So marrying whoever you love is not a pursuit of happiness?

 

YES!


If that's what they want to do who the **** are we to say they can't! It's a couple (or more) people wanting to get married.

how about YOU answer my question about why YOU guys don't get out and get the govt to release marriage back to a religious ceremony and not something that has to do with legal standing. How the **** about that?

Religions can keep marriage to themselves and govt's can have their civil unions to all couples (or more) no matter the orientation.

Now how bout it??

 

You do not have the right to discriminate against a group of people if you want to collect federal tax dollars. That is a well established precedent. They are free to believe whatever they want, but if they are a discriminatory foundation they do not have the right to claim tax-exempt status or to collect federal tax dollars.

 

The wife and I are starting on the paper work to get you adopted.

 

You don't have to "marry" to be together. I agree with the poster before that said we should make everything into a civil union if we are so worried about titles... In addition, if we are worried about titles, I'd rather get "married" since it sounds more official. Anything from the gov't sounds so generic...

 

Study up please. They were religious men who believe that is was up to the states to decided which, if any religion they would choose to believe, and NOT the Federal governments. That is why the law was made.

It is up to the states, to this day. If the majority of people wanted a state religion, they could do it. But people don't which is better.

 

How many times do I need to answer this before you are satisifed? I have said several times in this thread already that incestous relationships are a violation of nature and science, that is a scientific fact, and if a man has several wives and they are all consenting adults and they all consent to the polygomous relationship I have no problem with that either.

 

I dont understand your point, that the founding fathers were puritians? Teh colonies were founded in the 1500's, long before the fouding fathers were even born.

 

That's the most absurd post yet!

I'd love to see some professors of History's journals or essays about that one. PLEASE, I'm dead serious, I want you give me something to read from several professors and scholars who have written about this...

 

so sex in the anus between two men is not?

just trying to be crystal clear here

 

Just like the right-wingers who claim that we are a "Christian nation" founded entirely on Christian values, your response goes too far. The majority of the founders did believe that religion had some place in government. While Jefferson and Madison are often quoted by modern secularists, the fact remains that they were in the minority. Furthermore, while they were strict separationalists they were also quite "spiritual" men.

The fact is that the founders themselves were not at all in agreement about where the line between church and state should be. On the state level, they were even more divided. Adams argued fervently for the state sponsorship of religion in his home state of Massachusetts, while Madison spent many of his younger years fighting the entanglement of Church and State in Virginia.

Issues like Gay marriage therefore must be decided on the cultural perceptions and values of the times. IMHO, to outlaw gay marriage through a constitutional amendment would be a massive step backwards in the continuing fight to give everyone - regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity - equal rights. While the founders themselves probably wouldn't even understand the concept of homosexual marriage, stepping backwards would not be in the progressive spirit our country was founded on.

If it was up to me, the only unions recognized by the government should be civil unions. The institution of "marriage" should be up to the church. Period.
-Jeff

 

But it isnt, and until it is, everyone should have equal rights. Yes on prop 8 people are focusing their energy on the wrong thing, if they want to pretect the sanctity of marriage they should worry about what "marriage" is rather than try to restrict hard working americans from enjoying the same rights as you and I.

 

In a genetic self destructing way, yes, but you have to admit, they CHOOSE to do this. Consenting humans choose to want to be with a sibling. Can't deny that, and that's freedom down to the nitty gritty.

Disgusting, sure, but it's ok in my book.

 

Study up? Please, I am 2 courses short of a political science degree. I know about government and that statement is not fact. Seperation of Church and state, not no church in the federal government but if the states want it thats cool. Please stop spewing crap out of your mouth, use facts in your arguments and actually read what I write so you can stop asking me the same questions over and over and over and over again.

 

Everyone should be able to get "married" if they want. There shouldn't be a separate institution. I am MARRIED to my wife. I am not civil unioned to her.

If homosexuals want the same, who are we to deny them. It is my impression that they want "until death do us part". They want "in sickness and in health". Like I said before, it is not my place to dictate their relationship with God... or not... relationship. :P

Not just that, but all the legal stuff, too. Inheritance, tax status, plug pulling decisions, hospital stuff.

They don't want to be excluded and they shouldn't be.