Same-sex marriage will not change a single day-to-dy thing for Americans

In declining to rule in Hollingsworth, the Supreme Court held that there is no harm done to heterosexual couples by the law allowing homosexual couples to marry. The dissent to the Hollingsworth ruling did not dispute the claim asserted by the majority that there was an injury suffered by the heterosexuals, instead, the dissent focuses solely on the initiative process and does not address the injury.

Same-sex marriage will be legalized within the next three to five years. That is an inevitability that cannot be escaped. The United States Supreme Court has already invalidated the federal ban on same-sex marriage, not on Tenth Amendment grounds that so many conservatives seem to think, but on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Since the Fourteenth Amendment is equally applicable to both the Federal and State governments, the exact same rationale that caused the Federal government's ban to be eliminated, so too would the bans in every state.

Now, some of the bolder, or dumber, conservatives like to claim that, by allowing same-sex marriage, the federal government is forcing them to recognize same-sex marriage and accept it. That is simply not true. Overturning same-sex marriage bans does nothing more than require that marriage laws be applied irrespective of gender. Gay marriage opponents already know a gay couple when they see them, so recognition isn't an issue, and acceptance, well, nobody is forcing people to accept that the President is the President. The only thing the eventual striking down of the bans will do is reinforce, yet again, that discrimination and religious-based morals cannot be codified into law.

Gay marriages in the Bible Belt aren't going to lead to divine vengeance being visited on the United States no more than eliminating slavery or allowing interracial marriage did. Gay marriage will also not result in incestuous, bestial, or child marriage being eventually recognized.

 

For those of you who are putting forth prophecies of doom as the result of same sex marriage, let me tell you a story. Marriage equality recently came to NJ by edict of a state judge. As in many places, it had been a devise political issue in the past. Now, that its reality, there does not seem to be much discussion about it anymore at all. It was a much more contentious issue before the ruling. This despite the fact that it is not totally settled because there will likely be further court and/or legislative action in the future. Nevertheless, while there may be some behind the scenes maneuvering going on, the people of NJ have largely put it behind them.

Now it so happens that I have neighbors-two men, next door to me who are now planning to marry. Most people around here are not even aware of the fact that they are a gay couple. Those who do don’t care. That includes neighbors on the other side of them who have a religious objection to same sex marriage However that does not stop them from accepting these men as members of the community, neighbors and even friends. Like my wife and I, they will attend the wedding reception, although they may skip the ceremony. I think that’s reasonable. They are mature and rational enough to understand that one may hold their religious beliefs and moral principles without condemning and rejecting others who don’t share those beliefs. They understand that it’s wrong to expect others to live according to their rules.

Unfortunately, too many others do not display that level of maturity, but rather continue to whine like a two year old over the issue.

Meanwhile, life here goes on. I’m still straight married and that marriage still has as much value and meaning as it always has, and nobody is asking to marry their dogs or their siblings. The weather is not worse than usual and in fact, unlike in most years, we’ve avoided any natural disasters. The banks are still open and there have been no riots. No clergy people have been arrested or sued for refusing to perform gay weddings and the schools are not being required to teach first graders how to have gay sex. So, people, get the hell over it!

 

School Children Taught About Gay Foreplay, Saran Wrap

First couple consider legal challenge to Church’s gay marriage opt-out

 

What "gay foreplay" were the students taught about? I don't know about any foreplay that is exclusive to gays. The idea about Saran wrap is ingenious and has applicability for heterosexual acts as well, it's what I would term a "life hack". Condoms can be expensive, and you might run out, but most people tend to have plastic wrap in their kitchen. Plastic wrap and a little canola oil and you've got a makeshift condom. Also, teenagers are sexually active, that is not some secret that is Earth-shattering at this point in time, and given the fact that there's shows dealing with teen moms, I hardly see it as a problem limited to the homosexual community. Many teenagers might be too nervous or shy to go to a drug store and buy a pack of condoms, so this tip may help prevent teen pregnancy. If it stops just one teen pregnancy, it's entirely worth it.

First off, that is in England, where the Church of England is the state religion. Their legal system, while related to ours, may be different and could permit such a suit. Our codified Freedom of Religion would more than likely bar such a lawsuit.

Secondly, that article says they were only considering legal action, not that they filed a suit or that they won the lawsuit and the court ordered the church to marry the couple.

Thirdly, the article mentions the English same-sex marriage law that had received Royal Assent the month before, and is slated to go in effect this month, has a "quadruple lock" that would protect churches from being sued to compel recognition of same-sex marriages, thus the suit may be dismissed if it was ever filed.

No religion should be compelled by an external force to recognize something they do not want to, that is the flip side of the coin that says laws for a secular society should not be dictated by a religion. If the state recognizes same-sex marriage, as any government adhering to the principles of equal protection should, that should be more than sufficient for those wishing to enter into a same-sex marriage.

 

I was wondering what sort of excuse you would come up with to defend something that you said hadn't happened in the first place and you didn't disappoint! "Life-Hack!" Ha!

Europe is a bit ahead of us on this, there is another similar case in Denmark that I know of and probably many other cases going on that I'm not aware of. When it hits the US, and it will, you will be on this forum vigorously defending it. I imagine your argument will be along these lines: "If these so called churches want to discriminate against gays, then they can do it without their tax exemption." There may be other arguments as well, since gays love to hate the church, but my bet is you'll go for their tax exemption first.

Your thread title belies what you are so vigorously defending in the Brewer Vetoes Ant- Gay bill thread. You do in fact want SSM to alter my life, to force me to acknowledge something that I just don't think is a real thing, conduct my business on the basis of your beliefs, and force the religious to participate in what for them could be a mockery of what they hold sacred. In fact, as far as SSM goes, that seems to be the whole point. Oh if only you guys really would leave me alone like you all promised before gay marriage became inevitable!

 

What have I said hasn't happened?

I won't defend something I don't believe in. Forcing a church to adopt a policy their theology is against is something I oppose as long as the policy is not something infringing the rights of persons. For example, the example you proffered, the Church of England refusing to recognize their marriage does not infringe the rights of the people not recognized, because as of the end of this month, they will be able to marry in a civil ceremony.

I am not religious in a way most theists would recognize, but I do believe that, as long as a religious institution is independent of the civic institutions or has a modicum of religious freedom guaranteed to the adherents of the religion, they should not, and cannot be compelled to endorse same-sex marriage in any way, shape, or form. From where I stand, gay marriage being recognized by the civil authorities is the entire extent of where the fight for same-sex marriage should go.

I don't know what I am so vehemently defending in the Brewer thread, I only posted once to that thread, and that was several days ago to point out that had she signed the bill, her political career would have been over once she left the Governor's mansion at the end of her term, because I do not see her playing that down in this day and age.

Are you, perchance, referring to the Texas thread? That one I have been quite vehement on. I have been making the point that, despite what is commonly claimed, the States under the Constitution have no rights. I started a thread on that to point out that Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution for just that reason. I am not opposed to states having rights. I am opposed to those who claim that the States have rights under the Constitution of 1787, when that phraseology is not found in the document. It is my belief that the intention was for states not to have rights, else the Tenth Amendment would have used the word "right". The word "rights" was used in the amendment immediately preceding the Tenth, but is conspicuously absent from the Tenth. Or maybe I'm using the wrong term, conspicuous, since it seems to be so obviously overlooked.

Whether or not there is or there is not state's rights, the language within the Fourteenth Amendment contains no exceptions. If a law is found to be unequal within the law, the law is null and void.

Gay marriage isn't about mocking straights, it's only when bigots try to flaunt their discrimination that you guys get mocked. If you'd just accept the fact that letting gays marry in a civil ceremony will not invalidate or cause any detriment to your religious marriage, then there'd be less mockery.

Gay marriage, like many heterosexual marriages, is an institution entered into on the basis of deep and mutual love of the parties for one another. Unlike the key argument so often relied on as of late, procreation is not the purpose for marriage. It is a purpose, but not the sole purpose. Yes, without the myriad benefits afforded married couples, the issue would not be as vehemently pushed as it has been, but that is the nature any time there is discrimination in society.

If you don't want to do business with gays, then don't have a business that is open to the public, simple as that. If you operate a business that is open to the public, then that, to me, means you cannot discriminate in any way the government cannot.

 

School children are being given sex education, to prevent STD and pregnancy.
That is a GOOD thing!

And why don't you provide a FACTUAL link about "the first couple considering legal challenge to Church's gay marriage opt-out?"

Obviously. . .you can't! Now. . .maybe you can find this in a Tabloid? Or in one of the hateful Extreme Right trashy propaganda articles?

 

As far as your "states rights" argument goes, that's probably among the more dumb ones I've encountered. It belies an ignorance of the constitution. It's not unexpected however. We've debated the constitution before, and your "knowledge" of it seems to spring from an imaginary place that frankly, seems even outside some of the normal left leaning members of the forum. Although at least most of them admit from the get go that they regard the constitution as an outdated relic which should be tossed in the nearest waste disposal for something more hip.

The States created the Federal government, not the other way around, and they vested that government with rather specific enumerated powers. So saying there is no such thing as States Rights because that doesn't appear in the 10th amendment is totally irrelevant to the 10th amendment and to the constitution.

As far as the "institution" of gay marriage goes, you are not in a position to pontificate on what it really means since it has only existed since 2001, As social institutions go, it's relatively new. Will it be here 200 years from now? I doubt it. But the point of this thread (and it's not the first one like this- I don't know why you are trying to promote such an easily falsifiable point) is that gay marriage won't effect anyone who is not in it. That's clearly not the case. As a baker and photographer can attest. Where they the only bakers or photographers in town? No, but they couldn't be left alone. Their livelihoods had to be destroyed even though they were minding their own business. So when you say that same sex marriage won't change anything for the average American, what you really mean as long as they bow down before SSM.

 

The first link was to disprove one of the OP's point. As far as the second link goes, there were multiple links for that story. Are you denying that it's a real story? If so, I have to say there is enough information about it online that I don't really care if you don't believe it. I've been through this before, so I'm not going to post multiple links to it for you to then approve of it, in the same way that you did of the first link, which the OP insisted wasn't happening in the first place.

 

Gay marriage doesn't change a thing. It does not change what time any of the right wing bigots get up in the morning.

So, why does the GOP focus on trivial issues, and not more important things?

 

Here is the official text of the United States Constitution from the National Archives. How many times does the word "right" appear in Article IV? In the whole document?

That you can't admit that the Constitution is outdated and nowhere near as giving as you think is a sign of utmost ignorance. But, by all means, do not let me be the bearer of bad news, you can continue to worship the text of the Constitution until the day you die. They say the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, but it damn sure seems like one the more it's kept in operation. In fact, the more I read about it, the more I am convinced it never should have been ratified in the first place. I mean, think about it, the states could, under the Constitution, restrict voting to those donating over $100,000 a year to political campaigns and it would be entirely Constitutional, as the only restrictions placed upon the franchise are that it cannot be deprived on the basis of sex, race, or gender and that poll taxes cannot be levied. I doubt you make enough to donate that much to political campaigns. Or, as it was prior to the 1820s, voting could be restricted to those owning land, or a certain acreage of land, say fifty acres or more. Nothing changed within the Constitution to remove landownership as a prerequisite to voting, it was a change of political thinking, that could easily switch right back.

The states created the Federal government by their ratification of the Constitution. The Constitution vested powers in both the States and in the Federal government, but did not enumerate even basic rights of the States as it did the Federal Government, however, it did restrict actions of both. In fact, there is no mention of the states being sovereign within the Constitution, while there was such under the Articles of Confederation. Sovereignty is a precondition for federalism. Without a guarantee of sovereignty within the text, it is not guaranteed, and can thus be revoked by simple Act of Congress with no recourse to be found within the Constitution for the States to preclude such action.

Same-sex marriage has a history stretching back to Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. That modern recognition dates to 2001 is irrelevant. The concept of paying good deeds forward was originally a concept from Ancient Greece that was only rediscovered and popularized by Benjamin Franklin in a 1784 letter to one Benjamin Webb.

Their livelihoods did not have to be destroyed. As I pointed out, if they have a business open to the public, they cannot discriminate. Had they chose to take the business, they would have been enriched and probably would have been rewarded with recommendations and referrals for people to use their business in the future. They chose to fight it, and their own bigotry destroyed them.

 

I believe there is a rule in this forum that states that, when you make a comment as if it was a FACT, you are suppose to provide the supporting evidence of that FACT.
If, as you state, there are so many links available, it shouldn't be a problem to provide at least one!

Credibility is damaged when one cannot provide reliable links for his "beliefs!"

But, have it as you wish!

 

The first link was obviously biased, as it was from Fox News. . .
Here is what really happened. . .and there was no talk about gay sex, but it was used by gay rights opponents a couple of days before the vote on Gay marriage as a desperate attempts to turn the population of Maine against it.

Big deal!

And for the second comment you made, I must apologize as I thought that, when you mentioned "First Couple," I thought you were talking about the First Couple of the US. . .President and Mrs. Obama.

By the way. . .that article relates to a gay couple in ENGLAND. . .NOT in the US.

You are grasping at straws!

 

You would need to ask the speaker that.

I suspect he proceeded to tell them all about it.

 

Are you just making this stuff up as you go along or did someone else make it up for you?

 

So. . .he told them about safe sex?

GREAT!

- - - Updated - - -

Another biased source?

I provided a source. . .why don't you check it out. . .it's basically the same, and, obviously, if kids were interested in "diversity," and some of those kids were gay, it would have been VERY necessary to provide them with safe sex between gay people also! If they were not gay. . .the same "safe techniques" apply! Don't you know that?
Funny, isn't it?

 

You would need to actually READ your source.

 

Well well well, so you hate the constitution, you do think it's a relic and should never have been ratified in the first place, imagine my surprise! Then stop bringing up constitutional arguments. They're insincere since you don't really accept the legitimacy of the document in the first place. As an aside, I'm noticing that attitude more and more on the left.

Then why post the thread says that gay marriage won't change a thing when it apparently is being used to destroy people's businesses, not for discrimination against gays because they were gay, but specifically because those people, per their religion didn't want to participate in a ceremony that was legitimate? That's the opposite of not changing a thing. That's deliberately attacking people who are not bothering you based on a hatred of their beliefs. People who do that are hateful, spiteful people, and I imagine that's true for people who support them.

 

Yes, and?. . .

 

perhaps not but it will lead to child abuse instead, ie: young children being adopted by unsuitable couples.

why should a young kid have to come home to two guys cuddling up on the sofa?

 

Calling that child abuse is moronic! It's as stupid as stupid gets! I was a child welfare investigator for 26 years. I placed kid in foster care and adoptive homes-sometimes with gay people-after their straight parents abused or neglected them. I've seen the worst kinds of physical and sexual abuse. Horrible neglect. And it was always perpetrated by HETROSERXUALS. I know kids who are alive and thriving today because of gay people who took them in. To further highlight you ignorance, adoption by gay people is a different issue than marriage. In New Jersey, gay people were allowed to adopt DECADES before they could marry, which just now happened. We have a long history of adoption by gays and it works!!

Do you have ANYTHING of intelligence to comntribute???!

 

It DIRECTLY contradicts your claim

 

What purpose would government even have in licensing and regulating "deep and mutual love"?

 

Not only that but the procreation argument has been made for over 60 years. I'm not sure what PTPL is talking about saying "relied on as of late".

Procreation is THE justification used to provide marriage benefits to couple. The ONLY justification used to provide marriage benefits to couples.

 

The panic expressed by those upset by the prospect of gender equality in marriage law should have been amply assuaged long ago as the tenth anniversary of its inception in Massachusetts approaches, and the progress that has been made since then sustains the progress to come.

Thus, the popular support for ending the discrimination nationally.

Experience allays fear, and thereby nullifies fear mongering.

Advanced nations have also progressed, as the policies of Islamic theocracies under sharia law, Russia, or Nigeria are only preferred by a vanishing ilk.