proposition 8 Options

[*Janette*]

By a vote of 6-1 (with Justice Carlos Moreno dissenting), the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 -- while preserving the marriage licenses of 18,000 same-sex couples who wed in the months prior to the November election. Paul Hogarth is reading the 185-page Court decision as we speak, and will be reporting later today with his legal analysis of the Court's reasoning.

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/BREAKI...rop_8_6962.html

discuss.

[kryogenix]

owned.

[brooklyneast05]

man i don't even know. honestly i can't comprehend how this could go a court and they could rule this way. it's an embarrassment really.

[kryogenix]

Yeah it's unbelievable it went this far, and it should have been a unanimous decision

lololololol rage time

[illriginal]

WOOT WOOT GO CALIFORNIA!!

[*Janette*]

man i don't even know. honestly i can't comprehend how this could go a court and they could rule this way. it's an embarrassment really.

Yeah it's unbelievable it went this far, and it should have been a unanimous decision

lololololol rage time

i agree. i don't even know what to say really besides that i'm disappointed.

[illriginal]

and it should have been a unanimous decision

Nevar!!! they need to get a clue. Numbers is the biggest clue. Get the hint, leave the country if you don't like it

[kryogenix]

i agree. i don't even know what to say really besides that i'm disappointed.

Don't be too disappointed. 7-0 would have been great, but I guess 6-1 ain't so bad. At least it was upheld in the end.

[hi-C]

I'm disappointed and disgusted. Talk about legislating from the bench. This is like Plessy v. Ferguson.

[kryogenix]

I'm disappointed and disgusted. Talk about legislating from the bench. This is like Plessy v. Ferguson.

Ummmmm... this wasn't legislated from the bench. Guess where it was legislated from. I'll give you a hint: another name for Prop 8 is California Ballot Measure 8.

Yep, you guessed it, this wasn't decided by judges; it was decided by the people of California. Of course, the gay agenda attempted to use activist judges to try to legislate from the bench by throwing a shitstorm to try to get it overturned.

In all seriousness, I'm not happy with proposition 8 because I don't want the government to be involved in marriage whatsoever. But between right to freedom of religion and the privilege of getting married, I think the former trumps the latter.

[hi-C]

Yep, you guessed it, this wasn't decided by judges; it was decided by the people of California. Of course, the gay agenda attempted to use activist judges to try to legislate from the bench by throwing a shitstorm to try to get it overturned.

In all seriousness, I'm not happy with proposition 8 because I don't want the government to be involved in marriage whatsoever. But between right to freedom of religion and the privilege of getting married, I think the former trumps the latter.

Be that as it may: 1) If one group is being unfairly discriminated against by anyone, then it's the responsibility of the government to protect that group and 2) Religion has nothing to do with marriage. One party having a penis and the other having a vagina has nothing to do with religion. Atheists can get married and religious gays can't?

[illriginal]

Religion has nothing to do with marriage?


Orly?

You got something to back that up... I'm hoping this is going beyond the Egyptians

[brooklyneast05]

duh she has something to back it up, read what it says right after it

Atheists can get married and religious gays can't?

[kryogenix]

Be that as it may: 1) If one group is being unfairly discriminated against by anyone, then it's the responsibility of the government to protect that group and 2) Religion has nothing to do with marriage. One party having a penis and the other having a vagina has nothing to do with religion. Atheists can get married and religious gays can't?

1) So then you agree with Proposition 8, as it protects religious people from unfair prosecution, right? After all, that's why prop 8 was made in the first place, wasn't it?

2) Maybe it didn't. But the problem is, gays think they can sue religious organizations for not allowing them to marry... and they're having success at it. The people of California decided that the free exercise of religion needed to be protected from activist homosexuals.

Like I said, I don't think the government should be able to tell anyone who can or can't marry. But I also believe the government should not be able to force me to recognize or participate in anyone's marriage. However, gays want to force religious groups to marry them, photographers to shoot their ceremonies, etc.

I'd like to see prop 8 repealed, but it shouldn't stop there.

[illriginal]

duh she has something to back it up, read what it says right after it

uh... and? She's making it seem like marriage didn't come out of religion..

[hi-C]

^ I'm not saying that marriage did or didn't come out of religion, but if it did, why can atheists marry and religious gays cannot?

1) So then you agree with Proposition 8, as it protects religious people from unfair prosecution, right? After all, that's why prop 8 was made in the first place, wasn't it?

2) Maybe it didn't. But the problem is, gays think they can sue religious organizations for not allowing them to marry... and they're having success at it. The people of California decided that the free exercise of religion needed to be protected from activist homosexuals.

But if marriage is a civil institution and marriage licenses are granted by the state, then how is it religious prosecution? Those against Prop 8 aren't suing the church, they're suing the state.

[brooklyneast05]

uh... and? She's making it seem like marriage didn't come out of religion..

she said religion has nothing to do with it. what don't you get, those are her exact words. sure it came out of it, but that doesn't matter now. you don't have to be affiliated with a church or religious to get married. i'm an atheist and i would have no problem getting married to my girlfriend, because it has nothing to do with church.

[illriginal]

she said religion has nothing to do with it. what don't you get, those are her exact words. sure it came out of it, but that doesn't matter now. you don't have to be affiliated with a church or religious to get married. they aren't related now like they were. i'm an atheist and i would have no problem getting married to my girlfriend, because it has nothing to do with church.

Again.. Religion has EVERYTHING to do with marriage. Jesus Christ for once... study a religion.. ANY religion. If it had nothing to do with religion, then take off that wedding ring, it belongs to religion, not your marriage. BRB gonna smash my face into a 10 inch blade repeatedly.

[hi-C]

Again, if religion has everything to do with marriage, why can atheists marry and religous gays cannot?

[brooklyneast05]

Again.. Religion has EVERYTHING to do with marriage. Jesus Christ for once... study a religion.. ANY religion. BRB gonna smash my face into a 10 inch blade repeatedly.

YOU'RE REJECTING REALITY. if it REALLY had EVERYTHING to do with it, then I, an atheist wouldn't be able to get married either. maybe in your world it has everything to do with it, but in the real world, religion and marriage are NOT that related anymore because non religious people can get married any day of the week.

BRB SMASHING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL


edit:

what carrie said

[illriginal]

YOU'RE REJECTING REALITY. if it REALLY had EVERYTHING to do with it, then I, an atheist wouldn't be able to get married either. maybe in your world it has everything to do with it, but in the real world, religion and marriage are NOT that related anymore because non religious people can get married any day of the week.

BRB SMASHING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL

Right... technically, you can't get married in the Church. A conservative Church would have you fill out an application and more than likely if you admit you're an atheist, they would not wed you. Why? Because you don't even belong in the church to begin with lol...

What you atheists should call it is, "civil unity" or another term I forget that f****ts use since it's not a legitimate marriage ordained by the Church in the eyes of God.

[brooklyneast05]

Right... technically, you can't get married in the Church. A conservative Church would have you fill out an application and more than likely if you admit you're an atheist, they would not wed you. Why? Because you don't even belong in the church to begin with lol...

i don't need to get married in a church. you don't need a church to get legally married to someone. as carrie already pointed out, churches don't marry people, the state does.

[hi-C]

Churches do not marry people. States do. When you apply for a marriage license, you don't go to your nearest church, you go to a state agency, i.e. a city hall.

[illriginal]

i don't need to get married in a church. you don't need a church to get legally married to someone.

Right so this is really all about the term we're using... "Marriage" literally is a religious unity between man and woman.

What you non believers, including f****ts should call it, is something other than Marriage. The term Marriage simply has been brutally misunderstood and misused.

Churches do not marry people. States do. When you apply for a marriage license, you don't go to your nearest church, you go to a state agency, i.e. a city hall.

Ya on legal terms... then you're getting the ordinance from the State or from a Law... which pretty much voids, "marriage'. It is the Church or the Mosque or the Synagogue who makes that choice, not some petty law of the land lol...

[brooklyneast05]

Right so this is really all about the term we're using... "Marriage" literally is a religious unity between man and woman.

What you non believers, including f****ts should call it, is something other than Marriage. The term Marriage simply has been brutally misunderstood and misused.

yo i don't even disagree. i think the state should issue civil unions to everyone and religious people can go to their churches for "marriage". but the fact of the matter, the reality of it, is that it's not done that way at this time. so this is what it is and the state (not churches alone) is denying rights to people.

at this point in time, marriage is not just a religious term, and as we said the proof of that is that i can get married because im heterosexual, regardless of the fact i'm atheist.

[hi-C]

How about marriage being a "union"? If you can't get the term right, why should you be able to get married?

[illriginal]

Right because gays are not affiliated with religion (other than gay priests and shit), so they're dealt by the state.

lol @ marriage license.. man you guys really fall for that bullshit? That just so you can claim your taxes, f*ck a license.


An atheist or people of today call that unity, "marriage". Literally speaking, atheists and homosexuals are not getting "married" as that is a part of the religious "culture". Meaning it is not a culture of a people, rather the culture of religious people.

[hi-C]

You know that if you don't file for a marriage license, your marriage isn't formally recognized right?

[illriginal]

You know that if you don't file for a marriage license, your marriage isn't formally recognized right?

I didn't even get married in the U.S.

And f*ck a U.S. law tryin to get in the way of my religious belief.. are you kiddin me? LOL Man made laws > religious law? AHA...

Man made laws can't touch the Law of Allah and what Allah has willed.

[kryogenix]

^ I'm not saying that marriage did or didn't come out of religion, but if it did, why can atheists marry and religious gays cannot?
But if marriage is a civil institution and marriage licenses are granted by the state, then how is it religious prosecution? Those against Prop 8 aren't suing the church, they're suing the state.

I'm talking about the homosexuals that are suing churches that refuse to marry them, like the lesbians that sued that methodist group in NJ.

I don't consider marriage a civil institution (like I said, I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage whatsoever), but for the sake of argument, let's say I do. If marriage is now a legal contract, the government has the power to decide who can and cannot participate. That means, it would be within the scope of the government's power to decide that homosexuals cannot marry, especially if this decision is arrived at through democratic means, right?

We need to move towards a more constitutional form of government. That way, gays are free to pretend to themselves that they are married, and I am free to ignore them.

[hi-C]

I see what you're saying, but the answer is no, not if it (unjustly) puts the rights of one group above those of another group, and especially not if precedent has been set (e.g. Brown vs. Board of Ed; Loving v. Virginia).

[kryogenix]

I see what you're saying, but the answer is no, not if it (unjustly) puts the rights of one group above those of another group, and especially not if precedent has been set (e.g. Brown vs. Board of Ed; Loving v. Virginia).

Interesting you bring up Loving v. Virginia, yet you fail to mention that decision was upheld by Baker v. Nelson, which did not allow same sex marriage.

Selective memory huh?

[hi-C]

It's not selective memory because, honestly, I hadn't heard of Baker v. Nelson before, but, from what I've gleaned from googling, it seems decidedly at odds with the two rulings I stated previously. But then, I'm biased; I don't think there's a difference between racial discrimination and discrimination based on gender and sexuality. I'm not denying Baker as precedent, since it's fairly obvious that it is, but with the trend going the way it is, it doesn't seem like it'll be precedent for much longer.

[illriginal]

I forgot to mention in regards to the marriage license. I didn't want you to think I was playin some arrogant, ignorant ass.. but look up the Amish. They don't deal with marriage licenses.

Typically, a marriage license is to prove that you're of legal age or have consent to marriage, so that you don't marry a 2nd spouse under the current marriage, and also for the sake of taxes/benefits.

Otherwise... a marriage license is just a joke.

[hi-C]

As much as the Amish may appear to be outside of the mainstream, they apply for marriage licenses, they just don't need an officiant. In that case, it's called a self-uniting marriage. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07271/821194-85.stm

And, apparently, they pay taxes, too.

[kryogenix]

It's not selective memory because, honestly, I hadn't heard of Baker v. Nelson before, but, from what I've gleaned from googling, it seems decidedly at odds with the two rulings I stated previously. But then, I'm biased; I don't think there's a difference between racial discrimination and discrimination based on gender and sexuality. I'm not denying Baker as precedent, since it's fairly obvious that it is, but with the trend going the way it is, it doesn't seem like it'll be precedent for much longer.

So judicial precedent is only a valid argument when that precedent supports your views huh. How convenient.

Indeed, your bias is apparent. You can't have it both ways.

[hi-C]

So judicial precedent is only a valid argument when that precedent supports your views huh. How convenient.

Indeed, your bias is apparent. You can't have it both ways.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm acknowledging that Baker is valid precedent ("I'm not denying Baker as precedent, since it's fairly obvious that it is"), but that with the trend leaning towards a legalization of gay marriage, I don't think it'll be precedent for much longer. Like how Plessy was precedent before Brown ruled it unconstitutional.

[illriginal]

As much as the Amish may appear to be outside of the mainstream, they apply for marriage licenses, they just don't need an officiant. In that case, it's called a self-uniting marriage. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07271/821194-85.stm

And, apparently, they pay taxes, too.

Property tax, ya... they have to pay for the large piece of land. The IRS is upset because they've been trying to get the Amish to pay for Social Security, state taxes, and something else. But they don't have to because they don't exist outside of their own community. They don't use anything from the state other than the land they're on, which they respectfully pay their taxes on. As for Social Security, majority if not all Amish are pretty much self sufficient... or what Government calls, "self employed"

The reason why they don't need a marriage license is because it is their community who gives the yay or nay. The Amish don't depend on man made laws for civility, they depend on their religious laws.

In fact, I'm amazed that the Christians have not demanded the state to stay out of religious affairs.. since religion is not allowed to interfere with Government or state, it should be vica versa.

[kryogenix]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm acknowledging that Baker is valid precedent ("I'm not denying Baker as precedent, since it's fairly obvious that it is"), but that with the trend leaning towards a legalization of gay marriage, I don't think it'll be precedent for much longer. Like how Plessy was precedent before Brown ruled it unconstitutional.

OK, so if you acknowledge the current precedent, do you admit your previous argument is null and void?

Besides, I'm not quite sure there is a trend, given that for every state that votes to allow gay marriage, there are just as many that vote to ban it. Not counting the ones that keep the status quo where gays aren't allowed to marry.

But hey, I hope you're right about this trend thing when it comes to Roe v. Wade.

[hi-C]

Property tax, ya... they have to pay for the large piece of land.

The reason why they don't need a marriage license is because it is their community who gives the yay or nay. The Amish don't depend on man made laws for civility, they depend on their religious laws.

But they do get marriage licenses. Like with the state of Pennsylvania:

To be recognized as legal by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, marriages must be performed under a valid marriage license duly issued by a Clerk of Orphans’ Court MUST BE OFFICIATED by one of the following individuals specifically recognized under PA law as authorized to officiate, to wit:

Sec. 1503. Persons qualified to solemnize marriages.

(a) General rule. The following are authorized to solemnize marriages between persons that produce a marriage license issued under this part:

1. A justice, judge or district justice of this Commonwealth.
2. A former or retired justice, judge or district justice of this Commonwealth who is serving as a senior judge or a senior district justice as provided or prescribed by law.
3. An active or senior judge or full-time magistrate of the District Courts of the United States for the Eastern, Middle or Western District of Pennsylvania.
4. An active or senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit who is a resident of this Commonwealth.
5. A mayor of any city or borough of this Commonwealth.
6. A minister, priest or rabbi of any regularly established church or congregation.

(b) Religious organizations. Every religious society, religious institution or religious organization in this Commonwealth may join persons together in marriage when at least one of the persons is a member of the society, institution or organization, according to the rules and customs of the society, institution or organization. (Amish & Quakers if you are a member)

© Marriage license needed to officiate. No person or religious organization qualified to perform marriages shall officiate at a marriage ceremony without the parties having obtained a marriage license issued under this part.

http://www.washingtoncourts.us/pages/roMarriageLicenses.aspx
http://www.tiogacountypa.us/tioga/cwp/view...Nav=|9605|9658|

And from the state of Indiana:

IC 31-11-4-1
Marriage license required to marry
Sec. 1. Before two (2) individuals may marry each other, the individuals must obtain a marriage license under this chapter.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3. [...]

IC 31-11-4-4
Application; sexually transmitted diseases acknowledgment; religious objections
Sec. 4. (a) An application for a marriage license must be written and verified. The application must contain the following information concerning each of the applicants:
(1) Full name.
(2) Birthplace.
(3) Residence.
(4) Age.
(5) Names of dependent children.
(6) Full name, including the maiden name of a mother, last known residence, and, if known, the place of birth of:
(A) the birth parents of the applicant if the applicant is not adopted; or
(B) the adoptive parents of the applicant if the applicant is adopted.
(7) A statement of facts necessary to determine whether any legal impediment to the proposed marriage exists.
(8) Except as provided in subsection (e), an acknowledgment that both applicants must sign, affirming that the applicants have received the information described in section 5 of this chapter, including a list of test sites for the virus that causes AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome). The

acknowledgment required by this subdivision must be in the following form:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I acknowledge that I have received information regarding dangerous communicable diseases that are sexually transmitted and a list of test sites for the virus that causes AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome).
__________________________ ____________
Signature of Applicant Date
__________________________ ____________
Signature of Applicant Date
(b) The clerk of the circuit court shall record the application, including the license and certificate of marriage, in a book provided for that purpose. This book is a public record.
© The state department of health shall develop uniform forms for applications for marriage licenses. The state department of health shall furnish these forms to the circuit court clerks. The state department of health may periodically revise these forms.
(d) The state department of health shall require that the record of marriage form developed under subsection © must include each applicant's Social Security number. Any Social Security numbers collected on the record of marriage form shall be kept confidential and used only to carry out the purposes of the Title IV-D program. A person who knowingly or intentionally violates confidentiality regarding an applicant's Social Security numbers as described in this subsection commits a Class A infraction.
(e) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a person who objects on religious grounds is not required to:
(1) verify the application under subsection (a) by oath or affirmation; or
(2) sign the acknowledgment described in subsection (a)(8).
However, before the clerk of the circuit court may issue a marriage license to a member of the Old Amish Mennonite church, the bishop of that member must sign a statement that the information in the application is true.
(f) If a person objects on religious grounds to:
(1) verifying the application under subsection (a) by oath or affirmation; or
(2) signing the acknowledgment described in subsection (a)(8);
the clerk of the circuit court shall indicate that fact on the application for a marriage license.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.213-1999, SEC.8; P.L.86-2002, SEC.5.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title31/ar11/ch4.html

[illriginal]

OK, so if you acknowledge the current precedent, do you admit your previous argument is null and void?

Besides, I'm not quite sure there is a trend, given that for every state that votes to allow gay marriage, there are just as many that vote to ban it. Not counting the ones that keep the status quo where gays aren't allowed to marry.

But hey, I hope you're right about this trend thing when it comes to Roe v. Wade.

Democratic states tend to lean more towards pro-gay / pro-choice. So ya, some states will legalize gay marriage while the republican or at least conservative states will not. Which isn't good because this gay marriage thing is part of the states splitting up. Conservatives do not want to be part of a nation that accepts homosexuality, but not just that of course. So because of these types of things pile up, they're in process of breaking away. Look up Montana and Texas... they're filing for sovereignty and have already started state industries for their states only.

[illriginal]

But they do get marriage licenses. Like with the state of Pennsylvania:
http://www.washingtoncourts.us/pages/roMarriageLicenses.aspx
http://www.tiogacountypa.us/tioga/cwp/view...Nav=|9605|9658|

And from the state of Indiana:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title31/ar11/ch4.html

Right the commonwealth, meaning to work outside of the community and for the state. This is applying to Amish people who wish to get married outside of their community and gain benefits from their state. In Amish belief they don't believe in man made laws or anything outside of their religious / spiritual culture.

They are not "forced" by law to obtain a marriage license as so long as they stay within their community. Eh.. I don't think you're understanding anything I've said.

[hi-C]

OK, so if you acknowledge the current precedent, do you admit your previous argument is null and void?

Besides, I'm not quite sure there is a trend, given that for every state that votes to allow gay marriage, there are just as many that vote to ban it. Not counting the ones that keep the status quo where gays aren't allowed to marry.

But hey, I hope you're right about this trend thing when it comes to Roe v. Wade.

As long as Baker stands, then yes, the majority of my argument is null and void.

[hi-C]

Eh.. I don't think you're understanding anything I've said.

The same could be said of you. But whatevs.

[kryogenix]

As long as Baker stands, then yes, the majority of my argument is null and void.

OK, that's all I needed to know.

[mipadi]

Look up Montana and Texas... they're filing for sovereignty and have already started state industries for their states only.

Buuuullllllsshhiiittttt. The governor of Texas half-seriously suggested that Texas should secede, but it's not actually doing it (and I doubt Montana is, either). States can't "file for sovereignty" because states can't secede. We fought a war over this. Look it up, I think it's referred to in the US as the "Civil War".

[kryogenix]

Buuuullllllsshhiiittttt. The governor of Texas half-seriously suggested that Texas should secede, but it's not actually doing it (and I doubt Montana is, either). States can't "file for sovereignty" because states can't secede. We fought a war over this. Look it up, I think it's referred to in the US as the "Civil War".

Actually, I think Montana is forced to secede if the right to bear arms is abolished, based on the terms agreed upon when Montana joined the union.

But we're going on a tangent.

[illriginal]

Buuuullllllsshhiiittttt. The governor of Texas half-seriously suggested that Texas should secede, but it's not actually doing it (and I doubt Montana is, either). States can't "file for sovereignty" because states can't secede. We fought a war over this. Look it up, I think it's referred to in the US as the "Civil War".

Bullshit?

States can't secede? HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Bullshit my dick, you ho ass trick:

haha I'm moving to Montana while you suffer Obama's **** ****.

Over 20 states have already started their state industries which will be sovereign from the "Union". Even oil the industries that our Government has refused to reopen like a bunch of a flaming f****ts that they are, with their green this and green that . So let Obama damage the Constitution some more.. he's going to have a revolutionary war at the front step of the White House

[mipadi]

Bullshit?

States can't secede? HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, they can secede -- until the government, you know, sends the military to force them back into the Union.

At any rate, you don't "file for sovereignty".

[illriginal]

Oh, they can secede -- until the government, you know, sends the military to force them back into the Union.

At any rate, you don't "file for sovereignty".

It doesn't matter because the Military is backing up America's citizens, not the Government. There's so many things not being reported (duh... the revolution will not be televised) that many Americans aren't even aware as to what's coming.

[mipadi]

It doesn't matter because the Military is backing up America's citizens, not the Government. There's so many things not being reported (duh... the revolution will not be televised) that many Americans aren't even aware as to what's coming.

I see hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that seem to be acting on behalf of the government, and not on the will of the American citizens.

I highly doubt a coup d'état is imminent.

I'm disappointed and disgusted. Talk about legislating from the bench. This is like Plessy v. Ferguson.

I don't think this is a case of legislating from the bench. Even though I strongly disagree with Proposition 8, from a legal standpoint, the court made a correct decision: the people of California voted to amend their constitution, and did so in a completely legal way. The decision to amend the constitution is discriminatory in nature, but unfortunately they did so in a legal way. Had the court overturned a legal amendment, then it would have been "legislating from the bench". The court's job is to determine the legality of certain actions, not dictate laws.

That said, I think the people of California made a poor decision last fall.

Personally, I'm somewhat in agreement with Kryo on this: I don't think the government should have a say in marriage. I think the legal term -- for everyone -- should be civil union, and I think everyone should be entitled to joining in a civil union with anyone they wish. I do think that individual churches have the right to refuse to marry two homosexuals, since personal and religious rights are paramount here. But I think the government should grant a civil union to any couple, regardless of sexuality.

Or, better yet, I don't think the government should recognize unions at all. Tax benefits, etc., to married couples inherently discriminate against people who remain single.

[illriginal]

I see hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that seem to be acting on behalf of the government, and not on the will of the American citizens.

I highly doubt a coup d'état is imminent.

lol... you don't think if the Government started to force Americans into detention camps or declared war on any Americans that the American soldiers will not stand up for the American people and the Constitution?

Regardless... there's a few states who are making moves. We need more than half of the U.S. to stand up and kick Obama, the Congress (majority of them), and Obama's Administration out.

[mipadi]

lol... you don't think if the Government started to force Americans into detention camps or declared war on any Americans that the American soldiers will not stand up for the American people and the Constitution?

Nope. I really don't. Soldiers are highly trained to carry out orders without questioning them. Look at Nazi Germany: the government forced millions into concentration camps, and the military didn't do a damn thing about it. Different situation, I suppose, but if the government convinces everyone that those being forced into camps are "the enemy" or other undesirables (as happened in Germany in the 1930s), then I don't think the military would think twice about going along with the plan.

Furthermore, given our political situation and the economic climate, etc., people are prone to look for a scapegoat -- that's what happened in Germany, after all. The government could easily blame its problems on some group or another and have them detained in camps, and I'm sure most people would just follow along with it. Many Americans have already been trained to think of Middle Easterners and Muslims as "evil", after all, and military personnel especially are trained to think of, e.g., Iraqis (and by extension, any dark-skinned Middle Easterners or Muslims) as the enemy.

I'm not saying that coups don't happen -- they obviously do -- but I think the American government is stable enough, and has a big enough propaganda machine -- that it's unlikely to happen right now, in this specific situation. The only thing that might trigger instability is if people start to blame the government for the economic crisis, but they've already done a good job of turning that blame to banks and auto makers, so I think the government is on pretty safe ground here.

[illriginal]

You're f*ckin retarded. But thanks, I've gotta show some of the boys what you posted.


unsubbed

[DontStealMyNameI...]

I'm really disappointed with this too. Marriage may have originated from religion, but if the state is giving out "marriage licenses" to heterosexual couples, they should give the same treatment to homosexuals. I agree that religious institutions shouldn't have to do same-sex marriages if they don't want to, but just because a few gays have tried to sue them into doing so doesn't mean they should all be punished.

[brooklyneast05]

I agree that religious institutions shouldn't have to do same-sex marriages if they don't want to, but just because a few gays have tried to sue them into doing so doesn't mean they should all be punished.

i feel that way too. i think there's way more gay people who just wanna be married than wanna be married in churches.

[kryogenix]

i feel that way too. i think there's way more gay people who just wanna be married than wanna be married in churches.

You're missing the point.

The goal of the gay agenda is to have homosexual marriages viewed as 100% equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Read how the laws are worded. In the case of the lesbians that sued the methodist group in NJ, they absolutely had the grounds to sue that church group. I don't think the couple tried to overextend their case past the boundaries of the law at all.

The problem is, you can't have a 100% equivalency between heterosexual and homosexual
"marriages" and have freedom of religion at the same time. The concepts are mutually exclusive. And the absolute nature of the demands of both sides leaves no room for compromise. There is just simply no way for both sides to be content with any decision on this matter.

That's why I want a complete separation between the state and the concept of marriages. Both sides will be unhappy, I'm sure, but at least no one will be treated unfairly by the law, and no one will be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

[brooklyneast05]

You're missing the point.

The goal of the gay agenda is to have homosexual marriages viewed as 100% equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Read how the laws are worded. In the case of the lesbians that sued the methodist group in NJ, they absolutely had the grounds to sue that church group. I don't think the couple tried to overextend their case past the boundaries of the law at all.

The problem is, you can't have a 100% equivalency between heterosexual and homosexual
"marriages" and have freedom of religion at the same time. The concepts are mutually exclusive. And the absolute nature of the demands of both sides leaves no room for compromise. There is just simply no way for both sides to be content with any decision on this matter.

That's why I want a complete separation between the state and the concept of marriages. Both sides will be unhappy, I'm sure, but at least no one will be treated unfairly by the law, and no one will be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

hmmmm yeah true, i see what you mean that there's no way to be 100% equal or fair under the current system.

[kryogenix]

hahahaha how shitty is that... the only way for it to be fair is for both sides to be equally unhappy.

[dosomethin888]

Again, if religion has everything to do with marriage, why can atheists marry and religous gays cannot?

If the religion your talking about is christianity when you say "religious gays," Gays cannot be christian. It goes against the Bible, which is what Christians live their life by. God says in order to be a follower of Christ, you need to adhere to his guidelines laid out in the Bible and he says that homosexuality is an abomination, so gays are not and cannot be christian. Unless of course, they go back to being straight. That would be lovely if all the gays went back to being straight, we would have a much more sound society.

Anyways, I think I skipped ahead like 3 pages and I have no further interest in this thread so I will be leaving now. And I most likely will not be replying to any of your hateful comments. :) Have a lovely day.

[*reupONtrees*]

i miss you already

[kryogenix]

If the religion your talking about is christianity when you say "religious gays," Gays cannot be christian. It goes against the Bible, which is what Christians live their life by. God says in order to be a follower of Christ, you need to adhere to his guidelines laid out in the Bible and he says that homosexuality is an abomination, so gays are not and cannot be christian. Unless of course, they go back to being straight. That would be lovely if all the gays went back to being straight, we would have a much more sound society.

Anyways, I think I skipped ahead like 3 pages and I have no further interest in this thread so I will be leaving now. And I most likely will not be replying to any of your hateful comments. :) Have a lovely day.

What the heck? I know several gay Christians...