9th Circus Court to rule on Calif Prop 8 - changing defn of marriage to include same-sex (death, homosexual)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since passage of DOMA in 1996, federal law defines marriage as Excluding ssm for purposes of all federal benefits. So to that extent, marriage is no longer defined solely by states.
Same reason why the abolitionist leaders analogized to the Jews of Egypt.
Because it's something that the ignorant masses can at least understand and relate to.
I don't understand how anyone cannot see the correlation, especially in the realm of things like interracial marriage struggle being very analogous to issues of gay marriage. The DEFINITION of marriage during segregation was "a union between a man and a woman of the same race." AFTER miscegenation laws were abolished, the DEFINITION changed to "a union between a man and a woman of any race." People also like to use the same, BAD argument these days that "The law applies equally to straight and gay people".... that people used back in the time of IR marriage laws: "That the law applied equally to people of any race. People can only marry their own race."
And maybe not "any black person you know" (could be you travel in circles of blacks who think just like you), but Corretta Scott King herself called gay rights a civil rights issue. And she was kinda the first lady of the Black Civil Rights issue.
Blacks do not "own" the right to the term "civil rights," nor are blacks the arbiters of who and who does not get to use the term.
Having a fundamental disagreement about an issue means just that; ignorance has nothing to do with it. It is the need to insult and barrage someone with an opposing view that makes it impossible for there to be any meeting of the minds on this issue.
Many have argued that there ISN'T a definition for marriage in the US, hence the reason why gays should be allowed to marry. Are you now saying that the US has defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman?
And again, IR marriage was an issue that surrounded a host of other government-mandated restrictions and violations. And despite your attempts to prove a change in the definition, the core of marriage (man/woman) did NOT change.
Despite what you may think, I don't hold Coretta Scott King's opinion any higher than I hold my own. Her opinion is just that; her opinion.
FWIW, I am 100% FOR gays having equal rights.
I never said that Blacks own the right to use "civil rights". However, what many need to understand is that Blacks don't OWE gays their support.
And disagreeing with interracial marriage does not mean that you hate people of other races or believe them to be inferior.
But hey, nobody's forcing you to marry someone of the same sex, are they? So why do you have the need to CONTROL the PERSONAL lives of others? Why do you feel you have the RIGHT to deny fellow tax paying citizens the opportunity to partake in something you get to partake in?
I agree with your bolded statement. So what's your point?
And I'm not controlling anything. I have not voted against gay marriage. I live in Maryland and heard about some march/protest re: the state's consideration of allowing gay marriage. I did not attend. This is not a huge issue for me. I will not be marching in the street and/or waving anti-gay marriage banners. But I don't agree with it. Am I now not allowed to have my own opinion about something? If it doesn't affect you and I'm not attempting to control you, what difference does my opinion make to you?
There are plenty of racists in this world. As long as they don't bother me directly, I couldn't care less what they think about me.
...As for couples of the same sex getting married..go for it - all it does is take away the importance of the institution...so less people will marry...cos you really can not take it seriously.
Please explain the bolded part. In what way does this diminish the importance of marriage?
Sorry, but I don't have to explain my personal beliefs to you. If for nothing else, you'll probably use it as an attempt to insult.
That's certainly your prerogative, I can't force you. Makes a "discussion board" a bit pointless, though. No?
You can leave your personal beliefs out of it, if you like. How does one, anyone, disagree with two people of the same sex being married? You're saying you don't think they should be allowed to be married, correct?
Since passage of DOMA in 1996, federal law defines marriage as Excluding ssm for purposes of all federal benefits. So to that extent, marriage is no longer defined solely by states.
No, that is not correct. The right of a person to be married exists only as provided under state (not federal) law. Each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage; and provided that such laws do not infringe upon a citizen’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are valid and enforceable. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Texas, for example, recently passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage, which provides in pertinent part: "Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b ) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." The recent constitutional challenges over recognition of same-sex marriage have been under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" (Const., Art. IV, Sec. 1); e.g., a gay couple married in Massachusetts (and now California) moves to a state like Texas. Many provisions of federal law incorporate state marriage laws for determining individual rights and benefits, and the issue raised is whether one state’s law defining marriage must be given extraterritorial effect. In this regard, Congress has enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is a federal law that has to do with the applicability of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution to state marriage laws. The act provides: "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." 28 U.S.C. § 1738c.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, what many need to understand is that Blacks don't OWE gays their support.
