Defining marriage is not a theocracy
Posted By: Rep. on 2005-11-30
In Reply to: So a theocracy is what you have in mind? - sm - Starcat
It's just common sense since two people of the common sex cannot procreate.
...and no I don't advocate a theocracy.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Sex is just a small part of marriage. What marriage
So why is the fact that two people who happen to love and support each other, but who have a different concept of it than you do, are so incredibly threatening to you? Even if it WERE a 'sin' (which it absolutely is NOT), why would it be any business of yours? Did God fly down out of the sky and annoint your head, hand you a cape and superpowers, and tell you to go out and rid the world of same-sex love? I don't think so.
So a theocracy is what you have in mind?
A Department of Faith like this:
http://whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp
Well, here's a liberal columnist at the Chicago Tribune defining FISA
again, and the Chicago Tribune is hardly a conservative paper...and note what Clinton's deputy Atty General Jamie Gorelick said
*****
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an agent of a foreign power, which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power.
Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.
FISA contains a provision making it illegal to engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute. The term electronic surveillance is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by intentionally targeting that United States person. The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.
*****
So the writer of the article determined, as backed up by Dep. Atty. General, Jamie Gorelick that FISA really left an open loophole, and the ultimate decision on how far to persue a particular person lies with the president.
Genesis of America, the evangelical theocracy: a conference call
If history is still allowed to be accurate generations from now, this is how the inception of America, the evangelical theocracy, should be documented.
From: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007415
JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL
Judgment Call
Did Christian conservatives receive assurances that Miers would oppose Roe v. Wade?
Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m.
Two days after President Bush announced Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination, James Dobson of Focus on the Family raised some eyebrows by declaring on his radio program: When you know some of the things that I know--that I probably shouldn't know--you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice.
Mr. Dobson quelled the controversy by saying that Karl Rove, the White House's deputy chief of staff, had not given him assurances about how a Justice Miers would vote. I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade, Mr. Dobson said last week. But even if Karl had known the answer to that--and I'm certain that he didn't because the president himself said he didn't know--Karl would not have told me that. That's the most incendiary information that's out there, and it was never part of our discussion.
It might, however, have been part of another discussion. On Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, Mr. Dobson and other religious conservatives held a conference call to discuss the nomination. One of the people on the call took extensive notes, which I have obtained. According to the notes, two of Ms. Miers's close friends--both sitting judges--said during the call that she would vote to overturn Roe.
![src=http://www.forumatrix.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif]()
The call was moderated by the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Participating were 13 members of the executive committee of the Arlington Group, an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups, including Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister. Also on the call were Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge.
Mr. Dobson says he spoke with Mr. Rove on Sunday, Oct. 2, the day before President Bush publicly announced the nomination. Mr. Rove assured Mr. Dobson that Ms. Miers was an evangelical Christian and a strict constructionist, and said that Justice Hecht, a longtime friend of Ms. Miers who had helped her join an evangelical church in 1979, could provide background on her. Later that day, a personal friend of Mr. Dobson's in Texas called him and suggested he speak with Judge Kinkeade, who has been a friend of Ms. Miers's for decades.
Mr. Dobson says he was surprised the next day to learn that Justice Hecht and Judge Kinkeade were joining the Arlington Group call. He was asked to introduce the two of them, which he considered awkward given that he had never spoken with Justice Hecht and only once to Judge Kinkeade. According to the notes of the call, Mr. Dobson introduced them by saying, Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think.
What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Absolutely, said Judge Kinkeade.
I agree with that, said Justice Hecht. I concur.
![src=http://www.forumatrix.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif]()
Shortly thereafter, according to the notes, Mr. Dobson apologized and said he had to leave the discussion: That's all I need to know and I will get off and make some calls. (When asked about his comments in the notes I have, Mr. Dobson confirmed some of them and said it was very possible he made the others. He said he did not specifically recall the comments of the two judges on Roe v. Wade.)
Judge Kinkeade, through his secretary, declined to discuss the matter. Justice Hecht told me he remembers participating in the call but can't recollect who invited him or many specifics about it. He said he did tell the group that Ms. Miers was pro-life, a characterization he has repeated in public. But he says that when someone asked him about her stand on overturning Roe v. Wade he answered, I don't know. He doesn't recall what Judge Kinkeade said. But several people who participated in the call confirm that both jurists stated Ms. Miers would vote to overturn Roe.
The benign interpretation of the comments is that the two judges were speaking on behalf of themselves, not Ms. Miers or the White House, and they were therefore offering a prediction, not an assurance, about how she would come down on Roe v. Wade. But the people I interviewed who were on the call took the comments as an assurance, and at least one based his support for Ms. Miers on them.
![src=http://www.forumatrix.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif]()
The conference call will no doubt prove controversial on Capitol Hill, always a tinderbox for rumors that any judicial nominee has taken a stand on Roe v. Wade. Ms. Miers meets today with Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Chuck Schumer of New York, both stalwart Roe supporters, who surely will be interested to learn more about her views. After Mr. Dobson's initial comments about things . . . that I probably shouldn't know, Sen. Arlen Specter, the pro-Roe Judiciary Committee chairman, said, If there are backroom assurances and if there are backroom deals and if there is something that bears on a precondition as to how a nominee is going to vote, I think that's a matter that ought to be known. He and ranking Democrat Pat Leahy of Vermont threatened to subpoena Mr. Dobson as a witness.
Some participants in the Oct. 3 conference call fear that they will be called to testify at Ms. Miers's hearings. If the call is as you describe it, an effort will be made to subpoena everyone on it, a Judiciary Committee staffer told me. It is possible that a tape or notes of the call are already in the hands of committee staffers. Some people were on speaker phones allowing other people to listen in, and others could have been on extensions, one participant told me.
Should hearings begin on Nov. 7 as is now tentatively planned, they would likely turn into a spectacle. Mr. Specter has said he plans to press Ms. Miers very hard on whether Roe v. Wade is settled law. She will have hearings like no nominee has ever had to sit through, Chuck Todd, editor of the political tip sheet Hotline, told radio host John Batchelor. One slipup on camera and she is toast.
Should she survive the hearings, liberal groups may demand that Democrats filibuster her. Republican senators, already hesitant to back Ms. Miers after heavy blowback from their conservative base, would likely lack the will to trigger the so-called nuclear option. The nomination is in real trouble, one GOP senator told me. Not one senator wants to go through the agony of those hearings, even those who want to vote for her. Even if Ms. Miers avoids a filibuster, it's possible Democrats would join with dissident Republicans to defeat her outright.
![src=http://www.forumatrix.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif]()
There are philosophical reasons for Republican senators to oppose Ms. Miers. In 1987, the liberal onslaught on Robert Bork dramatically changed the confirmation process. The verb to bork, meaning to savage a nominee and distort his record, entered the vocabulary, and many liberals now acknowledge that the anti-Bork campaign had bad consequences. It led to more stealth nominees, with presidents hoping their scant paper trail would shield them from attack.
President Bush has now gone further in internalizing the lessons of the Bork debacle. Harriet Miers is a superstealth nominee--a close friend of the president with no available paper trail who keeps her cards so close to her chest they might as well be plastered on it. If Ms. Miers is confirmed, it will reinforce the popular belief that the Supreme Court is more about political outcomes than the rule of law.
Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
A look into JM's first marriage...sm
While John McCain was a prisoner, his wife Carol never lost hope. During his incarceration as a prisoner of war, Carol was involved in a horrific car accident that almost took her life, having to go through about 20 operations in hopes that she would walk again. While her husband was gone, Ross Perot paid her medical bills that were not covered by John's government insurance. When he got back from Vietnam and saw the shape she was in, no longer a beautiful slim model, and quite disabled, he started carousing and ended up meeting Cindy his present wife who was young, beautiful and rich. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
NO. Marriage is between a man
x
Marriage
Marriage is between a man and a woman. If gays want to have civil unions, that's perfectly fine with me but what they have is not and never will be a marriage. It's only a few squeaky wheels that everyone gives all the attention to. There are FAR MORE people in this country that are opposed to gays wanting to call their unions a marriage than are okay with it. In the last couple of decades, everyone tries to be so PC and not step on anyone's toes to the point we just let everything pass as okay, when it is not.
We let abortion laws pass when there are far more who oppose abortion. We let gays think they have the right to marry when there are far more people who are adamantly against it. It is my business when everyone runs all over the majority of us just to pacify the few who just like to push the envelope on everything. Gays have rights just like me. No one is ever happy with what they have. Gays can adopt children just like anyone and those children are theirs forever....just like anyone else. They want their partner to come to the hospital when they're sick, they can list their name as the next of kin just like anyone else and that has to be honored by the hospital. All this garbage they throw out there about their rights is just that, garbage and hooplah to get their agendas pushed.
Flame all you want....
Marriage
is between a man and a woman. Same sex people will never be married, just as they can't ever have sexual intercourse. Beam me up Scottie.
She is challeging marriage...sm
It is my *assumption* (but you know what they say about assumptions) that she is not married and/or doesn't understand what it takes to be a supportive wife. Sometimes we have to let go of something we want or enjoy for the benefit of the bigger picture.
Why is gay marriage an issue?
Can someone explain to me why gay marriage is an issue in politics? I don't think it's ever been explained. I have heard the religious people say they want to keep the sanctity of marriage preserved to be between a man and a woman, and I can understand that. On the other side, I've heard gays and lesbians say that they've lived their lives with another person who happens to be the same sex as they are and they just want to be able to have the same rights as married people if something should happen to their partner, and I certainly do understand that too. I guess I don't understand why it is a political issue. To me if John and Jack or Mary and Sue want to get married that doesn't affect what I do with my life on a day to day basis or how I live my own life (at least I don't think it would have an impact). So just wanted to know why I'm always hearing this issue during campaigns. - Thanks.
OK. So how do you feel about same-sex marriage?
For or against? And why?
 I am personally for it. It hurts nobody, but for some reason all the religiosos seem to be terrified of it.
All the old subjects are pretty stale. So here's a new one. State your views.
But if marriage is 'sacred', then why do so many -sm
end in separation, or divorce, or WORSE? Such as domestic violence and sometimes murder?
I think marriage vows should be about love, respect, and loyalty to another person, not about their religion or their gender.
Some of my gay friends are now legally married in this state, and it changes nothing in my life, or anyone else's. But it changes so much for them. They enjoyed their ceremonies as much as any couple and their loved ones would. And having the same legal rights as anyone else is huge, as well.
No, who or what gender another person falls in love with and marries has absolutely no bearing on religion, or on anyone else's lives. Isn't religion supposed to be about love for one's fellow humans, and about peace and charity?
Religious Right and Gay Marriage
Gay marriage is an important issue for the religious right.
What exactly do they want a president to do about it?
About homosexual marriage....
they put it to a vote in one of the most liberal states in the country (california) and the people voted to ban it. It PASSED. In with Obama, out with gay marriage. Gotta love those Californians. Wonder what all those gays Newsom "married" are gonna do now??? Bit of a sticky wicket there.
Marriage is more than just a label (sm)
The Difference between Gay Marriage and Civil Unions
by Kathy Belge
You hear the politicians saying it all the time. “I support Civil Unions, but not gay marriage.” What exactly does this mean? Some even say they support equal rights for gays and lesbians, but not gay marriage. Is this possible? And why do gays and lesbians want marriage so badly when they can have civil unions?
First of all, What is Marriage? When people marry, they tend to do so for reasons of love and commitment. But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions.
What is a Civil Union? Civil Unions exist in only a handful of places: Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that offer many of the same rights as civil unions.
Vermont civil unions were created in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage is not an option. The protections do not extend beyond the border of Vermont and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.
What about Domestic partnership? Some states and municipalities have domestic partnership registries, but no domestic partnership law is the same. Some, like the recently passed California domestic partnership law comes with many rights and responsibilities. Others, like the one in Washingtonoffer very few benefits to the couple.
What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?
Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.
Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:
Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.
Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?
No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.
1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.
2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.
3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.
Homosexual" marriage" is very
offensive to me, yet there are still those pushing it in my face. Homo is a shortened version of the word homosexual. If you are so sensitive, I can type the entire word. There are African-Americans in my family and I have never used the F word in my life. You DO have a choice in who you love. If you didn't child molesters wouldn't be prosecuted because they wouldn't be able to stop their "attractions" and "love" of children. Prosecuting them would be inhuman. A law can't stop an attraction. It can only stop you from acting on it and consent can always be changed. Age is just a number and with all the people who feel like their "love" should not be controlled, no telling when our children will be the next targets. There is no homosexual gene so give that a rest. People of all persuasions can change their feelings on a whim. I find the entire aspect of homosexuality disrespectful to the human race. If you don't like what someone thinks, let's try to change the law and stop their thoughts. Homosexuals are just like BIG BROTHER.
Marriage is for one man and one woman
If gays and lesbians want to show their commitment, then a civil union is for them. Don't redefine something thousands of years old just because it's "politically correct." I am so sick of it political correctness. I understand civil unions so that G/L couples can have health insurance, etc., but don't change what marriage means to so many of the rest of us. It is so much more than a legality and a commitment, it's about becoming one and having children, and continuing the tradition for generations.
It is like the old song Love and Marriage
You can't have one without the other.
President Obama inherited the nightmare that was created by George W. Bush. You cannot talk about what President Obama is doing without discussing the fact that George W. Bush and his cronies destroyed this country.
No one's "changing the tradition of marriage".
X
Oh geez - are you still here? Yeah, same-sex marriage
this act was most likely done by a heterosexual male. And you know what? Sometimes the most heinous acts are committed by ultra-religious people. So your standard of 'morals' doesn't apply here. Get on the internet someday and look up how many sex offenders live in YOUR neighborhood, maybe even right next-door or across the street. Their offenses have nothing to do with what you think is the 'loose morals' of the country, it has to do with the mental illness of the perpetrator.
BTW - how old are you, anyway? 85? 95? 105? It seems like, in your mind anyway, you're living in a time that was more than a century ago.
Bigamists, polygamists and marriage, oh my! sm
The prefix "poly" means multiple, thus polygamy means multiple marriages at the same time.
The previx "bi" means 2, thus bigamy means 2 marriages at the same time.
Either way, both terms mean more than 1 marriage at a time.
Polygamists and bigamists are merely groups of people who, for whatever reason, want to marry their partners, just as gays want to do. You claim that gay marriage is a union between 2 people who love each other and who happen to be of the same sex. Who is to say that polygamists and bigamists don't love all their partners and want to marry them as well?
Love may or may not be in the equation for same sex marriage (even straight people are sometimes known to marry for reasons other than love), but another reason, if not the larger reason, is for the other benefits a legal marriage affords such as the right to make decisions for each other in medical and legal situations.
Therefore, what is stopping polygamists and bigamists from demanding the same rights to marriage?
Absolutely nothing.
Then perhaps abolishing marriage is the answer
By your reasoning, allowing men to marry women seems to make gay couples think they have the right to be married. Therefore, better to eliminate women rather than let those uppity homos think they can be married.
A woman's right to vote was denied for years because of the fear that women would abandon their families and become somehow less feminine if they were granted that right. Do you agree that we should not have been given the right to vote because of someone's fear of what *might* happen?
I feel like that scene in Ghostbusters where Venkman says, "Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria." In this country, I don't believe we've got a right to refuse rights to one group just because another group is liable to end up wanting right, too. I thought we'd stopped using that reasoning back in the 1800s.
marriage vs civil union
As a nation, we did not used to spend so much time splitting hairs over words.
What if back when the 19th amendment was enacted, they had said: Women having the right to 'vote' would upset men. So instead of 'voting' we're going to call it 'ballot casting.' That way, women can have the same rights as men, but only men can be 'voters' and won't feel they're losing their special status.
How about if during the civil rights movement, when segregation was eliminated, instead of integration they had called it: 'The right to attend the same schools and go to the same restaurants and ride in the front of the bus'? Calling institutions 'integrated' would upset the southern states.
How about when women began to demand 'equal pay for equal work'? What if they had said: Okay, you can have the money and the responsibility, maybe even the corner office, but only a man can be called VP of Sales. Instead, your title will have to be something else, maybe Sales Coordinator, othewise the men who are VPs will get angry.
I suppose a fair number of women or blacks would have considered this a win, because they were gaining the benefit, if not the exact status of the changes. But a fair number of folks rightly would have said: Huh? Aren't these silly distinctions? A lot of people would have wondered why they didn't just shut up and 'settle.'
If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?
Maine Passes Gay Marriage Law
AUGUSTA – Gov. John E. Baldacci today signed into law LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.
“I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” Baldacci said in a release. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”
“I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.”
“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”
“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”
“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Baldacci said.
“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.”
Why not leave marriage up to the churches
There are some churches performing marriages now and have been for years. Go to the court house and get your "union license" and then get married whereever the heck you can. My Presbyterian church has been performing weddings for gays for almost 20 years.
I am a Christian and do believe in gay marriage. Speak for yourself. sm
.
Not just drugs..."freedom" when it comes to gay marriage, also
...to think about what Barney Frank falls off of...or into...or anything else that makes me want to run my brain through an autoclave.
Marriage is supposed to be a sacred union
but unfortunately many see it as a temporary situation. Some people honestly cannot help their marriages dissolve, however, even if you throw the religion aspect out of it homosexuality doesn't even make sense in Darwin's theory. Homosexuals would naturally die out, because they aren't procreating.
I've not had children either, but just because I haven't and you haven't doesn't make a case for homosexual marriages.
Palin and McCain's Shotgun Marriage
http://www.truthout.org/article/palin-and-mccains-shotgun-marriage
PA just struck down the common law marriage last year
Until then, if you stated you were married to a person, called them husband and wife, and went to a lawyer to papers made up and signed, you had the same rights as a married couple.
If you wanted to separate, you had to follow the rules of married couples and go through the courts.
Through common-law marriage, the couples were also recognized by the federal government as being married. Some states did not recognize common-law marriage, so if you wanted to move to another state, you had to be careful where you moved. You had to pick a state that recognized it.
My point being, I don't see why Civil Unions would not fall under the same rules as common-law marriages. They are the "same difference."
It's very hard to contest a will and the party who contests it is the one who must pay the legal fees (not sure if its for both parties or just the one contesting). Anyone can leave anything to anybody in a will if they are "of sound mind and judgment."
Hasn't anyone checked CA to see if they have common-law marriage?
Wrong answer--the subject is gay marriage...LOL nm
x
Some women are sold into marriage and then raped.
.
Question for anti-gay marriage folks...(sm)
Since you claim that marriage is only a christian right, then how about this:
What if we strip down "marriage" to what you claim is its purpose....that being a joining of a man and woman in god's eyes. Let's say that only heterosexual christians are allowed to be "married." However, lets also take away all the benefits that now come with marriage such as insurance coverage, joint taxes, hospital privileges, etc. Why? Because these are not things that are covered in the bible and have nothing to do with the "sanctity" of marriage.
Once that is done, you have "marriage" all to yourself and should not be threatened whatsoever by anyone.
Now lets say that the rest of us -- that would be those who are not heterosexual or do not believe in "marriage" in a biblical sense have "unions." Because this would be a legal status and not affiliated with any religion, we would be able to claim benefits that would come such as insurance, taxes, etc. In order for you (christians) to be able to enjoy these benefits you also would have to have "unions." As far as any other religions, the same would apply. They would be able to hold whatever ceremonies for their "marriage" for their religious beliefs, but would also have to have "unions" in order to receive legal benefits.
And luckily millions of others believe in marriage for all human kind
and not just those "select few".
Issues...I don't have issues with people with common sense. The one who know that the Creator loves all people.
I do have issues with people who are blatantly ignorant.
Quick question about the "sex" marriage thing...
So, if married MEANS you can if you want have children, what if I married a man who was NOT ABLE to have children and I knew this. Could I still marry him? Would we be considered "married" in the eyes of others since we could not have children? Or a woman unable to have children, should she be able to be married? Just a thought!
Quick question about the "sex" marriage thing...
So, if married MEANS you can if you want have children, what if I married a man who was NOT ABLE to have children and I knew this. Could I still marry him? Would we be considered "married" in the eyes of others since we could not have children? Or a woman unable to have children, should she be able to be married? Just a thought!
Senator McCain opposes Marriage Protection Amendment
Senator McCain opposes Marriage Protection Amendment
Sen. McCain has said he will oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment (MAP), which defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman, when it comes up for a vote on June 6th.
Sen. McCain says it should be left up to each individual state to define marriage. Can you imagine the mess if that happened! Fifty different laws defining marriage! That is totally unworkable. Our forefathers knew the mess that would create, and that is the reason marriage fell under the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
One liberal activist Federal judge could strike down the marriage laws in all 50 states because they would be so confusing and conflicting.
In reality, a vote for the MAP is a vote for traditional marriage. A vote against the MPA (which Sen. McCain currently plans to do) is, in reality, a vote for homosexual marriage.
Remember that no matter how Sen. McCain explains his opposition to the MPA, the bottom line is that a vote against it is a vote for homosexual marriage.
Senator McCain needs to hear from you today! Call him using one of the district office numbers below. If the line is busy keep calling until you get through.
Take Action |
Please call Senator McCain today and tell him to vote for the MPA. If his lines are busy, please keep trying. He needs to hear from you personally.
Washington DC office:
202-224-2235
District Offices:
Phoenix 602-952-2410
Tempe 480-897-6289
Tucson 520-670-6334
|
Iowa high court legalizes gay marriage in state
By AMY LORENTZEN
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Iowa's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state - and the first in the nation's heartland - to allow same-sex couples to wed.
In its decision, the high court upheld a lower court's ruling that found a state law restricting marriage to between a man and woman violated Iowa's constitution.
"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote in its decision. "The Legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification." The ruling set off celebration among the state's gay-marriage proponents.
"Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who was hosting a verdict party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson.
Robinson added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day."
Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said the ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa.
"It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop gay marriage through right-wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said.
Its opponents were equally dismayed.
"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways, and yet the first thing we did after internalizing the decision was to walk across the street and begin the process of lobbying our legislators to let the people of Iowa vote," said Bryan English, spokesman for the conservative group the Iowa Family Policy Center.
"This is an issue that will define (lawmakers') leadership. This is not a side issue."
The Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr., pastor at the Maple Street Baptist Church in Des Moines, went to the Supreme Court building to hear of the decision.
"It's a perversion and it opens the door to more perversions," Ratliff said. "What's next?"
Technically, the decision will take about 21 days to be considered final and a request for a rehearing could be filed within that period.
But Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office will not ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect after that three-week period.
"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said. "This is not a personal thing. We have an obligation to the law to defend the recorder, and that's what we do."
That means it will be at least several weeks before gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses.
Sarcone said gay marriage opponents can't appeal the case at the state or federal level because they were not party to the lawsuit and no federal issue was raised in the case.
Opponents can try and persuade Iowa lawmakers to address the issue, but state Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said it's "exceedingly unlikely" gay marriage legislation will be brought up this session, expected to end within weeks. He also said he's "not inclined to call up a constitutional amendment," during next year's session.
The case had been working its way through Iowa's court system since 2005 when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.
The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.
The state Supreme Court's ruling upheld an August 2007 decision by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who found that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the state's constitutional rights of equal protection.
The Polk County attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Brien, claimed that Hanson's ruling violates the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.
Lambda Legal planned to comment on the ruling later Friday. A request for comment from the Polk County attorney's office wasn't immediately returned.
Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat, said the decision addresses a complicated and emotional issue.
"The next responsible step is to thoroughly review this decision, which I am doing with my legal counsel and the attorney general, before reacting to what it means for Iowa," Culver said in a statement.
Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships. New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont has cleared the Legislature but may be vetoed by the governor.
And anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage
will fix the economy? I think not. Besides anyone with half a brain cell knows BOTH of them will raise taxes on all of us. Forget tax breaks. How do you think the $700 billion and climbing is going to get paid....from money falling out of the sky????? Get real.
|
