I don't think that should be allowerd what so fu%^in ever.

Marriage, gay or otherwise is the DEVIL!

I think the important question to all of those against gay marriage is, "What effect would it have on you, personally, if gays were allowed to marry?".  That's the bottom line, for me.
If you had a gay couple as neighbors, you might not even know if they're married or just living together.  But if they did step their happy little asses down to city hall (or their church, if they belong to one that does not disapprove of them being gay) and get married, what effect would this realistically have on you?  How would this change YOUR life in any way?  Other than allowing you to step up onto your religious/moral soapbox and spout on about how the Bible disapproves.  The Bible also disapproves of judging others, and thereby, you saying that you "disapprove" of anyone's lifestyle makes you a big ol' sinner.  Guess I'll see y'all in hell, then.   

I think the important question to all of those against gay marriage is, "What effect would it have on you, personally, if gays were allowed to marry?".  That's the bottom line, for me.
If you had a gay couple as neighbors, you might not even know if they're married or just living together.  But if they did step their happy little asses down to city hall (or their church, if they belong to one that does not disapprove of them being gay) and get married, what effect would this realistically have on you?  How would this change YOUR life in any way?  Other than allowing you to step up onto your religious/moral soapbox and spout on about how the Bible disapproves.  The Bible also disapproves of judging others, and thereby, you saying that you "disapprove" of anyone's lifestyle makes you a big ol' sinner.  Guess I'll see y'all in hell, then.   

I'm up the corner, mixing dranks, J...Join me!!

I think the important question to all of those against gay marriage is, "What effect would it have on you, personally, if gays were allowed to marry?".  That's the bottom line, for me.
If you had a gay couple as neighbors, you might not even know if they're married or just living together.  But if they did step their happy little asses down to city hall (or their church, if they belong to one that does not disapprove of them being gay) and get married, what effect would this realistically have on you?  How would this change YOUR life in any way?  Other than allowing you to step up onto your religious/moral soapbox and spout on about how the Bible disapproves.  The Bible also disapproves of judging others, and thereby, you saying that you "disapprove" of anyone's lifestyle makes you a big ol' sinner.  Guess I'll see y'all in hell, then.   

Thank you.   I'll be the one holding the door open.

 

I just want some freakin Oreos and a glass a milk!!!!

Ya dig!

I just want some freakin Oreos and a glass a milk!!!!

Ya dig!

hmmm why was my comment removed?.  it broke no coc rules..it was bleeped out..... abso F***ing loutely..... ...they are tax paying citizens who are covered by the same laws as any of us...our consitution doesnt say.....allmen and women..except gays..it says all people....  it is BS my original comment was removed and th eone that said the same thing except opposing it was not......more political BS?

Please tell me why i would want to put down my BIBLE  down ,to me it would be like putting my GOD down,

Yes i do, but i have the right to feel as i do ,i believe that same couple have the right to all but not marriage, and i have a gay niece that i love very much and she been with the same woman for 10 years but i am sorry like i told her i do not condone same sex marriage and you can believe the way you want .

First off - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution

The US Constitution does not even mention the word Marriage, so it is neither constitutional or unconstitutional.  The definition of marriage, as found in websters dictionary is: 

MAR''RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

The whole thing is a catch 22 ... if you do not allow same sex marriage, then it's called discrimination and projecting your beliefs on others -- if you allow same sex marriage - it is also called discrimination and projecting your beliefs on others.

Either way -- no court or government official is allowed to force a decision one way or the other -- it comes down to people voting for or against it.

Its not my cup of tea, but, If a state passes it as law, I have no say so. I'll personally leave it up to God to judge.

Chuck Cooper "the state has a fundamental interest in the fruitful union between a man and a woman that simply does not pertain to same-sex relations"

Chuck Cooper "the state has a fundamental interest in the fruitful union between a man and a woman that simply does not pertain to same-sex relations"

what fundamental interest would that be?

edit: the fact that you edited your statement to show that it was not your thought implies that you would rather not own that statement. And being that your response to this question still does not tell what those interests are, I see why.

Prop 8 attorney Chuck Cooper, "argued that several court rulings in other states have recognized that instituting same-sex "marriage" essentially changes the definition of marriage as understood in common law, and that California has always understood marriage to be between a man and a woman. He also argued that marriage was a public institution of key import to the stability of a society, rather than a matter of private choice."

...so you're saying because some guy said so?

...so you're saying because some guy said so?

no I'm saying I agree with him

A couple of thoughts:

1. "Democracy is tyranny by the masses" --Thomas Jefferson  It is the reason why the judiciary was established; so that no laws could be made by lawmakers that infringed upon the rights of the 'lowest' individual, and no law could be voted in by a referrendum which infringes upon the rights of the minority.

2. I laugh when people use religion to say that a person / people don't have the right to do something because of their beliefs--yet when their beliefs are put into question they're 'all over' their rights to believe such.

3. Marriage versus Civil Union: actually these two title mean the same thing.  They entitle people to the same recognition, same legal rights and benefits for insurance, taxation, etc.  Considering marriage has long been associated with straight relationships, let it remain so.  Being able to attain equality under the law, but quibbling over a word/phrase is stupid.  So, for those who want to recognize marriage as a Christian establishment, let it be so.  Let each church establish the guidelines for who they will unite in marriage, and those from non-religious institutions can be recognized Civil Unions.  The end result is the same.

4. The American Constitution is a living document that evolves with that of society; it's the reason why Article 5 sets perameters for change.  Without such change, just take a look back at history and think about how backwards American society would be today without such social evolution.  Society is still screwed up because people are still judging other, not based upon the rights entitled to all, but by personal beliefs and prejudice.

Agreed, in present tense, but if civil unions became "constitutional" as with the battle from proposition 8, they would be.  Good point.  I guess I was presenting my point with the understanding that both should have equal legal representation and constitutional protections.

Prop 8 attorney Chuck Cooper, "argued that several court rulings in other states have recognized that instituting same-sex "marriage" essentially changes the definition of marriage as understood in common law, and that California has always understood marriage to be between a man and a woman. He also argued that marriage was a public institution of key import to the stability of a society, rather than a matter of private choice."

Anybody who thinks is is Un -Constitutional for two people (ANY two people) to marry really needs to read the f^&king Constitution again!  It's discrimination- PLAIN AND F^&KING SIMPLE to not allow same sex partners to marry. Put down the freaking Bible and read the damn Constitution people!   Oh and BTW- Cancun is freaking AWESOME!

First off - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution

The US Constitution does not even mention the word Marriage, so it is neither constitutional or unconstitutional.  The definition of marriage, as found in websters dictionary is: 

MAR''RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

The whole thing is a catch 22 ... if you do not allow same sex marriage, then it's called discrimination and projecting your beliefs on others -- if you allow same sex marriage - it is also called discrimination and projecting your beliefs on others.

Either way -- no court or government official is allowed to force a decision one way or the other -- it comes down to people voting for or against it.

A couple of thoughts:

1. "Democracy is tyranny by the masses" --Thomas Jefferson  It is the reason why the judiciary was established; so that no laws could be made by lawmakers that infringed upon the rights of the 'lowest' individual, and no law could be voted in by a referrendum which infringes upon the rights of the minority.

2. I laugh when people use religion to say that a person / people don't have the right to do something because of their beliefs--yet when their beliefs are put into question they're 'all over' their rights to believe such.

3. Marriage versus Civil Union: actually these two title mean the same thing.  They entitle people to the same recognition, same legal rights and benefits for insurance, taxation, etc.  Considering marriage has long been associated with straight relationships, let it remain so.  Being able to attain equality under the law, but quibbling over a word/phrase is stupid.  So, for those who want to recognize marriage as a Christian establishment, let it be so.  Let each church establish the guidelines for who they will unite in marriage, and those from non-religious institutions can be recognized Civil Unions.  The end result is the same.

4. The American Constitution is a living document that evolves with that of society; it's the reason why Article 5 sets perameters for change.  Without such change, just take a look back at history and think about how backwards American society would be today without such social evolution.  Society is still screwed up because people are still judging other, not based upon the rights entitled to all, but by personal beliefs and prejudice.

First off - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution

The US Constitution does not even mention the word Marriage, so it is neither constitutional or unconstitutional.  The definition of marriage, as found in websters dictionary is: 

MAR''RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

The whole thing is a catch 22 ... if you do not allow same sex marriage, then it's called discrimination and projecting your beliefs on others -- if you allow same sex marriage - it is also called discrimination and projecting your beliefs on others.

Either way -- no court or government official is allowed to force a decision one way or the other -- it comes down to people voting for or against it.

But NOT allowing same-sex marriage really isn't discrimination or projecting any beliefs onto others.  There would be no legal leg to stand on there.  Not allowing everyone the same rights and privileges under the law is discrimination, not the other way around.  The two (same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage) are not mutually exclusive.  Everyone should be given the same rights, including the right to marry and share all of the legal benefits of such.  As for projecting beliefs ... beliefs should have NO place in this debate from either side.  It's a legal issue, not a moral or religious one (at least it shouldn't be).

Janet -- I left the dictionary definition in the post for a couple of reasons -- one was to see who I could pi$$ off (but I don't feel like reading the posts to see who) and the other was to use it as an example.  When Puritans, Pilgrims and everyone else who first settled here, brought with them very strict religious rules and beliefs - which have been passed down through generations -- and you can see those beliefs in the dictionary.  I'm not saying they are right or wrong -- I'm just pointing out what the majority of people in this society believe -- again, I'm not judging right or wrong.  My thoughts are that it will take several generations for the dictionary definition to change.
Personally - when everyone was "coming out of the closet" - I hated it and my response was "show me a gay animal and I'll believe that this is natural with humans".  Since then, I have fathered 3 kids (that I admit to) and with each one I wondered IF any of them were to be homosexual - would my feelings change towards them ... would I hate them, would I disown them -- is it something that I would do wrong in raising them or is it just something that happens?  I realized that I would not feel any different about them - I wouldn't understand "why" they are homosexual - and I probably wouldn't care .... their health, well being and happiness comes first.  But I still don't want a Federal Law or Court Order telling me what I should believe and accept....there has to be another way.  I don't have a solution - just questions .. but I strongly object to the Federal Government telling me I have to accept - it has nothing to do with the current administration -- it's all administrations .. those jacka$$es  don't have a clue of what's going on.

That was actually a good way to put it- but what you are missing is that the "VOTE on Prop 8"  TOOK AWAY marriage rights for same sex couples- it didn't give them those rights.... These people already HAD the right to marry and people voted ( with a hell of a lot of "Church Money" behind them) to take those rights away.  It is the Federal Courts job to give those rights back as it is Unconstitutional to take away the rights of "specific target groups" of people.    That is the actual issue here- the Federal Government wouldn't be telling you what you have to accept- they would be giving the RIGHTS back to the ones that were stripped of them- plain and simple.

A majority vote doesn't mean it's Constitutional.  That's what the courts are FOR.

a majority vote means that it was decided by the majority, ever hear that old term majority rules? what was the purpose of the vote then?

so to the people who voted against gay marriage, overturning it wouldnt be discrimination to them? that's the problem with this country now days, dont hurt anybodys feelings, they have rights, why do they always have rights and the other side doesnt? not everybody gets a trophy

Janet -- I left the dictionary definition in the post for a couple of reasons -- one was to see who I could pi$$ off (but I don't feel like reading the posts to see who) and the other was to use it as an example.  When Puritans, Pilgrims and everyone else who first settled here, brought with them very strict religious rules and beliefs - which have been passed down through generations -- and you can see those beliefs in the dictionary.  I'm not saying they are right or wrong -- I'm just pointing out what the majority of people in this society believe -- again, I'm not judging right or wrong.  My thoughts are that it will take several generations for the dictionary definition to change.
Personally - when everyone was "coming out of the closet" - I hated it and my response was "show me a gay animal and I'll believe that this is natural with humans".  Since then, I have fathered 3 kids (that I admit to) and with each one I wondered IF any of them were to be homosexual - would my feelings change towards them ... would I hate them, would I disown them -- is it something that I would do wrong in raising them or is it just something that happens?  I realized that I would not feel any different about them - I wouldn't understand "why" they are homosexual - and I probably wouldn't care .... their health, well being and happiness comes first.  But I still don't want a Federal Law or Court Order telling me what I should believe and accept....there has to be another way.  I don't have a solution - just questions .. but I strongly object to the Federal Government telling me I have to accept - it has nothing to do with the current administration -- it's all administrations .. those jacka$$es  don't have a clue of what's going on.

I understand what you're saying, but the beauty of this country (despite it sometimes causing uproars like this one) is that our Founding Fathers, despite their own personal moral/religious beliefs, created founding documents that would allow for change in our society and that specifically called for a separation of church (religion and/or moral beliefs and values) and state (what US citizens can legally do and what rights we have).  
Even though I do feel very strongly about this particular issue for various personal reasons, any issue that arises that has any religious or moral undertones sparks me to action, and gets my blood boiling.  If we were to use Christianity and the Bible as our point of reference for all of our laws, would kind of society would we live in?  Divorce would be illegal, sex outside of marriage (and even sex during marriage without the specific purpose of reproduction) would be illegal, birth control would be outlawed, our non-Christian citizens would be outcasts and perhaps jailed if we really ran our nation literally by Biblical rules.  For as much as I agree with you that our nation was built on many Christian (although most are NOT solely Christian) principles, according to the most important documents pertaining to our country's "law of the land", NO religion should interfere with the rules of running our nation.  
As for what you believe and choose to accept, that's up to you.  But, quite frankly, our government passes laws all the time, or just takes actions, that you may or may not agree with or want to accept.  I didn't agree with the war in Iraq (still don't), but as a US citizen, I had to accept it.  It happens all the time.  

a majority vote means that it was decided by the majority, ever hear that old term majority rules? what was the purpose of the vote then?

so to the people who voted against gay marriage, overturning it wouldnt be discrimination to them? that's the problem with this country now days, dont hurt anybodys feelings, they have rights, why do they always have rights and the other side doesnt? not everybody gets a trophy

 What interests me is the question is, is gay marriage constitutional? And some people just state their opinion on the issue of gay marriage in general-- which has nothing to do with its constitutionality. Maybe I don't like that the creepy dude next door is gone to a gun show today, but that doesn't change the fact that he's got a constitutional right to own a gun. Maybe I don't like the WBC holding up "God Hates Fags" signs across the street from a local high school, but my opinion of their opinion doesn't change the fact that they have First Amendment rights to both peacefully assemble and speak freely.

Gay marriage is a) not unconstitutional, because the Constitution says nothing about marriage and b) outlawing it could be construed as discrimination, which would be unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment and ample civil rights legislation since then.

I understand what you're saying, but the beauty of this country (despite it sometimes causing uproars like this one) is that our Founding Fathers, despite their own personal moral/religious beliefs, created founding documents that would allow for change in our society and that specifically called for a separation of church (religion and/or moral beliefs and values) and state (what US citizens can legally do and what rights we have).  
Even though I do feel very strongly about this particular issue for various personal reasons, any issue that arises that has any religious or moral undertones sparks me to action, and gets my blood boiling.  If we were to use Christianity and the Bible as our point of reference for all of our laws, would kind of society would we live in?  Divorce would be illegal, sex outside of marriage (and even sex during marriage without the specific purpose of reproduction) would be illegal, birth control would be outlawed, our non-Christian citizens would be outcasts and perhaps jailed if we really ran our nation literally by Biblical rules.  For as much as I agree with you that our nation was built on many Christian (although most are NOT solely Christian) principles, according to the most important documents pertaining to our country's "law of the land", NO religion should interfere with the rules of running our nation.  
As for what you believe and choose to accept, that's up to you.  But, quite frankly, our government passes laws all the time, or just takes actions, that you may or may not agree with or want to accept.  I didn't agree with the war in Iraq (still don't), but as a US citizen, I had to accept it.  It happens all the time.  

Prop 8 attorney Chuck Cooper, "argued that several court rulings in other states have recognized that instituting same-sex "marriage" essentially changes the definition of marriage as understood in common law, and that California has always understood marriage to be between a man and a woman. He also argued that marriage was a public institution of key import to the stability of a society, rather than a matter of private choice."

a majority vote means that it was decided by the majority, ever hear that old term majority rules? what was the purpose of the vote then?

marriage and its meaning has been expanded over time.....people use it to refer to business mergers, , business partners, food, and many other issues...as we know there has been many amendments to our constitution. when the discrimination laws were passed it ensured  that all americans live by the same set of rules ,period. that is what made the prop invalid,,because it infringed on a person's constitutional rights...you can not vote in a law to contradicts the rights of all americans because you may have a moral issue with it.weather calif has understood marriage to be soley between a man and a woman is trumped by the constitional right tht all people have the same rights and freedoms.... since gay marraige would not legally cause any legal diress to anyone,or threaten our health or well being the right must be upheld,thusthe hih courts involvement(constitional rights)..weather we agree or not isnt the issue...

Janet -- I left the dictionary definition in the post for a couple of reasons -- one was to see who I could pi$$ off (but I don't feel like reading the posts to see who) and the other was to use it as an example.  When Puritans, Pilgrims and everyone else who first settled here, brought with them very strict religious rules and beliefs - which have been passed down through generations -- and you can see those beliefs in the dictionary.  I'm not saying they are right or wrong -- I'm just pointing out what the majority of people in this society believe -- again, I'm not judging right or wrong.  My thoughts are that it will take several generations for the dictionary definition to change.
Personally - when everyone was "coming out of the closet" - I hated it and my response was "show me a gay animal and I'll believe that this is natural with humans".  Since then, I have fathered 3 kids (that I admit to) and with each one I wondered IF any of them were to be homosexual - would my feelings change towards them ... would I hate them, would I disown them -- is it something that I would do wrong in raising them or is it just something that happens?  I realized that I would not feel any different about them - I wouldn't understand "why" they are homosexual - and I probably wouldn't care .... their health, well being and happiness comes first.  But I still don't want a Federal Law or Court Order telling me what I should believe and accept....there has to be another way.  I don't have a solution - just questions .. but I strongly object to the Federal Government telling me I have to accept - it has nothing to do with the current administration -- it's all administrations .. those jacka$$es  don't have a clue of what's going on.

If "weather we agree or not isn't the issue" what is the purpose of this thread?

so to the people who voted against gay marriage, overturning it wouldnt be discrimination to them? that's the problem with this country now days, dont hurt anybodys feelings, they have rights, why do they always have rights and the other side doesnt? not everybody gets a trophy

Some one-liners:

-Gay people can have my marriage if they want it. 
-I support equal rights, let them suffer too!
-Iowa allows gay marriage for tourism purposes, why else would anyone want to come here?
-Can a gay man marry a gay woman?
-Iowa more progressive than California, now that's rich.  Suck it Becky, Iowa rules!

 I figure Iowans have stared at enough queer steers to become more accepting-- that, and they're looking for means to increase the state population. 

 I figure Iowans have stared at enough queer steers to become more accepting-- that, and they're looking for means to increase the state population. 

if it is legal or not legal

BS we already know discrimination is against the law.

marriage and its meaning has been expanded over time.....people use it to refer to business mergers, , business partners, food, and many other issues...as we know there has been many amendments to our constitution. when the discrimination laws were passed it ensured  that all americans live by the same set of rules ,period. that is what made the prop invalid,,because it infringed on a person's constitutional rights...you can not vote in a law to contradicts the rights of all americans because you may have a moral issue with it.weather calif has understood marriage to be soley between a man and a woman is trumped by the constitional right tht all people have the same rights and freedoms.... since gay marraige would not legally cause any legal diress to anyone,or threaten our health or well being the right must be upheld,thusthe hih courts involvement(constitional rights)..weather we agree or not isnt the issue...

The courts you say. The Roberts Court has systematically dismantled the legal protections that help ordinary people find justice when wronged by the economically powerful.

In Stoneridge, it stripped shareholders of their ability to get their money back from the firms that helped defraud them.

In Conkright, it gave employers more leeway to deny workers their pension benefits.

In Leegin, it made it harder for small business owners to stop price fixing under the Sherman Act.   Now, the burden is on them—small business owners—to show that price fixing will hurt competition.

In Iqbal, it made it harder for everybody to get their day in court.

In Exxon, it capped punitive damages resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill because, get this, having to own up to your mistakes creates "unpredictability" for corporations.  Which, by the way, means that BP’s liability may be capped because the Court doesn’t want to cause an unpredictable impact on its future profitability.

In Rapanos, it cut huge swaths of wetlands out of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands that had been covered for 30 years. By the way that covers Gulf Coast wetlands. 

In Citizens United, the Roberts Court overstepped its procedural bounds so that it could graciously provide corporations with First Amendment rights and, by the way, open the door to foreign entities deciding our elections. Not satisfied with giving corporations a leg up on individuals under the law, the Roberts Court is trying to prevent the American people from fighting back.

It was Robert Bork who first popularized the notion that the Constitution should be interpreted according to what we believe was the "original understanding" of its authors. To bad that doesn't apply to all issues! I know all about "our"  "high courts" poop.

 What interests me is the question is, is gay marriage constitutional? And some people just state their opinion on the issue of gay marriage in general-- which has nothing to do with its constitutionality. Maybe I don't like that the creepy dude next door is gone to a gun show today, but that doesn't change the fact that he's got a constitutional right to own a gun. Maybe I don't like the WBC holding up "God Hates Fags" signs across the street from a local high school, but my opinion of their opinion doesn't change the fact that they have First Amendment rights to both peacefully assemble and speak freely.

Gay marriage is a) not unconstitutional, because the Constitution says nothing about marriage and b) outlawing it could be construed as discrimination, which would be unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment and ample civil rights legislation since then.

"they're looking for means to increase the state population."   via gay marriage? Now that's funny!
 

I assume you think it's funny because gay spouses won't reproduce. But simply drawing new residents does indeed increase the population-- plus many view gay couples as having a reputation for caring more than most about the appearance and attractiveness of their homes and neighborhoods, which ultimately increases property values and draws even more people. Plus, they can adopt, you know (and gay women have further choices).

I assume you think it's funny because gay spouses won't reproduce. But simply drawing new residents does indeed increase the population-- plus many view gay couples as having a reputation for caring more than most about the appearance and attractiveness of their homes and neighborhoods, which ultimately increases property values and draws even more people. Plus, they can adopt, you know (and gay women have further choices).

...... AND who appointed Chief Justice Roberts?     Along with Justice Alito that gave Roberts the 5-4 advantage he needed????    Maybe-  it's just a guess- but I would venture to say that a Democrat President didn't appoint those two nut bags-  just a thought......

Agreed ... and most of my gay friends don't really care if it's called marriage or not.  They just want the rights that they deserve.  However, for those who DO care and want it to be called marriage, I get their side of it, too.

I assume you think it's funny because gay spouses won't reproduce. But simply drawing new residents does indeed increase the population-- plus many view gay couples as having a reputation for caring more than most about the appearance and attractiveness of their homes and neighborhoods, which ultimately increases property values and draws even more people. Plus, they can adopt, you know (and gay women have further choices).

Thank you.   I'll be the one holding the door open.

your assumption is incorrect. I was thinking about research that shows homosexual lifestyle leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems.
ref:
Int. J. Epidemiol. 26:657-661.
Psychol. Rep. 83:847-66.
Psychol. Rep. 91:671-678
Federal Distortion Of Homosexual Footprint (Ignoring Early Gay Death?)