NationStates Jolt Archive

It looks like the only state in the union that allows these "marriages" may soon not allow them any more. Looks like they are starting to see the light. If its not allowed in Mass. I don't see how it will allowed any where else in the country, only matter of time until every state bans this.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/02/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html

See the light?

It looks like the only state in the union that allows these "marriages" may soon not allow them any more. Looks like they are starting to see the light. If its not allowed in Mass. I don't see how it will allowed any where else in the country, only matter of time until every state bans this.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/02/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html

first off, don't call it "marriage". Under law it's marriage, same as any other.

And additionally, to do this requires votes in two consecutive legislatures, then a vote by the people.

They'd first have to get it through a SECOND legislative vote (less likely as the state swung more dem and some of those who voted for it are outgoing) and THEN pass a popular vote, when polling in MA suggests the majority are in favor.

You need two legislative votes from two concurrent legislatures then a majority popular vote. The majority of the population of MA is quite in favor and even if it got on a ballot, it would likely be defeated.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

In addition...MA is wierd politically, this is not a vote on a ban, this is a vote to put a vote of a ban on the ballot. Many people voting in favor of the ballot question are in FAVOR of gay marriage, but want the question on the ballot so the people can vote. Recent polls suggest about 15-20% of those in favor of the ballot question are in favor for it so the people can vote for it, and uphold it.

Thanks to Soviestan for proving that people of all religions can be intolerant.

Looks like they are starting to see the light.

Yes. Pity the light is caused by the fires of irrationality and intolerance.

Yes. Pity the light is caused by the fires of irrationality and intolerance.

Quoted for motherfuckin' truth.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9663004&postcount=32

Soviestan
Gay Marriage: strongly support

My, my, how one has turned to trolling ways...

I really don't get why it's such a big deal in the US.

When they approved civil unions for homosexuals here (Federal District) a couple of priests showed up, got all red in the face and took a cab back home while a small parade turned into an urban party. Since then, no one's brought it up.

Anyway, i hope this piece of legislation turns into Icarus.

Is someone paying you to be an intolerant fuck?

Here we go, from the globe:

Public opposition to such marriages has steadily eroded to the point where a majority of Bay Staters now support the new legal status quo, polls indicate. A Boston Globe poll in March indicated that 56 percent of those surveyed supported gay marriage, 37 percent were opposed, and 7 percent were unsure.


So even IF the NEXT legislature also votes to put it on the ballot...guess what? The majority of MA is in favor of gay marriage.

So go ahead, put it on the ballot, it'll be defeated. This is not a vote to ban gay marriage, this is a vote to put a gay marriage ban as a referendum, and the people of MA are in majority favor of gay marriage, and will defeat the ballot.

It looks like the only state in the union that allows these "marriages" may soon not allow them any more. Looks like they are starting to see the light. If its not allowed in Mass. I don't see how it will allowed any where else in the country, only matter of time until every state bans this.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/02/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html

Oh grow up!

Any ban of the right of marriage to any particular group is a violation of 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9663004&postcount=32



My, my, how one has turned to trolling ways...

pwned.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9663004&postcount=32

My, my, how one has turned to trolling ways...

Yes, well, that was before he became a Muslim.

And the CNN article says that even if the amendment is approved in 2008, it would leave existing same-sex marriages intact, just prohibit new ones, so ... I have confidence in the good voters of Massachusetts to vote this amendment down.

My, my, how one has turned to trolling ways...

The Atheist Republic of Soviestan
Real Name:Stan Sovie
Age:University age
General Location:Northern Hemisphere
General Political Affiliation [if any]:Left of centre
General Religious Affiliation [if any]:Atheist
Where Did You Find NationStates?:link on a friends profile
Have you read any of Max Barry's books: 0
Professional Goal:Teach, travel the world
How many hours a day do you watch TV?:no more than 4 or 5
What is your favorite genre of music: Rock generally
Other information:
Political Beliefs:
Abortion: strongly pro-choice
Affirmative Action: strongly against
Arms Trade: For
Death Penalty: For in most cases
Drugs: most should be legalized and regulated
Economic System: social market or welfare capitalist
Education: Its good, people should get as much as they can
Electoral College in USA Elections: should be thrown out
Environmentalism: very much for
Euthanasia: very much for
Evolution or Creation?: EVOLUTION!
FCC: against, censorship is wrong. It should be done away with
Gay Marriage: strongly support
Gun Control: strongly opposed
Immigration Policies: Should be lessened in the US and Canada, should be tightened in Europe
Income Tax: Taxes should be low, but the rich should pay a higher %
Israel/Palestine: 100% strongly pro-Palestinian and pro-Palestine
Philosophy: take life as it comes
Political Party Affiliation: none
President Bush/American Policies: not great to say the least
Prostitution: should be legal
Religion: Is hurting society and should be abolished
Social Security: Is necessary
The UN: Is great
Veganism/Vegetarianism: fine by me
War in Iraq: was a mistake but they have a shot at a democracy
War on Terror: is better fought through good police work and security at home.

Quoted for trooth.

Is someone paying you to be an intolerant fuck?

No, he's just like that naturally.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9663004&postcount=32



My, my, how one has turned to trolling ways...

Aye. I actually respect Soviestan once, ya know? Then he randomly converted to Islam, and has slowly turned into a right-winged troll. Sad...so sad.

It seems that Romney isn't satisfied with fucking over the state with massive Big Dig failures, chasing out research groups, ruining education within the state, and all his other failings...does he really need to add "taking away civil rights" to his list just to try and get the ultra-conservative vote in his presidentail bid?

Asshole.

Aye. I actually respect Soviestan once, ya know? Then he randomly converted to Islam, and has slowly turned into a right-winged troll. Sad...so sad.

wow, really? a Socialist converting to Islam... That is very odd. Like a microcosm of 20th century Arab politics.

Aye. I actually respect Soviestan once, ya know? Then he randomly converted to Islam, and has slowly turned into a right-winged troll. Sad...so sad.

I can recall getting along with him.:(

In fifty years, gay marriage will be legal nation-wide, and people will wonder why some religious lunatics were so reluctant to accept them.

If I'm still around then, I'll remember threads like this one. And laugh.

In fifty years, gay marriage will be legal nation-wide, and people will wonder why some religious lunatics were so reluctant to accept them.

If I'm still around then, I'll remember threads like this one. And laugh.

QFT

If I'm still around then, I'll remember threads like this one. And laugh.

imbetween the beatings from our robot overlords?

wow, really? a Socialist converting to Islam... That is very odd. Like a microcosm of 20th century Arab politics.

Indeed. I think that it's rather odd that Soviestan could fall from being a relatively likable, tolerant guy to a fanatically religious right-wing statist.

If gays want to get married, let them. It has no effect on me. If it makes them happy - and both partners consent to it - why the hell not?

If gays want to get married, let them. It has no effect on me. If it makes them happy - and both partners consent to it - why the hell not?

Because it scares Soviestan, and other bigots.

Thanks to Soviestan for proving that people of all religions can be intolerant.

QFT

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9663004&postcount=32



My, my, how one has turned to trolling ways...

I don't know why that profile is still up. That was ages ago. Look at Kervulia profile, it still says he's a Muslim. In fact I posted an updated profile that they haven't put up as the "official" one. Check the profile thread for my views, and then see if you want to call me a troll. Here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12091912&postcount=351

I don't know why that profile is still up. That was ages ago. Look at Kervulia profile, it still says he's a Muslim. In fact I posted an updated profile that they haven't put up as the "official" one. Check the profile thread for my views, and then see if you want to call me a troll.

Oh I have no problems calling you a troll.

And you still haven't recognized how I demonstrated that such a ballot wouldn't ever pass in MA thus making your whole post irrelevant.

I don't know why that profile is still up. That was ages ago. Look at Kervulia profile, it still says he's a Muslim. In fact I posted an updated profile that they haven't put up as the "official" one. Check the profile thread for my views, and then see if you want to call me a troll.

Even if you're not a troll, you're still an ass.

I don't know why that profile is still up. That was ages ago. Look at Kervulia profile, it still says he's a Muslim. In fact I posted an updated profile that they haven't put up as the "official" one. Check the profile thread for my views, and then see if you want to call me a troll. Here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12091912&postcount=351

"ages ago" when your nation is not quite a year old

You either made a massive change or feel like this "persona" is more entertaining ... i am betting the latter

"ages ago" when your nation is not quite a year old

You either made a massive change or feel like this "persona" is more entertaining ... i am betting the latter

agreed, a far left communist isn't nearly as good as shit stirring around here as a right wing homophobic anti semite.

agreed, a far left communist isn't nearly as good as shit stirring around here as a right wing homophobic anti semite.

Changing a few things ... alright ... i have realized my religion changed (even though it took more then a year)

But that original profile of his had more then a single thing in direct opposition from his original supposed viewpoint, doubtfully genuine

At least he's taking his conversion seriously, unlike some other posters.

"ages ago" when your nation is not quite a year old

You either made a massive change or feel like this "persona" is more entertaining ... i am betting the latter

Ages ago, and his nation is a bit over a year old. I don't think he's gone through as massive a personality change as he's claiming, so he's probably doing all this crap for attention. Yay for trolls.

Changing a few things ... alright ... i have realized my religion changed (even though it took more then a year)

But that original profile of his had more then a single thing in direct opposition from his original supposed viewpoint, doubtfully genuine

agreed, like I said, he probably wasn't getting a lot of attention here as a left wing socialist atheist, so he decided to try his hand at acting as a muslim anti semite homophobe, it gets more attention.

At least he's taking his conversion seriously, unlike some other posters.

frankly I know several muslims that would be greately insulted by this supposed "conversion" and how it's developed.

At least he's taking his conversion seriously, unlike some other posters.

How so ... all he did was post a link and Harold it as "Seeing the light" thats not a serious argument.

Hey! He's not just a Homophobic Anti-semite Right-winger. He's also a Misogynist!

Gay Marriage: not for
It looks like the only state in the union that allows these "marriages" may soon not allow them any more. Looks like they are starting to see the light. If its not allowed in Mass. I don't see how it will allowed any where else in the country, only matter of time until every state bans this.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/02/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html

Uh huh..so being "not for" (which implies you are also not strongly against) means using phrases like "see[ing] the light" and " 'marriages' " when refering to gay marriage? hmm...

I don't know why that profile is still up. That was ages ago. Look at Kervulia profile, it still says he's a Muslim. In fact I posted an updated profile that they haven't put up as the "official" one. Check the profile thread for my views, and then see if you want to call me a troll. Here:
He changed religions, yes. But religions didn't change him.


At least he's taking his conversion seriously, unlike some other posters.
Right. So he read one passage out of a text he otherwise disagreed with, converted, and changed the rest of his opinions to line up with the rest? Sorry, I don't buy it. You change religions when your religion no longer matches your views, not so you can force your views to change.

That was ages ago.

Join Date: Jan 2006

Ages ago = last month?

Right. So he read one passage out of a text he otherwise disagreed with, converted, and changed the rest of his opinions to line up with the rest? Sorry, I don't buy it. You change religions when your religion no longer matches your views, not so you can force your views to change.

Right, that's the thing. Most who convert to a religion do so because their views begin to conform to the religion FIRST. They don't convert first then force their views to conform to the religion.

Hey! He's not just a Homophobic Anti-semite Right-winger. He's also a Misogynist!

My point exactly. He's really embraced his new faith. Not what other people think his new faith should be.

Ages ago, and his nation is a bit over a year old. I don't think he's gone through as massive a personality change as he's claiming, so he's probably doing all this crap for attention. Yay for trolls.

I make one thread disagreeing with gay marriage and I'm a troll? It wasn't so much a massive personality change as it was an awakening to the truth which took months. So whether you think I'm sincere in my faith or not is not my concern, I know I am and I know how much Islam has benefited my life and thats all that matters. Now if we could get back to dicussing the original topic, that would be good.

My point exactly. He's really embraced his new faith. Not what other people think his new faith should be.

"Faith"? I never thought of idiocy as a religion...

Now if we could get back to dicussing the original topic, that would be good.

Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?

Uhm...

I should say that I'm against same sex marriage as well I'm against different sex marriage...

Love between two people is something that concern only themselves, they haven't to show to other than the ones they care to know... State and institutiones shouldn't ever be bothered by that, as well as other peoples...

I understand that there are other economic reason before marriages, but as well as that is a simple economic contract it should be available to anyone without concerning "love"...

I hope I was able to express my idea...

I make one thread disagreeing with gay marriage and I'm a troll? It wasn't so much a massive personality change as it was an awakening to the truth which took months. So whether you think I'm sincere in my faith or not is not my concern, I know I am and I know how much Islam has benefited my life and thats all that matters. Now if we could get back to dicussing the original topic, that would be good.

I've already discussed it, they would still need to get another 50 votes in the 2008 session (unlikely) and then get a majority popular vote in a state with minority support (extremely unlikely).

In other words it's not going to happen, and all this will accomplish is either die in the 2008 session or be defeated by popular vote.

What more is there to discuss?

Even if you're not a troll, you're still an ass. :p That covers so many of the posts on here so excellently it should be the site banner.

frankly I know several muslims that would be greately insulted by this supposed "conversion" and how it's developed.
Thank you for pointing that out.

Right, that's the thing. Most who convert to a religion do so because their views begin to conform to the religion FIRST. They don't convert first then force their views to conform to the religion. Yup.

Right. So he read one passage out of a text he otherwise disagreed with, converted, and changed the rest of his opinions to line up with the rest? Sorry, I don't buy it. You change religions when your religion no longer matches your views, not so you can force your views to change.

Au contraire. I am informed that that is exactly what you are supposed to do.

Frankly, he is no more nonesensical in his opinions that many other god-botherers. I fail to the point at getting angry at him for being honest about it.

"Faith"? I never thought of idiocy as a religion...

It's by far the most popular one.

"Faith"? I never thought of idiocy as a religion...

Zing.

Now if we could get back to dicussing the original topic, that would be good.

k. Well, this has been a ploy by Romney to get gay marriage abolished in the state (it would hurt his precious presidentail bid). Chances are, it won't pass the legislature again. Even if it does, it won't get passed by the populace. We've had gay marriage for approaching a year. The state hasn't collapsed upon itself, straight marriages still occur, and our youth haven't been "converted" to the gay life style. The population is rapidly realizing, hey, it isn't so bad, even if I don't want one myself.

Au contraire. I am informed that that is exactly what you are supposed to do.

Frankly, he is no more nonesensical in his opinions that many other god-botherers. I fail to the point at getting angry at him for being honest about it.

Well that would be what people are questioning. What religion says you are "supposed" to do is rarely what you actually should do.

k. Well, this has been a ploy by Romney to get gay marriage abolished in the state (it would hurt his precious presidentail bid). Chances are, it won't pass the legislature again. Even if it does, it won't get passed by the populace. We've had gay marriage for approaching a year. The state hasn't collapsed upon itself, straight marriages still occur, and our youth haven't been "converted" to the gay life style. The population is rapidly realizing, hey, it isn't so bad, even if I don't want one myself.

I have a feeling causing problems that aren't so obvious. Besides, gay marriages are being banned by several states it seems every election. Its only a matter of time until every state bans this and I wouldn't be suprised to see a passage of a nationwide consitutional ban within 5 years.

Well that would be what people are questioning. What religion says you are "supposed" to do is rarely what you actually should do.

I think it would very much depend upon how you came to your 'conversion'. If it was simply driven out of a need to identify with a particular group, then I imagine you could ignore lots of its tenents, because the self identification element would still be covered.

On the other hand, if you became actually convinced that there was a vengeful man in the sky watching you with a big surveillance system waiting for you to ignore his diktats, I imagine you would be inclined to follow the letter of the law more carefully. I'm assuming this is the case here. (There is a good example of this in the BBC documentary Root of all Evil.)

And it's not as if he is taking a minority position for his faith.

I have a feeling causing problems that aren't so obvious. Besides, gay marriages are being banned by several states it seems every election. Its only a matter of time until every state bans this and I wouldn't be suprised to see a passage of a nationwide consitutional ban within 5 years.

10 years ago there wasn't a single state that allowed marriage or civil unions.

Now one state has marriage (with majority popular support), three states have unions (VT, CT and NJ) a few more (California and Hawaii that i can think of, and some others I think.) have domestic partnerships and in history the first state rejected a gay marriage ban (Arizona), and a constitutional ban was defeated in congress. Likewise a few states are poised to create at least civil unions (NY being the big one).

In the end, there are now more options for same sex couples than there were 10 years ago, and no amount of spin will alter that fact.

Its only a matter of time until every state bans this and I wouldn't be suprised to see a passage of a nationwide consitutional ban within 5 years.

A nationwide constitutional ban would violate the 10th Amendment.

I have a feeling causing problems that aren't so obvious. Besides, gay marriages are being banned by several states it seems every election. Its only a matter of time until every state bans this and I wouldn't be suprised to see a passage of a nationwide consitutional ban within 5 years.

Yes, they are being banned. Of course, the people voting for such bans are overwhelmingly in the older population. Polls which look at opinion by age groups have shown that the younger you are, the less likely you are to be bigotted against homosexuals and to want to deny them equal protection under the law. It's only a matter of time until all the old bigots die out and the younger generations, who overwhelmingly support recognition of same-sex marriage, are in charge. These bans are reactionary. People can see that public opinion is shifting away from their bigotry, so they are trying to get it institutionalized now, while they're still in power.

Even among the general populace, there is overwhelming support for some sort of recognition of same-sex unions. Those who truly wish equal recognition are just barely a minority - at the moment, with the opinion shifting towards equality with every new poll.

As for the nationwide constitutional ban - it's just plain highly unlikely. Even among those who oppose equal protection, there are many who don't see it as a federal issue. They've tried to do it already, and it didn't even make it through Congress. And with less and less support for the idea, it's unlikely to get more backing.

Besides, gay marriages are being banned by several states it seems every election.

This is irrelevant. What is important is the trend in public opinion, and that's been pretty consistently moving towards a pro-gay rights position for forty years. If recent polls of youth and college students are indicative, that will continue.

We're winning. We'll win. And there's nothing you can do to stop us.

A nationwide constitutional ban would violate the 10th Amendment.

how exactly?

A nationwide constitutional ban would violate the 10th Amendment.

buh? I don't think you understand the concept of amendment...

This is irrelevant. What is important is the trend in public opinion, and that's been pretty consistently moving towards a pro-gay rights position for forty years. If recent polls of youth and college students are indicative, that will continue.

We're winning. We'll win. And there's nothing you can do to stop us.Yep--the younger the demographic, the more support for full-on marriage you'll find. It won't be too many years before the separate but equal civil union crap will go by the wayside.

What has Soviestan got against gay marriage?

This is irrelevant. What is important is the trend in public opinion, and that's been pretty consistently moving towards a pro-gay rights position for forty years. If recent polls of youth and college students are indicative, that will continue.

We're winning. We'll win. And there's nothing you can do to stop us.

You shouldn't underestimate conservative youth movement. Those who oppose gay marriage among young people is about even with those who support it. and among older people, it is overwhelmingly opposing gay marriage. I really don't think gay marriage will be a popular trend for many, many years.

You shouldn't underestimate conservative youth movement. Those who oppose gay marriage among young people is about even with those who support it. and among older people, it is overwhelmingly opposing gay marriage. I really don't think gay marriage will be a popular trend for many, many years.

You shouldn't overestimate them. The fact is that the generations coming up now--my daughter's generation, for instance--have grown up in a world where gay people have been out of the closet and accepted by straight society, and marriage rights are simply an extension of that acceptance. Just as it took interracial marriage a while to become accepted--and it was the younger generation that drove that as well--the same will be the case with same sex marriage.

Also, if you look at the most recent voting demographics, it showed that in the last two elections, young people, by about 65-35, voted for progressive policies and Democratic candidates. In 2004, if the electorate had been only voters under 35, Mississippi would have gone for John Kerry overwhelmingly--think about the implications of that for a moment, and then tell me I should be worried about a conservative youth movement.

You shouldn't underestimate conservative youth movement. Those who oppose gay marriage among young people is about even with those who support it.

No, actually, it isn't.

The story we tell is compelling: "By six-to-one margins, American youth support gay rights and protections related to housing, employment, and hate crimes and those sentiments are held by all ideological, partisan, racial, geographic, and religious groups. One out of two respondents said they know someone who is gay; knowing a gay person has a significant impact on attitudes." Also, a majority supports gay marriage.

You shouldn't underestimate conservative youth movement. Those who oppose gay marriage among young people is about even with those who support it.

The relevant question is not the absolute number, but the comparison between them and their elders. They are substantially more supportive of gay rights. That will continue; as I said, it's been the trend for forty years.

You're losing. Deal with it.

and among older people, it is overwhelmingly opposing gay marriage.

The trend there, too, is against you.

I really don't think gay marriage will be a popular trend for many, many years.

It's already a popular trend in many places.

Heheh. We are perverting our voting peers. Our heads light up and shoot 'pink gay rays!'

Same-sex marriage will exist throughout the west. It's only a matter of time.

Thanks to Soviestan for proving that people of all religions can be intolerant.
Heh, did anyone actually think that conservative Muslims were not against same-sex marriage?

I have a feeling causing problems that aren't so obvious. Besides, gay marriages are being banned by several states it seems every election. Its only a matter of time until every state bans this and I wouldn't be suprised to see a passage of a nationwide consitutional ban within 5 years.
What kind of problems, exactly? I live there most of the year, and have seen NO changes, positive or negative.
And more states are granting the rights. States are starting to reject assorted DOMA's. CT, MA...we aren't turning around. Deal with it.

And a constitutional ban on the national level illegally takes rights away from the states, as well as takes civil rights away from a large portion of the population. It won't happen. Again, deal with it.
10 years ago there wasn't a single state that allowed marriage or civil unions.

Now one state has marriage (with majority popular support), three states have unions (VT, CT and NJ) a few more (California and Hawaii that i can think of, and some others I think.) have domestic partnerships and in history the first state rejected a gay marriage ban (Arizona), and a constitutional ban was defeated in congress. Likewise a few states are poised to create at least civil unions (NY being the big one).

In the end, there are now more options for same sex couples than there were 10 years ago, and no amount of spin will alter that fact.
CT is also currently debating getting rid of the law permitting civil unions in favor of a law that grants full marriage.

Heheh. We are perverting our voting peers. Our heads light up and shoot 'pink gay rays!'

hey we ALL know tinky winky was sending out gay rays.

You shouldn't underestimate conservative youth movement. Those who oppose gay marriage among young people is about even with those who support it. and among older people, it is overwhelmingly opposing gay marriage. I really don't think gay marriage will be a popular trend for many, many years.

*typed while holding glass of scotch and listening to Wagner

And a constitutional ban on the national level illegally takes rights away from the states, as well as takes civil rights away from a large portion of the population.

Again I don't think you understand the full concept of "amendment"

Heheh. We are perverting our voting peers. Our heads light up and shoot 'pink gay rays!'

Too bad they aren't being converted to homosexuality en masse. I had my hopes up.

hey we ALL know tinky winky was sending out gay rays.

It is the reason why we gays all have elaborate hairstyles. We need to hide our antennae! LOL.

Heh, did anyone actually think that conservative Muslims were not against same-sex marriage?

I've met some. I have yet to meet a conservative Muslim who was in favor of such unions being carried out in a mosque, but I have met some who have no qualms with legally recognized same-sex marriage. It's kind of like how they have no problem with me having porkchops for dinner. I'm not making them do it, and my religion isn't against it, so it's all good.

Too bad they aren't being converted to homosexuality en masse. I had my hopes up.

I feel your pain! LOL.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9663004&postcount=32
Wow, Soviestan's views have really changed a lot since he found God.

Aye. I actually respect Soviestan once, ya know? Then he randomly converted to Islam, and has slowly turned into a right-winged troll. Sad...so sad.
Oh come on, disagreeing with you doesn't make him a troll. Nor does his being Muslim.

I'd also like to throw in this little bit from the story about the poll that says 25% of Americans think Jesus is returning next year (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061231/ap_on_re_us/2007_predictions_ap_poll).
Also, 57 percent said it is likely that another state will legalize gay marriage. Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts; four other states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships.

I'd also like to throw in this little bit from the story about the poll that says 25% of Americans think Jesus is returning next year (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061231/ap_on_re_us/2007_predictions_ap_poll).

Democrats and people under 35 were more likely than Republicans and older people to say global warming will worsen in 2007.
I can't believe those right-wing oldies are failing to notice the weather getting hotter.

*swelter*

Oh grow up!

Any ban of the right of marriage to any particular group is a violation of 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Actually its not. The constitutional amendment proposed would have defined marriage as between a man and a women, effectively bypassing any argument that it is unconstitutional because it would have simply defined a privilege, not banned it.

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (just section 1):

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.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

It's by far the most popular one.

Statistically, Islam isn't, Christianity is.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/xx.html

A nationwide constitutional ban would violate the 10th Amendment.

Amendment X

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.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

It wouldn't violate the 10th amendment. If it was a constitutional amendment defining marriage, then it would fall under the category of a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and could not be overruled by the states in their state constitutions.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273

Interesting findings on public opinion ^ Based on the way trends are going though, I would agree that in 50 years homosexual marriage will be allowed in most if not all states, as each generation is becoming more tolerant than the last of homosexuals.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9663004&postcount=32



My, my, how one has turned to trolling ways...

Thats just depressing. He was such a nice guy. What the hell happened? I can understand finding religion but to completely change all your personal and political views?

Mass will be fine, theyre getting a cool new governor and he loves the gays.

Wow, Soviestan's views have really changed a lot since he found God.

"God," trolling...

Actually its not. The constitutional amendment proposed would have defined marriage as between a man and a women, effectively bypassing any argument that it is unconstitutional because it would have simply defined a privilege, not banned it.

A *law* that makes such a statement is unconstitutional, as it violates the 14th Amendment, treating some citizens differently than others under the law - ie. denying equal protection.

If they could actually get a federal marriage amendment that excluded homosexuals passed, then it would bypass the 14th Amendment, rendering it obsolete, at least in this section of the law. One does have to question, however, do we really want to deny 14th Amendment protections just because some people have decided that teh gays are "icky"?

Interesting findings on public opinion ^ Based on the way trends are going though, I would agree that in 50 years homosexual marriage will be allowed in most if not all states, as each generation is becoming more tolerant than the last of homosexuals.

Indeed.

Heheh. We are perverting our voting peers. Our heads light up and shoot 'pink gay rays!'

The proper scientific term is "gaydiation".

Maybe one day I'll see,
"No more bigotry on General!"

Maybe one day I'll see,
"No more bigotry on General!"

Maybe one day Raptor Jesus will post here.

A constitutional amendment by definition can not be unconstitutional. It would not violate the constitution, it would in fact AMEND the constitution, that's what amendment means.

While I am not in favor of it, saying a marriage amendment would violate the constitution is akin to saying the 21st amendment violates the 18th amendment, as ending prohibition would violate the amendment creating prohibition.

Again I don't think you understand the full concept of "amendment"

No, I get it. What I am saying is that the amendment would be wrong to pass, and that is some of the justification. Making amendments to remove civil rights is generally a bad idea, as is giving the federal government more power than it already has. Marriage should remain a state issue, not federal, as "defining legal ceremonies" is not a power of congress.

That, of course, is my stance, and if the amendment were to be passed, I would be wrong. However, as things stand today, those are two of the biggest reasons it shouldn't even be considered, let alone passed.

I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage. Outside of religion, it doesn't have any meaning. And it has been proven in the past that church and state don't go well together.

I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage. Outside of religion, it doesn't have any meaning. And it has been proven in the past that church and state don't go well together.

as a legal matter it has all the meaning the law gives it. Religion doesn't get to hold a monopoly on the language.

I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage. Outside of religion, it doesn't have any meaning. And it has been proven in the past that church and state don't go well together.

Marriage is a legal contract first and a religious service second (if at all).

That is why I can go to any judge, ship captain, etc. and get married without a single mention of any religion in any form.

Hell, I can be married by signing a specific slip of paper with my wife and one witness.

Yes. Pity the light is caused by the fires of irrationality and intolerance.

Here here

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/rufsad.jpg

It looks like the only state in the union that allows these "marriages" may soon not allow them any more. Looks like they are starting to see the light. If its not allowed in Mass. I don't see how it will allowed any where else in the country, only matter of time until every state bans this.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/02/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html

Remind me not to take you seriously ever again.

Your "conversion" reeks of insincerity, and looks more like an effort to confirm in the minds of the ignorant the stereotypes normally associated with Islam.

Feel free to continue...the only thing you are hurting is your own supposed faith.

Yes, they are being banned. Of course, the people voting for such bans are overwhelmingly in the older population. Polls which look at opinion by age groups have shown that the younger you are, the less likely you are to be bigotted against homosexuals and to want to deny them equal protection under the law. It's only a matter of time until all the old bigots die out and the younger generations, who overwhelmingly support recognition of same-sex marriage, are in charge. These bans are reactionary. People can see that public opinion is shifting away from their bigotry, so they are trying to get it institutionalized now, while they're still in power.

Yet another example of why I consider most of the population over the age of 55 to be unpatriotic and ignorant. They'll continue to screw over their children and their grandchildren, out of fear of things they don't understand and a sense of entitlement that hasn't been earned.

You shouldn't underestimate conservative youth movement. Those who oppose gay marriage among young people is about even with those who support it.

A referendum in my state supporting a gay-marriage ban amendment passed with about 53% of the vote.

The same ballot option was presented at my college in a mock election.

The measure was defeated in the mock election, with nearly 94% opposed to the measure.

Just thought you might want to know. ;)

Actually its not. The constitutional amendment proposed would have defined marriage as between a man and a women, effectively bypassing any argument that it is unconstitutional because it would have simply defined a privilege, not banned it.


I don't think that would stand up in court with any other law. For instance, a measure defining voting as the responsibility of white male heterosexuals would still be unconstitutional.

"marriage"? How dare you refer to it that way!

Your faith has absolutely NOTHING against homosexuality or gays. Not ONE word of your book deals with the subject. And in Islam, marriages do not have to take place in places of worship, so the argument against holding "gay ceremonies" in mosques is utter rubbish.

God, I could go on and on about how destructive people like you are to Islam's image and how fucking ridiculous your "arguments" are, but I'm so angry I cannot bring myself to type without breaking most of the keys on this board.. If more people were gay, this world would be a far better place..

I don't know why that profile is still up. That was ages ago. Look at Kervulia profile, it still says he's a Muslim. In fact I posted an updated profile that they haven't put up as the "official" one. Check the profile thread for my views, and then see if you want to call me a troll. Here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12091912&postcount=351

It hasn't been updated for months. I'm going to stay 15 forever -_-

Maybe one day I'll see,
"No more bigotry on General!"

Where's the fun in that?

I have a feeling causing problems that aren't so obvious. Besides, gay marriages are being banned by several states it seems every election. Its only a matter of time until every state bans this and I wouldn't be suprised to see a passage of a nationwide consitutional ban within 5 years.

What's the weather like in your fantasy world? :)

A nationwide constitutional ban would violate the 10th Amendment.

And the First Amendment too.

I don't think that would stand up in court with any other law. For instance, a measure defining voting as the responsibility of white male heterosexuals would still be unconstitutional.

Again, we run into the difference between a law and an amendment. A law that restricted voting to white male heterosexuals would definitely be unconstitutional.

However, an amendment that restricted voting that way would alter the Constitution, overruling any previous amendments or constitutional articles to the contrary.

A referendum in my state supporting a gay-marriage ban amendment passed with about 53% of the vote.

The same ballot option was presented at my college in a mock election.

The measure was defeated in the mock election, with nearly 94% opposed to the measure.

Just thought you might want to know. ;)

Too bad 90% of 18-24 year olds don't bother to vote in real elections.

I don't think that would stand up in court with any other law. For instance, a measure defining voting as the responsibility of white male heterosexuals would still be unconstitutional.

It wouldn't be a simple law, it would be a constitutional amendment, that's the entire point.

A constitutional amendment (if properly ratified) can not, by definition, be unconstitutional.

Actually its not. The constitutional amendment proposed would have defined marriage as between a man and a women, effectively bypassing any argument that it is unconstitutional because it would have simply defined a privilege, not banned it.

That only applies if that ammendment is to the Federal Constitution. Selective incorporation of the 14th Amendment (plus the full faith and credit clause) would by precedent be a perfectly sound legal argument to overturn all state constitutional bans of gay marriage.

Again, we run into the difference between a law and an amendment.

wellllll, technically an amendment is law. The constitution is a statute, amending it is to amend...basically...a law.

The difference between the constitution and another law, is the supremacy clause. The constitution is a law, but it is the supreme law.

Other "ordinary" laws are subordinate.

You know, the thread title of this was interesting. It made me think of some civil servant somewheres conducting mass gay marriage ceremonies.

"Okay, do you half take the other half to be your husband/wife?"

"Yes! Yep! I do! Mmm-hmm. Hell no! Yes! Definitely! Yes!"

"Other half?"

"Yes! Yep! I do! Mmm-hmm. Hell no! Yes! Definitely! Yes!"

"Okay! You're all married! You can kiss now."

And that that was what was being banned.

That only applies if that ammendment is to the Federal Constitution. Selective incorporation of the 14th Amendment (plus the full faith and credit clause) would by precedent be a perfectly sound legal argument to overturn all state constitutional bans of gay marriage.

except the proposed amendment carried wording to the effect stating that no state would be obligated by federal law to perform gay marriage.

That kills both 14th amendment and full faith and credit.

However incorporation doesn't have anything to do with it, it would be soley a 14th amendment argument under the liberty interest along with equal protection arguments, not any prior amendment incorporated.

That only applies if that ammendment is to the Federal Constitution. Selective incorporation of the 14th Amendment (plus the full faith and credit clause) would by precedent be a perfectly sound legal argument to overturn all state constitutional bans of gay marriage.

Indeed.

except the proposed amendment carried wording to the effect stating that no state would be obligated by federal law to perform gay marriage.

That kills both 14th amendment and full faith and credit.

However incorporation doesn't have anything to do with it, it would be soley a 14th amendment argument under the liberty interest along with equal protection arguments, not any prior amendment incorporated.

The Defense of Marriage act that enables enforcement of that clause in the state constitutions has shaky constitutional standing, and may eventually be outright repealed.

Let's name the other amendments violated by bans on gay marriage that would be included with selective incorporation.

First: It violates free association, freedom of expression as well as freedom of religion.

Fifth: Deprivation of liberty w/o due process of law.

Ninth: The right of marriage predates the constitution.

What this adds upto: A violation of equal protection of law and therefore unconstitutionality.

:p That covers so many of the posts on here so excellently it should be the site banner.



You think the mods would go for it?

Heheh. We are perverting our voting peers. Our heads light up and shoot 'pink gay rays!'

I've done that.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/rufsad.jpg

You win the thread, provided you are for gay marriage.

The Defense of Marriage act that enables enforcement of that clause in the state constitutions has shaky constitutional standing, and may eventually be outright repealed.

Let's name the other amendments violated by bans on gay marriage that would be included with selective incorporation.

First: It violates free association, freedom of expression as well as freedom of religion.

Fifth: Deprivation of liberty w/o due process of law.

Ninth: The right of marriage predates the constitution.

What this adds upto: A violation of equal protection of law and therefore unconstitutionality.

Read what I said. I am talking about a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

DOMA is a statute, it IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. A statute, like DOMA, may be declared unconstitutional.

A constitutional amendment can not, by DEFINITION, be declared unconstitutional.

I am not in favor of an amendment banning gay marriage, BUT I am talking about an amendment, and you can not claim a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional, it is an oxymoron.

Again, DOMA isn't a constitutional amendment.

I am not even sure why you're talking about DOMA, a constitutional amendment does not need enabling legislation, it is self enabling, provided it contains an enabling clause within it. I've read the proposed amendment and it certainly did. Once again, while DOMA could theoretically be unconstitutional, a constitutional amendment can not, by definition, be unconstitutional.

Read what I said. I am talking about a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

DOMA is a statute, it IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. A statute, like DOMA, may be declared unconstitutional.

A constitutional amendment can not, by DEFINITION, be declared unconstitutional.

I am not in favor of an amendment banning gay marriage, BUT I am talking about an amendment, and you can not claim a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional, it is an oxymoron.

Again, DOMA isn't a constitutional amendment.

I am not even sure why you're talking about DOMA, a constitutional amendment does not need enabling legislation, it is self enabling, provided it contains an enabling clause within it. I've read the proposed amendment and it certainly did. Once again, while DOMA could theoretically be unconstitutional, a constitutional amendment can not, by definition, be unconstitutional.

Then we're not on the same page. I was talking about amendments to state constitutions being in violation of the federal 14th Amendment and others. I assumed that was what you were talking about. My mistake.

BTW, state constitutions cannot contradict the federal constitution. That was the line of argument I was following.

Yes. Pity the light is caused by the fires of irrationality and intolerance.

Or truth, but whatever.

Then we're not on the same page. I was talking about amendments to state constitutions being in violation of the federal 14th Amendment and others. I assumed that was what you were talking about. My mistake.

BTW, state constitutions cannot contradict the federal constitution. That was the line of argument I was following.

ahhh, yes, ok I misread.

Yes, the general heirarchy of legal matters goes:

federal constitution
federal legislation/regulation promulgated pursuant to federal powers granted by the constitution
state constitution
state legislation/regulation

no step can violate or run counter to the one above. State law can not violate a state constitution, neither can violate federal law and NOTHING can violate the federal constitution

Correct, yes, IF the argument is accepted that gay marriage is a 14th amendment due process/equal protection right THEN no state constitution or law can bar it, and all those nice state constitutional bans on gay marriage go *poof*

if the federal constitution is amended, then nothing save another constitutional amendment will allow for it.

Or truth, but whatever.

no, irrationality and intolerance seems pretty accurate.

The debate over Gay Marriage is a debate of words. Gay "Marriage" should not be permitted or denied in the US for one major reason.

Marriage is a church and religious term, therefore churches should be allowed to decide whether or not they will permitt or recognize homosexual marriages. To allow the federal government to dictate to church's what they shall and shall not allow is a grevious breach of that ammendment (in America) and would grant the federal government even more power.

Gay Civil Unions however can be passed, since that is an outlet of the state and not a religion.

The debate over Gay Marriage is a debate of words. Gay "Marriage" should not be permitted or denied in the US for one major reason.

Marriage is a church and religious term,
That will come as quite a shock to my atheist parents, who were married in a non-church in a non-religious ceremony over 30 years ago, and who have enjoyed these last three decades of legal MARRIAGE (not "civil union") under the laws of the United States of America.

Seriously, people, think before you type.

The debate over Gay Marriage is a debate of words. Gay "Marriage" should not be permitted or denied in the US for one major reason.

Marriage is a church and religious term, therefore churches should be allowed to decide whether or not they will permitt or recognize homosexual marriages. To allow the federal government to dictate to church's what they shall and shall not allow is a grevious breach of that ammendment (in America) and would grant the federal government even more power.

Gay Civil Unions however can be passed, since that is an outlet of the state and not a religion.

Hate to break it to you (well, I guess Bottle already did...then again, I did earlier in the thread, as did someone else...) but marriage is first and foremost a LEGAL CONTRACT. The religious aspect is either secondary or non-existant. As I said before, that is why I can be married by a judge or ship captain, who is not a religious man.

Gay marriages are legal in South Africa!!!

As is rape, murder, corruption etc :(

Chocotina;12169674']Gay marriages are legal in South Africa!!!

As is rape, murder, corruption etc :(

That seems to imply that you rank gay marriage alongside rape, murder and corruption. Was that your intent?

Within two hours, they voted to reconsider, but then voted again to uphold their initial decision.
Let's say that there's a lot of volatility in the air, and that such an amendment going to the MA people and failing is going to strengthen the case for gay marriage.
Gay Civil Unions however can be passed, since that is an outlet of the state and not a religion.
Actually, no law on the books requires - or ever will require - any church to recognize any marriage. However, the state does define marriage and give significant legal benefits for it.

That seems to imply that you rank gay marriage alongside rape, murder and corruption. Was that your intent?

nope - my intent was to show that these kind of things not so long ago were all taboo... now they legal. SA is a sad state of affairs where crime is concerned thats all.

Don't get me wrong though, if gay marriages can get a few thousand kids out of orphanages I'm all for that.

Marriage is a church and religious term, therefore churches should be allowed to decide whether or not they will permitt or recognize homosexual marriages.

So.. if one has a religion that allows gay marriage, it would be perfectly fine ?

It looks like the only state in the union that allows these "marriages" may soon not allow them any more. Looks like they are starting to see the light. If its not allowed in Mass. I don't see how it will allowed any where else in the country, only matter of time until every state bans this.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/02/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html

yay for intolerance!!!

with luck more freedoms and forms of equality will be revoked and the US can return to the 18th century.

That will come as quite a shock to my atheist parents, who were married in a non-church in a non-religious ceremony over 30 years ago, and who have enjoyed these last three decades of legal MARRIAGE (not "civil union") under the laws of the United States of America.

Seriously, people, think before you type.
Think before you type? You're on the intarwebs here. :D

The debate over Gay Marriage is a debate of words. Gay "Marriage" should not be permitted or denied in the US for one major reason.

Marriage is a church and religious term, therefore churches should be allowed to decide whether or not they will permitt or recognize homosexual marriages. To allow the federal government to dictate to church's what they shall and shall not allow is a grevious breach of that ammendment (in America) and would grant the federal government even more power.

Confession is a church and religious term. It refers to a situation in which a sinner comes to a priest, confesses his or her sins, and is absolved of them by the priest. From now on, the government should never, ever use the word "confession" to refer to a statement given to the police or in court. After all, a confession has to be a church thing.

Meanwhile, no one is trying to tell churches what they have to recognize. The government already grants marriage licenses to many couples that many churches would not recognize as married. For instance, when a Catholic couple divorces and remarries, their union is unlikely to be recognized by the Catholic church (not approving of divorce and all that). It probably will be recognized by a Methodist church. The government also grants licenses to inter-religious couples and atheist couples, and neither union would be recognized by all churches. But the church recognition has nothing at all to do with the legal recognition.

Likewise, many churches perform marriage ceremonies (same-sex marriage ceremonies, for instance) that are not currently recognized by the government.

Gay Civil Unions however can be passed, since that is an outlet of the state and not a religion.

In that case, the government must stop granting marriage licenses to ANYONE. If we're going for a name change, it has to be across the board, not just for gay couples.

Wrong, wrong wrong. "Marriage" is a financial and legal transaction, and whatever else you put in it has nothing to do with it. The only REAL benefits of marriage are that you are now allowed to adopt children and gain some benefits, esp. from health insurance.

Now, not only this, but my parents were, I believe, married by the mayor.


Think before you open your fucking mouth.