The truth about gay marriage!

Thats probably the only disagreement so far that I can accept as plausible.

The only reason there are no laws regarding the divorve of gay couples is plain and simply becuase people are of the mind set that there is a difference between the marriage of gays and of straights, and there is no difference. Stating that the divorce laws in place do not apply to homosexuals is ignorant in and of itself. Additionally if the standing laws in any state make differential treatment of husbands and wives (a gender based difference) are unconstitutional to start with and should be reworked to make no preference towards the behaviours or rewards of either sex. NBC (coorporate media) is playing this story to mislead you, and it appears they have succeeded, into thinking that there is a difference between gay marriage and straight marriage.

In Canada the federal government just passed a law that allows gays to divorce even if they only came to Canada to marry. See how much more progressive Canada is. You didn't hear anyone in Canada making a big deal out this or going crazy over this decision either. Gays now have the same rights as any couple that wants to divorce in Canada.

It is not only a religious sacrament. Civil unions are marriages too, and marriages were initially designed to keep inheritances within certain social groups.

Oh, em, Sorry, but you've got this completely backwards, America still is and has always been recognized as a Christian country, (yet another reason why America constantly makes wars all over the world) NOT secular, and it is always the political and religious right-As though the two are not synonymous I might add-that wants to tear down that wall, and the sane and reasoned that understand the reason for such a separation.

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
~James Madison

“A Firehouse is more useful than a church.”
~Benjamin Franklin

“In no instance have the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.”
~James Madison

Perfect. Especially the last one. (and Good Morning!)

As you can see by my posted quotes of John Adams, you and I are saying the same thing. For once we agree.

Plop, plop, fizz, fizz. I love you guys here who post stuff like you do in response, saying nothing just throwing rocks. When people such as yourself cry in non supported lies I am convinced of two things: I am correct and I am having a battle of the wits with an unarmed person.
Happy Sunday. Try to learn something today. You will enjoy the change.

we do indeed. perhaps there is hope for the world yet

I don't see the logic in your first paragraph. The amendments did, in fact, change what the Constitution allows/disallows, largely at the demand of the states who wanted specificity precisely out of concern that in their absence the federal government would be further empowered by the (what they considered to be) vagueness of the base document. The states wanted it then... emphatically. Every state since then has signed the EULA. Wanderer has only, in a slightly humorous way, stated the obvious.
"Their problem was not religion but government meddling in it." Utterly incorrect. Their problem was precisely the opposite. History is abundantly clear on that. One of the fascinations I have with the Right is the repeated return to the founders to attempt to read their minds as if it's somehow relevant. We have a Constitution, a contract. That is the issue. Moreover, the fact that they were religious (professed or presumed) yet STILL created a clear separation of church and state should be the most profound and definitive proof of their intent.
LGBT marriage is a Christian Right wedge issue. No more. No less. There is no "wrongness", legal or otherwise, than can be associated with it. If "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" doesn't work for you, try the 9th Amendment.

Amen! Very good. ^+

--standing applause-- Bravo! Well placed quotes!

The amendments did not change so much what was allowed as to change the structure. The 17th is a case in point. The original structure was that the Senators were selected by state legislators but the 17th changed that to popular vote. The prohibitions, if I remember correctly without the text in front of me, are contained in the amendments and are prohibitions on the conduct of government. Again, see the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law...."., "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The Constitution granted powers to the central government with the prohibitions in the Bill of Rights laid out to protect the rights of the individual.
Actually the base document is not vague, it is well written and very plain. This brings us to the contract concept. I do not agree that it is a "contract". As we all know, a contract shall be read withing the meaning of the words at that time. As such it is subject to interpretation by whoever reads/adjudicates it. Contracts are elastic and broken without penalty in a lot of cases. If the supreme document in the country is read as elastic and subject to the meaning of whoever reads it than I would suggest that all statutory laws inferior to the Constitution, and that would be all statutory laws, are subject to interpretation. With this is mind there is nothing that is really illegal if I do not wish it to be. The country is then relegated to a democracy, or mob rule as the Constitution means whatever those in power say it means. We then have the rule of man and not the rule of law.
This reading of the Constitution is very convenient for statists as it lends itself well to the "living, breathing document" concept that is so popular to the left.. I happen to believe that the Constitution means what it says, no more, no less. The powers of Congress and the duties of the President are spelled out in detail in the Constitution. They are not vague but can be changed through the amendment process which is intended to be onerous so that the document cannot be changed for frivolous reasons.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not a statement that a right to anything exists or that everything not specifically stated in numbers 1-9 are rights. Read the 10th for clarity. The rest was reserved to the states which is why I said that if a state wishes to allow gay marriage than they can. About the Ninth, one must first assume that marriage is a "right". It is not stated in the Bill of Rights that the right to marriage exists nor is it even suggested.
The Constitution was not intended to be a guide for the central government to control every aspect of the lives of the people. It was intended to be a limitation on the powers of that central government with the fine points left to the states.

You state, "Going to a court and overturning the vote against it is wrong and violates the designed sovereignty of the states" and I refute this idea, as the protection of our consitutional rights is a primary purpose of the Supreme Courts of our states and nation. You are wrong sir, plain and simple.

Go peddle your b.s.. somewhere else ken. I hear this garbage every time I say something that does not agree with what the politically correct line is here. I'm not going to your link. I don't care. What I do know, from posting here and paying attention over several decades, is that liberals have a habit of making things what they want them to be regardless of the truth. The signers of the Constitution were not perfect, some wanted a king, some did not. Some wanted a central bank, some did not. Most were religious but did not want a government to dictate or get in the way of their religion. You can either look at the Constitution as a rule of law, meaning what it says, or the rule of man, meaning whatever anyone wants it to mean. Liberals have perverted this document to the rule of man just as they have perverted the general welfare clause to justify welfare generally. This country was not founded, and Article I, Section 8 was not penned to create a nanny state, the darling of liberals. Central government control over our lives cannot be read as a goal of the Constitution as written but can be perverted thus but as I said, to do this renders invalid any prohibitions against anything statutory. Anyhow, sorry for bending your ear but if you think I am wrong than I know that I am correct.

If you believe that the constitution means no more or less then what is written there in then you must agree with this.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or
legislation which would abrogate them."
U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona 380 U.S. 436 (1966)

Included in the rights protected by our consitution is the rights of equal treatment for all people, which flatly means that if I can get married then so can the LGBT community. Now it also means that regardless of what a state "votes" for, if that vote limits the protected rights of ANY individuals then the voted article is meaningless, it is an attack on American citizens. Plain and simple, your stance here is WRONG.

The question is if it is Civil Right, then could any State ban gay marriage under the 14th Amendment. According to your reasoning a State could ban ALL marriage, including Heterosexual marriage. If you think this is the case, I would disagree, but respect that you are being consistent. If, however, you do not think that a State has the power to ban ALL marriages, then you are being inconsistent both legally and logically, and the argument thus fails.

Thank you so much for proving something that I have been saying for many years. There are only three types of people that believe in a god: Those that will not search out facts, those not smart enough to understand facts and those not honest enough to accept facts.

If you will not even go to the link it is because you are not honest enough with yourself to search out facts that might prove you wrong.

Every person that ever lived is ignorant to the things they have never learned. Those that refuse to learn are stupid.

Can anyone else tell my why Paratus is refusing to respond to my comments here? I bet you I know why.

Your first paragraph is irrelevant here, though I would mention that some 16 of the 27 amendments are clearly not "structural". Others, such as voting age, are debatable. Not here.
I did not argue that the base document is vague, only that the states argued for the amendments out of concern for the non-specificity. You may have your opinion.
Constitution vs. contract:
T. Jefferson (1798): "...the several states of the [USA] are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but... by a COMPACT under the style and title of the Constitution of the United States....."
Blacks Law Dictionary: "COMPACT.... an agreement; a contract. Usually applied to conventions between nations and sovereign states."
You have tortuously sought to differentiate the meanings of acknowledged synonyms.

Personally, I see no need to assume marriage is a "right" in any specific way apart from an individual's right to enter into a legal contract. The ability of a state to prohibit certain individuals to enter that contract is, to me, a violation of their civil rights. Under the Commerce Clause, states may well have the right to not recognize the marriage itself but they would likely be required to recogize any court judgements involving the marriage. But if you want the can of worms, go for it.
So if the states possess the rights as you say, why do conservatives keep pushing the DMA? If it is so ideologically important (and there is no other viable reason) why do states seek to escape responsibility? The answer, of course, is that you don't want to actually resolve it, or deal with complications, you want to keep recycling it for political purposes as you do now. Just another wedge issue for the base reflecting the most fundamental conservative value: intolerance.

No idea, wanderer. I just unloaded again so maybe he'll return.

Excellent quotes. At least the 'right' hasn't completely rewritten our history yet. But just try to convince the 'right' about separation of church and state. They twist and spin everything to make it sound like the Founding Fathers meant to protect the churches instead.

Very well said. Ignorance is not bliss.

If ignorance were bliss conservatives would be much happier.

The best part is during this latest contraception argument the conservatives have now admitted that there is a separation of church and state.

well said

You absolutely blew it with that one,

First you define sanctity. Thanks I think most of us know what that means,
Then you define sacred. Thanks again most of us know what that means.

Then you Quote the constitution

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

You my friend, do not know what that quote means.

You prove the exact opposite of what you claim to prove.

We are not now, nor have we ever been a "Christian" nation.

The constitution specifically protects us from that with the very words that you quote,

The only people insisting that "marriage" is a strictly religious ritual are right wing ignorant uneducated ideologues and propagandists seeking to make a civil issue into a religious one for bigoted reasons, and misplaced zealotry.

Marriage predates religion, dictionaries, and interpretations biased by Duh... Religious dogma,

Complete fail.

umm i thought that was his point

His comment can be seen 2 ways,

I interpreted it to mean that the concept of marriage is exclusively religious, which I disagree with, and articulated. Marriage is a religious rite to religious people, not everyone.

If he was stating the same and I misinterpreted it, I'll remedy that. Thus far he or she has not responded.

Best

Ziggy

Oo baby!
But would that be incest? ;~}

Those 2 make a good couple. I remember always being thankful that so many gay guys were good looking. It made NY a single straight guys paradise in the sixties and seventies. So thanks Joe, and all those other handsome gay dudes. I used to go to the gay clubs to pick up girls, and ludes it was a great time in my sordid life.
Ever go to the Fudge Factory?

So cute !

lawdy i hope so!

It was on 59th between 1st and 2nd. Then it moved to the eighties.

I never went to your 3 clubs but I did frequent "The Old Vic" on 60th between 1st and second. I used to take my closeted gay loathing friends there, yes it was cruel but I watched more than a few out themselves there.

I did most of my hanging out at The Coventry in queens 43rd and Queens Boulevard, and Le Jardin, and other village clubs. In my circles "The Gay" was not a disease, it was just a different way that really had nothing to be judged about. It was natural. Still is to me.

I was lucky as I had some gay friends in grammar school, and even knew a male couple that were grownups. They became my friends, I remember going by their house to have lemonade, and shoot a bb rifle in their back yard. Never had one of them do anything but be good role models for any 10 yr old kid.

Sure I met a chicken hawk once and he cheeped me out but had I been 2 years older I would have known what to say to him, instead of feeling violated, and like my friend had betrayed me.

He was not a gay guy, he was a gay creep. Given the 10,000 to one hetero creep to gay creep ratio in my life experience, I don't attribute his behavior to being gay, if he had been straight he would have done the same thing to women.

Met a pedophile that was hetero except for little boys. He scared me but he never caught me. I was afraid to tell my parents because I felt it was my fault for hanging out in gambling clubs with grownups at 9yrs old. I had nightmares of that guy chasing me through the subways until I was 18. I understood that this stuff was about control, not sex.

In my early 20s I was curious because a lot of people I knew came out, I wondered if bisexuality was perhaps a better option for me, I was open minded about it.
I tried it, but I was a miserable failure at it. I let a guy buy me a few drinks, he then took me to his basement apt next door to the Hells Angels club on 4th street if I remember correctly.

It did not work, it was funny, I wanted to know where I stood, but the equipment just would not work. I apologized to the guy and we hung out, he understood.

I have 4 sons and a daughter. I told them all early in life that homosexuality is a fact of life and if any of them were GLBT just to please let me know so I could give them appropriate presents for Christmas and birthdays. They all got toys that were black, white, and Asian. None of them are racists, or bigots.

Kids today "like my almost 16 yr old" seem to have no preconceived notions or prejudices of that kind. Of his closest friends 3 are openly gay, and 5 straight far as I know.

I hope it's a trend. We all know what gay haters are, and how badly they have behaved to date. Maybe not all of us know, but we are progressing.

Best

Ziggy

" I understood that this stuff was about control, not sex." --standing applaus-- You are absolutely correct!

Many thanks!

Interesting read. Thank you.

Nope, I am New England transplant, guess the right would call most of us communists as well... oh well! Phelps is on the top of my needs a kick to kidney list.

Thanks, this image was shared with me by a gay friend on FB. It struck me hard as it seems to be doing here as well. Simple truths are easy to see when you look from the right perspective.

So true and also when you take your blinders off.

If only it were that simple we would be living in a better world.

--nods--

And lack thereof... =(

Indeed! I have always refered to the "ban gay marriage" thing as prohibition and got laughed at rediculed for saying that... I effing hate Kansas.

Sheeesh, now I do too... =))=