Gays Marry near New York

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...riage_new_york

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...riage_new_york

I quess if your a Mayor you can break the law.

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
I quess if your a Mayor you can break the law.

Everyone breaks some law daily. Just because a law exists does not mean that it can't be broken, it just means that penalties may exist if you do, are caught, prosecuted, and found guilty.

How many laws did you break today?

There's also such a thing as civil disobedience that is used to bring attention to laws that should be changed.

I don't know of any laws in recent memory that need changing more than one that only defines marriage as only between members of the opposite sex. Mayhaps some more civil disobedience is in order to bring this about.

[Joe Dillard]

Here's a nice quote:

"Now I'm normal and equal like every one else," he said.

[William]

Well, I was suckered into a quote. But the title of your post makes me think your a homophobe too.

Live by example before you condem others. There is a time when people will be judged, but you're not a person to do any judging.

I mean, you got your feelings hurt when pictures of your puppies didn't show up. C'mon.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by mrblaine
Everyone breaks some law daily. Just because a law exists does not mean that it can't be broken, it just means that penalties may exist if you do, are caught, prosecuted, and found guilty.

How many laws did you break today?

There's also such a thing as civil disobedience that is used to bring attention to laws that should be changed.

I don't know of any laws in recent memory that need changing more than one that only defines marriage as only between members of the opposite sex. Mayhaps some more civil disobedience is in order to bring this about.

So when I get pulled over for speeding I will declare civil disobedience how far will that get me?

I belive in a recent poll that 80% of the US population are agaisnt Gay marrage. It really looks if the US people where allowed to vote on this issue it would be a dead issue.

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
So when I get pulled over for speeding I will declare civil disobedience how far will that get me?

I belive in a recent poll that 80% of the US population are agaisnt Gay marrage. It really looks if the US people where allowed to vote on this issue it would be a dead issue.

You missed the point. Just because a law exists does not mean that it won't be broken.

If for example you have a place on an open stretch of road where they drop the speed limit by 40 MPH to something considered ridiculous, then you could grab the mayor, you and your buddy could go out there intentionally speed, get publicity for it, and try to get the law changed to reflect something more openminded and intelligent.

Yeah well, 80 percent of all hetero marriages are for the purpose of paying homage to some deity and procreation. I am not in that 80 percent, does that make my marriage any less valid?

It won't make it a dead issue any more that segregation was a dead issue the first time when 90 percent thought it was the "right" thing to do.

Bigotry is bigotry anyway you slice it.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by William
Well, I was suckered into a quote. But the title of your post makes me think your a homophobe too.

Live by example before you condem others. There is a time when people will be judged, but you're not a person to do any judging.

I mean, you got your feelings hurt when pictures of your puppies didn't show up. C'mon.

I agree with you that I am not the one to judge them. I am also not a "homophobe". I have freinds that are gay and they are people just like I am. I do not agree with there lifestyle and they know that and it is pretty clear in the Bible and Koran that I have a leg to stand on when disagreeing with there life style. Just because I'm not there creator does not mean that I can't take a stand agaist there sin. I noting judging them just taking a stand agaist sinful acts.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by mrblaine

Bigotry is bigotry anyway you slice it.

It's not bigotry it's sin nothing more nothing less.

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
I agree with you that I am not the one to judge them. I am also not a "homophobe". I have freinds that are gay and they are people just like I am. I do not agree with there lifestyle and they know that and it is pretty clear in the Bible and Koran that I have a leg to stand on when disagreeing with there life style. Just because I'm not there creator does not mean that I can't take a stand agaist there sin. I noting judging them just taking a stand agaist sinful acts.

Alright, pick one. You can't say you are not judging them and then hold up a book of rules you have used to define your dislike of their lifestyle.

Without judgement is acceptance.

What exactly does the bible say that you plan on using in your judgement?

[JDLawhon]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
It's not bigotry it's sin nothing more nothing less.

According to your religion, maybe.

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
It's not bigotry it's sin nothing more nothing less.

At the risk of redundancy, (sorry JD) it is a sin according to your chosen religion.

Why is it a sin? What book of rules are you using specifically to define it as a sin?

[shmekelhead]

Originally posted by mrblaine
Everyone breaks some law daily.

And your ok with this ?

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by shmekelhead
And your ok with this ?

I kinda have to be if I wish to retain any semblance of sanity.

People break laws daily, we all do. Just because one exists, does not mean that it won't be broken.

My point was that Tracy attempted to make a huge deal over a mayor breaking a law. The mayor breaking that law is no different than my last 100 moving violations that I got away with.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by mrblaine
Alright, pick one. You can't say you are not judging them and then hold up a book of rules you have used to define your dislike of their lifestyle.

Without judgement is acceptance.

What exactly does the bible say that you plan on using in your judgement?

I can separate the person from the sin. Saying something is wrong is not judging them it's judging the act. If the act committed is wrong it's wrong. I use the Bible as a standard I myself cannot keep to the standard "I sin just like everyone else sins" "And my sin is equal to the sin of Homosexuality". You yourself have seen me sin and I take a stand against that also but I still do its human nature but it does not make it right. Hopefully I?m sinning less then I use to but it is a process of sanctification.

My Judgement, has been justified by Jesus nothing more nothing less.

Preach mode off

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
I can separate the person from the sin. Saying something is wrong is not judging them it's judging the act. If the act committed is wrong it's wrong. I use the Bible as a standard I myself cannot keep to the standard "I sin just like everyone else sins" "And my sin is equal to the sin of Homosexuality". You yourself have seen me sin and I take a stand against that also but I still do its human nature but it does not make it right. Hopefully I?m sinning less then I use to but it is a process of sanctification.

My Judgement, has been justified by Jesus nothing more nothing less.

Preach mode off

I was wondering if you would make the connection that your sin is equal to theirs and yours like theirs has been paid for by the blood of another.

I've often wondered why bigots in religion need something to make themselves feel superior and assign higher levels of sin to those different from themself.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by mrblaine
I kinda have to be if I wish to retain any semblance of sanity.

People break laws daily, we all do. Just because one exists, does not mean that it won't be broken.

My point was that Tracy attempted to make a huge deal over a mayor breaking a law. The mayor breaking that law is no different than my last 100 moving violations that I got away with.

Your totally right in this but it's not me making the big deal of it it is the daily news I just pointed it out because it was there. The daily news does not report when I speed or go through a red light but we have millons of veiwers see the mayor breaking the law. I see this and I say if he can why don't I but I'll choose the law I want to break that is my point.

[karstman]

Dictionary.com's definition of "marriage".

7 entries found for marriage.
mar?riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.


I find all these arguments ammusing.
I'm getting married in a few months. I'm Catholic, she's Catholic, but.... we're being wed by a jeeping friend, who is a judge, and is Jewish. Who'd of thunk it?

I could not care less about other's lifestyles, as long as it's not thrown in my face. Public display of sexuality is just that, regardless of orientation. Keep it in the bedroom.

I DO care that some judges and goverment officials have ~chosen~ to disregard the law they swore an oath to uphold. There is a difference betweek joe-shmo citizen speeding and a public official violating an oath of office, at least IMHO.

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
Your totally right in this but it's not me making the big deal of it it is the daily news I just pointed it out because it was there. The daily news does not report when I speed or go through a red light but we have millons of veiwers see the mayor breaking the law. I see this and I say if he can why don't I but I'll choose the law I want to break that is my point.

That's right, the daily news does not care one whit that you break a law that should be in existence.

At some point though, society will determine that we need to progress to a different point and will exert civil disobedience to bring that about.

If the laws you and I break were in need of change, would we do the same? I would.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by mrblaine
I've often wondered why bigots in religion need something to make themselves feel superior and assign higher levels of sin to those different from themself.

Hopefully your not refering to me in this sentece I don't think you are. I 100% belive that all sin is eqaul. But I also belive that each person will be judged for that sin and there is only one way to pass that judgement.

[Paradiddle]

I read a quote from the Mayor of SF. He stated that he believed the California law prohibitting same sex marriage violated the constitution of California and the US that called for all people to be treated the same.

Civil disobediance.

Now - I wonder what would happen if a gun dealer started selling banned weapons to lawful citizens as an act of civil disobediance for the law that clearly violates the Constitution. My guess is he would be in jail within 10 minutes of someone talking about it.

Jeff

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by Paradiddle
I read a quote from the Mayor of SF. He stated that he believed the California law prohibitting same sex marriage violated the constitution of California and the US that called for all people to be treated the same.

Civil disobediance.

Now - I wonder what would happen if a gun dealer started selling banned weapons to lawful citizens as an act of civil disobediance for the law that clearly violates the Constitution. My guess is he would be in jail within 10 minutes of someone talking about it.

Jeff

[BlueJeeper]

"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

-Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by Rick Bernotas
"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

-Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

Who is being imprisoned injustly? With segregation there was something wrong because all people are equal, Gods law not mine. But I just don't see the injustist with this one. There is a huge difference between Gay marrage and Segregation. One is a life style one chooses and the other is people are people. One is Gods law one is against Gods laws. In our pledge it still states "one nation under God" Are we? or is this a sham.

[Paradiddle]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

READ THIS AMMENDMENT - THIS IS THE TYPE OF KNEE-JERK CONTROL OUR CURRENT GOVERNMENT IS TRYING

AMENDMENT XVIII
Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.

Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Basically Tracy you could make the argument that by prohibiting same sex marriages you are violating that person's constitutionally granted rights.

This has nothing to do with your God Tracy - the Consitution is framed without religion for a reason.

Jeff

[BlueJeeper]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
Who is being imprisoned injustly?

Tracy,

I have tried over and over to reply in a logical manner to reply to some of the comments you made in your post. I've failed.

So the only response I have for your above question is,

God.

Respectfully,
Rick

[meatblanket]

Originally posted by Paradiddle

Basically Tracy you could make the argument that by prohibiting same sex marriages you are violating that person's constitutionally granted rights.
Jeff [/B]

Jeff, that's an interesting point.

Let me ask you, though, if you think there is an argument that the right to marry a person of the same sex is a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, could you not also argue that US citizens have a fundamental right to marry 10 spouses at once, or marry their own children, dead people, animals, and inanimate objects?

I'm not suggesting where the line should be drawn, but just making the observation that most folks are going to want it drawn somewhere.

Mike S.

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

Originally posted by Paradiddle

Basically Tracy you could make the argument that by prohibiting same sex marriages you are violating that person's constitutionally granted rights.

This has nothing to do with your God Tracy - the Consitution is framed without religion for a reason.

Jeff

God resides outside of religion bottom line and we all fall under him like it or not. I am not disagreeing with what you are saying but here is something to think about. The Constitution leaves out religion because they did not want Government ruling the Church and they did not want the Church ruling Government I?m glad it is that way because the government screws enough things up. This was happening with the Catholic Church during that time in England and that is why religion is out of the constitution. But in modern day America this separation of church and state is viewed buy some like religion is the enemy and it is not. Go back 150 years the primary reading tool used in school was the Bible. This stated I believe that the writers of the constitution did want influence from God. It is see in many of are documents ?One Nation Under God? they wanted influence from God but did not want the Church running the country and did not want Government running the church. Just because the President has influence from God does not mean the Church is running the Country. If we turn are back on God we are no longer free.

[speaceman]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
It is see in many of are documents ?One Nation Under God? they wanted influence from God but did not want the Church running the country and did not want Government running the church. Just because the President has influence from God does not mean the Church is running the Country.

I am sorry to say that, at least on the issue of the constitutional amenment, I exactly see an instance where the "church" is trying to run the country.

What I see is a president forcing a constitutional amendment before there is time for a proper societal consensus to develop.

This societal concensus would develop by allowing the problem to be hashed out through the normal and proper channels for which this type of issue is supposed to be handled, the courts. There is a practical reason why it takes a long time for things to make it to the supreme court, and that reason is so that a developing societal consensus can trickle into the thinking of the courts.

Look at Roe v. Wade as an example. We as a country, are still trying to figure out where the line is with respect to abortion and the continuing court cases reflect that.

Do we need a constitutional amendment on abortion? Why do we need one on marriage?

Anyway, the president, pandering to his conservative christian power base for the upcoming election by offering to force the issue on gay marriage smacks exactly of the church running the state to me.

Further, I can't stomach the other benefit of the president's strategy of bringing up this constitutional amendment which is creating a smoke screen so that attention is focused away from the truely important issues that need to be dealt with this election such as Iraq, the economy, immigration issues, ect.

I was on the fence with the president and most likely, I was going to vote for him in the upcoming election. I can tell you just for this, he has most likely lost my vote. I don't think I can in good concience vote for him. I'll probably be taking the devil I don't know over the one that I do, in this upcoming election.

[John]

Deep thoughts