Happy Atheist Forum

That's right, a Federal Judge has declared DOMA unconstitutional.

All I can say is, Its about damned time! Now, here come the appeals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/us/09 ... tml?src=mv (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/us/09marriage.html?src=mv)

http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/07/ ... inst-doma/ (http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/07/08/two-giant-blows-against-doma/)

http://www.gaycitynews.com/articles/201 ... 562188.txt (http://www.gaycitynews.com/articles/2010/07/08/gay_city_news/news//doc4c3677b158f85072562188.txt)  

DANCE PARTY!

 :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  

YAY!  Some quick info for the less familiar -

QuoteDefense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions were codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law, also known as DOMA, had two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Quote from: "pinkocommie"YAY!  Some quick info for the less familiar -

QuoteDefense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions were codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law, also known as DOMA, had two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

If the Federal government defines it that way, how have some states been able to allow gay marriage? I mean, it's great that they have but - how? This seems related to the Federal lawsuit against Arizona. Could the federal government technically sue them if they wanted to?

And what happened to all the hype about repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy? That needs to be taken care of quick!

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"YAY!  Some quick info for the less familiar -

QuoteDefense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions were codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law, also known as DOMA, had two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

If the Federal government defines it that way, how have some states been able to allow gay marriage? I mean, it's great that they have but - how? This seems related to the Federal lawsuit against Arizona. Could the federal government technically sue them if they wanted to?

And what happened to all the hype about repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy? That needs to be taken care of quick!

It left the marriage debate to the States, instead of to the federal government. Notice that it says "No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) NEEDS to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state." Basically its saying that if the state government decides to recognize gay marriage it can, but it isn't necessary.

QuoteNational Organization for Marriage Decries
Boston Federal Judge's Decision Striking Down the Defense of Marriage Act

"A Boston judge has no moral right to decide the marriage question for the people of the U.S."
â€" Brian Brown, President, National Organization for Marriage

WASHINGTON, DC â€" The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statements today in response to a federal judge in Boston ruling the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

"Under the guidance of Elena Kagan’s brief that she filed when she was Solicitor General, Obama's justice department deliberately sabotaged this case," charged Brian Brown, President of NOM, referring to the Justice Department's brief which described DOMA as discriminatory. Despite the explicit language in DOMA that the law was designed to protect children's right to their mothers and fathers, the judge disavowed that DOMA has anything to do with responsible procreation. "With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1996. A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States," Brown continued.

"Does this federal judge want to start another culture war?" asked Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM. "Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade? The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy. Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case. We expect to win in a higher court."

http://rubyurl.com/JAzl (http://rubyurl.com/JAzl)

The culture war moves on then.  Soon we can have a viewpoint of a minority that will be forced on everybody in the name of intolerance of intolerance.

Quote from: "freeservant"The culture war moves on then.  Soon we can have a viewpoint of a minority that will be forced on everybody in the name of intolerance of intolerance.

No one is going to make you marry a gay person....get real.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "freeservant"The culture war moves on then.  Soon we can have a viewpoint of a minority that will be forced on everybody in the name of intolerance of intolerance.

No one is going to make you marry a gay person....get real.

Ahh but think of the possibles for any and all sexual orientations.  And I rather favor a means to let two people bond for life in a monogamous way so only have a problem with the semantics of calling it marriage.  THE most important thing should be that we all should bond for life so that children are raised in the most healthy known environment.

It is true that no one is going to force me but then in the intolerance of intolerance culture war there is a definite possibility that religious liberty could be taken away in the effort to make everyone have a forced tolerance of what I see is against God's laws.

So if the effort to secure the lifetime monogamous bonding of two people is really a means to attack something else like religious liberty then you can see that there may be an agenda here that speaks more to imposing upon everybody what only a few now accept.

I think if a more long term effort to change hearts and minds about lifetime bonding of two individuals in a monogamous contract would be more appropriate then calling everybody who disagrees a bigot and force some action by judicial fiat.

Do you legally have to allow black people into your private church?  No, you don't.

Equal marriage laws will no more affect your religious rights than racial equality laws.

So...what is REALLY your problem with marriage equality?

Quote from: "GAYtheist"It left the marriage debate to the States, instead of to the federal government. Notice that it says "No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) NEEDS to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state." Basically its saying that if the state government decides to recognize gay marriage it can, but it isn't necessary.

The wording of the first part made since. It was the "federal government defines it between a man and a woman" that threw me off. I guess that's more of a default law though.

Quote from: "freeservant"The culture war moves on then. Soon we can have a viewpoint of a minority that will be forced on everybody in the name of intolerance of intolerance.

YES! Soon you will have to actually tolerate the lifestyles of others whose actions affect you in no way, shape or form whatsoever. Oh, the horror! What is society coming to?! Next thing you know they'll allow inter-racial marriage!  

Quote from: "freeservant"THE most important thing should be that we all should bond for life so that children are raised in the most healthy known environment.

http://www.hrc.org/issues/parenting/adoptions/adoption_laws.asp

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/djglp2&div=15&id=&page

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/200811/why-not-allow-gay-marriage

Any questions?

Quote from: "Whitney"Do you legally have to allow black people into your private church?  No, you don't.

Equal marriage laws will no more affect your religious rights than racial equality laws.

So...what is REALLY your problem with marriage equality?

Yes I think there would be a method to force private churches with here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

You will not find a sexual orientation in that law.  I have asked in another thread but where is there federal or judicial sources I could study that raises one's sexual orientation to the same level as Gender, Religion, or Race.  Remember that Lawrence v Texas is about privacy and not at the level of Civil Rights.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Whitney"Do you legally have to allow black people into your private church?  No, you don't.

Equal marriage laws will no more affect your religious rights than racial equality laws.

So...what is REALLY your problem with marriage equality?

Yes I think there would be a method to force private churches with here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

You will not find a sexual orientation in that law.  I have asked in another thread but where is there federal or judicial sources I could study that raises one's sexual orientation to the same level as Gender, Religion, or Race.  Remember that Lawrence v Texas is about privacy and not at the level of Civil Rights.

The act could only apply to a church that accepts federal funding (ie, don't like the law don't take federal funding..how do you think the KKK can't get sued for not allowing in blacks and jews?)....I also never said the law said anything bout sexual orientation.  Are you not even trying to think about this?  I was drawing a comparison between how you don't have to let black people into your church now just as if sexual equality laws were passed you would not have to allow lgbts into your church.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Whitney"Do you legally have to allow black people into your private church?  No, you don't.

Equal marriage laws will no more affect your religious rights than racial equality laws.

So...what is REALLY your problem with marriage equality?

Yes I think there would be a method to force private churches with here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

You will not find a sexual orientation in that law.  I have asked in another thread but where is there federal or judicial sources I could study that raises one's sexual orientation to the same level as Gender, Religion, or Race.  Remember that Lawrence v Texas is about privacy and not at the level of Civil Rights.

Oh please. Churches kick people out for pointless reasons all the time. But if they were forced not to... I still don't see a valid point. You constantly seem to be supporting prejudice.

It is possible though preachers will not be able to refuse to marry a couple on the grounds of orientation. There was a case in Florida not too long ago where one guy refused to do an inter-racial marriage. Do you think he has the right to do that?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "freeservant"THE most important thing should be that we all should bond for life so that children are raised in the most healthy known environment.

http://www.hrc.org/issues/parenting/adoptions/adoption_laws.asp

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/djglp2&div=15&id=&page

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/200811/why-not-allow-gay-marriage

Any questions?

All good stuff as long as no-fault divorce is also eliminated for all civil unions and marriages that have children.  My parents divorced when I was 7 years old and I have been harmed as a consequence.  Children are the most important thing to any life long monogamous relationship so we need to protect children in any union and I also think it would make acceptance of LGBT unions more appealing if the elimination of no-fault is a plank of any effort.  This is important to preserving the institution of marriage and I think same sex unions are inevitable but not by means of culture war and judicial fiat.

No church can be made to marry any one they don't want to. Freeservant, have you even read the First Amendment? It protects all religious institutions from any legal recourse.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights)

Gay people are not looking for religious weddings, we already have churches that will marry us, if we wanted to go to them. What we are looking for is the secular, legally binding, civil marriage that should be afforded to us. Amendment 14 protects minorities from unjust laws, like Prop. 8.

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... endment14/ (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/)

Religious bigots, mind you that is not religious people, just the bigots, like to make laws stating that we are a country founding on Christianity. The founding fathers, however, thought otherwise.

Following examples copied from http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summ ... cular.html (http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html)

George Washington-To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

Thomas Jefferson-Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

John Adams-Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

There is more on the website I showed above.

The religious right, meaning groups like NOM, FRC and the like will say this country was founded on Christian morals. This is wrong, many of the crimes we have are, indeed, common sense.  This is a secular nation, built of many religions, or lack thereof, many races, and many people. The judge in this case is correct. DOMA is unconstitutional.

To head off any ridiculous arguments, animals have no legal standing. Children are not old enough to sign any contracts until they reach 18 years of age. Polygamy was deemed unconstitutional years back. And again, this is not a Theocracy.

John

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "freeservant"THE most important thing should be that we all should bond for life so that children are raised in the most healthy known environment.

http://www.hrc.org/issues/parenting/adoptions/adoption_laws.asp

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/djglp2&div=15&id=&page

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/200811/why-not-allow-gay-marriage

Any questions?

All good stuff as long as no-fault divorce is also eliminated for all civil unions and marriages that have children.  My parents divorced when I was 7 years old and I have been harmed as a consequence.  Children are the most important thing to any life long monogamous relationship so we need to protect children in any union and I also think it would make acceptance of LGBT unions more appealing if the elimination of no-fault is a plank of any effort.  This is important to preserving the institution of marriage and I think same sex unions are inevitable but not by means of culture war and judicial fiat.

OK, wait, so you're saying that you want people to stay in a loveless relationship because they have kids? Oh, no, that won't damage kids at all. The most important thing to any life long is love. L-O-V-E...you know that nice warm fuzzy feeling you get when you look at the person you marry, unless you can't stand that person and you're with them because you have children?

Quote from: "freeservant"All good stuff as long as no-fault divorce is also eliminated for all civil unions and marriages that have children.  My parents divorced when I was 7 years old and I have been harmed as a consequence.  Children are the most important thing to any life long monogamous relationship so we need to protect children in any union and I also think it would make acceptance of LGBT unions more appealing if the elimination of no-fault is a plank of any effort.  This is important to preserving the institution of marriage and I think same sex unions are inevitable but not by means of culture war and judicial fiat.

With all due respect, I don't think that's the best idea. Being trapped in a house with two parents who can't get along and don't want to be together isn't necessarily better. In fact, it's probably worse. But we're veering from the real issue.

I would also point out that the institution of marriage has had huge problems well before gay marriage rights were on the table.  I'm frankly tired of religious people (who have a slightly higher divorce rate than atheists) babbling on about the sanctity of marriage and how whom other people marry somehow affects their own personal marriages.

Forcing people to stay married when they don't love each other won't make them magically start loving each other no matter how many kids the wife pops out.

Forcing people who love each other to not get married simply because they don't fit what some bigoted religious people consider appropriate for marriage won't make them love each other any less.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "freeservant"The culture war moves on then.  Soon we can have a viewpoint of a minority that will be forced on everybody in the name of intolerance of intolerance.

No one is going to make you marry a gay person....get real.

Ahh but think of the possibles for any and all sexual orientations.  And I rather favor a means to let two people bond for life in a monogamous way so only have a problem with the semantics of calling it marriage.  THE most important thing should be that we all should bond for life so that children are raised in the most healthy known environment.  

I'm heterosexual but never want children. If i eventually get married, does that mean my marriage won't be 'proper' because i decline to bring up any kids? Furthermore, what would be the difference between my marriage and that of a gay couple apart from the obvious 50% gender difference?

Quote from: "pinkocommie"YAY!  Some quick info for the less familiar -

QuoteDefense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions were codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law, also known as DOMA, had two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Very thoughtful post pinko, I had to google DOMA as it means nothing as a acronym to the uninitiated!
EDIT: Yes this is a good thing!

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "freeservant"Ahh but think of the possibles for any and all sexual orientations.  And I rather favor a means to let two people bond for life in a monogamous way so only have a problem with the semantics of calling it marriage.  THE most important thing should be that we all should bond for life so that children are raised in the most healthy known environment.  

I'm heterosexual but never want children. If i eventually get married, does that mean my marriage won't be 'proper' because i decline to bring up any kids? Furthermore, what would be the difference between my marriage and that of a gay couple apart from the obvious 50% gender difference?

Right there with you karadan.  Heterosexual and just being pregnant will most likely kill me, so does that mean my marriage isn't worthy or proper either because I can't contribute to the masses as your god wants?  If you think that then you are seriously screwed up.  What goes on between consenting adults in their bedroom/home is none of anyone's business.  Marriage rights for all consenting couples should be equal.

Quote from: "KDbeads"

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "freeservant"Ahh but think of the possibles for any and all sexual orientations.  And I rather favor a means to let two people bond for life in a monogamous way so only have a problem with the semantics of calling it marriage.  THE most important thing should be that we all should bond for life so that children are raised in the most healthy known environment.  

I'm heterosexual but never want children. If i eventually get married, does that mean my marriage won't be 'proper' because i decline to bring up any kids? Furthermore, what would be the difference between my marriage and that of a gay couple apart from the obvious 50% gender difference?

Right there with you karadan.  Heterosexual and just being pregnant will most likely kill me, so does that mean my marriage isn't worthy or proper either because I can't contribute to the masses as your god wants?  If you think that then you are seriously screwed up.  What goes on between consenting adults in their bedroom/home is none of anyone's business.  Marriage rights for all consenting couples should be equal.

What FS fails to understand is that a marriage that cannot be broken, especially when two people are no longer in love, can be more damaging for a child than nearly anything else.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"What FS fails to understand is that a marriage that cannot be broken, especially when two people are no longer in love, can be more damaging for a child than nearly anything else.

Oh I totally agree, I'm just not able to keep myself level headed while dealing with FS.  I grew up in one of those households where the marriage was horrible but held together for the fear of the church.  Watched my father abuse my mother and hold a gun to her head.  Was abused myself by that sick man in more ways than I care to remember because the church said it was ok because I was an insolent child.  Watched him nearly kill my brother.  Watched him actually throw an iron pan so hard it broke.

The divorce was a relief.  Though I didn't feel that relief until the 2 year divorce battle was over.  But it was a relief.

Emotional anger and me don't get along  

Ah yes, the old "it'll mess up the children argument" is rearing its head.  I remember seeing a similar argument in an article from the New York Times a few years back which I commented on in a blog I wrote:

Their argument is a developmental argument implying that gender role confusion, self-esteem issues and impaired social bond formation will arise â€" this is false.  It has been noted in scientific studies that children fair just as well as those of traditional couples (Wainright,  Russell & Patterson, 2004; MacCallum & Golobak, 2004; Meezan & Rauch, 2005 and many others).  Those thinking they hold evidence to the contrary are usually looking at the outcome of children in a single-parent versus double-parent home.  Children just need loving, caring and attentive parents - the gender of the parents will not negatively impact their development physically, psychologically or otherwise.  What will affect them negatively is the coarse, callous and bigoted people that tease, demean, discriminate against and bully the children and not their parents being the same sex.

References:

MacCallum, F. & Golombak, S. (2004). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence.  Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1407-1419.

Meezan, W. & Rauch, J. (2005). Gay marriage, same-sex parenting, and America’s children. The Future of Children, 15, 97-113.

Wainright, J., Russell, S. & Patterson, C. (2004). Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents.  Child Development, 75, 1886-1898.

Quote from: "KDbeads"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"What FS fails to understand is that a marriage that cannot be broken, especially when two people are no longer in love, can be more damaging for a child than nearly anything else.

Oh I totally agree, I'm just not able to keep myself level headed while dealing with FS.  I grew up in one of those households where the marriage was horrible but held together for the fear of the church.  Watched my father abuse my mother and hold a gun to her head.  Was abused myself by that sick man in more ways than I care to remember because the church said it was ok because I was an insolent child.  Watched him nearly kill my brother.  Watched him actually throw an iron pan so hard it broke.

The divorce was a relief.  Though I didn't feel that relief until the 2 year divorce battle was over.  But it was a relief.

Emotional anger and me don't get along  

Can give hugs? (>v_v(<^_^<)  Sucks you had to go through that.

It never fails to amaze me how some people feel justified in wanting to control other people's lives.  What the hell?  They hide behind the bible, lies about children of same sex couples being messed up, anything they can throw out there when in reality they're just bigots trying to control someone else's life because they, for whatever reason,think they have that right.  You can rest assured that future generations will look back on these people with shame, the same way we regard those jerks who tried to use the bible to justify not allowing interracial marriages.  It's blind ignorance and hate dressed up like concern topped off with a hey-god-makes-the-rules-I-just-enforce-them attitude that allows for total lack of accountability.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Can give hugs? (>v_v(<^_^<)  Sucks you had to go through that.

 :D
I view it as a life lesson on how not to behave.  It may have been the way I was raised but I don't have to live like it for the rest of my life.  But it has caused me damage, I can't be around people yelling or fighting loudly.  I break down and have flash backs and the blood pressure spikes to very unhealthy ranges.  I'm better than I used to be though and am still a productive member of society ;)

I dislike the concept of marriage, but I dislike discrimination more. Thus, bloody well done!  

Quote from: "KDbeads"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"What FS fails to understand is that a marriage that cannot be broken, especially when two people are no longer in love, can be more damaging for a child than nearly anything else.

Oh I totally agree, I'm just not able to keep myself level headed while dealing with FS.  I grew up in one of those households where the marriage was horrible but held together for the fear of the church.  Watched my father abuse my mother and hold a gun to her head.  Was abused myself by that sick man in more ways than I care to remember because the church said it was ok because I was an insolent child.  Watched him nearly kill my brother.  Watched him actually throw an iron pan so hard it broke.

The divorce was a relief.  Though I didn't feel that relief until the 2 year divorce battle was over.  But it was a relief.

Emotional anger and me don't get along  :verysad:

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "KDbeads"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"What FS fails to understand is that a marriage that cannot be broken, especially when two people are no longer in love, can be more damaging for a child than nearly anything else.

Oh I totally agree, I'm just not able to keep myself level headed while dealing with FS.  I grew up in one of those households where the marriage was horrible but held together for the fear of the church.  Watched my father abuse my mother and hold a gun to her head.  Was abused myself by that sick man in more ways than I care to remember because the church said it was ok because I was an insolent child.  Watched him nearly kill my brother.  Watched him actually throw an iron pan so hard it broke.

The divorce was a relief.  Though I didn't feel that relief until the 2 year divorce battle was over.  But it was a relief.

Emotional anger and me don't get along  :verysad:

No no no...It's not that everyone is disagreeing with YOU, don't try to make this some kind of personal persecution.  It's your POSITION people disagree with.

Quote from: "freeservant"Making divorce have a reason for the divorce is in no way a means to lock together people who NEED to get separated.

The problem I see with this is that it very easily traps two people together until they need to get separated, I think it would be far better for everyone involved if people got divorced before things get really nasty instead of making sure that by law; things have to get nasty before you can get divorced.

Quote from: "freeservant"I guess I need to caulk this up to wanting to somehow object to anything I say...

Or perhaps it was because you went on so many tangents that people were forced to make assumptions about what you were talking about.

How about you stay on topic and start a new thread if you want to complain about no fault divorce?  Oh, and this is not a request, it is a direction.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "freeservant"Making divorce have a reason for the divorce is in no way a means to lock together people who NEED to get separated.

The problem I see with this is that it very easily traps two people together until they need to get separated, I think it would be far better for everyone involved if people got divorced before things get really nasty instead of making sure that by law; things have to get nasty before you can get divorced.

I respect that you have what you feel is a good reason for quick and easy no problems divorce.

I happen to feel that people should not bond with the understanding that it is not for life.  I think it is one of the most powerful choices you can make in your life.  Every personal effort to stay together should be made but that does not mean that divorce will not be a necessary option.

Bonded together in love.

Bonded together for life.

and if you think this is a choice that should be entered into lightly then perhaps it should be put off until you understand the gravity of the lifetime commitment.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"No no no...It's not that everyone is disagreeing with YOU, don't try to make this some kind of personal persecution. It's your POSITION people disagree with.

This would make me feel better if only there was a better realization that I am not against same sex unions and that I am against some of the methods being used like judicial fiat.

Gay unions are happening NOW.  Gay unions will continue to happen.  Gay unions need to find a legal means to be recognized on at least a state by state level.  But DOMA does not stop states from exercising their tenth amendment rights and this court verdict is trying to impose something that was not needed.  I have confidence that this will be overturned in the First Circuit and still not stop any states from securing the ability for same sex unions.

Yet I still get the idea that some are not actually reading my posts fully and thus just want to attack anything I say like I am the average fundy.  I would have less reason to feel persecuted if there was a more thoughtful and more directed response with out resort to 'you are just a bigot no matter what' kind of mentality I have seen expressed.  Not to mention the conflation of my objection to no-fault divorce being a blanket indictment that I am against all divorce.

edit:

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "freeservant"I guess I need to caulk this up to wanting to somehow object to anything I say... :blush:

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "freeservant"Making divorce have a reason for the divorce is in no way a means to lock together people who NEED to get separated.

The problem I see with this is that it very easily traps two people together until they need to get separated, I think it would be far better for everyone involved if people got divorced before things get really nasty instead of making sure that by law; things have to get nasty before you can get divorced.

I respect that you have what you feel is a good reason for quick and easy no problems divorce.

I happen to feel that people should not bond with the understanding that it is not for life.  I think it is one of the most powerful choices you can make in your life.  Every personal effort to stay together should be made but that does not mean that divorce will not be a necessary option.

Bonded together in love.

Bonded together for life.

and if you think this is a choice that should be entered into lightly then perhaps it should be put off until you understand the gravity of the lifetime commitment.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"No no no...It's not that everyone is disagreeing with YOU, don't try to make this some kind of personal persecution. It's your POSITION people disagree with.

This would make me feel better if only there was a better realization that I am not against same sex unions and that I am against some of the methods being used like judicial fiat.

Gay unions are happening NOW.  Gay unions will continue to happen.  Gay unions need to find a legal means to be recognized on at least a state by state level.  But DOMA does not stop states from exercising their tenth amendment rights and this court verdict is trying to impose something that was not needed.  I have confidence that this will be overturned in the First Circuit and still not stop any states from securing the ability for same sex unions.

Yet I still get the idea that some are not actually reading my posts fully and thus just want to attack anything I say like I am the average fundy.  I would have less reason to feel persecuted if there was a more thoughtful and more directed response with out resort to 'you are just a bigot no matter what' kind of mentality I have seen expressed.  Not to mention the conflation of my objection to no-fault divorce being a blanket indictment that I am against all divorce.

If two people are in love when they marry, and years down the road, through no action, or inaction, fall out of love with each other, regardless of whether or not they have children, they should be able to divorce. Hence no fault divorce.

This is what I have been talking about since you brought it up, a marriage that is forced to remain together when the two do not love each other would be more damaging to the child than a divorce, in my opinion.

freeservant you support civil unions but not gay marriage? Why is that? Civil unions are not the same as marriagel. It is still discrimination. Why shouldn't gays be permitted the rights that come with a regular marriage?

Quote from: "Sophus"freeservant you support civil unions but not gay marriage? Why is that? Civil unions are not the same as marriagel. It is still discrimination. Why shouldn't gays be permitted the rights that come with a regular marriage?

Not being a lawyer I never the less think there is existing contract law that could button up a same sex union in ways that get around all the so called rights issues.  You would need to prove to me that a state like California could not craft a civil union so that it has all that comes with regular marriage.

I grant that my objection to calling it marriage is purely semantic. (I did make this point earlier)

Give the Christians a small little thing and just don't call it marriage when you craft a civil union so that it has all the full rights and privileges of what we fudy duddy Christians call marriage.  

Call it an underhanded psychological ploy to make Christians feel that they are not under attack or that this is a method that will lead to further attack.

...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians and keep up that attack until we have the end times reality of the open attack that will happen to Christians that means that Jesus will soon return.

Quote from: "freeservant"...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians and keep up that attack until we have the end times reality of the open attack that will happen to Christians that means that Jesus will soon return.

 

Quote from: "freeservant"...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians[...]

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchubbynickel.com%2FBlog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F09%2FChristianOppression-233x300.png&hash=00f073eb36aa6de493d9e9357c60d8c42906a25d)

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Sophus"freeservant you support civil unions but not gay marriage? Why is that? Civil unions are not the same as marriagel. It is still discrimination. Why shouldn't gays be permitted the rights that come with a regular marriage?

Not being a lawyer I never the less think there is existing contract law that could button up a same sex union in ways that get around all the so called rights issues.  You would need to prove to me that a state like California could not craft a civil union so that it has all that comes with regular marriage.

I grant that my objection to calling it marriage is purely semantic. (I did make this point earlier)

Give the Christians a small little thing and just don't call it marriage when you craft a civil union so that it has all the full rights and privileges of what we fudy duddy Christians call marriage.  

Call it an underhanded psychological ploy to make Christians feel that they are not under attack or that this is a method that will lead to further attack.

...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians and keep up that attack until we have the end times reality of the open attack that will happen to Christians that means that Jesus will soon return.

There needs to be a facedesk icon...

Gay marriage is an attack on Christians? Really? How often do you hear of gay people attacking Christians? Sure, we protest at churches. We protest at churches that helped to remove rights that even you agree are necessary. More Christians attack gay people, much like you're doing, because of what the bible tells them to do. Do you know how many gay people, for some reason that is beyond me, seeing as how we've been treated in the past and present, Christian? Quite a few. Why would they want to attack the religion they follow? Gay marriage is about equality.

Do you know how the separate but equal thing got started? Black children were going to schools, provided by the government, and given the same text books, supplied by the government. The condition of the schools were such that they were using crates as chairs and desks, and the books were in horrible repair. White people said that they were separate from them, but things were equal. Now, lets look at civil unions. We are allowed to be together in a legally binding contract. We are given many of the same rights at heterosexual people, but not all the rights of heterosexual people. We are not allowed to legally call each other husband, or for the ladies, wife, because we are not married, we are joined in a civil union. The federal government, as yet, does not recognize gay marriage. At this point, we can't even say separate but equal.

Oh, and I love this argument. You have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite gender as anyone else... :brick:  :brick:  
Makes me want to puke. Here is the difference. You, as a straight person, are able to marry the person that you choose, or love. I as a gay man may choose to marry a woman, but that marriage would lack all forms of love, yours would not. I cannot, currently, marry the man I live with, love, cherish, help around the house, see off to college on a daily basis, welcome home on a daily basis or sleep in same same bed on a nightly basis. This is not equal.

You say Christians are under attack? I say Christians are running the government, and it needs to stop.

Quote from: "freeservant"Give the Christians a small little thing and just don't call it marriage when you craft a civil union so that it has all the full rights and privileges of what we fudy duddy Christians call marriage.  

Yep, that reeks of "separate but equal" to me. The US has already done this once, didn't work out so well

I personally think the state should only recognize civil unions and leave "marriage" to the churches...they can have that word I'm not that attached to it.  However, per the State of Oklahoma I am married (says Certificate of Marriage on the paperwork) even though neither of us is the least bit religious and we did not hold the ceremony in a church.  We would have opted for a civil union had it been made available to us and we are a male/female couple.

We weren't given an option either, were 'married' by a judge at a courthouse.  Certificate said marriage.

I don't have an attachment to the term used to define it either, just ensure the same rights, call it something else and done.

Quote from: "freeservant"Not being a lawyer I never the less think there is existing contract law that could button up a same sex union in ways that get around all the so called rights issues.  You would need to prove to me that a state like California could not craft a civil union so that it has all that comes with regular marriage.

From a quick this is what I found.
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

They're not equal, and are not malleable enough to be made entirely equal. Even if they were it still wouldn't be because it would demand more work and money on the part of the couple in the civil union.

Furthermore, I have many gay friends. Some lesbians as well. But the only one who participates in the parades and is the most politically active and open about pushing for equal rights is a die-hard Christian. There are gay Christians who disagree with the way the laws currently stand so I don't know how you can frame this as an attack on Christianity.

Quote from: "Sophus"Furthermore, I have many gay friends. Some lesbians as well. But the only one who participates in the parades and is the most politically active and open about pushing for equal rights is a die-hard Christian. There are gay Christians who disagree with the way the laws currently stand so I don't know how you can frame this as an attack on Christianity.

I actually find this both cool, and kinda sad at the same time. I think all gay people should be fighting for their rights, so the ones that aren't, in my personal opinion need to get up off their butts and get to it.

Otherwise, yay gay Christians!

Quote from: "Whitney"I personally think the state should only recognize civil unions and leave "marriage" to the churches...they can have that word I'm not that attached to it.  However, per the State of Oklahoma I am married (says Certificate of Marriage on the paperwork) even though neither of us is the least bit religious and we did not hold the ceremony in a church.  We would have opted for a civil union had it been made available to us and we are a male/female couple.

Beat me to it. Everybody gets a 'Civil Union' and woo merchants can call it what they like. Civil Union sounds far more secular and it has no historical interpretive baggage.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Whitney"I personally think the state should only recognize civil unions and leave "marriage" to the churches...they can have that word I'm not that attached to it.  However, per the State of Oklahoma I am married (says Certificate of Marriage on the paperwork) even though neither of us is the least bit religious and we did not hold the ceremony in a church.  We would have opted for a civil union had it been made available to us and we are a male/female couple.

Beat me to it. Everybody gets a 'Civil Union' and woo merchants can call it what they like. Civil Union sounds far more secular and it has no historical interpretive baggage.

The thing is that the right wingers will never go for it. What needs to happen is the government getting of its proverbial fat ass, and legislating it, and not allowing our rights to be put up to vote. Same thing with ENDA, Trans-rights, or any minorities rights.

It ain't over ‘til at least five SCOTOS justices agree that the 14th amendment says so, or ‘til there's another amendment that's drafted and ratified by 2/3rds of our congress and senators (and another 2/3rds from the states).

And yet, the system works, it always comes through. Slowly, sometimes, but it will eventually secure every kind of citizen their equal protections and privileges like it was “destined” to do.

Darwin bless America, the home of human evolution.

Quoteintolerance of intolerance

What's really sad is that freeservant doesn't even realize that, in this statement, he is confessing to intolerance.

What's even sadder is that he'll want to argue, "But I know I'm admitting to intolerance!"  At least until now.

Freeservant, answer me this: you claim to be Christian.  You claim to worship the Almighty God.  Why on earth does he need the support of mortal law?  Is his judgment so undependable that you feel the need to add your two cents' worth?  Who are you to appoint yourself God's back-up?  And isn't that Pride?

You take care of your sex life.  Let gay folk take care of theirs.  If your god is real, then it'll all come out in the wash.  Attempting to legislate "his will" only makes you look like you don't really believe he'll follow through, o ye of little faith.

Religious laws are ipso facto an admission of doubt.

Thumpy, why are you trying to persuade a Christian on some kind of religious grounds? Their religious arguments and reasons shouldn't matter that much in this debate, since this ought to--and will have to be--decided on constitutional grounds (and there is no ‘christ·ian’ in “con·sti·tut·ion”). This is America man, the land where only Christians should have to care what other Christians think.

Quote from: "bumbleking"Thumpy, why are you trying to persuade a Christian on some kind of religious grounds? Their religious arguments and reasons shouldn't matter that much in this debate, since this ought to--and will have to be--decided on constitutional grounds (and there is no ‘christ·ian’ in “con·sti·tut·ion”). This is America man, the land where only Christians should have to care what other Christians think.

If you wish to change minds, you must first speak the language of your listener.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "bumbleking"Thumpy, why are you trying to persuade a Christian on some kind of religious grounds? Their religious arguments and reasons shouldn't matter that much in this debate, since this ought to--and will have to be--decided on constitutional grounds (and there is no ‘christ·ian’ in “con·sti·tut·ion”). This is America man, the land where only Christians should have to care what other Christians think.

If you wish to change minds, you must first speak the language of your listener.

Yep. If one is perceived as an enemy then you're wasting your time trying to win hearts and minds. It just ain't going to happen. Best case be seen as a friend, next best as cooperative neutral but never as an enemy. Winning an argument is not the same as changing a person's mind as the beaten individual simply leaves or concedes defeat, but they don't usually change their minds.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "bumbleking"Thumpy, why are you trying to persuade a Christian on some kind of religious grounds? Their religious arguments and reasons shouldn't matter that much in this debate, since this ought to--and will have to be--decided on constitutional grounds (and there is no ‘christ·ian’ in “con·sti·tut·ion”). This is America man, the land where only Christians should have to care what other Christians think.

If you wish to change minds, you must first speak the language of your listener.

Yep. If one is perceived as an enemy then you're wasting your time trying to win hearts and minds. It just ain't going to happen. Best case be seen as a friend, next best as cooperative neutral but never as an enemy. Winning an argument is not the same as changing a person's mind as the beaten individual simply leaves or concedes defeat, but they don't usually change their minds.

I don't mind being seen as an opponent.  My point is that if you can carry the point even when it is framed in the terms of your debater, then the point sinks that much deeper.

I will always be an enemy of bigotry, which is what this is.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I don't mind being seen as an opponent.  My point is that if you can carry the point even when it is framed in the terms of your debater, then the point sinks that much deeper.

I will always be an enemy of bigotry, which is what this is.

I'm not sure I see opponent automatically as an enemy, but I'm not looking for a semantic argument either, I agree with what you're saying. I have spent many years in business in all sorts of rolls that involved negotiation and have found that for there to be a long lasting and mutually respecting agreement it is generally easier to achieve if the discussion never reaches boiling point, if possible. Sometimes the gloves have to come off but that in my experience is a last resort position. I have been in sales situations where I have said some quite brutal things on the basis the sale was lost anyway so I had nothing to lose, 80/20 hit rate on that but it did work sometimes.

It's all good though, I'll be nice Cop and you be bad Cop  

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I don't mind being seen as an opponent.  My point is that if you can carry the point even when it is framed in the terms of your debater, then the point sinks that much deeper.

I will always be an enemy of bigotry, which is what this is.

I'm not sure I see opponent automatically as an enemy, but I'm not looking for a semantic argument either, I agree with what you're saying. I have spent many years in business in all sorts of rolls that involved negotiation and have found that for there to be a long lasting and mutually respecting agreement it is generally easier to achieve if the discussion never reaches boiling point, if possible. Sometimes the gloves have to come off but that in my experience is a last resort position. I have been in sales situations where I have said some quite brutal things on the basis the sale was lost anyway so I had nothing to lose, 80/20 hit rate on that but it did work sometimes.

It's all good though, I'll be nice Cop and you be bad Cop  

hahah.

On a serious note, I get pretty het up about this, because my son's mother is bisexual, and her and her SigOth are denied the ability to legally marry.  These personal feelings, unfortunately, affect my objectivity.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Sophus"freeservant
Give the Christians a small little thing and just don't call it marriage when you craft a civil union so that it has all the full rights and privileges of what we fudy duddy Christians call marriage.  

Call it an underhanded psychological ploy to make Christians feel that they are not under attack or that this is a method that will lead to further attack.

...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians and keep up that attack until we have the end times reality of the open attack that will happen to Christians that means that Jesus will soon return.

THIS is a HUGE problem with the whole thinking process of Christians, the ENTITLEMENT CLAUSE!  Religion has been given the "benefit of the doubt" these "small things" for centuries, and at the same time, refuse to budge an inch on anything that they feel is against their belief system.  NO, we should NOT give the Christian Community this "small thing" because then they will want another concession and another, and before you know it, they are getting everything they want, because they are entitled to.

Quote from: "bumbleking"Thumpy, why are you trying to persuade a Christian on some kind of religious grounds? Their religious arguments and reasons shouldn't matter that much in this debate, since this ought to--and will have to be--decided on constitutional grounds (and there is no ‘christ·ian’ in “con·sti·tut·ion”). This is America man, the land where only Christians should have to care what other Christians think.

I have to say this and it's meant as a constructive comment, but I think you need to read more about how the whole Christian thought process goes.  This is America, where Christians have been given this sense of entitlement to care about what EVERYONE thinks, and how everyone acts, lives, and is treated by the Government.  This is the problem with religion in America today, in NO other advanced society in the world, is religion allowed to have such an impact on the legal system.

People in countries like Denmark, Finland, Germany, and England LAUGH at us when they see how much power the Religious Right have on American politics and laws in this country.

Quote from: "freeservant"...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians and keep up that attack until we have the end times reality of the open attack that will happen to Christians that means that Jesus will soon return.

I'm not sure how I missed this other point, but how on earth does allowing strangers same-sex marriage attack you at all?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "freeservant"...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians and keep up that attack until we have the end times reality of the open attack that will happen to Christians that means that Jesus will soon return.

I'm not sure how I missed this other point, but how on earth does allowing strangers same-sex marriage attack you at all?

In the exact same way us being open about our atheism is an attack on Christianity.  Which is to say it really isn't, they just want an excuse for their intolerance.  Doesn't take much, apparently.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "freeservant"...Or we could be open about things and just say that the gay marriage thing is truly about attacking Christians and keep up that attack until we have the end times reality of the open attack that will happen to Christians that means that Jesus will soon return.

I'm not sure how I missed this other point, but how on earth does allowing strangers same-sex marriage attack you at all?

In the exact same way us being open about our atheism is an attack on Christianity.  Which is to say it really isn't, they just want an excuse for their intolerance.  Doesn't take much, apparently.

Here, Here, and a hundred kudos to you......

Gosh, you'd think an immortal and omnipotent god would find mortal laws rather trifling.

Who are these people, that they think God needs their assistance?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Gosh, you'd think an immortal and omnipotent god would find mortal laws rather trifling.

Who are these people, that they think God needs their assistance?

Given his track record, it isn't surprising that they wouldn't be that confident in his ability to intervene in earthly matters.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Gosh, you'd think an immortal and omnipotent god would find mortal laws rather trifling.

Who are these people, that they think God needs their assistance?

Given his track record, it isn't surprising that they wouldn't be that confident in his ability to intervene in earthly matters.

I stand corrected.

Quote from: "bumbleking"Thumpy, why are you trying to persuade a Christian on some kind of religious grounds? Their religious arguments and reasons shouldn't matter that much in this debate, since this ought to--and will have to be--decided on constitutional grounds (and there is no ‘christ·ian’ in “con·sti·tut·ion”). This is America man, the land where only Christians should have to care what other Christians think.

You are absolutely right that we shouldn't have to care what Christians think, but, look at the sway they have over some people. Look at Prop. 8 in California and, for that matter, Question 1 in Maine. They spread lies that feed on the fears of people to get their votes. Some of them have no problem trespassing on grounds that they've been told to leave to get their signatures.

In jails you can increase your odds of probation if you "find God". In many states people can be fired or deplorable reasons, mostly because of its religious background. <Mind you on the last example, that's my personal opinion.>

We don't have to care what they think, but because of their strangle hold on this country, we are kinda forced to care, at the very least so we can stop them from running it any further into the ground.

Again, if you do not argue in their framework, they will assign you the quality of irrelevancy.  If you argue in terms of Christian morals and ethics, they must either change their behavior or abjure their dogma; but they cannot argue your points being irrelevant if you've taken the time to argue from their POV.

It's how judo works, it's how military campaigns work, and it's how cultural change works too.  MLK succeeded largely because he argued the equal rights case using the language of patriotism and Christianity.  What Southerner could argue that?  He spoke their language, seized their treasured causes, and turned those concepts against the racists who espoused them.

Googling what DOMA stands for...

Defense of Marriage Act?

Oh! an anti-gay marriage thing!

YAY!  DOMA has started to fall.

I'll read those articles... later.

I'm lazy.

Quote from: "freeservant"

QuoteNational Organization for Marriage Decries
Boston Federal Judge's Decision Striking Down the Defense of Marriage Act

"A Boston judge has no moral right to decide the marriage question for the people of the U.S."
â€" Brian Brown, President, National Organization for Marriage

WASHINGTON, DC â€" The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statements today in response to a federal judge in Boston ruling the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

"Under the guidance of Elena Kagan’s brief that she filed when she was Solicitor General, Obama's justice department deliberately sabotaged this case," charged Brian Brown, President of NOM, referring to the Justice Department's brief which described DOMA as discriminatory. Despite the explicit language in DOMA that the law was designed to protect children's right to their mothers and fathers, the judge disavowed that DOMA has anything to do with responsible procreation. "With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1996. A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States," Brown continued.

"Does this federal judge want to start another culture war?" asked Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM. "Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade? The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy. Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case. We expect to win in a higher court."

http://rubyurl.com/JAzl (http://rubyurl.com/JAzl)

The culture war moves on then.  Soon we can have a viewpoint of a minority that will be forced on everybody in the name of intolerance of intolerance.[/quote]
Get real,it's the intolerant conservative Christian viewpoint that is in the minority today. They just tend to make the most noise.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"It never fails to amaze me how some people feel justified in wanting to control other people's lives.  What the hell?  They hide behind the bible, lies about children of same sex couples being messed up, anything they can throw out there when in reality they're just bigots trying to control someone else's life because they, for whatever reason,think they have that right.  You can rest assured that future generations will look back on these people with shame, the same way we regard those jerks who tried to use the bible to justify not allowing interracial marriages.  It's blind ignorance and hate dressed up like concern topped off with a hey-god-makes-the-rules-I-just-enforce-them attitude that allows for total lack of accountability.

On it's most basic level, that is what religion is all about: control of others by the church. The problem we have in this country right now is that we have a small but very vocal minority of right wing conservative Christians who want to force their views on the rest of us. I just don't understand how the US, which at one time was probably one of the most progressive places  in the world has let these backwards ignorant people so hijack the national discussion on issues like this. If the Jesus freaks want to follow their "Gods law" let them, but last I checked nobody voted for "God" either for President or to any legislative post in the Federal or any state government anywhere in the country. I'm pretty sure that means the rest of us should follow the laws passed by our government. (And of course work to change the oppressive,backwards ones like DOMA, DADT, and the Arizona immigration law.) If we are going to move forward in any real way as a society, we need to become MORE open and tolerant, not less. For what it's worth I am a 40-something working-class white guy, from the mid-west, straight and happily UN-married to the same partner for over 15 years.

It always cracked me up that Christians would try to enforce their religion through law anyway, as if their god if powerless to change mortal affairs.

Wait a minute ....