Um, do you even KNOW what he first verse of the bible is, or says?
I'm gonna pretend you didn't even think of typing that. But we could move right to your church's probable contradictory teachings in Leviticus, if you like. . .and I'm sure you have a good handle on your denomination's history on instances where interpretations were changed.
No, I'm saying put it to vote and see what the people say. It doesn't really matter what my view on it is, if it passes, then so be it - at that point it really doesn't matter what I think, does it? Actually, I think the government should be extremely small and if it doesn't agree wtih my Church then I have a choice don't I? I could move somewhere that is more in line with what I believe, or I can just deal with it.
Interesting - so if we put each person's rights to recognized relationships up for a vote, it wouldn't look so bad if they have to seek political asylum or if we "voted" to break up someone's marriage. We should just keep changing the Constitution until only those people we approve of have citizenship. Sorry to say, but I'd be voting againt a lot of heterosexual marriages - too often one party just doesn't have the character to go the distance.
No, what we have is a judicial system that is legistlating from the bench, which is definately NOT what the founding fathers wanted. Judges are supposed to interpet laws passed, not make them. This isn't the case in the United States, anymore.
Nonsense - what we have is a judicial body whose job it is to interpret the constitutionality of laws. It was created partially to insure that the tyranny of the majority could not erase the inalienable and citizenship rights of others, not to function as a rubber stamp of frequently changing public opinion. It has flaws, but one of them is not legislating from the bench. Courts do not pass legislation - they can order the issue be addressed by the legislature based on the Constitution's protections and have done so on a variety of issues over our history. The founding fathers wanted the courts to be able to prevent legislatures from removing rights of citizens, among those the Bill of Rights. In any number of cases, those same courts prevented legislatures from implementing many passed laws that would have restricted freedom of speech, the press, and yes, religion. You act as if any time an unpopular group of Americans seek redress, the courts are "legislating from the bench" if those people win. We would have ceased any pretense to being a democracy nearly two centuries ago if that had been the case.
What philosphy? I made a statement based on what I believe. Don't put words into my mouth.
I wasn't quoting you.
God gave man free will. Each can choose their own path. Nothing says I have to agree with it, or have to enable it - esp if I have a chance to remove, or prevent it.
This is the same free will which your minister uses when selecting alterations to biblical interpretation, or the church uses when it abandons one teaching even when the Bible hasn't been rewritten. If each can choose their own path, that freedom has to be protected by some part of the government - you advocate seriously preventing the judicial branch from participation other than as a rubber stamp.
Have you READ the Bill of Rights? Sounds like you are giving people more rights than they actually have.
I'm sure the right wing will take care of any "extra" rights that any American might believe they have been given.
Now that's an interesting concept - MORE rights than they actually have. Like due process, or the equal protection clauses? The right to a fair trial, perhaps, which may not occur when their relationships aren't recognized? The freedom to practice their own religious beliefs? You might read the baby bill of rights that are in each state's constitution - they are even more specific. In fact it was a commonwealth's constitutional bill of rights that forced the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to make the ruling legalizing those marriages. That ruling was based on equal protection guarantees, and the state had hundreds of benefit and responsibility laws that gay couples could not access. More importantly, the State, which fought this in court, had few material or practical reasons why allowing those unions would harm the State.
See, you are going off on tangents (pedophiles, premaritial sex, etc) to argue THIS topic. It doesn't apply to the topic at hand.
Doesn't apply at all? Well, let's see....by Supreme Court decisions over the last several decades, it's been rather well established that the only pretext a State has to prevent the "inalienable" right to marry is when it can show that a significant harm can be caused the public. Pedophiles, sex offenders, rapists obviously have shown a criminal history of poor conduct that harms society, even within their relationship choices. But the State can't force them to divorce or prevent them from marriage. . .because the right to intimate association is considered so inalienable that it is above the intervention of the State EXCEPT when significant harm can be done to the orderly function of the culture. This means damages like birth defects, age requirements, etc. Yes, in some states first cousins can marry. You are contending that gay Americans have to live under a different standard for determination.
What rights are being abrogated? There is no right to be a homosexual.
I hate to hit you on semantics, but, our Constitution doesn't differentiate between sexual orientations when it lays down the framework for the requirements to be considered an American citizen. There were laws in some states against homosexual acts, along with some heterosexual acts. They were struck down by the Supreme Court because of arbitrary enforcement and invasion of one class of citizen's privacy, while the other class was left alone. Your President fought desperately to keep that treatment in place, first as governor, then as President.
My party? I have no party. I'm an independent.
You've indicated that you support the Republican Party's platform on every one of their planks on this issue, which includes opposition to any sort of recognition or legal protection of any kind.
I never said homosexuals were stupid. If we are going to oppose the majority of opinion on a topic in this country, then it's no longer a democracy, is it?
Again, I wasn't quoting you - I was pointing out that these people have been observing from a unique position for a long time. What they see is that no one is paying attention to the grievances over benefits and basic human dignity because they are too busy being hysterical over the moral "sanctity" of marriage. It isn't the concept of marriage at stake for them - it's the hundreds of benefits that, without access, create some brutal, very unjust conditions at important times of a person's life. Frankly, my personal opinion is that many of these statutes should be changed as individual rights - no one should be required to pay a large sum of money to try to construct some form of right to control assets, health care or funeral planning. Many of the issues are problems heterosexuals are up against - just go to a funeral and watch the vultures circle - it can be ugly at the worst time.
The majority of opinion ONLY is against the concept of same-sex marriage. . .and that opinion is also against amending the Constitution as the President wants. The majority favors some form of protection, but in many cases, the constitutional amendments being introduced in some states are worded just vaguely enough to force people to prevent even power of attorney contracts in order to prevent marriage. Thank those "ACLU of the Right" legal groups for that. . .
First, too bad, you are making the wrong choice. Sorry it didn't work out for you.
I believe that homosexuality is a choice.
Sure, just like you woke up at...the age of 12 or so and said "Shoot - today I'm choosing that I'm gonna be a heterosexual." I'd like to see the damage lawsuits filed when that belief goes down with the "God intended the races be naturally seperated on different continents so they would never mix."
Uh..religious beliefs are a choice; we don't know to what degree any kind of choice might be involved with a gay identity. Since you aren't one of them, you hardly have any way of knowing whether it is a choice or not - and neither would a church. What we do know is that both churches and government haven't spent much money or time trying to find out, either - and, according to one gay friend, that indicates to gays they don't really want to know or conduct outreach to that community.
If they seek asylum, that is their choice. Homosexuality is not a "faith", it's a lifestyle.
Again, you have no way of knowing anything about that - you are neither gay nor is your church likely knowledgeable about the subject. It is dependent upon selective interpretation of about a dozen scriptural verses - verses with interpretation that is widely contested. As for your personal contention, there are very few "ex" gay people who have made that claim - the narratives I've read seem to have extenuating circumstances that involved some type of abuse. Dangerously inconclusive. However, there is nothing innate about religious faith - no one is born a particular denomination or grasping a denominational faith. We don't know completely why or how gays become that way - but I doubt many of them have ever believed it was a simple "choice." The use of "lifestyle" indicates your belief that it is a choice - and that either stems from your own personal experience at choosing sexual orientation or from some special knowledge.
Seeking political asylum is not something foreign governments view as a "choice", but rather judge on the basis of a necessity because significant physical and/or social/cultural harm can come to those applying if they remain in their countries. Americans, who pride themselves as being among the "free" peoples of the earth, aren't known for large numbers seeking asylum to escape political and religious persecution. Passing a federal constitutional amendment that forceably dissolves the Massachusetts marriages along with continued claims by "religious" groups that they are sinners by "choice" will create exactly that kind of climate. Remove their right to seek fair and just redress for grievances, just like any other American, and we've provided exactly those conditions. They don't leave because they want to - they leave because they cannot protect their families from people persecuting them. You know, kinda like the Pilgrims wanting to escape religious persecution...and..religious beliefs are choices of conscience.
I, again, urge you to read what your rights actually "are".
You might look at the 14th Amendment, which enumerates citizenship rights:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive ANY person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to ANY person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Um, true democracys go by majority rule. We are not one (true democracy). Again, exactly what rights are being violated by banning gay marriage?
True democracies do not always rule by the tyranny of the majority. One reason is because we have a nation that did not allow participation by all constitutionally recognized citizens for the vast majority of our history. True democracy would require full participation.
Try the Fourteenth Amendment again, then read the history of the three-part process in which constitutional law decisions were constructed in terms of recognizing relationships. Individual Americans were provided the right to make individual decisions about their personal associations. The right to marry is based on the right to privacy (which Sen. Santorum denies, and if he were right, this would negate every individually selected marriage in the country. It has historically been recognized (like since early in our history) that the freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Freedom of association "extends to certain kinds of highly personal relationships" that "act as critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State." Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984). Marriage has also been protected because it promotes societal and family stability (inheritance rights, property, etc.). One aspect of the privacy right stems from the unconstitutionality of a city ordinance which restricted extended family members from living in the same unit. The Supreme Court in that case held that the right to privacy in family life extended to close families who lived together out of necessity, choice or duty. In 1942, for example, the Supreme Court regarded marriage as a basic civil right of man. The decisions confirming these rights to individual choice, privacy and protection of intimate adult unions from societal prejudice (Loving v. Virginia).
Would never happen. BTW, you are assuming I am white.
Uh...no...if I was doing that, I would have specifically pointed out New Mexico. I should have made that two sentences to distinguish the references of "you."
What rights? There is NO right to be a homosexual. READ THE BILL OF RIGHTS. I'm not voting away someone's rights.
Another monotonous erroneous idiotic Richism 
