@Tators --"never trust any particular Supreme court's
interpretation...."This particular Supreme Court is the one
that's interpreting the Constitution right now, so it's the only one
we really need to be concerned with."God's word and his
laws are absolute."Religion changes just like anything else. The
LDS church believes in continuous revelation, remember?Even the
*Bible* tells us that God's laws change. The biggest example: a "new
covenant" was established in the New Testament (Hebrews 8:6-13 and several
others), which supplanted God's laws from the Old Testament.@Tators --"Its written very plainly..."Remember, the Old Testament laws were supplanted by the new covenant when
Jesus came along. And -- guess what -- Jesus never said a single
word against homosexuals. None of the four gospels even mentions homosexuality,
aside from one passage in which Jesus acknowledged that some men are born
"eunuchs" (Matthew 19:12).**Paul** did speak against
homosexuals -- but Paul was neither Jesus nor God. And, of course, Paul also
supported slavery (Col 3:22) and believed that women were inferior to men (1 Cor
14:34 and others) -- so do you really want to insist that *everything* Paul said
Also, you should never trust any particular Supreme court's interpretation
of the Constitution. That keeps changing every generation, depending on which
political party has added the majority of its judges. That's also why
God's word carries more weight with many people, since man's law keeps
changing with the political winds. God's word and his laws are absolute.
@Amazondoc:It doesn't take much biblical research to find out
that what I'm referring to is not just my interpretation. Its written very
plainly and is right to the point in both the new and old testaments. If you
have a difficult time, I will find the references for you. I'm writing this
from my phone and am not at home, or else I would find and reference some of the
quotes in this comment. I won't be home for awhile.
@Tators --"God has always condemned homosexuality rather than
condoned it."Regardless of what you might personally believe
about God's intentions, many religious people -- both gay and straight --
support gay marriage. In fact, a good number of Christian denominations, as well
as non-Christian churches, are already happy to marry gay couples in religious
ceremonies. There is no reason why your personal interpretation of
God should get to win over theirs, nor any reason why yours is automatically
more "true" than theirs."Neither will these weak
attempts to change the intended purposes of the original Constitution."Even the Supreme Court justices themselves referred to the Loving v.
Virginia case (the one that I quoted earlier) when they were discussing the DOMA
and Prop 8 cases in March.And, oddly enough, I trust them to know
more about Constitutional law than you do. ;-)
I totally agree with worf. God has always condemned homosexuality rather than
condoned it.The argument supporters are trying to use in the law were
written during a time when this was not even an issue at all, so was not being
addressed at all. Marriage between a man and a woman has always been the bedrock
foundation of society and always will be, regardless of every weak
rationalization made to the contrary, or how upset those who feel otherwise may
get. Arguing won't change those facts. Neither will these weak attempts to
change the intended purposes of the original Constitution.
@Jeff29 --"nothing that any of you have said, or quoted,
indicates that gay marriage (or even marriage is general) is a Constitutional
Right or Civil Right."In the case of Loving v. Virginia, 388
U.S. 1 (1967), the judges' decision states, in part:-----
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S.
535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this
fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications
embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the
principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to
deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The
Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be
restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the
freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the
individual and cannot be infringed by the State. -----Just
substitute "sexual orientation" for "race" now, and that
decision will apply word for word to gay marriage.
I personally oppose marriage, but support the rights of a State to make that
decision (although I would much rather have the people of the State make the
decision than the State Legislature).Regardless, nothing that any of
you have said, or quoted, indicates that gay marriage (or even marriage is
general) is a Constitutional Right or Civil Right.@Contrarius - you
said "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." My 13
year old son could use the same quote to claim that he should be able to legally
drive. You are misapplying this section.
@Worf --"Civil rights is the tool for gaining government
benefits. It's just that simple."Yeah, who cares about that
pesky old Constitution, anyway?
@worfI think it sad that you view the world in such narrow terms that you
beleive the only reason someone would want equal rights is to take from you
through the use of government.
Justifying is the tool for gaining civil rights.Civil rights is the
tool for gaining government benefits. It's just that simple.
@worfJustification? Why would gay people need to justify themselves, they
have done nothing that needs to be justified to you or anyone else,its simply
about equal rights.
Way to go Delaware!It's no surprise that the states legalizing
gay marriage are those with the highest education rates and lowest rates of
religion. Once one educates themselves about the topic (Worf?) it becomes
rather obvious we're trending in the right direction, even if Utah is one
of the last states to do so.
@worf --"Civil rights? Try justification."Civil
rights justify themselves."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..."Sound familiar?
;-)And if that one doesn't grab ya, try this one:"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."I can't
wait for the Supreme Court decisions next month. Exciting times are ahead!
Civil rights? Try justification.
@worf --"This is something to be proud of?"Yup.
The formal recognition of civil rights most certainly IS something to be proud
This is something to be proud of?
thank you Delaware
Gooo, Delaware!Next up -- Minnesota and Illinois!