Happy Atheist Forum

QuoteThere are currently 2 bills introduced in Congress to define marriage as a union between man and woman. We will be monitoring to see if one makes it out of committee and is voted on. The details for each bill are as follows. We will post both bills on our discussion forums on Facebook.

HR. 1269 Marriage Protection Act of 2009
- Amends the federal judicial code to deny federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution, of the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act declaring that no state shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other state.

HR. 37 Proposing Amendment to the Constitution of the US relating to Marriage
- Requires marriage in the United States to consist only of a legal union of a man and a woman.
- Prohibits any federal or state court from having jurisdiction to determine whether the Constitution or any state constitution requires the legal incidents of marriage to be conferred upon any union other than a legal union between one man and one woman.
- Prohibits requiring any state to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state concerning a union between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage, or as having the legal incidents of marriage, under the laws of such other state.

Source:  http://apps.new.facebook.com/visible_vote/ (http://apps.new.facebook.com/visible_vote/) (might need facebook account to view app)
Links provided by visible vote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/ ... newssearch (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/same.sex.states/index.html?iref=newssearch)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05 ... eferendum/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/28/opponents-gay-marriage-dc-demand-referendum/)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7393903&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7393903&page=1)

From my understanding of state v federal law, this is completely out of line.  The federal government is not responsible for marriage licenses and shouldn't be making this decision.

Agreed... it's amazing what this country is capable of, quite frankly.  To have them claim to be discriminated against and persecuted, then to turn around and do this kind of crap.    

Simply disgusting.

Wow, I'm glad I'm leaving the country.  

Jesus Barnaby Christ, I didn't realize they could make laws to block the courts from ruling on the lawfulness of other laws.
This thing would be an unstoppable, juggernaut of a sovereign bitch-bill oozing righteous homophobia if it passed.  I can't believe someone had the temerity to introduce this.  If I didn't think congress sucked right now, I would say the person was about to get, ironically, crucified, but now?  It'll still get knocked down (it has to!!), but not with the unfettered contempt it deserves.  Can you imagine if it defined marriage as only between a white man and white woman?  I don't think even Fox will wank over this bill, not publicly anyway, though they might moan about liberals when it's swatted down (and all the time until then and after, too), but anyone who can read what this bill seeks to do ought to be uncomfortable about it, to say the least.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Wow, I'm glad I'm leaving the country.  :shake:

Seriously? Fundies don't have anything better to do?  

I guess now that they're out of the White House, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and a majority of Governor's offices it's freed up their time for petty stuff like hating gay people.

The more they put their energy into lost causes like gay marriage, the less likely they are to regain power in 2012 and 2016. In other words, bring it on. After underestimating my opposition on Prop 8, I'm ready for round 2.

What is the difference between the Mormon idea of marriage and traditional marriage? If you know of another religion that also thinks of marriage outside of the norm, I would be interested in your response as well.

Quote from: "geoyaba"We got married in the city hall only. Is our marriage still recognized by God? I want to convert to orthodoxy, my husband and i got married in the city hall only and not in the church, and he doesnt want to get married in the church. Is our marriage still recognized by God?

I don't care...I think you have the wrong forum.

How can there be so many retards with the ability to create new laws in the US?

*Sigh*

Quote from: "karadan"How can there be so many retards with the ability to create new laws in the US?

*Sigh*

1% of 307,000,000 is  :drool

So one does not need a high percentage of a large number to have a absolute large number. There's probably something in the governmental process that also lets loud stupid people have more than their fair share of power.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "karadan"How can there be so many retards with the ability to create new laws in the US?

*Sigh*

1% of 307,000,000 is  :drool

So one does not need a high percentage of a large number to have a absolute large number. There's probably something in the governmental process that also lets loud stupid people have more than their fair share of power.

Obviously their brains demand less oxygen, which allows for a more-efficient bellow.

I can't believe this is even a discussion in 2010.  I thought we went over this already in the 50's.  Of any group of minorities, black people should be empathizing with a persecuted group of people the most...yet they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the failure of prop 8.  

is going, eh?

Quote from: "DropLogic"I can't believe this is even a discussion in 2010.  I thought we went over this already in the 50's.  Of any group of minorities, black people should be empathizing with a persecuted group of people the most...yet they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the failure of prop 8.  

is going, eh?

Well, let's face it, we obviously have no more important thing to deal with, right?

I stand on the side of and in support of the civil ability for homosexuals to marry.

It is not the role of the federal government to define marraige.  Nowhere is it implied or explicitly stated that the federal government has the power to define "marraige".  Therefore, it is an issue for the states to handle.

Quote from: "jduster"It is not the role of the federal government to define marraige.  Nowhere is it implied or explicitly stated that the federal government has the power to define "marraige".  Therefore, it is an issue for the states to handle.

It is, however, the job of the federal government to ensure that all citizens receive equal protection under the law, via the 5th and 14th amendments, which means that if a state denies gays the right to marry, the federal govt ought to step in.  One day, they will, and rightfully so.

Quote from: "jduster"It is not the role of the federal government to define marraige.  Nowhere is it implied or explicitly stated that the federal government has the power to define "marraige".  Therefore, it is an issue for the states to handle.

I disagree.  If the feds tag on civil "rights or perks" into to a term, "marriage", an institution, then the feds have the right to determine what that institution is, what it's called and who can partake of the rights therein or through what parameters the rights are afforded.  The state cannot override the Federal, nor can the Federal override the State (when there is no clear Federal law contrary to a State law)  If the Fed Gov choose to later change its law or add a law, that is its perogative and once done, the State must comply.  IMHO.

As a Christian, I would agree that marriage is between a male and female.  This belief is biblical in nature and if one want the Church to condone the union, of course it must be between M & F.  The Church, however, does not hand out the tax benefits or whatever else civil law affords a married couple under civil law.  (did that make sense? heh)  It is not necessarily the job of the Christian to create or bitterly fight for a CIVIL law to enforce biblical law especially when the Christian is living in a secular society and not a theocracy.  One can argue that a few biblical laws are also civil laws (murder, stealing, lying...), but I think we can agree that these types of laws would come naturally into a society wishing to be civil...as we (society) determine what civil is.  Once upon a time it was "civil" to shoot a person over a dispute by dual, but things have changed to become "more" civil.

As I mentioned to one forum member concerning this topic, it is my opinion that Christians that make it their sole purpose (and so get caught up in using methods beyond the scope of true Christianity) to enforce their opinion on what civil is, should instead make their fight against what they see as wrong, not in law, but in their own respective children or immediate circle of influence.  If all Christians practiced teaching their child what (we believe) is right, specifically here in regard to homosexuality, then the correct method is to start from the ground up.

Quote from: "Proverbs 22:6"Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.

If we Christians kept to this, we wouldn't need to fight and bicker these points, make signs that read, "God hates Fags" and so remove all doubt from unbelievers that God is some fear monger that shoots bolts of lightning down at every human that goes against Him.

When society as a majority decides that homosexuality is illegal, THEN and only then can it then move to or support the removal of their ability to LEGALLY marry.  As long as it remains legal to be homosexual, it should be legal for homosexuals to "marry" or be in a legal union where the civil rights within the institution is equally spread among all citizens.  I have a feeling the homosexual community doesn't care whether it is called a marriage or a union or whatever as long as the rights afforded remain equal across the board, nor do I believe the homosexual community is seeking the Church's stamp of approval.  I could be wrong.  If so, let me know.

IMHO.  

Needless to say, this is not a very popular position in my belief system, but it's more popular than the average might think.

QuoteProverbs 22:6 wrote:
Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.

Great advice, as long as fairy tales are not presented as fact.  How can you honestly tell a kid, "Oh heh, yeah, Santa, the easter bunny, and the tooth fairy are fake." ...and then go on and on about the glory of god?  Just think about that...

Quote from: "DropLogic"

QuoteProverbs 22:6 wrote:
Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.

Great advice, as long as fairy tales are not presented as fact.  How can you honestly tell a kid, "Oh heh, yeah, Santa, the easter bunny, and the tooth fairy are fake." ...and then go on and on about the glory of god?  Just think about that...

I think this is fair.

Imagine the day when robots achieve self-awareness, if that day ever comes.  These robots may decide they want to mingle their destinies and consecrate that mingling in a wedding ceremony.  Procreation and gender will of course be irrelevant.  Will some Christians try to prevent such weddings on the grounds that only humans are made in the image of God, therefore God will only consecrate the weddings of humans?  Of course some Christians will.  For my part, I look forward to the day that robots develop a desire to mingle their destinies and consecrate that mingling.  So now - do you have any doubt where I stand on gay marriage?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Imagine the day when robots achieve self-awareness, if that day ever comes.  These robots may decide they want to mingle their destinies and consecrate that mingling in a wedding ceremony.  Procreation and gender will of course be irrelevant.  Will some Christians try to prevent such weddings on the grounds that only humans are made in the image of God, therefore God will only consecrate the weddings of humans?  Of course some Christians will.  For my part, I look forward to the day that robots develop a desire to mingle their destinies and consecrate that mingling.  So now - do you have any doubt where I stand on gay marriage?

Many humans see through these formalities, do you foresee irrational robots in our future?

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Imagine the day when robots achieve self-awareness, if that day ever comes.  These robots may decide they want to mingle their destinies and consecrate that mingling in a wedding ceremony.  Procreation and gender will of course be irrelevant.  Will some Christians try to prevent such weddings on the grounds that only humans are made in the image of God, therefore God will only consecrate the weddings of humans?  Of course some Christians will.  For my part, I look forward to the day that robots develop a desire to mingle their destinies and consecrate that mingling.  So now - do you have any doubt where I stand on gay marriage?

Many humans see through these formalities, do you foresee irrational robots in our future?

I don't think its out of the range of possibility that self-aware robots might try to emulate us.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Many humans see through these formalities, do you foresee irrational robots in our future?

Is it irrational to marry?  Why so?

Sapients with compatible hopes and congenial styles might deem it the most rational thing in the world to mingle their destinies, and might likewise deem it the height of rationality to consecrate that mingling in a manner meaningful to them.
 
Obviously the mentality of self-aware robots, if such ever emerges, must remain for now an enigma, all speculation groundless, indulged for the fun of it.

Yes, but could a human marry a robot?

I think I'd have a good chance at attracting the fancy of a robot, we'd have ever so many things in common!

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Yes, but could a human marry a robot?

I think I'd have a good chance at attracting the fancy of a robot, we'd have ever so many things in common!

I say go for it!  I'd be delighted to officiate at your wedding!

Good for you guys you still have a chance at fighting it. The Family Code of the Philippines explicitly says that marriage can only be had by a male and a female. No one is proposing to amend it.

Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"Good for you guys you still have a chance at fighting it. The Family Code of the Philippines explicitly says that marriage can only be had by a male and a female. No one is proposing to amend it.

Change will come.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"Good for you guys you still have a chance at fighting it. The Family Code of the Philippines explicitly says that marriage can only be had by a male and a female. No one is proposing to amend it.

Change will come.

December 6th could be a big day for the LGBT community.

The trend of history in Western culture towards liberty are discernible over the last seven centuries, and should be easy to maintain so long as we do not take them for granted.  Dr King's words ("I have seen the Promised Land ... I may not get there with you ... ") have much more applicability than people imagine; they are not just applicable to the struggle for racial equality.  They are a reminder for us to always push for freedom, and understand that our role may well be that of the second runner in the relay-race: neither the honor of starting the race, nor the glory of winning it, but the largely unnoticed -- but vital -- work that puts the team into position for the gold.

All rights are at risk so long as they are denied to others.