mostly I just sit.
Re: If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2013, 04:40:33 AM »
Something else occurred to me last night, that further explains why this is not just about individual rights. 

If you want to argue that this is about an individual’s own right to be treated fairly, then this request before the supreme court needs extrapolation to include polygamy.  Why not? 

Additionally, don’t two people of any sex deserve the right to marry, say, even if they are siblings?  After all, they are under no obligation to reproduce, right?  And if what they are doing feels good, who are we to impede in their behavior?

Anything less is hypocritical, and prejudicial.   

This is the exact example that is being used to wage gun control in the US now.  It is a death by a thousand cuts. 

I don’t mind a two person civil union that has full legal and beneficiary rights.  But I want it extended to everyone…. Not just gays.  Need help with life?  Get a partner.  Brother, fishing buddy, best friend, whomever.  Have a legal proceeding and get bonded / whatever. 

But don’t call it marriage.  That’s one man, one woman only.  A covenant relationship, sealed with consummation.  That’s marriage. 
"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"

 

Templates: 5: index (default), Ads (default), Portal (default), Display (default), GenericControls (default).
Sub templates: 12: init, html_above, adsheaders_above, body_above, adsindex_above, portal_above, main, portal_below, adsindex_below, body_below, adsheaders_below, html_below.
Language files: 3: SPortal.english (default), index+Modifications.english (default), Ads.english (default).
Style sheets: 1: portal (default).
Files included: 38 - 1132KB. (show)
Cache hits: 17: 0.00709s for 40,961 bytes (show)
Queries used: 30.

[Show Queries]