Defense of Marriage Act struck down by New York Court

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Yay another loss for religious bigotry.

jcknapier711

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Yay another loss for religious bigotry.

jcknapier711

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Yay another loss for religious bigotry.

jcknapier711

I'm still confounded why a bunch of atheists care so much about a religious sacrament? That's what marriage is. A religious sacrament. Yet, you people want to force the Church or other religious institutions to perform their sacraments in such a manner that is against the laws of said religion. What you, and people like you, want is to get homosexuals to have special rights and privileges above everyone else. jcknapier711

- Marriage is a state-sanctioned institution that has nothing to do with religion.

- No, just the same rights and privileges as others.

[QUOTE="jcknapier711"]I'm still confounded why a bunch of atheists care so much about a religious sacrament? That's what marriage is. A religious sacrament. Yet, you people want to force the Church or other religious institutions to perform their sacraments in such a manner that is against the laws of said religion. What you, and people like you, want is to get homosexuals to have special rights and privileges above everyone else. worlock77

- Marriage is a state-sanctioned institution that has nothing to do with religion.

- No, just the same rights and privileges as others.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Sure gay couples CAN raise children but a very small percentage actually do. That's why I'm all for DOMA as written.

But like I said government shouldn't be involved in the first place. If two people want to get 'married' in their back yard over the weekend they should be able to do it. However, there certainly shouldn't be any special rights or anything because of it.

KC_Hokie

Tramslation, Im a bigot who hates gay marrage and gays for religious reasons.

Why don't we put university grads in a different tax bracket as well? After all no one is stopping people from going to university! :roll:

Storm_Marine

Because that adds another layer of complexity to the system likely without increasing the benefit. College grads already fit into the system - changing it would simply costs resources the government obviously doesn't have currently.

Expanding marriage rights to gay couples, on the other hand, is much easier as they'd simply be included under the already established laws.

No, you are a bigot. A bigot is someone who is utterly intolerant of another's creed, beliefs or opinions. Homosexuality is not a creed, belief or opinion. It is a degenerate lifestyle. A religion is a creed. Being intolerant of a lifestyle is not bigotry. Therefor, by definition, you are a bigot, not me. jcknapier711

It's quite hard to define someone's lifestyle without defining their creed, beliefs and opinion. So, it could be argued that you are a bigot, and one with poor reasoning/verbal skills to boot.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Tramslation, Im a bigot who hates gay marrage and gays for religious reasons.

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Yay another loss for religious bigotry.

jcknapier711

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Tramslation, Im a bigot who hates gay marrage and gays for religious reasons.

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="jcknapier711"]I'm still confounded why a bunch of atheists care so much about a religious sacrament? That's what marriage is. A religious sacrament. Yet, you people want to force the Church or other religious institutions to perform their sacraments in such a manner that is against the laws of said religion. What you, and people like you, want is to get homosexuals to have special rights and privileges above everyone else. KC_Hokie

- Marriage is a state-sanctioned institution that has nothing to do with religion.

- No, just the same rights and privileges as others.

.

I don't even get why this is an issue. Like really people get all pissy when the idea of the government handling health insurance comes up but they're perfectly fine with oppressing a minority group? The f*ck?Ace6301

Because they don't care about government, they only care about infringing their values on other people..

Not sure why homo's that don't believe in GOD want the church and state to acknowledge them. They will never procreate yet want the breeders benefits. At least a man with two wives can have children but even that is illegal. So why should homo's get special treatment when they make a mockery of marriage?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

- Marriage is a state-sanctioned institution that has nothing to do with religion.

- No, just the same rights and privileges as others.

worlock77

.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Marriage actually isn't in the Constitution, therefore each state gets to decide how to implement it. So no official 'state-sanctioning'.KC_Hokie

.

Not sure why homo's that don't believe in GOD want the church and state to acknowledge them. They will never procreate yet want the breeders benefits. At least a man with two wives can have children but even that is illegal. So why should homo's get special treatment when they make a mockery of marriage?

noscope-ak47

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Marriage actually isn't in the Constitution, therefore each state gets to decide how to implement it. So no official 'state-sanctioning'.KC_Hokie

.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

.

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

.

DroidPhysX

If the government didn't provide benefits based on marrital status then this would be a non-issue. Big government strikes again:shock: .

Personal liberty is defined by the Constitution not personal feelings. KC_Hokie

and yet the supreme court ruled that marriage was a basic civil right, reason why interracial marriage laws were struck down.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Marriage actually isn't in the Constitution, therefore each state gets to decide how to implement it. So no official 'state-sanctioning'.KC_Hokie

.

Yes, marriage is in the domain of the states, not the federal. "By the power vested in me by the state of _____" - how exactly is that not state-sanctioned?

Why are people even bothering saying things like that government has no business in marriage? It's a useless point. And it's a good step in the right direction.Ring_of_fire

It is a useless point to bring up, what's also being brought up often, is how economic issue is always more important than social issues, therefore, we should solve the economic issues before resolving social issues (as if economic issues can ever be solved:?). Interestingly, people who are outright against same sex marriage have largely disappeared , where did they go? They must have went somewhere right? Guess where they went? If you pay enough attention to all the arguments surrounding same sex marriage, you will soon find that these 2 arguments, (economy is more important, government should get out of marriage all together), have pretty much replaced the traditional "gays shouldn't marry because it's a moral slippery slope" argument, and people who were originally outright against same sex marriage pretty much have all chosen one of the two more politically correct argument, that's the way if shifted.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]It's called a Federal Republic. If the Constitution doesn't discuss something it's reverted to the states.KC_Hokie

Not sure why homo's that don't believe in GOD want the church and state to acknowledge them. They will never procreate yet want the breeders benefits. At least a man with two wives can have children but even that is illegal. So why should homo's get special treatment when they make a mockery of marriage?

noscope-ak47

okay, so we still have some of these people left, I was worried for a second.

group marriage should be legal but that is another argument, another topic, not very relevant to this one.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Personal liberty is defined by the Constitution not personal feelings. HoolaHoopMan

and yet the supreme court ruled that marriage was a basic civil right, reason why interracial marriage laws were struck down.

They never ruled marriage was a basic civil right.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Personal liberty is defined by the Constitution not personal feelings. KC_Hokie

and yet the supreme court ruled that marriage was a basic civil right, reason why interracial marriage laws were struck down.

They never ruled marriage was a basic civil right.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

and yet the supreme court ruled that marriage was a basic civil right, reason why interracial marriage laws were struck down.

-Sun_Tzu-

They never ruled marriage was a basic civil right.

If a state defines marriage a certain way you can't discriminate based on race. That violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]That's not how they ruled. They said if a state defines marriage a certain way, in that case between a man and a woman, you can't discriminate based on race.

They never ruled marriage was a basic civil right.

KC_Hokie

If a state defines marriage a certain way you can't discriminate based on race. That violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man" - Loving v. Virginia -Sun_Tzu-

If a state defines marriage a certain way you can't discriminate based on race. That violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

It's never been ruled sexuality covered by the 14th Amendment. So no you can't apply that decision when you read on what they based their decision on.

Marriage is and has always been a religious ceremonynoscope-ak47

No it hasn't. It's a state institution and quite a lot of people get married with no religious ceremony at all.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]And guess what? IN 1967 they weren't talking about gay marriage.

If a state defines marriage a certain way you can't discriminate based on race. That violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

KC_Hokie

It's never been ruled sexuality covered by the 14th Amendment. So no you can't apply that decision when you read on what they based their decision on.

Do you not even understand the concept of precedent?

Loving v. Virginia has been cited in a number of Supreme court cases that had absolutely nothing to do with interracial marriage.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] No one said that Loving v. Virginia was about gay marriage. But the logic behind Loving v. Virginia can easily be applied to the constitutionality of gay marriage. -Sun_Tzu-

It's never been ruled sexuality covered by the 14th Amendment. So no you can't apply that decision when you read on what they based their decision on.

Do you not even understand the concept of precedent?

Loving v. Virginia has been cited in a number of Supreme court cases that had absolutely nothing to do with interracial marriage.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Not when you read the whole decision and realize it was racially based and violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

It's never been ruled sexuality covered by the 14th Amendment. So no you can't apply that decision when you read on what they based their decision on.

KC_Hokie

Do you not even understand the concept of precedent?

Loving v. Virginia has been cited in a number of Supreme court cases that had absolutely nothing to do with interracial marriage.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I really don't know how someone can be this dumb.

Do you not even understand the concept of precedent?

Loving v. Virginia has been cited in a number of Supreme court cases that had absolutely nothing to do with interracial marriage.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Yea....if you create a law that says X is legal and so is Y you can't discriminate based on that. However, sexuality has never been part of the precedent. The Supreme Court has never ruled sexuality is covered by the 14th Amendment or any other part of the Constitution for that matter.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] This post makes even less sense than they normally do. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Short and sweet....sexuality isn't covered in the U.S. Constitution nor has the SCOTUS ruled that the 14th Amendment applies to sexuality. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]When and where did the SCOTUS rule sexuality applies to the 14th Amendment?KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] When and where did I say that they did? -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]Marriage is and has always been a religious ceremonyworlock77

No it hasn't. It's a state institution and quite a lot of people get married with no religious ceremony at all.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]Marriage is and has always been a religious ceremonynoscope-ak47

No it hasn't. It's a state institution and quite a lot of people get married with no religious ceremony at all.

[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

No it hasn't. It's a state institution and quite a lot of people get married with no religious ceremony at all.

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="noscope-ak47"]Marriage is and has always been a religious ceremonynoscope-ak47

No it hasn't. It's a state institution and quite a lot of people get married with no religious ceremony at all.