@Dwayneyou wrote:"Me and my wife have had numerous discussions
with our son who has repeatedly told us how concerned he has been over the
bigotry and discrimination he faces yet hes the one who keeps telling us that
forcing the issue judicially will do more harm than good, especially
emotionally"Dwayne, perhaps as a father you need to explain to
your son that "freedom and equality" are worth fighting for, and yes,
fights are extremely uncomfortable. However, if that is the price we have to pay
to achieve what heteroasexuals take for granted, then so be it.Comparing blacks and gays is perfectly valid. Of course, an anti-gay black
pastor will attempt to deny the simple fact that he can change the color of his
skin as much as an homosexual can change his sexual orientation.There are many gays who have been conditioned to believe there is something
wrong with them. Many express it. Fortunately, it doesn't make it true.We are all children of the same God. God knew what he was doing when he
made us all with our unique personalities. Homosexuals and Heterosexuals have
contributed to the development of our civilization.
7 billion humans on earth.To claim that gay marriage will destroy
the Human race as a species is absurd.While children wait for
adoption because the gender of their parents, did not or could not, raise them.
When it comes to what kind of union produces life, gender matters – it
matters a lot. The strength of that union is absolutely vital to the existence
of mankind, to families, to society, to nations. Any other kind of union, social
agency, adoption agency, etc. (wonderful as they are) is simply an appendage or
substitute due to its breakdown.
5thGenUtahn, The problem with your position is that the supposed sin
is just made up nonsense. Love and commitment by themselves are not sins in
anyone's book. And because no one chooses his/her sexual orientation (a
quick self-check reveals that fact through simple introspection), why is it that
love and commitment are fine for one combination but not another? Religious
blacks might be offended by the equation, but marriage equality is a civil
rights issue. Remember, interracial marriage was also viewed as a sin. But
viewed as a civil rights issue we now see the folly of our past.
I heard a quote from a black preacher recently who stated, "don't
compare the color of my skin with the nature of their sin", referring to
gays. Although gays may be born with a predisposition toward the sin of
homosexuality, it is no different than any other persons predisposition toward a
particular type of sinful behaivor. We are admonished to "take
up our cross", and given the agency to decide what we will choose. While we
are free to choose the action, we are not free to choose the consequences of
that action. Of course we should continue to show love and compassion to our
gay brothers and sisters, just as the Savior would. But this doesn't mean
we don't continue to stand for what is right.
Regardless of one's stance on gay marriage, equating the struggles that
black people endured with gays not being allowed "marriage" is wrong!
So if someone wants to challenge the constitutionality of a gun law the Supreme
Court should throw it out because the NRA is so politically powerful?
Dear Hmmm....I'm with Kalindra on this.But I would
add that you are right about one thing: There is an emotional argument in the
gay marriage debate. And that emotion is fear. Fear of gays, fear of the other.
Fear of gay marriage.You have not made rational arguments against
gay marriage because there aren't any. The prohibition of gay marriage
doesn't strengthen families. Nor does it change a gay person's sexual
orientation. Nor does it stop gay couples from living committed lives together.
Nor does it stop gays from having kids, as Kalindra pointed out.If
the government has a clear interest in strengthening families it won't be
done by invalidating some of them. It will be done by constructive measures
aimed at the divorce rate, safe and healthy homes, etc. And you have to concede
that a gay parent's capacity to love his or her child is not limited
because he or she is gay. The prohibition of gay marriage cannot accomplish any
of the things you would like to believe it will, and that is why it's
irrational to ban it.
@Hmmm....nice attempt at rewording an old argument but since homosexual
couples do have children and develop intergenerational bonds coupled with the
fact that there is strong evidence to support that such relations do produce
healthy high functioning members of society your argument as in the past falls
Not allowing consenting adults of the same gender to marry is an emotional
argument; not a legal one.Legally, proponents cry discrimination and
invoke the 14th amendments Equal Protection Clause. Keep in mind, government
must be able to discriminate - and it does - otherwise it could not regulate
human behavior. Nonetheless, government may not discriminate unreasonably.
Government must show that the distinction between gay marriage and traditional
marriage serves a compelling governmental interest and that the distinction is
related to achieving that goal for the discrimination to be reasonable.Government does have a compelling interest to sustain society and preserve its
future; achieved by strengthening and maintaining that kind of union that
creates and rears children and bonds us to past and future generations. Since
nature excludes gay unions from that objective, that kind of union as a whole
may properly be excluded from marriage.True, not all traditional
marriages are fertile - they needn't be. That governmental intervention
would conflict with the individuals right of privacy (the Supreme Court has
declared the right to privacy existence in cases centered on birth-control and
abortion). Government meets this important object by merely promoting what kind
of union qualifies for marriage.
@What is the Truth:No. That did not make it OK.
Leave it to the lawyers! At least they appear to understand that prohibiting gay
marriage can't be won in court, but they might prolong DOMA if they can
keep it in the political process. Their twisted argument seems to say "gays
are becoming so powerful that they will eventually get their way anyway so there
is no point in ruling on the matter," if the doom of DOMA is inevitable, why
are they wasting our resources trying to defend it?
@Tekakaromatagi Really?? So before the Civil Rights Movement,
blacks couldn't use the same water fountain as whites, so it's ok that
you could only use a water fountain for your "color"? Blacks
couldn't use the same bathrooms, go to white schools etc... That made it
ok? No, it didn't and not allowing two consenting adults of the same
gender to marry in a legal sense because you can't marry someone of the
same gender doesn't make it right (or ethical)
Gays have rights, just like the rest of us. I can't marry someone of the
same gender. Neither can they. I should not be able to 'marry'
someone of my gender neither should they because that would dilute the status of
marriage as being society's way to promote the value that children should
be raised by their biological parents whenever possible and that mean should be
responsible for the children that they father.
So what Clement is saying is that there was an issue where they needed court
protection, but the system dragged it out so long that it's no longer an
The supreme courts sounds like there are some on the bench inclined to use some
common sense and good jurisdictional decisions. This has been a good week for
the American people. There should be more prudence too in what items
the supreme court chooses to pass judgment. It seems that just about every law
and legislation is being sent to the supreme court before they even gets viewed,
reviewed, or passed by the houses of congress. No laws can pass that don't
go through the houses of congress. Monarchy and dictatorships are
unconstitutional heads of state and have no legislative powers.Team
Obama is getting slapped silly with all their aggressive and illegal maneuvering
of bills to try a bypass the congress and its about time. Lets hope that any
attempt to amend inalienable rights is also shot down as illegal legislation not
within the powers of the president or supreme court to change.Congress is the only ones that can approve constitutional changes with a
declared constitutional convention of all 50 states in attendance. The supreme
court and president cannot make decisions or judgment on the constitution or
bill of rights or declaration of Independence.
I think they just know there is no constitutional justification for denying gay
rights. If you want a theocracy then by all means secede from the USA and have