Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

What is a federal citizen anyway ?

A citizen of the United States.

Are you creating this federal citizen who would then agree no matterwhat with the federal government, and therefore lives under the federal governments jurisdiction and guidelines no matter where he or she resides within the nation ? Are these watchdog's who are now placed as watchdogs over the states citizens and local governments ?

I didn't 'create' anything. Check the 14th amendment on citizens of the United States.

s there a difference between your so called federal citizen and a state loving citizen who don't always agree with the federal government, and rightfully so ?

Yup. Each citizen is a citizen of the United States and the State in which they reside. Every citizen is a federal citizen. Though not all citizens are state citizens. The residents of DC, for example, are only federal citizens. Take a look at the doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction. It gives an excellent overview.

The distinction between federal and state citizens became less pronounced after the Bill of Rights was applied to the States. As before that, State's could violate the Bill of Rights to their heart's content as the Bill of Rights only limited Federal Action. After the doctrine of selective incorporation was adopted by the courts based on the 14th amendment, the States were subject to most constitutional restrictions.

As it stands now, the primary differences of State and Federal citizenship relate to issues of jurisdiction for certain types of crimes. You don't have the Feds issuing many traffic tickets, for example. And the protection of rights. No State can recognize fewer rights than the Federal Government. But many States recognize more rights than the federal government.

 

[beagle9]

The FUNDAMENTAL purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment to conceive, raise and train children through the complimenting traits of the distinct genders... .

As the valid marriages of infertile couples demonstrates, there is clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with conceiving children. As the valid marriages of childless couples demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with 'raising and training children' to do anything.

Burying your argument under the weight of its own failures of logic and reason yet again.

Why marriage ? How come they didn't create something new to be more modern about it all, instead of trying to annex marriage like they have done ? It seems that they want to attack every traditional thing they can in this nation, and to then bring these things to an end for some as they were understood to be, and then to make them something else that they were never intended to be. Now it's up to the people to decide whether they are going to let this happen or maybe not in their parts of the little worlds that exist within the bigger worlds in which they do decide to live in or have lived in for many a year now.

 

[Skylar]

Why marriage ? How come they didn't create something new to be more modern about it all, instead of trying to annex marriage like they have done ?

Why reinvent the wheel? Its already established, the law has already codified it, its already integrated into the private sector, and is a constitutionally recognized right. Plus conservatives did a really good job pitching the idea of monogamy and marriage and its value in one's life. They apparently convinced a significant portion of the gays that its something they should get in on.

If I were a conservative, I'd count it as a win.

It seems that they want to attack every traditional thing they can in this nation, and to then bring these things to an end for some as they were understood to be, and then to make them something else that they were never intended to be.

Far from attacking it, they want to join it. And quite a few gays and lesbians have spent considerable amounts of their own time and money to be allowed to.

That's a high compliment.

 

[Kosh]

Why marriage ? How come they didn't create something new to be more modern about it all, instead of trying to annex marriage like they have done ?

Why reinvent the wheel? Its already established, the law has already codified it, its already integrated into the private sector, and is a constitutionally recognized right. Plus conservatives did a really good job pitching the idea of monogamy and marriage and its value in one's life. They apparently convinced a significant portion of the gays that its something they should get in on.

If I were a conservative, I'd count it as a win.

It seems that they want to attack every traditional thing they can in this nation, and to then bring these things to an end for some as they were understood to be, and then to make them something else that they were never intended to be.

Far from attacking it, they want to join it. And quite a few gays and lesbians have spent considerable amounts of their own time and money to be allowed to.

That's a high compliment.

Actually entering in a civil union is far more legally binding that a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..

Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?

But then again as this thread has shown time and time again it is not about "Marriage" it is about punishing the church..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually entering in a civil union is far more legally binding that a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..

Well that's false. Just cross state lines and a civil union disappears. Civil Marriage though doesn't (as it normally functions).

Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?

That again is false. The only "partner" that receives the SS benefits (assuming you mean Social Security) is a legal spouse in a Civil Marriage. Partners in a Civil Union get nothing.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Actually entering in a civil union is far more legally binding that a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..

[

Says who?

Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?

If they are exactly the same, why bother with a civil union? Why not just go for marriage? See, that's the rub. If they're genuinely identical, then there's no need for civil unions.

But then again as this thread has shown time and time again it is not about "Marriage" it is about punishing the church..

[/quote]

Gays and lesbians are seeking the right to marry under the law. The church I leave to you. Recognize gay marriage, don't recognize gay marriage, no one cares. As churches don't define marriage under the law.

 

[Kosh]

Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?

That's what you say. Other sources have a very different take:

Before the Supreme Court overturned Part 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex spouses were not entitled to federal spousal benefits, even if the couple’s marriage was valid in the state where they lived. This was because the federal government defined marriage as between one man and one woman. However, the federal government must now extend federal benefits, including Social Security spousal benefits, to same-sex married couples, as long as the marital relationship is valid in the state where the couple lives.

This is not true for same-sex (or heterosexual) couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships, even if the relationship is valid in the state where the couple lives and the state gives the same benefits to those unions and partnerships as it does to marriage. At this point in time, Social Security benefits are only extended to couples who have entered into a valid marriage and who live in a state where that marriage is recognized.

Social Security Benefits for Members of Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions Nolo.com

So other than you, who is your source that you can leave SS money via a civil union?

Once again the far left shows that they can not comprehend anything beyond their talking points..

"Marriage" and "Civil Union", yea I can see how those get confused..

 

[Kosh]

Actually entering in a civil union is far more legally binding that a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..

Well that's false. Just cross state lines and a civil union disappears. Civil Marriage though doesn't (as it normally functions).

Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?

That again is false. The only "partner" that receives the SS benefits (assuming you mean Social Security) is a legal spouse in a Civil Marriage. Partners in a Civil Union get nothing.


>>>>

Once again the far left propaganda fear mongering machine is in over drive..

 

[Skylar]

So who says that you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union?

That would be you and...who? Some pretty credible online resources have said that civil unions don't count and only marriages do in leaving your Social Security money. So who is your source?

 

[Kosh]

So who says that you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union?

That would be you and...who? Some pretty credible online resources have said that civil unions don't count and only marriages do in leaving your Social Security money. So who is your source?

Lawyers, legal scholars, etc..

Might want to research things before just posting far left fear mongering propaganda..

just like your spouse/partner can make sure legally, that you get none of their SS.

You are not entitled to someone else's money..

 

[Skylar]

Lawyers and Legal Scholars like......who?

 

[Kosh]

Lawyers and Legal Scholars like......who?

Do your own research like you want others to do..

Come on show us that you can research things outside the far left programming!

 

[Skylar]

Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.

Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you

 

[Kosh]

Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.

Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you

And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.

Another perfect example of a far left drone..

Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!

 

[Syriusly]

Strong support? You're speaking of the 'strong support' which would be expected within The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... of course.

I'm speaking of exactly what I said: strong support for the legality of same sex marriage...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in 32 states- the joining of two men or two women.

 

[Syriusly]

Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.

Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you

And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.

Another perfect example of a far left drone..

Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!

Kosh is trolling in this thread too?

 

[Kosh]

Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.

Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you

And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.

Another perfect example of a far left drone..

Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!

Kosh is trolling in this thread too?

Yes calling out the far left to the far left is trolling!

Than again the far left trolls all the time..

 

[Skylar]

Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.

Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you

And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.

Another perfect example of a far left drone..

Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!

Kosh is trolling in this thread too?

Yup. I just have him on ignore. He keeps posting the same reply, regardless of the topic or what he's replying to. You could offer him a detailed, thoughtful response with sources and links.......or give him GPS coordinates to Toy'R'Us, and you'll get the same bizarre reply about 'far left' and 'never admitting when they're wrong'.

He's just spamming. There's really no conversation to be had.

 

[Kosh]

Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.

Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you

And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.

Another perfect example of a far left drone..

Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!

Kosh is trolling in this thread too?

Yup. I just have him on ignore. He keeps posting the same reply, regardless of the topic or what he's replying to. You could offer him a detailed, thoughtful response with sources and links.......or give him GPS coordinates to Toy'R'Us, and you'll get the same bizarre reply about 'far left' and 'never admitting when they're wrong'.

He's just spamming. There's really no conversation to be had.

Yes showing that the far left can not admit when they are wrong is spamming!

All the far left has to do is own up to when they are wrong!

 

[Syriusly]

Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.

Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you

And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.

Another perfect example of a far left drone..

Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!

Kosh is trolling in this thread too?

Yup. I just have him on ignore. He keeps posting the same reply, regardless of the topic or what he's replying to. You could offer him a detailed, thoughtful response with sources and links.......or give him GPS coordinates to Toy'R'Us, and you'll get the same bizarre reply about 'far left' and 'never admitting when they're wrong'.

He's just spamming. There's really no conversation to be had.

Yes showing that the far left can not admit when they are wrong is spamming!

All the far left has to do is own up to when they are wrong!

Yep he is just trolling.