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.
No it shouldn't . Just another example of special interest groups wanting it there way.
Rail about big government yet continue to push big government
It's not a " special interest " group. They are Anericans. Period. Just like when African Americans had to fight for it. But the bible dosen't tell you that, does it. Special interest groups are the bible readers who try to force their crappy religion on other people and try to run their lives.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley says a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman interferes with her state's right to regulate the institution.<snip> Please click on the link below for the full article.
It's not a " special interest " group. They are Anericans. Period. Just like when African Americans had to fight for it. But the bible dosen't tell you that, does it.
ooh please.. they are indeed a special interst group, just like african americans are.
What the hell does the bible have to do with it, unless you were just looking for a way of posting your hate against another special interest group, those who read the bible..
Quote:
Originally Posted by XodoX
It's not a " special interest " group. They are Anericans. Period. Just like when African Americans had to fight for it. But the bible dosen't tell you that, does it. Special interest groups are the bible readers who try to force their crappy religion on other people and try to run their lives.
Ahh, I see you indeed edited your posting, to prove my point.. Well done..
How are African Americans a special interest group?? At one point they were second class citizens with barely any rights. They wanted equal rights. What made them "special interests"?
I have to agree with the OP. I am against gay marriage on a moral and religious basis, but as a strict-constructionist, the federal government has not the authority given in the constitution to regulate such affairs. This is a state affair.
The proper way for the feds to go about a ban on gay marriage would be through a constitutional amendment. Just like they had to with prohibition.
Divorce is a greater affront to the sanctity of marriage than gay marriage will ever be, because it implicitly states that all marriage isn't permanent, just expensive to get out of. Why is there not a similar cry from the bible belt to ban this unholy practice? What about fornication? What about all acts of sodomy (and not just those acts limited to homosexuals?).
I suspect its because a large portion of those who hold traditional views when it comes to restricting the rights of others (namely for gay marriage) have no interest in restricting their rights to divorce, have premarital, or even oral sex, even if they do not choose to exercise those rights. There has been broad public support for banning gay marriage, I wonder how broad that support would be if it also imposed stiff penalties for heterosexual behavior that did not strictly conform to the prescriptions of the bible.
My view, of course, is that religious and civil governments are right to be separated and if your religion holds you to a strict standard that's up to you, your religious community, and God. As long as civil institutions recognize marriage, there should not be any religious components interjected in to their recognition of such unions.
How are African Americans a special interest group?? At one point they were second class citizens with barely any rights. They wanted equal rights. What made them "special interests"?
um.. being classified as anything makes on a special interest group..
Business owners
african americans
seniors
mothers with children
teachers
police officers
gays
religious vs non religious
illegal aliens
If the politicians bend over to try to get your vote based upon any particular issue you believe in, you are a special interest group..
I have to agree with the OP. I am against gay marriage on a moral and religious basis, but as a strict-constructionist, the federal government has not the authority given in the constitution to regulate such affairs. This is a state affair.
The proper way for the feds to go about a ban on gay marriage would be through a constitutional amendment. Just like they had to with prohibition.
With all of the troubles affecting this nation, do you really feel that all of the time and effort to pass a Constitutional Amendment is what we need? Geez, just give equality under the Law to gay citizxens as the Const. states so that we can concentrate on the major problems that are facing us.
With all of the troubles affecting this nation, do you really feel that all of the time and effort to pass a Constitutional Amendment is what we need? Geez, just give equality under the Law to gay citizxens as the Const. states so that we can concentrate on the major problems that are facing us.
The Constitution says nothing about sexual orientation for one thing. Second thing, I was not in any way advocating for a federal marriage amendment. I firmly believe the feds should stay out of it. It's a state issue, as the states are the ones that issue the marriage licenses.
The DOMA mentioned above is unconstitutional, I was merely stating that the proper way to pass something like that is a constitutional amendment. The merits of an amendment are a different topic.
Personally, I think wanting to marry is like wanting to go to prison. To do either is to surrender your sovereignty as an individual.
Not unless it is passed by the people at the State level.
You don't understand how the system works. The Supreme Court Of Massachusetts said barring same-sex couples from marrying in the state violated the state's Constitution. "The people" don't need to validate decisions made by the Supreme Court in order for them to be valid.
Suddenly the far left becomes advocates of the 10th amendment after attacking things like the MT firearms freedom law, state opposition to national healthcare, etc.
A warning to them: if you believe (correctly) this is a non-federal issue, then, that means you must also accept states have a right to ban homosexual marriage.
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.
