Read the full dialogue with Mr. Logic, and then ask him what it means...I was clearly being facetious when extending his illogical argument.
Except that if our constitution gets an amendment banning gay marriage, moving to another county probably won't be an option. 
good to know that you think that it's imoral for people of moral charicter to have a view. Well just let the electorate deside that one.
of course, they are illegally married.
now: we need an amendment that makes same-sex marriage a matter of states rights.
Mean MrMustard
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2001
- 3,144
- 10
- 81
some related news, the Log Cabin Republicans are upset and may not back Bush.
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040418/topstories/30114.shtml
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040418/topstories/30114.shtml
...yet another person who has an inabilty to read and follow logic; Galt did not say so, but whatever.
The right to life; the right to live free of government impositions on your liberty;
No one is saying two homosexuals can't have a marriage ceremony and call themselves married, people are saying that it's not the government's place to expand its control over the people by forcing two gay lovers who sign a document to be treated the same way as married heterosexuals. I essentially believe that government has no right to call anyone 'married', as it's a purely personal philosophical thing.
Government forcing you do to anything is an absolute wrong. As far as I?m concerned, unless your in a governmental post, you've got every right to discriminate for or against those who overtly behave or revel in behaving in ways you disagree with.
Though I personally wouldn?t discriminate against others who behave immorally because of the words of Jesus ?Judge not lest you be heeled to the same criteria you are judging by.?, it?s certainly other people?s right to change how they behave towards others based on the other?s moral character.
The right of free association is essential to having a free society.
Mean MrMustard
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2001
- 3,144
- 10
- 81
I forgot the "/sarcasm"
...but the point is still the same. If we live in the land of the free, why should they have to move to a different country to be happy.
Do you not find it funny that in the 'land of the free' we have a gov't that tells us who we can and can't marry? ...more over, that it concerns itself with marriage in the first place?
I thought marriage was about love, so why should the gov't have any say about it?
No idea; ask the original poster who said people have to move to get 'choice'...and read the flow of our conversation...apology accepted.
History/Summary 10/01/2002
Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples - A History
En Español
Click here to view/print a PDF file of this document.
To download the file to your computer, hold your mouse over the link and right-click to "Save link/target as" a file on your computer. If you can't right click, and you are using Netscape, hold down the Shift key while clicking on the link. (You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this file. Download the Reader for free by clicking here.)
Hawaii
1993: Hawaii Supreme Court rules that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying may violate Hawaii Constitution's ban on sex discrimination and can only be upheld if prohibition is justified by a compelling reason.
1996: Hawaii trial court rules that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is not justified by any reason, much less a compelling one, and that these couples should therefore be allowed to marry; case heads back to the Hawaii Supreme Court.
1998: Before Hawaii Supreme Court can issue final ruling, voters amend Hawaii Constitution to allow state legislature to restrict marriage to men and women only. Hawaii couples' lawsuit comes to an end.
Alaska
May 1998: Alaska trial court rules that choosing a marital partner is a fundamental right and can't be interfered with by the State absent a compelling reason.
November 1998: Voters amend Alaska Constitution to require that all marriages be between a man and a woman, effectively ending Alaska couples' lawsuit.
Vermont*
1999: Vermont Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples are entitled, under the Vermont Constitution, to all of the protections and benefits provided through marriage. The Court ducks the issue of whether same-sex couples are entitled to a marriage license, instead focusing on equal rights and benefits.
2000: Vermont legislature passes and Vermont Governor signs a law creating civil unions for same-sex couples, giving these couples all the rights and benefits of marriage under Vermont law but not marriage licenses.
Massachusetts*
2001: Gay and lesbian couples from Massachusetts file state court lawsuit seeking the right to marry.
May 8, 2002: Massachusetts trial court dismisses marriage lawsuit of gay and lesbian couples.
May 21, 2002: Massachusetts gay and lesbian couples appeal the trial court's decision.
September 18, 2002: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts accepts direct appellate review of case, allowing case to proceed directly to state's highest court.
New Jersey
June 26, 2002: Seven New Jersey lesbian and gay couples sue in New Jersey state court and demand their constitutional right to marry.
*For additional information about Vermont Civil Unions or the Massachusetts lawsuit, please call James Singleton at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, 617/426-1350.
The Long Struggle for Marriage Equality for All
Racism and Marriage
At one point, 40 states prohibited the marriage of a white person to a person of color. These marriages were condemned as "immoral" and "unnatural."
1948: California Supreme Court becomes first state high court to declare a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional.
1964: Virginia court upholds law making interracial marriage a crime, declaring:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangements there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
1967: U.S. Supreme Court overturns all state bans on interracial marriage, declaring that the "freedom to marry" belongs to all Americans.
Women In Marriage
For hundreds of years, women had few or no legal rights once married. Married women had no independent legal existence: they could not form contracts, have full ownership and control of property, or maintain their own names. Some of these inequalities continued well into the 20th century. Today, marriage laws have changed to reflect the equality of spouses.
The same feeble minded bogotry that tried to keep the races from their right to intermarry are with us today in the bigotry against gays. The fact that people buy into an ancient and hideous bias against bays because it gott written by bigots into a religious book is perfectly well and good. People can believe that Jesus is the Terminator for all I care. However, regardless of whether you like it or not, the courts decide what is law and if they say marriage is a right than it is a right under American law. And it flows immediatley and obviously from that that same sex couples have the right to marry. What bigots have to do is to put their mental illness into law via a Constitutional Amendment. It's so sad that people place what they read in a book written my men above what is written in the heart. But such people will pass away like dust in the wind, just as the racists are passing. Thank God Almighty for secular courts where His name can't be defiled for bigotry.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter