For those of you on FB...

[colo-pr]

Thanks a lot!

[Teufelhund]

Seeing as how there is no mention of marriage in the Consitition and no power given to the ffederal government regarding the topic, I don't see how the two are connected.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think government should be involved in the institution of marriage/civil unions at all.

The overall theme of your buddy's post is that the people should vote on the issue and the majority wins the day. The Liberals feel this exact same way about gun-ownership. That is democracy and it is not how this country was designed to operate. The rights of the minority are protected from the opinion of the majority in our republic. Also, just because something does not appear in the Bill of Rights does not mean it is a right the people can be denied (ref. the Ninth Amendment).

[BigDee]

[th3w01f]

Some of you are missing the point of FB. The only fun part is figuring out how many relatives will defriend you.

We’ve only lost two so far, both aunts who were teachers and both for asking simple questions about the union. I spent 5 years as part of the CWA (Communications Workers of America) and one of my good friends was a VP in the CWA. I was only asking what they thought the teachers union was doing to making things better for the children and I got a bunch of hate and slogans back. At family gatherings now parts of the family take a wide path and only speak in hushed tones about us.

Those of you who have seen my posts know that I’m not overly argumentative; I’ve never called Jim a dick or an ass on the forum. I mean that with the utmost respect which I have for Jim even though it seems he tries to go out of his way to disagree with me even though we're making the same point.

[Blockhead]

Some of you are missing the point of FB. The only fun part is figuring out how many relatives will defriend you.

We’ve only lost two so far, both aunts who were teachers and both for asking simple questions about the union. I spent 5 years as part of the CWA (Communications Workers of America) and one of my good friends was a VP in the CWA. I was only asking what they thought the teachers union was doing to making things better for the children and I got a bunch of hate and slogans back. At family gatherings now parts of the family take a wide path and only speak in hushed tones about us.

Those of you who have seen my posts know that I’m not overly argumentative; I’ve never called Jim a dick or an ass on the forum. I mean that with the utmost respect which I have for Jim even though it seems he tries to go out of his way to disagree with me even though we're making the same point.

Isn't it amazing how intolerant the "tolerant" side can be? I find it intolerable.

[gnihcraes]

Yep, just logged on... didn't see many of those, until I scrolled down a bit. Sister in Law has it, cousin is posting the image. I've changed my profile pic and commented on theirs. We'll see what happens. haha

Oh and my niece has it too.

[Bailey Guns]

I got news for those of you who believe gay marriage denies rights to others. The biggest losers in this whole debate once the federal government gets involved are ALL people. We'll all lose a little bit of freedom once the SCOTUS decides gay marriage is a right.

This isn't about, or shouldn't be about, denying rights to gay couples. This is about an overreaching federal government that's about to take more liberties and freedoms from all of us because a liberal special interest has brainwashed the masses into believing their lies once again.

The post above by Rooskibar03 is right on.

[brobar]

The biggest losers in this whole debate once the federal government gets involved are ALL people.

ONCE the federal government gets involved? One would think the government has already been involved in "marriage" by giving tax benefits, estate planning benefits, government benefits, employment benefits, medical benefits, death benefits, family benefits, housing benefits. Marriage is an institution and belief. I'm one who believes the government should NOT be involved in beliefs. The best way to get government OUT OF the marriage business is to send the term "marriage" back to the chapel, where many think it belongs, and make everyone get civil unions if they want the benefits that go along with it. That should be a win-win. You get equality on all fronts and the term "traditional marriage" is saved. Why anyone would want the government involved in their religious beliefs is beyond me. I don't want MORE government... I want LESS government. Take marriage away from the government... it doesn't belong there. Get your civil union if you want the benefits (and one could argue why we even have couples benefits to begin with)... and if you don't care about the benefits... you don't have to get a civil union. You still have the option to get married in a chapel with the blessings of the god of your choice in the presence of your friends and family without the government having any say in it (because they should not have a say in it). Why should you have to pay a fee to the government if you choose to exercise your religious right?

[Inconel710]

I agree with Rooskiebar's cynicism about the politics of gay marriage. However, I'm also hoping SCOTUS comes down against DOMA as I see that piece of legislation as an over-reach and violation of the 1A. The Episcopal Church recognizes gay marriage, who is Congress to tell them otherwise?

OTOH - I'd like to see SCOTUS support Prop 8 in CA. Californians voted and ammended their constitution to restrict. Maryland voted to allow. It's a Republic - you can move if you don't like it. Or run your own ammendment campaign to reverse the decision.

[Ronin13]

<p>
So I have a question about this part. I have heard the marriage is a religious definition argument as a reason not to allow gay marriage. However, there is a multitude of religions out there, so saying that MY religion defines marriage as a hetero union subjugates all other religions and their beliefs. I am guessing there is probably at least one religion that gives the nod (pun intended) to gay marriage, so does that mean the religious definition argument is null and void? The sudden appearance of all the pink equal signs bugs me, because I am not sure why all these people care SO much about it. As I have stated before, I could not give two shits about gay marriage, but I am always up for a discussion.</p>

There is this:
The government defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." That is a legal definition (1 USC § 7). Civil unions are legal contracts between partners that are recognized by a state or government as conferring all or some of the rights conferred by marriage, but without the implicit historical and religious meaning associated with the word "marriage."
The term marriage comes from the bible- that's where it began, as a Judeo-Christian idea that formed the bonds of holy matrimony between a man and wife. That is all. So if one "religion" calls it a marriage, that is in effect changing the Christian definition of the word. US Code has it clearly defined as I posed above.

These people don't want "equal" rights for all- they want their cake, and fuck everybody else. That's all I see here. Give them the legal rights entitled to a couple who has engaged in a legally binding matrimonial contract (aka Civil Union) and call it good, but don't change the definition... Liberals are like that mouse in the story, if you give them a cookie, they're going to ask for a glass of milk.