RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News



Message

Alumbrado -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/11/2008 3:44:55 PM)

'Marriage' is no more a religious word or concept than is birth, or death. If it were, there would be no need to have a separate sacramental ceremony for it.
Since these things are part of routine human life, the government issues birth, marriage, and death certificates for civil purposes, even to people who have no religious affiliation at all.

And the debate is on whether to make the government issue those civil licenses to all, or only to some. Do some reading on terra nullius, if you don't think the a government ever tried to deny the births of people.

Marriage is a civil institution, so once again,  you are setting yourself up to be asked 'What's your point?'



TheHungryTiger -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/11/2008 4:01:05 PM)

Then its an issue of semantics then ..... Ok, then to take a cue from the episode of South Park "starving marvin in space" let me re-explain my position.

I do not suport marklar and I do not suport marklar. This is because I think marklar is difrent than marklar. However, I will admit that marklar and marklar are the same. People have the right to marklar and people have the right to marklar. I do not suport a ban on marklar or marklar but I do suport a ban on marklar. Just because someone wants marklar dosent meen they should also be getting marklar. Give them a marklar to show they have got marklar but dont give them a marklar also. I think things would be a lot better if we got the government out of marklar, marklar, marklar, and marklar and had the government only be involved in marklar.

The ironic thing is, by explaining it this way I am LESS likely to have others assume I am using a word in a way other than what I meant.



Alumbrado -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/11/2008 4:16:04 PM)

I think you meant Alice in Wonderland, not South Park.



AmbrosialWench -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (6/23/2008 10:58:28 AM)

I do not personally believe in marriages of same sex couples. But at the same time don't really count civil marriages as actually marriages either so fine. However, I am aware of two large companies that allow life partner statis for same sex couples but will not allow it for heterosexual couples. Also, I have inquired before my previous marriage(now divorced) if I could keep the gov't out of the marriage and have only a religious marriage and was told no at my Church. I had friends then inquire of their churches and the answer was also no. Most were main stream churches. 



masctight -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (7/9/2008 6:55:05 PM)

Hello, I am very new with this fun site....I am very proud to say amen to same sex marriage in california.  Its about dam time.  I am proud to be who I am.



masctight -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (7/9/2008 6:58:13 PM)

While I am proud I am not residing in california,  I am in ohio.  That won't fly here.  But as the saying goes, first goes california so goes the nation........amen....for all my brothers out there



QuietPeppermint -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (7/9/2008 11:58:11 PM)

I was about to say that doesn't make sense, but it's not just priests who can marry people, though that is often the case. I think non-religious figures are allowed to marry people too... judges ?

Can a judge refuse to marry a homosexual couple ? If so, would that give a couple a right to file a lawsuit for discrimination ?



TheHungryTiger -> RE: "California court says gay marriages can proceed" (7/10/2008 6:37:52 AM)

A judge can do marklar but can not do marklar. It is imposible for a judge to refuse to do marklar since they couldent do marklar in the first place. But if a judge refused to do marklar they could be used in a discrimination suit.

Except in california that is. Before marklar, california already had marklar as well as marklar. A judge could do marklar but not marklar. A priest/minister historicaly used to do marklar but are now doing marklar (I personaly think this is a violation of the seperation fo church and state. Religious figures shouldent be doing marklar in the first place.) If a priest refused to do marklar you could file a discrimination case, but if a priest refused to do marklar you couldent file a discrimination case.

This ruling changes that. California having both marklar as well as marklar was ruled as unconstitutional. Now california only has marklar. Like AmbrosialWench pointed out, straight couples who wanted marklar but did not want marklar could not get it done. Their only option was marklar. Before this ruling california already had marklar. Gay couples wanting marklar but not marklar could get marklar. They just only have mark marklar.

I do believe that marklar and marklar should be the same. But I disagree strongly that marklar and marklar shoudl be the same. 



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.1171875