Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Gay marriage has little to do with 2 peoples devotion to each other. Any 2 people can live together and share there lives together.
Its about money. Being able to share insurance, being able to share SS benifits, and being able to make legal decisions for each other.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams
Isn't this a question of definition?
What does marriage mean? Excluding the definition I would use based on the source I would choose, leaves me with this source as one of many possible alternative sources: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage?s=t
Ultimately, marriage is a legal contract made by two parties as defined by the laws of a given political entity, i.e. county, city, incorporated jurisdiction.
Regardless of what a particular group thinks or feels about marriage, the only legally enforceable definition of marriage must be decided by the political entity that provides the marriage license.
Given the nature of most democratic political entities, a majority of voting citizens within a particular political entity, SHOULD (not always true) determine how that political entity defines marriage.
This is an interesting area of US law. I am not a legal scholar, so this is the quickest reference I could come up with:
"Between two different States in the United States, enforcement is generally required under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" (Article IV, Section 1) of the U.S. Constitution, which compels a State to give another State's Judgment an effect as if it were local. This usually requires some sort of an abbreviated application on notice, or docketing. Between one State in the United States, and a foreign country, Canada, for example, the prevailing concept is comity. The Court in the United States, in most cases, will unilaterally enforce the foreign judgment, without proof of diplomatic reciprocity, either under judge-made law or under specific statutes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforce...eign_judgments
The subject is interesting and obviously arouses great emotion for persons who have something at stake.
Be safe.
Be true to your Family and Friends! A handshake, and your word is all it takes!!
delete
Last edited by HBARleatherneck; 12-25-2012 at 12:48.
I don't care one way or the other. Same sex couples should be able to share health benefits and any other medical or legal benefits heterosexual couples enjoy.
The issue i do have is a same sex couple demanding a House of Worship perform a wedding for them. IF the church does not want to perform one great, their choice. Do not threaten court action, protest, etc just because you cannot get your way.
Get married at the courthouse, justice of the peace, even vegas. Just don't force a religious entity to do something they are opposed to.
The Great Kazoo's Feedback
"when you're happy you enjoy the melody but, when you're broken you understand the lyrics".
Can't we just go straight to the root of the issue and ask why the hell does the state/govt have to be involved with marriage in the first place.
What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?
-- Ayn Rand, Anthem (Chapter 11)
Because it is sick and wrong. And so is anybody who supports it.
And before some ignorant idiot says I'm a homophobe, I'm not. Anybody that knows me knows I'm not afraid of shit. That's just another term the libbies used that too many of you wanna be right-wingers have adopted.
And if anybody needs a common sense answer, it's quite simple. It is unnatural. Same sex cannot reproduce, which is why we have sex organs anyways.
Duh.
My only reason for the state getting involved is for a historical reference. Placing rules and stipulations on what marriage is, is a different story.Originally Posted by asmotao
Micheal HoffHard times make strong men
Strong men create good times
Good times create weak men
Weak men create hard times
+1
It's the whole "you WILL accept what we believe" thing. It's veiled in the name of tolerance but it is actually demanding acceptance. I still think a business owner ought to be able to refuse service to any one for any reason. If it's a stupid reason, then that business just wont get patronized and will close its doors. Capitalism at its finest.
Gay marriage won't have the slightest effect on my straight marriage. Y'all have at it!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote