In response to:

Marriage: A Supreme Test of Rights

Dr_Zinj Wrote: Mar 05, 2013 9:02 AM
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman recognized by religious institutions. As such, it is a religous term and not subject to legislation under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Historically, there was no reason to differentiate it from civil unions, which are special, familial unions recognized by the government (hence the term "civil".) When you have to supply an adjective to further describe a noun, that means that you are describing something different than the noun's original definition. Which of course means that same-sex marriage or gay marriage, is most definitely NOT the same thing as marriage.
Dr_Zinj Wrote: Mar 05, 2013 9:05 AM
The reality is that there is no reason for the GBLT community to push for their unions to be called marrriages as long as they have all the same legal rights under civil unions that hetersexual couples enjoy. UNLESS the goal of the GBLT community is to set the stage to use the government to attack religions who ban or discriminate against GBLT behavior as being sinful under their religion's teachings.
Jim69 Wrote: Mar 05, 2013 1:52 PM
The Federal Government does not recognize civil unions as being equal to marriage. No same sex couple may file jointly as spouses.
dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Mar 06, 2013 12:03 PM

In reality, Dr Z;

Active homosexuals hope to make respectable a corrupt way of life. Depravity as marriage, if you will.

Even if we concede your point, it isn't fully true. The marriage of two males/females is always a false supposition; religious or common-law. Nothing about their "union" joins them as one. Not vows, nor love, nor the law.

They ca have no marital act; such as our parents had together. Sodomy is NOT coitus. Sodomy can't be marriage either. Sodomy is a sin. It sins against God, who expressly forbids it. And against a man's own sex drive, which isn't geared toward serving a vice.

Jim69 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 10:32 AM
There it is folks; it's just that simple.

From the very beginning, homosexual “marriage” activists have sought to hijack not only the moral authority of the Civil Rights Movement, but also the legal arguments which liberated minorities from centuries of legalized oppression and discrimination.

After decades of aggressive activism, the common sense understanding of marriage has become almost hopelessly mired in incomprehensible legal terminology. It becomes difficult for everyday observers to navigate the convoluted logic homosexual activists employ as they attempt to remake one of civilization’s oldest institutions. The argument that redefining marriage to include homosexual couples is only “fair” rests on a specious interpretation of the equal protection...