Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, I am Lucy:

Despicable Me 2 Movie CLIP - Minion Fantasy (2013) - Steve Carell Sequel HD - YouTube

And you are the unfortunate, and dim witted, minion.

You are Hattie, and Lucie should be someone's daughter in law.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't care if people fuck each other in the ass. Why expand the government to stop them?

No one is trying to use government to stop them. we just dont want to expand government power to regulate their relationships.

 

[Avatar4321]

Do you think he speaks for God? Or you? I know I don't but I think I have a handle on what is godly; however, that's only for me.

We go by the Constitution, not errant scripture, kaz, in this country.

I go by the Constitution, you don't. But then I believe in what it says and you only believe it's a tool to be manipulated. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to your endless pronouncements that people's opinions don't matter. Actually they do. Even if they are wrong. If you believe opinions don't matter, your presence on a message board is certainly contradictory with that.

I believe in it to the bone, kaz, in ALL of it.

Then why ignore the 9th and 10th amendment?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The truth of what? There are no studies that show gay people legally marrying is a detriment to society.

All government marriage is a detriment to society. It is another excuse for government to divide citizens and treat them differently. All citizens of a country should be the same to that country. Gay government marriage only makes it worse in that it expands the number of people they are able to divide and pit against each other.

How's that legislation to end the cash and prizes going? You getting a lot of legislators onboard? How is such legislation doing in people's initiative states? Heck, I'd love to check all three signatures on that petition.

Yeah, given that has nothing to do with gay marriage...

 

[OODA_Loop]

"The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form." - Jefferson Davis

 

[Nosmo King]

Marriage is a contract recognized by the state. A wedding is a contract sanctified by the church. Marriages can be dissolved, like any other contract, by the state. That process is called divorce. Some churches do not recognized divorce. But then again, churches do not enforce the legal aspects of marriage: resolution of property rights, benefits granted by the state.

Marriages between heterosexuals do not always work out as planned. Does divorce threaten an individual's faith if that individual is not involved in the divorce? Does every heterosexual marriage affect every individual's faith?

Is the argument against same sex marriage nothing more than the exploitation of the anxieties held by those who have no business interfering with marriages other than their own? Isn't it true that opposing marriage equality is hatred and fear of the unknown?

What real harm will befall all other marriages once marriage equality is the law of the land? Where's the danger? What's the threat?

Or is it good old fashioned gay bashing in the guise of faith?

 

[candycorn]

This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.

Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?

Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?

Marriage was established at the Foundation of the world, before there was conservative or liberal or any other sort of political group. It exists over politics.

Gays are free to marry already. The issue is they don't want to get married. They want us to redefine marriage to include what they want to do.

We could pass a law calling all dogs cats. That doesn't mean dogs are cats. Nor does it mean that same sex relationships are marriages.

Gays often cannot collect spousal benefits. So it's not the same thing.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Is the argument against same sex marriage nothing more than the exploitation of the anxieties held by those who have no business interfering with marriages other than their own?

Perhaps for some.

My State amended its Constitution to forbid it.

That is the will of the our citizenry. Your citizenry may find different.

I, like many, love the individual ,but don't condone, agree or want to know about it otherwise.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Gays often cannot collect spousal benefits.

In States where their marriage is recognized they sure can.

Federal ones too.

 

[Avatar4321]

This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.

Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?

Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?

Marriage was established at the Foundation of the world, before there was conservative or liberal or any other sort of political group. It exists over politics.

Gays are free to marry already. The issue is they don't want to get married. They want us to redefine marriage to include what they want to do.

We could pass a law calling all dogs cats. That doesn't mean dogs are cats. Nor does it mean that same sex relationships are marriages.

Gays often cannot collect spousal benefits. So it's not the same thing.

I was unaware marriages were for spousal benefits. Silly me.

 

[koshergrl]

Spousal benefits are few and far between these days, anyway.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now...as in California, there are some legally married gays in Utah..and some who are not allowed to get legally married. That barn door is now open...can't close it.

The difference is that, in California, the state made marriage possible, and then declared it wasn't. In other words, it was purely a state issue. Here, on the other hand, an activist judge decided to shove a decision down the throat of the states using an interpretation of law that the Supreme Court had previously refused to consider.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.


Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News


The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state. The ruling comes after a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.

I believe the States should have the right to determine what laws they should be allowed to follow.

However, I disagree with your notion that government should be allowed to enter anyone's bedroom and dictate, under penalty of law, what a person can or cannot do in their homes. This is not a Conservative stance and smacks of tyranny.

Either you are for limited government, or you are not.

There is a difference between refusing to sanction a relationship and making it illegal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No ex post facto, luv.

It's not ex post facto if it was never actually law to allow them in the first place.

It was legal for gays to marry, for a time, in Utah. Those people who took advantage of that window of legality are legally married.

If the judge was wrong on the grounds for the decision, which is, theoretically, possible, then the marriages were never legal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I believe the States should have the right to determine what laws they should be allowed to follow.

However, I disagree with your notion that government should be allowed to enter anyone's bedroom and dictate, under penalty of law, what a person can or cannot do in their homes. This is not a Conservative stance and smacks of tyranny.

Either you are for limited government, or you are not.

How does not expanding the governments power to regulate same sex relationships allow the government to dictate what a person can do in their homes? By not recognizing same sex relationships as marriage, has the government prevented them from doing anything they want sexually?

Yes, it has.

However, there is a much simpler solution. Simply do away with government recognized marriage all together. Civil contracts can do everything that current marriage law does, without the emotional blackmail and governmental oppression.

Marriage is essentially a Religious Institution. People can get married in church, and if they can find a church to marry the same sex, more power to them.

However, religious marriage would not be recognized by the government for anyone. Only civil contracts.

I don't really need any government to tell Me I am married, so I could care less what others, the government, or even God thinks about it.

You really need to think about what you are saying because you are 100% wrong.

 

[Seawytch]

All government marriage is a detriment to society. It is another excuse for government to divide citizens and treat them differently. All citizens of a country should be the same to that country. Gay government marriage only makes it worse in that it expands the number of people they are able to divide and pit against each other.

How's that legislation to end the cash and prizes going? You getting a lot of legislators onboard? How is such legislation doing in people's initiative states? Heck, I'd love to check all three signatures on that petition.

Yeah, given that has nothing to do with gay marriage...

It has to do with marriage, period. Kaz wants to do away with all the cash and prizes that come with Civil Marriage. I support him in his endeavor.

 

[Avatar4321]

How's that legislation to end the cash and prizes going? You getting a lot of legislators onboard? How is such legislation doing in people's initiative states? Heck, I'd love to check all three signatures on that petition.

Yeah, given that has nothing to do with gay marriage...

It has to do with marriage, period. Kaz wants to do away with all the cash and prizes that come with Civil Marriage. I support him in his endeavor.

I've been married for over two years. When do I get cash and prizes associated with it?

 

[candycorn]

Marriage was established at the Foundation of the world, before there was conservative or liberal or any other sort of political group. It exists over politics.

Gays are free to marry already. The issue is they don't want to get married. They want us to redefine marriage to include what they want to do.

We could pass a law calling all dogs cats. That doesn't mean dogs are cats. Nor does it mean that same sex relationships are marriages.

Gays often cannot collect spousal benefits. So it's not the same thing.

I was unaware marriages were for spousal benefits. Silly me.

I was unaware that was what I said.

Man marries woman, there are spousal benefits in terms of everything from insurance to death benefits etc...

Woman marries woman and there are often no spousal benefits.

So the marriages are not the same in the eyes of the law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gays often cannot collect spousal benefits. So it's not the same thing.

I was unaware marriages were for spousal benefits. Silly me.

I was unaware that was what I said.

Man marries woman, there are spousal benefits in terms of everything from insurance to death benefits etc...

Woman marries woman and there are often no spousal benefits.

So the marriages are not the same in the eyes of the law.

In Texas you can get married by telling people you are. This entitles you to all spousal benefits in that state. In California you need to get permission from the state, and it refuses to admit that common law marriages from other states are legal.

What's your point?

 

[Avatar4321]

Gays often cannot collect spousal benefits. So it's not the same thing.

I was unaware marriages were for spousal benefits. Silly me.

I was unaware that was what I said.

Man marries woman, there are spousal benefits in terms of everything from insurance to death benefits etc...

Woman marries woman and there are often no spousal benefits.

So the marriages are not the same in the eyes of the law.

That's because no matter how many times you call it a marriage, two women in a relationship isn't a marriage.