# Prop 8



## richalisoviejo

Our government, whether it is our federal government or our state government, must serve ALL the people (not just the Christians and the heterosexuals) on an equal basis. Marriage, like freedom of speech, is a CIVIL right that the government cannot deny or disparage. That homosexuals have borne the brunt of discrimination from the "dawn of time" is not justification for continuing that discrimination. All people (including homosexuals) are entitled to equal protection under the law. 

In California, however, a majority of the people voted to write STATE SANCTIONED DISCRIMINATION into their constitution. In substance and effect, it now says: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws, _with the exception of a homosexual person who may be denied equal protection of the laws."_

I would have hoped we Californians were more tolerant than this.


----------



## Crazy1

Rich, I so truly agree with you. I do hope in the near future Californians will wake up and realize that re-writing the constitution does not make it non discriminatory.


----------



## chadk

Where does the constitution specifically say that marriage is a right? And then if it is there, you need to see how it is defined.

Didn't the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) that Clinton signed into law relate to the second part of my question? 

And I don't know about the 'brunt' of discrimination either. At least here in the USA, aren't gays statistically making more money than non-gays? I work with many and see no sign of them taking on the brunt of any discrimination. They are happy, high paying jobs, home owners, voters, etc etc. To say they take on the brunt of discrimination seems like a slam on those, like blacks and jews, who really did have systematic discrimination against them to a degree we can hardly imagine now days...


----------



## richalisoviejo

Legally, there are many varied steps that members of a class may take to fight discrimination in our state and federal courts. Those efforts may or may not be successful depending on the skill of the attorneys involved and how they develop their legal arguments. The problem here is that the California Supreme Court recently reviewed the issue of discrimination against gay couples under the equal protection clause in the STATE constitution. In May 2008, the CA Supreme Court declared that "separate but (allegedly) equal" civil unions for gay couples were, in fact, NOT equal and did not satisfy the equal protection clause. The civil right to marry must be afforded to all couples (heterosexual and homosexual) on an equal basis.

Because a coalition of people would not accept that the state must constitutionally afford equal protection of the laws to ALL people in the state, they sought to AMEND the state constitution to make it LEGAL for them to discriminate against gay couples. In California, it is not difficult to AMEND the constitution. You gather the requisite number of signatures on a petition and place the matter on a statewide ballot. A mere majority of the voters may then vote to legalize oppression and tyranny of the minority. Given the intentions of our FOUNDERS when they designed our CONSTITUTIONAL Republic (as outlined in my previous post), California's method of amending its organic document effectively makes its STATE constitutional republic a farse. Or does it?

That said, I believe a skilled attorney may effectively argue that Proposition 8, which "constitutionalizes" discrimination, is inimical to the equal protection clause itself. In other words, the two cannot survive together in the same organic document. The people have a right to alter their form of government, and if they choose to do so, they may repeal the equal protection clause altogether and form a pure democracy rather than a constitutional republic. But, because the equal protection clause says what it means and means what it says--exceptions to the organic clause cannot be tolerated without rendering the entire clause meaningless. Thus, if the majority of the people desire to render individual life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness INSECURE and UNPROTECTED and subject to the whims of changing coalitions of people--they may do so by REPEALING the equal protection clause in its entirety. Because Proposition 8 did not repeal the equal protection clause, it may be argued that its attempt to write discrimination into the constitution is legally ineffective. 

Another way to attack the results of Proposition 8 is to challenge it under the equal protection clause of the FEDERAL constitution. However, from a pragmatic sense, the people of California may wish to wait. Proposition 8 passed by a small margin. TWO-THIRDS of the young people who voted in the election voted NO on Proposition 8. This indicates that the youth of this country are more enlightened than their elders and understand that discrimination is unfair, unjust, and plain wrong. Given how easy it is to amend the CA State Constitution, in a few short years the people of CA will most likely repeal the offensive language. They should ALSO make it much harder to amend the constitution, i.e. require a SUPER MAJORITY, in order to prevent injustices like this from happening again in the future.


----------



## Crazy1

Chad, discrimination in any sense is still discrimination regardless of to whom or how it is doled out.


----------



## chadk

Crazy1 said:


> Chad, discrimination in any sense is still discrimination regardless of to whom or how it is doled out.



I'm not disagreeing, just trying to work with the constitutional aspect of this to better understand if this is a 'right' and what exactly that means and what this really says about what happened in California. Pointing fingers and calling names will not help on either side.


----------



## Isa

I agree with you Rich  
I find it really sad what is happening in California.


----------



## Itort

As I am sure you are all aware in Iowa here same sex marriage is now legal (though not recognized in 46 other states) and surprising enough life is as before with no sudden decline in society. Marriage is a serious commitment between two people and the gays that I am familiar with recognize it as such which is more than can be said for many "straight" couples. In conversations with antis one fact becomes obvious in most cases, they are in the end bigoted and ignorant of the core issues.


----------



## chadk

chadk said:


> Where does the constitution specifically say that marriage is a right? And then if it is there, you need to see how it is defined.
> 
> Didn't the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) that Clinton signed into law relate to the second part of my question?
> 
> And I don't know about the 'brunt' of discrimination either. At least here in the USA, aren't gays statistically making more money than non-gays? I work with many and see no sign of them taking on the brunt of any discrimination. They are happy, high paying jobs, home owners, voters, etc etc. To say they take on the brunt of discrimination seems like a slam on those, like blacks and jews, who really did have systematic discrimination against them to a degree we can hardly imagine now days...


Didn't see this addressed by anyone. Not sure if Rich was attempting to or not.

Again, you need to show that marriage is a 'right'. Where is that established in the state or federal constitution? How do you define marriage? Who defines 'marriage'?

Sensationalizing by using grossly inaccruate phrases like "brunt of discrimination since the dawn of time" only get in the way of dealing with the facts. And calling the majority of californians (and the majority of other Americans) a 'coalition' is using the term loosely at best. The voters who supported Prop 8 and others in the country who support that line of thinking come from very diverse backgrounds. Calling them ignornant, 'un-enlightened', biggoted, or uneducated and so forth may make you feel better, but again, is simply not accurate (sure, in some cases - on both sides...).


----------



## richalisoviejo

chadk said:


> chadk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the constitution specifically say that marriage is a right? And then if it is there, you need to see how it is defined.
> 
> Didn't the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) that Clinton signed into law relate to the second part of my question?
> 
> And I don't know about the 'brunt' of discrimination either. At least here in the USA, aren't gays statistically making more money than non-gays? I work with many and see no sign of them taking on the brunt of any discrimination. They are happy, high paying jobs, home owners, voters, etc etc. To say they take on the brunt of discrimination seems like a slam on those, like blacks and jews, who really did have systematic discrimination against them to a degree we can hardly imagine now days...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't see this addressed by anyone. Not sure if Rich was attempting to or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Chad as I stated before like freedom of speech, marriage is a fundamental CIVIL right protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment, mariage is a liberty interest and liberty emcompass all humane activity. And not it does not mean someone can marry their dog, Liberty interest is humane rightss, not plant or animal.
> 
> Our founders understood that freedom can be lost in many ways, not just at the hands of an oppressive and tyrannical dictator. Individual rights can be lost at the hands of the majority. To protect and secure ALL the people of this nation from tyranny and oppression (in whatever form it takes), our founders designed a consitutional republic with checks and balances distributed among three branches of government. The judicial branch of government is our last bastion of hope and liberty that stands between the individual and the government.
> 
> Don't take my word on the foregoing. Read the Federalist Papers. Jump ahead to the Federalist No. 51:
> 
> *It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
> 
> In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights.
> 
> Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful*
> 
> Thus, our Founders recognized that the very essense of the REPUBLICAN CAUSE is security for civil rights and justice for ALL: the weaker as well as the more powerful. It is that security and protection that is our birthright as Americans and it will forever be pursued by the weaker classes of persons in civil society until it is obtained. Our republican form of government was designed to enable the liberty interests of the minority to be secured and protected against the injustices of the majority.
> 
> If it were not for those damn "liberal" Founders and all those damn "liberals" who came after them who have fought, bled, and died for the security of civil rights for all individuals, we would NOT live in the greatest nation on earth. YOU would not be the beneficiary of the freedoms that you enjoy today.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## chadk

Sorry, but again, you haven't established that marriage is indeed a 'right'. And you have yet to establish the definition of marriage that includes anything beyond one man and one woman.

DOMA includes this text:

_Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse': 
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife_

The current President, as well as the last 2 (Bush and Clinton and _probably _all before them) all agree that marriage should be between a man and a women.

The DOMA was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House of Representatives. It was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996.

_Its Congressional sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Three states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa) currently allow same-sex marriage (with Vermont and Maine having passed not-yet-implemented legislation to join that list), five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, *twenty-eight *states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage, and *another **twenty states *have enacted statutory DOMAs.


----------



## richalisoviejo

chadk said:


> Sorry, but again, you haven't established that marriage is indeed a 'right'. And you have yet to establish the definition of marriage that includes anything beyond one man and one woman.
> 
> DOMA includes this text:
> 
> _Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
> In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife_
> 
> The current President, as well as the last 2 (Bush and Clinton and _probably _all before them) all agree that marriage should be between a man and a women.
> 
> The DOMA was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House of Representatives. It was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996.
> 
> _Its Congressional sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."_
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
> 
> Three states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa) currently allow same-sex marriage (with Vermont and Maine having passed not-yet-implemented legislation to join that list), five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, *twenty-eight *states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage, and *another **twenty states *have enacted statutory DOMAs.



Read the fourteenth Amendment.

U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection 
Amendment Text | Annotations
Section. *1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. *
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. 
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. 


DOMA is not the law and neither is wikipedia, the Constitution is the Supreme Law. 

On November 5, 2008, the day after the horrifying hate election of November 4, 2008 where California voters appear to have passed Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage attempt at a Constitutional amendment, Lambda Legal Defense and the ACLU filed an Amended Petition for Extraordinary Relief Including Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Injuctive Relief. 

On November 5, 2008, the day after the horrifying hate election of November 4, 2008 where California voters appear to have passed Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage attempt at a Constitutional amendment, Lambda Legal Defense and the ACLU filed an Amended Petition for Extraordinary Relief Including Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Injuctive Relief. 

And the No on 8 campaign has not conceded yet either as California has 30 days to count all the ballots and there can be at least 3 million ballots yet to be counted which could reverse the outcome of Proposition 8 as it is very close. As of Nov 5 at 7:05 p.m., Prop 8 passes with 52% of the vote or 5,387,000. votes 

The Petition for Writ of Mandate and Injunctive Relief filed on November 5, 2008 in the California Supreme Court is Strauss v. Horton, Action No. S168047, at 
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca....creen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=566226&doc_no=S168047 

The full text may be found at: 
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37709lgl20081105.html 

The press releases on this subject from the ACLU may be found at: 
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html 
and 
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37701prs20081105.html 

California will continue to honor the 18,000 same sex marriages that were performed before November 4, 2008 as this heinous "Constitutional amendment" is not retroactive. 

The Petition for Writ of Mandate is based on the excellent premise that Proposition 8 "is invalid because it would constitute a CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION, not a constitutional amendment, and AS SUCH, THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT IT MAY NOT BE ENACTED BY INITIATIVE." 

The Petition does an excellent job of discussing the history of civil rights struggles and the necessity of California courts to exercise "their core, traditional constitutional role of protecting the established equality rights of a minority." Ã¢â‚¬Å“If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would strike directly at the foundational constitutional principle of equal protection in a manner that far transcends its immediate impact on a particular group, by establishing that an unpopular group may be selectively stripped of fundamental rights by a simple majority of voters.Ã¢â‚¬Â 

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Such an attempt to mandate government discrimination against a vulnerable minority in our stateÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Constitution, and to prevent the courts from fulfilling their quintessential constitutional role of protecting minorities, would work such a drastic change in our constitutional system that it must be regarded as a REVISION rather than an amendment.Ã¢â‚¬Â 

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Proposition 8 opens the door to step-by-step elimination of state constitutional protections for lesbian and gay Californians and, indeed, for other disfavored minorities, perhaps even based on other suspect classifications.Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“See, e.g., Martin NiemÃƒÂ¶llerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s now classic formulation of the dangers posed by failing to recognize that permitting the government to discriminate against one disfavored group undermines the freedom of all: First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.Ã¢â‚¬Â 

Martin NiemÃƒÂ¶ller (1892-1984) was a German anti-fascist preacher imprisoned at Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1937-1945. 

As labor says, an injury to one is an injury to all. 

We, the supporters of the gay liberation movement, both gay and straight, will not rest until gay marriage is legal.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/11/05/18549202.php

Now itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s been nice but I have to get ready for a dinner date.


----------



## chadk

Sorry, but you still did not shown where the constitution or the 14th ammendment say anything about marriage being a right. Can you highlight the word "marriage" for me?

The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) *was signed into law by Clinton*. So yes, DOMA is the law. Why do you say it isn't?


----------



## Candy

9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Why This Amendment Exists: 
When the Bill of Rights was first proposed, the major argument against it was that by specifying some rights that the government was not free to violate, there would be the implication that the government was free to violate any rights not specifically protected in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment was written to address this concern.

I believe this would cover the right to marriage.[/quote][/php]

Implicit Rights: 
But most justices do believe that the Ninth Amendment has binding authority, and they use it to protect implicit rights hinted at but not explicated elsewhere in the Constitution. Implicit rights include both the right to privacy outlined in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), but also basic unspecified rights such as the right to travel and the right to the presumption of innocence.


----------



## chadk

Yes, it might cover marriage. But that has yet to be determined. And then if marriage is determined to be a right, then you have to establish another important factor... You have to define marriage.

For example, it could be that the courts decide that marriage is indeed a right that needs protection. All American's of legal age have the right to marry. So the right is granted to all. Now if marriage is determined to be only between a man and a woman, then the right still applies to all Americans, and thus the protection still exists. 

Now if some want to challenge the definition of marriage to include other relationships of any group of consenting adults (male to male, female to female, brother to sister, father to daughter, multiple spouses, etc), then that is another battle altogether.


----------



## Candy

I think it does cover marriage as the amendment is written with the purpose of protecting the people from the government violating unlisted rights/liberties (ie. Prop 8). Defining marriage could also run afoul of this amendment's purpose by allowing government to violate a person's rights by limiting them on the basis of majority rule. A founding principle in choosing a republic over a democracy is in the protection of minority rights (something the founders were all too familiar with).


----------



## richalisoviejo

Candy said:


> 9th Amendment
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> Why This Amendment Exists:
> When the Bill of Rights was first proposed, the major argument against it was that by specifying some rights that the government was not free to violate, there would be the implication that the government was free to violate any rights not specifically protected in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment was written to address this concern.
> 
> I believe this would cover the right to marriage.


[/php]

Implicit Rights: 
But most justices do believe that the Ninth Amendment has binding authority, and they use it to protect implicit rights hinted at but not explicated elsewhere in the Constitution. Implicit rights include both the right to privacy outlined in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), but also basic unspecified rights such as the right to travel and the right to the presumption of innocence.
[/quote]


Excellent 



chadk said:


> Sorry, but you still did not shown where the constitution or the 14th ammendment say anything about marriage being a right. Can you highlight the word "marriage" for me?
> 
> The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) *was signed into law by Clinton*. So yes, DOMA is the law. Why do you say it isn't?




Oh but I have you have just missed it, marriage once again is a liberty interest. And on another note it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter which President believes marriage is between a man and a woman tell me how that is legal? It's NOT the "exact same." If you are informed, then you know that the "separate but equal" principle that is used to perpetuate discrimination among classes of people was discredited more than a half century ago. All families, whether headed by homosexual or heterosexual couples, are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Again, now lets say if the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis, then why is that basis applied selectively? If it is indeed true that marriage is defined in accordance with the "apparent design" that gender and sexual attraction enable reproduction, and if homosexuality is to be excluded from marriage because it does not conform to that design, then why are other marriage practices that also deviate from that design legally recognized? Marriages that produce no children, or marriages of convenience, do not conform to the apparent design. Yet homosexuality is the only "malfunction" singled out for exclusion. That's discrimination, any way you slice it.

Chadk IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d like to ask one question. If gay marriage were illegal and unconstitional then why would there be a need to amend the state constitions to ban such a practice?


----------



## chadk

richalisoviejo said:


> Candy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9th Amendment
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> Why This Amendment Exists:
> When the Bill of Rights was first proposed, the major argument against it was that by specifying some rights that the government was not free to violate, there would be the implication that the government was free to violate any rights not specifically protected in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment was written to address this concern.
> 
> I believe this would cover the right to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> [/php]
> 
> Implicit Rights:
> But most justices do believe that the Ninth Amendment has binding authority, and they use it to protect implicit rights hinted at but not explicated elsewhere in the Constitution. Implicit rights include both the right to privacy outlined in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), but also basic unspecified rights such as the right to travel and the right to the presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...





Excellent 



chadk said:


> Sorry, but you still did not shown where the constitution or the 14th ammendment say anything about marriage being a right. Can you highlight the word "marriage" for me?
> 
> The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) *was signed into law by Clinton*. So yes, DOMA is the law. Why do you say it isn't?




Oh but I have you have just missed it, marriage once again is a liberty interest. And on another note it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter which President believes marriage is between a man and a woman tell me how that is legal? It's NOT the "exact same." If you are informed, then you know that the "separate but equal" principle that is used to perpetuate discrimination among classes of people was discredited more than a half century ago. All families, whether headed by homosexual or heterosexual couples, are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Again, now lets say if the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis, then why is that basis applied selectively? If it is indeed true that marriage is defined in accordance with the "apparent design" that gender and sexual attraction enable reproduction, and if homosexuality is to be excluded from marriage because it does not conform to that design, then why are other marriage practices that also deviate from that design legally recognized? Marriages that produce no children, or marriages of convenience, do not conform to the apparent design. Yet homosexuality is the only "malfunction" singled out for exclusion. That's discrimination, any way you slice it.

Chadk IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d like to ask one question. If gay marriage were illegal and unconstitional then why would there be a need to amend the state constitions to ban such a practice?
[/quote]



No, your opinion is that marriage is a liberty interest. The courts will need to decide that beyond just your or my opinion. Can a case be made for that? Sure. But it has not been established yet.

And again, DOMA was signed into law. Right?


----------



## richalisoviejo

chadk said:


> No, your opinion is that marriage is a liberty interest. The courts will need to decide that beyond just your or my opinion. Can a case be made for that? Sure. But it has not been established yet.
> 
> And again, DOMA was signed into law. Right?



Until the USSC rules on gay marriage DOMA means nothing. I don't think we have forgotten or should be overly upset about the gay marriage issue. The president has four years before re-election. He has to deal with the seriousness of our nations economic status and the unfortunate wars we are still in. I think that we need to show what good citizens the GLBT society is and be patient. Their time will come, mixed race marriage didn't happen over night and I don't think that we should expect it either. I think that the importance of what is going on with their fight betters the next generation. We certainly cannot be upset for the strides they have made thus far. Even if they don't win the full ride for themselves, I think we can rest assured that the next generation will.

Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is a CIVIL institution that may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with CIVIL law. Because the state government (and not religious institutions) controls entry, any barriers must be (at a minimum) rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The state has no legitimate interest whatsoever in preventing homosexual couples from entering a marriage. Marriage is a liberty interest just as abortion is a liberty interest for women to choose their own reproductive destitny. Security for the civil rights of individuals and minorities against majoritarian oppression is the core feature of a constitutional republic. The framers provide that security through constitutional checks and balances and constitutional gurantees of due process and equal protection. If a mere majority of voters may cast their votes to amend their state constitution and extinguish constitutional security for an entire class of people, and yet retain that security for themselves, then they have rendered the equal protection clause meaningless, have rendered the courts powerless to exercise their constitutional role designed to secure the rights for individuals and minorities, and have essentially extinguished their constitutional republic. That is a major revision of the constitution and the state's form of government that cannot logically nor legally take place on the mere whim of a majority of voters (in this case 52 percent). 

As I mentioned before, voter initiated exceptions to the equal protection clause cannot coexist in the same organic document as the equal protection clause itself. If the people of California want to form a pure democracy, they must first repeal the equal protection clause in its entirety. If they do so, however, they should be aware that the federal constitution guarantees to every state in the union a republican form of government. If the people are stupid enough to scrap their equal protection clause, Congress has the power to punish the entire state by refusing to seat their elected congressmen and senators. Congress may also view the act as an insurrection requiring other severe sanctions or even military intervention.


----------



## Laura

Religion needs to stay out of it. 
Marriage is between two people that love each other and want to commit. Period. 
They arguments i hear from people are always a religious one.. Im all for religion, but doesnt God love everyone? He created everyone supposedly.. Gay People too... The majority of Gay people I know were Born that way.. It wasnt a choice.. ( a few girls maybe werent..but....) Just like it wasnt My choice to be Hetero.. Its who I am..


----------



## Itort

I just had a thought, hasn't the federal government already established what marriage is. I am referring to fact that they essentally banned plural marriage in the case of Morman church.


----------



## chadk

Actually Rich, marriage has been around longer than our country... So, yes, marriage is a religious, social, and cultural institution that existed before the constitution and will live longer than it as well. If there was no gov't, there would still be marriage. 

But you are right in that the gov't cannot get involved in marriage as far as the religious aspects of it go. The gov't can only get involved in marriage from a legal contract stand point. Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, Christian, atheist - all have a way to recognize marriage that is unique from one another. The gov't treads on thin ground when it promotes one above the other. And yet as noted with Mormon's and polygamy, the gov't did. The gov't has been involved in many aspects of marriage and setting certain boundaries on it. Marriage is the building block of our families, communities, and society in general. So the gov't does have good reason to be involved in regulating it and protecting it to some extent. It is a tricky balancing act and no matter what happens, clearly not everyone will be satisfied.

Laura - that is your definition of marriage and I'm sure many would agree. But many others do not, including the majority of Americans, the President, congress, etc.

Extremists on both sides try to vilify the other side. Just look in this thread alone where you see supporters of Prop 8 and anyone who agrees with "marriage should be one man + one woman" like Obama and Clinton, and you see them painted as "hateful", "ignorant", not "enlightened", "bigoted" and so forth. And this is in a friendly context on a harmless Tortoise board! Trying to bully the other side into submission is not the way to go.


----------



## bettinge

I believe in the constitution and I believe that marrage is between people of opposite sex! Attorneys, citizens and judges will be discusing the fine details for years to come, and all will never be happy with the out come. We as a nation are a melting pot of values!


----------



## richalisoviejo

Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time as well. "Feelings of one-half the population" doesn't make your argument justifiable or defensible. 

I believe the current composition of the Supreme Court may be rigged to rule against equal protection for same-sex couples. Although our Courts are required to be neutral and unbiased expositors of the law, we have witnesses far too many Supreme Court (5-4) decisions fall along a political divide.

I doubt the personal/political/conservative/religious biases of Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas will allow them to vote in favor of equal protection for gays. All they need is one more vote to become an "oppressive" majority. I don't know how many justices, if any, will retire in the near future, nor do I know if President Obama is inclined to appoint any justices who may lean a little to the left. I don't see the issue going to the "national stage" until its proponents can sense a shift in the winds.

Those who choose to descrimate are blindly meandering through life with their narrow-minded head stuffed full of stereotypical animus toward a class of individuals. No one is required to indulge in their unjustifiable hate and irrational "the sky is falling" propaganda.


----------



## chadk

Please note Rich, that 5-4 and 4-5 decisions that fall along the party lines clearly show that BOTH sides have personal/political/conservative/religious biases if you are going to go there...

And again, name calling and bullying to fit your view of the world is not a good approach - there is plenty of blind and narrow minded people doing lots of stereotyping on both sides. Again, this would include Obama who has stated a few times now that he feels marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Rich, my point regarding marriage being around longer than the US constitution is simply to say you are wrong in trying to suggest this: "Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is a CIVIL institution that may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with CIVIL law." Again, marriage spans time and borders and legal systems. Just saying your definition is a little to narrow in this context...

And again, do you still stand by this statement: "DOMA is not law"?


----------



## dmmj

personally it is nice to see a civilized debate about it that did not resort to name calling and hateful words being thrown about like I have seen at both demostartions pro and against gay marriage. Personally I did not vote for or against because I did not want to see another law being written into the books, must be my libertarian side showing. While I would be for gay marriage if someone could show me where in the constitution it says so, and besides gay peoplee can marry , just not other gay people, right? sorry to make light of this issue. And what is a super majority of the voters? or is it just enough people who happen to agree with you? are we talking what 75% 80% 90% even admending the constitution only requires 2/3 of the states. I am also personally disgusted with this issue trying to be equated with the problems black people had to go thru, just MHO


----------



## richalisoviejo

chadk said:


> Please note Rich, that 5-4 and 4-5 decisions that fall along the party lines clearly show that BOTH sides have personal/political/conservative/religious biases if you are going to go there...
> 
> And again, name calling and bullying to fit your view of the world is not a good approach - there is plenty of blind and narrow minded people doing lots of stereotyping on both sides. Again, this would include Obama who has stated a few times now that he feels marriage should be between one man and one woman.
> 
> Rich, my point regarding marriage being around longer than the US constitution is simply to say you are wrong in trying to suggest this: "Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is a CIVIL institution that may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with CIVIL law." Again, marriage spans time and borders and legal systems. Just saying your definition is a little to narrow in this context...
> 
> And again, do you still stand by this statement: "DOMA is not law"?



You're presenting a straw man arguement.

I understand the effects of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) are to allow states to ignore the Full Faith & Credit clause (art. iv, sect. 1) of the Constitution, with respect to same-sex marriage. My question is, barring a constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision on F.F.&C., how can an act of Congress overriding a provision of the Constitution be constitutional, and therefore be enforced? lawful? It canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. If it was legal tell me how did 18,000 gay couples marry in CA?

The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution does not, nor has it ever forced every state to endorse every law in every other state. If it did, that would mean that every state has effectively the same laws, which has never been the case. There are exceptions to allow for laws of one state that violate public policy in others, and legalization of same-sex marriage is a classic example of such a law. This state of affairs looks to be continuing for at least a while into the future. Give it time. As public policy evolves, so does the law.

This is part of what's in dispute, whether something which has been forbidden in every society on Earth since the dawn of the human race is an inherent right. The law is not obligated to allow anyone to do anything he wishes. The fact remains that the law should be treating everyone equally. You cannot argue that people are being denied a right before you demonstrate that what they are being denied is a right. Now, present an argument that gay marriage is a not right.


----------



## chadk

OK, so just so we are all on the same page then, DOMA is indeed law. How this impacts the issue at hand short term as well as long term is another matter. But it was clearly signed into law.... So your statement was indeed false. 

"something which has been forbidden in every society on Earth since the dawn of the human race"

I dont' think this is a true statement. The concept of same sex couples trying to get 'married' is relatively new. Marriage has historically been understood as invovling couples of the opposite sex. So it was never 'forbidden', it just did not exist as a concept.


----------



## richalisoviejo

You still donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get the legal analysis. There was a time, not so long ago, when a different understanding of the family and of the Constitution prevailed. In Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130 (1873), three Members of this [505 U.S. 833, 897] Court reaffirmed the common law principle that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state; and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most States. Id., at 141 (Bradley, J., joined by Swayne and Field, JJ., concurring in judgment). Only one generation has passed since this Court observed that "woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life," with attendant "special responsibilities" that precluded full and independent legal status under the Constitution. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57, 62 (1961). *These views, of course, are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution.*

. . . Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage* and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution.* Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry. *The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power,* even where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual's family. These considerations confirm our conclusion that DOMA is invalid.

Here is a bit of history for you. Rosa Parks wasn't the first black person to be arrested for refusing to give her seat on the bus to a white person. Others before her tried to stand up for their rights, but were met with resistance:

The Montgomery Bus Boycott officially started on December 1, 1955. That was the day when the blacks of Montgomery, Alabama, decided that they would boycott the city buses until they could sit anywhere they wanted, instead of being relegated to the back when a white boarded. It was not, however, the day that the movement to desegregate the buses started. . . . Perhaps the movement started on the day in the early 1950s when a black pastor named Vernon Johns tried to get other blacks to leave a bus in protest after he was forced to give up his seat to a white man, only to have them tell him, *"You ought to knowed better.*" 

http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/civilrights-55-65/montbus.html

After the bus boycott began, the blacks in the community were retaliated against with arrests, threats, beatings, and bombings. 

*When the city defended segregation by saying that integration would lead to violence, Judge Rives asked, "Is it fair to command one man to surrender his constitutional rights, if they are his constitutional rights, in order to prevent another man from committing a crime?" *

Sounds like you believe that oppressed classes of persons ought to bide their time and wait to become equal members of society until such time as their majoritarian oppressors agree not to oppress them anymore. Perhaps, under your view, the blacks in the south would have eventually effectuated "social change" without the assistance of our courts to enforce the Constitution. But, what good is our beloved Constitution if it is just a meaningless piece of paper that holds empty promises? While some people might be complacent to wear the chains of oppression, others are not. The brave ones pave the way for others to follow.


----------



## chadk

Brave ones? Chains of oppression??? Rich, seriously, the drama is killing me. There is simply no comparison between the situation with blacks, their history with slavery, the burning crosses, the lynchings, systematic oppression, the terror of the KKK, vs what gays are demanding today. 

Again, the concept of gay 'marriage' is relatively new. So how could this have been forbidden since the dawn of man? Again, just more drama.

I could have a gay man sitting next to me and nobody would know he was gay if he didn't tell them. Can a black person claim that? In fact, that man could have grown up with all the same rights and freedoms as me, went to the same schools, rode the same buses, went to the same college, got the same job and bought the house next door. We could both marry a person of the opposite sex. The exact same rights. But no, that guy decides he wants to 'marry' another man. Problem is, that is such a new concept that the legal system has no way to really address it. And society isn't sure how to process it. So the man demands an 'equal right' that never existed before. He seeks to redifine 'marriage' to fit his lifestyle. The point of all this is to point out how drastically different this is from the many battles blacks have had in our country (and before).


----------



## richalisoviejo

chadk said:


> Brave ones? Chains of oppression??? Rich, seriously, the drama is killing me. There is simply no comparison between the situation with blacks, their history with slavery, the burning crosses, the lynchings, systematic oppression, the terror of the KKK, vs what gays are demanding today.
> 
> Again, the concept of gay 'marriage' is relatively new. So how could this have been forbidden since the dawn of man? Again, just more drama.
> 
> I could have a gay man sitting next to me and nobody would know he was gay if he didn't tell them. Can a black person claim that? In fact, that man could have grown up with all the same rights and freedoms as me, went to the same schools, rode the same buses, went to the same college, got the same job and bought the house next door. We could both marry a person of the opposite sex. The exact same rights. But no, that guy decides he wants to 'marry' another man. Problem is, that is such a new concept that the legal system has no way to really address it. And society isn't sure how to process it. So the man demands an 'equal right' that never existed before. He seeks to redifine 'marriage' to fit his lifestyle. The point of all this is to point out how drastically different this is from the many battles blacks have had in our country (and before).



That is because you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t understand the concept of equal rights, That is a ridiculous idea and totally without merit. And your wrong, it wasÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t so long ago it was illegal for an interal couple to marry. I suppose you believe Matthew Wayne Shepard didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t wear the chains of oppression? Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die. All because he was gay, do you call that drama. I call it wearing the chains of oppression. And many others have faced the same dramatic death.


----------



## Candy

It's a matter of degree and scale, but the problem-issue faced by both is the same. To argue that degree and scale should minimize one in comparision with the other is to minimize both. In other words to devalue the Gay Movement's pursuit of civil rights by comparing it to African American's pursuit of their civil rights is to also devalue African Americans.


----------



## chadk

richalisoviejo said:


> chadk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brave ones? Chains of oppression??? Rich, seriously, the drama is killing me. There is simply no comparison between the situation with blacks, their history with slavery, the burning crosses, the lynchings, systematic oppression, the terror of the KKK, vs what gays are demanding today.
> 
> Again, the concept of gay 'marriage' is relatively new. So how could this have been forbidden since the dawn of man? Again, just more drama.
> 
> I could have a gay man sitting next to me and nobody would know he was gay if he didn't tell them. Can a black person claim that? In fact, that man could have grown up with all the same rights and freedoms as me, went to the same schools, rode the same buses, went to the same college, got the same job and bought the house next door. We could both marry a person of the opposite sex. The exact same rights. But no, that guy decides he wants to 'marry' another man. Problem is, that is such a new concept that the legal system has no way to really address it. And society isn't sure how to process it. So the man demands an 'equal right' that never existed before. He seeks to redifine 'marriage' to fit his lifestyle. The point of all this is to point out how drastically different this is from the many battles blacks have had in our country (and before).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t understand the concept of equal rights, That is a ridiculous idea and totally without merit. And your wrong, it wasÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t so long ago it was illegal for an interal couple to marry. I suppose you believe Matthew Wayne Shepard didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t wear the chains of oppression? Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die. All because he was gay, do you call that drama. I call it wearing the chains of oppression. And many others have faced the same dramatic death.
Click to expand...



There is senseless violence against all types of people from all types of backgrounds everyday. And each time it is wrong and horrible. The white male who ends up in the wrong neighborhood and is beaten simply because he is white. The women who is cornered in the alley and raped simply because she is a woman. The Christian who has his head removed simply because he is Christian. It goes on and on.

But again, it is not comparible to the systematic violence and oppression of blacks from being ripped from their homelands and tossed into slavery and considered less than human for so long. Or the jews who were systematically murdered by the millions. And so on. Apples and oranges.


----------



## desertsss

Just to chime in a little here. Didn't read the entire post, but got the jist of it. I don't think that anyone should be discriminated against.
My sister happens to be gay, and instead of getting married here, she has to go to Canada. (so she told me) Anyone who loves another person should be able to marry them. Imagine if it was the other way around. Straight people couldn't get married because the "norm" was gays getting married.


----------



## mgallas

richalisoviejo said:


> Our government, whether it is our federal government or our state government, must serve ALL the people (not just the Christians and the heterosexuals) on an equal basis. Marriage, like freedom of speech, is a CIVIL right that the government cannot deny or disparage. That homosexuals have borne the brunt of discrimination from the "dawn of time" is not justification for continuing that discrimination. All people (including homosexuals) are entitled to equal protection under the law.
> 
> In California, however, a majority of the people voted to write STATE SANCTIONED DISCRIMINATION into their constitution. In substance and effect, it now says: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws, _with the exception of a homosexual person who may be denied equal protection of the laws."_
> 
> I would have hoped we Californians were more tolerant than this.




Prop 8 is discrimination pure and simple. It is not about gay or not,it is about different rules for different populations It is wrong and in the long run will fall to a forward thinking population.


----------



## chadk

desertsss said:


> I don't think that anyone should be discriminated against.



I'm not fully convinced discrimination is taking place. Again, it is only a recent phenomena that the definition of marriage has been challenged with hopes of expanding to same sex couples.

But back the quote above... I just want to see how far you'll take that. What about other consenting adult relationships? Poligamy? Bother + siter? Mother + son? Kissing cousins? Should age matter? Should relationship matter? Or should we simply not have any limits, boundaries, contraints, and so forth?

Oh, and I have a sister who works as an entertainer in gay clubs and is married to a guy. But both of them apparently swing both ways when they want. 

I also have friends\co-workers who are gay.

And I also understand the civil rights movement quite well and impact it has had on our society. We just adopted twin baby girls who are black and that would have been almost unheard of a few decades ago.


----------



## Candy

Here's the definition of discrimination for you. I'm not sure what your definition is. Discrimination.....The practice of treating one group of people differently from another in an unfair way.

Apples and oranges are both still types of fruit. The Afrircan-American struggle led the way for many other groups to seek equal rights, even though their struggles my not live up to the magnitude of the experiences of African Americans. The African-American experience is not decreased up holding it up as an example, rather it is honored as a role model, a pathway or process for others. The point in envoking a comparison is not about the experiences, but rather that pathway or process.


----------



## desertsss

I totally agree Candy


----------



## richalisoviejo

chadk said:


> But back the quote above... I just want to see how far you'll take that. What about other consenting adult relationships? Poligamy? Bother + siter? Mother + son? Kissing cousins? Should age matter? Should relationship matter? Or should we simply not have any limits, boundaries, contraints, and so forth?



I missed judged you in the debate, something I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t usually do. I expected you to bring this up just thought you would have done it towands the beginning of the thread, I also expected you to bring up Bestiality. Apples & oranges indeed.

The state, after all, protects various classes of persons (e.g. minors, persons with diminished mental capacities, etc.) in their contractual relationships. The state determines that those classes of persons, because of their inherently unequal bargaining power and the increased risk of abuse, require the special solicitude of the laws. The same is said of people in certain types of incestuous unions.

Your reverse psychology argument is completely transparent. A bit of legal advice, Bestiality is not equivalent to homosexuality. Bestiality is equivalent to rape, because the animal does not consent to anything. The same goes for pederasty. Polygamy and polyandry are illegal because they somehow cheat the tax system concerning marriage. Incest is not comparable because it puts any offspring created at a health risk incomparable to homosexuality.


----------



## chadk

richalisoviejo said:


> chadk said:
> 
> 
> 
> But back the quote above... I just want to see how far you'll take that. What about other consenting adult relationships? Poligamy? Bother + siter? Mother + son? Kissing cousins? Should age matter? Should relationship matter? Or should we simply not have any limits, boundaries, contraints, and so forth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I missed judged you in the debate, something I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t usually do. I expected you to bring this up just thought you would have done it towands the beginning of the thread, I also expected you to bring up Bestiality. Apples & oranges indeed.
> 
> The state, after all, protects various classes of persons (e.g. minors, persons with diminished mental capacities, etc.) in their contractual relationships. The state determines that those classes of persons, because of their inherently unequal bargaining power and the increased risk of abuse, require the special solicitude of the laws. The same is said of people in certain types of incestuous unions.
> 
> Your reverse psychology argument is completely transparent. A bit of legal advice, Bestiality is not equivalent to homosexuality. Bestiality is equivalent to rape, because the animal does not consent to anything. The same goes for pederasty. Polygamy and polyandry are illegal because they somehow cheat the tax system concerning marriage. Incest is not comparable because it puts any offspring created at a health risk incomparable to homosexuality.
Click to expand...


Rich, it was really a simple question see how far she was willing to take her statement of "anything goes". Clearly most people are comfortable putting some boundaries around this thing called marriage. After that, it is only a matter of degree.

And you are the first one to bring up bestiality... And I clearly said consenting adults. You are tossing out too many red herrings...

"Polygamy and polyandry are illegal because they somehow cheat the tax system concerning marriage"

Nonsense. People marry everyday just for cheating the tax system. To say this is the only reason polygamy is illegal is just not right. And if a Muslim man wants to honor his religion, or a Mormon, or just a free loving hippie and marry several women, who are you to say they can't? If they love each other, shouldn't they be able to? Are you discriminating against a minority group if you don't allow it?



"Incest is not comparable because it puts any offspring created at a health risk incomparable to homosexuality."

Please... really... Aren't you the one that said earlier that marriage is not just a union centered on offspring? Clearly a couple of brothers or male cousins could marry then if that is your only concern, right? How about if a father and adult daughter choose to get married, but first get sterilized?

It sounds like you are not hestitant to discrimate and define marriage in ways that fit YOUR personal feelings on the subject - but anyone else must be wrong...



Candy said:


> Here's the definition of discrimination for you. I'm not sure what your definition is. Discrimination.....The practice of treating one group of people differently from another in an unfair way.
> 
> Apples and oranges are both still types of fruit. The Afrircan-American struggle led the way for many other groups to seek equal rights, even though their struggles my not live up to the magnitude of the experiences of African Americans. The African-American experience is not decreased up holding it up as an example, rather it is honored as a role model, a pathway or process for others. The point in envoking a comparison is not about the experiences, but rather that pathway or process.





"_The practice of treating one group of people differently from another in an unfair way_"

People are treated different in various settings for various reasons all the time. There are 'black only' things, 'women only' things, 'children only', 'singles only', and so on. 

I could argue that I should be able to use the women's restroom or women's shower\locker room at the gym. Or I should be able to put my son in girl scouts. Maybe that sounds silly or extreme to you, but not long ago, so did the idea of 2 men getting 'married'...

So the 'unfair' part then needs to be looked at. If marriage has always been understood as one man + one woman, then nobody is being treated differently or unfairly if someone is denied marriage who wants to marry his cousin, 2 best friends, or same sex partner. The standard is upheld equally for all. Now if you can establish that marrige has a much broader definition than one man \ one woman, then you can start to gain some traction for those situations, but line still has to be drawn somewhere.


Side note - apparently about 1/2 of the states do indeed allow first cousins to marry. So should we go after the other half of the states to allow now too?


----------



## richalisoviejo

Flawed argument. Nice try though. 

That's your problem. You don't understand that facts matter in a debate. For instance, you may harbor a belief that the earth is flat. It's a silly belief, but you maintain it despite all the facts that are provided to prove that the earth is round. No one can change your "opinion" with the facts because you desire to remain in the dark ages. Most of the arguments you gave against gay marriage are built on appeals to "ideal" conditions that simply don't exist. The list goes on. As is often the case with such a charged topic as this, ideology trumps observation every time.

Again, if the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis, then why is that basis applied selectively? If it is indeed true that marriage is defined in accordance with the "apparent design" that gender and sexual attraction enable reproduction, and if homosexuality is to be excluded from marriage because it does not conform to that design, then why are other marriage practices that also deviate from that design legally recognized? Marriages that produce no children, or marriages of convenience, do not conform to the apparent design. Yet homosexuality is the only "malfunction" singled out for exclusion. *That's discrimination, any way you slice it.*

As IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve stated as well as others Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is a CIVIL institution that may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with CIVIL law. Because the state government (and not religious institutions) controls entry, any barriers must be (at a minimum) rationally related to a legitimate government interest. *The state has no legitimate interest whatsoever in preventing homosexual couples from entering a marriage.* It makes no difference that you, in your prejudice desire the reserve the "grammar" for yourself. 

Now try reading the thread again from the beginning and give me an example why two gay people should not be allowed the same rights as two straight people.


----------



## chadk

Rich, when and where did I say anything about "the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis"? You keep setting up straw men to knock down. But that one sided type of discussion is getting tiring. 

Recap - I never mentioned bestiality. I never mentioned non-consenting adult relationships. I never said marriage is a religious institution. I never said marriage is only intended for reproduction.

So let's focus like a laser on what I really said 



So back to the "marriage is a civil institution dependent on civil law". What do you think people did for marriage before the US gov got involved? What do you think people do for marriage who live in other countries where they don't have civil law dependencies? Marriage transcends government. In the current context, we do have civil law dependencies since our gov't has decided to get involved in the business of marriage for various reasons.

Again, legally, 'marriage' needs to be defined (or re-defined possibly). Clearly this is what Prop 8 was focused on as was DOMA in part. If marriage is legally defined as man+woman, as it has been understood historically, then there is no discrimination. Now if the legal definition of marriage is expanded then we would have no choice but to allow this new form of marriage in any form consenting adults choose. If the current definition is "one man plus one woman" and we change it to "one adult plus one adult", why just 'one'. We can't have that limit either. In fact, we would be compelled to remove the 'one' from the statement altogether: "consenting adults of any gender, relationship, and quantity in a legal contract".


----------



## richalisoviejo

You still didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t comprehend One single legal meaning of the thread. 

The states that allow same-sex marriage will begin to set the stage for others to follow. It's a long, slow path but one that I think will ultimately result in change. The states that passed Constitutional amendments in Nov 2004 (and Texas more recently) banning same-sex marriage will hopefully find themselves isolated. With time and social pressure they might be forced to rethink their narrow and archaic views. Individual attitudes amass to create a social ethic, and yours amounts to a heinous regard for your fellow human beings. 

Pissing in the wind is gernerally regarded as futile.


----------



## chadk

Obama and the majorirty of the US with those narrow and arachiac views and henious regard for their fellow human beings have been put on notice.


----------



## chadk

One more note on this....

If for example, I lived in Saudi Arabia (just making this up) where the gov't only recognized those married according to Islamic law and only those couples had certain rights... That would not stop me from getting married. I really don't care that the Muslims would not recognize my marriage. I would go to my church pastor (probably have to be in secret in Saudi Arabia) and get married. I would know in my heart and soul that my marriage is recognized by my church, my God, my family, and those I care about. If the gov't doesn't approve, I don't care. I'm not Muslim and I don't expect them to change for me.

OK, that probably riled you up. But hold on. Here is my proposal for here in the US where we allow freedom of religion... 

I think the gov't should recognize civil unions. That is all they should recognize. Legal unions between any consenting adults. If they want to have 2 types of unions with equal protections - one called 'marriage' that is one man + one woman, and a second that is 'civil union' (or pick a new name) that is any other combo, then that is fine. Equal protection. Either way is fine by me and I think most Americans would go for it.

Any couple can go to their own church or a judge or vegas or whatever and get a contract signed that says they have a valid civil union. The marriage ceramony part is optional and up to the couple. I'd get married in my church. Another couple may choose to have a justice of the peace do a service on the beach. Who cares. The gov't stays out of defining 'marriage' and everyone has equal protection AND freedom of religion (which includes the lack of religion...).

Why won't that work?

Here in WA, we are close to that. We just passed the 'everything but gay marriage bill'. Giving all the rights via civil union to gay couples basically.


----------



## Candy

How nice of WA, but I'm afraid that is still considered discrimination. And I think you might want to go back to page three and reconsider what you said about consenting adults. Did you actually refer to incest as consenting? And are you trying to insult homosexuals by comparing them to incest because that's the way I took that one.


----------



## Weloveourtortoise

I only got half way through the thread and have to put my 2 cents in! Chad, I live in Massachusetts and the state is still rolling! Marriage started out as a way to show that a woman belonged to a Man in a time when it was common just to take what you wanted without thought or care to what the other person, usually what the female wanted. Which also coinsided with the dawning of religions, not necessarily our current mainstream religions, but more the earth religions that started when we were still in the cave. Marriage was formed to protect a Man's lineage. Our government and mainstream religions have taken the concept of marriage and defined it for their own purposes and uses. Our traditional views of "natural order" is acutually unnatural. Many species have same sex partnering that has nothing to do with reproduction but sexual atttaction-- just pick up any bio 101 book. 
We as a society take the "morals" that are decided on by a select few at the top of all our organizations (government, civil liberites orgs, and religions) that chose for us what we shoudl believe as right. As our founding fathers created the USA, they wrote the constitution vague enough that we could interpret and change as society changed, but they had the one thought that they were creating a country with religious freedom. At that time it was religions that dominated how our society acted. Religious freedom and the right to practice one's own religion without persecution was the core of our new country. At the core of every religion are their beliefs in marriage. If our government is based on the separation of religion and state, then the "traditional" beliefs of marriage and the civil right to join into a marriage contract with our states should be separate also. So if a person wants to marry another person, no matter their race, religion, sex, or current marrital status should not matter at all. Another's personal preference should not hinder anothers. 
If a person wants to join into plural marriage, it should not be a matter of the state to deny that also. However what tradition or personal beliefs dictate. Personally I feel the mormons had it wrong, for today's economy how can a man support mulitple wives? Hey, the woman should be allowed to have mutliple husbands to provide and maintain the household!!! But them we women have enough trouble dealing with one adult child nevermind more!!!
On a more serious note, I understand the ban on plural marriage was done to protect the young women who where being forced into marriage to a much older man and an abusive situation. However, marriage from the dawn of time until the past century always had the female at the disadvantage.
-Bonnie


----------



## richalisoviejo

As I stated in the History and Change thread; The dinosaurs are dieing off and the younger generation will prevail. 

Lets not forget with respect to this country's deplorable treatment of women (in their role as _de facto_ slaves as the property of their husbands) throughout our history, the Supreme Court noted the following when it invalidated a state imposed spousal notification law:

_There was a time, not so long ago, when a different understanding of the family and of the Constitution prevailed. In Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130 (1873), three Members of this [505 U.S. 833, 897] Court reaffirmed the common law principle that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state; and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most States. Id., at 141 (Bradley, J., joined by Swayne and Field, JJ., concurring in judgment). Only one generation has passed since this Court observed that "woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life," with attendant "special responsibilities" that precluded full and independent legal status under the Constitution. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57, 62 (1961).* These views, of course, are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution.*

Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage* and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution.* Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry. [/b]The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power,[/b] even where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual's family. These considerations confirm our conclusion that 3209 is invalid._

Citation of authority: 

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html


----------



## chadk

Bonnie, interesting perspective, but I disagree with most of it.

Actually, there are asian cultures where there is one woman and many husbands. So that is possible. And plural marriages are easily fixed by simply having our age of consent laws. So to single out pluralistic marriages is a bias and not fair.

Our nation is not 'based' on the seperation of religion and state. It is a core principle, but not the 'base'. They had no problem with religion, only state run religion. And in a society where you had kings, queens, and dictators ruling countries, religious freedom was scarce.
So the main objective was to form a gov't that allowed freedom of choice. Supportive and tolerant of all types of religious backgrounds.

And 'sexual attraction' in most animals is generally simply a drive to reproduce. They don't always udnerstand or care if the other animal is the right target. Look at a dog and your pant leg for example... 


"We as a society take the "morals" that are decided on by a select few at the top of all our organizations"

I disagree with this as well. I can move to Iran and still have my current morals.

"Our traditional views of "natural order" is acutually unnatural"

And this I disagree with. First off, you are coralating creatures of many types that each have a unique socail, mating, and reproductive process. Many do have life long opposite sex partners. But at the core of this arguement, I don't see us as just animals that are slaves to 'instincts'. We have minds and choices we can make. We don't have to do drugs and become addicts for example. 

"Marriage started out ... but more the earth religions that started when we were still in the cave. "

I'm not sure where you got this info. Do you have a source?

The good thing about the younger generation Rich - they will grow up 

Many young folks start out as idealistic liberals, but grow and mature and have kids and family and end up being more conservative....

Winston Churchill's famous quote: "If by age 20 you're not a liberal, you have no heart. If by age 40 you're not a conservative, you have no head."


----------



## richalisoviejo

chadk said:


> Our nation is not 'based' on the seperation of religion and state. It is a core principle, but not the 'base'.



Now that is not only funny itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ludicrous. 

This is not a Christian nation, ever heard of separation of Church & State. Google is your friend.

The United States Supreme Court ruled prayer in public schools unconstitutional in 1962. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s called separation of church & state. Keep religion in the home and church and keep it out of my everything my tax dollars pay for.


----------



## Weloveourtortoise

Thank you Rich, :
(Today 11:26 AM)chadk Wrote: 
Our nation is not 'based' on the seperation of religion and state. It is a core principle, but not the 'base'.
(Today 11:31) Richalisoviejo Wrote:
Now that is not only funny itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ludicrous. 

This is not a Christian nation, ever heard of separation of Church & State. Google is your friend.

---------------
Chad you missed my point about plural marriage. I believe if you want more than one spouse, go for it, I am not to say no. I was trying to be funny about the plural husbands, I love Matt but could not take on more than one of him. However when I have worked 60+ hours a week I was commonly heard saying "I need a wife" (to take care of the cleaning, cooking, and house work!-- oh and to keep Matt happy) 
--------------
For the origins of group society look to any anthropogical books. They will cover how evolved from single/small tribes to larger group communities.
---------------
-Bonnie


----------



## chadk

Rich, glad you crack yourself up 

Looking at your own words - you'll see it took amost 200 years before we decided that schools should not be in the business of leading kids in prayer. 200 years!! If our country was soooo solidly founded on a 'seperation of church and state' as the main driver and key principle, why did it take almost 200 years to address this issue and many ohter like it? 

And I agree, kids can do that just fine praying at school on their own and with their own family and churches. I wouldn't want a Muslim leading my child in prayer, so it is understandable.

This nation has had a strong majority of Christians since the beginning. Core Christian principles since it's founding. That does not mean that the country promotes one religion over the other - it is just the facts. 



richalisoviejo said:


> chadk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation is not 'based' on the seperation of religion and state. It is a core principle, but not the 'base'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is not only funny itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ludicrous.
> 
> This is not a Christian nation, ever heard of separation of Church & State. Google is your friend.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court ruled prayer in public schools unconstitutional in 1962. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s called separation of church & state. Keep religion in the home and church and keep it out of my everything my tax dollars pay for.
Click to expand...


----------



## Candy

"Letter to the Editor"
LA TIMES



The gay-marriage knot

Re "Marriage and legal nonsense," Opinion, May 27

Tim Rutten hit it on the nose: The California Supreme Court's decision regarding marriage equality is nervous and contradictory.

As one of the 18,000 couples legally married before Proposition 8 took effect, we are grateful that our marriage is still recognized in California.

But we are deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court's ruling, which, in effect, says that half the voters can make the state Constitution as discriminatory as they want.

Since our August wedding, an amazing number of co-workers, friends, family members and friends of the family have expressed congratulations. No one congratulated us two years ago when we registered as domestic partners. Rutten is right: "Registered domestic partnership" is code for "back of the bus."


----------



## richalisoviejo

chadk said:


> This nation has had a strong majority of Christians since the beginning. Core Christian principles since it's founding.



Another myth. Name our founding fathers and their religious beliefs. 

And my earlier post wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the first time I cracked my self up reading your argument in the thread. 

We aren't talking about anarchy. we aren't talking about giving people new rights, we're expanding VERY old rights to a group of people who has had those rights denied to them.

You're this and that about rampant individualism is a red herring when talking about equality. 

The majority does not have to have a good reason. This is like saying that the people of Salem had a very good reason to burn people they thought were witches, and since they were the majority then some sort of rational consesus must have been reached.

If the majority MUST have a good reason, what is it? What is this phantom threat gays pose?


----------



## chadk

Candy said:


> "Letter to the Editor"
> LA TIMES
> 
> 
> 
> The gay-marriage knot
> 
> Re "Marriage and legal nonsense," Opinion, May 27
> 
> Tim Rutten hit it on the nose: The California Supreme Court's decision regarding marriage equality is nervous and contradictory.
> 
> As one of the 18,000 couples legally married before Proposition 8 took effect, we are grateful that our marriage is still recognized in California.
> 
> But we are deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court's ruling, which, in effect, says that half the voters can make the state Constitution as discriminatory as they want.
> 
> Since our August wedding, an amazing number of co-workers, friends, family members and friends of the family have expressed congratulations. No one congratulated us two years ago when we registered as domestic partners. Rutten is right: "Registered domestic partnership" is code for "back of the bus."




If all I did was head down to a justice of the peace and have some paperwork filed with my spouse, I doubt I'd have a bunch of congratulations from my friends and family. Clearly I wasn't going for attention at that point. Now if I did that, PLUS had a public wedding ceramony with my friends and family invited, then that is another matter.

This is a red herring. You can have a wedding ceromony and not have the state involved. A gay person could get legally registered, then have the big wedding they always wanted. 

Last year a good friend had us down for their wedding in Mexico. Did they care that their marriage was not recognized in Mexico (since they filed their paper work in California)? No. Weddings and paper work with the gov't are 2 different things.



Candy said:


> How nice of WA, but I'm afraid that is still considered discrimination. And I think you might want to go back to page three and reconsider what you said about consenting adults. Did you actually refer to incest as consenting? And are you trying to insult homosexuals by comparing them to incest because that's the way I took that one.



I'm not sure what you are getting at. Can consenting adults choose to love and marry who whey want or not? If 2 brothers want to get married, why not? A fater who has been seperated from his grown son since the divorce and they meet after all those years, fall in love and want to get marriedj - why not? 2 guys who are also cousins - why not?

You can't go down the slippery slope of putting conditions on marriage. Who get's to pick those conditions?


----------



## Candy

Rich with all due respect, although some of the founding fathers were Dieteists and obviously wanted a separation of church and state the overwhelming majority of the nation's population were at least nominally of Christian faith. So, I think Chad has a point about the nation's history, however, I believe the argument is really not about the past. Throughout our history we have manipulated, tweeked, and reformed our Constitution and laws. This is what we need to focus on today; the continued process of living up to the guiding principles of our nation.


----------



## chadk

richalisoviejo said:


> chadk said:
> 
> 
> 
> This nation has had a strong majority of Christians since the beginning. Core Christian principles since it's founding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another myth. Name our founding fathers and their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...



Oh dear - really? You don't think that this nation had and still has a strong majority of Christians? Seriously? Can you point me to any source that would confirm that?


----------



## richalisoviejo

chadk said:


> Oh dear - really? You don't think that this nation had and still has a strong majority of Christians? Seriously? Can you point me to any source that would confirm that?



Hamilton, for example, was an agnostic and deist.

Jefferson was generally regarded as an atheist by most New England clergy.

Adams began as a Congregationalist, though a staunch opponent of New Light evangelicalism, then ended up a Unitarian.

George Washington always believed that American victory in the War for Independence was, as he said, Ã¢â‚¬Å“a standing miracle,Ã¢â‚¬Â guided by other worldly forces that he referred to as Ã¢â‚¬Å“providenceÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“destiny.Ã¢â‚¬Â He seldom used the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“God.Ã¢â‚¬Â I regard him as a pantheist rather than a deist because he believed these other worldly forces, whatever we called them, had earthly presences. Like Hamilton, he regarded his attendance at Episcopal services as a social obligation

When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that *"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."* (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. *Nowhere* in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in _exclusionary_ terms. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution, not once.

You might call them Christians but when IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve seen Paul and Jan crouch crying in TV Sunday morning begging for money, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t call that being a Christian, God will not have a new Cadillac with gold wheels waiting for her in heaven. What does she need a car for? 

And all that crying on TV isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t just for money, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d be crying too if you sat most Saturday nights at Fashion Island drinking one Bombay Sapphire Martini after another, then have to be helped of the bar stools by their body guards. And this is from one of the largest Christian based organizations in the country.


----------



## chadk

Rick - you are heading down hill fast dude. Who here ever mentioned TV evanglists as great Christian role models? What was that tangent about?? They make me sick...

But you did not address the question again. Do you have a source for your statement that it is a myth that the US has always, from beginning to now, a majority Christian?


----------



## Candy

Congregationial, Unitarian, Episcopalian... all are christian-based denominations, which include as part of their doctrine a belief in Jesus Christ. Agnostics do not disavow the existence of God or for that matter Jesus. Diets believe in the existence of a higher being or power, but usually not in the dvinity of Jesus Christ. Calling Jefferson an atheist does not make him one, especially if it is his enemies doing the name-calling in the middle of a hotly contested presidential election. The founding fathers at the very least acknowledged in name and/or in public Christanity and supported christian values. They were leery of organized religion because of it's abuse of public power and privledge. Also, which founding fathers are we talking about, there are quite a few more than the four mentioned here, of which only two were at the Constitutional Convention and signed the document. The point is this is all rhetoric, just fun and games from the past, but what we do now? How will our leaders respond to our opinions and desires? How will they intrepret the Constitution in light of the make-up our current society (people and ideas)? And most importantly what will we do, as part of our civic duty and responsibility, to communicate those opinions and desires to those who will make or influence those decisions?


----------



## chadk

Excellent post Candy. What is great is that we can even have these debates in our great country. We are not perfect, but we are the best. You and I may disagree on some very important areas, but we are free to disagree and I love that. Freedom and liberty are what this country is about. 

Not to side track this anymore on the founding fathers stuff, but I think this is interesting along those lines. 


HRES 397 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 397
Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of
the first week in May as `America's Spiritual Heritage Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 4, 2009


Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of
the first week in May as `America's Spiritual Heritage Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.
Whereas religious faith was not only important in official American life during the periods of discovery, exploration, colonization, and
growth but has also been acknowledged and incorporated into all 3 branches of the Federal Government from their very beginning;
Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed this self-evident fact in a unanimous ruling declaring `This is a religious people .
. . From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation';
Whereas political scientists have documented that the most frequently cited source in the political period known as The Founding Era was
the Bible;
Whereas the first act of America's first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of
4 chapters of the Bible;
Whereas Congress regularly attended church and Divine service together en masse;
Whereas throughout the American Founding, Congress frequently appropriated money for missionaries and for religious instruction, a
practice that Congress repeated for decades after the passage of the Constitution and the First Amendment;
Whereas in 1776, Congress approved the Declaration of Independence with its 4 direct religious acknowledgments referring to God as the
Creator (`All people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness'), the Lawgiver (`the laws of nature and nature's God'), the Judge (`appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world'), and the
Protector (`with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence');
Whereas upon approving the Declaration of Independence, John Adams declared that the Fourth of July `ought to be commemorated as
the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty';
Whereas 4 days after approving the Declaration, the Liberty Bell was rung;
Whereas the Liberty Bell was named for the Biblical inscription from Leviticus 25:10 emblazoned around it: `Proclaim liberty throughout
the land, to all the inhabitants thereof';
Whereas in 1777, Congress, facing a National shortage of `Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our
churches,' announced that they `desired to have a Bible printed under their care & by their encouragement' and therefore ordered 20,000
copies of the Bible to be imported `into the different ports of the States of the Union';
Whereas in 1782, Congress pursued a plan to print a Bible that would be `a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools' and
therefore approved the production of the first English language Bible printed in America that contained the congressional endorsement that
`the United States in Congress assembled . . . recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States';
Whereas in 1782, Congress adopted (and has reaffirmed on numerous subsequent occasions) the National Seal with its Latin motto
`Annuit Coeptis,' meaning `God has favored our undertakings,' along with the eye of Providence in a triangle over a pyramid, the eye and
the motto `allude to the many signal interpositions of Providence in favor of the American cause';
Whereas the 1783 Treaty of Paris that officially endied the Revolution and established America as an independent begins with the
appellation `In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity';
Whereas in 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin declared, `God governs in the affairs of men. And if a
sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? . . . Without His concurring aid,
we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel';
Whereas the delegates to the Constitutional Convention concluded their work by in effect placing a religious punctuation mark at the end
of the Constitution in the Attestation Clause, noting not only that they had completed the work with `the unanimous consent of the States
present' but they had done so `in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven';
Whereas James Madison declared that he saw the finished Constitution as a product of `the finger of that Almighty Hand which has been
so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the Revolution,' and George Washington viewed it as `little short of
a miracle,' and Benjamin Franklin believed that its writing had been `influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent,
and beneficent Ruler, in Whom all inferior spirits live, and move, and have their being';
Whereas, from 1787 to 1788, State conventions to ratify the United States Constitution not only began with prayer but even met in church
buildings;
Whereas in 1795, during construction of the Capitol, a practice was instituted whereby `public worship is now regularly administered at
the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o'clock';
Whereas in 1789, the first Federal Congress, the Congress that framed the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, appropriated
Federal funds to pay chaplains to pray at the opening of all sessions, a practice that has continued to this day, with Congress not only
funding its congressional chaplains but also the salaries and operations of more than 4,500 military chaplains;
Whereas in 1789, Congress, in the midst of framing the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, passed the first Federal law touching
education, declaring that `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools
and the means of education shall forever be encouraged';
Whereas in 1789, on the same day that Congress finished drafting the First Amendment, it requested President Washington to declare a
National day of prayer and thanksgiving, resulting in the first Federal official Thanksgiving proclamation that declared `it is the duty of all
nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His
protection and favor';
Whereas in 1800, Congress enacted naval regulations requiring that Divine service be performed twice every day aboard `all ships and
vessels in the navy,' with a sermon preached each Sunday;
Whereas in 1800, Congress approved the use of the just-completed Capitol structure as a church building, with Divine services to be held
each Sunday in the Hall of the House, alternately administered by the House and Senate chaplains;
Whereas in 1853, Congress declared that congressional chaplains have a `duty . . . to conduct religious services weekly in the Hall of the
House of Representatives';
Whereas by 1867, the church at the Capitol was the largest church in Washington, DC, with up to 2,000 people a week attending Sunday
service in the Hall of the House;
Whereas by 1815, over 2,000 official governmental calls to prayer had been issued at both the State and the Federal levels, with
thousands more issued since 1815;
Whereas in 1853, the United States Senate declared that the Founding Fathers `had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish
to see us an irreligious people . . . they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the
dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy';
Whereas in 1854, the United States House of Representatives declared `It [religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the
whole structure rests . . . Christianity; in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and
permanence of free institutions';
Whereas in 1864, by law Congress added `In God We Trust' to American coinage;
Whereas in 1864, Congress passed an act authorizing each State to display statues of 2 of its heroes in the United States Capitol, resulting
in numerous statues of noted Christian clergymen and leaders at the Capitol, including Gospel ministers such as the Revs. James A.
Garfield, John Peter Muhlenberg, Jonathan Trumbull, Roger Williams, Jason Lee, Marcus Whitman, and Martin Luther King Jr., Gospel
theologians such as Roger Sherman, Catholic priests such as Father Damien, Jacques Marquette, Eusebio Kino, and Junipero Serra,
Catholic nuns such as Mother Joseph, and numerous other religious leaders;
Whereas in 1870, the Federal Government made Christmas (a recognition of the birth of Christ, an event described by the U.S. Supreme
Court as `acknowledged in the Western World for 20 centuries, and in this country by the people, the Executive Branch, Congress, and the
courts for 2 centuries') and Thanksgiving as official holidays;
Whereas, beginning in 1904 and continuing for the next half-century, the Federal Gvernment printed and distributed The Life and Morals of
Jesus of Nazareth for the use of Members of Congress because of the important teachings it contained;
Whereas in 1931, Congress by law adopted the Star-Spangled Banner as the official National Anthem, with its phrases such as `may the
Heav'n-rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation,' and `this be our motto, `In God is our trust!';
Whereas in 1954, Congress by law added the phrase `one nation under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance;
Whereas in 1954, a special Congressional Prayer Room was added to the Capitol with a kneeling bench, an altar, an open Bible, an
inspiring stained-glass window with George Washington kneeling in prayer, the declaration of Psalm 16:1: `Preserve me, O God, for in
Thee do I put my trust,' and the phrase `This Nation Under God' displayed above the kneeling, prayerful Washington;
Whereas in 1956, Congress by law made `In God We Trust' the National Motto, and added the phrase to American currency;
Whereas the constitutions of each of the 50 States, either in the preamble or body, explicitly recognize or express gratitude to God;
Whereas America's first Presidential Inauguration incorporated 7 specific religious activities, including--
(1) the use of the Bible to administer the oath;
(2) affirming the religious nature of the oath by the adding the prayer `So help me God!' to the oath;
(3) inaugural prayers offered by the President;
(4) religious content in the inaugural address;
(5) civil leaders calling the people to prayer or acknowledgment of God;
(6) inaugural worship services attended en masse by Congress as an official part of congressional activities; and
(7) clergy-led inaugural prayers, activities which have been replicated in whole or part by every subsequent President;
Whereas President George Washington declared `Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality
are indispensable supports';
Whereas President John Adams, one of only 2 signers of the Bill of Rights and First Amendment, declared `As the safety and prosperity of
nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this
truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him';
Whereas President Jefferson not only attended Divine services at the Capitol throughout his presidency and had the Marine Band play at
the services, but during his administration church services were also begun in the War Department and the Treasury Department, thus
allowing worshippers on any given Sunday the choice to attend church at either the United States Capitol, the War Department, or the
Treasury Department if they so desired;
Whereas Thomas Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes, provided Federal funding for
missionary work among Indian tribes, and declared that religious schools would receive `the patronage of the government';
Whereas President Andrew Jackson declared that the Bible `is the rock on which our Republic rests';
Whereas President Abraham Lincoln declared that the Bible `is the best gift God has given to men . . . But for it, we could not know right
from wrong'
Whereas President William McKinley declared that `Our faith teaches us that there is no safer reliance than upon the God of our fathers,
Who has so singularly favored the American people in every national trial and Who will not forsake us so long as we obey His
commandments and walk humbly in His footsteps';
Whereas President Teddy Roosevelt declared `The Decalogue and the Golden Rule must stand as the foundation of every successful effort
to better either our social or our political life';
Whereas President Woodrow Wilson declared that `America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which
are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture';
Whereas President Herbert Hoover declared that `American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy
announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago';
Whereas President Franklin D. Roosevelt not only led the Nation in a 6 minute prayer during D-Day on June 6, 1944, but he also declared
that `If we will not prepare to give all that we have and all that we are to preserve Christian civilization in our land, we shall go to
destruction';
Whereas President Harry S. Truman declared that `The fundamental basis of this Nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The
fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul';
Whereas President Harry S. Truman told a group touring Washington, DC, that `You will see, as you make your rounds, that this Nation
was established by men who believed in God. . . . You will see the evidence of this deep religious faith on every hand';
Whereas President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared that `Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American
way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, the most basic, expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of
America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be' in a declaration later repeated with approval by President Gerald Ford;
Whereas President John F. Kennedy declared that `The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God';
Whereas President Ronald Reagan, after noting `The Congress of the United States, in recognition of the unique contribution of the Bible in
shaping the history and character of this Nation and so many of its citizens, has . . . requested the President to designate the year 1983 as
the `Year of the Bible', officially declared 1983 as `The Year of the Bible';
Whereas every other President has similarly recognized the role of God and religious faith in the public life of America;
Whereas all sessions of the United States Supreme Court begin with the Court's Marshal announcing, `God save the United States and this
honorable court';
Whereas a regular and integral part of official activities in the Federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, was the inclusion
of prayer by a minister of the Gospel;
Whereas the United States Supreme Court has declared throughout the course of our Nation's history that the United States is `a Christian
country', `a Christian nation', `a Christian people', `a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being', and that `we
cannot read into the Bill of Rights a philosophy of hostility to religion';
Whereas Justice John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and original Justice of the United States Supreme Court, urged `The most
effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the
Source from which they flow';
Whereas Justice James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution, declared that `Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority
of that law which is Divine . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants';
Whereas Justice William Paterson, a signer of the Constitution, declared that `Religion and morality . . . [are] necessary to good
government, good order, and good laws';
Whereas President George Washington, who passed into law the first legal acts organizing the Federal judiciary, asked, `where is the
security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths in the courts of justice?';
Whereas some of the most important monuments, buildings, and landmarks in Washington, DC, include religious words, symbols, and
imagery;
Whereas in the United States Capitol the declaration `In God We Trust' is prominently displayed in both the United States House and
Senate Chambers;
Whereas around the top of the walls in the House Chamber appear images of 23 great lawgivers from across the centuries, but Moses (the
lawgiver, who--according to the Bible--originally received the law from God,) is the only lawgiver honored with a full face view, looking
down on the proceedings of the House;
Whereas religious artwork is found throughout the United States Capitol, including in the Rotunda where the prayer service of Christopher
Columbus, the Baptism of Pocahontas, and the prayer and Bible study of the Pilgrims are all prominently displayed; in the Cox Corridor of
the Capitol where the words `America! God shed His grace on thee' are inscribed; at the east Senate entrance with the words `Annuit
Coeptis' which is Latin for `God has favored our undertakings'; and in numerous other locations;
Whereas images of the Ten Commandments are found in many Federal buildings across Washington, DC, including in bronze in the floor of
the National Archives; in a bronze statue of Moses in the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress; in numerous locations at the U.S.
Supreme Court, including in the frieze above the Justices, the oak door at the rear of the Chamber, the gable apex, and in dozens of
locations on the bronze latticework surrounding the Supreme Court Bar seating;
Whereas in the Washington Monument not only are numerous Bible verses and religious acknowledgments carved on memorial blocks in
the walls, including the phrases: `Holiness to the Lord' (Exodus 28:26, 30:30, Isaiah 23:18, Zechariah 14:20), `Search the Scriptures'
(John 5:39), `The memory of the just is blessed' (Proverbs 10:7), `May Heaven to this Union continue its beneficence', and `In God We
Trust', but the Latin inscription Laus Deo meaning `Praise be to God' is engraved on the monument's capstone;
Whereas of the 5 areas inside the Jefferson Memorial into which Jefferson's words have been carved, 4 are God-centered, including
Jefferson's declaration that `God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a
conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot
sleep forever';
Whereas the Lincoln Memorial contains numerous acknowledgments of God and citations of Bible verses, including the declarations that
`we here highly resolve that . . . this nation under God . . . shall not perish from the earth'; `The Almighty has His own purposes. `Woe
unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh' (Matthew
18:7), `as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said `the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether'
(Psalms 19:9), `one day every valley shall be exalted and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain,
and the crooked places will be made straight and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh see it together' (Dr. Martin Luther
King's speech, based on Isaiah 40:4-5);
Whereas in the Library of Congress, The Giant Bible of Mainz, and The Gutenberg Bible are on prominent permanent display and etched on
the walls are Bible verses, including: `The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not' (John 1:5), `Wisdom is the
principal thing; therefore, get wisdom and with all thy getting, get understanding' (Proverbs 4:7), `What doth the Lord require of thee, but
to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God' (Micah 6:8), and `The heavens declare the Glory of God, and the
firmament showeth His handiwork' (Psalm 19:1);
Whereas numerous other of the most important American government leaders, institutions, monuments, buildings, and landmarks both
openly acknowledge and incorporate religious words, symbols, and imagery into official venues;
Whereas such acknowledgments are even more frequent at the State and local level than at the Federal level, where thousands of such
acknowledgments exist, and
Whereas the first week in May each year would be an appropriate week to designate as `America's Spiritual Heritage Week': Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives--
(1) affirms the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history, including up to the
current day;
(2) recognizes that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation's most
valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America's representative processes, legal systems, and societal
structures;
(3) rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's
public buildings and educational resources; and
(4) expresses support for designation of a `America's Spiritual Heritage Week' every year for the appreciation of and education
on America's history of religious faith.


----------



## richalisoviejo

chadk said:


> Freedom and liberty are what this country is about.



You're not quite there yet but with that comment your on the right tract. 

Nice cut a paste job but you still havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t answered the question why gays should not have the same rights as a straight couple. Having six children surely you would want them to be treated equally? 

Unfortunately "close-minded" people like to butt into other people's personal lives and believe it's their business to tell Mr. Pierce that he can't be married to his partner of 25 years. 

I'm still awaiting as to what harm specifically it will do to society to allow gay marriage; and to what motivates conserviatives to want to deny that right to gays. What is the underlying reason you would prefer a society in which gays could not marry? Please don't appeal to tradition (ie, 'that's the way it's always been done), which is a Logical Fallacy; or appeal to Authority (God wants it that way), which would be another logical fallacy; but explain using logic and plain words.

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. *They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.* As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html


----------



## chadk

Rich, you still have not aswered a number of my questions and this is just getting redundant and old. Until you can own up to your mis-statements and answer a few questions posed earlier, there is no point in moving forward.


----------



## richalisoviejo

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s what I meant by your comments when I said pissing in the wind is futile in case you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get it the first time.


----------



## chadk

Well, it is clear now then, thanks. Getting you to own up to your mis-statements and answer some of my basic questions surely appears to be a pointless effort.


----------



## richalisoviejo

chadk said:


> Well, it is clear now then, thanks. Getting you to own up to your mis-statements and answer some of my basic questions surely appears to be a pointless effort.



Very pointless on your part. But I'll let you have the last word, go ahead now I'll wait


----------



## desertsss

Out of curiousity Chad, which questions did rich not answer. Where does it say that marriage is a right? Is that the one?


----------



## Candy

Well, they both seem to avoid directly answering each other's questions or points of debate. I assume this is to make their own points seem stronger and more convinicing (kinda like a politician does). This does seem pointless after awhile (just like an election campaign), especially when both sides refuse to agree to disagree or move on. However, I think that there is a deeper purpose than just the entertainment derived from their bickering. Those of us who have read the thread or even just parts of have taken away new knowledge to process and form opinion with or about, I know I have. Perhaps, this is the value of forums like these. We can use the new information or perspectives to reinforce our current opinions or make adjustments to them, as we choose. I'd to thank both Rich and Chad for such enlightenment (now that sounds like a politician).


----------



## chadk

desertsss said:


> Out of curiousity Chad, which questions did rich not answer. Where does it say that marriage is a right? Is that the one?



I'm asking rich to admit he was wrong when he made the claim that:

1) DOMA was not law.
2) it is a myth that we are currently and historically a majority Christian nation

And here are the questions that have not been answered:

1) Where does the constitution specifically say that marriage is a right? 2) And then if it is there, you need to see how it is defined.
3) Didn't the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) that Clinton signed into law relate to the second part of my question (#2)? 
4) Are gays really taking the brunt of discrimination since the dawn of man?
5) At least here in the USA, aren't gays statistically making more money than non-gays?
6) How do you legally define marriage? 
7) Who gets to defines 'marriage'?
8) Again, the concept of gay 'marriage' is relatively new. So how could this have been forbidden since the dawn of man? Again, just more drama.
9) And if a Muslim man wants to honor his religion, or a Mormon, or just a free loving hippie and marry several women, who are you to say they can't? If they love each other, shouldn't they be able to? Are you discriminating against a minority group if you don't allow it?
10) *Aren't you the one that said earlier that marriage is not just a union centered on offspring?* Clearly a couple of brothers or male cousins could marry then if that is your only concern, right? How about if a father and adult daughter choose to get married, but first get sterilized?
It sounds like you are not hestitant to discrimate and define marriage in ways that fit YOUR personal feelings on the subject - but anyone else must be wrong...
11) *when and where did I say anything about "the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis"?* You keep setting up straw men to knock down. But that one sided type of discussion is getting tiring. Recap - I never mentioned bestiality. I never mentioned non-consenting adult relationships. I never said marriage is a religious institution. I never said marriage is only intended for reproduction.
12) So back to the "marriage is a civil institution dependent on civil law". *What do you think people did for marriage before the US gov got involved?* 
13)What do you think people do for marriage who live in other countries where they don't have civil law dependencies? Marriage transcends government.
14) Looking at your own words - you'll see it took amost 200 years before we decided that schools should not be in the business of leading kids in prayer. 200 years!! *If our country was soooo solidly founded on a 'seperation of church and state' as the main driver and key principle, why did it take almost 200 years to address this issue and many others like it*? 
15) Who here ever mentioned TV evanglists as great Christian role models? What was that tangent about?? 
16) Do you have a source for your statement that it is a myth that the US has always, from beginning to now, a majority Christian?



Candy said:


> Well, they both seem to avoid directly answering each other's questions or points of debate. I assume this is to make their own points seem stronger and more convinicing (kinda like a politician does). This does seem pointless after awhile (just like an election campaign), especially when both sides refuse to agree to disagree or move on. However, I think that there is a deeper purpose than just the entertainment derived from their bickering. Those of us who have read the thread or even just parts of have taken away new knowledge to process and form opinion with or about, I know I have. Perhaps, this is the value of forums like these. We can use the new information or perspectives to reinforce our current opinions or make adjustments to them, as we choose. I'd to thank both Rich and Chad for such enlightenment (now that sounds like a politician).



Candy, you are very welcome


----------



## richalisoviejo

Thanks Chad I just won a hundred bucks . You never answered mine, if DOMA was law how did 18,000 gay couples marry in CA? And remember the comment about the wind. Lol.


----------



## chadk

Rich, you clearly don't understand DOMA and how it impacts or does not impact individual states.

If I answer the DOMA question, will you answer, say any 1/2 of my questions (you can even pick the half)? Will you admit you were wrong that DOMA was really signed into law. Will you admit that there is no myth regarding the historical and current Chrstian majority in our country?


----------



## richalisoviejo

First of all DOMA is not law when challenged by the Supreme Court. And as far as your Christian majority, read what I said about separation of church and state. You have no argument, your morally thinking but the Supreme Court has already ruled the Moral Majority cannot impose their will upon the majority. Which makes the California ruling Unconstitutional. 

This is not a Christian nation. 

The Constitution will always reign supreme.

Now enough of your nonconsensual ramblings. The conservative rubbish is finally out of power.


----------



## chadk

Rich, your emotions are getting the better of you. 

I'm simply trying to establish some facts. 

DOMA was signed into law. That is a factual statement. Agree or disagree?

The US has always had and still has a Christian majority. Agree or not?

I know it is hard, but please show some maturity and stop lowering this discussion to name calling and other insults.


----------



## desertsss

Hey Chad, what are you basing your knowledge on. Just because the country started one way, doesn't mean that it will stay that way. Do you think that Christianity still is majority here in the US?


----------



## Candy

desertsss said:


> Hey Chad, what are you basing your knowledge on. Just because the country started one way, doesn't mean that it will stay that way. Do you think that Christianity still is majority here in the US?



Christianity (Christianity includes all denominations including Catholics and Mormons) is the majority Desertsss. Remember that majority means 51%. I don't know the exact percent, but I know it is well over that. The place to get the information is from the US Census.


----------



## chadk

Here's the first thing that I got from google that seems to be consistent with others I've seen:

Christian Religious Groups 2001 2008 
Catholic 24.5% 25.1% 
Baptist 16.3% 15.8% 
Mainline Christian
(Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian/Anglican, United Church of Christ, etc.) 17.2% 12.9% 
Generic Christian
(Christian Unspecified, Non-Denominational. Christian,
Protestant Unspecified, Evangelical/Born Again) 6.8% 5.0% 
Pentecostals/Charismatics
(Pentecostal Unspecified, Assemblies of God, Church of God) 3.8% 3.5% 
*Total Christian 76.7% 76.0%*


----------



## richalisoviejo

chadk said:


> I know it is hard, but please show some maturity and stop lowering this discussion to name calling and other insults.



Now now donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get too uptight, what I said about the conservative rubbish being out of power is true. The last elections proved that, this country is no longer under the current regime.


----------



## dmmj

you name call and demean your argument IMHO with words like conservative rubbish, and current regime. We could go on and on about politics but I usually like to use TF for discussions about turtles and tortoise I go to other sites to discuss politics myself. You prob would not like it if people reffered to your political beliefs, ( I am pretty sure what they are) the way you do, kindness is a two way street if you want kindness and respect you also have to show it to the other person. My 2 cents

Sorry to keep harping but isn't Pres. Obama against gay marriage also? I seem to remember him during the debate saying that. I know he likes to go back and rearrange the things he says, but if someone could clear it up or what he currently stands for I would appreciate it thank you.


----------



## Candy

The current regime is liberal. I believe you are referring to the past regime. It is best to stay out of the muck and stick to the issues.


----------



## richalisoviejo

dmmj said:


> I usually like to use TF for discussions about turtles and tortoise I go to other sites to discuss politics myself. You prob would not like it if people reffered to your political beliefs, ( I am pretty sure what they are) the way you do, kindness is a two way street if you want kindness and respect you also have to show it to the other person. My 2 cents
> 
> Sorry to keep harping but isn't Pres. Obama against gay marriage also? I seem to remember him during the debate saying that. I know he likes to go back and rearrange the things he says, but if someone could clear it up or what he currently stands for I would appreciate it thank you.





First of all if you read if you read the title of this category of the forum you would notice it says Ã¢â‚¬Å“Off TopicÃ¢â‚¬Â which means itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not necessarily related to turtle and tortoise discussion. Secondly after ChadÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s comments about incest etc trying to compare that to gay marriage I wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t looking for his respect. Secondly what does ObamaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s stand on Gay marriage have to do with anything? As I stated before Marriage is a civil right protected by the 14th amendment. I see you skimmed over the thread and got stuck on the Conservative comment.


----------



## chadk

From www.ontheissues.org, we find oboma's positions on gay marriage look like this:

*Gay Rights*
Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007) 
We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007) 
Disentangle gay rights from the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“marriageÃ¢â‚¬Â. (Aug 2007) 
Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007) 
Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007) 
*Opposes gay marriage*; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006) 
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)


Here is a quote when he was directly asked about it:

When asked to define marriage, Obama toed the holy line by nodding to man and woman, while also highlighting his own faith in nuptials, *"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. [Applause] Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. God's in the mix." *

Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It's been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that Ã¢â‚¬â€ about same-sex marriage. *I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions.* I do believe that we should not Ã¢â‚¬â€ that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.

Oh, and I don't think dmmj was only referring to the attempted insult in that one post of yours...

Some other attempted insults (intended to bully, intimidate and turn this discussion into an emotionally based fight instead of a respectful debate) in this thread attacking anyone who feels differently than Rich on this subject:

hateful coalition
un-enlightened
non informed
blind
narrow minded
irrational
you desire to remain in the dark ages
prejudiced
ludicrous
close-minded
pointless
pissing in the wind 
nonconsensual ramblings
conservative rubbish 
uptight
dinosaurs
narrow and archaic views
heinous


----------



## richalisoviejo

chadk said:


> hateful coalition
> un-enlightened
> non informed
> blind
> narrow minded
> irrational
> you desire to remain in the dark ages
> prejudiced
> ludicrous
> close-minded
> pointless
> pissing in the wind
> nonconsensual ramblings
> conservative rubbish
> uptight
> dinosaurs
> narrow and archaic views
> heinous



You have done a great job of summing up your position throughout the thread.


----------



## chadk

Seriously rich. You are afraid to actually debate, so this is what you are resorting to. And I had some hope that we could actually have a reasonable discussion. Oh well. I feel bad for anyone checking in to see if this has picked back up with some substance. Sorry folks. 



richalisoviejo said:


> chadk said:
> 
> 
> 
> hateful coalition
> un-enlightened
> non informed
> blind
> narrow minded
> irrational
> you desire to remain in the dark ages
> prejudiced
> ludicrous
> close-minded
> pointless
> pissing in the wind
> nonconsensual ramblings
> conservative rubbish
> uptight
> dinosaurs
> narrow and archaic views
> heinous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have done a great job of summing up your position throughout the thread.
Click to expand...


----------



## richalisoviejo

chadk said:


> hateful coalition
> un-enlightened
> non informed
> blind
> narrow minded
> irrational
> you desire to remain in the dark ages
> prejudiced
> ludicrous
> close-minded
> pointless
> pissing in the wind
> nonconsensual ramblings
> conservative rubbish
> uptight
> dinosaurs
> narrow and archaic views
> heinous



You have done a great job of summing up your position throughout the thread. 
[/quote]

Well letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s see, the law firm I work for in Newport Beach has 30 skilled attorneys that have read every thread you posted. Not one agreed. I guess those 30 VERY skilled attorneys were wrong and you were right all along? The terminology I used was very tame compared to what others had to say lol. 

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d tell you their comments but I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t use that kind of language.


----------



## Madortoise

I'm sorry I didn't find this thread earlier. 
For me, it boils down to this: Why is it okay for one group to have a privilege (or misery) of being able to marry when it is not permitted to another group by law--and I am talking about consented adults that are not in incenstual relationship and other bull crap mentioned above.
In my profession (marriage and family therapy), I have seen tons of kids in our school system that are LGBTQ being bullied just because of who they are. I have seen ethnically minority gay man (double-wammy) developing a mental disorder with psychosis surrounding his conflicted feelings about being gay and not feeling accepted. I have counseled lesbian couple not feeling comfortable dancing together in a cruise they paid tons of money for for their special occasion because they didn't want to offend the other nice old folks enjoying themselves...a lesbian client not being able to find a mate easily as she feels coming out in public will compromise her position at work...My clients not feeling acknowledged on a daily basis for who they are because of lack of awareness in the society...My gay supervisee being given an ultimatum to get off the case for an unidentified reason. It is my observation that these people, who have been oppressed for long, either choose to fight for more inclusive society (for their soul) and/or inevitably internalize discrimination and show signs of self-denigration after a while. It gets very tiring to fight every day for your basic rights, you know. 
I think we can establish that we all have a need to belong, to be aknowledged and to be a part of the greater something. If being American means something to you, would you be able to allow fellow Americans let alone a specific group of Americans to feel that they are substandard, not good enough, not able to take part? It saddens me that gay marriage is even an issue. Marriage is also about privilege and benefits beyond demonstrative symbolic union.
I appreciate this thread and Rich for starting it.


----------

