 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
There should be no benefits afforded people who are married, at least not wrt the tax code or "subsidies". Government should only involve itself in lines of inheritance, custody, etc...and that goes for all people regardless of sexual orientation... |
Oh, I agree, but inheritance and custody issues should already be set up in private contracts.
And the government DOES have an obligation not to discriminate - if they recognize YOUR contract between two consenting adults, they better recognize MINE, too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Recognising a contract is not the same as calling that contract a "marriage". |
Granted. And I think our difference of opinion is slight enough to be irrelevant, given that we don't think married couples should enjoy any benefits from the government anyway. Surely you also agree that the government shouldn't be able to stop two individuals from defining their status in a contract with whatever word they want, right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
I see nothing wrong about two man or two woman getting married at all. First homosexual is cause by gentic make-up and thoughtout history more or less stay at about 1 % of the total populateion. So you mean 99 % of the population is so afraid of 1 %. I than a Muslum and yet I disagree with the Muslum Concil on this . The Canada Government future law on marriage which will allow same sex marriage has than caure which state that any religious group doesnot have to marry same sex couple, but the civil authority must.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Technically he ain't wrong. All religion is philosophy |
Then I suppose Christians don't have religious freedom ala the 1st Amendment. 
Gepap - quote:
Marriage does not describe the union of one man to one woman |
Never said it did.
quote:
you can have multiple parties to a marriage, which is why you ave polygamy and polyandry. And through most of hisotry, marriage was a contract between families and groups, not just individuals, so all this sanctity of marriage stuff is, well bull. |
I believe polygamy should be legal too since it does qualify under the definition.
quote:
The fact is, if people talk about "defending marriage", ask yourself: which side here is arguing for less marriages? Not the sdie that supports gay marriages, that is for sure. |
I don't care about how many marriages there are, I just prefer using the proper terms. For example, I don't call homosexuals "gay" out of respect for the people who are named "Gay"...not that there's anything wrong with that.
David - quote:
Granted. And I think our difference of opinion is slight enough to be irrelevant, given that we don't think married couples should enjoy any benefits from the government anyway. Surely you also agree that the government shouldn't be able to stop two individuals from defining their status in a contract with whatever word they want, right? |
Yup, I'm quibbling. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ned, I read your post, and I think it wrong. Congress declaring the effect of a state's acts, records, and proceedings doesn't mean they can tell other states they don't have to recognize those decisions of the state. It means they can decide the effects of PROVING the acts, records, and proceedings. The SCOTUS will not interpret it to mean Congress can say you don't have to recognize a marriage in one state. |
The Full Faith and Credit clause:
"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
Imran, you will first agree that the first sentence of this clause imposes obligations only upon the states to recognize the "public acts," etc., of the other states. It imposes no similar obligation upon the federal government to recognize the "public acts" of any state. This implies supremacy by the federal government vis-à-vis the states with respect to the public acts of the states.
The second sentence of the clause permits Congress to do two things with respect to such public acts:
1) prescribe the manner in which such acts ... shall be proved; and
2) prescribe the effect thereof.
I think the language is very clear that this is a proper construction of the second sentence. It also seems sensible given that the federal government has supremacy itself has no obligation to recognize the public acts of a state. Consistent with the commerce clause, the federal government has power to regulate relations between the states that the states themselves do not have. So while the states must recognize the public acts of other states, they are also subject to the power of the federal government to regulate the effect of those public acts.
The bottom line is that The Defense of Marriage Act seems sufficient to defend both the United States and individual states that do not recognize gay marriages from being required to recognize such marriages. This being said, if a particular state wishes to authorize gay marriages, it clearly has the power to do so under the Constitution. But it does not have the right to impose its views on other states or the United States by virtue of the Defense of Marriage Act. I think this reflects a fair balance and acknowledges states rights. For this reason I personally would oppose a constitutional amendment that would prohibit states wanting to do so from authorizing gay marriages. I think the that the Defense of Marriage Act is sufficient.
Defense of Marriage Act
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
The Judcial system has spoken an we all should respect they
legal wisdom and not illegality undo it. First it only than handful of people of the far right Christian Movenment who are trying to impose they value on all of us. First they claim they represent 50 million or 100 million people they only represent themself. The Roman Church belive that Homosexual should not be mistreated or unjustly discriminate
against.
First it two same sex people get marrage does it really harm you in any real way. To me it doesnot harm me. Does it destory socialy in any real way. It doesnot in fact it make homosexual apart of socialy an not outside of it. Will it bring about the end of the entire Universe which exist for 15 billion years. I donot think so, the Universe will end when it end on it own shedule no matter what man does or doesnot do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Mindseye - quote:
Surely you are not claiming that the meaning of words does not change? If so, you are wonderful, fantastic, and marvelous. |
"Marriage" has not changed to include homosexuals, but thx, yes I am.
quote:
The practices of marriage haven't changed? Historically marriage has been practiced in a wide variety of ways. Besides polyandry and polygamy, marriage could be between a man and his 14-year old cousin. It was more often about property or inter-family ties than about romance or love. It could be arranged by parents while the couple were still children. It could involve a husband seeing his wife for the first time at their wedding. It could be between two males (early Christian church, and southeastern China). In fact, marriage as you refer to it is a relatively recent phenomena. |
As I refer to it? I've referred to polygamy and that isn't recent. Monogamy isn't recent either. All these practices still exist, so what's your point? If anything, marriage in the US has been restricted from it's variety abroad to a limited monagamy, so do homosexuals support restoring this variety, including polygamy, before changing the word to include same sex unions? Nope. The homosexuals I've seen on TV have taken offense when opponents mention that polygamy would have to be allowed if same sex unions are allowed, so why wouldn't homosexuals support re-legalising polygamy? I find that quite telling, homosexuals want "marriage" to include them but not polygamy which is a valid form of marriage... Homosexuals would at least appear consistent if they supported polygamists when people like Rick Santorum pointed out that we'd have to allow polygamy under the rationale offered by homosexuals...
quote:
I wonder how you feel about 20th century changes to divorce laws. Was that an equally objectional departure from origins and practices? |
Nope, and I'm indifferent to any alleged changes. Divorce, no matter what the practice and when, was and is the negation of a marriage contract.
Ramo - quote:
"Marriage" is a legal concept. It means whatever the state defines it as. In Canada, it can mean a union between two men, in Saudi Arabia, it can mean a union between a man and multiple women, and in medieval France it could've meant a union between a man and a little girl. |
Marriage has become a legal concept, but I don't buy into the notion that power hungry politicians can change the definitions of words any more than special interest groups have that authority. But here in the US, marriage excludes homosexual unions, so where does that leave your argument? You just said the state defines the term...
quote:
No, only the part of the world that tries to use the state to force their superstitions on us. |
That would be most of the world.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-11-2003 01:02
The practices of marriage haven't changed? Historically marriage has been practiced in a wide variety of ways. Besides polyandry and polygamy, marriage could be between a man and his 14-year old cousin. It was more often about property or inter-family ties than about romance or love. It could be arranged by parents while the couple were still children. It could involve a husband seeing his wife for the first time at their wedding. It could be between two males (early Christian church, and southeastern China). In fact, marriage as you refer to it is a relatively recent phenomena.
|