Yes, I'm going there!

[Fatboy Joe]

The real question here, is how does this affect Paula Deen getting back on the food network?

 

[Glock]

It's sucks the rules stay the same at a state level, injustice to equality

 

[Danny Tanner]

I do have a problem with laws being changed/passed/inforced by those few in power who have ruled against the masses!

Had the internet existed pre-Civil War, I would bet the same comments would be posted in regards to slavery. It was wrong and ignorant then and it's wrong and ignorant now. As far as the Feds reversing what the masses have voted, I agree with you, they have no right to do so... unless that vote violates the constitutional rights of legal citizens, which is the case here.

Too many of you are confusing "holy matrimony", a union sanctioned by your god, with "marriage", a legal union recognized by the Government. Until the Government forces your church of choice to recognize same-sex matrimony, then your religious rights are not being infringed on or attacked in any way whatsoever. It amazes me how many conservatives support smaller Government ("WE DON'T NEED BIG GOV TELLING US HOW TO RUN OUR LIVES!!") until it comes to gays, then you absolutely want the Government to slap on as many regulations as they can because you're too afraid to talk to your kids about biological determination of sexual orientation. If you're concerned about same-sex marriage tarnishing the sanctity of your pure, wholesome coed marriage, then perhaps your marriage isn't worth a damn. Don't deny rights to someone else to preserve the diminished value of your failed communion.

Your rights aren't being stepped on one bit, it's just that the rights afforded to you, a legal US citizen, are being expanded to more legal US citizens. This is what freedom is all about. If you're against it, then maybe you're not as patriotic as you think. One freedom you still have is the freedom to move, as you claim as your wish. So go on then, just don't forget your white robe and pointy hat!

 

[flatwins]

The whole gay marriage pro/con blah blah blah issue causes me to yawn. Maybe my give-a-damn is broken.

 

[TedKennedy]

Had the internet existed pre-Civil War, I would bet the same comments would be posted in regards to slavery. It was wrong and ignorant then and it's wrong and ignorant now. As far as the Feds reversing what the masses have voted, I agree with you, they have no right to do so... unless that vote violates the constitutional rights of legal citizens, which is the case here.

Too many of you are confusing "holy matrimony", a union sanctioned by your god, with "marriage", a legal union recognized by the Government. Until the Government forces your church of choice to recognize same-sex matrimony, then your religious rights are not being infringed on or attacked in any way whatsoever. It amazes me how many conservatives support smaller Government ("WE DON'T NEED BIG GOV TELLING US HOW TO RUN OUR LIVES!!") until it comes to gays, then you absolutely want the Government to slap on as many regulations as they can because you're too afraid to talk to your kids about biological determination of sexual orientation. If you're concerned about same-sex marriage tarnishing the sanctity of your pure, wholesome coed marriage, then perhaps your marriage isn't worth a damn. Don't deny rights to someone else to preserve the diminished value of your failed communion.

Your rights aren't being stepped on one bit, it's just that the rights afforded to you, a legal US citizen, are being expanded to more legal US citizens. This is what freedom is all about. If you're against it, then maybe you're not as patriotic as you think. One freedom you still have is the freedom to move, as you claim as your wish. So go on then, just don't forget your white robe and pointy hat!

If you'll read my post, I plainly stated the the government shouldn't be involved. Steal wages from individuals at the same rate, married, single, black, white, rich, poor.

Since that is not the case, the gov is involved, the endorsement of same-sex marriage should be left to the states.

Doesn't really matter in the long run, I suppose, just another landmark to refer to twenty years from now. (when we're all laughing about how stupid homophobes were, kinda like we can see how great all our progressive moves from the 1960s were now)

 

[Danny Tanner]

If you'll read my post, I plainly stated the the government shouldn't be involved. Steal wages from individuals at the same rate, married, single, black, white, rich, poor.

Since that is not the case, the gov is involved, the endorsement of same-sex marriage should be left to the states.

Doesn't really matter in the long run, I suppose, just another landmark to refer to twenty years from now. (when we're all laughing about how stupid homophobes were, kinda like we can see how great all our progressive moves from the 1960s were now)

I was replying to the OP.

But, I agree, as a libertarian, the Government shouldn't be involved. However, since they are involved, I do like to see steps (even if just baby steps) towards true equality as promised in the Constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

I didn't personally know our founding fathers, but considering homosexuality has been documented much further back than the birth of the US, I would assume they're intelligent enough to include a "except those damn queers!" disclaimer in the Constitution.

 

[TedKennedy]

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101

Pretty sure you're at least half right.

 

[JB Books]

If two consenting adults enter into a "marriage," and love one another and share one another's lives, who are any of us to keep them from doing so? One of the problems gays have is that most often when one partner is sick or dies, their partner has no rights. I witnessed this myself with an antique dealer couple my wife and I knew. One partner died and the so-called Christian sister swept in and was the most hateful ***** I ever encountered. She was capricious and cruel and went against her dead brother's wishes. Fortunately, the dead brother got the last laugh, because of the way he styled some bank accounts. Still, if they had done the proper estate planning (as I urged them to do) or if they had been married, the surviving partner would have gotten the house and personal property. They were together 22 years.

I've come to believe there are four types of sexual humans (not counting the sickos); straight, gay, people who swing either way and asexual. Sex urges are some of the strongest natural urges humans possess. Unless someone is hurting someone else, how can we judge?

That being said, I do not believe gay rights trump everyone else's rights. Churches should not be forced to marry gay couples if that violates the church's theology.

Live and let live. There are bigger things to worry about.

 

[TedKennedy]

I firmly believe that a person ought to be able to purchase/leave their wealth as they choose.

This will not stop here, however. We now have "protected" categories of people, and gov dictates on accomodating such. Get ready to add another to the list. I'm sure it'll right any wrongs ever perpetrated on the "protected" class.

 

[n2sooners]

That being said, I do not believe gay rights trump everyone else's rights. Churches should not be forced to marry gay couples if that violates the church's theology.

Already happening. I've heard of a church being sued for not allowing a gay wedding ceremony on their property, a photographer being sued for refusing to shoot a gay wedding, and a baker being sued for not baking a gay wedding cake.