Moore's Bill likely to Pass - Page 3

slang · 02-23-2004, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Except to homosexuals, who cant get married, based on their gender.

This idea keeps circulating in this debate, but they do have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Exactly the same right as the heteros have.

Shattered Soul · 02-23-2004, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Obviously? Christianity is the only religion that has a God?

I didn't say that. But it's god with a capital G, inferring that it is the god of Christianity. Few, if any, other religions refer to their deity as "God," proper name.

Our founders were a mixture of Christians and (what would've been, in the middle ages), heretical Christians. Therefore, the God they would have been referring to would be the Christian god. Otherwise, it would've said," in--Krishna/Buddha/Zeus/insert a god here--we trust"

But like I said, I don't care what's on the money, and neither does anyone else, unless you bring it up--then people turn into the most religous folks you ever saw.

Kitsune · 02-23-2004, 12:13 PM

If the endorsed religion thinks that something is a "sin," soon enough, we find that the religious supporters in government start trying to sneak in a law against it.

In most places this is already illegal. What irritates me is to see a constitution being abused by silly amendments. For us in Florida, the most recent fun article that was tacked on to the state constitution was that the local government must make plans and erect a high speed rail system linking Miami, Tampa, and Orlando. I tend to view the federal position in similar terms -- what business does the government have attempting to define a family unit through an amendment to the constitution? This is not the government's job and not what the constitution was intended to define.

"Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Say goodbye to domestic partner benefits if your area has them.

But this isn't an assault on homosexuals. Of course not! This is the "strengthening of the family and the father figure", something we all need. The removal of gay rights from the federal website is just a coincidence.

Kitsune · 02-23-2004, 12:25 PM

At least we aren't the only country experiencing the same debates.

Earlier this month, Lord's Resistance Army rebels killed about 50 people during an attack on a refugee camp north of the Ugandan capital, Kampala. The group has waged a 17-year insurgency in northern Uganda, aimed at overthrowing the government and replacing it with an administration based on the Ten Commandments of the Bible.

At least we handle things a bit more peacefully in this country,

Happy Monkey · 02-23-2004, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by slang
This idea keeps circulating in this debate, but they do have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Exactly the same right as the heteros have.

That was true for interracial marriage, and separate water fountains, too. And yet, somehow people seemed to think their rights were being trampled.

wolf · 02-24-2004, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
That was true for interracial marriage,

It just wasn't done, but was it actually illegal? Certainly I expect that more than a few states had antimiscigenation laws, but was that written into the civil marriage act?

There was a bit of a scandal in my own family, you know ... great-grandpa is rumored to have been a protestant.

Happy Monkey · 02-24-2004, 07:08 AM

Yes, it was illegal in 42 states, down to 16 by the time the Supreme Court abolished the laws. I don't know how they handled "full faith and credit". I don't know if it was part of the marriage law, or a separate law - it could have been different in different states - but I don't see what difference it would make.

Kitsune · 02-24-2004, 09:52 PM

It just wasn't done, but was it actually illegal? Certainly I expect that more than a few states had antimiscigenation laws, but was that written into the civil marriage act?

As proof of how quickly our country (or some parts of it) advances, know that South Carolina had a ban on interracial marriages until 1998 and Alabama didn't remove their law until late 2000.

Its even more interesting to read that nearly 40% of the votes in AL that were cast on the issue were for keeping the law on the books.

02-24-2004, 07:08 AM	#37
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Yes, it was illegal in 42 states, down to 16 by the time the Supreme Court abolished the laws. I don't know how they handled "full faith and credit". I don't know if it was part of the marriage law, or a separate law - it could have been different in different states - but I don't see what difference it would make. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

02-23-2004, 12:13 PM	#33
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	If the endorsed religion thinks that something is a "sin," soon enough, we find that the religious supporters in government start trying to sneak in a law against it. In most places this is already illegal. What irritates me is to see a constitution being abused by silly amendments. For us in Florida, the most recent fun article that was tacked on to the state constitution was that the local government must make plans and erect a high speed rail system linking Miami, Tampa, and Orlando. I tend to view the federal position in similar terms -- what business does the government have attempting to define a family unit through an amendment to the constitution? This is not the government's job and not what the constitution was intended to define. "Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." Say goodbye to domestic partner benefits if your area has them. But this isn't an assault on homosexuals. Of course not! This is the "strengthening of the family and the father figure", something we all need. The removal of gay rights from the federal website is just a coincidence.

02-23-2004, 12:25 PM	#34
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	At least we aren't the only country experiencing the same debates. Earlier this month, Lord's Resistance Army rebels killed about 50 people during an attack on a refugee camp north of the Ugandan capital, Kampala. The group has waged a 17-year insurgency in northern Uganda, aimed at overthrowing the government and replacing it with an administration based on the Ten Commandments of the Bible. At least we handle things a bit more peacefully in this country,

02-24-2004, 09:52 PM	#38
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	It just wasn't done, but was it actually illegal? Certainly I expect that more than a few states had antimiscigenation laws, but was that written into the civil marriage act? As proof of how quickly our country (or some parts of it) advances, know that South Carolina had a ban on interracial marriages until 1998 and Alabama didn't remove their law until late 2000. Its even more interesting to read that nearly 40% of the votes in AL that were cast on the issue were for keeping the law on the books.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)