Judge strikes down Alabama Same Sex Marriage Ban

sevenpin63

Addicted Member
Is not the Supreme Court taking this very topic up? If not now but in the near future?

Soon it will be the law of the land, from what I see. Everyone will have to live with it in one form or the other. I don't have know problem with it as long as they are treated like everyone else. No special rules just for them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
I don't get the entire controversy. Let someone marry a fucking sign post if they so desire. Who the fuck cares...........and why?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guest
Typical liberal view. The government gets involved to the degree politicians' constituents want them to be. Otherwise, it wouldn't be to their advantage which is all they care about.
Cool Rocking Daddy said:
The government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyhow. How can people vote on what is a "right" for other people? If one set of people enjoy a "right", then all people should enjoy that same "right". If you have a marriage certificate, you get all the benefits of being married, whether you are Adam & Eve or Adam & Steve. Tired old religious beliefs getting in the way of society evolving.​
 
Last edited:

Robadat

Member
I think government should be out of the marriage business.
Let the Government give everybody a civil union license, and all attending benefits that comes from two people pooling their resources, including but not limited to, rights of survivorship, Tax benefits, insurance coverage, and whatever else "married" couple receive. And let the State rule on how those unions are dissolved.
Let the various Houses of Worship perform their religious rites of "marrying" people, with the only provision being that they must hold a civil union license in order to be married...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Djarum300

Addicted Member
Cool Rocking Daddy said:
The government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyhow. How can people vote on what is a "right" for other people? If one set of people enjoy a "right", then all people should enjoy that same "right". If you have a marriage certificate, you get all the benefits of being married, whether you are Adam & Eve or Adam & Steve. Tired old religious beliefs getting in the way of society evolving.​

Agree with that except marriage is not a right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Djarum300

Addicted Member
Robadat said:
I think government should be out of the marriage business.
Let the Government give everybody a civil union license, and all attending benefits that comes from two people pooling their resources, including but not limited to, rights of survivorship, Tax benefits, insurance coverage, and whatever else "married" couple receive. And let the State rule on how those unions are dissolved.
Let the various Houses of Worship perform their religious rites of "marrying" people, with the only provision being that they must hold a civil union license in order to be married...​

Pretty much my view. But it needs to be legislated, not governed by judges on a bench.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Robadat

Member
Jason aka Djarum said:
Robadat said:
I think government should be out of the marriage business.
Let the Government give everybody a civil union license, and all attending benefits that comes from two people pooling their resources, including but not limited to, rights of survivorship, Tax benefits, insurance coverage, and whatever else "married" couple receive. And let the State rule on how those unions are dissolved.
Let the various Houses of Worship perform their religious rites of "marrying" people, with the only provision being that they must hold a civil union license in order to be married...​

Pretty much my view. But it needs to be legislated, not governed by judges on a bench.​
Yep, 100% agree, these issues should be decided upon by the people's representatives in the State Legislatures or by Public Referendums, but definitely not by Judges.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guest
If gays want to be gay- then be gay. Have at it.

They should not have "special" privileges, though. Freedom of speech is a right and if gays want respect they should be just as tolerant as non-gays. I will respect their choice and they should respect mine for being heterosexual.

The problem with the the homosexual community is their willingness to destroy anyone that disagrees with their choice. That is hypocritical, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Djarum300

Addicted Member
Lets look at this from the top down. No where in the federal constitution does Marriage exist as a right granted. This is then left up to the states. From the state view, marriage "licenses" are only issued when certiain "conditions" are met. Where this gets murkey is that once married, a couple can receive certain "benifits". They also gain certain "legal" rights when it comes to property ownership, spousal and child health decisions along with other benefits and rights.
Most legal experts agree that Marriage is a privelage from a strict constitutional standpoint. In some cases married couples have rights and privelages granted to them under that state law. If marriage was truly a right, there would be no "licensing" involved.
One of the problems with marriage is that our government stems from British Common Law. Common Law is based on historical evidence and precendence. Historically speaking, marriage was granted by the community or township in where one lived, and historically, conditions must be met for the marriage to occur. Some culture require dowry. Some cultures require arranged marriages. Historically, marriages have never been a "right".
So then I ask the question is the "marriage" the issue or the "rights and privelages" associated with marriage the issue? I think from a logical view its the latter. But fundamentally, gay people want the former, which is the wrong way to go about it in my opinion. If this issue was attacked from the perspective of the rights of married people, I believe the issue would have been resolved already. Fundamentally, gay people want to make a statement moreso than they care about the rights and privelages of being married.
If we want to make "marriage" a right, the proper way to do this is an amendment making it so at the federal level. That is how the process works and was intended. This is what gay people should have been pushing for instead of attacking the states and the culture of a states's citizens.
Cool Rocking Daddy said:

Jason, many people treat it like a right that only a portion of society gets to enjoy.
Json aka Djarum said:

Cool Rocking Daddy said:
The government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyhow. How can people vote on what is a "right" for other people? If one set of people enjoy a "right", then all people should enjoy that same "right". If you have a marriage certificate, you get all the benefits of being married, whether you are Adam & Eve or Adam & Steve. Tired old religious beliefs getting in the way of society evolving.​

Agree with that except marriage is not a right.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
I take the easy out. If anyone wants to give away at least half their shit....let them fucking marry!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Good Times Good Times

Active Member
Good Times Good Times said:
Jason aka Djarum said:No where in the federal constitution does Marriage exist as a right granted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Ninth_Amendment
The constitution / Bill of Rights doesn't state the ONLY rights either....
The 9th Amendment is simply a statement that other rights aside from those listed may exist. So while I don't disagree that marriage itself doesn't exist in the constitution (b/c I do agree), that doesn't mean that those listed are the ONLY rights (again, see 9th).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guest
Cool Rocking Daddy said:
REVerse, two things. The gay couple should have taken their business elsewhere. The shop owner should be prepared to take some heat for her bigotry. What kind of businessperson turns away paying clients? What clients would not shop for businesses that cater to their demographic. This is penny-ante shit. When you have nationally prominent people like Republican National Committee leader Dave Agema claiming that gays and lesbians are responsible for “half the murders in major cities.” thats major bigotry. I don't think you hear gay/lesbian coalition leaders spouting off the same nonsense about heterosexuals
CRD I am not going to defend politicians from either side of the aisle. They are one in the same.

The shop owner's religious stand is between them and God. What makes a shop owner a "bigot" for having a moral conscience? You just proved my point from my former post. If someone doesn't agree with your philosophy that makes them a bigot? You can't force anyone to be tolerant of something contrary of their religous beliefs and demand them to accept your point of view or be drummed out of town.

I know business owners that refuse to sell cigarettes and alcohol. Does that make them intolerant bigots as well?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guest
I'm sure everyone agrees that racism is wrong and this topic has nothing to do with race. You are not going to pull the race card, LGD.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...ing-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/

So you are telling me it is okay for the government to FORCE me to bake a cake? Is that not discrimination in itself? True Christians realize that homosexuality is just as sinful as murder, CRD. What may not bother your conscience may bother someone elses.

What this all boils down to is a couple of lesbians attempting to force their political correctness on someone that disagrees with thier choice of "alternative lifestyle." We have rights as long as they get to approve them. If not- we are less human. No matter what our conscience says.
 
Last edited:

Guest
Wow. So now all Christians, Muslims, and anyone thst disagrees with your viewpoint are bigots. Be glad you don't live under Sharia law, LGD. You would see public beheadings of these people with an "alternative lifestyle."

BTW- I may disagree with homosexuality, although, I tolerate these people every day and they tolerate me. That's respectful. As far as racism goes- that is very disrespectful and bigoted. If someone is disrespecting another race for any given reason- that is flat out unacceptable.

tol·er·ate ˈtäləˌrāt/ verb

allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

synonyms: allow, permit, condone, accept, endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.

for·bear·ance fôrˈberəns
patient self-control; restraint and tolerance.
 
Last edited:

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
Cool Rocking Daddy said:
You're saying that, not me. I didn't come up with the definition of the word. Its simple, you're for equality or you're not. You are a kind and benevolent person who wants others to have the chance to share in the things and activities that you enjoy despite their differences from you or you are somebody that has an agenda to keep some of those things from some people. It really is that cut and dried to me. those are mighty fine and powerful words you posted but from your postings it doesn't seem you practice them to much when it comes to gays.

I think a lot of what you say is tru in genral for nearly all people. I believe it's because most people are raised in some sort of religious household where certain beliefs and values are instilled at an early age. After thinking it over extensively, I believe we can all blame our parents for what we think and do. Some of us, of course, break the family mold and do our own thing, but those are the exceprtions and not the rules. Like myself, I grew up in a Prebyterian household where my parents never missed a day of church and I was forced to attend Sunday School until I was confirmed. I knew at a very early age that there was no such thing as a god, but had I not gone, my ass would have been kicked. Anyhow, back to the topic, I believe that most of us still believe and use the values that had been instilled upon us at a young age.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Djarum300

Addicted Member
Again, I have no problem with Gay marriage

What I have a problem with is that our government was designed in such a way, right or wrong, to legislate in a certain way. I won't disagree that there are are always interpretations about the definitions of the laws or enforcement of the laws. Fundamentally, change comes through legislation, not a judge.

In this case, the judge is using the "Due Process" clause and "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th amendments.

The "due process" clause was originally intended to protect citizens from illegal search and siezures without "due process". Later in the late 1800's and early 1900's judgest started using the "due process" clause as a means to validate legislative laws that effect liberty, not just property. In dealing with laws and liberty, judges must first decide if the law is restricting a fundamental or enumerated right. In this case, marriage is neither. This is where a Judge can however, under close scrutiny, decide if a particular law is denying such a liberty. The fundamental problem with "strict" scrutiny is that in most cases, since the right in question is not defined as enumerated or fundamental, is interpretive and factless based. This means that Judges can make case law which defines rights for the people without requiring legislative process.
Instead of a judge defining these rights, these rights should be defined by the constitution or federal statutes. While this would require an amendment, it would pass in the current climate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top