For anyone who opposes same-sex marriage

Now that three states have passed SSM by popular vote, do you respect those decisions or would you still favour a constitutional amendment to the US constitution revoking their democratic rights? And how do you reconcile that (if you identify as conservative politically) with believing in small government/states rights?

 

Most (not all) of the reasons against SSM are either bigoted or religious -ie. lacking reasoning.

To answer your question - all 50 states could vote yes for ssm and they would still want it banned by any means possible.
Most people only agree with the popular vote when it aligns with their beliefs.

I am just glad the "every time it has been put to a vote, it has failed" argument has been removed from the discussion.

 

a wrong does not simply become a right if enough people go along with it.

 

when in doubt, go on the offensive and attack religion and call them names....

religion wasn't even brought into this, yet you felt the need to bring it in, and call them bigoted....


51% voted Obama in..... doesn't mean I agree with it. That's a majority, but just because they agree with socialism, doesn't mean socialism will work. Just ask USSR.

 

Even though three states passed same sex marriage does not make any of those marriages valid. Marriage is between a man and a woman according to federal law. Just like those states that legalized marijuana, it is still illegal according to federal law.

 

why is it wrong?

 

DOMA has already been declared unconstitutional in 3 federal courts. It will soon make it's way to the US supreme court, and they will likely rule the same.

 

They upheld the healthcare law even though it was declared unconstitutional. Basically said that you elect the representatives that pass the laws. DOMA was passed with big bi-partisan majorities of both houses and signed by a democrat president.

 

What if I just don't want anyone to have to be forced to recognise it?
Are police officers going to be forced to arrest a gay who refuses to pay the court-sanctioned alimony payments to his former spouse?
No, gay marriage is intolerance, and would deny various people and organisations the right to refuse to support it. Will photographers be forced to take the pictures at a gay wedding or face a discrimination lawsuit? Will businesses be forced to offer "family" discount packages to gay couples, even though their conscience tells them not to?

 

The reason why some have brought up a constitutional amendment is because people are using the constitution to void state rights on the issue. If that wasn't happening......then it wouldn't be considered. So FIX THAT ok?

And, yes I respect the right of states to recognize gay marriage if it is willingly voted in by that state's citizens.

 

Well I've never been in favor of a constitutional amendment for that and I believe, based on my understanding of the constitution, that DOMA is probably unconstitutional. So no conflict with my small government beliefs.

 

That's not the same thing. Federal law CRIMINALISES Marijuana, DOMA merely prevents the federal government from recognising same-sex marriage. So the marriages are completely valid where performed.

 

There's no way DOMA is going to stand given that a whole host of courts have ruled against it - there is an almost unanimous consensus even among some Republican court appointees. And Obamacare was not upheld by SCOTUS on the basis that "we have to respect laws passed by Congress". The whole POINT of the judicial system is to analyse laws passed by elected representatives and determine their Constitutionality.

Regarding DOMA - both the Republican who introduced it (Bob Barr) and the President who signed it (Clinton) now advocate it's repeal. What the hell does that tell you?! And it may have been passed by a large majority 16 years ago but there's NO WAY it would get through Congress now. Most Americans oppose it. A pro-same-sex marriage President has been re-elected. All these facts, including the most recent ballot successes, exponentially increase the chances that DOMA will be cast into the dustbin of history.

 

I actually saw no attack to religion there. I only saw them saying people have bigoted reasons OR they have religious reasons. Meaning two separate reasoning systems. So no need to take offense or feel religion is being attacked, it's not. It is true though. Most people, when asked, give bigoted OR religious reasons as to why they don't agree with SSM.

Politicians even use religious views to sway their political views, or sometimes, even OTHER people's religious views. I'm against abortion, personally, but I was happy to see Obama being somewhat against the norm and being more Pro-choice than Pro-Life because I feel that more people fake what their beliefs are on that because they want religious people to side with them.

It's valid according to those three state, like it or not. I can see other states following suit as well.
And why do you suppose it's a federal law that only a man and woman can be considered married?
I've asked people their views on SSM and many of them had said "it's just gross" and when asked why, they haven't been able to come up with a good answer. Other times I get "their religion opposes it, so it's just 'ungodly'" other times I get "there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, people are just POed that they can't procreate, but that's what surrogate mothers, sperm banks, and adoptions are for. There are people who are straight as a board who can't procreate, you going to call their marriage illegal as well? No."

 

Replace "gay wedding" with "interracial wedding". What if it is against a person's conscience to refuse to photograph them or offer discount packages? Muslim weddings? Jewish weddings? There are still MANY people in America with objections to those kinds of unions, should we also respect their "right" not to be forced to "recognise" them?

If you run a private business that isn't a church then you are governed by certain anti-discrimination laws, period. A racist doesn't have the freedom to refuse to serve black people. An Islamophobe doesn't have the right to not offer a hotel room to a Muslim. And a homophobe doesn't have the right to not do business with a gay person simply because of their sexuality... in many jurisdictions. Not all though. I think in most of America it's perfectly fine to refuse goods or services to gay people.... Man I am I glad to be British

 

This crap argument again?

Here's what that federal law actually says:

Nothing in the above that prevents a state from treating a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage under that state's own laws. The section quoted above only protects other states from having to give it effect.

This imposes a restriction on the federal government; the government of the United States, not the governments of individual states.

The regulation of marriage at the state level is not the purview of the federal government. It has no power to dictate a definition of marriage to the states.

Now contrast that with the original wording of the federal marriage amendment written by the Alliance for Marriage with help from Judge Robert Bork:

]QUOTE]Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. 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.[/QUOTE]
This amendment would impose that definition upon the states. It also failed to go anywhere because states' rights advocates were having none of that.

 

How about we grow up and stop have the government define a social institution? Do we need a federal law to define a bowling team? Or can grownups figure out a definition that works for them and leave people who disagree alone. I don't want Catholics forced to marry anyone who doesn't meet their standards, I don't want them forced to preach in favor of something they disagree with, but the simple solution is DON'T GET MARRIED IN A CATHEDERAL, find someone who agrees. We can stay out of each other's hair. We do that for all kinds of other stuff. We don't ban coffee and alcohol because Mormons don't like it, we don't ban pork because Jews don't like it. We don't even ban smokes even though almost everyone agrees smoking is bad. So why is this one thing a federal case?

 

This crap argument again?

Here's what that federal law actually says:

Nothing in the above that prevents a state from treating a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage under that state's own laws. The section quoted above only protects other states from having to give it effect.

This imposes a restriction on the federal government; the government of the United States, not the governments of individual states.

The regulation of marriage at the state level is not the purview of the federal government. It has no power to dictate a definition of marriage to the states.

Now contrast that with the original wording of the federal marriage amendment written by the Alliance for Marriage with help from Judge Robert Bork:

This amendment would impose that definition upon the states. It also failed to go anywhere because states' rights advocates were having none of that.

 

I never attacked religion, notice I said religious reasons or bigoted reasons. I do not necessarily believe most religious people are bigoted nor do I believe most bigoted people are religious. The reason I mentioned religion is because of the numerous times bible verses have been quoted as a reason not to allow SSM. Bigots are blinded by their rage and come up with crazy reasoning (everyone will become gay, destroy marriage for straight people, people can marry goats, ect) while religious people believe their religion is superior and should be the end all doctrine - just ask Muslims, Christians, Catholics, Jews, ect ect

Thank you for your assumption though

 

Or how about the Gov gets out of the marriage business completely?

 

How about gay people get over themselves, realize that they are perverts, and go seek psychological counseling for their abnormal sexual obsessions?

 

The term bigotry originally meant discrimination against people because of their religious beliefs. Now the term is being used by biggots to describe religious people who hold long held religious beliefs that homosexuality is a perversion. I don't think so. Gay people who want to discriminate against religious people for their religious beliefs are the biggots.

 

What I said: "Even though three states passed same sex marriage does not make any of those marriages valid. Marriage is between a man and a woman according to federal law."

What you said: "protects other states from having to give it effect."

Ergo, the marriages are not valid.

 

Is it okay for the Catholic Church to deny medical coverage to a married partner of the gay janitor who works at a Catholic Elementary School? Can the Catholic Church refuse to pay for contraceptions for a wife of a lesbian nurse who works at one of their many Catholic hospitals? I would say yes. They can always go to work for another employer but liberals want to force them to accept and pay for homosexual lifestyles that go against their beliefs.

 

Right. But otherwise, it's invalid. Pretty simple. It has nothing to do with procreation. It has to do with definitions. Marriage has been defined as a union of one man and one woman for thousands of years. Words mean things. You can't change the meaning of the word marriage without changing the meaning of marriage. Why is it necessary to include same sex marriage into the definition of marriage is the question you should be asking yourself. Why not just call it "civil union"? Why is it that you feel the need to impose your beliefs upon society regardless of their religious beliefs? You don't see how you are discriminating against religious people? Don't you know that is the true definition of bigotry?