Community | January 10, 2010 | 127 comments

Gay marriage goes on trial in US federal court

source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jmrysSTer9UHzBz1yv7Kxer6UqGg

Image
skidiment
By Romain Raynaldy (AFP)

LOS ANGELES — Opponents and defenders of homosexual marriage in California go toe to toe Monday in a potentially epic court showdown that could decide the future of gay unions in the United States.

The plaintiffs are challenging Proposition 8, whose approval by 52 percent of California voters in a November 2008 referendum annulled a state supreme court decision that authorized homosexual unions.

Federal court Judge Vaughn Walker agreed to hear the suit filed by proponents of gay marriage and said it was a constitutional issue that belonged in a federal court, despite objections from those who oppose giving same sex couples the right to marry.

"This lawsuit is an attempt by Judge Walker to put the voters of California on trial, and it's wrong. Walker has not dealt with this properly. He doesn't care about the law," Brian Brown, director of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes gay marriage, told AFP.

Proposition 8 amended the California constitution to state that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the state of California."

Opponents argue that the amendment discriminates against gays, and therefore violates the US Constitution, a notion that Brown vehemently dismisses.

"I think our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they heard that the constitution guarantees the right to redefine marriage. This is absurd," he said.

Defenders of homosexual unions, for their part, believe the court case, which at Judge Walker's request will be carried live on the video-sharing site YouTube, will be an opportunity to enlighten the public.

"That will be a very educational moment for our community on this issue, because people have so many misconceptions and misunderstandings about gay people and what sexual orientation is all about," said Jennifer Pizer, Director of Lambda Legal's national marriage project.

"Discrimination hurts us and doesn't help anyone. The trial will offer a chance for the public to listen to the expert witnesses on both sides and hear the cross examinations of those witnesses," she said.

Pizer also is counting on the two star lawyers representing the plaintiffs: Theodore Olson and David Boies, who are teaming up in this case after having been fierce opponents in the 2000 Supreme Court fight for the presidency between George Bush and Al Gore.

Olson, who defended Bush, is a prominent conservative and Pizer believes "his advocacy and passion for equal treatment of lesbian and gay couples here will reach the ears and hearts of many people who have not understood this issue before."

But the stakes are huge for both supporters and opponents gay marriage.

"No one in America thinks that this trial is going to end at this level," Brown said. "Eventually, it will go to Supreme Court."

A Supreme Court ruling would seal the fate of homosexual unions throughout the United States, without possibility for appeal by one side or the other.

So bringing the issue before the federal courts in Monday's trial could become a make-or-break event for the gay marriage movement, which several homosexual associations have warned against.

The court case follows several setbacks for gay marriage proponents. On Thursday, New Jersey lawmakers rejected a bill authorizing homosexual marriages, as did lawmakers in New York state a few weeks ago.

Only five US states today permit homosexual unions: Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jmrysSTer9UHzBz1yv7Kxer6UqGg
  1. groups:
    Community,   LGBT,   LGBTQI
  2. tags:
    Law,  California,  Gay Rights,  Gay Marriage
  3.     
    |

127 comments // Gay marriage goes on trial in US federal court

  • IdeZynIt
  • neodobby
    • +1
      neodobby  
    • IdeZynIt:

      Voting up an article helps to increase its popularity on Current. Articles are ranked by the number of votes they receive, the most voted become featured articles on the site. (This article was featured over a week ago.)

    • 2 years ago
  • GossipandGab
  • indecisiveh
    • 0
      indecisiveh  

    • I have noticed some arguments against gay marriage tend to be arguments against monogamy all together. It leads one to believe that some are hiding the fact that they have no intentions of leading monogamous relationships to begin with, therefore, it makes the opposition to marriage of any sort look more like an opposition to falling in love and having a family that you dedicate yourself to.

    • 2 years ago
  • telcod
    • -1
      telcod  

    • Don't meddle in people's lives and don't redefine language. Grew up in San Francisco. Blacks, gays, Chinese, Jews, Koreans, Muslims, Japanese, white folk. Just folk with some interesting differences. All are entitled to be left alone and have equal rights. On the other hand redefining language seems a little misguided. The traditional definitions should mean something (like American democracy used to mean something). I live with my partner. We are not getting married for financial reasons. I consider myself committed and married. I do not expect anyone to redefine words so I can call myself something. At church, we are married. Makes them comfortable. Everywhere else, we are engaged, married, partners, doesn't really matter, we know who we are. If we were to get married, she gets to keep her name. I have also instructed my daughters to consider this option. With a 50/50 shot at staying married the first time around, what are our gay brothers and sisters asking for? You get better odds at Russian roulette. Domestic Partnership. I'd go for that, personally, just so we had some say in each others lives under some circumstances. If my partner and I were gay, we could have a domestic partnership, but because we are not, we have to wait until I am 64. Is this reverse discrimination? You bet it is.

    • 2 years ago
  • donkeyfly69
    • 0
      donkeyfly69  
    • telcod:

      so because you don't choose to get married others shouldn't even be allowed to choose?

      the domestic partnership thing is reverse discrimination but i think if everyone was allowed to get them it would really but a fire under the equal marriage community.

    • 2 years ago
  • TasteHi
    • 0
      TasteHi  

    • Historically speaking I just don't understand why it's so important for "Gays" to be able to marry.
      FACT: The church did NOT INVENT marriage so I don't understand why they're (the church) so adamant about having it practiced their way.....I guess that's more of a territorial rights issue with the church concerning one's own private life. In any case the only people that truly cared for such a thing was royalty however any wealthy family back in the day was interested in having a member of the clergy record the marriage

      I think the first laws of marriage ever recorded (Hamurabis laws in egypt) were strictly put in place to ensure PATERNAL rights. Example the Maternal entity must now take on the name of the Paternal Half so that the child may later be ensured it's heritage and inheritance. Believe me this settled a lot of arguments over who got how many sheep back in those days so I can see why it mattered then, but honestly we can accomplish all these legal things without the need for marriage now a days...so what's the deal?

      Why on convoluted earth would two women give a damn about paternal rights? IT's not like US citizens can't have sex out of wedlock and it's not like there's some ancient law that obligates us to pay the bride (what do u call a male bride?) rights to paternity.

      I mean if it's SO important just legally change your name and hold your own ceremony, what's so hard about that? I mean for crying out loud the captain of ANY ship/ floating vessel can perform a wedding!!!!

      Now a days it's not even beneficial to get married considering how many benefits a single parent gets for their child vs Married Parents.

      Can anyone answer me those questions?

      Personally I think it's a war between Gays and the Church while the government gets caught in the cross fire.

    • 2 years ago
  • bashirdr
    • +1
      bashirdr  
    • TasteHi:

      you're right, in modern times many people are just going for a relationship instead of a marriage. But there are certain priviledges and responsibilities bestowed on married couples that gays don't have access to, even through civil unions. This inequality is unconstitutional and unAmerican. Let's get an equal playing field first, and then people can go about choosing whether marriage is right for them.

      For info on what you get when you're married, Google marriage vs civil union

    • 2 years ago
  • current89
  • bashirdr
    • +1
      bashirdr  

    • I responded to that first big string of posts, but I wanted to ring in on the main page here.

      As I read through, I can't help but feel that all the pro marriage arguments are sound and all the anti arguments are flawed (as opposed to, say, an issue like abortion where both sides have good points). The anti arguments are based on religion, the "founding fathers," or general homophobia. I have NEVER heard an argument that doesn't fall back on one of these. But not all Americans are christian, the founding fathers had slaves, and you can't exactly catch homosexuality like a cold.

      The thing is, there are a lot of gay people out there. It's not some weirdo fringe concept like marrying your goat. It's one person partnering with another person. They want the same priviledges and responsibilities as a hetero couple, and giving them this doesn't hurt anyone in any way.

      Now, I understand that marriage is a religious institution too, and setting aside the dubious validity of a religion that hates gay people, I can understand why some people of faith don't want to allow gays to marry. But watch out! A civil union in America is not the same as a marriage from the state's point of view. For a list of differences, check out http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

      If you don't like or trust about.com, just Google it, you'll find plenty of info.

      For example, in a civil union you don't have the right to see your spouse in the hospital. A lawyer can set up the paperwork for many of the same rights though - at a cost of thousands, whereas a marriage license costs under $100.

      Until we allow gays to marry or set up a civil institution that is identical to civil marriage, we will be doling out inequality to a large chunk of our citizenry. And that is unAmerican. Remember, allowing such an institution wouldn't hurt anybody in any way, so if you are against this, then you are a bigot. There is no other explanation.

    • 2 years ago
  • randomly
  • unclecharlie
    • -1
      unclecharlie  

    • So typical of the hardcore fairy brigade. Since the people don't want what we want, to hell with them! We'll just ram it through using the courts, legislating it into being. The people have spoken, but the activists have no interest in listening to them. They're intent on forcing the issue, the people be damned.

    • 2 years ago
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  
    • unclecharlie:

      So typical of the hardcore bigot brigade. Since the people don't want what we want, to hell with them! We'll just block it through using the courts, stop them from legislating it into being. The people have spoken, but the racists have no interest in listening to them. They're content on ignoring the issue, the people be damned.

      FIXED!

    • 2 years ago
  • heatherpierce
    • 0
      heatherpierce  

    • Great point, Varex_Sythe. What some increasingly small non-progress(ive) religious perspectives seems to miss is that this is an issue of how people are treated according to the law. If you happen to believe that Jesus disapproves of gay relationships, you still have to ask yourself, "Even if I think gay relationships go against God (as evident by so many things), do I think it's up to me/the law to decide how people can live their lives? Is forcing anything on others something God wants me to do?"

      You have to ask yourself, "Who's suffering because of my beliefs? Does Jesus want me to cast a vote that makes others suffer beyond their personal struggle with God? Or does he want me to leave it up to God to judge in the end?"

      The last time I heard, God says it's our job to forgive.

      To My_America: Are you aware that a lot of people died (the natives of this land) so that other people (many of whom died) could set up a country where religion didn't play a role in whether or not you were fully free according to the law?

      My America is not one that gives rights only to the select group that follows the Christian God. (and AS IF Jesus wants you to hate or make anyone feel anything negative. Get real.)

      A lot would be solved if there were no special privileges that came with 'declaring' that you've found your lover/soulmate/partner for life. I'm for undoing that injustice.

    • 2 years ago
  • rufescens
    • 0
      rufescens  

    • Here's another element of the article not yet discussed: Brian Brown says, ""This lawsuit is an attempt by Judge Walker to put the voters of California on trial, and it's wrong."
      It's wrong to put the voters of California on trial? Really? So, nothing passed by the voters can ever be contested in court?

    • 2 years ago
  • dj97439
  • unclecharlie
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +1
      Varex_Sythe  

    • Depending on what can or cannot be achieved for gay marriage, it might be interesting if they can ruin the nice government perks that heterosexual people get with marriage. I think it would be fair play if married couples didn't get extra consideration when it comes to adoption, or if a spouse no longer could keep a conversation he/she had with their significant other confidential from the courts in legal cases. I hope that they get their marriage, and if they don't, I hope that they tear the outdated ritual to the ground in terms of the legal rights that people who become married receive.

    • 2 years ago
  • spacemikey
    • -1
      spacemikey [removed]  

    • When in Rome, oh wait this isn't Rome? Looking back the Natives in this country didn't have a history laden with homosexuality, as if to say it was another European/EuroAmerican disease....

      I say we're all guests of the Natives, and we should act as such, and I've yet to hear of a homosexual Native....

      So yeah take it back to Rome, or STFU.........

      This is not your new unholy Roman empire, no matter who thinks so....

    • 2 years ago
  • DistantPlanet
  • rufescens
  • spacemikey
    • -1
      spacemikey [removed]  
    • spacemikey:

      I'm simply saying this isn't Rome, orgies aren't that popular, neither is man-boy love, neither is homosexuality (I am referring to classical Rome, although...).

      Anyway, I'm really just being obnoxious at this point. The only real point I had to make was made in a reply to the first comment.

      Homosexuals should be happy with what they have (maybe they could have one or two more privileges BUT THAT'S IT!), and quit trying to offend by using the marriage word..... They're queers, they do hair, design shit, but they can't come up with a new word?

      And if the fact that the clear majority of Americans will not accept a homosexual "marriage", they can take that shit to Rome, the only other place I can think of in history where homosexuality was all that accepted.

      And since they're are headed that way, they can take all those catholic priests with them, drop them of in Vatican city, and quit trying to turn this into a religious argument....

      Because the way the catholic church deals with pedophile/priests (you know the whole transferring not punishing them) is enough to tell you this isn't all that religious of an issue....

    • 2 years ago
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  
    • spacemikey:

      Spacemikey

      That may have been the single DUMBEST response ive ever seen on my 2 years on current. You arent even trying to hide the fact that you think your lifestyle is superior to anothers. And why? Because 'the bible says so'. Wow im so glad you know how to think for yourself.

      You show your ignorance and bigotry of gays in stereotypes such as calling them "queers," and saying "they do hair, design shit," Gay people are just the same as you and me. They work in offices, as politicians, scientists, sanitation workers, managers, etc. Just because you are the majority and find their lifestyle 'wrong' does not make it so.

      Its not like marriage is a sacred institution nowadays anyway. Why not drive down to vegas and get married in a drive thru chapel? or maybe we could have a T.V. show that captures all the emotion and angst of getting married? 50% of American marriages end in divorce!

      This is EXACTLY why human rights should not be brought to a vote.

    • 2 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  

    • One area where a lot of anti-gay marriage people go wrong is in their arguments towards homosexuality as a "choice". It is unfair, unscientific and illogical to proclaim YOUR sexuality as genetic and unchangeable while any sexuality that does not fit within your "standards" is proclaimed as a choice, a flaw of character or immoral. How could you make such outrageous, ill-informed statements on another person's being? How would you feel if it was done to you?

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      People can be raised to be murderers and/or lairs, and some people if they have hormonal imbalances or mental defects can literally be born to be murderers, however it is more often a combination of how they are raised to perceive violence, how they are raised to react to certain situations, and what choices they make.

      Now, there are some cases where people who are homosexual make the choice to partake in the lifestyle. However, it is proven that people and animals can be born homosexual. Yes, I am basically saying that many homosexuals are born either with a genetic code that will make them sexually attracted to people of the same sex when they reach puberty. If they are born like that then it is by definition natural. It does not impede their ability to function either in society or on their own, therefor it is not a disability or disease. It is just like how some people can roll their tongue up, or some people can wiggle their ears. It just is, and as they were born that way and can live happily and healthy that way, it is immoral for others to tell them that they should stop being homosexual because a book written about God by men hundreds of years ago has scriptures that can be interpreted that way.

    • 2 years ago
  • occhipij
  • heatherpierce
  • heatherpierce
    • 0
      heatherpierce  
    • occhipij:

      except that most politicians are good people who are distracted by the fact that they have to be reelected by bigots (as Delia put it so well). however, they're influenced by money from corporations because their jobs depend on it. also, corporations are run by mostly good people who occasionally have a lapse in judgement (because they would also like to keep their job). These people probably don't sleep well at night.

      Which helps keep the pharmaceutical industry in business.

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • indecisiveh
  • Buddha2112
    • +1
      Buddha2112  

    • I still can't understand why ANYONE would want to get married in the first place.

      It doesn't change a damn thing. Love someone as you will. No piece of paper, no law on the book, no blessing, no prayer in the world can change or validate true love. It's all quite petty to me. If it matters that much, maybe you should really look at why you love someone.

      But still, the inequality and bigoted viewpoints are a major concern :/

      It's truly sad that this has to go to such a high level of the courts. This shouldn't even be an issue to begin with. Live and let live, is it really that hard to comprehend?

    • 2 years ago
  • LinXitoW
  • Buddha2112
    • +1
      Buddha2112  
    • Buddha2112:

      Well, duh, but that's really the only 'change'. I'm down for the whole union idea, but the idea of civil unions should have nothing to do with 'feelings' or 'love'. If having contracts between people can have monetary and tax benefits, it should be available to anyone and any number group of people, and then it becomes a hell of a mess. :o

      I say throw out the whole idea, and just don't tax people so ridiculously, then this wouldn't even be an issue! LOL

    • 2 years ago
  • indecisiveh
    • -1
      indecisiveh  
    • Buddha2112:

      To answer your original concern:

      Monogamous, and healthy unions between two people improve the social fabric of our society and give people a social construct other than government and corporations to rely on. Marriage is the legal recognition of a citizen working with other citizens to improve the quality of life around you. It gives people a chance to benefit from having healthy children and youth, that grow up to be problem solvers and good citizens.

      Marriage can be a declaration that you will not be just be another joe shmo, but rather, a representative of the prosperity and culture that allows families and monogamous people to be elevated to a much deserved status as an asset and not just melancholy.

      The list of benefits from ethical, monogamous relationships and the families that benefit from them is endless.

      To be short: Attacking the most cherished institution in the history of mankind is a non starter. The fact is that lots of people want marriage, the issue is whether the government's answer will be yes or no.

    • 2 years ago
  • hsdpafx01
    • +1
      hsdpafx01  

    • As an exercise of thought and reflection, you may want to tell your heterosexual and homosexual friends, family, loved-ones and colleagues in no uncertain terms that you feel the latter persons are socially beneath you, immoral, 'unnatural,' 'wrong,' and deserving of less dignity and respect as you.

      When you face the prospect of this task you may find yourself rethinking the position you hold.

      Consider, if you will, how the laws of nature take precedence over human constructs, principles and civil laws. Homosexuality is not a man made construct, it is a natural one. As natural as you are and the rest of us.

      It is religion that is responsible for promoting the idea that homosexuality is, as you say, unnatural. Yet it is the man made construct of religion that competes with the laws of nature.

      What's it going to be, nature or human illusions?

      Let's back the most responsible decision, for everyone's sake and survival
      http://open.salon.com/blog/hsdpafx01/2009/12/28/le_petit_prince

    • 2 years ago
  • slarabee
  • 02
    • +1
      02  
    • slarabee:

      Yes, it would be very sticky - how would "truth" be discerned when lies are so carefully contrived - but yelling false stories is the same as yelling fire in a theater - when there's no fire. There should be a way to define out and out lying.

    • 2 years ago
  • DistantPlanet
    • 0
      DistantPlanet  
    • slarabee:

      Slarabee, I agree that misinformation seems to have become the currency of the public discourse. It is very unnerving and downright frustrating. But, instead of strict legal consequences for the originators of such propoganda, what I really wish for is the willingness of the general public to educate themselves on the facts. Instead of having a law to protect us from misinformation, I think we'd get much more mileage out of average citizens with critical-thinking skills. Unfortunately it's just much easier to side with people that they agree with, even if they don't understand any of the issues they are in agreement about.

    • 2 years ago
  • heatherpierce
    • 0
      heatherpierce  
    • slarabee:

      very well put, distantplanet. same to slarabee. Both of these - law against contrived lies through brilliant PR and public willingness to self-educate - are crucial. we're severely lacking until both are in place.

    • 2 years ago
  • angelaguayo
    • 0
      angelaguayo  

    • This is a basic right, if you are a male and can be married to the woman you love then the same should be for a same sex couple. Let people marry who they want. Oh yeah and being gay is not a choice, you cant chose who you like whether it be a man or woman. I didn't take the time to read all the comments on here but please no religious ones, you can, your right but you cant live your life to a book, or chose to be a certain religion, be yourself and think through things with on open mind....

    • 2 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  

    • "gay marriage isn't the tooth fairy. you can't just not believe in it till it goes away."

      Quite right! I can't stand when people say "I don't believe in gay marriage", as if the existence of such is what is in question. This article points to the states that recognize gay marriage; it's real!

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • rufescens
  • rufescens
  • mojojuju
    • 0
      mojojuju  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      " Saying "I don't believe in stealing" would lead you to the same language depute. Stealing is real, it exists whether you "believe in it" or not.
      "

      It seems you are completely missing the point.

    • 2 years ago
  • indecisiveh
    • 0
      indecisiveh  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      Do you really need it explained to you why stealing is wrong? If so it is going to take forever for this debate to get anywhere.

      But I digress:

      Stealing is wrong because violating the rights of others is not protected in the constitution. You cannot compare crimes with perp/victims to constitutional interpretation of an institution. the two subjects are legally and logically incomparable for argument.

      In other words, these two things having virtually nothing similar or comparable between them to debate.

      One step at a time...We might be able to get this worked out.

    • 2 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      Mojo, I'm not missing the point at all.

      When people say "I don't believe in gay marriage" or even "I don't believe in stealing", they REALLY mean "I don't believe it's right for gay people to get married", "I don't believe it's right to steal", etc. The language difference is an important one- the writer should take responsibility for their own belief, not leave it vague as if it doesn't exist or should be regularly shunned. And if you can't see the difference between stealing and being gay, you are the one missing the point.

    • 2 years ago
  • common_sense_please
    • 0
      common_sense_please  

    • What really really really pisses me off about this issue is the complete total hypocrisy of heterosexuals--seriously marriage has become a joke. Tiger Woods is a perfect example of this--so is Charlie Sheen--so is former President Bill Clinton and so is every heterosexual male sitting in prison for beating and/or sexually assaulting his wife and/or children or both.

      As for the whole homosexuals might tell our children their lifestyle is acceptable--I say if you are modeling a lifestyle for your kids that involves committing adultery and breaking your promise before God and your family and friends to "be married till death do you part" or getting divorced and re-married several times or generally trash talking the your child's other parent in front of them just because you are pissed off about the custody or divorce or child support arrangements --maybe worrying about what your child's homosexual teacher might or might not be telling them about morality or the sanctity of marriage should not be your first concern.

    • 2 years ago
  • common_sense_please
    • 0
      common_sense_please  

    • "I think our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they heard that the constitution guarantees the right to redefine marriage. This is absurd," he said.

      Yes this is true but also remember that the founding fathers of our country were a bunch of misogynist rich white men who owned slaves, fought wars with Native American and Hispanic peoples just to take their land, and pretty much considered women one step above slaves and their daughters nothing better than bartering chips to sell off the the highest bidder via marriage.

    • 2 years ago
  • My_America
  • unimatrix0
  • parisinla
  • My_America
  • redvelvet1278
    • +1
      redvelvet1278  
    • My_America:

      um, my america. gay marriage isn't the tooth fairy. you can't just not believe in it till it goes away. and if you are going to hate (yup it is hate) then just remember, whoever you are and whatever you do- you are allowed to do it because you live in 'your america'. so until my sister can marry the person she loves this isn't my america. sorry to make you so uncomfortable. what makes ME uncomfortable is hetero marriage and how sad sad sad it has become. at least i take it seriously.

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  
    • My_America:

      I don't know, you guys. My_America has yet to even make a case against it.

      "Well, I just don't believe in it" and they sort of assume that you are going to accept that as their opinion so you can go back to talking about Tiger Woods or Michael Jackson.

      Unfortunately, this is a public discourse. That means that reasoning and logic are requested to back up a statement that otherwise doesn't make sense, unlike the corporate media giants, or government propaganda, or the pastor's podium.

      If you believe what you believe, fine.

      At the same time, if you are going to be participating in the electorate, your views ultimately affect me, which is why I ask for you to substantiate your positions so that other people, who actually DO use logic, can make a decision based on their personal views and values rather than what someone told them to believe.

      At the end of the day, everyone's opinion really does matter, and everyone has a vested interest in vetting it.

      So, I ask you, what makes it wrong?

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • randomly
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • randomly
    • 0
      randomly  
    • My_America:

      it certainly does affect your country, in that gay fellow americans are denied a civil right that you enjoy. by implication you are stating that you don't believe every american citizen is deserving of the same rights you are. bigotry plain and simple. and yet the issue doesn't personally affect you one bit, just 'what you believe your country should look like.'

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • +1
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • My_America:

      ibrake, marriage is not the end all be all of acceptance of homosexuality. I'm afraid you will be on the wrong side of history very soon if you don't realize that the mainstreaming of non-straight lifestyles is a reality in America. We can not continue to use religious influence to guide our country, especially as the numbers of non-Christian and even non-religious Americans also rise (which they continue to.)

    • 2 years ago
  • ryan8566
    • 0
      ryan8566  
    • My_America:

      MyAmerica, are you just going to do a 'hit and run' with no discussion or potential argument? I'll discuss this issue with you. in soccer/debating class it is called a..."cheap shot"
      ibrake for: you should know that most people on this site have graduated at least the 8th grade, but more high school, college, etc. the words 'immoral' and 'legitimate' may mean several different things in context, and in themselves. are you using a 'webster's?...a law dictionary?...or a....religious text?

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • fun_size
    • +2
      fun_size  
    • My_America:

      @ibrake

      Ha! It all makes sense now... keep using your 2000 year old book to try and interpret the modern world. I guess women dont deserve rights either right? And slavery should be acceptable too huh? Why outlaw inncest? I mean it only happens ALL throughout the bible.

    • 2 years ago
  • CreditFigaro
    • +1
      CreditFigaro  
    • My_America:

      That's great, Ibrake, but the bible doesn't say gays can't get married. It's a derivative value that has nothing to do with the bible. However, lack of judgement and acceptance of others are cornerstone philosophies. Your own book from which you refer your argument to doesn't defend your position.

      Please, show me where it says it's immoral for two men or two women to get married.

      Guess what? It's not there!

      Moreover, there isn't any evidence to suggest that more gay marriage results in less successful straight ones. I just don't know why you defend a derivative value so much, when holding that value causes so much fallout. The only logical answer is bigotry.

      Cheap shot certainly describes My_America's post perfectly, by the way.

      Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

    • 2 years ago
  • My_America
    • -1
      My_America  
    • My_America:

      The Bible only mentions marriage between a man and woman (Husband and Wife). The Bible does not mention that gay marriage is wrong and it also does not say that a woman should marry a goat no matter how much they love each other.

      Question: "What does the Bible say about marriage?"

      Answer: The creation of marriage is recorded in Genesis 2:23-24: "The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “woman,” for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." God created man and then made woman to complement him. Marriage is God’s “fix” for the fact that “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18).

      The word “helper” used to describe Eve in Genesis 2:20 means “to surround, to protect or aid, help.” Eve was created to be alongside Adam as his "other half," to be his aid and his helper. A man and woman, when married, become "one flesh." This oneness is manifested most fully in the physical union of sexual intimacy. The New Testament adds a warning regarding this oneness. "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matthew 19:6).

      There are several epistles written by the apostle Paul that refer to marriage and how believers are to operate within the marriage relationship. One such passage is 1 Corinthians chapter 7, and another is Ephesians 5:22-33. When studied together, these two passages provide biblical principles that form a framework for a God-pleasing marriage relationship.

      The Ephesians passage is especially profound in reference to a successful biblical marriage. "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior" (Ephesians 5:22-23). "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). "In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church” (Ephesians 5:28-29). “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Ephesians 5:31).

      When a believing husband and wife institute God’s principles, a biblical marriage results. A biblically based marriage is one that is in balance, with Christ as the head of the man and the wife together. The biblical concept of marriage is a oneness between two individuals that pictures the oneness of Christ with His church.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
    • -1
      ibrake4rappers13  
    • My_America:

      Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another

      Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

      Romans 1:24-27

      The bible doesnt specifically say gay marriage is wrong, though it is very explicit about homosexuality.

      The bible says homosexuality is wrong, so what makes you think its views towards homosexual marriage would be any different?

    • 2 years ago
  • bishopobispo
    • +1
      bishopobispo  
    • My_America:

      While we're using the bible as a means to justify morality...

      "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."

      -Exodus 21:7-11

      Slavery, polygamy, and potential rape all rolled into one? Way to go, god.

      If it sounds backwards or dated, I'm sorry, but it's in the bible. We HAVE to abide by this infallible word inspired by this omniscient being.

      Or, we could just use our own sense of reason and decide what's best for ourselves without referring to some archaic, myth-filled book written by man.

    • 2 years ago
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  
    • My_America:

      OK. I guess I need to clarify your position, MA and Ibrake:

      Do you believe the bible to be infallible?

      Do you believe any phrase or story or moral or biblical law taken in any context whatsoever ought to mirror the laws of the United States of America?

      I really wonder if you answer yes to either question, how do you craft law out of moral advice?

      The bible doesn't have any advice about what the punishments should be for most things other than naturally occurring phenomena like getting sick... how do you make that a law?

    • 2 years ago
  • 02
    • +1
      02  

    • That thing lost because of the ads that said it would be mandatory to teach people's children in school that the gay life-style is entirely "normal".
      This cleaver ruse is what swung the vote, as I remember it.

    • 2 years ago
  • Tizmo
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  

    • From a 2003 Gallup Poll:

      The number of Americans saying homosexuals should be hired as elementary school teachers has grown by 34 percentage points since 1977 (when it was 27%). The percentages saying homosexuals should be hired as members of the armed forces and as doctors have grown by 24 points and 30 points, respectively, since Gallup first asked about those two jobs in 1985. The percentage approving of homosexuals as high school teachers has increased 25 points since 1989, and the percentage supporting the idea of gay members in the president's Cabinet has increased 25 points since 1992. There's been a 21-point increase in the number of people saying homosexuals should be hired as salespeople since 1985 (when it was an already a comparatively high 71%). The number of people saying homosexuals should be hired as clergy has increased by 20 points since 1977.

      Minds open slowly (and I would argue that even the most open of minds have closed places within them, often to the great surprise of their owners) but they do appear to be opening. What can I say? I'm a "glass half full" kind of guy...

    • 2 years ago
  • TasteHi
    • 0
      TasteHi  
    • cztheday:

      you know I think I had some gay/les teachers back when I was in school but , it didn't affect me and I never thought twice about it. In fact teachers that are hetero and otherwise shouldn't be discussing personal things in class period...

    • 2 years ago
  • LinXitoW
  • goodname
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • +1
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • LinXitoW:

      ibrake- science, sexuality studies and people who are not straight dispute your assertion that homosexuality is a choice and furthermore some kind of adultery (which is obviously your own religious twist on the subject.) Skin color is not the only way in which people are put into minority groups, discriminated against and treated as second class citizens.

    • 2 years ago
  • Jubiejanks
    • 0
      Jubiejanks  
    • LinXitoW:

      HA!! Great cartoon. It's so ironic when minorities support anti-miscegenation laws but forget that they, too, were once victims of those laws too. Civil rights for EVERYONE, not just some.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • rufescens
    • 0
      rufescens  
    • LinXitoW:

      @ibrake... "Platonic love is just fine, but i dont see why it has to turn into something sexual." So, ibrake, do you plan on never falling in love and never having sex?

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • LinXitoW:

      What? So it's better to never get into a sexual relationship, never get married and never have sex? That doesn't sound better to any kind of life I want to live, but to each his own- luckily no one is trying to legally prevent you from those decisions.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • +1
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • LinXitoW:

      ibrake, you're repeating highly debatable talking points to me.

      1. The founding fathers were not all Christians nor believed in supernatural elements. Thomas Jefferson is famous for revising the bible and eliminating all references to divinity and the supernatural, known as "The Jefferson Bible." John Adams is quoted as saying "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity" and talked about nations being founded on the authority of the PEOPLE, not god.

      2. Combining the government and god was not part of the original game plan. In God we Trust was added to the coin in 1864, disappeared for a bit and made a come back in 1938. It wasn't on paper money until 1957. The national motto was unofficially "E Pluribus Unum (One from many) - and it wasn't until1956 that they decided "In God we Trust" would be the official motto of our country.

      3. Our constitution (1st amendment) and strong concepts like the separation of church and state protect us both from each other's biases. While your religion has no right to sway the law, my non-belief has no right to prevent you from worship. Treasure this unique freedom of AND from religion that we have and leave your religious beliefs out of the government system.

      America is not and never was a "Christian nation"- it was never meant to be a nation of just one group and belief systems. That's why America isn't simply a democracy- we take precautions to fight against the "tyranny of the majority" by adhering to strong moral ideas, ideas that take centuries to fully define and apply in society, like freedom, justice and human rights.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
    • -1
      ibrake4rappers13  
    • LinXitoW:

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their [Creator] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

      Who is our creator?

      God is.

      Where do our rights come from?

      God, not the government

    • 2 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • +1
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • LinXitoW:

      That was an incredibly weak response to all the information I gave you. What if I look at my "creator" as nature, or space, or some other abstract concept instead of god? Even if I did say my creator was god, that does not imply a Christian god at all.

      The reason the founding fathers wanted to say our rights came from our "creator" was so the government could not take them away. They needed something with higher authority to challenge the authority of kings, government systems, etc.

    • 2 years ago
  • goodname
  • sedgleyoss
    • 0
      sedgleyoss  

    • It is ridiculous that in 2010 we still have laws that limit peoples rights to the point that two individuals in love cannot get married.

    • 2 years ago
  • CalgarC
  • bishopobispo
    • 0
      bishopobispo  

    • The idea that the legality of gay marriage was even left to the populace to decide still boggles my mind. 'Morality' is not something that can be determined by a popular vote. Where is the Federal Government to step in for the rights of a minority?

      Oh wait, they need to be reelected by bigots.

    • 2 years ago
  • Michael_Wright
  • Acedia
    • 0
      Acedia  
    • bishopobispo:

      Yeah. You'd think it would be common sense that something like human rights shouldn't be put to a vote.

      "Hey majority group, do you think this minority group should have rights?"

    • 2 years ago
  • EmperorThan
    • +1
      EmperorThan  

    • Ummmmm, you don't want to do this guys.

      I'm all for gays being able to marry. It's very basic equality. But if you take this to federal court then I am confident you will lose. And you will lose so badly that it will become illegal in ALL states.... Don't shoot yourselves in the foot, just say "Oh well California's not on board..." and move on to the other states.

      Then once you lead by example, some years later around the year 2025 or whatever when 49 states have legalized gay marriage then California will say "What a silly law we passed back then, what were they thinking in those 'primitive times'." And the law will become overturned.

      Because by then Christianity will HOPEFULLY be marginalized in our society and/or they'll be concerned about people marrying robots and the 'sanctities' associated with that.

      "Mmmm let me suck on those sweet, sweet sanctities."

    • 2 years ago
  • occono
  • uroborus8
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • -1
      DeliaTheArtist  

    • The last thing I want to hear is any nonsense about the founding fathers. The founding fathers were penning "all men are created equal" while their slaves refilled their ink wells.

      Times change, concepts change and human rights issues should not be decided state by state. I hope at the end of this case the supreme court rules in favor of equal rights, the federal government is forced to recognize gay marriage and the conservative christian groups can move on to their next bullshit problem.

      BTW, I thought Jersey passed gay marriage? They overturned it?

    • 2 years ago
12
1 - 100 of 127
more from Community:
from the community

top videos