NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/louisiana.same.sex.marriage.ap/index.html

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) -- Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment Saturday banning same-sex marriages and civil unions, one of up to 12 such measures on the ballot around the country this year.

With 95 percent of precincts reporting, the amendment was winning approval with 79 percent of the vote and support for it was evident statewide.

Only in New Orleans, home to a politically strong gay community, did the race appear to be close, and even there the amendment was passing by a small margin.

Christian conservatives had conducted an intense grassroots lobbying campaign for the amendment, which had been expected to pass easily. The civil rights group Forum for Equality had already promised legal action against it.

"It's gratifying to see the people of Louisiana had an opportunity, as distinguished from judges, having the final say on the issue of whether traditional marriage will continue to be the fundamental institution in our state," said Darrell White, a retired state judge and consultant for Louisiana Family Forum, which pushed for the amendment.

John Rawls, a lawyer for Forum for Equality, reiterated the group's contention that the amendment does far more than stop gay marriage and that it could affect many private contracts between unmarried couples, gay or straight.

"I am disappointed that so many Louisianans either did not read the amendment or are so afraid of gays that they voted for this amendment anyway," Rawls said.

Louisiana already has a law stating that marriage can be only between a man and woman, but supporters of the amendment want to protect that law in the Constitution.

The amendment also would prohibit state officials and courts from recognizing out-of-state marriages and civil unions between homosexuals.

Voting machines delivered late to some polls

Rawls said there were many possible grounds for challenging the results in state and federal court. One appeared Saturday, when voting machines were delivered late to some New Orleans precincts, keeping some from casting ballots for hours.

State director of elections Frances Sims said at least 59 precincts did not have voting machines when polls opened because officials with New Orleans' clerk of court's office failed to meet drivers who tried to deliver the machines earlier that morning. The problem was solved by midday.

Julius Green, 58, said he went to his polling place in New Orleans' Bywater neighborhood about 10 a.m. and found no voting machines -- just a crowd.

"This is ridiculous," Green said. "It makes people feel that their vote don't count."

Gay rights advocates say the amendment would deprive gay and straight unmarried couples of the right to enter into certain contracts and own property together.

Supporters of the ban disagree, including LSU law school professor Katherine Spaht, who helped write the amendment. "It doesn't touch private contracts," she said.

Still, advocates on both sides agreed it will be up to the courts to decide exactly what the amendment does and does not do.

First, however, courts may have to step in and decide if the amendment was legally adopted. In challenges that went to the state Supreme Court, Forum for Equality said the Legislature made several mistakes in putting the measure together, chief among them adding the ban on civil unions into the amendment. Amendments are supposed to have a single purpose, opponents said.

That challenge was turned away when the courts ruled that it could not be brought before the election.

Similar amendments to ban same-sex marriage are on ballots in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Petitions in Ohio are still being verified.

It's sad, but it's not surprising. Same-sex marriage will be another issue--like civil rights--that will be handled by the courts while the population at large kicks and screams about it, until after it's been going on for a while, most people will suddenly wake up, realize that their lives either haven't been affected by it or have been changed for the better by it, and will wonder what all the fuss was about. There will still be a loudmouthed minority who will claim that it's destroying the community, etc (think of an anti-gay specific Klan) but in the end, we'll be better off as a society for the struggle.

*gasp* you mean the South is removing Constitutional rights from a minority group in order to forward a right-wing Christian agenda?! i never thought i would see the day!

It's sad, but it's not surprising. Same-sex marriage will be another issue--like civil rights--that will be handled by the courts while the population at large kicks and screams about it, until after it's been going on for a while, most people will suddenly wake up, realize that their lives either haven't been affected by it or have been changed for the better by it, and will wonder what all the fuss was about. There will still be a loudmouthed minority who will claim that it's destroying the community, etc (think of an anti-gay specific Klan) but in the end, we'll be better off as a society for the struggle.
I guess looking at other countries who do allow their citizens to be what they naturally are without discrimination, would do well for the US and other countries (my own) in such questions. At least we got civil unions here, although this is not yet what should be the norm, namely the entire removal of discrimination based on things people have no control over, such as their sexuality. Discrimination based on racial things is a big no-no, why it is such a widespread practice to discriminate against gays is beyond me.

It is a "non-issue" for me. If ANYONE gets married it does not affect my life one bit. However, I am against ANY government trying to legislate morality. So for those who think I am some rabid Bush supporter....I disagree wholeheartedly with this and ANY other program that tries to legislate morality.

* Claps * Thank you my Southern' breathren for banning such a awful thing. Im a Tenneseean, and im a Republican, Right-Wing, Conservitive, what ever the hell you want to call it.

It is a "non-issue" for me. If ANYONE gets married it does not affect my life one bit. However, I am against ANY government trying to legislate morality.

Damn skippy!

Issues like this never cease to amaze me. What amazes me more is this:

The amendment also would prohibit state officials and courts from recognizing out-of-state marriages and civil unions between homosexuals

How much more unconstitutional can one get? I mean .... geeze! I am anxiously awaiting this to bear fruit (no pun intended).

Damn skippy!

Issues like this never cease to amaze me. What amazes me more is this:

The amendment also would prohibit state officials and courts from recognizing out-of-state marriages and civil unions between homosexuals

How much more unconstitutional can one get? I mean .... geeze! I am anxiously awaiting this to bear fruit (no pun intended).




Well....states have the right to recognize what they want to. THAT comes down to "states rights" and I do happen to agree with that.

* Claps * Thank you my Southern' breathren for banning such a awful thing. Im a Tenneseean, and im a Republican, Right-Wing, Conservitive, what ever the hell you want to call it.

"mesazoic" is right, prehistoric, yeah? I hope all the good people of norlins won't be upset when the very lucrative large number of gay people who frequent mardi gras stop coming

"mesazoic" is right, prehistoric, yeah? I hope all the good people of norlins won't be upset when the very lucrative large number of gay people who frequent mardi gras stop comingFirst off, Mesazoic just isnt for the age of the Dinosaurs, it goes until man has become civilized. Anyway, Marrige is a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. Not man and a man, nor woman and a woman. Its what the dictonairy says, its what the constititutoin says, and its what most people in this contrey say.

First off, Mesazoic just isnt for the age of the Dinosaurs, it goes until man has become civilized. Anyway, Marrige is a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. Not man and a man, nor woman and a woman. Its what the dictonairy says, its what the constititutoin says, and its what most people in this contrey say.
actually, the dictionary includes the union of same sex couples under the definition of marriage, the Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about same-sex marriage, and the majority of American citizen support granting gay people equal legal rights to unions (though many prefer that not be called "marriage," but that it be given a different name even though it has equal legal status).

so congrats, all three of your claims were dead wrong! that takes talent.

It's too bad that as a nation we cannot learn about ourselves and learn from our mistakes in the past. Civil rights and racial equality was a low time for our country, and its sad that this is happening again. Like racial equality is the civil rights issue of the 1900's, gay equality will be the same for the 2000's. And who says that learning history isn't important?

Well....states have the right to recognize what they want to. THAT comes down to "states rights" and I do happen to agree with that.

You think states have the right to violate the Bill of Rights?

Full Faith and Credit are part of the US Constitution, enumerated by the rights in the Constitution and not subject to the 10th ammendment. Hence, a State not recognizing another State's legal contract is unconstitutional.

Mesazoic just isnt for the age of the Dinosaurs, it goes until man has become civilized

And now that people are civilised, they recognise the right of others to marry whomsoever they choose.

Hence, a State not recognizing another State's legal contract is unconstitutional.

As I know nothing about this topic, I'm asking not telling. Are there any other kinds of legal contract that are currently made in one state and ignored by another? Does Alabama not recognise wills made in Florida or something?

And now that people are civilised, they recognise the right of others to marry whomsoever they choose.
Think about it THIS way. Gay couples cant have kids, no kids means no one to grow up to " take the place " of there parrents when there gone. After hundreds of years, we barely have a populatoin all because of the dumn-asses that wanted Gay marrige.

* Claps * Thank you my Southern' breathren for banning such a awful thing. Im a Tenneseean, and im a Republican, Right-Wing, Conservitive, what ever the hell you want to call it. Republican, all the way.

Good job, fellow men (and women) of the southern US of A


~Free Will Is An Illusion~

actually, the dictionary includes the union of same sex couples under the definition of marriage, the Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about same-sex marriage, and the majority of American citizen support granting gay people equal legal rights to unions (though many prefer that not be called "marriage," but that it be given a different name even though it has equal legal status).

so congrats, all three of your claims were dead wrong! that takes talent.

Depends on your dictionary actually. I got Webster's Universal Dictionary and it says MAN and WOMAN

You think states have the right to violate the Bill of Rights?

Full Faith and Credit are part of the US Constitution, enumerated by the rights in the Constitution and not subject to the 10th ammendment. Hence, a State not recognizing another State's legal contract is unconstitutional.

Thats not true.... any state can decide not to recognize anothers divers licenses if they want to as well. There was a lot of talk about that when California wanted to give illegal aliens DL's.

As I know nothing about this topic, I'm asking not telling. Are there any other kinds of legal contract that are currently made in one state and ignored by another? Does Alabama not recognise wills made in Florida or something?


Well...even Mass. when granting Gay marraige stated that ONLY those who were residents of Mass would be legal. So even Mass. did not try to get other states to accept the validity of them.

Think about it THIS way. Gay couples cant have kids

So .... being Gay automatically makes you sterile? I know many Gay couples with children.

Thats not true.... any state can decide not to recognize anothers divers licenses if they want to as well. There was a lot of talk about that when California wanted to give illegal aliens DL's.

I'll have to look into it, but I'm sure there's a difference when it comes to illegal aliens. Not that I wouldn't mind recognizing California as a foreign country ... but that's a whole other rant.

Anyway, I've driven all over this country and have been pulled over in various states. My Texas driver's license has always been recognized as valid.

So .... being Gay automatically makes you sterile? I know many Gay couples with children.
I know lesbians can have kids, but gays CANT. Atleast, not biological children.

Depends on your dictionary actually. I got Webster's Universal Dictionary and it says MAN and WOMAN
no, it doesn't. i have a Websters in front of me right now, and the one man and one woman definition is only one of the equally valid definitions held by that book. yes, "one man, one woman" is ONE definition of marriage, but Websters shows that "two persons of the same sex" can just as legitimately call their union a marriage.

Think about it THIS way. Gay couples cant have kids, no kids means no one to grow up to " take the place " of there parrents when there gone. After hundreds of years, we barely have a populatoin all because of the dumn-asses that wanted Gay marrige.
hate to break it to you, but gay people are just as fertile as straight people. gay people can, and do, have biological children. it's pretty common.

I know lesbians can have kids, but gays CANT. Atleast, not biological children.
wrong. in fact, my uncle is gay, and has three biological children. try again.

I know lesbians can have kids, but gays CANT. Atleast, not biological children.

No man can bear children regardless of his sexual orientation.

However, if a man impregnates a woman, it is his biological child. Gay men produce sperm, which is what is required to impregnate a woman. Hence, a gay man can produce children via a surrogate. It is the same processed used when a man has viable sperm, but his wife cannot bear children for one reason or another.

Your argument is flawed and primitive. I would expect no less from the state that gave us Al Gore.

Well....states have the right to recognize what they want to. THAT comes down to "states rights" and I do happen to agree with that.

Try reading Article 4 of the Constitution. States *do not* have the rights to refuse to recognize legal documents from other states.

No man can bear children regardless of his sexual orientation.

However, if a man impregnates a woman, it is his biological child. Gay men produce sperm, which is what is required to impregnate a woman. Hence, a gay man can produce children via a surrogate. It is the same processed used when a man has viable sperm, but his wife cannot bear children for one reason or another.

Your argument is flawed and primitive. I would expect no less from the state that gave us Al Gore.
Uhg, Al Gore...a demorcrat, liberal, comie' pinko.

Think about it THIS way. Gay couples cant have kids, no kids means no one to grow up to " take the place " of there parrents when there gone. After hundreds of years, we barely have a populatoin all because of the dumn-asses that wanted Gay marrige.
Gay couples dont get kids now (biologically) and they wont in the near future. However they could adopt the many parentless children who would very likely like having gay parents than no parents at all.

Homosexuality has some natural reason to exist, otherwise it would not exist. It may not neccessarily be related to sexual reproduction but to ensuring that offspring of a species can be better cared for by more adult individuals caring for the children and ensuring their survival until adulthood and thus selfsufficience. The argument that gays are not worthy to be part of the society because they cannot biologically produce children with each other (they could however with members of the opposite sex... gays are not normally sterile) is faulty and quite hurting. However the sexual orientation somewhere in the brain or in the genes determined that they do not want sex with opposite sex *shrug*

I'm gay myself and did not decide to be it - I just was and thats that. Always been afaik and I'm feeling fine. But I absolutely hate the groundless discrimination.

First off, Mesazoic just isnt for the age of the Dinosaurs, it goes until man has become civilized. Anyway, Marrige is a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. Not man and a man, nor woman and a woman. Its what the dictonairy says, its what the constititutoin says, and its what most people in this contrey say.

What is Marrige? If you would like it to be between a man and a woman, that is fine. But civil marriage will have to be given to anyone to be constitutional.

What is a dictonairy or the constititutoin? What is a contrey? How old are you?

Think about it THIS way. Gay couples cant have kids, no kids means no one to grow up to " take the place " of there parrents when there gone. After hundreds of years, we barely have a populatoin all because of the dumn-asses that wanted Gay marrige.

This is plainly riddculous since just because gay marriage is legalized doesnt mean every single man is suddenly go i know i wanna be gay.

Its kinda ridiculous when the main issue here in uk is to legalize such marriages not outlaw them.

*begins to thwack head on nearby wall for not absentee voting*

How could I have let this happen to my state? How could I have forgotten to vote! I feel just terrible!

*thwacks head on wall again*

I hate living in Louisiana. Too many annoying radical conservatives around here. There's just not room for an open-minded Christian like me. I'm Republican, sure, and I'm not exactly fond of homosexuality, but I don't think people should be denied their rights. People are entitled to their own opinions, of course, but that doesn't mean that they should discriminate like this.

Well...even Mass. when granting Gay marraige stated that ONLY those who were residents of Mass would be legal. So even Mass. did not try to get other states to accept the validity of them.

That is a different story altogether. Mass. will only grant marriages to citizens of their state. Their reasoning is an old law from racial civil rights days that states that Mass will only give non-citizens a marriage license if it would be recognized as legal in their home state (aka, if their home state would give them one).

However, this says nothing of what happens when someone gets married in Mass as a citizen - and then moves to a different state or is even is simply passing through and something happens that requires their marriage to be recognized. At that point, the new state is constitutionally required to recognize said marriage license.

Article IV of the Constitution states:
"Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. "

If we get rid of this article, then states do not have to extradite those who escape into their state unless they make a specific treaty with that state. If you are driving cross-country, you will need driver's licenses for each state that you drive through. If you move to a new state with your spouse, you will need to get a new marriage license. If you move to a different state, they will not have to recognize that you were even born (since your birth certificate came from another state). Etc., etc, etc.

Try reading Article 4 of the Constitution. States *do not* have the rights to refuse to recognize legal documents from other states.

Read it....but any "legal" document based on an unconstitutional practice is exempt. Example.... say I have a permit issued in New York that says I am allowed to practice cannibalism. Does New Mexico have to honor it? Plus...marijuana is legal to own and grow in Alaska. Do other states have to honor that if a citizen of Alaska goes on vacation and takes some of his product with him?

Article IV of the Constitution states:
"Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. "

If we get rid of this article, then states do not have to extradite those who escape into their state unless they make a specific treaty with that state. If you are driving cross-country, you will need driver's licenses for each state that you drive through. If you move to a new state with your spouse, you will need to get a new marriage license. If you move to a different state, they will not have to recognize that you were even born (since your birth certificate came from another state). Etc., etc, etc.

Extradition is another matter and can be fought. It is not automatic.

Read it....but any "legal" document based on an unconstitutional practice is exempt. Example.... say I have a permit issued in New York that says I am allowed to practice cannibalism. Does New Mexico have to honor it? Plus...marijuana is legal to own and grow in Alaska. Do other states have to honor that if a citizen of Alaska goes on vacation and takes some of his product with him?

Last time I checked, marriage is not unconstitutional, now is it?

And I don't believe Alaska gives someone a "license to carry marijuana."

See my last post for actual examples of the types of things that are covered.

Extradition is another matter and can be fought. It is not automatic.

Not between states - it can only be fought between countries that do not have treaties about it. If you commit a crime in Texas and flee to Arizona, where you are caught - Arizona is constitutionally required to honor the Texas warrant and transport you back for trial.

Not between states - it can only be fought between countries that do not have treaties about it. If you commit a crime in Texas and flee to Arizona, where you are caught - Arizona is constitutionally required to honor the Texas warrant and transport you back for trial.

Not always....every defendent has the right to fight extradition to another state. They do it all the time here. For some reason Daytona Beach is a prime destination for criminals on the run.

Not always....every defendent has the right to fight extradition to another state. They do it all the time here. For some reason Daytona Beach is a prime destination for criminals on the run.

They have the right to fight it just like they have the right to fight any legal proceedings against them.

However, if the courts find that the accusation is legal, the state must send the person back.

This is way off-topic though. Extradition is only one of the many things that Article 4 applies to.

Of course, although we all know that Article IV of the US Constitution holds for marriage, let's just say for a moment that it didn't.

The courts have all held that the 14th Amendment defines penumbric rights that cover discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, and sexual orientation. Any law that says "We will not recognize other's states' homosexual unions" is unconstitutional on its face because it discriminates against a specific sexual orientation. This is no different than saying "We will not recognize other states' Asian marriages."

Suppose there was no Article IV of the Constitution, the best they could do would still be "We will not recognize any unions from other states."

They have the right to fight it just like they have the right to fight any legal proceedings against them.

However, if the courts find that the accusation is legal, the state must send the person back.

This is way off-topic though. Extradition is only one of the many things that Article 4 applies to.

Not everything is written in stone though. So if a person can fight extradition and win, even though the constitution says otherwise, then states can decide what they will honor or not.

Way off topic...and no, I do not care one way or another about gay marraige. it will not affect my life one bit either way.

I agree with Biff. While I think that civil unions are a right for everyone, especially considering the declining standards of marriage in today's society, this is still a state's rights issue.

If the people of Louisiana have decided to not allow it, then it is their right to do such. There are so many areas where states differ with one another in terms of rights that we can't just take issue with one without all the others becoming involved.

There are lots of examples: the death penalty, civil unions, age of consent, age of marriage, driving age, speed limits, divorce and custody issues, and once upon a time the age of drinking.

The fact of the matter is that each of the above issue represents a degree of rights of American citizens. And the constitution does address this when giving the power to the states to make said determinations for their residents.

I agree with Biff. While I think that civil unions are a right for everyone, especially considering the declining standards of marriage in today's society, this is still a state's rights issue.

If the people of Louisiana have decided to not allow it, then it is their right to do such. There are so many areas where states differ with one another in terms of rights that we can't just take issue with one without all the others becoming involved.

There are lots of examples: the death penalty, civil unions, age of consent, age of marriage, driving age, speed limits, divorce and custody issues, and once upon a time the age of drinking.

The fact of the matter is that each of the above issue represents a degree of rights of American citizens. And the constitution does address this when giving the power to the states to make said determinations for their residents.

At the moment, they can disallow it all they want. They *cannot* however say that they will not recognize certain marriages from other states. And, in the end, it will come down to a 14th Amendment argument and the states will all either have to stop granting any marriages or will have to grant them to homosexual and heterosexual couples alike.

There are lots of examples: the death penalty, civil unions, age of consent, age of marriage, driving age, speed limits, divorce and custody issues, and once upon a time the age of drinking.

None of these are legal documents themselves - they are regulations on when a specific state will give certain legal documents. And, if the driving age is 14 in one state and the 14-year old (with a valid driver's license from his state) drives into a state in which the age is 16, the 14 year old will not be arrested for underage driving. Why? The new state recognizes the legal documents of his home state.

None of these are legal documents themselves - they are regulations on when a specific state will give certain legal documents. And, if the driving age is 14 in one state and the 14-year old (with a valid driver's license from his state) drives into a state in which the age is 16, the 14 year old will not be arrested for underage driving. Why? The new state recognizes the legal documents of his home state.

Granted, but that's just one such example. Here's another: interstates here have a maximum speed limit of 70. Pennsylvania for the most part is 65. Would Pennsylvania agree to allow a West Virginia driver to drive 70 merely because his home state allows that?

Another such example is the death penalty. Should a West Virginian who commits a crime in Texas be excused from the death penalty simply because West Virginia does not allow that as an option or should he be required to follow the rules of the state that he is presently in?

A legal marriage in Kentucky is not always recognized in West Virginia. Until recently Kentucky allowed the marriage of minors without parental consent. West Virginia's laws do not recognize such marriages.

So while you have found one example wherein the home state's laws apply that can't be said for every other example. And your example also has a flaw. While that 14 year old may be allowed to drive here in West Virginia without being punished because we don't allow anyone under 16, that 14 year old WOULD be stopped from driving if he didn't follow West Virginia laws for driving, such as the law requiring that a licensed adult driver be in the car with that 14 year old at all times. So even with your example, the laws of the state apply.

While I support Lousiana's decision to ban gay marriage (will of the people, privilidge not a right, and all that), I cant seem to understand the banning of civil unions. That just seems punitive to me.

Granted, but that's just one such example. Here's another: interstates here have a maximum speed limit of 70. Pennsylvania for the most part is 65. Would Pennsylvania agree to allow a West Virginia driver to drive 70 merely because his home state allows that?

Again, speed limits are not legal documents. And besides, speed limits vary no matter where you are - the speed limit on any interstate is not always the maximum speed limit.

Another such example is the death penalty. Should a West Virginian who commits a crime in Texas be excused from the death penalty simply because West Virginia does not allow that as an option or should he be required to follow the rules of the state that he is presently in?

Of course not - but again, this is not a case of recognizing a legal document or proceeding. In fact, the reverse would be true. West Virginia would have to recognize the fact that a Texas legal proceeding sentenced the man to death.

A legal marriage in Kentucky is not always recognized in West Virginia. Until recently Kentucky allowed the marriage of minors without parental consent. West Virginia's laws do not recognize such marriages.

If that law were challenged, it may be deemed unconstitutional. Of course, things get sticky when we start talking about minors. West Virginia could probably get away with arguing that the minors' marriage couldn't exist in their state because the minors were not at the age that they could even present legal documents to the state (and they certainly cannot sue over it). However, if both of them were over 18 and had been married for 4 years already, I doubt that West Virginia would deny them recognition of their marriage.

So while you have found one example wherein the home state's laws apply that can't be said for every other example. And your example also has a flaw. While that 14 year old may be allowed to drive here in West Virginia without being punished because we don't allow anyone under 16, that 14 year old WOULD be stopped from driving if he didn't follow West Virginia laws for driving, such as the law requiring that a licensed adult driver be in the car with that 14 year old at all times. So even with your example, the laws of the state apply.

Maybe that is because I never said that the home state's laws apply (and neither does the Constitution). I said the home state's *legal proceedings and documents* apply (because that's what it says in the Constitution).

Again, speed limits are not legal documents. And besides, speed limits vary no matter where you are - the speed limit on any interstate is not always the maximum speed limit.

Speed limits in an of themselves are not legal documents. However, the state has the authority to set such limits nevertheless. And the documents they publish about said limits are legally binding.

Of course not - but again, this is not a case of recognizing a legal document or proceeding. In fact, the reverse would be true. West Virginia would have to recognize the fact that a Texas legal proceeding sentenced the man to death.

You're making my point on this one. The fact that a person from a non death penalty state must still abide by the laws of another state. That is a recognition of states' rights.

If that law were challenged, it may be deemed unconstitutional. Of course, things get sticky when we start talking about minors. West Virginia could probably get away with arguing that the minors' marriage couldn't exist in their state because the minors were not at the age that they could even present legal documents to the state (and they certainly cannot sue over it). However, if both of them were over 18 and had been married for 4 years already, I doubt that West Virginia would deny them recognition of their marriage.

Incorrect. The law, in fact, has been challenged and ruled as just. And the premise for ruling the law as just is because of the issue of states' rights. West Virginia, as a state, has a legal right to set the standards for what it perceives as a legal marriage.

Let's use another example here. If you have consensual sex with a minor and aren't found out for 4 years, at which point both parties are now legal adults, are you still at danger of being prosecuted for statutory rape? Yes, you most certainly are. While an extreme example, the same concept applies here. Just because two people are NOW of legal age of consent to marry here does not mean that their marriage would be recognized because of the fact that the initial marriage was not valid by state law.


Maybe that is because I never said that the home state's laws apply (and neither does the Constitution). I said the home state's *legal proceedings and documents* apply (because that's what it says in the Constitution).

That's also not entirely correct. Let me use child custody as an example. A party getting divorced receives a ruling from North Carolina about custody issues. However, one parent moves to Florida and is a legal resident of the state of Florida and refiles for custody in the Florida courts. The Florida court completely disagrees with North Carolina's initial ruling. Which state wins this issue? Largely, it ends up being the state in which the child is the legal resident of. Florida does not have to abide by North Carolina's legal proceedings and North Carolina has every right to not abide by Florida's rulings and proceedings. In these cases, it can become a Supreme Court issue, but that's neither here nor there.

The initial example was of a 14 year old driver. Said driver has every legal right to drive in his home state of...shall we say...Nebraska. That's fine and dandy. The state of Kansas does not have to abide by the rulings, documents, or proceedings of Nebraska law. Therefore, if this kid ends up going to Kansas to drive he has to abide by Kansas law, despite the fact that it is perfectly legal for him to drive in Nebraska. Nebraska has no right to impose its statutes upon Kansas.

Here's an issue. Several states that have a large agricultural base allow drivers as young as 12 to drive vehicles that are designated as "FARM USE ONLY." There are lots of limitations on this type of driving and they vary widely from state to state. A 13 year old from Minnesota may be able to drive that vehicle on county and state roads so long as they have a specific designation that is for farm purposes only. However, if he were to go into Iowa and attempt to do the same, he could be facing serious trouble because maybe Iowa only allows that 13 year old to drive on private property. Iowa does not have to recognize that Minnesota has granted its residents the right to drive on state and county roads. Those roads are the property of the state and counties of Minnesota. Iowa's roads are the property of its state and counties. The laws of Iowa must and do apply in this situation.

The people of Louisiana possess the same (lack of) intellectual capacity as the people of my city who support anti-democracy parties.

First off, Mesazoic just isnt for the age of the Dinosaurs, it goes until man has become civilized. Anyway, Marrige is a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. Not man and a man, nor woman and a woman. Its what the dictonairy says, its what the constititutoin says, and its what most people in this contrey say.

Dude. Learn how to fucking spell before you start bashing other people's genetics and choices.

Dude. Learn how to fucking spell before you start bashing other people's genetics and choices.
Dude. Argue with the man about his point, or his opinion, not his spelling.

Dude. Argue with the man about his point, or his opinion, not his spelling.

In this case, my friend, the quality of spelling underlies the fact that he, like most bigoted anti-secularists that are turning American into a dictatorship, has absolutely no logical point to make. "My religion says it's wrong," "It disgusts me," "That's the way it is," or "It's always been that way" are the kinds of arguments right-wing Chinese nationalists reduce themselves to when they start trashing Taiwan and Hong Kong democracy.

Incidentally, there's no provision in the U.S. Constitution that defines marriage, although this "constititutoin" Mesazoic speaks of may define "marrige".

Speed limits in an of themselves are not legal documents. However, the state has the authority to set such limits nevertheless. And the documents they publish about said limits are legally binding.

It still doesn't have anything to do with Article IV of the Constitution, which is what I am talking about.

You're making my point on this one. The fact that a person from a non death penalty state must still abide by the laws of another state. That is a recognition of states' rights.

No, I am not - I am actually making my own point. The non-death penalty state may not have the death penalty, but has to deal with the fact that the death penalty state's legal proceedings sentenced someone to death.

The fact that the non-death penalty state does not have the death penalty is not a "legal proceeding," it is a law - which does not apply in another state.

Incorrect. The law, in fact, has been challenged and ruled as just. And the premise for ruling the law as just is because of the issue of states' rights. West Virginia, as a state, has a legal right to set the standards for what it perceives as a legal marriage.

Source? I'd like to see the actual reasoning for this.

Let's use another example here. If you have consensual sex with a minor and aren't found out for 4 years, at which point both parties are now legal adults, are you still at danger of being prosecuted for statutory rape? Yes, you most certainly are. While an extreme example, the same concept applies here. Just because two people are NOW of legal age of consent to marry here does not mean that their marriage would be recognized because of the fact that the initial marriage was not valid by state law.

Again, an irrelevant example. This has to do with the statute of limitations, which is a law, not a legal proceeding or document.

That's also not entirely correct. Let me use child custody as an example. A party getting divorced receives a ruling from North Carolina about custody issues. However, one parent moves to Florida and is a legal resident of the state of Florida and refiles for custody in the Florida courts. The Florida court completely disagrees with North Carolina's initial ruling. Which state wins this issue? Largely, it ends up being the state in which the child is the legal resident of. Florida does not have to abide by North Carolina's legal proceedings and North Carolina has every right to not abide by Florida's rulings and proceedings. In these cases, it can become a Supreme Court issue, but that's neither here nor there.

Actually, saying "that's neither here nor there" is completely incorrect. That is the whole point. If challenged, the two separate rulings will not be allowed to stand. One will be chosen over the other and, at that point, the other state will be legally bound to abide by it.

Of course, in your example, if the parent in Florida filed for custody and did not supply the North Carolina ruling, said parent could be held in contempt of court for not supplying all relevant information.

The initial example was of a 14 year old driver. Said driver has every legal right to drive in his home state of...shall we say...Nebraska. That's fine and dandy. The state of Kansas does not have to abide by the rulings, documents, or proceedings of Nebraska law. Therefore, if this kid ends up going to Kansas to drive he has to abide by Kansas law, despite the fact that it is perfectly legal for him to drive in Nebraska. Nebraska has no right to impose its statutes upon Kansas.

Read the Constitution. The state of Nebraska does have to abide by the documents and legal proceedings (but not the laws) of Kansas. Whether or not they do so in practice is their issue - but a challenge would determine that this is true. If you think we should throw out the Constitution altogether so that your precious states can each be a separate country, fine.

Here's an issue. Several states that have a large agricultural base allow drivers as young as 12 to drive vehicles that are designated as "FARM USE ONLY." There are lots of limitations on this type of driving and they vary widely from state to state.

And there is usually not a license given - it is simply stated that they can do so. Obviously, in a different state, they do not necessarily have the privledge.

Let's use a better example. Suppose in Nebraska, simply having a driver's license allows you to buy alcohol. This is not true in Georgia. So, while in Georgia - you cannot buy alcohol if you are under 21. However, Georgia does have to recognize the Nebraska driver's license for all the privileges that Georgia gives to a driver's license (basically, driving on GA roads).

Suppose Nebraska allows married couples to have sex on their front lawn (there is actually a law in some state like this), but GA does not. Two people that obtain a marriage license in Nebraska can have sex on their front lawn. In GA, they cannot have sex on their front lawn - but they do get all the rights and responsibilties that GA places on marriage.

In this case, my friend, the quality of spelling underlies the fact that he, like most bigoted anti-secularists that are turning American into a dictatorship, has absolutely no logical point to make. "My religion says it's wrong," "It disgusts me," "That's the way it is," or "It's always been that way" are the kinds of arguments right-wing Chinese nationalists reduce themselves to when they start trashing Taiwan and Hong Kong democracy.

Incidentally, there's no provision in the U.S. Constitution that defines marriage, although this "constititutoin" Mesazoic speaks of may define "marrige".
Ah, you see? You are "attacking" his position, and his opinion. Effectively. And you didnt have to correct a single spelling error of his to do it. ;)

Uhg, Al Gore...a demorcrat, liberal, comie' pinko.

Hey yo, that shit ain't funny! - Al

Let's use a better example. Suppose in Nebraska, simply having a driver's license allows you to buy alcohol. This is not true in Georgia. So, while in Georgia - you cannot buy alcohol if you are under 21. However, Georgia does have to recognize the Nebraska driver's license for all the privileges that Georgia gives to a driver's license (basically, driving on GA roads).

Using this example only.. if the license from Nebraska were a Drivers License/Alcohol purchasing license allowing the minor to purchase alcohol, then by your argument doesnt Georgia have to honor it?

A concealed carry weapon permit issued by the state of Oregon has to be honored by the State of New York doesnt it?

Medicinal marijuana prescriptions would have to be honored in states where that use is illegal?

Originally Posted by Mesazoic
Think about it THIS way. Gay couples cant have kids, no kids means no one to grow up to " take the place " of there parrents when there gone. After hundreds of years, we barely have a populatoin all because of the dumn-asses that wanted Gay marrige.

Moron. I mean that. At all times in this endless debate, I have looked in vain for someone with even the slightest shred of intelligence to tell me why we should ban gay marriage. And all I get is "God says fags are dirty" and "gays cant make kiddies so we have to ban their marriage" and "states rights!"

Wake the fuck up, close to 10% of America is gay. They will love each other, have sex, and sometimes even have families. They want to be married. You would prefer they shack up. Where's your *Christian* morals now?

Oh, and to Mesazoic in particular, no one is forcing you to have a gay marriage, it will be okay. Banning gay marriage is not going to turn them all straight.

And furthermore, you are a fucking idiot. And so is everyone else who rants about how gay marriage is going to destroy America, or that we have to "protect" ourselves. Coincidence or not, most of the Bible-thumping homophobes who pushed this disgraceful amendment through are the same crowd who fought to keep interracial marriage illegal (no surprise, the Massachusetts governor is using that old law for this purpose now, the one about not marrying couples from other states, passed with interracial marriage in mind).

Moron. I mean that. At all times in this endless debate, I have looked in vain for someone with even the slightest shred of intelligence to tell me why we should ban gay marriage. And all I get is "God says fags are dirty" and "gays cant make kiddies so we have to ban their marriage" and "states rights!"

Wake the fuck up, close to 10% of America is gay. They will love each other, have sex, and sometimes even have families. They want to be married. You would prefer they shack up. Where's your *Christian* morals now?

Oh, and to Mesazoic in particular, no one is forcing you to have a gay marriage, it will be okay. Banning gay marriage is not going to turn them all straight.

And furthermore, you are a fucking idiot. And so is everyone else who rants about how gay marriage is going to destroy America, or that we have to "protect" ourselves. Coincidence or not, most of the Bible-thumping homophobes who pushed this disgraceful amendment through are the same crowd who fought to keep interracial marriage illegal (no surprise, the Massachusetts governor is using that old law for this purpose now, the one about not marrying couples from other states, passed with interracial marriage in mind).

A-fucking-men

Moron. I mean that. At all times in this endless debate, I have looked in vain for someone with even the slightest shred of intelligence to tell me why we should ban gay marriage. And all I get is "God says fags are dirty" and "gays cant make kiddies so we have to ban their marriage" and "states rights!"

Wake the fuck up, close to 10% of America is gay. They will love each other, have sex, and sometimes even have families. They want to be married. You would prefer they shack up. Where's your *Christian* morals now?

Oh, and to Mesazoic in particular, no one is forcing you to have a gay marriage, it will be okay. Banning gay marriage is not going to turn them all straight.

And furthermore, you are a fucking idiot. And so is everyone else who rants about how gay marriage is going to destroy America, or that we have to "protect" ourselves. Coincidence or not, most of the Bible-thumping homophobes who pushed this disgraceful amendment through are the same crowd who fought to keep interracial marriage illegal (no surprise, the Massachusetts governor is using that old law for this purpose now, the one about not marrying couples from other states, passed with interracial marriage in mind).
Again, attack the man on his arguments, don't result to insults. It's unbecoming and does nothing to promote your point.

How are you any better than he, if you must insult to prove your point?

Moron. I mean that. At all times in this endless debate, I have looked in vain for someone with even the slightest shred of intelligence to tell me why we should ban gay marriage. And all I get is "God says fags are dirty" and "gays cant make kiddies so we have to ban their marriage" and "states rights!"

Wake the fuck up, close to 10% of America is gay. They will love each other, have sex, and sometimes even have families. They want to be married. You would prefer they shack up. Where's your *Christian* morals now?

Oh, and to Mesazoic in particular, no one is forcing you to have a gay marriage, it will be okay. Banning gay marriage is not going to turn them all straight.

And furthermore, you are a fucking idiot. And so is everyone else who rants about how gay marriage is going to destroy America, or that we have to "protect" ourselves. Coincidence or not, most of the Bible-thumping homophobes who pushed this disgraceful amendment through are the same crowd who fought to keep interracial marriage illegal (no surprise, the Massachusetts governor is using that old law for this purpose now, the one about not marrying couples from other states, passed with interracial marriage in mind).


Wow....

Well, gay marraige will not affect my life one way or another. I could not care less one way or the other, but I do support each states right to decide for itself. If California decides that it wants to allow its gay residents to marry, fine, but that should not be used to force Maryland to recognize it if they choose to not allow it in their state.

Uhg, Al Gore...a demorcrat, liberal, comie' pinko.

See what I mean about this guy?

There's no viable left in the USA. (Unless you consider one Vermont Congressman as being viable...lol)

Hell, people were calling Paul Wellstone a pinko and a commie in spite of his marching lockstep in favour of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Defence of Marriage Act (their name, not mine), and the PATRIOT Act (again, not my name for it :-P).

Wellstone even just about voted for John Ashcroft's AG nomination.

And did I mention that Al Gore is well to the right of Paul Wellstone?

Wow....

Well, gay marraige will not affect my life one way or another. I could not care less one way or the other, but I do support each states right to decide for itself. If California decides that it wants to allow its gay residents to marry, fine, but that should not be used to force Maryland to recognize it if they choose to not allow it in their state.

Well, racial segregation will not affect my life one way or another. I could not care less one way or the other, but I do support each state's right to decide for itself. If California decides that it wants to allow its Black residents to share the same institutions as its White residents, fine, but that should not be used to force Maryland to do so if they choose to not allow it in their state

Well, racial segregation will not affect my life one way or another. I could not care less one way or the other, but I do support each state's right to decide for itself. If California decides that it wants to allow its Black residents to share the same institutions as its White residents, fine, but that should not be used to force Maryland to do so if they choose to not allow it in their state

Good try....but no.

Wow....

Well, gay marraige will not affect my life one way or another. I could not care less one way or the other, but I do support each states right to decide for itself. If California decides that it wants to allow its gay residents to marry, fine, but that should not be used to force Maryland to recognize it if they choose to not allow it in their state.

I hear this a lot from Libertarians, this kind of "It doesn't bother me, so I don't really care one way or the other." What would you say if Georgia tried to ban interracial marriage though? Would you say, "Oh, I'm married to someone of the same race, doesn't bother me."

Where's your ideals man? :D

Fight for the underdog!


Oh, and if you think Al Gore is a commie Mesazoic, then you are probably Hitler.

Good try....but no.

Care to elaborate?

Keep in mind that in issues of rights and of liberty, the princple is far more important than degree of the infringement.

Using this example only.. if the license from Nebraska were a Drivers License/Alcohol purchasing license allowing the minor to purchase alcohol, then by your argument doesnt Georgia have to honor it?

No, because in this example, it is a driver's license, plain and simple. It is Nebraska law that has determined that a driver's license also amounts to an alcohol-buying license. Georgia law only permits those with a driver's license to drive - and that is it. It is the *legal document* they are accepting, not the laws of the other state.

A concealed carry weapon permit issued by the state of Oregon has to be honored by the State of New York doesnt it?

I don't know exactly how this works. However, in the case of a concealed carry, you would at the very least be required to inform the state you were entering that you had such a license before you could purport to use it. It is, according to Article IV, the purview of the US Congress to determine what you have to do to prove that you have said legal document to the new state.

Medicinal marijuana prescriptions would have to be honored in states where that use is illegal?

Prescriptions are not issued by the state, so they are not really state legal documents or proceedings.

First off, Mesazoic just isnt for the age of the Dinosaurs, it goes until man has become civilized. Anyway, Marrige is a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. Not man and a man, nor woman and a woman. Its what the dictonairy says, its what the constititutoin says, and its what most people in this contrey say.
1. The Mesozoic was a period of time that encompassed the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous eras. It ended 65 million years ago. Humans started building cities approximately 10 to 6,000 years ago. Luckily for you, since this isn't relevant to the debate, I'm not counting it against you.
2. The dictionary defines marriage as both a union between a man and a woman and an intimate union. This is Webster's, which means that you convienently looked over one of the definitions. Actually, you looked over most of them. Besides, books have a tendency to become out dated, dictionaries especially, since the meanings of words constantly change. Strike 1.
3. The Constitution never mentions marriage. I've read it. Multiple times. I doubt you've ever even seen it. Strike 2.
4. You need to provide a source that most people in this country say that marriage is only between a man and a woman, as you are making the postive assertion, thus the burden of proof lies on you. Remember also that at one time, most people in this country thought that marriage was only between men and women of the same race. Strike 3. You're out.

Care to elaborate?

Keep in mind that in issues of rights and of liberty, the princple is far more important than degree of the infringement.

There is a HUGE difference between racial segregation and gay marraige. Then again...if you look around, the US is pretty much segregated already. Neighborhoods are largely segregated. Churches certainly are. Schools, bathrooms, water fountains, buses and resturants are the only places that were effectively de-segregated. Of course all this is self-segregation. You cannot make people live where they don't want to.

*gasp* you mean the South is removing Constitutional rights from a minority group in order to forward a right-wing Christian agenda?! i never thought i would see the day!

lol...

If gay and lesbian people are given civil rights everyone will want them.

There is a HUGE difference between racial segregation and gay marraige. Then again...if you look around, the US is pretty much segregated already. Neighborhoods are largely segregated. Churches certainly are. Schools, bathrooms, water fountains, buses and resturants are the only places that were effectively de-segregated. Of course all this is self-segregation. You cannot make people live where they don't want to.


You are comparing apples and oranges. We are talking about interracial marriage being denied by a constitutional (state or federal, though the latter failed) amendment. Then you go off on how we can't force people to live together...stick to the question: If Georgia tried to ban interracial marriage, would you just sit on the side, "Oh, it doesn't affect me really."


Oh, and I come from Hawaii, probably the most desegregated and racially mixed state in America. They don't have a problem with gay marriage, incidentally.

No, because in this example, it is a driver's license, plain and simple. It is Nebraska law that has determined that a driver's license also amounts to an alcohol-buying license. Georgia law only permits those with a driver's license to drive - and that is it. It is the *legal document* they are accepting, not the laws of the other state.
In the illogical example someone else first posted, and I was elaborating on, I was saying that the Nebraska license was an official state alcohol minor purchasing license.

I don't know exactly how this works. However, in the case of a concealed carry, you would at the very least be required to inform the state you were entering that you had such a license before you could purport to use it. It is, according to Article IV, the purview of the US Congress to determine what you have to do to prove that you have said legal document to the new state.
However, New York does not recognize any other state's concealed weapons permits. Even though they are legal documents, issued by the originating state. By your argument, New York must recognize them and be bound by them. This is not the case.

Prescriptions are not issued by the state, so they are not really state legal documents or proceedings.
But they are legal documents recognized by the state. And as recognized, they are "sanctioned" by the state.

If gay and lesbian people are given civil rights everyone will want them.

marry me in sweden.

I hear this a lot from Libertarians, this kind of "It doesn't bother me, so I don't really care one way or the other." What would you say if Georgia tried to ban interracial marriage though? Would you say, "Oh, I'm married to someone of the same race, doesn't bother me."

Where's your ideals man? :D

Fight for the underdog!


Oh, and if you think Al Gore is a commie Mesazoic, then you are probably Hitler.

Not every issue requires that we take a stand on. Gay marraige is not a huge issue if only 10% of the people are affected. Far more people are without health insurance and the number of unemployed is an issue. Gay marraige, while a passionate subject for some, is just not a big deal for me. Here is an idea....are there any other countries that allow gay marraiges? Many hetero couples get married in other countries and they are legally married in the US as a result. Why can't gays do that?

Wow....

Well, gay marraige will not affect my life one way or another. I could not care less one way or the other, but I do support each states right to decide for itself. If California decides that it wants to allow its gay residents to marry, fine, but that should not be used to force Maryland to recognize it if they choose to not allow it in their state.

Then let's throw out the Constitution! Woohoo!

I'll tell you what, let's do away with Article IV altogether. This means that:

1) If you get married in a certain state, but then move to a new state - you are no longer married, but must reapply and get remarried. In fact, moving to another state would be cause for a divorce. On top of that, two people who are married cannot possibly live in different states.

2) If you are born in one state, but move to another state - the new state does not have to recognize you as a citizen, because they do not have to recognize your birth certificate as valid.

3) If you wish to drive from Seattle, WA to Savannah, GA (as my parents did when I was younger), you must get a driver's license for every state that you must drive through. Never mind that you have to actually set up residency in each state in order for them to issue you one in the first place.

4) You can now be tried for the same crime twice - after all, if you are tried and acquited in California, Arizona can still decide to bring you up on those exact same charges (providing that their laws prohibit whatever it was you were accused of doing). Arizona doesn't *have* to recognize that California acquitted you.

5) If I sign a contract for someone in GA to give me a million dollars for me to build their home, I can get the money and run to Alabama, where he could not sue me to get his money back or have me build his home - since Alabama wouldn't have to recognize the contract I signed in GA.

6) If custody is given to one parent in Wyoming, but the other parent kidnaps the child and runs to Alaska, nothing can be done. Alaska doesn't have to acknowledge the criminal act that occurred in Wyoming.

7) If I license a dog in Atlanta, GA and someone steals said dog and runs to NC, I have no claim to that dog - since it was only licensed to me in GA.

Should I go on?

You are comparing apples and oranges. We are talking about interracial marriage being denied by a constitutional (state or federal, though the latter failed) amendment. Then you go off on how we can't force people to live together...stick to the question: If Georgia tried to ban interracial marriage, would you just sit on the side, "Oh, it doesn't affect me really."


Oh, and I come from Hawaii, probably the most desegregated and racially mixed state in America. They don't have a problem with gay marriage, incidentally.

Not true.

The State was heavily divided on the issue, and just a few years ago, thanks in large part to a large multi-million dollar Hate Campaign funded entirely by the Mor(m)ons, an anti-gay amendment passed in a referendum.

um, I'm gay. I'd kinda like fundamental civil rights and all, I mean, it'd be nice. all the ladies at the church nursery I worked at said I had a wonderful gift for children...I'd like the legal ability to have a familiy and give some orphans a good home and loving parents...I'd sorta like to, but if you guys say I'm a subhuman freak then that's ok too. musn't let my kind pollute your golden society, I mean we might have diversity or something then.

You are comparing apples and oranges. We are talking about interracial marriage being denied by a constitutional (state or federal, though the latter failed) amendment. Then you go off on how we can't force people to live together...stick to the question: If Georgia tried to ban interracial marriage, would you just sit on the side, "Oh, it doesn't affect me really."


Oh, and I come from Hawaii, probably the most desegregated and racially mixed state in America. They don't have a problem with gay marriage, incidentally.

Lets see....does interracial marraige affect me any more than gay marraige? hmmmmmm......no it doesn't. I am not an advocate of gay marraige nor am I a detractor. I don't have a problem with it and it should be allowed. But....each state would have to be on board or it would never work.

Not true.

The State was heavily divided on the issue, and just a few years ago, thanks in large part to a large multi-million dollar Hate Campaign funded entirely by the Mor(m)ons, an anti-gay amendment passed in a referendum.


You...are...kidding...me. I honestly had no clue. Guess things like that just slip under the radar, it doesn't affect me afterall, does it? :rolleyes:

I honestly don't know what to say, when the most liberal tolerant diverse state in America bans gay marriage, what do you expect from the bible south?

In the illogical example someone else first posted, and I was elaborating on, I was saying that the Nebraska license was an official state alcohol minor purchasing license.

Except that's not what the example said at all. It said that, in Nebraska, there was a law stating "Anyone who has a driver's license can buy alcohol." However, let's say that it was a "alcohol minor purchasing license." GA does not have such a license, so they do not have to recognize the license given by another state. However, if GA did have a provision to have such a license, it would have to recognize the license given by Nebraska. Understand?

However, New York does not recognize any other state's concealed weapons permits. Even though they are legal documents, issued by the originating state. By your argument, New York must recognize them and be bound by them. This is not the case.

Simply saying that they don't have to because they don't is not necessarily logical. Has it ever been challenged? If so, please provide me with a case so I can read the ruling.

But they are legal documents recognized by the state. And as recognized, they are "sanctioned" by the state.

They are not given by the state and thus do not fall under the "state legal document" category.

Think about it THIS way. Gay couples cant have kids, no kids means no one to grow up to " take the place " of there parrents when there gone. After hundreds of years, we barely have a populatoin all because of the dumn-asses that wanted Gay marrige.

so you think that if gay people arent allowed to get married to each other they will go marry straight people and then BREED? that the important part of the thing is the MARRIAGE part and not the GAY part? if there is no gay marriage there will be no more gay people?

or are you thinking that if a straight man has the opportunity to marry another man, he will abandon his straight ways and go for it? is that really all that is keeping the heterosexual population from changing sides?

Then let's throw out the Constitution! Woohoo!

You are taking this too literally. There are MANY examples of one state not accepting the legal documents of another. New York has the most repressive gun laws in the nation. You can own a gun according to the constitution, but you cannot bring it into New York without permission. As was stated earlier....don't try to carry a concealed weapon in New York, even if you have a permit to carry it from new Jersey. Where is Article 4 there?

Here is an idea....are there any other countries that allow gay marraiges? Many hetero couples get married in other countries and they are legally married in the US as a result. Why can't gays do that?

Been tried. The US shat on said document.

Lets see....does interracial marraige affect me any more than gay marraige? hmmmmmm......no it doesn't. I am not an advocate of gay marraige nor am I a detractor. I don't have a problem with it and it should be allowed. But....each state would have to be on board or it would never work.


Haha, so you'd just sit on the sidelines not caring if they ban interracial marriage. Weren't you ever young and idealistic? :D

Where's your sense of justice and freedom? Don't you want to spread freedom even when it's not just for you? That's the Libertarian ideal, right? Total freedom from government meddling.

And what's with the rationalizing: "Every state would have to be on board"? As it is, they're fighting it state by state...

Why do these arguments always suck me in? I know there's never going to be any change. There's no chance of winning against the morons.


That said: It's not your place, at all, to tell gays or straights or anywhere in between what they cannot do.

This nation was granted rights to grant rights. Not to restrict them. Why don't we outlaw hetrosexual marriages? I'll bet you'd be pretty pissed. Well, there you go.

YOU have no right to tell THEM what they MAY NOT do! It is not the bisuness of the state or the national government, though sadly the national government all-too-often has to put the kabosh on you people who try to say nay.

Let me ask you something. If they legalize gay marriage, will it run a lightning bolt through your body and make you run out to shag another guy? No. It won't. So you have no right to complain.

It does not hurt you in any way if gays can marry or not! You therefor, have NO RIGHT and NO SAY over what they CAN OR CANNOT DO.

And NO, the argument "It offends my religion" is NOT valid! It offends me to see a lot of things happening, such as the stoners outside the corner dime store rolling a pair of blunts out of their cheap stogies. It's still not my fucking bisuness! They aren't hurting me, and until such time as they do, I'm not gonna bitch at them!

And if you still insist on playing the religion card, how's this?

YOUR religion offends MY sense of realism! YOUR religion offends me! Do I have the right to ban your religion and tell you you're not allowed to practice? NO, I do NOT! And I WON'T!

So extend the same courtesy to everyone that they extend to you. Or shall we start up the chuch-bombings and christian-killing counterculture? (No, we shan't. We should, though. Christians have done the same to far too many people throughout history. The Klan, every gay person who's ever been beaten up, etcetera.)

And for the record, no. I'm straight. (I'd be gay if I had the choice of really being female, but meh. I'm a guy and I'll deal. I like girls, it's that simple.) I don't even particularly LIKE the idea of what two guys do to each other, even the kind of stuff that's okay in public. I might squeam and squirm if two guys kiss each other, but you bet your ass I'll grab my baseball bat and come to their defense if some intolerant bigot decides to start laying into them.

marry me in sweden.

k! am i the bride or groom?

Not true.

The State was heavily divided on the issue, and just a few years ago, thanks in large part to a large multi-million dollar Hate Campaign funded entirely by the Mor(m)ons, an anti-gay amendment passed in a referendum.

Oh I would love to see proof of this statement!

Though I am against Gay Marriage, I opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution of the USA! I do support Civil Unions as long as it DOES NOT grant the same benefits as a married couple of One Man and One Woman. I don't mind limited benefits at all.

As to LA (State Abbreviation), I applaud their right to legislate this issue. They had an open forum in which the voters decided on it and have decided to ban Gay Marriage! I applaud that. What I DON'T applaud is the banning of Civil Unions. I think that this has got to be a first that I've heard regarding the banning of Civil Unions in a state.

That's pretty sad, but not suprising. This picture sums up what republicans consider the "sanctity of marriage". :rolleyes:

http://www.psiguy.com/humor/images/marriage.jpg

See, they have no problems with those senarios, because they involve a male and a female. Clearly, neither the male nor the female love each other, and they're marrying for all the wrong reasons. But, if a man and another man or a woman and another woman love each other, they cannot marry.

I hate homophobes. :mad: :mad: :mad:

You are taking this too literally. There are MANY examples of one state not accepting the legal documents of another. New York has the most repressive gun laws in the nation. You can own a gun according to the constitution, but you cannot bring it into New York without permission. As was stated earlier....don't try to carry a concealed weapon in New York, even if you have a permit to carry it from new Jersey. Where is Article 4 there?

Again, show me where said law has been challenged.

Also, does NY allow a license to carry concealed at all? Or is that only allowed in NY for police officers?

If it has one and this law has been challenged, I can think of an argument that would work in this case. If New York can show a compelling interest for not recognizing the licenses of other states, then it may hold up in court. But then again, I would have to see a case to know for sure what reasoning they used.

For instance (back to the driver's license idea). Suppose one of the states in this country went to the European idea of driving on the opposite side of the road and decided that red, octagon shaped signs would mean go, not stop. At that point, said state would have a compelling reason to not immediately recognize driver's licenses from other states - because their laws would be so different that a different education would be absolutely necessary for the new driver to safely get around in that state.

What I DON'T applaud is the banning of Civil Unions. I think that this has got to be a first that I've heard regarding the banning of Civil Unions in a state.

Well, get used to it, the *compassionate* Christians are in a fury right now.

Haha, so you'd just sit on the sidelines not caring if they ban interracial marriage. Weren't you ever young and idealistic? :D

Where's your sense of justice and freedom? Don't you want to spread freedom even when it's not just for you? That's the Libertarian ideal, right? Total freedom from government meddling.

And what's with the rationalizing: "Every state would have to be on board"? As it is, they're fighting it state by state...

I am all for freedom and rights....more than you might think. However, states rights are paramount. That keeps the federal gov't off the backs of the people. The federal gov't has only ONE responsibility and that is to protect the citizens from foreign aggression. The states should decide what they will and will not allow within their borders. You do know why states like Penn. were founded right? Where have the ideals that the US was founded on gone? They were squashed by the federal gov't.

What I DON'T applaud is the banning of Civil Unions. I think that this has got to be a first that I've heard regarding the banning of Civil Unions in a state.

You haven't been paying attention much lately then. Many states are trying to do exactly that. Virginia even passed a law banning *any* type of contract that gives *any* of the rights associated with marriage to a gay couple. This calls into question even power-of-attorney and wills.

Except that's not what the example said at all. It said that, in Nebraska, there was a law stating "Anyone who has a driver's license can buy alcohol." However, let's say that it was a "alcohol minor purchasing license." GA does not have such a license, so they do not have to recognize the license given by another state. However, if GA did have a provision to have such a license, it would have to recognize the license given by Nebraska. Understand?



Simply saying that they don't have to because they don't is not necessarily logical. Has it ever been challenged? If so, please provide me with a case so I can read the ruling.



They are not given by the state and thus do not fall under the "state legal document" category.
not to mentino all of his "examples" are for things that would not be required to cross state lines, a same sex couple who are married may be required to cross state lines, if they move for a job or something. and not to mention the right for the state to make their own gun laws was decided in some court case i cant recall right now

I am all for freedom and rights....more than you might think. However, states rights are paramount. That keeps the federal gov't off the backs of the people. The federal gov't has only ONE responsibility and that is to protect the citizens from foreign aggression. The states should decide what they will and will not allow within their borders. You do know why states like Penn. were founded right? Where have the ideals that the US was founded on gone? They were squashed by the federal gov't.


And what happens when the states start squashing the rights of their own citizens? "States rights" is not a good enough defense against tyranny of government. Look how it ended up in the 1800s: Civil War over slavery.


Oh I would love to see proof of this statement!

Umm...are you surprised that religious groups are the main lobbyists for this shit? :confused:

btw, homosex itself was a criminal offense in Texas until this past year when finally the US Supreme Court had to overturn it (albeit, it was a 6-3 ruling, apparently the Supreme Court isn't as liberal as they'd have you believe...)

Gah! Christian conservatives can really piss me off. Don't they know that they would burn in hell if their beleifs were true?

*gasp* you mean the South is removing Constitutional rights from a minority group in order to forward a right-wing Christian agenda?! i never thought i would see the day!

Constitutional rights? :confused: Can you name a constitutional right being violted here? And how is this a christian agenda? Let's not forget that this nations legislative system IS based entirely on Judeo-Christian precepts.

Constitutional rights? :confused: Can you name a constitutional right being violted here? And how is this a christian agenda? Let's not forget that this nations legislative system IS based entirely on Judeo-Christian precepts.
oh look ANOTHER puppet. *sets his strings on fire*

I am not gay ,however, i think people should be able to marry the person they love not just the same sex its ridiculous

You haven't been paying attention much lately then. Many states are trying to do exactly that. Virginia even passed a law banning *any* type of contract that gives *any* of the rights associated with marriage to a gay couple. This calls into question even power-of-attorney and wills.
No it hasn't. That's just a homosexual scare tactic. No one is trying to stop gays from writing wills, and if anyone was, they'd be laughed out of court.

Constitutional rights? :confused: Can you name a constitutional right being violted here?

It is called Due Process. Look it up.

And how is this a christian agenda? Let's not forget that this nations legislative system IS based entirely on Judeo-Christian precepts.

Someone who hasn't studied much history, I see.

And what happens when the states start squashing the rights of their own citizens? "States rights" is not a good enough defense against tyranny of government. Look how it ended up in the 1800s: Civil War over slavery.

States squashing the rights of their citizens....hmmmm That COULD happen, but the civil war was fought by the north to maintain the union against those pesky states that wanted to opt-out of the repressive system in place. While slavery was very much wrong, the squashing of states rights led to the all powerful federal gov't we have now that imposes itself on the states more and more each day.

YAY, this make me so happy. Only a bunch more states to go.

Constitutional rights? :confused: Can you name a constitutional right being violted here? And how is this a christian agenda? Let's not forget that this nations legislative system IS based entirely on Judeo-Christian precepts.


With all due respect, I'd prefer not to have a Taliban in America.

Now read up on something called..."separation of church and state".

Oh, and don't tell me you didn't notice the Christian groups lobbying for this stupid ban.

Gah! Christian conservatives can really piss me off. Don't they know that they would burn in hell if their beleifs were true?

Your ignorance is hilarious. Can you tell me one...just one...christian belief that would send a christian to hell?

No it hasn't. That's just a homosexual scare tactic. No one is trying to stop gays from writing wills, and if anyone was, they'd be laughed out of court.

The point is that the people writing the laws are so anti-gay that the law very well could be interpreted that way, whether that is how it was intended or not.

Full Faith and Credit are part of the US Constitution, enumerated by the rights in the Constitution and not subject to the 10th ammendment. Hence, a State not recognizing another State's legal contract is unconstitutional.

Not entirely true. If it violates a law already existing in that state, then it is null and void. Within that states borders it is sovereign. Also, it would be similar to the situation where a man and woman ran off to Vegas to get married. Both were married at the time. They waited the necessary 6 weeks to be married, got divorces, and then married each other. However, when they returned to North Carolina their divorces and marriage were declared null because they were not bona fide residents of the state they were married in. Thus, any gay person who goes to another state to get married and then returns will likely not have their marriage recognized for the same reason.

Constitutional rights? :confused: Can you name a constitutional right being violted here? And how is this a christian agenda? Let's not forget that this nations legislative system IS based entirely on Judeo-Christian precepts.


Really? Perhaps you can source that? Prolly not eh?

Your ignorance is hilarious. Can you tell me one...just one...christian belief that would send a christian to hell?

They said "Christian conservatives." There are no Christian beliefs that would send one to hell. However, the idiots who think it is Christian to condemn others are going against actual Christian beliefs (unless they don't really want to follow Christ).

Not entirely true. If it violates a law already existing in that state, then it is null and void. Within that states borders it is sovereign. Also, it would be similar to the situation where a man and woman ran off to Vegas to get married. Both were married at the time. They waited the necessary 6 weeks to be married, got divorces, and then married each other. However, when they returned to North Carolina their divorces and marriage were declared null because they were not bona fide residents of the state they were married in. Thus, any gay person who goes to another state to get married and then returns will likely not have their marriage recognized for the same reason.

However, if the people were residents of Las Vegas when they married, but then moved to North Carolina, North Carolina would be required to acknowledge their marriage license by the Constitution.

We are not talking about leaving your home state to get married, we are talking about getting married and then later leaving your home state. You are not automatically unmarried when you move to a new state.

The point is that the people writing the laws are so anti-gay that the law very well could be interpreted that way, whether that is how it was intended or not.
And yet the people voting in favor of the bills constitute a majority of their respective states. Are you assuming all of them want to stop homosexuals from being able to "write a will?" Ridiculous, and you know it. You are grasping at straws, coming up with implausible extremes to make this measure sound worse than it is. At least keep your suspicions to a mildly unlikely form, rather than a far out in left field basis.

Moron. I mean that. At all times in this endless debate, I have looked in vain for someone with even the slightest shred of intelligence to tell me why we should ban gay marriage. And all I get is "God says fags are dirty" and "gays cant make kiddies so we have to ban their marriage" and "states rights!"

Wake the fuck up, close to 10% of America is gay. They will love each other, have sex, and sometimes even have families. They want to be married. You would prefer they shack up. Where's your *Christian* morals now?

Oh, and to Mesazoic in particular, no one is forcing you to have a gay marriage, it will be okay. Banning gay marriage is not going to turn them all straight.

And furthermore, you are a fucking idiot. And so is everyone else who rants about how gay marriage is going to destroy America, or that we have to "protect" ourselves. Coincidence or not, most of the Bible-thumping homophobes who pushed this disgraceful amendment through are the same crowd who fought to keep interracial marriage illegal (no surprise, the Massachusetts governor is using that old law for this purpose now, the one about not marrying couples from other states, passed with interracial marriage in mind).


Damn straight! Let them marry and let's deal with other issues then waste time with this.

However, if the people were residents of Las Vegas when they married, but then moved to North Carolina, North Carolina would be required to acknowledge their marriage license by the Constitution.

We are not talking about leaving your home state to get married, we are talking about getting married and then later leaving your home state. You are not automatically unmarried when you move to a new state.
That is not true. When Utah permitted polygamy, which was outlawed in other states, a practicioner of polygamy could not move to another state which did not permit such a union. It will not be permitted if it is illegal. End of story.

* Claps * Thank you my Southern' breathren for banning such a awful thing. Im a Tenneseean, and im a Republican, Right-Wing, Conservitive, what ever the hell you want to call it.

wow...you cant even spelll you political denomination...yep, youre a southern "conservitive" you are. An ignorant, half-illterate, inbred christian extremist asshole who longs for the ole days previous to Lincoln.

States squashing the rights of their citizens....hmmmm That COULD happen, but the civil war was fought by the north to maintain the union against those pesky states that wanted to opt-out of the repressive system in place. While slavery was very much wrong, the squashing of states rights led to the all powerful federal gov't we have now that imposes itself on the states more and more each day.


Federal, state, IT DOESNT MATTER. Both have imposed on their citizens freedoms. Just keeping the feds off the states backs is not going to help the citizens. You have to keep the states off the citizens backs too, or its pointless. And it disturbs me how you try to defend the south's secession. Anyhow, I'm much more concerned with states that impose themselves on their citizens than some boogeyman federal government imposing itself on the states (btw, Bush has greatly increased the power of the federal government...whatever happened to "small government" conservatives? Oh, they became Libertarians.)

And yet the people voting in favor of the bills constitute a majority of their respective states. Are you assuming all of them want to stop homosexuals from being able to "write a will?" Ridiculous, and you know it. You are grasping at straws, coming up with implausible extremes to make this measure sound worse than it is. At least keep your suspicions to a mildly unlikely form, rather than a far out in left field basis.

I didn't say that either - it is you who seems to want to jump to conclusions.

The issue is that the wording of the law is so vague that it *could* be used to deny them the right to write wills with each other. Therefore it is a poorly written law (of course, it is a bad law because its sole purpose is discrimination, but that is another story).

wow...you cant even spelll you political denomination...yep, youre a southern "conservitive" you are. An ignorant, half-illterate, inbred christian extremist asshole who longs for the ole days previous to Lincoln.
And you are making fun of him for his grammar? Idiot.

The point is that the people writing the laws are so anti-gay that the law very well could be interpreted that way, whether that is how it was intended or not.
You said specifically it could happen. I said specifically that it could not. Do not try to opt out on your own arguments. At least attempt to back them up.

The point is that the people writing the laws are so anti-gay that the law very well could be interpreted that way, whether that is how it was intended or not.
Except it isn't. A will is not a marriage benefit, otherwise, single people wouldn't have them.

wow...you cant even spelll you political denomination...yep, youre a southern "conservitive" you are. An ignorant, half-illterate, inbred christian extremist asshole who longs for the ole days previous to Lincoln.

Very well said.

it should be banned its f-ing sick. im sorry but its against god and its just grose. what is our sopciety coming to. i dont think our forefaters would want gays marrying. marriage is the sanctity between man and WOMAN. im not even allowed to say what should be done with gays

That is not true. When Utah permitted polygamy, which was outlawed in other states, a practicioner of polygamy could not move to another state which did not permit such a union. It will not be permitted if it is illegal. End of story.

A polygamous marriage is a whole different story, as it would require an entirely different set of laws to deal with the extra people.

Let's set up a more plausible example. When Mass. allowed interracial marriage, but Alabama did not - obviously, the Alabama law had not yet been found unconstitutional - a couple that moved to Alabama (God help them) would still have been married. Alabama may have tried to get away with not recognizing said marriage, but appeal in the courts would have led to them being forced to do so.

No man can bear children regardless of his sexual orientation.

However, if a man impregnates a woman, it is his biological child. Gay men produce sperm, which is what is required to impregnate a woman. Hence, a gay man can produce children via a surrogate. It is the same processed used when a man has viable sperm, but his wife cannot bear children for one reason or another.

Your argument is flawed and primitive. I would expect no less from the state that gave us Al Gore.


whoah, whoah, whoah!! hold up son, what you got 'gainst my man gore? hes better than that jackass kerry, and just as good as nader. Unless youre a Sharpton supporter, in fact, you better shut your damn mouth.

Except it isn't. A will is not a marriage benefit, otherwise, single people wouldn't have them.

No, but leaving your stuff to your spouse is a benefit of marriage.
Your spouse having power of attorney is a benefit of marriage.

Since the law does not say simply "marriage and civil unions," but instead says "any legal proceeding seeking to provide the benefits of marriage," it can possibly (despite what the person arguing with me says) be construed to include, just as it says, any document providing any benefit that is provided by marriage. Will it be used as such? Most likely not, since it would fall much quicker that way. The problem is that it could possibly be used that way.

it should be banned its f-ing sick. im sorry but its against god and its just grose. what is our sopciety coming to. i dont think our forefaters would want gays marrying. marriage is the sanctity between man and WOMAN. im not even allowed to say what should be done with gays
if you cant make any intelligent defence of this unmitigated act of bigotry, why dont you try and see if flowers still smell nice when under water. Go on now....

You cannot dismiss an analogy that applies perfectly. It is an example of a civil union that is legal in one state and illegal in another. The fact that there are more than two people involved is completely irrelevant, aside from the fact that all parties would be arrested and charged with polygamy. If it violates a law of another state, it will not be recognized. There is precedent for such a case, and precedent will be followed in a trial. Even if the jury chooses to ignore precedent, the decision would be appealed and overturned on the basis that it ignored precedent.

You said specifically it could happen. I said specifically that it could not. Do not try to opt out on your own arguments. At least attempt to back them up.

The law says "any document that provides the legal benefits of marriage" or something very similar. That means that any document providing any benefit of marriage could fall under this law. I never said that was its intention. What I did say was that the lawmakers were so gun-ho on trying to make a law against the gays, they didn't really think about the consequences of their wording.

"mesazoic" is right, prehistoric, yeah? I hope all the good people of norlins won't be upset when the very lucrative large number of gay people who frequent mardi gras stop coming

They have the right to not come if they dont want to. I kinda hope they do quit coming so that Mardi Gras will be a bit cleaner without as much sexual activitiy. LA r0x0rs!!

Long live the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy!

Again, show me where said law has been challenged.

Also, does NY allow a license to carry concealed at all? Or is that only allowed in NY for police officers?

If it has one and this law has been challenged, I can think of an argument that would work in this case. If New York can show a compelling interest for not recognizing the licenses of other states, then it may hold up in court. But then again, I would have to see a case to know for sure what reasoning they used.

For instance (back to the driver's license idea). Suppose one of the states in this country went to the European idea of driving on the opposite side of the road and decided that red, octagon shaped signs would mean go, not stop. At that point, said state would have a compelling reason to not immediately recognize driver's licenses from other states - because their laws would be so different that a different education would be absolutely necessary for the new driver to safely get around in that state.
Im looking for cases now, not that good at looking up case law and precidents. I did find some interesting things out.
New York hasnt banned concealed weapon permits. It has issued them to certain individuals, however it seems that political and social influence has some bearing on just who get's one.
Most interesting is that Dr. Joyce Brothers husband was given a CCW permit, while Dr. Brothers states that gun ownership is a sign of sexual dysfunction in males.

However 4 states Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconson and Illinois does not allow concealed carry at all.

Montana DOJ's website states that it will recognize permits from 37 states, but will not recognize from 9 states.

You cannot dismiss an analogy that applies perfectly. It is an example of a civil union that is legal in one state and illegal in another. The fact that there are more than two people involved is completely irrelevant, aside from the fact that all parties would be arrested and charged with polygamy. If it violates a law of another state, it will not be recognized. There is precedent for such a case, and precedent will be followed in a trial. Even if the jury chooses to ignore precedent, the decision would be appealed and overturned on the basis that it ignored precedent.

Except you ignore that it is not a perfectly applicable analogy. A polygamous marriage is a different institution - as it requires a completely different set of laws. The number is relevant in this case, since most states' marriage laws provide certain powers and priveledges to the spouse. They would need completely different laws to determine between the many spouses and figure out which to apply the powers and priviledges to.

Now, this would apply if the state did not give marriage licenses at all. If Nebraksa decided it would no longer give civil marriages at all, it would not have to recognize that civil marriage granted by Idaho. After all, Nebraska would have no laws pertaining to marriage. This is where your example falls. Polygamous marriage requires a different code of laws. Thus, if Utah had said laws and provided said documents, Idaho would not have to (as they would not be equipped to) recognize them.

Edit: Forgot to mention, Utah as a state never recognized polygamy in the first place. It was when they were still only a territory that they allowed it.

Im looking for cases now, not that good at looking up case law and precidents. I did find some interesting things out.
New York hasnt banned concealed weapon permits. It has issued them to certain individuals, however it seems that political and social influence has some bearing on just who get's one.
Most interesting is that Dr. Joyce Brothers husband was given a CCW permit, while Dr. Brothers states that gun ownership is a sign of sexual dysfunction in males.

However 4 states Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconson and Illinois does not allow concealed carry at all.

Montana DOJ's website states that it will recognize permits from 37 states, but will not recognize from 9 states.

My guess is then, although I don't know for sure, that there is some sort of exception made for gun laws. Either that or none of the laws have been challenged.

However, I would like to point out that Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Illinois would never have to recognize a CCW permit - since they do not have any way to allow for it at all.

No, but leaving your stuff to your spouse is a benefit of marriage.
Your spouse having power of attorney is a benefit of marriage.

Since the law does not say simply "marriage and civil unions," but instead says "any legal proceeding seeking to provide the benefits of marriage," it can possibly (despite what the person arguing with me says) be construed to include, just as it says, any document providing any benefit that is provided by marriage. Will it be used as such? Most likely not, since it would fall much quicker that way. The problem is that it could possibly be used that way.
If you get married, and have no will, your stuff goes to your spouse. If you have no will and are unmarried, then it gets split up among parents and siblings. A will supercedes a marriage. Thus, if a person does not will his possessions to his wife, she won't get them. The two things you listed are marriage bestowing benefits of the law, not law bestowing benefits of marriage.

That is not true. When Utah permitted polygamy, which was outlawed in other states, a practicioner of polygamy could not move to another state which did not permit such a union. It will not be permitted if it is illegal. End of story.
and you cant make ex posto facto laws

Silence, everyone. I have not read this thouroughly, but I will make my statement. First of all, do not use the word "marriage" unless that is what you are talking about. I don't have a dictionary at hand, but this is how I would define marriage: The union of two people (man and woman; I'll explain in the explaination of the definiton) in the eyes of some supernatural witness whom many of us choose to call God. This commentment is sworn and the winess recognizes that and holds the 2 people to it. Now, for Christians at least, God created man and woman to be together. The author of the section of Genisis that regards the creation of woman should never be taken literally, but he is obviously trying to make the point that they are ONE. it is rather hard to define, but it is kind of like putting the batteries in your flashlight backwards to evene suggest gay "marriage"; civil unions are fine, but marriage is between you and your god. oh, If what I say does not make sense, it could be because i Just stormed through this. HABETE BONUM DIES ET AVE. .

A will supercedes a marriage. Thus, if a person does not will his possessions to his wife, she won't get them. The two things you listed are marriage bestowing benefits of the law, not law bestowing benefits of marriage.

I will concede that a will might not be challengable by this law.

However, a power-of-attorney is a direct right immediately given to a spouse. If a gay couple signed a power-of-attorney over to each other, this could be construed as obtaining the benefits of marriage. The only other actual benefit that I can think of off the bat is the abolishment of inheritance tax - and gay couples have absolutely no way to do that at this point in time.

it should be banned its f-ing sick. im sorry but its against god and its just grose. what is our sopciety coming to. i dont think our forefaters would want gays marrying. marriage is the sanctity between man and WOMAN. im not even allowed to say what should be done with gays

And you've met God? How else would you know what God wants? Don't tell me the Bible. I hate to be the first one to tell you, but not everyone in this country is Christian. If you aren't Christian why should you be forced to follow the rules set in the Bible? Especially if you aren't hurting anyone?

and you cant make ex posto facto laws
I'm not clear on what the point of this statement is. Could you explain it?

Silence, everyone. I have not read this thouroughly, but I will make my statement. First of all, do not use the word "marriage" unless that is what you are talking about. I don't have a dictionary at hand, but this is how I would define marriage: The union of two people (man and woman; I'll explain in the explaination of the definiton) in the eyes of some supernatural witness whom many of us choose to call God. This commentment is sworn and the winess recognizes that and holds the 2 people to it. Now, for Christians at least, God created man and woman to be together. The author of the section of Genisis that regards the creation of woman should never be taken literally, but he is obviously trying to make the point that they are ONE. it is rather hard to define, but it is kind of like putting the batteries in your flashlight backwards to evene suggest gay "marriage"; civil unions are fine, but marriage is between you and your god. oh, If what I say does not make sense, it could be because i Just stormed through this. HABETE BONUM DIES ET AVE. .

Nobody cares how you personally define marriage. We are talking about the civil institution of marriage, which has nothing to do with God or the Bible. Sorry, you lose.

What a proud day this must be!
It's good to know that some people are denied the rights that should be available to all.
How great some people must feel knowing that even though 2 people love and care for each other, they are not allowed to marry!
It's good to know that such immoral behaviour is not condoned by the religious establishment. I mean come on, its one thing to condon invasions and the slaughter of people of other faiths, turning a blind eye to genocide and such other acts, but allowing same sex marriage, well that's just wrong.

On a less sarcastic note though, how can people be proud of a law. I mean a gay person is no different from a straight person. We all just want to be happy. How can anyone get pleasure from denying a group a happiness that most of us want. To find someone to love and claim to the world that this is the person that we want to spend our lives with.
It saddens me....

Let's use a better example. Suppose in Nebraska, simply having a driver's license allows you to buy alcohol. This is not true in Georgia. So, while in Georgia - you cannot buy alcohol if you are under 21. However, Georgia does have to recognize the Nebraska driver's license for all the privileges that Georgia gives to a driver's license (basically, driving on GA roads).

Suppose Nebraska allows married couples to have sex on their front lawn (there is actually a law in some state like this), but GA does not. Two people that obtain a marriage license in Nebraska can have sex on their front lawn. In GA, they cannot have sex on their front lawn - but they do get all the rights and responsibilties that GA places on marriage.

It sounds as though we are arguing from different ends of the same rope. Your example is saying that a Nebraska couple must abide by Georgia rules but also that Georgia will abide by a Nebraska ruling as well. I agree with this.

What I don't agree with is that Georgia agrees with rulings by Nebraska that would have an effect on Georgia's own rules. Now, I know you've said to read the Constitution. I have...several times. And I'm telling you that the 10th Amendment disagrees with what you're saying.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

When interpreted, this does not say that the state of Maine has to abide by something the state of Oregon has done. It essentially gives the states the rights to set the laws, not already set by the federal government, for their residents.

While the state of Georgia may honor a Nebraska driver's license for driving on said roads, the state of Georgia has every right to suspend driving privileges for its state from a Nebraska driver should that driver prove to be a hazard in Georgia. This person may have a legal license in Nebraska but if there is cause, Georgia may deny a Nebraska resident from utilizing its roads.

An example: the Nebraska resident may be caught driving drunk in Georgia and Georgia's laws state that due to this, driving privileges are suspended. Nebraska may have a law on their books that state that driving infractions outside of Nebraska are not considered when issuing a license in Nebraska (a law on the books in several states, including West Virginia). This person therefore maintains a valid Nebraska driver's license but the state of Georgia has ruled that they no longer will acknowledge his driving privileges. Georgia has the right to do this under the Constitution. It is their state's right to do such.

On to the issue of marriage, which was the crux of this thread from the beginning. A marriage in Nebraska does not have to be recognized by another state should said Nebraska residents move to that state, even though they were legally married in Nebraska. If the state you move to has a law that specifically forbids the type of marriage contract that you've entered into, they do not have to recognize that as a legal contract.

I pointed out a statute of limitations case because you were mentioning minors who were now adults, essentially saying that because neither party was a minor anymore the point would be moot. I'm countering with the fact that despite that notion, the statute of limitations does not expire on something that the host state considers invalid from the getgo.

The 10th Amendment is pretty clear on this whole issue.

How can anyone get pleasure from denying a group a happiness that most of us want....
theyre republicans... dont act so surprised.

a question...

how would anyone here feel if they were told they could not marry the person they love because its not the norm?

If gay and lesbian people are given civil rights everyone will want them.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
As far as I know, everyone who doesn't HAVE them wants them.
Oh, and Halogod50, brace yourself:
[QUOTE] it should its f-cking sick. im sorry but its against god and
its just grose. what is our sopciety coming to. i dont think our forefaters
would want gays marrying. marriage is the sanctity between man and
WOMAN. im not even allowed to say what should be done with gays. [QUOTE]
1. It being "f-cking sick," and, "grose," is an opinion, NOT a fact.
2. Where does it say in the Bible, "Thou Shalt Not F--- Someone
Who Is the Same Gender as Yourself"?
3. How do you know what our "forefaters," would think about marriage?
And half of them were slave owners anyway, so I don't think they
gave much thought to the rights of anyone who wasn't like them.
And they were rich white men, which is now a minority of the
population...
4. When you read that marriage is between a man and a woman, were you
borrowing George Bush's Dictionary? 'Cause it sounds like it to me...
5. If I hear about any gays being lynched, I'll know who did it, won't I?

Oh, and on a personal note, are you related to Bush? 'Cause you sound JUST
like him. I wasn't kidding about you lynching gays. Although if YOU were
leader of this country, I think you'd gas them.

Just for the record, I'm not gay, but discrimitating against anyone just pisses
me off...

theyre republicans... dont act so surprised.

although i consider myself center right (european standards), I honestly can't understand it.
I wonder how many republicans are closet-gays?

a question...

how would anyone here feel if they were told they could not marry the person they love because its not the norm?
I'd be outraged! How dare you prevent me from marrying my 8 year old daughter!

a question...

how would anyone here feel if they were told they could not marry the person they love because its not the norm?
Exactly!

it should be banned its f-ing sick. im sorry but its against god and its just grose. what is our sopciety coming to. i dont think our forefaters would want gays marrying. marriage is the sanctity between man and WOMAN. im not even allowed to say what should be done with gays

Wow. You are a homophobic idiot. Do you call this sanctity?

http://www.psiguy.com/humor/images/marriage.jpg

Do you?

For one thing, gay marriage is NOT against God. Nowhere in the Bible does God say "Let us ban gay marriages". NOWHERE! And the only time homosexuals are mentioned in the New Testament, is when Peter is writing his letter to the Corinthians. In it is HIS opinion on how he feels about homosexuals. It's not God's opinion nor Jesus'. And here's what he says:

"1 Corinthians 6
8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

If that's the case, then Republicans are just as bad as homosexuals. ;)

although i consider myself center right (european standards), I honestly can't understand it.
I wonder how many republicans are closet-gays?

You ever heard of "Log Cabin Republicans"? Well...they're homosexual Republicans. Research them.

a question...

how would anyone here feel if they were told they could not marry the person they love because its not the norm?

I would be very angry!! Why can't I marry my deceased sister?

I would be very angry!! Why can't I marry my deceased sister?

Or to use an option in the issues, or their cats for that matter?

I'd be outraged! How dare you prevent me from marrying my 8 year old daughter!

Well i'm sorry you can't do that. I'm sure you can go on taking advantage of her as much as you want.
I guess that's the reason you act so puritanical. I'm sure when she turns 16 you can change your names and move to the next county. or whatever you wish to do

For one thing, gay marriage is NOT against God. Nowhere in the Bible does God say "Let us ban gay marriages".

No, but he did say "Go forth and multiply." Now how do gay couples do that again?

This law will be ddemed unconstitutionnal as soon as a legally married gay couple moves to LA and challenge it under the 4th ammendment all the way up to the supreme court.

I'm sorry to those in favor of the law but that's what is going to happen.

As a side note: let's say, for the sake of argument, that I'm an officially licensed priest of the old norse gods. I worship Odin above all. My religion allow for same sex couples to get married. My question is this: who the FUCK are you to tell me that YOUR religion is better than MY religion when it comes to define marriage? And why should I stop doing my marriages ceremonies because some suit in the state government said 'I'm sorry but we only allow different sex marriage here.' That is another way I see this law be voided.

Wow. You are a homophobic idiot. Do you call this sanctity?

http://www.psiguy.com/humor/images/marriage.jpg

Do you?

For one thing, gay marriage is NOT against God. Nowhere in the Bible does God say "Let us ban gay marriages". NOWHERE! And the only time homosexuals are mentioned in the New Testament, is when Peter is writing his letter to the Corinthians. In it is HIS opinion on how he feels about homosexuals. It's not God's opinion nor Jesus'. And here's what he says:

"1 Corinthians 6
8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

If that's the case, then Republicans are just as bad as homosexuals. ;)
You ignore the whole Leviticus verse about stoning homosexuals to death. But beyond that, Paul was given divine authority to write the word of God, so you have to accept what he writes is true, IF you're a Christian.

Nobody cares how you personally define marriage. We are talking about the civil institution of marriage, which has nothing to do with God or the Bible. Sorry, you lose.

Ah, but I did say "if" you are talking about marriage. What you just said tells me that you are not and I have nothing wrong with that. i am talking about something totally different and i am glad that you have defined forme the subject of what you are saying. i have no dissagreement with you in the least, just terminology.

This law will be ddemed unconstitutionnal as soon as a legally married gay couple moves to LA and challenge it under the 4th ammendment all the way up to the supreme court.

You ment the 14th Amendment! The Fourth Amendment is something else entirely!

I would be very angry!! Why can't I marry my deceased sister?
Because she can't give consent. Are you so thick as to be unable to grasp that amazingly simple concept?

I would be very angry!! Why can't I marry my deceased sister?

maybe because being 6 ft under is still preferable to being with you?

This law will be ddemed unconstitutionnal as soon as a legally married gay couple moves to LA and challenge it under the 4th ammendment all the way up to the supreme court.

I'm sorry to those in favor of the law but that's what is going to happen.

As a side note: let's say, for the sake of argument, that I'm an officially licensed priest of the old norse gods. I worship Odin above all. My religion allow for same sex couples to get married. My question is this: who the FUCK are you to tell me that YOUR religion is better than MY religion when it comes to define marriage? And why should I stop doing my marriages ceremonies because some suit in the state government said 'I'm sorry but we only allow different sex marriage here.' That is another way I see this law be voided.
There are no legally married gay couples. No law has ever been passed to that effect, although judges have a knack for rewriting the entire state of affairs. And the 4th has to do with search and seizure, way to know the document you're trying to use as a shield. My religion permits me to eat the flesh of other people's dead relatives. How dare you interfere with my dietary laws.

it should be banned its f-ing sick. im sorry but its against god and its just grose. what is our sopciety coming to. i dont think our forefaters would want gays marrying. marriage is the sanctity between man and WOMAN. im not even allowed to say what should be done with gays
This is a human rights issue, not a religious one.

At least, half of it is. Civil unions are an entirely political issue. Separation of church and state, and all that. Gay marriage is something that the state can't butt in on at all, as it is to be decided by each individual place of worship (As I understand it, all marriages include a civil union--that's the part that gives you the rights. The "marriage" part is simply the state-recognized religious ceremony that may take place to make the contract official. That's why you can get married by a justice of the peace.).

Additionally, what you think should be done with gays is your own business, and is entirely unimportant. You have neither legal nor religious basis for dictating a punishment for homosexuality, and therefore the claim is irrelevant.

As to state's rights...I really can't say what are and are not the rights of the states. I honestly don't know enough about it to include an effective comment. I do, however, hold that the rights of individual people are more important than the rights of states, which are, after all, replacable constructs.

The way I see this issue is as the civil rights movement of our generation, the logical extension of previous ones (women's rights, black rights). There are, obviously, less rights to fight for, but it's still more or less the same idea. As such, it is the duty of those who do not see a problem with gay marriage/civil unions to speak out about it, else imply complicity with those who would bar those rights. As for me, it may not directly effect me (it might, though), but it will sure as hell have a direct impact on many of my friends' lives, so it's my fight as well. Around 10% of the population is gay. Thus, if you have 10 or more friends, it's likely that this directly effects one of your friends. Think about that before deciding it's not your fight.

sorry biff

just letting of steam

Because she can't give consent. Are you so thick as to be unable to grasp that amazingly simple concept?
Neither can an old person who doesn't know what day it is. Consent requires competency, to be competent, you have to answer three questions. At least medically, I'm speaking as an EMT.

This is great news!

You ignore the whole Leviticus verse about stoning homosexuals to death. But beyond that, Paul was given divine authority to write the word of God, so you have to accept what he writes is true, IF you're a Christian.

I don't have to believe a damn word Paul writes. It was all his opinion, not that of God or Jesus. If homosexuality was wrong in God's eyes, then Jesus himself would've said it, am I not correct?

I am a Christian, and all I need to do is believe in God and Jesus as ask for forgiveness for my sins. I don't have to believe a thing the disciples say.

And, in today's society, we're way beyond Leviticus. In Leviticus, the people were basically Neanderthals. Stoning is a neanderthal act, is it not? If you're following Leviticus then, you better sacrifice an animal to appease God. Otherwise you're going to Hell and your sins aren't going to be forgiven.

Oh, homosexuality isn't mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament either. ;)

There are no legally married gay couples. No law has ever been passed to that effect, although judges have a knack for rewriting the entire state of affairs. And the 4th has to do with search and seizure, way to know the document you're trying to use as a shield. My religion permits me to eat the flesh of other people's dead relatives. How dare you interfere with my dietary laws.

Well, I was misled on the whole ammendment thing, I read in this very thread that the 4th was the Full faith clause. I meant that one.

My point about married couples can very well be done by a couple under the civil union they have in Vermont.

And when your religion goes against public safety or health, there is where you draw the line. My marriages ceremonies are as valid as Christian marriage ceremonies under the law right? Unless, the couple is of the same sex...

it should be banned its f-ing sick. im sorry but its against god and its just grose. what is our sopciety coming to. i dont think our forefaters would want gays marrying. marriage is the sanctity between man and WOMAN. im not even allowed to say what should be done with gays

somebody needs a hug. we should be executed, like women who wear pants and children who talk back, right? I hope you've sacrificed your goat today. your wife best not speak in church, she'd be violating 1 timothy.

No, but he did say "Go forth and multiply." Now how do gay couples do that again?

now...you can tell me how many apostles had children, right? NONE? aw, I'm sorry. you and your pathetic argument can go home now.

My stand is:

Gay marriages = Bad
Civil Unions = O.K.

What I don't agree with is that Georgia agrees with rulings by Nebraska that would have an effect on Georgia's own rules. Now, I know you've said to read the Constitution. I have...several times. And I'm telling you that the 10th Amendment disagrees with what you're saying.

And I never said that. What I said was that if Nebraska gives a certain legal document (driver's license or marriage), Georgia (which also gives a driver's license or marriage) is Constitutionally required to recognize that Nebraska has given said document and give that person the rights and priviledges that Georgia places on it.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

And the Constitution, Article IV, gives the United States the power to enforce the idea that one State must recognize the legal proceedings and documents of another State. There is no contradiction here. This Amendment does not say "And we do away with Article IV of the Constitution." It is an addition, and does not take away the Constitutionally-granted right of the US to make one state recognize the legal documents and proceedings of another.

When interpreted, this does not say that the state of Maine has to abide by something the state of Oregon has done. It essentially gives the states the rights to set the laws, not already set by the federal government, for their residents.

However, Article IV does say that the state of Maine has to abide by something the state of Oregon has done, if it is a legal document or proceeding. And Article IV outlines the powers given to the Federal Government. Thus, you must interpret Amendment 10 in light of all of the powers designated to the federal government by the Constitution. This is clearly one of them.

While the state of Georgia may honor a Nebraska driver's license for driving on said roads, the state of Georgia has every right to suspend driving privileges for its state from a Nebraska driver should that driver prove to be a hazard in Georgia. This person may have a legal license in Nebraska but if there is cause, Georgia may deny a Nebraska resident from utilizing its roads.

This is not applicable. In your own example, Georgia initially recognizes the right of a Nebraskan to drive. When they break the GA driving law, however, such priviledges are revoked and the person is punished, just as they would be for a GA citizen.

To apply this to marriage, suppose GA had a law that said your marriage was annulled if you beat your spouse up. Initially, GA would recognize a marriage from Nebraska. However, once one spouse beat the other up, the marriage would be terminated.

On to the issue of marriage, which was the crux of this thread from the beginning. A marriage in Nebraska does not have to be recognized by another state should said Nebraska residents move to that state, even though they were legally married in Nebraska. If the state you move to has a law that specifically forbids the type of marriage contract that you've entered into, they do not have to recognize that as a legal contract.

The marriage laws of a given state refer to whom that state will issue a marriage license to. The Constitution says nothing about marriage laws directly, so the states have the power to determine this. The states do not have the power (since it was given to the federal government in Article IV) to determine under what conditions they will accept a legal document from another state. Thus, a state does not have to issue a gay marriage license (yet), but if a Mass couple were in GA, GA would be Constitutionally required to recognize the marriage of said couple.

The 10th Amendment is pretty clear on this whole issue.

Your problem, however, is that you are not interpreting the 10th Amendment in light of the powers already granted to the federal government. It refers only to powers not already granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The Constitution grants the federal government the power to force states to recognize each other's legal documents and proceedings and gives the US Congress (not the individual states) the power to determine how such documents will be proved.

now...you can tell me how many apostles had children, right? NONE? aw, I'm sorry. you and your pathetic argument can go home now.*to biff*
how many infertile couples can produce children?

should we nullfiy marriages if either party becomes infertile voluntarily or involuntarily? they cant produce kids like that

now...you can tell me how many apostles had children, right? NONE? aw, I'm sorry. you and your pathetic argument can go home now.

We have no idea if they did or not. You cannot say they did not no more than I can say they did.

No, but he did say "Go forth and multiply." Now how do gay couples do that again?

So...if a 70 year old dying man never has kids, then does he go to Hell? How about Jesus? There's no mention of Him having kids in the Bible...

Your argument is the most pathetic thing I've read all day.

That thing i've never understood.

The people here that say gay marriage and all that is against god and gay people will go to hell, etc...

Well fine, why not let them marry then? you guys can be confortable in the knowledge that when you die you'll go to heaven and they go to hell.
I mean let them enjoy the few years they have left on the earth, they burn for eternity.
yeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaw!

You ignore the whole Leviticus verse about stoning homosexuals to death. But beyond that, Paul was given divine authority to write the word of God, so you have to accept what he writes is true, IF you're a Christian.

Do you accept then that slavery and genocide are proper and correct? Do you believe that if a woman is raped inside a city, she should be killed along with her rapist? Do you believe that a woman who has a girl baby should be more looked down upon than one who has a male baby?

Or are you picking and choosing your parts of the Bible as well?

maybe because being 6 ft under is still preferable to being with you?

Good one! Maybe THATS why I am single....hmmmm

I don't have to believe a damn word Paul writes. It was all his opinion, not that of God or Jesus. If homosexuality was wrong in God's eyes, then Jesus himself would've said it, am I not correct?

I am a Christian, and all I need to do is believe in God and Jesus as ask for forgiveness for my sins. I don't have to believe a thing the disciples say.

And, in today's society, we're way beyond Leviticus. In Leviticus, the people were basically Neanderthals. Stoning is a neanderthal act, is it not? If you're following Leviticus then, you better sacrifice an animal to appease God. Otherwise you're going to Hell and your sins aren't going to be forgiven.
You have no understanding of your own religion.

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:14-17.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God

Paul's books are in the Bible, are they not? The Bible is the collection of Scripture, which makes it the word of God. Q.E.D. You DO have to do what Paul says, since he was speaking under God's authority. Everything Jesus said was not recorded, in fact, the vast majority of His life is unknown. However, Paul is no less an authority than Jesus, since God Himself was speaking through Paul. Unless Paul is flagrantly lying, and the entire NT is a fabrication, in which case you shouldn't be a Christian. Keep in mind Jesus didn't write a word of the Bible.

"Point" 2
If you don't believe in what the Disciples say (Paul was NOT a disciple anyway), then you're not a Christian. Simple as that. You have nothing, since the entirety of the Bible was written by mortal men. You can't pick and choose verses.

"Point" 3
If you believe in evolution, you know that Neanderthal is a specific term for a specific organism, which COULD NOT INTERBREED WITH HUMANS. Therefore, any person in the OT wouldn't really be a person, and Jesus wouldn't exist, since he's descended from Adam. Secondly, sacrificing an animal was what you did since there was no Messiah yet. Read the book.

Oh! Another thing! If sodomy is wrong, then would a man who gave his wife anal sex go to hell?

So...if a 70 year old dying man never has kids, then does he go to Hell? How about Jesus? There's no mention of Him having kids in the Bible...

Your argument is the most pathetic thing I've read all day.

Nah...you guys are reading too much into that. I was just funnin with ya cause you wanted to bring God into it for some reason. I could not care one way or the other. The issue does not affect me in the least and it is just not that big a deal to me.

Good one! Maybe THATS why I am single....hmmmm

cool, realised it could have been flaming. although i disagree with you, did not wish to be seen as offensive. not overly anyway lol

Do you accept then that slavery and genocide are proper and correct? Do you believe that if a woman is raped inside a city, she should be killed along with her rapist? Do you believe that a woman who has a girl baby should be more looked down upon than one who has a male baby?

Or are you picking and choosing your parts of the Bible as well?
No, I'm under grace, and no longer the law. OT law doesn't apply, in the sense that I must obey it to cover my sins. The principles remain, sacrificing to God, rape, murder, incest, homosexuality = bad, etc.

Oh! Another thing! If sodomy is wrong, then would a man who gave his wife anal sex go to hell?
No, because as long as you're saved, there's nothing you can do to lose it.

Well, I was misled on the whole ammendment thing, I read in this very thread that the 4th was the Full faith clause. I meant that one.

Actually, it is Article 4, not even an Amendment, but an actual part of the original documentation of teh Constitution. That is what these laws want to dump out with the trash.

We have no idea if they did or not. You cannot say they did not no more than I can say they did.

I can, however, quote leading conservative biblical scholars who all will admit paul thought ALL marriage was second-rate.

Shocking.

How does the goverment have the right to legislate against something as non-criminal as that?

Shocking.

How does the goverment have the right to legislate against something as non-criminal as that?

going by the logic i've seen here. the answer would be:

IT'S AGAINST GOD!!!! BURN BABY BURN

that seems to be the main argument. or..

ewwww its icky

No, I'm under grace, and no longer the law. OT law doesn't apply, in the sense that I must obey it to cover my sins. The principles remain, sacrificing to God, rape, murder, incest, homosexuality = bad, etc.
You have, of course, taken into account cultural context? Such as that "go forth and multiply" need not apply in a situation wherein survival was no longer an issue?

Many of those rules were put in place for very specific reasons, that no longer apply. Without cultural context, a lot of it is meaningless.

I can, however, quote leading conservative biblical scholars who all will admit paul thought ALL marriage was second-rate.
And I can quote leading scholars who think the opposite. Or I could quote Paul, who said nothing of the sort you're implying.

You have no understanding of your own religion.

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:14-17.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God

Paul's books are in the Bible, are they not? The Bible is the collection of Scripture, which makes it the word of God. Q.E.D. You DO have to do what Paul says, since he was speaking under God's authority. Everything Jesus said was not recorded, in fact, the vast majority of His life is unknown. However, Paul is no less an authority than Jesus, since God Himself was speaking through Paul. Unless Paul is flagrantly lying, and the entire NT is a fabrication, in which case you shouldn't be a Christian. Keep in mind Jesus didn't write a word of the Bible.

"Point" 2
If you don't believe in what the Disciples say (Paul was NOT a disciple anyway), then you're not a Christian. Simple as that. You have nothing, since the entirety of the Bible was written by mortal men. You can't pick and choose verses.

"Point" 3
If you believe in evolution, you know that Neanderthal is a specific term for a specific organism, which COULD NOT INTERBREED WITH HUMANS. Therefore, any person in the OT wouldn't really be a person, and Jesus wouldn't exist, since he's descended from Adam. Secondly, sacrificing an animal was what you did since there was no Messiah yet. Read the book.


Oh, I'm glad you're trying to tell me what I have to believe in order to be a Christian. :rolleyes:

Let me give you some advice, buddy: I don't have to believe anything that's written in the Bible in order to be a Christian. Since it was written by mortal men, then they could have slipped in their own opinions, like if they thought homosexuality was wrong, then they'll put it in there. Don't try telling me otherwise.

Oh, the official definition of a Christian is as follows: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". Since Jesus himself never said homosexuality was wrong, then I don't have to believe the other shit mortal men wrote, correct? Hell, I don't have to believe anything that's in the Old Testament in order to be a Christian!

One more thing: Go here: http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/ . Put in the search bar "homosexual," "sodomy," or "gay". You will not find ONE thing stated in there that those are wrong. Heck, you won't find any mention of them anywhere. ;)

You have, of course, taken into accoutn cultural context? Such as that "go forth and multiply" need not apply in a situation wherein survival was no longer an issue?

Many of those rules were put in place for very specific reasons, that no longer apply. Without cultural context, a lot of it is meaningless.
Yes, I'll concede that (like the whole pork thing). However, I only mentioned the OT because a previous poster said that only the NT said anything about homosexuality.

Oh, I'm glad you're trying to tell me what I have to believe in order to be a Christian. :rolleyes:

Let me give you some advice, buddy: I don't have to believe anything that's written in the Bible in order to be a Christian. Since it was written by mortal men, then they could have slipped in their own opinions, like if they thought homosexuality was wrong, then they'll put it in there. Don't try telling me otherwise.

Oh, the official definition of a Christian is as follows: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". Since Jesus himself never said homosexuality is wrong, then I don't have to believe the other shit mortal men wrote, correct? Hell, I don't have to believe anything that's in the Old Testament!

One more thing: Go here: http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/ . Put in the search bar "homosexual," "sodomy," or "gay". You will not find ONE thing stated in there that those are wrong. Heck, you won't find any mention of them anywhere. ;)
Where do you pull any of your beliefs from? Did you make them yourself? Do you go to church? If you use the Bible for your beliefs, you use all of it. Same principle with anything, you don't say I like Amendments One, Three, and Four, but don't like Two so I'll just ignore it.

Oh! Another thing! If sodomy is wrong, then would a man who gave his wife anal sex go to hell?

Wow, how stupid are you?

First of all, yes it is wrong. Second, humans aren't perfect. Just because they sin doesn't mean they go to hell. (That's what Jesus is for)

Oh! Another thing! If sodomy is wrong, then would a man who gave his wife anal sex go to hell?

Actually Homosexually is against God's word! Ever heard of Sodom and Gamorrah? These two cities were obliterated BY GOD for not just homosexuality, but numerous sins. Maybe God should do it again and then maybe the world will wake up!

As for this point, Sodomy is homosexual Sex not a guy/girl sex so I don't think a guy giving a girl anal (disgusting in my opinion), is sodomy.

Shocking.

How does the goverment have the right to legislate against something as non-criminal as that?

The government has NO right to legislate against homosexual marriage.

Simple as that.

Actually Homosexually is against God's word! Ever heard of Sodom and Gamorrah? These two cities were obliterated BY GOD for not just homosexuality, but numerous sins. Maybe God should do it again and then maybe the world will wake up!

As for this point, Sodomy is homosexual Sex not a guy/girl sex so I don't think a guy giving a girl anal (disgusting in my opinion), is sodomy.
Alas religion is not the state meaning, go take your neo-nazi christian crap and fuck yourself!!!

You have no understanding of your own religion.

You apparently have no reasoning ability.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:14-17.

Yes, and this is why it contradicts itself and includes things that an all-good God would never condone.

However, Paul is no less an authority than Jesus, since God Himself was speaking through Paul. Unless Paul is flagrantly lying, and the entire NT is a fabrication, in which case you shouldn't be a Christian. Keep in mind Jesus didn't write a word of the Bible.

And where does it say that Paul was infallible? I believe that was reserved only for God himself?

Remember that Paul was a Jew, trying to come to terms with which laws still needed to be abided by. Paul could have easily gotten one or two wrong.


If you don't believe in what the Disciples say (Paul was NOT a disciple anyway), then you're not a Christian. Simple as that. You have nothing, since the entirety of the Bible was written by mortal men. You can't pick and choose verses.

Why not? You do.

"Point" 3
If you believe in evolution, you know that Neanderthal is a specific term for a specific organism, which COULD NOT INTERBREED WITH HUMANS. Therefore, any person in the OT wouldn't really be a person, and Jesus wouldn't exist, since he's descended from Adam. Secondly, sacrificing an animal was what you did since there was no Messiah yet. Read the book.

What does Neanderthal have to do with the price of eggs in China? No one ever said that Adam was a Neanderthal.

No, I'm under grace, and no longer the law.

This would suggest that *none* of the OT laws apply. Why do you get to pick and choose which to follow?

No, I'm under grace, and no longer the law. OT law doesn't apply, in the sense that I must obey it to cover my sins.[/quote]

So you could be gay then?

The principles remain, sacrificing to God, rape, murder, incest, homosexuality = bad, etc.OT law doesn't apply, in the sense that I must obey it to cover my sins.

I don't think a principle point in the OT was that sacrificing to God was bad - in fact, that was a must.

As for the rest of your supposed "principles," who are you to pick and choose what the principles are? Christ said the ultimate commandment was "Love your God with all your heart and do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Basically, love God and don't hurt anyone. Homosexuality hurts no one. You have just chosen a law that Christ did not condone as a "principle" that still remains.

The government has NO right to legislate against homosexual marriage.

Simple as that.
Why?

Why?
It is unconstitutional.

Where do you pull any of your beliefs from? Did you make them yourself? Do you go to church? If you use the Bible for your beliefs, you use all of it. Same principle with anything, you don't say I like Amendments One, Three, and Four, but don't like Two so I'll just ignore it.

Again I ask, do you believe that slavery is a good thing? How about genocide? How about the denigration of women?

Actually Homosexually is against God's word! Ever heard of Sodom and Gamorrah? These two cities were obliterated BY GOD for not just homosexuality, but numerous sins. Maybe God should do it again and then maybe the world will wake up!

As for this point, Sodomy is homosexual Sex not a guy/girl sex so I don't think a guy giving a girl anal (disgusting in my opinion), is sodomy.
The issue of Sodom and Gamorrah is not clear-cut. There are many biblical scholars who are of the opinion that homosexuality was not the reason for their destruction. Rather, it was the refusal of hospitality toward the angels that was the last straw, as it were, and that "know them" (the villager's demand) actually means, know them (know who they are, etc).

Certainly there was homosexuality going on, but bear in mind what I've said about cultural context. Homosexuality can't bear children, which was important in those days. Nowadays, there's no question that the species is going to survive (assuming we don't blow ourselves up), so the reason for the rule is gone. In fact, the world is getting so overpopulated, that "go forth and multiply" at this point can be viewed as a harmful directive.

Alas religion is not the state meaning, go take your neo-nazi christian crap and fuck yourself!!!

I was pointing something out Gigatron. And I am not a neo-nazi Christian! I am a Christian yes. I believe what the Bible Says.

However, I never said anything about Homosexuality except that I am against Gay Marriage. I am for Civil Unions and I really don't care what they do in the bedroom as long as they don't flaunt it infront of me.

I do not condone it but as long as I don't know, I don't care. I actually have a couple of friends that are gay. Yes I do and you know what? I don't mind it in the least. They are nice people and one is on the bowling team with me and my roommate.

Actually Homosexually is against God's word! Ever heard of Sodom and Gamorrah? These two cities were obliterated BY GOD for not just homosexuality, but numerous sins. Maybe God should do it again and then maybe the world will wake up!

As for this point, Sodomy is homosexual Sex not a guy/girl sex so I don't think a guy giving a girl anal (disgusting in my opinion), is sodomy.

Ahem, according to merriamwebster.com, this is the definition of sodomy. Pay attention to number two:

Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun

1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex

And since when do you (or anyone) have the right to impose your Christian beliefs unto a culture with multiple beliefs? If I am not a Christian, or, if I'm an atheist, then it's quite obvious that I do not have to follow the Christian beliefs/laws/values, right?

Since gay marriage is about religion, then the government should get the hell away from this issue at once.

It is unconstitutional.

Allow civil unions. I couldn't care less about that.

However, they're not taking my religious traditions and making them sacrilege by marrying.

However, I never said anything about Homosexuality except that I am against Gay Marriage. I am for Civil Unions and I really don't care what they do in the bedroom as long as they don't flaunt it infront of me.

Why the issue with semantics?

Would you agree if civil "marriage" were done away with altogether and the state only gave civil unions? If so, why do you care what it is called?

I was pointing something out Gigatron. And I am not a neo-nazi Christian! I am a Christian yes. I believe what the Bible Says.

However, I never said anything about Homosexuality except that I am against Gay Marriage. I am for Civil Unions and I really don't care what they do in the bedroom as long as they don't flaunt it infront of me.

I do not condone it but as long as I don't know, I don't care. I actually have a couple of friends that are gay. Yes I do and you know what? I don't mind it in the least. They are nice people and one is on the bowling team with me and my roommate.
In your first post you condemn homosexualty because your precious bible nazi book says so and now you want to tell me you dont have anything against it? You are even worse a flip flopper than Kerry is not to mention Bush, the nazi propagandist antihuman spawn of Satan himself, grrrrrr!!!!!

It is unconstitutional.
Where?
Again I ask, do you believe that slavery is a good thing? How about genocide? How about the denigration of women?
Slavery-I believe slavery is a perfectly acceptable way to reward criminals. Forced labor, then freedom after their sentences. Going into Zimbabwe, rounding up the Africans and selling them? No.

Genocide-I don't think anyone would sweat too many tears if we wiped out every single Nazi.

Women-The Bible says women are to be submissive to men. Thus, men are more important than women.

Allow civil unions. I couldn't care less about that.

However, they're not taking my religious traditions and making them sacrilege by marrying.

Are you going to start bombing all the churches that already perform such unions then?

No, because as long as you're saved, there's nothing you can do to lose it.

So, with that logic, if a gay man is a Christian and asked God to forgive him for his sins, then he's going to go to Heaven, right?

Sodomy, to God, is just as bad as stealing, lying, cheating, murder, coveting, and so on and so forth. Since we all do a combination of the sins I've listed, then why is it ok for us to keep doing those sins and yet it's not okay for homosexuals to have anal sex?

I mean, after we steal, we ask God for forgiveness and all is forgotten. If a homosexual has anal sex, then all he has to do is ask for forgiveness, right?

Are you going to start bombing all the churches that already perform such unions then?
Probably not. Are you going to spam with evident flamebait? It would seem so.

Women-The Bible says women are to be submissive to men. Thus, men are more important than women.

HAHAHAHA! My God! And you're going to keep believing that Neanderthal crap? Jesus Christ!

Come and live in the 21st century with the rest of us, you sexist SOB.

If they're supposed to be submissive, then if they say "no" when we ask them out, we can beat them over the head with a bat and bring them back to our cave?

Get real! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

So, with that logic, if a gay man is a Christian and asked God to forgive him for his sins, then he's going to go to Heaven, right?

Sodomy, to God, is just as bad as stealing, lying, cheating, murder, coveting, and so on and so forth. Since we all do a combination of the sins I've listed, then why is it ok for us to keep doing those sins and yet it's not okay for homosexuals to have anal sex?

I mean, after we steal, we ask God for forgiveness and all is forgotten. If a homosexual has anal sex, then all he has to do is ask for forgiveness, right?
A gay man who repents will go to Heaven. Repenting is asking forgiveness and trying to change. Not, God I'm sorry, has sex, God I'm sorry, steals, God I'm sorry...etc.

Ahem, according to merriamwebster.com, this is the definition of sodomy. Pay attention to number two:

Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun

1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex

So sue me. IMHO, I don't consider it sodomy unless its between members of the SAME sex. That is my personal belief

And since when do you (or anyone) have the right to impose your Christian beliefs unto a culture with multiple beliefs? If I am not a Christian, or, if I'm an atheist, then it's quite obvious that I do not have to follow the Christian beliefs/laws/values, right?

Did I say I was imposing my views on someone? Did I NOT say that I am FOR civil unions as long as its limited? I Don't support Gay Marriage but I DID NOT support the FMA, that'll be the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Since gay marriage is about religion, then the government should get the hell away from this issue at once.

Your right, the government should stay out of it and let the states decide. States are deciding it and no matter how the vote goes, I applaud the states for giving their people a choice in this matter.

Where?

Due Process clause - 14th Amendment.

Slavery-I believe slavery is a perfectly acceptable way to reward criminals. Forced labor, then freedom after their sentences. Going into Zimbabwe, rounding up the Africans and selling them? No.

Well, the latter is the type condoned in the Bible. So unless you believe your God condones something you see as being wrong, you are "picking and choosing."

Genocide-I don't think anyone would sweat too many tears if we wiped out every single Nazi.

Thus sinking to their level? Yes, you are such a moral person. Your morality astounds me! Oh, wait...

Women-The Bible says women are to be submissive to men. Thus, men are more important than women.

The Bible also says we should kill women who are raped by men inside a city, just because nobody saved her. Do you agree with that?

I suppose you would sell your daughter into slavery as well?

Do remember that the Bible was written by male-centric societies, not directly by God Godself.

HAHAHAHA! My God! And you're going to keep believing that Neanderthal crap? Jesus Christ!

Come and live in the 21st century with the rest of us, you sexist SOB.
You really like misusing words. And if I think women and men are different, well, they are. And if you think they're identical, go back into the 1970's.

Did I say I was imposing my views on someone?

When I said "your", I meant Christians.

Your right, the government should stay out of it and let the states decide. States are deciding it and no matter how the vote goes, I applaud the states for giving their people a choice in this matter.

States should be left out of it too. No one should order around who can/cannot marry.

Probably not. Are you going to spam with evident flamebait? It would seem so.

The person said that they were not going to let anyone commit "sacrilege" on *their* institution of marriage. Never mind that we aren't even talking about a religious institution here - but a legal one. But my point was that there are already religious gay marriages happening all the time. How is the previous poster going to stop that?

In your first post you condemn homosexualty because your precious bible nazi book says so and now you want to tell me you dont have anything against it? You are even worse a flip flopper than Kerry is not to mention Bush, the nazi propagandist antihuman spawn of Satan himself, grrrrrr!!!!!

*sighs*

I said I did not condone it. I can condemn it and I have, just not publically. I also believe in giving the people the choice and I applaud it. I also said in my first post that I CONDEMNED outlawing Civil Unions. If I was totally against Homosexuality, would I have condemned it? Would I not have applauded the full decision? In order the answers would be yes and yes. However, I applaud them outlawing it but I did CONDEMN them outlawing Civil Unions.

You really like misusing words. And if I think women and men are different, well, they are. And if you think they're identical, go back into the 1970's.

And the 2004 award for the Sexist Pig of the Year goes to...Arammanar!

Men and women are different physically. As far as mentality goes, we are one in the same. Men and women are human, are they not? So, they are the same.

Women weren't put on this planet to serve man. They were put here, according to Christians, to serve God.

If you don't have a girlfriend/wife, then I can understand why.

Get out of 250000000 BC and come join us in AD 2004.

Due Process clause - 14th Amendment.
How?

Well, the latter is the type condoned in the Bible. So unless you believe your God condones something you see as being wrong, you are "picking and choosing."
The people being enslaved in the Bible were people who had been actively waging a war of genocide against the Jews for their entire existence. So it fits with my ideal of punishment fitting the crime.

Thus sinking to their level? Yes, you are such a moral person. Your morality astounds me! Oh, wait...
Sinking nothing. The punishment fits the crime.

The Bible also says we should kill women who are raped by men inside a city, just because nobody saved her. Do you agree with that?
Taken out of context. A women who was raped was shamed beyond anything else the Hebrews knew. However, suicide was illegal. The point of that verse is that the Bible allows you to put a rape victim out of her misery. It's a thing of mercy, which I agree with. Before you post something stupid, I think that culturally, the literal implication no longer applies.

I suppose you would sell your daughter into slavery as well?
Give a verse.

Do remember that the Bible was written by male-centric societies, not directly by God Godself.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God. Societies were male-centric for a reason.

Actually Homosexually is against God's word! Ever heard of Sodom and Gamorrah? These two cities were obliterated BY GOD for not just homosexuality, but numerous sins. Maybe God should do it again and then maybe the world will wake up!

BWAHAHAHA!!! :p

I can just see the headlines..."Apparently last night around 9 PM, GOD himself just totally rained fuckin fire and brimstone down on San Francisco and Massachusetts, apparently due to some divine gripe over gay people loving each other. The police commissioner said they had questioned God to no avail, cause God doesn't answer prayers anymore. Thousands were dead and injured. The right-wing neo-Nazi fascist pigs capitalized on this...from Michael Savage, "Dude, I coulda fuckin told ya what was gonna happen to the sodomites. I mean, homosex is a sin and they should all get AIDS, choke on my dick and fuckin die." Jesus declined to comment, but apparently tried to say something about how we should all love each other and do unto others as we want them to do unto us, but unfortunately a mob nailed him to a cross and he died at the scene.


As for this point, Sodomy is homosexual Sex not a guy/girl sex so I don't think a guy giving a girl anal (disgusting in my opinion), is sodomy.

WRONG. (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Sodomy) Sodomy is any sex outside of vaginal. And the hypocrisy continues.

A women who was raped was shamed beyond anything else the Hebrews knew. However, suicide was illegal. The point of that verse is that the Bible allows you to put a rape victim out of her misery. It's a thing of mercy, which I agree with. Before you post something stupid, I think that culturally, the literal implication no longer applies.


The recent statistics show that 1 in 4 women will be raped sometime during their lives. Since you think women should be killed because they were raped, then go ahead and kill 1/4 of the women in our country. Or, if you have four daughters, and one of them was raped, take her to the backyard and shoot her.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your logic is fucked up.

*sighs*

I said I did not condone it. I can condemn it and I have, just not publically. I also believe in giving the people the choice and I applaud it. I also said in my first post that I CONDEMNED outlawing Civil Unions. If I was totally against Homosexuality, would I have condemned it? Would I not have applauded the full decision? In order the answers would be yes and yes. However, I applaud them outlawing it but I did CONDEMN them outlawing Civil Unions.
And your type is among the worst possible. Claiming you are gracious by allowing homosexuals to even exist and live on this planet. You want to keep gays 2nd class citizens with a few limited rights and deny them complete rights due to their sexuality. That is discrimination and to be condemned with full force. Hypocrites like you are are destructive for mankind by promoting double standards and hateful treatment of humans who are no different than everyone else, other than not being heterosexual. This heteronormativity is the curse of modern mankind and needs to be fought until all humans have the same rights regardless of skincolor, sex, sexual preference or whathaveyou.

So sue me. IMHO, I don't consider it sodomy unless its between members of the SAME sex. That is my personal belief


thing of it more a buggery. save you alot of arguments on these threads

Taken out of context. A women who was raped was shamed beyond anything else the Hebrews knew. However, suicide was illegal. The point of that verse is that the Bible allows you to put a rape victim out of her misery. It's a thing of mercy, which I agree with. Before you post something stupid, I think that culturally, the literal implication no longer applies.
wrong, you would never be allowed to stone a rapee, only the raped, women were nothing and even if she was forced into sexual relations i was a requirement to stone her. good job rationalizating irrational thought


All scripture is given by inspiration of God. Societies were male-centric for a reason.
fine, all scripture was given by inspiration of god, and its holiness was decided by a group of cardinals in the early church

And the 2004 award for the Sexist Pig of the Year goes to...Arammanar!
Wow, I feel so honored to be awarded this 3 months early, and by such a half literate too!

Men and women are different physically. As far as mentality goes, we are one in the same. Men and women are human, are they not? So, they are the same.
Men and women are the same mentally? Clearly, you have no understanding of psychology. Hormones are chemical things that affect thought processes, humans are biologically predisposed to differing on sexual lines. A German Shepard is Canus familiarius is it not? So is a poodle right? Therefore they're identical every way except phsyically right? Or are you just an idiot?

Women weren't put on this planet to serve man. They were put here, according to Christians, to serve God.
Read Timothy. Women are not allowed to be in positions of spiritual authority over men. Women were put here to serve God, men were put here to serve God. They just do so differently.

If you don't have a girlfriend/wife, then I can understand why.
And if I do, then evidently your argument falls flat.

Get out of 250000000 BC and come join us in AD 2004.
Right, I'll come out of a time before humans evolved to debate with morons like you.

The recent statistics show that 1 in 4 women will be raped sometime during their lives. Since you think women should be killed because they were raped, then go ahead and kill 1/4 of the women in our country. Or, if you have four daughters, and one of them was raped, take her to the backyard and shoot her.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your logic is fucked up.
I don't think they should be killed, dumbass. I said that you should show mercy to the rape victim. Read what I wrote, not what your limited mind decides is reality.

wrong, you would never be allowed to stone a rapee, only the raped, women were nothing and even if she was forced into sexual relations i was a requirement to stone her. good job rationalizating irrational thought
It's not my rationalization. It's the accepted historical context. But whatever, nice job taking a LA law to inanities of Christian doctrine.

fine, all scripture was given by inspiration of god, and its holiness was decided by a group of cardinals in the early church
I'm not Catholic, I have my own beliefs.

Read Timothy. Women are not allowed to be in positions of spiritual authority over men. Women were put here to serve God, men were put here to serve God. They just do so differently.

And this is why religion is evil and fucked up. You get fundies like yourself who thinks everything in the Bible is all real, when in fact, it's quite flawed.

Right, I'll come out of a time before humans evolved to debate with morons like you.

The pre-humans were much more intelligent and more compassionate than "christians" like yourself.

It's not my rationalization. It's the accepted historical context. But whatever, nice job taking a LA law to inanities of Christian doctrine.
historical context? really? who told you? what history expert who can translate the original text


I'm not Catholic, I have my own beliefs.
then name the other books in scripture

I don't think they should be killed, dumbass. I said that you should show mercy to the rape victim. Read what I wrote, not what your limited mind decides is reality.

Showing mercy = killing. ;)

And this is why religion is evil and fucked up. You get fundies like yourself who thinks everything in the Bible is all real, when in fact, it's quite flawed.
Flawed how so?

The pre-humans were much more intelligent and more compassionate than "christians" like yourself.
Firstly, I doubt any of them could read the book I'm arguing with. Secondly, compassion is relative, it's apparently not compassionate to allow someone who wants to die to die, but is compassionate to murder unborn children.

And your type is among the worst possible.

And you are unreasonable and don't like arguements that go against your beliefs. I know that you are gay and I don't really care. I don't find your arguements anymore logical than those from my side of the fence.

Claiming you are gracious by allowing homosexuals to even exist and live on this planet.

They do live on this planet and I have to put up with it. As I said, I have a couple of friends that are gay, lesbians actually. We are on great terms and I enjoy their friendship. One of them is even on my roommates and I bowling team here at the University Bowling Club.

You want to keep gays 2nd class citizens with a few limited rights and deny them complete rights due to their sexuality.

Sorry if you believe this but this is such an idiotic statement. I don't want anyone to be a 2nd class citizen. I don't mind if they want to have a civil union but marriage? No sorry, that I will oppose. I don't mind civil unions with limited rights as most Americans have stated. The Majority of Americans don't mind if they have Civil Unions but the Majority are opposed to Gay Marriage.

That is discrimination and to be condemned with full force.

And I've stated what the Majority will agree with and what they won't agree with. I even stated that I support Civil Unions but not gay Marriage.

Hypocrites like you are are destructive for mankind by promoting double standards and hateful treatment of humans who are no different than everyone else, other than not being heterosexual.

There are so many things wrong here. First off, I say what I mean. I hate double standards which is one reason why I don't watch cable anymore expect when it comes to the NFL and the Weather Channel. I am advocating to go into Sudan and to end the Genocide that is going on there. I am a tolerant person by nature and I RESPECT EVERYONE wether they are Gay or Not!

This heteronormativity is the curse of modern mankind and needs to be fought until all humans have the same rights regardless of skincolor, sex, sexual preference or whathaveyou.

WIth this, I can actually agree with you. However, it is basically impossible to overcome no matter how hard you try.

Corneliu, I'm curious, is it just your religion that makes you so opposed to gay marriage? Or is it more than that?

So you're all for civil unions but vehemently opposed to gay marriage...I'm just wondering if there's some real reason YOU have to oppose gay marriage, or if you're just abiding your religious beliefs. You say you're very against homosexuality in itself, and would like to see God massacre a bunch of fags, but you know two lesbians and "We are on great terms and I enjoy their friendship..." however you would oppose them marrying if they desired to do so...how would that put a damper in your friendship?

I wonder if you'd have the balls to face your "friends" and tell them that what they do is personally abhorrent to you and you would fight any move by them to marry.

And you are unreasonable and don't like arguements that go against your beliefs. I know that you are gay and I don't really care. I don't find your arguements anymore logical than those from my side of the fence.



They do live on this planet and I have to put up with it. As I said, I have a couple of friends that are gay, lesbians actually. We are on great terms and I enjoy their friendship. One of them is even on my roommates and I bowling team here at the University Bowling Club.



Sorry if you believe this but this is such an idiotic statement. I don't want anyone to be a 2nd class citizen. I don't mind if they want to have a civil union but marriage? No sorry, that I will oppose. I don't mind civil unions with limited rights as most Americans have stated. The Majority of Americans don't mind if they have Civil Unions but the Majority are opposed to Gay Marriage.



And I've stated what the Majority will agree with and what they won't agree with. I even stated that I support Civil Unions but not gay Marriage.



There are so many things wrong here. First off, I say what I mean. I hate double standards which is one reason why I don't watch cable anymore expect when it comes to the NFL and the Weather Channel. I am advocating to go into Sudan and to end the Genocide that is going on there. I am a tolerant person by nature and I RESPECT EVERYONE wether they are Gay or Not!



WIth this, I can actually agree with you. However, it is basically impossible to overcome no matter how hard you try.
You are wrong. As long as we do not accept the "civil union" with it's "limited rights" as the end of all things, there is a chance that at least gays will get equal treatment to heterosexuals. I hate this distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Why is it even grounds for distinction and discrimination by denying one form of human sexuality the same rights of the other? What gives you the right to say that heterosexuality deserves more rights? Because it makes children? So what? The world is overpopulated, gays could biologically produce children if they wnated to -with the opposite sex, but we don't. Instead of denying us the same rights, gays should be applauded for not contributing to the overpopulation of the world. But no,still to this date we have to fight the stoneage mentality of people who cling to their religious phrases and pick the words from a science fiction book whenever it is convenient for a cause. I hate this and I fight it. Discriminating blacks due to their skincolor is forbidden - once discrimination of Gays, Bis and Transgender is removed from society, I will be happy and stop bitching. Not earlier.

How?

Read the 14th Amendment and maybe you will understand.

The people being enslaved in the Bible were people who had been actively waging a war of genocide against the Jews for their entire existence. So it fits with my ideal of punishment fitting the crime.

Not necessarily. Any foreign person could be enslaved - regardless of what wars they were or were not in. And a Hebrew could also be enslaved, but you had to give them the option of leaving after seven years. Of course, you could basically force them to stay by keeping any wife or child they had acquired during that time period.

Sinking nothing. The punishment fits the crime.

So if you were raped, you would be justified in going out and raping someone? If someone stole a watch from you, you could go into a store and steal a new one? You really are a bastion of morality, let me tell you.

Taken out of context. A women who was raped was shamed beyond anything else the Hebrews knew. However, suicide was illegal. The point of that verse is that the Bible allows you to put a rape victim out of her misery. It's a thing of mercy, which I agree with. Before you post something stupid, I think that culturally, the literal implication no longer applies.

Wait, culture defines what God condones or does not condone? There goes the idea of an all-good, all-powerful God.


Give a verse.

Well, I could just say that you should read your Bible, but sure:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)


All scripture is given by inspiration of God. Societies were male-centric for a reason.

Inspiration allows for fallible human beings to screw things up. Unless you believe that God possessed the writers, or you believe that God wrote the Bible and dropped it down from the heavens, you must logically accept the fact that there may be some things there that God did not intend.

YAY!!NO gay marriage!YIPPY!!!Go Louisiana!!

I'm not Catholic, I have my own beliefs.

And yet you accept fully the Bible that a bunch of Catholics came up with (which was later amended somewhat by a Protestant).

Interesting how you dismiss out of hand all of the other writings that the Catholics dismissed, but claim you "have your own beliefs."

Read the 14th Amendment and maybe you will understand.
I have. And I understand. What I don't have or understand is your misinterpretation of it.

Not necessarily. Any foreign person could be enslaved - regardless of what wars they were or were not in. And a Hebrew could also be enslaved, but you had to give them the option of leaving after seven years. Of course, you could basically force them to stay by keeping any wife or child they had acquired during that time period.
Exceptions, not the rule. The underlying theme of slavery was that of masters, that sometimes you have to serve someone against your will, if you've done wrong.

So if you were raped, you would be justified in going out and raping someone? If someone stole a watch from you, you could go into a store and steal a new one? You really are a bastion of morality, let me tell you.
If you rape some third person, then that's a new crime since the third person is innocent. The guilty person is the first person. Stop being a bastion of idiocy.

Wait, culture defines what God condones or does not condone? There goes the idea of an all-good, all-powerful God.
Culture defines how to express what God always condones.

Well, I could just say that you should read your Bible, but sure:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Bah, I was hoping you wouldn't pick this, because you'll just say the explanation is wrong without analyzing it. You could only be sold as a slave once, it was your way of repaying your father who spent a good decade or two raising, feeding, and clothing you.

Inspiration allows for fallible human beings to screw things up. Unless you believe that God possessed the writers, or you believe that God wrote the Bible and dropped it down from the heavens, you must logically accept the fact that there may be some things there that God did not intend.
If God can make the world in a week, he can certainly make sure someone stenographs him right.

And you are unreasonable and don't like arguements that go against your beliefs. I know that you are gay and I don't really care. I don't find your arguements anymore logical than those from my side of the fence.

Well, they don't directly contradict themselves usually.

Sorry if you believe this but this is such an idiotic statement. I don't want anyone to be a 2nd class citizen. I don't mind if they want to have a civil union but marriage? No sorry, that I will oppose. I don't mind civil unions with limited rights as most Americans have stated. The Majority of Americans don't mind if they have Civil Unions but the Majority are opposed to Gay Marriage.

Explain how not giving equal rights is not making them a 2nd class citizen? You either believe homosexuals are entitled to all the same rights, priviledges, responsibilities, and protections provided by the government to heterosexuals, or you don't. Which one is it?

There are so many things wrong here. First off, I say what I mean. I hate double standards which is one reason why I don't watch cable anymore expect when it comes to the NFL and the Weather Channel. I am advocating to go into Sudan and to end the Genocide that is going on there. I am a tolerant person by nature and I RESPECT EVERYONE wether they are Gay or Not!

"I hate double standards, but we should treat gays differently. I mean, I respect them, but they still should not be treated the same as me because they are GAY!"

And yet you accept fully the Bible that a bunch of Catholics came up with (which was later amended somewhat by a Protestant).

Interesting how you dismiss out of hand all of the other writings that the Catholics dismissed, but claim you "have your own beliefs."
No, I believe in Lilith, who is not canonical. I believe Jesus had at least two brothers. I believe that Enoch was the Metatron. That Satan was not born evil. Etc.

If you rape some third person, then that's a new crime since the third person is innocent. The guilty person is the first person. Stop being a bastion of idiocy..
yet yo uare the one trying to rationalize stoning the rapee isntead of the raper

yet yo uare the one trying to rationalize stoning the rapee isntead of the raper
If you read the verse, the raper gets stoned. Stop posting unless you know what you're talking about.

I have. And I understand. What I don't have or understand is your misinterpretation of it.

You haven't studied the law at all, I see.

Exceptions, not the rule. The underlying theme of slavery was that of masters, that sometimes you have to serve someone against your will, if you've done wrong.

Funny, all the laws regarding it don't say that at all. Lovely how you just read your own ideas into it. Of course, the very idea that an all-good, all-loving God condones slavery at all is idiotic.

If you rape some third person, then that's a new crime since the third person is innocent. The guilty person is the first person. Stop being a bastion of idiocy.

So it is ok if you turn around and rape the first person?

Culture defines how to express what God always condones.

So God always condones killing rapees, enslaving people, genocide, etc. I'm a Christian, but I refuse to follow whatever God you believe in.

If God always condones the same things, God cannot simultaneously condone committing genocide on a people and enslaving them just because they are different - and condone the idea that the "good Samaritan" is actually good. Does God hate everyone but the Hebrews or does God love all people? It's got to be one or the other?

Bah, I was hoping you wouldn't pick this, because you'll just say the explanation is wrong without analyzing it. You could only be sold as a slave once, it was your way of repaying your father who spent a good decade or two raising, feeding, and clothing you.

Ok, so you would sell your daughter into slavery then. That's all I wanted to know. Have fun with that.

If God can make the world in a week, he can certainly make sure someone stenographs him right.

Picking and choosing again!! You have chosen the priestly story of creation over the Yahwistic one!

No, I believe in Lilith, who is not canonical. I believe Jesus had at least two brothers. I believe that Enoch was the Metatron. That Satan was not born evil. Etc.

So you pick and choose which Scripture to follow, gotcha.

I am opposed to gay marriage. Marriage is a holy coming together of a man and a woman. A union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is wrong, as that is not how god meant it to be. Gay marriage is wrong and should be outlawed completely, including civil unions.

You haven't studied the law at all, I see.
Oh I have. Which is why you're confusing me. And you still haven't explained yourself, which is suspicious since I've asked 3 times or so.

Funny, all the laws regarding it don't say that at all. Lovely how you just read your own ideas into it. Of course, the very idea that an all-good, all-loving God condones slavery at all is idiotic.
No it's not. Some people do evil things that are best punished by taking their liberty, rather than their life or possessions.

So it is ok if you turn around and rape the first person?
If you're into that, sure. I don't think person two will be though.

So God always condones killing rapees, enslaving people, genocide, etc. I'm a Christian, but I refuse to follow whatever God you believe in.

If God always condones the same things, God cannot simultaneously condone committing genocide on a people and enslaving them just because they are different - and condone the idea that the "good Samaritan" is actually good. Does God hate everyone but the Hebrews or does God love all people? It's got to be one or the other?
If you defeat someone in a war, they are part of the spoils. It's good to be mercifiul, but it's your right to pillage. That doesn't make it good. That makes it allowed.

Ok, so you would sell your daughter into slavery then. That's all I wanted to know. Have fun with that.
I wouldn't. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that was the point behind it. You'd have some really good points if people said what you want them to think that they did.

Picking and choosing again!! You have chosen the priestly story of creation over the Yahwistic one!
How so?

So you pick and choose which Scripture to follow, gotcha.
No I don't. I just don't Scripture is all inclusive. If you can suspend your dumbassedness for a second, try to understand this example. You ask me how my family is. I say my dad is fine, and talk about him. Since I didn't mention my brothers or mom, they obviously don't exist. Unless I'm picking and choosing family members...

Think about it THIS way. Gay couples cant have kids, no kids means no one to grow up to " take the place " of there parrents when there gone. After hundreds of years, we barely have a populatoin all because of the dumn-asses that wanted Gay marrige.

One, two women cannot have children, correct but artificial insemination is an option for women who want kids, and two, with the way the population is growing how can we afford to have a completely straight world?

Those conservatives are holding the US back. What happened to all that stuff about it being the land of the free? Now it's not even close to the freest country in the world.

Oh I have. Which is why you're confusing me. And you still haven't explained yourself, which is suspicious since I've asked 3 times or so.

The 14th Amendment is the Due Process Clause. The specific wording states that:

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.

Now, to paraphrase, you can't deny legal protections, rights, etc. to a citizen without due process of law. Since homosexuals are citizens, that seems pretty self explanatory to me. However, if that isn't enough for you:

The courts have held time and time again that, without a damn good reason, this means that you cannot make laws discriminating against anyone based on race, creed, color, gender, or sexual preference. Look up the case law if you don't believe me.

No it's not. Some people do evil things that are best punished by taking their liberty, rather than their life or possessions.

Taking liberty and putting into slavery are two different things. One does take away the life of that person and transforms them into an object to be bought and sold.

If you're into that, sure. I don't think person two will be though.

Last time I checked, Jesus didn't condone the whole "eye for an eye thing." So, no - according to your own Bible, turning around and raping the other person would not be condoned.

If you defeat someone in a war, they are part of the spoils. It's good to be mercifiul, but it's your right to pillage. That doesn't make it good. That makes it allowed.

Wow. I have nothing to say to this, other than that you are *incredibly* unChrist-like.

I wouldn't. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that was the point behind it. You'd have some really good points if people said what you want them to think that they did.

You said everything in the Bible came directly from God. You then said that yes, God did condone selling a daughter into slavery - and it was her duty to do so since he paid for her to grow up. Do people today not pay for their kids to grow up? I just want to know why, if God condones it so much, we don't sell our daughters into slavery? After all, an all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful God cannot change God's mind.

How so?

You said that God created the world in 6 days. Thus, you have accepted the priestly version of Creation (Genesis 1:1 through 2:4, I believe) over the Yahwistic version (the Adam and Eve story). These two are pretty much mutually exclusive, considering that the events happen in different orders, so you have just chosen a section of Scripture that you believe takes precedence over another. Why? Because you said so.

No I don't. I just don't Scripture is all inclusive. If you can suspend your dumbassedness for a second, try to understand this example. You ask me how my family is. I say my dad is fine, and talk about him. Since I didn't mention my brothers or mom, they obviously don't exist. Unless I'm picking and choosing family members...

Well, you certainly didn't answer my question, did you?

If you believe that God went through the trouble of pushing every Scripture writer's hand - don't you think God would have made sure that everything important was included in the Bible?