1. Marriage is a right. The courts have repeatedly recognized it as such. It's not up for debate whether or not marriage is a right.
2. The legal status of "married" grants significant benefits to individuals. By denying that status to a class of people solely because of their being a part of that class, the government is discriminating against them based on their class, which is unconstitutional. These benefits include everything from hospital visitation, joint property, tax benefits, legal recognition of parental status, and so much more. Wills can be contested, and often are. A will leaving all my property to Matt could easily be set aside by my family. If Matt and I were married, however, taking what was "ours" and is now his, would be much more difficult.
3. It was ridiculous to put peoples' rights to a vote anyway, but despite that glaring flaw, the judge did the right thing. It is the role of the judiciary to review any law brought before them to decide its merits, to decide if it is constitutional, and the judge in this case ruled that the law is unconstitutional. If the voters of California pass a proposition that said California would no longer allow freight and cargo from Arizona to enter the state, despite the fact that it passed by a vote of the people, it would be struck down as unconstitutional. If you vote for something that is unconstitutional, no your vote does not matter anymore.
I'm denying them a way to validate their relationship with their life partner....ok. So now having external validation of a personal relationship is that important? That validation is considered a right? Affording that validation to someone while imposing their opinions on me is ok?
When it comes to validating a relationship, things may begin to get tricy. Are we going to validate a relationship between any two individuals? Are we going to validate a relationship between any group of individuals?
And on a side note, do not ever presume to dictate to me my emotional state (as you did in noting pride). And it is a weak person indeed who is searching for spiritual fulfilment from a relationship with a flawed individual. But as I said...a side note.
Who's to say that your boyfriend of 26 years isn't entled to anything. Write a will. As for the gravity difference...well now we are definately treading into an area which is far removed from the secular world. Yes....I do see a vast difference between the two. And that is a *very* big point in all of this. That difference is that the a marriage commitment is intended to be life long and is blessed by God. Do some marriages end in divorce? Yes...and the Bible even gives reasons why this is acceptable.
Interestingly enough, the original post had a strong conversational element of forcing churches to perform homosexual marriage. A big point that I wanted to originally point out that there is a big difference between two murderers (Bonnie & Clyde) getting married and two men. That difference is that going into the marriage everyone has sin...if you had to be sinless to get married, only Jesus would have been eligable (with no woman to marry). However with two men getting married, that would be entering into a habitual lifestyle of sin, without repentance or shame. Unrepentant sin is a big deal with God...and as such, it couldn't stand at the center of relationship that people are then asking God to bless.
Say what you will, but I'm not a bigot. And do you know how I know that? Because I know my flaws...I know them well, and that's not one of them. Ask the people here who have met me. Ask them if I come across as being a bigot. I may not agree with a chosen lifestyle, but that doesn't mean that I get all preachy or whatever around people. I'm not anti-gay...since I approved of that law that was overturned regarding gay sex being illegal. What I'm against is you telling me that my thoughts and beliefs are invalid. What I'm against is you dictating to me that this is the way it is, and you better deal with it. What I'm against is you telling me that my say in the matter is worthless (which it clearly is since that judge went against what the people voted for). What I'm agasint is the entitlement mentality that everything is a right....marriage, health care, home/property ownership, a job. This isn't some look at me, martyrdom, attention whoring post or emotional outburst on my part. Believe me...its certainly not. Long have the days been when I would get worked up over what was said about me here.
~Jeordam
2. The legal status of "married" grants significant benefits to individuals. By denying that status to a class of people solely because of their being a part of that class, the government is discriminating against them based on their class, which is unconstitutional. These benefits include everything from hospital visitation, joint property, tax benefits, legal recognition of parental status, and so much more. Wills can be contested, and often are. A will leaving all my property to Matt could easily be set aside by my family. If Matt and I were married, however, taking what was "ours" and is now his, would be much more difficult.
3. It was ridiculous to put peoples' rights to a vote anyway, but despite that glaring flaw, the judge did the right thing. It is the role of the judiciary to review any law brought before them to decide its merits, to decide if it is constitutional, and the judge in this case ruled that the law is unconstitutional. If the voters of California pass a proposition that said California would no longer allow freight and cargo from Arizona to enter the state, despite the fact that it passed by a vote of the people, it would be struck down as unconstitutional. If you vote for something that is unconstitutional, no your vote does not matter anymore.
Because you're denying them something that every person wants - a way to validate their relationship with their life partner. You're so proud of yourself that you don't throw rocks at gay people but you're more than willing to aid in their emotional obliteration and to deny them spiritual fulfilment.
I'm denying them a way to validate their relationship with their life partner....ok. So now having external validation of a personal relationship is that important? That validation is considered a right? Affording that validation to someone while imposing their opinions on me is ok?
When it comes to validating a relationship, things may begin to get tricy. Are we going to validate a relationship between any two individuals? Are we going to validate a relationship between any group of individuals?
And on a side note, do not ever presume to dictate to me my emotional state (as you did in noting pride). And it is a weak person indeed who is searching for spiritual fulfilment from a relationship with a flawed individual. But as I said...a side note.
This is my boyfriend of 26 years... if I die he's not entitled to anything. WTF? My teenage sister has a boyfriend. Can you seriously not see the difference in gravity between a husband and a boyfriend, wife and girlfriend?
Who's to say that your boyfriend of 26 years isn't entled to anything. Write a will. As for the gravity difference...well now we are definately treading into an area which is far removed from the secular world. Yes....I do see a vast difference between the two. And that is a *very* big point in all of this. That difference is that the a marriage commitment is intended to be life long and is blessed by God. Do some marriages end in divorce? Yes...and the Bible even gives reasons why this is acceptable.
Interestingly enough, the original post had a strong conversational element of forcing churches to perform homosexual marriage. A big point that I wanted to originally point out that there is a big difference between two murderers (Bonnie & Clyde) getting married and two men. That difference is that going into the marriage everyone has sin...if you had to be sinless to get married, only Jesus would have been eligable (with no woman to marry). However with two men getting married, that would be entering into a habitual lifestyle of sin, without repentance or shame. Unrepentant sin is a big deal with God...and as such, it couldn't stand at the center of relationship that people are then asking God to bless.
At least bigots in posts lower down on the board admit that they are homophobic and find the practice intolerable. It's shocking that you actually consider yourself to NOT be a bigot. You claim to have gay friends, but I cannot imagine a gay person who would put up with any of these opinions.
Say what you will, but I'm not a bigot. And do you know how I know that? Because I know my flaws...I know them well, and that's not one of them. Ask the people here who have met me. Ask them if I come across as being a bigot. I may not agree with a chosen lifestyle, but that doesn't mean that I get all preachy or whatever around people. I'm not anti-gay...since I approved of that law that was overturned regarding gay sex being illegal. What I'm against is you telling me that my thoughts and beliefs are invalid. What I'm against is you dictating to me that this is the way it is, and you better deal with it. What I'm against is you telling me that my say in the matter is worthless (which it clearly is since that judge went against what the people voted for). What I'm agasint is the entitlement mentality that everything is a right....marriage, health care, home/property ownership, a job. This isn't some look at me, martyrdom, attention whoring post or emotional outburst on my part. Believe me...its certainly not. Long have the days been when I would get worked up over what was said about me here.
~Jeordam
I was Phelix on wotmania, I will always be Phelix in the "real" world, and now I am Phelix on RAFO.
You will make all kinds of mistakes; but as long as you are generous and true and also fierce you cannot hurt the world or even seriously distress her.- Churchill
*MySmiley*
You will make all kinds of mistakes; but as long as you are generous and true and also fierce you cannot hurt the world or even seriously distress her.- Churchill
*MySmiley*
Gay Marriage
- 12/08/2010 10:23:19 AM
2062 Views
I disagree on the latter part
- 12/08/2010 12:04:15 PM
1395 Views
I follow your point...
- 12/08/2010 12:14:17 PM
1387 Views
Suspect you would find plenty of denominations that would argue with you rather strenuously.
- 12/08/2010 12:24:55 PM
1413 Views
See, that's what I'm saying...
- 12/08/2010 07:37:26 PM
1344 Views
You didn't read my post.
- 12/08/2010 09:10:21 PM
1273 Views
Actually, you didn't read my post
- 12/08/2010 09:23:54 PM
1348 Views
Um, you're wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
1298 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
1298 Views
Re: Um, you're wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
1266 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
1266 Views
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. And no, he described it accurately. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:53:31 PM
641 Views
You're still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
1403 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
1403 Views
Re: You're still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
1254 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
1254 Views
Again, you are still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
1323 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
1323 Views
Re: Again, you are still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
1147 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
1147 Views
Wrong definition of "club"
- 12/08/2010 10:30:52 PM
1405 Views
Re: Wrong definition of "club"
- 12/08/2010 10:40:55 PM
1311 Views
Also
- 12/08/2010 10:02:44 PM
1362 Views
And wrong again.
- 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
1381 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
1381 Views
Not so quick!
- 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
1213 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
1213 Views
Yes, so quick!
- 12/08/2010 10:32:13 PM
1165 Views
Let's be reasonable here
- 12/08/2010 10:41:53 PM
1271 Views
Why do you get to judge?
- 12/08/2010 10:48:57 PM
1307 Views
I don't
- 12/08/2010 10:53:21 PM
1191 Views
OK.
- 12/08/2010 10:58:22 PM
1300 Views
Re: OK.
- 12/08/2010 11:03:50 PM
1262 Views
Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
- 12/08/2010 11:14:03 PM
1209 Views
Re: Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
- 12/08/2010 11:23:35 PM
1324 Views
Then please stop.
- 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
1265 Views
- 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
1265 Views
What's wrong with discussion?
- 12/08/2010 11:05:48 PM
1222 Views
Discussion? Nothing. Your assertions about other people's views, something.
- 12/08/2010 11:09:48 PM
1238 Views
What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
- 12/08/2010 10:12:54 PM
1130 Views
Re: What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
- 12/08/2010 10:23:36 PM
1250 Views
Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
- 12/08/2010 10:36:48 PM
1230 Views
Re: Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
- 12/08/2010 10:46:22 PM
1327 Views
Not entirely true either... or, well, true as far as Brown goes.
- 12/08/2010 10:08:42 PM
1223 Views
Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
- 12/08/2010 09:38:33 PM
1312 Views
Re: Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
- 12/08/2010 09:55:05 PM
1221 Views
Gah.
- 12/08/2010 09:59:45 PM
1171 Views
What a mature response.
- 12/08/2010 10:11:00 PM
1381 Views
I can't speak for Rebekah, but I don't think the issue is that your points are invalid per se.
- 12/08/2010 10:22:30 PM
1181 Views
Um
- 12/08/2010 09:46:43 PM
1324 Views
That's a very good question. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:49:05 PM
615 Views
It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 04:29:24 PM
1169 Views
Re: It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 07:39:25 PM
1244 Views
Re: It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 07:41:02 PM
1332 Views
Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
- 12/08/2010 09:08:53 PM
1160 Views
Re: Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
- 12/08/2010 09:42:21 PM
1270 Views
What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
- 12/08/2010 09:45:33 PM
1327 Views
Re: What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
- 13/08/2010 11:04:02 AM
1281 Views
Wow, it's almost like an entire denomination believes that!
*NM*
- 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
618 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
1075 Views
*NM*
- 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
618 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
1075 Views
Yeah, that's the Roman Catholic basis against masturbation and contraception. *NM*
- 13/08/2010 04:12:00 PM
582 Views
Yes
- 13/08/2010 04:22:58 PM
1116 Views
Dude....please at least have a working knowledge of the Bible before you spout off.
- 12/08/2010 10:47:13 PM
1141 Views
secular marriage is decoupled from religious marriage
- 12/08/2010 02:50:43 PM
1356 Views
Simple, require the legal and religious marriage to be performed separately.
- 12/08/2010 02:58:43 PM
1173 Views
And they are, in fact, separate right now in the US. They're just called the same thing.
- 12/08/2010 03:29:26 PM
1227 Views
It's not the same name that's confusing so much as the single ceremony. Or so it seems to me.
- 12/08/2010 03:37:20 PM
1223 Views
I disagree. I think giving the legal institution the same name as the sacrament is the problem.
- 12/08/2010 03:59:43 PM
1213 Views
What in the world would that accomplish?
- 12/08/2010 03:44:32 PM
1272 Views
Provide some much-needed clarity, evidently.
- 12/08/2010 03:49:33 PM
1101 Views
the problem is it would be changing a centuries old tradition..
- 12/08/2010 04:26:47 PM
1129 Views
heheheheheheheHAHAHAHEHEHehehehehahheeh*cough*
- 12/08/2010 04:55:09 PM
1155 Views
thats OK I am sure you will get over it
- 12/08/2010 05:22:08 PM
1166 Views
Just guessing, but I think it was the "centuries old tradition" that set off the giggle fit.
- 12/08/2010 07:25:38 PM
1276 Views
Really? I was hoping for something better
- 12/08/2010 10:06:00 PM
1222 Views
So government recognition makes your religion meaningful?
- 12/08/2010 10:11:54 PM
1325 Views
not my religion I'm agnostic
- 12/08/2010 10:34:40 PM
1163 Views
I'm not far left, thank you very much. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:20:31 PM
681 Views
no but your are European and that slants your views
*NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
661 Views
*NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
661 Views
Simples
- 12/08/2010 09:30:31 PM
1245 Views
there are about 140 post ranging from boyscouts to infant babtism
- 12/08/2010 10:57:46 PM
1206 Views
So.
- 14/08/2010 01:27:59 AM
1092 Views
sorry I responded I forgot what a tool you are. my bad
- 14/08/2010 02:48:57 AM
1602 Views
You spout some utter gibberish then dish out insults when called on it? Very funny
- 15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
1430 Views
- 15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
1430 Views
Agreed *NM*
- 12/08/2010 03:45:04 PM
536 Views
I love you, Camilla
- 12/08/2010 04:02:15 PM
1039 Views
Re: I love you, Camilla
- 12/08/2010 04:04:10 PM
1239 Views
A couple of things
- 12/08/2010 12:58:09 PM
1225 Views
there is major flaw in your argument
- 12/08/2010 03:31:45 PM
1354 Views
Re: there is major flaw in your argument
- 12/08/2010 04:01:32 PM
1241 Views
I should clarify that I support gay marriage
- 12/08/2010 05:20:36 PM
1180 Views
One point about Prop. 8
- 12/08/2010 07:38:55 PM
1208 Views
I know that is the commonl;y held belief but I thinkit is wrong
- 12/08/2010 10:32:58 PM
1137 Views
Religious institutions, though, pushed hard to pass it.
- 12/08/2010 10:42:33 PM
1222 Views
that doesn’t translate into people voting for religious reasons
- 12/08/2010 11:19:48 PM
1042 Views
Bigotry and Fear that are supported and encouraged by religious institutions.
- 12/08/2010 11:32:30 PM
1210 Views
there are major flaws in your argument
- 12/08/2010 07:51:52 PM
1347 Views
Women can't be priests in the Catholic church.
- 12/08/2010 08:00:24 PM
992 Views
Forcing religious institutions to marry gay couples is hideously unconstitutional.
- 12/08/2010 04:18:59 PM
1314 Views
You are absolutely wrong
- 12/08/2010 07:57:19 PM
1268 Views
Your arguments are so specious and stupid I don't know where to begin.
- 13/08/2010 05:04:17 AM
1180 Views
Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 07:11:15 PM
1206 Views
Because "homophobic", like "xenophobic", has shifted a bit in meaning...
- 12/08/2010 07:33:56 PM
1248 Views
Because your reasons for being against gay marriage are so specious *NM*
- 12/08/2010 07:59:42 PM
675 Views
I particularly enjoy the implied assumption that your a good enough judge of my motivations. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:24:14 PM
636 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 08:04:24 PM
1422 Views
+1
- 12/08/2010 08:06:19 PM
1363 Views
Stop with the pile on Camilla.
- 12/08/2010 09:22:35 PM
1289 Views
You would have said nothing if I had just said "agreed"
- 12/08/2010 09:27:33 PM
1119 Views
Which speaks highly of you....
- 12/08/2010 09:36:30 PM
1290 Views
This is being very petty. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:41:26 PM
624 Views
As opposed to a snarky +1 comment? *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:45:02 PM
645 Views
It's not snarky.
- 12/08/2010 09:47:47 PM
1272 Views
Its a +1 shorthand comment...
- 12/08/2010 09:52:04 PM
1522 Views
Wow. Those two characters allowed you to read Camilla's motivations?
- 12/08/2010 09:54:25 PM
1155 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 09:13:07 PM
1354 Views
you are exactly why the state needs to make a clear seperation between the secular and religious
- 12/08/2010 09:33:22 PM
1214 Views
Ok, so if the state does then...
- 12/08/2010 09:44:31 PM
1142 Views
No, marriage started because of property.
- 12/08/2010 09:59:14 PM
1236 Views
So then two things come to mind...
- 12/08/2010 10:04:39 PM
1214 Views
Only two?
- 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
1205 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
1205 Views
That's a little difficult to do
- 13/08/2010 03:19:32 PM
1426 Views
Re: That's a little difficult to do
- 13/08/2010 03:30:14 PM
1258 Views
yes but about half of the old testament deals with protecting those rights
- 13/08/2010 05:16:09 PM
1202 Views
The relationship between religion and rain go even farther back...
- 13/08/2010 06:15:32 PM
1208 Views
Actually, I agree with that
- 12/08/2010 10:01:37 PM
1102 Views
Rights....
- 12/08/2010 09:34:45 PM
1195 Views
See, what I don't get is why gay people care about
- 12/08/2010 08:18:45 PM
1208 Views
It's mostly about getting married in the eyes of the state.
- 12/08/2010 08:42:52 PM
1316 Views
I'm fairly sure Jonte was referring only to the "churches have to accept gay marriages" bit. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 08:44:52 PM
676 Views
Starting again
- 12/08/2010 08:23:08 PM
1329 Views
Not at all
- 12/08/2010 10:58:45 PM
1231 Views
Re: Not at all
- 13/08/2010 09:14:48 AM
1030 Views
Agreed *NM*
- 13/08/2010 10:21:06 AM
520 Views
Oh dear
- 13/08/2010 10:30:45 AM
1129 Views
I suppose you also think that religious Pacifists should be eligible for the draft?
- 12/08/2010 08:42:21 PM
1283 Views

*NM*
*NM*
*NM*