NationStates Jolt Archive

Voters in eleven U.S. states, eleven fucking states, have voted to ban same-sex mariage in the state constitutions. That is eleven states where two people who love each other are now forbidden to marry. What the hell is wrong with these people?

I have never heard one single reason to outlaw same-sex marriages other than religous reasons, and unless I'm mistaken religion is not supposed to play a role in ruling of the United States of America. I heard one person who voted to ban the marriages say that it was an issue which transcended political, racial, and economic boundries, and that it was about the future of our nation. How the hell would legalising gay marriage negatively impact our future? More people would be happy, is that a bad thing? Prejudice and bigotry would be less, is that a bad thing? We'd be that much less of a nation of hypocrites, is that a bad thing?

I'm not gay, I don't plan to be gay, and I only know one gay person (In real, that is), but that doesn't change the fact that they are human beings who deserve every single bit of freedom that the rest of us do.

Forget the Bush/Kerry debates, forget the Iraq War, forget our reaction to 9/11, this event alone makes me ashamed to be an American.

*shakes head*

what is this country coming to?

Believe it.

Some nation of civil rights and freedom, eh?

Quick aside: The constitution of the US specifies the seperation of church and state. Meaning, the government cannot also be a religion, as things stood off and on in the UK at the time it was written. This doesn't mean religion should play no part in the way we govern ourselves. That is simply a stipulation to keep the government from attempting to control the people with religion, it doesn't mean we can't use religion to make our decisions.

That said... who cares? Do you really need a certificate telling you how you can live?

It's because Americans, for some reason, still feel they have the right to dictate what goes on in their neighbor's bedrooms. I don't understand it either.

I'm willing to bet, however, that if it were a split issue, then gay men would be banned, but lesbians could marry in groups of 12 if they wanted and would be permitted to fuck in public.

In short: America sucks donkey ass. Simple as that.

This is such a nonissue. Everyone knew this would happen, most Americans don't want gay marriage. You lose this round.

It's because Americans, for some reason, still feel they have the right to dictate what goes on in their neighbor's bedrooms. I don't understand it either.
Marriage is by definition a public ordeal. No one gets married in a bedroom. These weren't anti-sodomy laws, they were anti-marriage laws.

You have only yourselves to blame.

Post the link! I saw it too on one of the cable news tickers. But post the link.
Daily Show reported that Tom Coburn (who is winning Senate race in Oklahoma) said on the campaign trail that "Lesbianism is so rampant we can only let one girl go to the bathroom at one time."
Sweet.

Marriage is by definition a public ordeal. No one gets married in a bedroom. These weren't anti-sodomy laws, they were anti-marriage laws.

Those also exist.

Those also exist.
Yes. But that's not what this topic is about. Anti-smoking laws exist, that's not what this topic is about.

Yes. But that's not what this topic is about. Anti-smoking laws exist, that's not what this topic is about.

If those have nothing to do with it, then whhy the hell are you bringing them in?

So what? Big deal. If you're gay and wanna get married, go to a different state. :rolleyes: Duh.

This is such a nonissue.
On this, I must respectfully, but strongly, disagree.

Damnit, a tenth state just joined the group.

I hope to God that eleventh state does what's right

Homosexuality aside, it would be interesting to see what the patriarchal polygamists in Utah would think about a state amendment there that sanctified only the union of ONE man to ONE woman regardless of your ridiculous "religious" views.

If those have nothing to do with it, then whhy the hell are you bringing them in?
I didn't, read the post I responded to before you go yapping off like a moron.

On this, I must respectfully, but strongly, disagree.
I mean the votes of these 10 states is a nonissue. There's no surprise that they'd ban homosexual marriage.

Homosexuality aside, it would be interesting to see what the patriarchal polygamists in Utah would think about a state amendment there that sanctified only the union of ONE man to ONE woman regardless of your ridiculous "religious" views.
They already have something like that. They had to write it in when they joined the Union.

Yes. But that's not what this topic is about.

You're the one who brought it up.

The point is, we're a nation that likes to advertise itself as a hotbed of civil rights and freedoms. Here is a case where we are behind in civil rights and freedoms. So what do we do? Outlaw it.

I didn't, read the post I responded to before you go yapping off like a moron.

No, you're the fucking idiot. You're the one who brought up both uidiotic statements.

Marriage is by definition a public ordeal. No one gets married in a bedroom. These weren't anti-sodomy laws, they were anti-marriage laws.

and

Yes. But that's not what this topic is about. Anti-smoking laws exist, that's not what this topic is about.

One of the cornerstones of American Protestant Christianity is the belief that homosexuals are inherent child molesters and that they deserve to be segregated from the rest of society if not sent to a concentration camp.

They already have something like that. They had to write it in when they joined the Union.

and yet, most Mormons choose to ignore that little bit.

I wouldn't worry too much. Those states are very anti-gay, so it wasn't surprising. Give them a few years for them to realize it's not the end of the world and those issues can be voted again.

You're the one who brought it up.

The point is, we're a nation that likes to advertise itself as a hotbed of civil rights and freedoms. Here is a case where we are behind in civil rights and freedoms. So what do we do? Outlaw it.
Yeah, we should follow Utah's lead and legalize polygamous marriages. Then we'd be a bastion of civil rights and freedom. Or follow Rwanda's lead, and get rid of pesky government entirely. After all, you can't have more rights than you get with anarchy.

Voters in ten U.S. states, ten freaking states, have voted to ban same-sex mariage in the state constitutions.
Good for them.

So what? Big deal. If you're gay and wanna get married, go to a different state. :rolleyes: Duh.

That is not what the spirit of this country is about. We have a right to travel, unimpeded, through the various states. We are also granted full faith and credit by Article IV of the Constitution of the United States.

No State may pass a law that abridges rights that are laid out in the Constitution. Such a law would be unconstitutional and would be overturned in Federal court.

Let's say you live in Wisconsin and your brother lives in Washington. You do not need to get a new driver's license every time you cross a state border. Your Wisconsin license is just as valid in Washington.

The same applies to a (heterosexual) marriage license. If you get married in Wisconsin, you do not have to get remarried if you move to Washington.

What these states are saying is that your Constitutional rights can be ignored if you are a homosexual couple. It is saying that homosexuals are not full citizens of the United States.

I find that sad and disturbing and should be grounds for UN Peacekeepers to come in and end the fascism that would place a caste system in the US.

I can see all of this coming to a head in, oh say, 3 or 4 years. Keep watching the issue. It will get ugly.

I didn't, read the post I responded to before you go yapping off like a moron.

Let me quote you:

Marriage is by definition a public ordeal. No one gets married in a bedroom. These weren't anti-sodomy laws, they were anti-marriage laws.

Yes. But that's not what this topic is about. Anti-smoking laws exist, that's not what this topic is about.

Those were not even in the topic before those posts.

I mean the votes of these 10 states is a nonissue. There's no surprise that they'd ban homosexual marriage.

True. But go back to what I said about America advertising itself as.

No, you're the fucking idiot. You're the one who brought up both uidiotic statements.

First of all, dumbfuck, what's an "uidiotic" statement, you uidiot? Secondly, THIS was what I was responding to:

"It's because Americans, for some reason, still feel they have the right to dictate what goes on in their neighbor's bedrooms. I don't understand it either."

Marriage laws have nothing to do with sex, unless you want to argue that, and look even more ignorant than you obviously are.

Those were not even in the topic before those posts.
Then obviously you haven't read the previous posts.

Michigan has had it illegal they just voted on putting it in the state constitution and it passed by a land slide all because all the michigan people are super conservatives.

I heard about two far far rightwing people elected to senate. WTF? One of these guys wanted single mothers not to be allowed to teach in public schools. And one of them (not sure if it was the same guy) was a doctor- disgrace to the medical profession.

I lose hope...

Yeah, we should follow Utah's lead and legalize polygamous marriages. Then we'd be a bastion of civil rights and freedom. Or follow Rwanda's lead, and get rid of pesky government entirely. After all, you can't have more rights than you get with anarchy.

Why the hell do you keep bringing up things not even related to the topic? What the fuck does Rwanda's anarchy have to do with gay marriage? Or even civil rights, for that matter?

Polygamous marriages are a separate issue. The topic is gay marriages. Gay marriages. Gay marriages. Stop trying to distract from the real topic with things barely or not even related to it. If you can't argue the topic without having to try to hijack it, try not arguing at all.

Or follow Rwanda's lead, and get rid of pesky government entirely. After all, you can't have more rights than you get with anarchy.
Rwanda is not an anarchy. You are thinking of Ethiopia.
Mmh... not the point, I see. Anyway, I say marriages for everybody, I couldn't care less.

I mean the votes of these 10 states is a nonissue. There's no surprise that they'd ban homosexual marriage.
Ah, you're probably right.

I guess I just have to wait for the Supreme Court challenge.

Polygamous marriages are a separate issue. The topic is gay marriages. Gay marriages. Gay marriages. Stop trying to distract from the real topic with things barely or not even related to it. If you can't argue the topic without having to try to hijack it, try not arguing at all.
The topic is someone's surprise at finding out that states oppose gay marriage. Then everyone started going off about how that's a bad example of not protecting civil rights. Since the topic was already off track, it didn't seem like it would matter much if I pointed how people have been fighting for polygamy a lot longer than for homosexual marriages, but no one complains about their civil rights.

Then obviously you haven't read the previous posts.

I want evidence of this. I want you to quote me where smoking laws and sodomy laws are specifically mentioned before your posts in this topic. I want exact quotes. If you can't do that, then stop wasting my time.

Post the link! I saw it too on one of the cable news tickers. But post the link.
Daily Show reported that Tom Coburn (who is winning Senate race in Oklahoma) said on the campaign trail that "Lesbianism is so rampant we can only let one girl go to the bathroom at one time."
Sweet.

Where was this rampant lesbiansim when I was in high school? 4 damn years and all I met there was one cute lesbian. What the hell good is ONE lesbian?
At least in college straight girls have the decency to fake it for us. :fluffle:

First of all, dumbfuck, what's an "uidiotic" statement, you uidiot? Secondly, THIS was what I was responding to:

"It's because Americans, for some reason, still feel they have the right to dictate what goes on in their neighbor's bedrooms. I don't understand it either."

Marriage laws have nothing to do with sex, unless you want to argue that, and look even more ignorant than you obviously are.

And, fuckshit, what does anti-smoking laws have to do with anything at all? Are we arguing over those? Are we even debating on smoking? No, becasue your idiotic mind decides to bring up something wortless to back your bigotted statements.

Also, the term "in the bedroom" does not actually mean in the bedroom. It's slang for "in one's own privacy".

And besides, why do you think the majority should state that gays are not US citizerns, but are second-class vivitors? Does not the 9th amendment preclude these state amendments? Does not America stand for freedom, and not oppresion?

It's sad. But we can hold out for the future! The majority of people used to be against inter-racial marriage, but now only a very few are. Many of the same arguments are used against same-sex marrigae. So hopefully opinions will change there too. Hell, ten years ago it was so frowned upon it wouldn't have even made it to a referendum. I just feel awful for people now in love who will never be able to be legally married.

The topic is someone's surprise at finding out that states oppose gay marriage. Then everyone started going off about how that's a bad example of not protecting civil rights. Since the topic was already off track, it didn't seem like it would matter much if I pointed how people have been fighting for polygamy a lot longer than for homosexual marriages, but no one complains about their civil rights.

Civil rights and sodomy laws can be linked to the original topic and argued about with the original topic. Polygamy cannot. Also, notice how, despite your attempts, it has been trying to manage to stay on topic.

What the hell is wrong with all of you? We have just witnessed a betrayal of everything America supposedly stands, with ammendments made to state constitutions which limit civil rights when the very point of having a constitution is so that people can't limit other peoples rights, and all you people can bicker about is who hijacked first? For gods sake, look past the pettiness for once!

And, fuckshit, what does anti-smoking laws have to do with anything at all? Are we arguing over those? Are we even debating on smoking? No, becasue your idiotic mind decides to bring up something wortless to back your bigotted statements.
Maybe the concept of a correlation escapes both of your functioning brain cells, but I brought up smoking laws to show how RIDICULOUS it was to say banning marriage for homosexuals had anything to do what those homosexuals do "in the bedroom."

Also, the term "in the bedroom" does not actually mean in the bedroom. It's slang for "in one's own privacy".
Yes, and marriage is a public display of committment. A PUBLIC display of committment.

And besides, why do you think the majority should state that gays are not US citizerns, but are second-class vivitors? Does not the 9th amendment preclude these state amendments? Does not America stand for freedom, and not oppresion?
What are vivitors. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I genuinely have no idea what that means. And the 9th has nothing to do with it, as marriage isn't a fundamental right for anyone, heterosexual or not.

Civil rights and sodomy laws can be linked to the original topic and argued about with the original topic. Polygamy cannot. Also, notice how, despite your attempts, it has been trying to manage to stay on topic.
NO, sodomy laws cannot. Unless you can point to one of those 11 states that banned sodomy this time around, it is not relevant. Read the article, and then come back.

What the hell is wrong with all of you? We have just witnessed a betrayal of everything America supposedly stands, with ammendments made to state constitutions which limit civil rights when the very point of having a constitution is so that people can't limit other peoples rights, and all you people can bicker about is who hijacked first? For gods sake, look past the pettiness for once!

You are asking americans to do what americans believe?
Give up, that´s never going to happen...

Anti-sodomy laws are pretty irrelevant because the US Supreme Court already declared all anti-sodomy laws to be unconstitional, hence, no state has enforceable anti-sodomy laws anymore.

Someday soon, they will do the same for gay marriage.

Maybe the concept of a correlation escapes both of your functioning brain cells, but I brought up smoking laws to show how RIDICULOUS it was to say banning marriage for homosexuals had anything to do what those homosexuals do "in the bedroom."

Which still has nothing to do with the topic, as that was in reply to a post replying to your comment about sodomy laws. Taken in context it isn't on the subject, so that explanation does not apply.

What the hell is wrong with all of you? We have just witnessed a betrayal of everything America supposedly stands, with ammendments made to state constitutions which limit civil rights when the very point of having a constitution is so that people can't limit other peoples rights, and all you people can bicker about is who hijacked first? For gods sake, look past the pettiness for once!

Sorry, but a verbal thrashing had to be handed out to someone who was trying their best to hijack it.

I wholeheartly agree that gays should be allowed to enter civil unions (reserving marriges for the churchs), but this is all Mass. fault. While it is wrong, the domineering generations were raised against homosexuality, so, if this were to happen in a generation or two later, i'm sure it'd be moot. But this got extemely blown out of proportion way too soon. I sincerely someone will knock sense into everyone, including the future president (since they are both against gay marriges).

What the hell is wrong with all of you? We have just witnessed a betrayal of everything America supposedly stands, with ammendments made to state constitutions which limit civil rights when the very point of having a constitution is so that people can't limit other peoples rights, and all you people can bicker about is who hijacked first? For gods sake, look past the pettiness for once!

Thank-you for hitting the nail on the head. :)

Quick aside: The constitution of the US specifies the seperation of church and state. Meaning, the government cannot also be a religion, as things stood off and on in the UK at the time it was written. This doesn't mean religion should play no part in the way we govern ourselves. That is simply a stipulation to keep the government from attempting to control the people with religion, it doesn't mean we can't use religion to make our decisions.

It says no laws may be made respecting an establishment of religion...this means no nods in their direction, either, and no glances for guidance. In referendums, however, religion will play a part, and I'm willing to bet a decent amount of knuckle-draggers aren't even aware that there is a difference between state and church marriage.

That said... who cares? Do you really need a certificate telling you how you can live?

No, but you need one to visit loved ones in hospitals, and any of thousands of other rights afforded to heterosexual couples in an identical situation. This is discriminatory, and has no place in our system. I may have no desire to marry gay, but I find injustice abhorrent in every form.

NO, sodomy laws cannot. Unless you can point to one of those 11 states that banned sodomy this time around, it is not relevant. Read the article, and then come back.

Sodomy laws can be used as a way to violate the right to sleep with whoever a person wants against homosexuals, much the same way these antimarriage laws are violating their civil rights. It can also be used in an arguement to show how these marriage laws are not the first, but part of a long series of abuses homosexuals have had to suffer at the hands of legistlative bodies.

Now, answer my evidence challenge instead of trying to dodge around it.

Sorry, but a verbal thrashing had to be handed out to someone who was trying their best to hijack it.

No, it doesn't since your 'thrashing' is hijacking the thread! Make your own if you want to argue with him, this isn't the spot

Sodomy laws can be used as a way to violate the right to sleep with whoever a person wants against homosexuals, much the same way these antimarriage laws are violating their civil rights. It can also be used in an arguement to show how these marriage laws are not the first, but part of a long series of abuses homosexuals have had to suffer at the hands of legistlative bodies.

Now, answer my evidence challenge instead of trying to dodge around it.
What evidence? Keruvalia said these laws affected anything homosexuals do in their bedrooms. They do not. These laws do not affect any actions of homosexuals, only a contract that they are now, as they always have been, forbidden from entering into.

It doesn't matter what pushed it...people voted for it. That's what this country is about...it is about the voice of the people and the people don't want same-sex marriages. And just for your editfication, all, that's ALL societies that allowed gay marriages had a total decline or are in decline of socio-economical and moralistic situations. But the people were the ones who voted...not the government. The people have spoken and the US has heard. If the gays want to have their unions recognized they can go to Boston.

A sad day in America. How many, after voting to ban this "perversion of marriage," will self-righteously head over to their mistress's house, before sneaking home to their house in the 'burbs?

God, I hate people...ignnorant little thorns cutting into each other, unthinking of any world beyond their stem. Utterly pathetic.

Quick aside: The constitution of the US specifies the seperation of church and state. Meaning, the government cannot also be a religion, as things stood off and on in the UK at the time it was written. This doesn't mean religion should play no part in the way we govern ourselves. That is simply a stipulation to keep the government from attempting to control the people with religion, it doesn't mean we can't use religion to make our decisions.

That said... who cares? Do you really need a certificate telling you how you can live?

The separation of church and state is not in the constitution. It was mentioned in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to keep the state out of the church.

Maybe the concept of a correlation escapes both of your functioning brain cells, but I brought up smoking laws to show how RIDICULOUS it was to say banning marriage for homosexuals had anything to do what those homosexuals do "in the bedroom."

No, your use of anti-smoking laws was worthless. It has nothing to do with gay marriages.


Yes, and marriage is a public display of committment. A PUBLIC display of committment.

Wrong. Marriage is a private display of commitment, with which two persons exchange vows to one another announcing their love for each other, to the witness of several invited persons. I don't know what primitive country you belong to , but that doesn;t soungd public at all.


What are vivitors. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I genuinely have no idea what that means. And the 9th has nothing to do with it, as marriage isn't a fundamental right for anyone, heterosexual or not.

You know what a visitor is.

And actually, the 9th amendment does cover marriage rights.

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

Also, civil unions are worthless. They're just a nicer way pf saying "Hey, we don't mind if you enter into this faux marriage, but you're sure as hell not getting anything of the real thing."

A sad day in America. How many, after voting to ban this "perversion of marriage," will self-righteously head over to their mistress's house, before sneaking home to their house in the 'burbs?

God, I hate people...ignnorant little thorns cutting into each other, unthinking of any world beyond their stem. Utterly pathetic.
And that has what to do with anything? Are you sinless? No? Then shut up about others, charlatan.

It doesn't matter what pushed it...people voted for it

So, you're saying that if the people want it and vote for it it's okay? What if people vote to make it illegal to be a black man in the USA? Is that okay? What if they vote to make it illegal to wave your right hand on Tuesdays, is that okay? What if they vote to make jay walking a capital offence, is that okay? People do not have the right to take away the rights of others, no matter how many want it.

Wrong. Marriage is a private display of commitment, with which two persons exchange vows to one another announcing their love for each other, to the witness of several invited persons. I don't know what primitive country you belong to , but that doesn;t soungd public at all.

Then what do you call the spot on any form you will ever fill out labeled marriage, the ring on both peoples' fingers, the change from Ms. to Mrs., and any of the other PUBLIC displays of marriage?

So, you're saying that if the people want it and vote for it it's okay? What if people vote to make it illegal to be a black man in the USA? Is that okay? What if they vote to make it illegal to wave your right hand on Tuesdays, is that okay? What if they vote to make jay walking a capital offence, is that okay? People do not have the right to take away the rights of others, no matter how many want it.
Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege. A stupid one that no one should have, but it is not a right.

Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege. A stupid one that no one should have, but it is not a right.

But homosexuals do have the right the be treated exactly the same as heterosexuals. If marriage is illegal then it has to be illegal for all, and if it is legal then it has to be legal for all. To make it only available to some is a breach of their rights.

No, it doesn't since your 'thrashing' is hijacking the thread! Make your own if you want to argue with him, this isn't the spot

Sadly, yes.

What evidence? Keruvalia said these laws affected anything homosexuals do in their bedrooms. They do not. These laws do not affect any actions of homosexuals, only a contract that they are now, as they always have been, forbidden from entering into.

I'm sorry, but you failed the evidence test. I wanted exact quotes of where smoking and sodomy were specifically brought up before your posts. You have failed to provide that. Now, either find those quotes or admit you started them.

On to other things:

My whole view is this: If we are going to advertise ourselves as a bastion of freedom, why not act that way? Why shouldn't we make gay marriage legal? And don't provide me with the religious reasons, we we have already gone over those time and again. I want original reasons.

It doesn't matter what pushed it...people voted for it. That's what this country is about...it is about the voice of the people and the people don't want same-sex marriages. And just for your editfication, all, that's ALL societies that allowed gay marriages had a total decline or are in decline of socio-economical and moralistic situations. But the people were the ones who voted...not the government. The people have spoken and the US has heard. If the gays want to have their unions recognized they can go to Boston.

Uhhh, someone´s been reading "Mein Kampf" lately.
Actually, the great majority of societies pre-medieval treated homossexuality like something absolutly normal, the greek and the romans specially and their decline happened for a lot of reasons, none of them have to do with gays or lesbians...

But homosexuals do have the right the be treated exactly the same as heterosexuals. If marriage is illegal then it has to be illegal for all, and if it is legal then it has to be legal for all. To make it only available to some is a breach of their rights.
It should be illegal to all.

That is not what the spirit of this country is about. We have a right to travel, unimpeded, through the various states. We are also granted full faith and credit by Article IV of the Constitution of the United States.

No State may pass a law that abridges rights that are laid out in the Constitution. Such a law would be unconstitutional and would be overturned in Federal court.

Let's say you live in Wisconsin and your brother lives in Washington. You do not need to get a new driver's license every time you cross a state border. Your Wisconsin license is just as valid in Washington.

The same applies to a (heterosexual) marriage license. If you get married in Wisconsin, you do not have to get remarried if you move to Washington.

What these states are saying is that your Constitutional rights can be ignored if you are a homosexual couple. It is saying that homosexuals are not full citizens of the United States.

I find that sad and disturbing and should be grounds for UN Peacekeepers to come in and end the fascism that would place a caste system in the US.

I can see all of this coming to a head in, oh say, 3 or 4 years. Keep watching the issue. It will get ugly.

ARTICLE (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041103/pl_afp/us_vote_gays_marriage_041103054305)

The point you are making is valid, but premature. First you need to have a state approve civil union/marriage for gays. Then that gay couple must move into a state that does not recognize their marriage. Then they must bring a case to federal court to argue this point (among others.) Then that case would have to be appealed to the SCOTUS and they would have to be sustained there.

The states involved in these referendums: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah, with the possible exception of Michigan are not exactly on the social cutting edge. Look up their color in the presidential elections.

There is no overt religious affiliation in the referendums however you cannot say the same of the voters who would sooner legalize heroin than want this. It is not without cunning that predominantly Republican states put it on this ballot since it drew their faithful to the polls for Bush while they were there.

The only way you are going to see gay marriage come to pass is to follow the above mentioned scenario. There was a time when segregationists didn't want blacks to have equal standing either. They didn't come to it save by force of law and a few federal troops.

This is that.

It doesn't matter what pushed it...people voted for it. That's what this country is about...it is about the voice of the people and the people don't want same-sex marriages. And just for your editfication, all, that's ALL societies that allowed gay marriages had a total decline or are in decline of socio-economical and moralistic situations. But the people were the ones who voted...not the government. The people have spoken and the US has heard. If the gays want to have their unions recognized they can go to Boston.

In American history, the voice of the people wanted to keep slavery and segregation legal too.

I'm in Georgia, and with 77% voting against gay marriage, I am sick to my stomach. This is worse than barbaric. It's inhuman. I hate to use profanity, but fuck you, Georgia, fuck you.

Shit! SHIT! SHIT! SHIT! SHIT!

The eleventh state just banned gay marriage

Keep in mind they're not actually changing anything, marriage already was banned by DOMA. They're just reinforcing it because judges like to legislate from the bench.

This is that.

I hope you're right. Matter of fact, I know you're right. I'm just genuinely disgusted with my country right now.

I love the Voltaire quote in your sig, by the way.

I hope you're right. Matter of fact, I know you're right. I'm just genuinely disgusted with my country right now.

I love the Voltaire quote in your sig, by the way.
Thanks for the nod at the quote, it seems especially appropriate in light of this thread.

The fact is that many of these people who adamantly voted against gay marriage voted against a boogyman concept put forth by others. I seriously believe that one on one most of them would accept individual situations. There was a tremendous amount of pressure against it and no real unified, well funded voice for it.

Nothing worthwhile comes easy. For most people this is a huge issue. The gay rights movement started - STARTED - on June 26, 1969. Thirty five years later it would be interesting to see what a vote in Manhattan would bring. It would probably pass, but not by a huge margin. IN MANHATTAN!

If it were a citywide vote it would definitely fail.

The only recourse is to drag them screaming and kicking into a world they woun't mind in 10 or years. They'll wonder what all the fuss was about. But they have to be forced to deal with it first.

U know, doesn't ur country (The USA i assume) base most of its constitution and laws etc. on Christian values and so on? Haven't they done so since 1776? Wouldn't that be a reason for them to ban same-sex marriages?

U know, doesn't ur country (The USA i assume) base most of its constitution and laws etc. on Christian values and so on? Haven't they done so since 1776? Wouldn't that be a reason for them to ban same-sex marriages?

No, they haven't, and I really don't get why people keep saying they did. They based their laws on common freaking sense, like saying that murder is bad. Laws that non-Christian religions say just as much as Christian religions do. Judaism is just as strongly against murder as Christianity is.

Why not say they based their laws on Islam? Islam says theivery is bad and oppression is bad and slaughter of the masses is bad, so America must have been founded on Islamic ideals.

Saying that America was founded on Christian principles is not only incorrect, it's no reason to act a certain way now.

U know, doesn't ur country (The USA i assume) base most of its constitution and laws etc. on Christian values and so on? Haven't they done so since 1776? Wouldn't that be a reason for them to ban same-sex marriages?

Nah ... no part of the Constituion of the United States can be found in the Christian Bible. No part of it at all.

U know, doesn't ur country (The USA i assume) base most of its constitution and laws etc. on Christian values and so on? Haven't they done so since 1776? Wouldn't that be a reason for them to ban same-sex marriages?

That's completely incorrect. Most of our founding fathers were deists.

U know, doesn't ur country (The USA i assume) base most of its constitution and laws etc. on Christian values and so on? Haven't they done so since 1776? Wouldn't that be a reason for them to ban same-sex marriages?
The fundi-Christians say yes, the founding fathers say no.

Good luck getting Wyoming to accept Homosexuality. Just Google Matthew Shepard.

Those also exist.
Where, the only state in the Union that tried to pull that one off was Texas, and the Supreme Court shot them down. Tell me which state has anti-sodomy laws.

I have never heard one single reason to outlaw same-sex marriages other than religous reasons, and unless I'm mistaken religion is not supposed to play a role in ruling of the United States of America

nope the voters play a role . and they can use there morals resaons to be a guide on how they vote . and this does not ! ban cival unions witch bush supports . so gays will have there day . lol hey that rymes ! gay day lol

fucking hell.

and we in oregon were SO close to defeating it.

Homosexuality aside, it would be interesting to see what the patriarchal polygamists in Utah would think about a state amendment there that sanctified only the union of ONE man to ONE woman regardless of your ridiculous "religious" views.
Despite your backwards view of utah, Poligamy is practiced by less than .001 percent of the poulation of Utah. It is illegal, and the Utah admendment bans all unions ecxept those between one man and one woman. Go back to your cave.

It doesn't matter what pushed it...people voted for it. That's what this country is about...it is about the voice of the people and the people don't want same-sex marriages. And just for your editfication, all, that's ALL societies that allowed gay marriages had a total decline or are in decline of socio-economical and moralistic situations. But the people were the ones who voted...not the government. The people have spoken and the US has heard. If the gays want to have their unions recognized they can go to Boston.

Quoted for the absolute truth. That is what America is all about, Democracy.
It says nowhere that marriage is a right. If Americans want it illegal, so be it. To not recognize their votes would not be in the best interests of Democracy.

And that has what to do with anything? Are you sinless? No? Then shut up about others, charlatan.

What the hell are you on about? My comment is disparaging of those who cry about how gay marriage is a perversion or weakening of marriage, while adultery and divorce run rampant today amongst those who can do it. When was the last time you saw one of the groups spouting such crap picketting a state office for the abolition of state marriage or the prohibition of divorce or adultery? Hypocrisy.

This is what I posted. If you want to accuse me of something else I didn't cover, go ahead.

A sad day in America. How many, after voting to ban this "perversion of marriage," will self-righteously head over to their mistress's house, before sneaking home to their house in the 'burbs?

God, I hate people...ignnorant little thorns cutting into each other, unthinking of any world beyond their stem. Utterly pathetic.

Yeah, I'm arrogant and have a sense of being above others. If that's your only complaint, bite me. "A person is smart, people are stupid," as the saying goes. This is an issue with the opposition based in prejudice and/or illogical arguments (if you disagree, find me a good argument here against gay marriage), and I peddle neither, hence my jaded comments.

Quoted for the absolute truth. That is what America is all about, Democracy.
It says nowhere that marriage is a right. If Americans want it illegal, so be it. To not recognize their votes would not be in the best interests of Democracy.

That would be a lot more valid if the US was a democracy

Yeah, I'm arrogant and have a sense of being above others. If that's your only complaint, bite me. "A person is smart, people are stupid," as the saying goes. This is an issue with the opposition based in prejudice and/or illogical arguments (if you disagree, find me a good argument here against gay marriage), and I peddle neither, hence my jaded comments.
You're saying that people who vote against gay marriage also have mistresses, and therefore they're morally bankrupt and shouldn't count. Well I'm calling bullshit, since you know damn well you aren't perfect, and are in no place to say your opinion is worth more than theirs.

You're saying that people who vote against gay marriage also have mistresses, and therefore they're morally bankrupt and shouldn't count. Well I'm calling bullshit, since you know damn well you aren't perfect, and are in no place to say your opinion is worth more than theirs.

He's saying that nobody should make rulings on morality, since nobody has it. Now fuck off, flamer.

You're saying that people who vote against gay marriage also have mistresses, and therefore they're morally bankrupt and shouldn't count. Well I'm calling bullshit, since you know damn well you aren't perfect, and are in no place to say your opinion is worth more than theirs.

I just amended my last post to be more clear, so you ought to look there. I don't think you have any grounds to accuse me of the hypocrisy which I allude to. If you do, be specific. Citing a "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" rebuttal seems quite futile here.

My claim is that the Christians who want to dictate what marriage is about ought to either campaign to get rid of the real affronts to marriage that exist today in abundance or campaign to get the state to get out of marriage entirely. Til then, it's "We've got ours and you can't have any!" hypocrisy.

He's saying that nobody should make rulings on morality, since nobody has it. Now fuck off, flamer.
The law is based on morality, dumbass. What else is it based on, if not the morals of those writing it?

The law is based on morality, dumbass. What else is it based on, if not the morals of those writing it?

Who's morality?

The laws are based off of what was thought up of at the time as "Natural Rights." I've studied philosophy, and morality isn't a part of Natural Rights.

The founding fathers weren't stupid.

Unlike you.

Guys, you're gonna get this thread locked from flaming. Cut it out. Now.

Who's morality?

The laws are based off of what was thought up of at the time as "Natural Rights." I've studied philosophy, and morality isn't a part of Natural Rights.

The founding fathers weren't stupid.

Unlike you.
Philosophy, kudos to you. Good look getting a real job with your bullshit, waste of four years major. Whereas the realists will be making the world work, writing laws based on their morality.

He's saying that nobody should make rulings on morality, since nobody has it. Now fuck off, flamer.

Indeed I am, thanks for helping w/ the clarification...I'm the one using the "Let ye who is without sin" argument to refer to those self-righteous heterosexuals who would deny the rights they receive to their homosexual counterparts. Using it against me is nonsensical.

Has Arammaner been this flamey this far? I just got back...

Philosophy, kudos to you. Good look getting a real job with your bullshit, waste of four years major. Whereas the realists will be making the world work, writing laws based on their morality.

On the run already?

Philosophy, kudos to you. Good look getting a real job with your bullshit, waste of four years major. Whereas the realists will be making the world work, writing laws based on their morality.

Who said it was my major?

Way to make assumptions, there.

Besides, you have yet to answer the question. Who's morality?

Who said it was my major?

Way to make assumptions, there.

Besides, you have yet to answer the question. Who's morality?
The electorate. They pick Congressmen based on their conscience and the laws are made. If you think abortion is morally wrong, you vote for an anti-abortion Congressmen.

I heard about two far far rightwing people elected to senate. WTF? One of these guys wanted single mothers not to be allowed to teach in public schools. And one of them (not sure if it was the same guy) was a doctor- disgrace to the medical profession.

I lose hope...

That doctor, from what I understand, also wants abortion doctors to be executed. Yes, executed. Any info on this whackjob? I mean, I have this morbid curiosity to see what the people of Oklahoma have put into office...

The electorate. They pick Congressmen based on their conscience and the laws are made. If you think abortion is morally wrong, you vote for an anti-abortion Congressmen.

Only, the electorate isn't a singular identity. People have different moralities. Who decides which morality is the best? The majority? Sorry, that's a tyranny. So that doesn't work.

Where, the only state in the Union that tried to pull that one off was Texas, and the Supreme Court shot them down. Tell me which state has anti-sodomy laws.

The last time I checked, Virginia still has laws against sodomy on the books, but those are hotly contested.

Only, the electorate isn't a singular identity. People have different moralities. Who decides which morality is the best? The majority? Sorry, that's a tyranny. So that doesn't work.
It does work, and has worked for 230 years. Unless you know about some secret way of making laws that no one else does?

and yet, most Mormons choose to ignore that little bit.
Oh? You have proof that most Mormons (i.e. 51% of the members of the religion or higher) are polygamists? Please show your source.

Or are you simply a bigot against Mormons?

and yet, most Mormons choose to ignore that little bit.

It's not most. There's a few VERY small communities where it's still practiced, but it's not most of them.

However, Utah is among the states that bassed an anti-gay bill.

It does work, and has worked for 230 years. Unless you know about some secret way of making laws that no one else does?

Read: Interracial marriges

Read: Interracial marriges
When has interracial marriage created a law? Or do you mean the laws created interracial marriage, laws enacted with the consent of the majority of the populance?

Philosophy, kudos to you. Good look getting a real job with your bullshit, waste of four years major. Whereas the realists will be making the world work, writing laws based on their morality.
. . . which can be overturned on constitutional grounds by clear thinking practical idealists called Supreme Court Justices.

Still wanna keep them darkies down, eh?

Keep in mind they're not actually changing anything, marriage already was banned by DOMA. They're just reinforcing it because judges like to legislate from the bench.

Keep in mind that those judges aren't actually doing anything different than usual - their job is to interpret the Constitution and strike down unconstitutional laws. Discrimination is unconstitutional, and so the judges struck down its application. But, people like you buy newly-coined terms like "activist judges" without question, so suddenly people are firm in the belief that these judges are doing something they ought not to be doing.

Nothing's changed, saved that the administration is more intolerant of the checks and balances our founding fathers wisely put in place.

When has interracial marriage created a law? Or do you mean the laws created interracial marriage, laws enacted with the consent of the majority of the populance?

Interracial marrige was once illegal. Against the will of the majority, that was changed.

Also see: slavery, women's lib.

Keep in mind that those judges aren't actually doing anything different than usual - their job is to interpret the Constitution and strike down unconstitutional laws. Discrimination is unconstitutional, and so the judges struck down its application. But, people like you buy newly-coined terms like "activist judges" without question, so suddenly people are firm in the belief that these judges are doing something they ought not to be doing.

Nothing's changed, saved that the administration is more intolerant of the checks and balances our founding fathers wisely put in place.
They can throw out laws, they can't create them. There's a huge difference.

The electorate. They pick Congressmen based on their conscience and the laws are made. If you think abortion is morally wrong, you vote for an anti-abortion Congressmen.
. . . who is powerless to go beyond the Supreme Court. Not a really brilliant strategy.

Interracial marrige was once illegal. Against the will of the majority, that was changed.

Also see: slavery, women's lib.
The South was in the minority on slavery, and in the 60's the anti-interracialists were in the minority. I don't follow women's lib., but at the very least 2/3 isn't bad.

. . . who is powerless to go beyond the Supreme Court. Not a really brilliant strategy.
The Supreme Court picked by your President. You choose them indirectly, but still do.

They can throw out laws, they can't create them. There's a huge difference.
True to the extent you'll still be able to set the fee for a marriage filing . . . as long as it is the same for all. :rolleyes:

The South was in the minority on slavery, and in the 60's the anti-interracialists were in the minority. I don't follow women's lib., but at the very least 2/3 isn't bad.

At first, they were the majority.

As time goes on, people USUALLY become smarter about such issues.

Such is the case with homosexual marrige.

Give it a few years, it'll be legal yet.

The South was in the minority on slavery, and in the 60's the anti-interracialists were in the minority. I don't follow women's lib., but at the very least 2/3 isn't bad.
They weren't forced to change because they were a minority. Philosophy may not pay much but if you are going to intelligently argue the facts of the American legal system and the constitution SOME information on the subject is a prerequisite. You are screwing up prep school civics.

At first, they were the majority.

As time goes on, people USUALLY become smarter about such issues.

Such is the case with homosexual marrige.

Give it a few years, it'll be legal yet.
That will be fine. If at some point homosexual marriage is considered moral by the majority of the population, I will accept that, as I believe in our legal system.

Quick aside: The constitution of the US specifies the seperation of church and state. Meaning, the government cannot also be a religion, as things stood off and on in the UK at the time it was written. This doesn't mean religion should play no part in the way we govern ourselves. That is simply a stipulation to keep the government from attempting to control the people with religion, it doesn't mean we can't use religion to make our decisions.

That said... who cares? Do you really need a certificate telling you how you can live?

Find me where exactly in the Constitution the words "separation of church and state" appear. The amendment simply states that the government cannot endorse any particular denomination, not that people or the government cannot be involved in religion.

Voters in eleven U.S. states, eleven fucking states, have voted to ban same-sex mariage in the state constitutions. That is eleven states where two people who love each other are now forbidden to marry. What the hell is wrong with these people?

I have never heard one single reason to outlaw same-sex marriages other than religous reasons, and unless I'm mistaken religion is not supposed to play a role in ruling of the United States of America. I heard one person who voted to ban the marriages say that it was an issue which transcended political, racial, and economic boundries, and that it was about the future of our nation. How the hell would legalising gay marriage negatively impact our future? More people would be happy, is that a bad thing? Prejudice and bigotry would be less, is that a bad thing? We'd be that much less of a nation of hypocrites, is that a bad thing?

I'm not gay, I don't plan to be gay, and I only know one gay person (In real, that is), but that doesn't change the fact that they are human beings who deserve every single bit of freedom that the rest of us do.

Forget the Bush/Kerry debates, forget the Iraq War, forget our reaction to 9/11, this event alone makes me ashamed to be an American.

I have not heard one single ethical reason that murder should be outlawed that isn't based somehow in some religion. Moral relativism can be applied to anything. Most American laws are based upon some Judeo-Christian value that can't be explained to a moral relativist, such as laws against murder, theft, corruption, rape, child pornography etc.

I have not heard one single ethical reason that murder should be outlawed that isn't based somehow in some religion. Moral relativism can be applied to anything. Most American laws are based upon some Judeo-Christian value that can't be explained to a moral relativist, such as laws against murder, theft, corruption, rape, child pornography etc.

Name laws that are based purely off of Judeo-Christianity.

I've asked this numerous times, not once have I been answered.

Voters in eleven U.S. states, eleven fucking states, have voted to ban same-sex mariage in the state constitutions. That is eleven states where two people who love each other are now forbidden to marry. What the hell is wrong with these people?

I have never heard one single reason to outlaw same-sex marriages other than religous reasons, and unless I'm mistaken religion is not supposed to play a role in ruling of the United States of America. I heard one person who voted to ban the marriages say that it was an issue which transcended political, racial, and economic boundries, and that it was about the future of our nation. How the hell would legalising gay marriage negatively impact our future? More people would be happy, is that a bad thing? Prejudice and bigotry would be less, is that a bad thing? We'd be that much less of a nation of hypocrites, is that a bad thing?

I'm not gay, I don't plan to be gay, and I only know one gay person (In real, that is), but that doesn't change the fact that they are human beings who deserve every single bit of freedom that the rest of us do.

Forget the Bush/Kerry debates, forget the Iraq War, forget our reaction to 9/11, this event alone makes me ashamed to be an American.

**Applaudes You**

Find me where exactly in the Constitution the words "separation of church and state" appear. The amendment simply states that the government cannot endorse any particular denomination, not that people or the government cannot be involved in religion.
Prep school should have informed you regarding the existence of 'case law'. That is court decisions that are detailed interpertations of constitutional amendments. For that you can go to findlaw.com and educate yourself. Try school prayer as a search term.

Voters in eleven U.S. states, eleven fucking states, have voted to ban same-sex mariage in the state constitutions. That is eleven states where two people who love each other are now forbidden to marry. What the hell is wrong with these people?

I have never heard one single reason to outlaw same-sex marriages other than religous reasons, and unless I'm mistaken religion is not supposed to play a role in ruling of the United States of America. I heard one person who voted to ban the marriages say that it was an issue which transcended political, racial, and economic boundries, and that it was about the future of our nation. How the hell would legalising gay marriage negatively impact our future? More people would be happy, is that a bad thing? Prejudice and bigotry would be less, is that a bad thing? We'd be that much less of a nation of hypocrites, is that a bad thing?

I'm not gay, I don't plan to be gay, and I only know one gay person (In real, that is), but that doesn't change the fact that they are human beings who deserve every single bit of freedom that the rest of us do.

Forget the Bush/Kerry debates, forget the Iraq War, forget our reaction to 9/11, this event alone makes me ashamed to be an American.

I got a music degree at Westminster Choir College, where heterosexual men were the exception, not the rule. As such, I have extensive experience with many gay people, and I have yet to find one that is not desperately unhappy. Desiring to choke the living sh*t out of someone is not a sin, but actually doing it is. Having an attraction to the same sex is not wrong, but acting on it is. All our laws are based on moral judgements and values, and many people, including myself, feel that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. It is damaging to the homosexual himself/herself, it is damaging to the people around him/her. By the way, it is not just the South that approved these amendments, Ohio did also.

Name laws that are based purely off of Judeo-Christianity.

I've asked this numerous times, not once have I been answered.

Laws against murder:
Thou shalt not murder.

I got a music degree at Westminster Choir College, where heterosexual men were the exception, not the rule. As such, I have extensive experience with many gay people, and I have yet to find one that is not desperately unhappy. Desiring to choke the living sh*t out of someone is not a sin, but actually doing it is. Having an attraction to the same sex is not wrong, but acting on it is. All our laws are based on moral judgements and values, and many people, including myself, feel that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. It is damaging to the homosexual himself/herself, it is damaging to the people around him/her. By the way, it is not just the South that approved these amendments, Ohio did also.

Have you ever thought that maybe-JUST MAYBE-they were unhappy because they were social pariahs to most of the country?

Laws against murder:
Thou shalt not murder.
Sorry, but pacifism is part of Buddhism.

I'm looking for laws that are STRICTLY and ONLY Judeo-Christian. Other wise, they obviously could be based off of something else.

I have not heard one single ethical reason that murder should be outlawed that isn't based somehow in some religion. Moral relativism can be applied to anything. Most American laws are based upon some Judeo-Christian value that can't be explained to a moral relativist, such as laws against murder, theft, corruption, rape, child pornography etc.

Murder is an infringement on someone else's rights, specifically the right to be alive, and that is why it is against the law. Your rights stop where mine begin. No one's rights extend to infringing upon someone else's rights.

Prep school should have informed you regarding the existence of 'case law'. That is court decisions that are detailed interpertations of constitutional amendments. For that you can go to findlaw.com and educate yourself. Try school prayer as a search term.
So if "case law" determined that all children must say the Lord's Prayer in school every day, as a twisted "interpretation" of the Constitution, you would be ok with that? The term "separation of church and state" only existed in a single letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote, and did not become part of "case law" until the middle part of the 20th century.

Have you ever thought that maybe-JUST MAYBE-they were unhappy because they were social pariahs to most of the country?


Sorry, but pacifism is part of Buddhism.

I'm looking for laws that are STRICTLY and ONLY Judeo-Christian. Other wise, they obviously could be based off of something else.

Your logic is faulty. Just because something written in the Bible is also used in another religion does not mean that a law was not based off of Judeo-Christian theology. Consider the fact that the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were Christian. They didn't base the Constitution on Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Zen, or any other religion. It is Christian-based.

Your logic is faulty. Just because something written in the Bible is also used in another religion does not mean that a law was not based off of Judeo-Christian theology.
What it DOES mean is that it MIGHT not be based off of Judeo-CHristian theology. And that alone proves that reasoning incorrect.

Consider the fact that the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were Christian. They didn't base the Constitution on Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Zen, or any other religion. It is Christian-based.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. THe founding fathers were mostly diests, who studied everything from christianity to zooastrianism.

Once again: prove that the law is based off of Judeo-Christianity. I'll give you a hint: read Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.

First off, many of the founding fathers were not Christian. Secondly, Christiantiy is based of Judaism, so therefor US law (if it is indeed based of Chrsitianity) is based on Jewish law, and Jewish law equates homosexuality as a sin on par with eating pork and washing a knife used to cut meat in the same sink as a glass dairy was in. Wow, isn't that worthy of banning and condemning.

Your logic is faulty. Just because something written in the Bible is also used in another religion does not mean that a law was not based off of Judeo-Christian theology. Consider the fact that the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were Christian. They didn't base the Constitution on Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Zen, or any other religion. It is Christian-based.

Actually, they were Deist, not Christian. In that, it's important to note that those few laws (which pale in comparison to the sheer number of other Judeo-Christian laws not represented in our laws - fancy that) are merely cornerstones of an effective government and a stable society. There's nothing exclusively Christian about that.

Funny how they mention the ten commandments ... *cough* Hammurabi's Code *cough*

They can throw out laws, they can't create them. There's a huge difference.

Oh, how interesting. Perhaps you'll cite one of these laws they've put on the books. Verbatim - not a concept, nor a precedent. Of course, I'm leading you into something, but why don't you see if you can spring my trap before I snare you?

What it DOES mean is that it MIGHT not be based off of Judeo-CHristian theology. And that alone proves that reasoning incorrect.



Wrong, wrong, and wrong. THe founding fathers were mostly diests, who studied everything from christianity to zooastrianism.

Once again: prove that the law is based off of Judeo-Christianity. I'll give you a hint: read Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.

Another sad case of brainwashing in our fine liberal universities. Look it up in any reputable, non-Michael Moore authored, history book. The idea that most of them were Deists is a complete myth.

It is virtually impossible to prove that any law is based strictly off of Judeo-Christian theology, and NOTHING ELSE, since most of the concepts in the Bible are universal truths, widely used by other religions. One can deduce, however, that if the writer of the law is Christian, writes many Christian articles, and believes in Christian values, that the law he wrote might just be based on Christianity.

Oh, how interesting. Perhaps you'll cite one of these laws they've put on the books. Verbatim - not a concept, nor a precedent. Of course, I'm leading you into something, but why don't you see if you can spring my trap before I snare you?
Remember the case where the courts ordered the legislature to make a provision for gay marriage by...2006, I believe it was? That sounds like legislating for me. Snare me please.

Remember the case where the courts ordered the legislature to make a provision for gay marriage by...2006, I believe it was? That sounds like legislating for me. Snare me please.

No, that sounds like telling the legislature to legislate.

Another sad case of brainwashing in our fine liberal universities. Look it up in any reputable, non-Michael Moore authored, history book. The idea that most of them were Deists is a complete myth.

Actually, that same information was in my high-school text book on history. From what I have heard, it is in a large number of them. And none of those are written by Michael Moore. So this is general crap the American education system itself is feeding to people.

No, that sounds like telling the legislature to legislate.
There's a difference between ordering and asking. From what I understand, feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my understanding, the legislature was forced to allow gay marriages.

I got a music degree at Westminster Choir College, where heterosexual men were the exception, not the rule. As such, I have extensive experience with many gay people, and I have yet to find one that is not desperately unhappy. Desiring to choke the living sh*t out of someone is not a sin, but actually doing it is. Having an attraction to the same sex is not wrong, but acting on it is. All our laws are based on moral judgements and values, and many people, including myself, feel that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. It is damaging to the homosexual himself/herself, it is damaging to the people around him/her. By the way, it is not just the South that approved these amendments, Ohio did also.

1) I've known several gay people as well. I've not known one that wasn't desperately unhappy. Then again, it seems that a lot of people are desperately unhappy. On the other hand, it's a tendency of people to project their emotions onto others. Take these musings as you will.

2) Prove that homosexuality is ethically wrong.

3) Prove that it damages the homosexual and persons around him/her.

So many leaps in logic, yet compressed to question so easily.

Remember the case where the courts ordered the legislature to make a provision for gay marriage by...2006, I believe it was? That sounds like legislating for me. Snare me please.

No, I don't. Cite the ruling to prove it - I explicitly said verbatim.

No, I don't. Cite the ruling to prove it - I explicitly said verbatim.
Well, I'm tired and lazy, and although we both know what I'm talking about, fine, you win.

There's a difference between ordering and asking. From what I understand, feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my understanding, the legislature was forced to allow gay marriages.

He's right - by your vague wording, it sounds to me like telling the legislators to resolve the issue...or, to do their job, not doing it for them. Of course, now you need to pony up the evidence.

Well, I'm tired and lazy, and although we both know what I'm talking about, fine, you win.

No, what you're talking about is vague...self-servingly so. You want to just opt out here, fine. Know that next time you use such drivel as the claim of "activist judges," you are making a claim in pure ignorance, furthering a line of mindless propaganda.

No, what you're talking about is vague...self-servingly so. You want to just opt out here, fine. Know that next time you use such drivel as the claim of "activist judges," you are making a claim in pure ignorance, furthering a line of mindless propaganda.
I googled it and this is the first thing that came up. If you don't like the source, find a better one:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar8.htm

I googled it and this is the first thing that came up. If you don't like the source, find a better one:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar8.htm

I'm quite fond of religioustolerance.org, actually.

Once again, this is entirely in line with the job of the Judicial Branch. The disparity in the system was unconstitutional, and they demanded a fix. It went to the Legislature to make the law. Seems like the system at work to me.

I'm quite fond of religioustolerance.org, actually.

Once again, this is entirely in line with the job of the Judicial Branch. The disparity in the system was unconstitutional, and they demanded a fix. It went to the Legislature to make the law. Seems like the system at work to me.
The judiarcy renders laws invalid, it does not make new ones. Someone should have sued to have all marriages rendered invalid, and then have the Legislature make a new law to allow homosexual and heterosexual marriages. That's how it is supposed to work.

In short: America sucks donkey ass. Simple as that.

As an American, I am offended by that. I have no preference in terms of how legislation goes. And in defense of REAL democracy- if equality was unbias, then why would people make such comments (as above) instead of accepting the decisions being made. If a situation is outvoted, then it is that simple, outvoted. You don't have to like every single thing about democracy, but if you don't vote in American issues, then discussing/criticizing them is completely pointless.

The judiarcy renders laws invalid, it does not make new ones. Someone should have sued to have all marriages rendered invalid, and then have the Legislature make a new law to allow homosexual and heterosexual marriages. That's how it is supposed to work.

It rendered the current law invalid, and demanded that the legislature allow equal marriage rights to homosexuals and heterosexuals. This would include such an action as you propose, that being abolishing all marriage rights and starting anew. They didn't do this, but that was their decision. Complain about legislators not wanting to overhaul the system if you like, but the judiciary acted as it was supposed to.

It rendered the current law invalid, and demanded that the legislature allow equal marriage rights to homosexuals and heterosexuals. This would include such an action as you propose, that being abolishing all marriage rights and starting anew. They didn't do this, but that was their decision. Complain about legislators not wanting to overhaul the system if you like, but the judiciary acted as it was supposed to.
No it didn't, if it had rendered the current law invalid, all the marriages of all the people in the state should have been rendered invalid. If that had happened, I would be happy.

No it didn't, if it had rendered the current law invalid, all the marriages of all the people in the state should have been rendered invalid. If that had happened, I would be happy.

The validity of existing marriages in the US had not been challenged. A claim that homosexuals were not allowed to marry was, and was subsequently struck down. Thusly, the ruling was that the legislature had to make equal provisions for homosexuals, the only possible rulings based in a legal system that promises equal rights to all. All or none...the Legislature could have chosen the latter, but didn't. That's not the Judiciary's job, and it would have been legislating from
the bench to make a specific demand as you think they should have.

Checkmate.

The validity of existing marriages in the US had not been challenged. A claim that homosexuals were not allowed to marry was, and was subsequently struck down. Thusly, the ruling was that the legislature had to make equal provisions for homosexuals, the only possible rulings based in a legal system that promises equal rights to all. All or none...the Legislature could have chosen the latter, but didn't. That's not the Judiciary's job, and it would have been legislating from
the bench to make a specific demand as you think they should have.

Checkmate.
The judiciary invalidates illegal laws. Since the law was not invalidated, it was either A) legal, or B) the justices are legislating from the bench.