In response to:

Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

John148 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 7:13 AM
Both questions are irrelevant. The relevant question is whether or not it is constitutional to allow marriage and its associated *civil* privileges to heterosexual couples while denying it to others. The 14 amendment alone would seem to say the answer is no. However, the solution is not to put more government into marriage but rather to get marriage out of government.
Jay Wye Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 8:59 AM
Homos already HAVE -equal- right to marriage;
they can marry another person of the opposite sex the same as any other person.
That IS the definition of "marriage";man-woman,it's been that way for several thousand years.

This is all about the REDEFINITION of "marriage" to be something it's never been,and thus FORCING other states to recognize the abomination via Article IV,sec 1.
Homos are seeking SPECIAL rights and the reordering of US society to suit their agenda and mental illness.
Jay Wye Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 8:59 AM
Of course,some people IGNORE the second part of Article IV,sec 1;
"and the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,Records,and Proceedings shall be proved,and the Effect thereof."
Congress "prescribed the manner" by enacting DOMA.
THAT alone allows DOMA to be Constitutional.

Congress is SPECIFICALLY given the power to decide,and they did.
HappyStretchedThin Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 8:21 AM
Both questions are ONLY irrelevant if you make the incredibly fallacious leap that the Constitution is not a document to protect the fairness and minimum morality of society. The 14th amendment does NOT guarantee anyone the right to their own definition of anything, and demands fairness only in governmental treatment, not in the word "marriage" or any of the rights you are implying can't also flow from the term "civil union".
Texas Chris Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 8:46 AM
The constitution's sole purpose is to limit government. Not to "protect fairness" and certainly not to maintain a "minimum morality of society".

Marriage is clearly a religious institution. The 1st Amendment, freedom of religion, removes the question of marriage from the government's narrowly defined powers and authorities.
Jay Wye Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 9:00 AM
marriages are SOCIETY's business. it's a societal construct.
since society delegates power to it's government,it rightfully becomes government's concern and area of authority.
HappyStretchedThin Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 9:13 AM
The constitution doesn't protect fairness? I thought it was YOU citing the 14th amendment earlier?
The Constitution's not a document designed to maintain morality in society? What do you think limiting government DOES? What do you think keeping freedom in the hands of individuals DOES? The Founding Father's absolutely DID conceive of the Constitution as a means to guarantee people could decide for themselves to BE MORAL, and your narrow definition of marriage as ONLY religious STILL ignores m basic point that there are ALSO property considerations.
John148 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 12:20 PM
Different religions have different expectations of what marriage is. From a government aspect, marriage is a civil contract. The government cannot favor one religion's definition over another and cannot treat people unequally under the law when defining that contract so their definition of marriage is necessarily going to differ with that of a particular religion.

The best solution is to remove "marriage" from government and call it something else that does not have religious/moral attachments to it.

Also, it would be "a means to guarantee people could decide for themselves to BE MORAL *OR NOT*". If you do not include the "OR NOT", then there is no deciding and there is also no freedom, is there?
Texas Chris Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 8:09 AM
The question of equal execution of the law only applies if the constitution authorizes the law in the first place. Currently, it does not. Therefore, marriage licenses are clearly unconstitutional.

Now, if the Moral Authoritarian Right is successful in amending the constitution, as they seek to, then that's a different story. A mistake, and morally repugnant, but legal non the less.

Every time the Right runs and hides behind mommy government's skirts it comes back to bite them in their ample @sses.
OriginalWinghunter Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 8:18 AM
There is no "equal" right of a deviant BEHAVIOR.
HappyStretchedThin Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 8:27 AM
Have you ever been married? Do you understand that there's no such thing as a federal marriage licence? The Constitution grants states (and by extension more local authorities according to their several charters) the rights it doesn't enumerate, no? You're argument that marriage licences are unconstitutional would have a hard time getting past a first year law student.
p.s. I agree with you that when Repubs increase govt regulation, it produces the opposite of their stated intent--good thing the left, which does the same and more, is on the way out of power.
Texas Chris Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 8:43 AM
States, counties, and cities are bound by the same limitations as the federal government, are they not? Is it constitutional for a state to quarter troops in my home? Can my city infringe on my free speech? Then neither can those entities infringe on the very religious institution of marriage, which is clearly protected under the 1st Amendment.

(And yes, I am married)
Bill1895 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 8:47 AM
Chris: you are unsually bigoted and ignorant this morning: big hang over?
John148 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 11:58 AM
So are you saying marriage is a deviant behavior, then?
John148 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 11:58 AM
So are you saying marriage is a deviant behavior, then?
pastorial Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 10:01 AM

Next week voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will vote on whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views?

The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions.

Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?

Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge...