Not allowing gay marriage violates constitutional rights

Just read the Constitution. I could not find the word "homosexual" in any of the text.

I've always thought it wierd that the government or any of my fellow Americans concern themselves with the sexual activity in any relationship.

Fort Myers wrote:

Just read the Constitution. I could not find the word "homosexual" in any of the text.

Your point?

Nickk wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry there's nothing religious about marriage in 2008. All mariage is is two people be they a man and a woman or two men or two women who love eachother and want to be together for the rest of their lives pledging their love. That's pretty much it. Lots of mariages are performed by justices of the peace. My aunt didn't get married in a church. My cousin who's a judge performed the service. Mariage is not completely a religious experience.

This might be how one defines religious. Feuerbach would say that religion is innate. And that spirituality is innate. There are some who simply believe that their belief in a higher power is religion enough. But note that I said spirituality and that Paul says religion. In any religious sphere, spirituality is key. Religion (which encompasses beliefs and practices) is the construct for one spirituality. This is mainstream. So, who is two say that their is no religion in these marriages?

True Moral Conservative wrote:

I don't think the government should have any say in marriage. Marriage is a spiritual institution and should be handled in a spiritual realm. I'm in agreement with Ron Paul. "Marriage is a religious ceremony and it should be dealt with religiously."

If marriage is a religious ceremony, what do atheists do to get married. They do, you know, and they are considered married.

My parents, who are religious, chose a non-religious ceremony as well. Are they not married?

True Moral Conservative wrote:

<quoted text>
This might be how one defines religious. Feuerbach would say that religion is innate. And that spirituality is innate. There are some who simply believe that their belief in a higher power is religion enough. But note that I said spirituality and that Paul says religion. In any religious sphere, spirituality is key. Religion (which encompasses beliefs and practices) is the construct for one spirituality. This is mainstream. So, who is two say that their is no religion in these marriages?

I'd have to go with someone who knows the difference between 'their', there', and 'they're.'

And I would say that the people who got married are the ones to say whether their wedding was religious or not. Who died and gave you the right to decide for others what their ceremony was or was not?

Fort Myers wrote:

Just read the Constitution. I could not find the word "homosexual" in any of the text.

What's your point? Did you find the word 'heterosexual' in the constitution?

Really, it's no surprise you didn't find the word 'homosexual'; it wasn't coined until the 19th century, after the bulk of the constitution had been written. Guess what? The constitution doesn't mention 'caucasian' or 'negro' either. Neither does it make distinctions between the sexes.

The word you WILL find in the constitution, over and over, is CITIZEN. And those of us on these boards fighting for our rights are all CITIZENS, and we are gauranteed our rights and freedoms, just as you are.

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
What's your point? Did you find the word 'heterosexual' in the constitution?
Really, it's no surprise you didn't find the word 'homosexual'; it wasn't coined until the 19th century, after the bulk of the constitution had been written. Guess what? The constitution doesn't mention 'caucasian' or 'negro' either. Neither does it make distinctions between the sexes.
The word you WILL find in the constitution, over and over, is CITIZEN. And those of us on these boards fighting for our rights are all CITIZENS, and we are gauranteed our rights and freedoms, just as you are.

Polygamists are citizens too.

True Moral Conservative wrote:

<quoted text>
This might be how one defines religious. Feuerbach would say that religion is innate. And that spirituality is innate. There are some who simply believe that their belief in a higher power is religion enough. But note that I said spirituality and that Paul says religion. In any religious sphere, spirituality is key. Religion (which encompasses beliefs and practices) is the construct for one spirituality. This is mainstream. So, who is two say that their is no religion in these marriages?

Legally, marriage is a civil matter in this country. It doesn't matter what priest you stand in front of while he waves his magic wand over you, if you don't have that piece of paper issued by the state in your pocket, you are not married.

Fort Myers wrote:

<quoted text>
Polygamists are citizens too.

And again, what's your point?

If polygamists want their marriages recognized by the government, they will have to take their fight to the Supreme Court themselves.

I personally see nothing wrong with polygamy, morally. It didn't seem to faze Abraham, or Solomon, or Noah, or Moses. The legal aspects of polygamy are too complicated though, for the legislature to just say,'okay, you all can get married to each other too.'

No such legal complexities exist when two people of the same sex marry.(Only two more hours to go, California lovebirds!).

Mike wrote:

<quoted text>
Legally, marriage is a civil matter in this country. It doesn't matter what priest you stand in front of while he waves his magic wand over you, if you don't have that piece of paper issued by the state in your pocket, you are not married.

I will address you, in order to make myself clear. I do not believe that there should be a civil authority that defines or accredits a "voluntary association." Also, I used Ludwig Feuerbach, to show that religion and spirituality come from within. I didn't say what marriage was and what institution or practicing institution should be able to define it. I also who can determine a person's religion? This was to say that because if people's religion is from within, then and not bound by institutional affiliation.

So, to tell me the legal definition of marriage bears no weight on my point. I was simply asserting my belief and philosophy on the subject. I was not trying to issue some declaration or belittle; even thought this seems to be the way of others.

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
I'd have to go with someone who knows the difference between 'their', there', and 'they're.'
And I would say that the people who got married are the ones to say whether their wedding was religious or not. Who died and gave you the right to decide for others what their ceremony was or was not?

Thank you for being so pleasant.

True Moral Conservative wrote:

<quoted text>
I will address you, in order to make myself clear. I do not believe that there should be a civil authority that defines or accredits a "voluntary association." Also, I used Ludwig Feuerbach, to show that religion and spirituality come from within. I didn't say what marriage was and what institution or practicing institution should be able to define it. I also who can determine a person's religion? This was to say that because if people's religion is from within, then and not bound by institutional affiliation.
So, to tell me the legal definition of marriage bears no weight on my point. I was simply asserting my belief and philosophy on the subject. I was not trying to issue some declaration or belittle; even thought this seems to be the way of others.

Thank you. I think I understand the point you were trying to make better now. Unfortunately, there will always be someone in "authority" (whether it be the church or the state) that will insist on defining marriage in some manner.

it finally occured tonight to me..;
what seems like a huge goof on the christians is actually a veiled attempt to document every gay who signs a marriage certificate as a child molester
they are no doing hiring checks on the nation wide
sytems and building data to label anyone who doesnt go along with the UN plan as a sex offender
count on it .... go to the jbs org site
better yet the UN wants to destroy the family and completely eradicate any children in the future
the planned parenthood org is an UN official governmental organization and the agenda is zero population growth ... they are intent on extincting the human race
bad humans bad
the UN wants whos left in the us to pay for the worlds problems ie.kyoto treaty, starving africans ..you name it
they are the original blame america firsters
these people are extremely dangerous cultural marxists and they have infiltrated every institution in the united states
get on your knees now

Fort Myers wrote:

Just read the Constitution. I could not find the word "homosexual" in any of the text.

Why would the word "homosexual" be in the text? When the constitution was written the word and term wasn't invented. It was invented in the 1800's in Europe to define the natural sexual orientation of people who engaged in same sex relationships. If "homosexual" were in the constitution you'd know it was anachronistic and was placed there under dubious circumstances.

Fort Myers wrote:

<quoted text>
Polygamists are citizens too.

Absolutely. When those involved are consenting adults who had free choice in the matter it's just fine. No matter what the configuration.

NWmoon wrote:

<quoted text>
Absolutely. When those involved are consenting adults who had free choice in the matter it's just fine. No matter what the configuration.

That certainly seems fair.

True Moral Conservative wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for being so pleasant.

And thanks for your sarcasm. You still haven't answered my question:
Aethiests marry as well, and their ceremonies are certainly not religious. Since you posit that marriage is a religious thing, are you also asserting that aethiests are not married, because the ceremony that united them was not religious?

Have you seen this video about media coverage of the gay marriage issue?
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx...
(Shameless self promotion – it’s from the organization I work for). But it’s a great video and you should check it out anyway.