/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Were only SM manly enough to admit error.
Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
apple0154
MEOW
It must have been Dixie who suggested Civil Unions, however, whether or not Medicaid is constitutional is beside the point. If gays settle for anything less than marriage there will always be some program aimed at married couples from which they will be excluded. That was my point.
The suggestion was to have all government licenses be "Unions" and allow any consenting adult to enter such a "Union"... "Marriage" would be relegated to the religions, whomever they chose to "marry"...
I don't think any "State" has a right to define or redefine marriage any more than it has to define green as the new color red or a strawberry as the new plum......
"Marriage" already has a definition and has as long as the word has been in existence in the English language....just as "gay" and "homosexual" don't and shouldn't mean the same thing...its ludicrous....
Last edited:
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I would like to see a legal revolution in state's rights. If we could just learn to view them as responsibilities of smaller governments operating within the system of federalism, rather than as a political game of gotcha which gets horribly abused (Old South, etc.), it would be great, because otherwise they will wither and dry up again.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
100% agreement from me on the bolded.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
the above quite simply is untrue. If you take the government out of marriage completely, then there will be no programs aimed at married couples. THAT is the point. Quit making this a wedge issue. Civil unions SOLVE the problem. The religious right can not argue with them because their precious word 'marriage' is no longer 'under assault' from the government. The Gay and Lesbian community cannot argue, because the government is no longer discriminating against them.
Issue solved.
I use to think there was merit in the state's rights argument on abortion. But, the state's have no right to violate the rights of individuals, i.e., restricting reproductive rights or even denying homosexuals the right to marry.
It is ridiculous to pretend that prohibiting state laws restricting abortion is a violation of the tenth in the same way that the feds restricting marriage is. The court is protecting a right of the individual in one case and violating it in another.
The tenth is a limit on federal tyranny, not a cover for state tyranny.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You can run all over the board posting your lie as much as you wish, it will not make it true. Traditional marriage is not exclusive to Judeo-Christianity, and Gay Marriage is not universally opposed by Judeo-Christian churches. Many people get married, who are not Jewish or Christian, it is not a definition solely established by either religion.
Your argument has no tentative basis, because what you are suggesting is absurd! Christianity forbids killing people and stealing, should we strike down those laws on the basis they follow the tenants of Christianity? Why not? That is EXACTLY the argument you are making regarding Gay Marriage! Because SOME Christians oppose it on religious grounds, you think that makes it a "religious dogma" issue, and it simply doesn't.
No, it isn't. There is a clear victim and violation of rights in killing and stealing. We've been over that before, Dix. Don't muck up a good thread with this. Let's go back to yours and muck up that one with your mess of an argument.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It doesn't matter if there is a clear "victim" or anything else... It is RELIGIOUS DOGMA!
But it is not solely based on religious dogma as such rules as "one man one woman" is. You deliberately "misunderstand" to justify your attempt to legislate your dogma onto others who may not follow it. Your "argument" has never changed, only your attempts to justify it have. From "tradition" to "but some people who aren't religious think it's icky too", none of them show a reasonable justification for government to interfere with the beliefs of others. The state has no compelling reason to limit such things just because some people think it is icky or sinful.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And this is what kind of judgment based on what? It's a MORAL judgment, based on MORALITY!
Human beings do not magically obtain the ability to "consent" when they celebrate the 18th anniversary of their birth! They don't magically stop being "victims" because they lived for 6,570 days! WE established an age... 18... where we made the MORAL decision that people can legally stand on their own. This is based in our MORAL beliefs, that someone who has reached this arbitrary age, is supposedly capable of making informed choices as an "adult" ...another arbitrary distinction we made based on MORALS!
Why do YOU think it is acceptable to establish laws based on YOUR moral viewpoints, but not the moral viewpoints of others? What gives you the authority to make that case? Why is YOUR personal "dogma" more important than mine?
apple0154
MEOW
Agreed IF the government is taken out of marriage, however, it's much more likely gay marriage will be OK'd before the government gets out of the "business".
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No Damo, "one man-one woman marriage" is NOT "solely based" on religious dogma! People were doing this before Christianity! And "religious dogma" of Christianity, in particular, doesn't even address "homosexual marriages!" You've not established this, you've not made any case for it, you just keep repeating it as if it's a fact, when it's NOT!
The first amendment does not invalidate gay marriage bans. It does silence some arguments for it. The state has no interest in promoting/preserving religious morals or traditions.
Dixie, is again dishonestly pretending that our marriage customs are secular. They are mostly religious. But the state has no interest in promoting/preserving traditions at all and certainly not one's that serve no purpose, but to discriminate.
Of course, that certainly does not mean we should overturn all traditions, but that is the likely strawman response.
Dixie, is again dishonestly pretending that our marriage customs are secular. They are mostly religious. But the state has no interest in promoting/preserving traditions at all and certainly not one's that serve no purpose, but to discriminate.
Of course, that certainly does not mean we should overturn all traditions, but that is the likely strawman response.
What's it based on?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It's based on the same thing we base "consent" on or "age of accountability" or whether someone is legally a "victim" or not. Our collective morality as a society! Traditional marriage has never included "same-sex couples" in all known history of Western civilization. It doesn't matter that some religions hold marriage sacred, for the definition to be as Damo claims, a "Judeo-Christian definition", it would have to be EXCLUSIVELY a Judeo-Christian definition, and it's NOT! For opposition to homosexual marriage to be "Religious Dogma" it would have to be universally condemned by all followers of the Christian faith, and again, it is NOT! So the case has not been made, by any stretch of the imagination, yet both of you continue to LIE and claim this as a FACT.