Gay Marriage - poll added

[JustaLocal]

Does anyone else see the irony in the voices of toleration having such little respect for others' religious views, and those that say that morality is as one defines it are the first to criticize others' views on morality?

Yes.

 

[NoHall]

Ok, I am done here--this thread has now caused this 50 plus year old SoWal gay man and his partner of 14 years to tie the knot! Whew!. Mr "FQ" and I are getting two tickets to San Jose in late August, after 14 years we''ll be "married."

Suddenly it is more than a piece of paper. I don't care if Fla. or the U.S Government recorgnizes the document or not, we are taking a stand. (and if Charlie Crist should decide to come out of the closet he too can come to my Fla. reception. I still hope Miss Kitty will be one of my "groom's maids!") Invitations to follow for the Florida reception....

Thanks you Sowal for helping me make the "leap." I admire everyone for expressing their well thought out opinions--this is a WONDERFUL country!

How would a marriage between (SWGB and me) or (hnooe2000 & Mr. "FQ") make YOUR marriage any less important or less meaningful to you?

wait a minute...:scratch:...did someone else come out of the closet? (The lurker closet, that is.)

 

[6thGen]

I have trouble interpreting to whom you refer with your pronoun "we". I do not recall the two of us establishing any such thing in the constitution. A quick fact check reveals that neither did our founding fathers engage in such undertaking.

A document exists known as the Declaration of Independence. The establishment of this document does not explicitly pertain to establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It does use the abstract term Creator however .

That "Creator" reference contained in the Declaration of Independence (not our governing document) of course lends itself to interpretation. A theist might, but not necessarily, interpret the meaning as supreme being, or what some might refer to as "God". A less literal theist or an atheist might view the creator as the biological process and body parts responsible for his existence. Two sweaty humans exchanging bodily fluids for example. Perhaps the creator consists of the mother, her womb, and a measure of everything she ate, drank, smoked, shot or snorted over a nine month period (on average). A geneticist might think about the billions of years of mutated chimp DNA that led to his being. In other words, I could easily say nature or the universe is my creator and let it go at that. Even a theist could push God's role in "creation" way back to the beginning of time and consider him to be irrelevant in the here and now.

The point is, man has rights by virtue of his existence irrespective of his origin. They are not grants or gifts. They can only be taken away by force. Even if one believes this creator mentioned in the DOI is a literal god who grants rights, who's to say he's against gay marriage? After all, he would have created the gays knowing full well that they would want to get married. Is this god some kind of prankster with a warped sense of humor?

See there are no universal truths regarding issues of faith. There is always going to be subjectivity based on one's interpretation and choice of beliefs. This makes a government imposed faith-based morality impossible to implement in this country. It could only be done so by force, that is, by denial of basic human rights. There are too many different subjective belief systems. Clearly no universal definition of creator exists. For these reasons, the Constitution does not tread on this ground.

The DoI was the basis for establishing American independence, and thus establishing a new form of government. Our Constitution would not exist without it. To argue its divorce from the Constitution or from the governing body is disingenuous. Further, to argue that the ?Creator? is nothing more than two sweaty humans exchanging body fluids is turning a blind eye to history, and the foundation for the DoI. Paine made his case based on scripture in Common Sense. The idea that all men were created equal, radical at the time, was based on Locke?s work that all rights are God given, and that all creatures were born by God. Locke?s work is the intellectual bedrock of the DoI. You can disagree with the Founders as much as you like, but to say that they were vague in their definition of Creator, or that they steered clear of interjecting God into government (without even getting into common law) is obtuse.

As for God being against gay marriage, it?s well established in scripture, and the God the Founders spoke of is clearly not a theoretical supreme being. You also have continued to invent rights. Again, I blame Jefferson for the confusion.

I?ll get into the huge jump in your last paragraph later, I have a meeting shortly. It is an interesting discussion that I?d like to continue.

 

[elgordoboy]

The DoI was the basis for establishing American independence, and thus establishing a new form of government. Our Constitution would not exist without it. To argue its divorce from the Constitution or from the governing body is disingenuous. Further, to argue that the ?Creator? is nothing more than two sweaty humans exchanging body fluids is turning a blind eye to history, and the foundation for the DoI. Paine made his case based on scripture in Common Sense. The idea that all men were created equal, radical at the time, was based on Locke?s work that all rights are God given, and that all creatures were born by God. Locke?s work is the intellectual bedrock of the DoI. You can disagree with the Founders as much as you like, but to say that they were vague in their definition of Creator, or that they steered clear of interjecting God into government (without even getting into common law) is obtuse.

As for God being against gay marriage, it?s well established in scripture, and the God the Founders spoke of is clearly not a theoretical supreme being. You also have continued to invent rights. Again, I blame Jefferson for the confusion.
I?ll get into the huge jump in your last paragraph later, I have a meeting shortly. It is an interesting discussion that I?d like to continue.

Really, this is nearly nonsensical. If you were wanting to prove a point you would have zero issue citing the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I am half convinced that had I the energy to run an exhaustive enough search I could find you doing just that in another post. You accuse others of setting up straw men and are guilty of it yourself. You are reduced by your adherence to dogma.

 

[destinscuba]

I can understand about the roles of the branches of government and having their right place, but this began as a court case. Thus the Cal. Supreme Court have every right to make that decision. The Justices only clarified the law as it relates to previous laws and protections the state offers against discrimination in California.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the court's 1948 decision that reversed the state's interracial marriages ban. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution.

I respect and understand where 6thGen's points of view are coming from. I grew up in a large Catholic family in a small Midwestern town, going to Catholic school, church every Sunday and religious day of observation. Though I knew back in high school, it was because of this it took me a long time to finally come out (only four years ago). Now my relationship with my parents has suffered, when I end phone call with "love you" she begins to cry. When I tell her that I'm staying here with SWGB during a holiday instead of visiting them, I get verbally assaulted.

I understand you have your religion based view of what a marriage is(fine with me), but this is a discrimination issue as the Cal. courts see it.

 

[DuneLaker]

Okay by me. Just wanted to say it does not affect how I live. I've been reading an interesting book, The Faiths of Our Founding Fathers by David Holmes, Oxford University Press, 2006. Quite interesting and certainly not trending toward commonly held beliefs about what were or were not the religious intentions of our Founding Fathers. I'll have to finish reading before I can comment further. Just thought I'd come and relax reading this thread after leaving the relaxing oil drilling thread.

 

[6thGen]

Really, this is nearly nonsensical. If you were wanting to prove a point you would have zero issue citing the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I am half convinced that had I the energy to run an exhaustive enough search I could find you doing just that in another post. You accuse others of setting up straw men and are guilty of it yourself. You are reduced by your adherence to dogma.

He's saying that there is no foundation for God in our government. A cursory knowledge of our basis for declaring freedom and establishing government proves different.

On your historicist argument before, you said that if I came around it would be from experience, and therefore if I don?t come around it is from a lack thereof. Historicism maintains that every teaching that maintains universal validity is, by nature, mistaken. Human thought has always been and will always be historical, and given the limitations imposed by lack of experience, it will always have some lack of awareness. However, the historicists? belief exempts itself from its own conclusions on human thought and is immediately self-contradictory.

 

[scooterbug44]

"Star Trek" star George Takei is ready to "live long and prosper" with his partner of 21 years.

Takei will marry 54-year-old Brad Altman on September 14th in Los Angeles.
The 71-year-old actor, known for his role as Sulu on the "Star Trek" sci-fi TV series, was the first to pay $70 for a marriage license in West Hollywood early Tuesday. The marriage license is good for 90 days.

Takei was jubilant, saying "it's going to be the only day like this in our lives and it is the only day like this in the history of America."

He told reporters and a swelling crowd outside the West Hollywood city auditorium "may equality live long and prosper."

 

[Kimmifunn]

Weho's bumping today!
Many a wedding reception at the Abbey tonight.

 

[elgordoboy]

He's saying that there is no foundation for God in our government. A cursory knowledge of our basis for declaring freedom and establishing government proves different.

On your historicist argument before, you said that if I came around it would be from experience, and therefore if I don’t come around it is from a lack thereof. Historicism maintains that every teaching that maintains universal validity is, by nature, mistaken. Human thought has always been and will always be historical, and given the limitations imposed by lack of experience, it will always have some lack of awareness. However, the historicists’ belief exempts itself from its own conclusions on human thought and is immediately self-contradictory.

Straw man , but I liked reading it.