• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Who Said This?

Mike

Well-known member
No peeking!!!!

”Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”
 

Steve

Well-known member
Mike said:
No peeking!!!!

”Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”

Let's see..

GOD?



or is it a man who his followers think he is a god?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Who Cares :???: While I agree with her on this subject-- I also believe government/her Hubby should never have stuck their nose into the marriage issue and tied thousands of rights, economical benefits, and privilege issues to your partner status- and for that reason the SCOTUS will rule against all bans of homosexual marriages...

Which will leave the states to deciding if they want to have gay marriages or gay civil unions or whatever they want to call them... Either way- they will have to allow heterosexual and homosexual couples the same rights, benefits, and privileges allowed by the current laws for marriage...


The decision will use much of the precedent set in the Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) case that ruled laws banning/outlawing interracial marriages were unconstitutional..

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Who Cares :???: While I agree with her on this subject-- I also believe government/her Hubby should never have stuck their nose into the marriage issue and tied thousands of rights, economical benefits, and privilege issues to your partner status- and for that reason the SCOTUS will rule against all bans of homosexual marriages...

Which will leave the states to deciding if they want to have gay marriages or gay civil unions or whatever they want to call them... Either way- they will have to allow heterosexual and homosexual couples the same rights, benefits, and privileges allowed by the current laws for marriage...


The decision will use much of the precedent set in the Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) case that ruled laws banning/outlawing interracial marriages were unconstitutional..

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Warren says nothing about Gay marriage whatsoever. He ruled on interracial marriage. Most likely he would NOT have felt that way about the freaks, the decadent, & degenerates. He knew that would have opened a can of worms that would have no end. Try again. Sorry. :lol:

I don't know whether to call you Sodom or Gamorrah.(sp)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Who Cares :???: While I agree with her on this subject-- I also believe government/her Hubby should never have stuck their nose into the marriage issue and tied thousands of rights, economical benefits, and privilege issues to your partner status- and for that reason the SCOTUS will rule against all bans of homosexual marriages...

Which will leave the states to deciding if they want to have gay marriages or gay civil unions or whatever they want to call them... Either way- they will have to allow heterosexual and homosexual couples the same rights, benefits, and privileges allowed by the current laws for marriage...


The decision will use much of the precedent set in the Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) case that ruled laws banning/outlawing interracial marriages were unconstitutional..

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Warren says nothing about Gay marriage whatsoever. He ruled on interracial marriage. Most likely he would NOT have felt that way about the freaks, the decadent, & degenerates. He knew that would have opened a can of worms that would have no end. Try again. Sorry. :lol:

I don't know whether to call you Sodom or Gamorrah.(sp)

Well most the lower and Appellate courts have been using that ruling as their precedent in throwing out all the homosexual marriage bans... They are saying equal rights for sex or gender is the same as for race involving a persons rights...The DOMA ruling said that because of the injury done by not allowing homosexual couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples violates basic due process and equal protection principles of the Constitution..

I just read an article the other day, where some followers of the court believe that the SCOTUS is on an "equal" rights kick- so that gives them the impression the ruling will come soon..

I'm thinking when the ruling comes down- it may leave the states some wiggle room- and let them choose their verbage (marriage or civil union)- but that whatever they call it- they will have to make all partner pairings "equal" as far as all laws and economical benefits are..
 

Steve

Well-known member
but that whatever they call it- they will have to make all partner pairings "equal" as far as all laws and economical benefits are..

pairings.. you mean like two folk.. seems there is a problem with that limited thinking.. but i doubt you liberals ever thought this through that well anyways..

yep who can figure out what to call it?

Married lesbian ‘throuple’ expecting first child

'Just because we aren't the atypical configuration, I didn't want to not get married. We're very traditional people and that sense was reflected in our wedding.'

The trio also plan on homeschooling their children to prevent them getting bullied by peers for having an unconventional family.

bet that will be one "well adjusted" kid.. :?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Well most the lower and Appellate courts have been using that ruling as their precedent in throwing out all the homosexual marriage bans... They are saying equal rights for sex or gender is the same as for race involving a persons rights...The DOMA ruling said that because of the injury done by not allowing homosexual couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples violates basic due process and equal protection principles of the Constitution..

Complete bullchit. There are several states that do not recognize same sex marriage whatsoever to this day.

There was a gay couple who tried to get a divorce in Alabama a few weeks ago. The judge threw the divorce out because the State doesn't recognize their marriage, so therefore, the court could not preside over the divorce.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Well most the lower and Appellate courts have been using that ruling as their precedent in throwing out all the homosexual marriage bans... They are saying equal rights for sex or gender is the same as for race involving a persons rights...The DOMA ruling said that because of the injury done by not allowing homosexual couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples violates basic due process and equal protection principles of the Constitution..

Complete bullchit. There are several states that do not recognize same sex marriage whatsoever to this day.

There was a gay couple who tried to get a divorce in Alabama a few weeks ago. The judge threw the divorce out because the State doesn't recognize their marriage, so therefore, the court could not preside over the divorce.

Yep- while there have been several rulings including the one overturning the federal DOMA law--- all of the rulings have been stayed- probably until the final SCOTUS ruling...


Same-sex marriage is legally recognized in some jurisdictions within the United States and by the federal government. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. Eight Native American tribal jurisdictions issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Oregon recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Limited recognition has been granted to out-of-state same-sex marriages in Alaska, Colorado, Missouri, and Ohio. Utah recognizes for 2013 income tax filings all pre-2014 same-sex marriages, but offers no further recognition.

Recently, U.S. district courts in Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Virginia, Texas, Michigan, and Ohio have declared that state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage violate the Constitution of the United States: The Kentucky and Ohio decisions order state recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages; the greater balance of the courts going further, mandating same-sex marriage to be performed in-state. All of the rulings have been stayed from enforcement and are underway in the U.S. courts of appeal.

But if I was a betting man- the way I read the law- and rulings of the court- (especially with their current kick of equality for all) I would bet they follow these rulings of the lower courts...
 

Mike

Well-known member
"Gay" marriage will never be recognized universally in every state of the U.S. as one of the basic civil rights of man. That is, in my lifetime. Count on it.

There are people in many states who are not that decadent.............yet.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
maybe a "civil union", might have been the way to go, and have marriage be the Biblical definition of marriage...for the reason of procreating, with different tax benefits, than those that can not procreate.

At the same time, they could have defined "common law marriage", as a civil union, with different tax implications, once again...

...the tax code is rewritten every day. There is no reason why it cannot be rewritten to encourage different things, while offering the same "rights" to different people.

Could have made everybody happy...civil unions/marriages/common law marriages, while still promoting what is best for a society...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
maybe a "civil union", might have been the way to go, and have marriage be the Biblical definition of marriage...for the reason of procreating, with different tax benefits, than those that can not procreate.

At the same time, they could have defined "common law marriage", as a civil union, with different tax implications, once again...

...the tax code is rewritten every day. There is no reason why it cannot be rewritten to encourage different things, while offering the same "rights" to different people.

Could have made everybody happy...civil unions/marriages/common law marriages, while still promoting what is best for a society...

Problem is- besides just tax law, there are thousands of inheritance, housing, dissolution of partnership (divorce), next of kin hospital issues, etc..
And instead of going in and throwing these laws all out or rewriting them- the easy way would be for the state to authorize civil unions- and give them the same status as marriages for all these laws...
Since the SCOTUS overturning of DOMA and their refusal to hear the latest NM gay marriage case- I think they are signaling for the States to get it done on their own-- or eventually they will do it for them..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
might even be easier to deem all "marriages", civil unions, for all legal/tax matters, and let the Church deal with marriage, as a religious matter. :win

Pretty hard to go backwards now, and consider everyone as an individual, after all the interpreting of the Constitution that the "left" has done through the years.

It will be pretty hard to treat all groups the same, now. Groups, voting blocks, are more "different" than individuals, who were given individual rights, by the founders.

God given/inalienable rights don't have to take into account: culture, sexuality, skin colour etc.
 
Top