When then"homosexual community" obtains their "marriage rights" then we will see Mormon {Polygamy in all its glory. It nullifies all non mormon marriages and contracts, defines innocent blood and threatens Joe;s wife with murder. What does the homo' community have in store for us?
How does it feel you neocon prick? You attacked the only real conservative in the race Constitution Party candidate Dave Brownlow and guess what? Mr. Brownlow stole all of your conservative support away, you turncoat warmongering corporate sellout. Good night and good riddance to another RePUKEandCON criminal.
Without federal interference. What we have now is the probability that if a state allows gay marriage into the law books (rather than civil unions) the supreme courts will hear the case to make a concurrence between federal and state law.
Hopefully the states can define marriage as they like and if anyone solicits those laws to the supreme court as a republican controlled supreme court they would deny hearing that case. Meaning they would uphold the states decision to support gay marriage. I think a better compromise though would have been defining marriage as between one person to another. That way Smith would have eliminated polygamy concerns and states could still decide.
Conservatives want us to believe that the sphere of the church and the state shouldn't be separated on this issue. The reason I say this is because for most Conservatives they actually think the term marriage as employed by the church is the same as the term employed by the state. They aren't equivalent so long as we treat the church and state as separate entities. I agree with JohnBach on this issue. And I think that is what Smith was saying, but as a 'good' republican would as a state issue.
Not that I support him or not. I found this response really insightful. He didn't equate homosexuality with polygamy in fact he agreed with a civil union compromise. He actually used this issue and this vote as a criticism of radical members of his own church. He then went with a really moderate position: he separated the def. of marriage by the church to that which the state accommodates. Conservatives who want to ban civil unions/marriage don't make that distinction.
I don't see how the definition of marriage matters to the heterosexuals who aren't affected by it. Marriage for a muslim or Japanese person means something different... it's cultural. This is why we need to keep the CIVIL side of marriage separate from religion... it's just a way of making sure the partner who survives the person gets help to take care of what was left behind. This has nothing to do with redefining Christian marriage.
Keep your religion to yourself, douche. Stop trying to use your power to impose it on the rest of Oregon. Equal rights for every man, woman and child.
And he does not want gays to marry or they will be run out of the country like the early mormans. Makes perfect sense. He's concerned about gays having a home! How sweet!
By the way government has no business being in people bedrooms. If they aren't hurting anyone then so be it. Gays can get married if they want and why anyone marry more then one women is beyond me. whatever.
what so hard to understand? he see's gay marriage the same way he sees mormon marriage which is "Polygomy". It shouldn't be judged or determined by the opinion of the state, what he actually said was pretty brave.
Mr. Smith, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it, may God have mercy on your soul
no one is going to force a church to perform a gay marriage against the church's will. But there is marriage outside of the system of churches. Secular marriage. And that's what's going to happen. The California decision was based on rock solid argument that separate is not equal. It wasn't in the day of "white" and "colored" water fountains and it isn't in the case of marriage for heteros and "civil unions" or domestic partnerships" for lesbians and gays. It's coming, like it or not.
The title, I'm guessing, stems from the fact that the Senator seems to endorse one view (individual states should retain authority over definitions of & rules regarding marriage, even when those definitions marginalize certain segments of society), and then attempts to support it w/ an emotional argument that appears to better support the opposite view (let's open the definition of marriage to prevent discrimination). The 1st idea defends his vote. The 2nd defends his support of civil unions.
marriage is not a strictly religious institution. It's nice that he's religious and has been in 1 marriage for that long (in contrast to the hypocrasy of most gay marriage critics, usually on marriage 3 or 4) but the specialness of his commendable marriage will be affected
NOT ONE BIT
by gays and lesbians being able to be married.
It is not fair for his religious convictions to deny rights to others that he enjoys himself.
How is it so difficult to see what the Gordon Smith is saying? He's saying there must be a way to satisfy both sides of the issue without escalating the conflict. He would like to avoid the prejudice and persecution that his ancestors experienced. All of the comments posted seem to convey the exact opposite of that message. It's time to reconcile and stop the hate.
Yeah, What the heck IS he talking about? Marriage is a social institution, not a religious one like he says. It's not defined by religion and it shouldn't be. so it would be discriminatory to exclude homosexuals. Yeah, the bible is against homosexual marriage, but thank god we don't live in a country with laws defined by the bible.
Government has no right to your life...If God can let us live free, to choose for ourselves all the aspecs of our lives without intervention (including partners), then who does our government or anyone else to think they are to take such higher authority to decide.
An illegal war in Iraq and you wanna debate marriage ^^ Who cares, let people marry whoever thay want to!! There are more important shit to take care of.
Rip Van Winkle awoke on a clear Catskill morning and fearing his wide might find him after a twenty year sleep, he snuck into a little hat. In that very hat he sat and one day a fella peered into his hat. Just as the fella was about to throw two stones at him to get him out, Ol' Rip Van Winkle whooped up a yarn longer n the stitches that hold up the sky. He told him a great story from which the man started a cult and got mighty famous. So he let poor Rip Van Winkle live in his hat e'er after.
A zen monestary took in a stray cat, but during evening meditation the cat would whine and wail and hiss, disrupting the monks terribly. The head abbott decided they would tie the cat up in the basement until after meditations. 300 years later a monk went to his superior and asked him why they tied a cat up in the basement during evening meditations, he had no idea, but they still did it anyway.
shouldnt all US citizens have the same rights? The only thing that takes away rights in our country is commiting a crime. Are you people bold enough to say that being different is a crime?
Civil unions and Church marriages are already separate under law. If you get married in a church you are not seen as legally married till you have a civil ceremony. They are both called the same thing due to laziness but really are not.
The sad thing is that most people actually agree, its just one side that wants everything when in fact they have already been offered everything they asked for. Which leads me to think they are not being honest about what they really want, to be honest.
"From the bottom of my heart," I'd like to tell you to stop imposing your Mormon religion and its hateful prejudices on others.Haven't we had enough of this? Can't we allow others to live their lives with the SAME RIGHTS? What IS WRONG with you??? I can barely believe the people of Oregon actually elected you and hope that they rectify that situation at their next opportunity. When is your term up? There HAS to be a viable Democratic candidate who can take out this obvious bigot.
Gordan it's time to pack up the U-haul and head for Utah. Your last minute "now I'm against the war" isn't gonna cut it you will be tied to your Bush party like all your fellow toxic slime GOPers that you run adds for this year!
If you don't like the concept of gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex- its
that simple. As for Gordon Smith's remark
about "starting an even bigger problem" - Anyone who iscatering to the private prejudices of common people without any explanation or reasoning is simply a demagogue whether he is intelligent enough to realize it or not.
Im not exactly sure what problems he is referring to as in trying to spare us from. It would be interesting to gere something more concrete and substantial. Because I can't seem to think of any problems it would cause really.
cqy: I believe he was attempting to show how his statement might be viewed by knowing facts about his religious background. This is what Romney was doing when he gave his speech about his religion.
True marraige is a personal commitment between two people regardless of their sex, nationality, race etc.
The problem is that there are legal ramifications associated with marraige in the US and the individual states.
If you abolish the legal status of marriage - in other words all marraiges are "legal unions" as far as the state goes, then you have no problems..... it is all a bogus, state imposed proposition. Do you really need the govt. to decide what marraige is?
he is afraid of gay marriage, thinking it will "damage" straight marriage, but he is "doing the best he can" by "giving" some contractual rights, if I understand him correctly.
Pls people, think it through; if marriage is a legal entity, it is unconstitutional 2 deny it to gay people, and if the state only regulates the legal aspect and marriage is a religious institution, then give the contracts equally to both gay and straight, and let churches use the word "marriage" and marry who they wish.
apollo: I see where you're going, but the word "marriage" is meaningful in our culture. Even if a gov't is only concerned with the legal question of marriage, the "real-life" essence of marriage is part of the culture, one of society's key institutions. Thus the state must retain the word "marriage" as the name for it, and recognize it equally for gays and heterosexuals. It's like separate but equal - no quarter must be given to anti-gay prejudice.
"Thus the state must retain the word "marriage" as the name for it, and recognize it equally for gays and heterosexuals. It's like separate but equal - no quarter must be given to anti-gay prejudice."
Realizing that there are big differences between a heterosexual union and a homosexual one is not being anti-gay. It is simply a fact.
starry: There are no differences between heterosexual and homosexual marriages that need to be worried about from the standpoint of recognition by the government. The essence of homophobia is the perception that differences between gay and straight are dramatic as opposed to innocuous. A homosexual union has the same needs for spousal protection of access to insurance coverage, homestead law protection, etc. as does a heterosexual one. That's what is important.
apollo: your second sentence is confusing to me. I believe in equality. I believe marriage has a general meaning in society. I believe that, from the standpoint of the state's position, it cannot prevent same-sex marriages because it is in effect discriminating against individuals based on their private sexual behavior. In no way other than private sex is same-sex marriage different from hetero marriage. Are you saying the same thing?
Rights are god-given, and our Constitution states that all people are created equal. You don't have the moral authority to tell someone he can or cannot have equal rights. Equality is basic, and those who fight against it are fools or morally flawed.
ou8: Here's a nice discussion of how we ended up with "endowed by our creator" in our Declaration of Independence. Google: natural rights of man and click on the top link.
nich, Q: you understand that this is regarding the christian god, right. The one who "says" gays are damned in hell?
You know the ALL loving god.. Who grants life,liberty and the right to happeness to ALL humans(except during the crusades&inquisition)And it seems unless your gay.
Is that the one your talking about?
Human rights are just that...for ALL humans..Too bad this guy is AS ALWAYS just trying to save his own butt. They NEVER answer a DIRECT Question with a DIRECT Answer..
ou8: I can see you're making a distinction between god-given and natural rights, but in this context, I don't think it makes much of a difference. But sure, I completely agree that we don't need the "support" provided by the idea of a "creator" in order to legitimize the idea of inalienable (guaranteed just 'cause you're human) rights.
ou8: sorry, please be explicit, not sure what you're saying there. "letting these folks tell us our laws?" ??? Not sure what you mean, part of gov't is to make and enforce laws. Do you have an argument against that??
Gov. is to make laws in which WE THE PEOPLE have influenced by informing us of what is "on the table" and then given the opportunity to react to and or change by our Statesmen/women. NOT the other way around. Have you been paying attention to our laws over the past oh, 10+ years now? Or even the past 7yrs? We ARE TOLD what the laws will be, not what laws we have agreed upon thru our senators and such. Do you use news sources other than the main stream media?
ou8one: Reading your comment, it appears you feel that the Bush administration didn't allow enough public input into lawmaking processes. There's no doubt that the Bush admin has engaged in a lot of top-down governing, the FCC has been especially guilty of this. Hopefully, an Obama administration will be more open and flexible. If you have credible news sources you want to source, be explicit about them.
Nich, If your only using fox, cnn, nbc, abc and cbs, then your not getting all the news reported. Your only get what they want to show you..
Use alternate media, and use other countries as well. If you do not do this, then we're just going to keep going around and around.
If you still do not understand what I'm talking about, then you either haven't been here in the US very long, or your still sleeping..either way it's ok, just wake up to the fear and war mongering going on around us,daily
ou8: I use a variety of news sources, including bbc, al jazeera, dem now, and even rightwing sources like new repub, various blogs, etc., but it wouldn't matter whether I knew what you were referring to or not, I would still insist that you point to some sort of credible news source(s) before I would pay attention to anything you were saying.
that's why you commented on my first comment posted here.. Funny, it wouldn't matter if you knew what I was talking about or not?!?
You should reread your comments PRIOR to posting, otherwise folks will either A.stop paying attention to you or B.point out your doubletalk and point their finger at you and laugh..to say the least.
Nich, to insist is like throwing yourself on the floor and throwing a tamtrum.
But as I said the Internet is a wonderful thing if used properly. For my comments you can look at the laws that are in print from Congress. You can look up anything I said just with a search engine. Then from there you cross reference and research it.I don't take the news at face value.I question just about everything,critical thinking has been given to "experts" to we can go back to sleep and to stay that way..
ou8: In other words, you can't point to anything specific, you just make stuff up and somehow everyone is supposed to agree with you and your views. Too bad, no sale.
marriage is a LEGAL act in this country, not a religious one, and anyone who tries to tie the government with religion is trying to destroy the constitution that this country is built on. although i see where smith is coming from (he's mormon? lol i should pay more attention to my own senators) the problem is already very big as it stands.
Hi. Let's do a fact check. Marriage was specifically a religious act until the Health Department started regulating is in the early 1900s. Philosophically, marriage has always been a religious tradition, not a legal contract.
lidi: Marriage is a relationship recognized by the state. There are good reasons for doing so that have to do with pensions, home ownership, inheritance, and a variety of other legal and civil aspects. The origins of such recognition don't matter, we're concerned about the right of a homosexual's marriage to be recognized by the state. The 14th amendment guarantees equal rights to all citizens, so unless someone can show harm, gays have the right to be married.
At what point of my fact check did I argue for or against federal regulation of marriage or for or against the rights of homosexuals?
The history of 'marriage' in this country has always been about the religious beliefs of the people taking the vows, UNTIL the Health Department was created in the early 1900s, altering the constitution and putting more regulations on people, taking power away from the States.
Yes, of course all people should have equal rights.
thehomie: Re: "At what point . . ?" when you challenge marriage as a legal institution in the U.S., you're arguing for "religious definitions" of marriage which ultimately may lead to definitions that exclude certain religiously-unacceptable unions. You're one of those Ron Paul people who want to ruin the country. No thanks.
DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKs
and you, sir, are an atomic dick-hole. they aren't hurting you by existing. they want equal rights like everyone else. let 'em live. thats what i say. its not some global plan to dismantle religion or anything like that. open your mind and shut your face. also, sheikyerbooty? really?
I didn't attack anyone, I simply made an analogy. I have nothing against gay people, in fact the more gay guys there are, the better my odds get. I am just trying to point out that marriage was never intended for gay people, just like baseball was never intended to have a goalie. Gay people suing for marriage is like a goalie suing to be on a baseball team.
"marriage was never intended for gay people" that is thoughtless and laughable, man. You are imagining some straight person intending marriage. Marriage just happened to be between man and woman, because the gay folks were in hiding, so they wouldnt get killed or imprisoned. The majority -straights- became the tradition. No great moral authority or "Decider" came up with a universal "definition" of marriage. These marriage arguments have no logical or legal merit.
For two thousand years marraige was a religious act, it is mistakenly seen as a legal action after June 23rd 1885, but it was never intended as such, it was according to lawmakers "...a need to document births, deaths and marriages that could not be substantiated for legal cases "
I can understand why you would want tax breaks and other financial rewards afforded to the married. Yet why on Earth would you want a religious ceremony, when the religion says everything you are doing is wrong ?
I think that was my point, marraige was never meant to be a " legal " status. That was an unintended consequence of having people register with the health and census bureaus
Yet if history is not good enough for you, let's try logic. If marraige is not a religious ceremony, why do the ceremonies differ from religion to religion ? If it were a legal action, wouldn't all the ceremonies be the same?
And, if marriage is "religious", why can you get married in a civil ceremony (if you are not same sex) and be considered "married" the same as if you were married in a religious ceremony?
And for that matter, you can get married by a pagan priest or minister (forgive me, I don't know the proper terminology here) and be considered by the state (and fed) to be married the same as if you had a religious (Baptist, Catholic, Jewish, etc.) ceremony?
shiek: I think your example here defeats your own argument. Ceremonies differ from religion to religion (I will take your word for it), and that is a matter for students of religion. The state has nothing to say about those ceremonies, but is only concerned with marriage as a legal arrangement. Marriage must be open to all citizens, even ones who want to marry someone of the same sex.
Marriage happens to be "subsidized" for the benefits and purposes that heterosexual couples may provide. Homesexual couples can't fulfill the purposes and intents that are being legally subsidized, sorry.
Further, "marriage" is defined as a union between a man and a woman.
So if you find another term for homosexual unions + are not eligible for subsidies you can't fulfill, you are left with what you already have.
starry: Sorry, the 14th amendment guarantees equal rights to all citizens. There must be a compelling state interest to prevent a marriage, such as inability to give consent. Any subsidy for heterosexual marriage applies just as well to homosexual marriage. The subsidy argument against gay marriage is a rationale for anti-gay prejudice.
Tax breaks and subsidies are NOT rights, especially when they are specifically for purposes specific and unique to heterosexual couples.
I am not eligible for many tax breaks and subsidies that other types of citizens have, such that the blind and disabled have for example. Native Americans also get help from the government for certain things as well.
starry: And if you can make an argument that such subsidies and taxes are specifically for hetero couples, then you might be able to make that stick, but you can't win the argument. You can make the argument for blind and disabled, but you can't for heterosexual/homosexual couples. In all the ways that matter for society, there are no differences between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Such arguments are merely vehicles for discriminating against gay people.
"In all the ways that matter for society, there are no differences between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Such arguments are merely vehicles for discriminating against gay people."
Discrimination =/= hate, wrong
There are huge differences between hetero- and homo- couples, and what they offer for society. That is all there is to it. Period.I can't even figure out how you fail to realize that. So, I guess we have to agree to disagree.
starry: I "fail to realize that" because in every way except the privacy of their own bedroom, there are no differences. Each person has the right to choose his/her partner to make a life with him or her. It's an equal rights thing. When people are married, they're a bit more stable, they are probably more likely to help out in community affairs. They have coupleship goals, they may have and raise children. In all important ways, gay and straight marriages are the same.
starry: The biggest problem for people against gay marriage is that they can't show that there is any harm in it. Even if they could show that gays don't really enjoy marriage or that gays become disappointed because they can't have kids, it still wouldn't work. The reason is that people against gay marriage can't really show that gay marriage actually hurts anything or anyone else. It certainly doesn't hurt hetero marriage. In fact, it hurts nothing and no one.
clerical: even tho' you're kidding around, I think for some people just the mere awareness that a gay marriage exists in their city is enough for them to lose sleep!! I'm sure the same thing could be said for mixed-race marriages at one time. Oh well . . .
hmm i see well i was just replieng to ur comment where it saids " in fact, it hurst nothing and no one". ur right and u know i think the cause of all this is religion, becouse if ur gay ur automatically "Sinning" how stupid is that? and am starting to see alot of people not give a crap about religion anymore.
cleric: Lol, yup, i knew what you meant, and I was agreeing with you. But as far as religion, I believe that people have anti-gay prejudice, and then they sort of "use" religion in order to feel self-righteous while they practice their anti-gay discrimination. I figure they are probably particularly devout when it comes to anti-homosexual teachings, and not so devout about other things, like the central message from Jesus about forgiveness and tolerance in the New Testament.
This is an AWESOME comment! Great point that I'd not thought of.... thanks man for being the steady presence of reason in this lively discussion. Much appreciated.
Actually, there is plenty of proof that it does negatively impact the meaning and solidity of the hetero marriage. And indeed, families lifestyles. Where at? It is all over the internet,in multiple books, and in the form of reports from the nations that have legalized gay marriage. Not opinions, but proven statistical data.
There are other arguments I can form, purely secular (non-religious), but as I said before youtube comments are inadequate for this kind of discussion.
starry: Lol, how would that work? "Families' lifestyles" in hetero familes are impacted by the existence of a homosexual marriage? If it's all over the internet, then surely you can name at least one credible report? The only reason there would be for an impact is the existence of anti-gay prejudice. Just as in the case of progress in matters of race, we can't consider anti-gay feelings as legitimate reasons to prevent gay marriage.
starry: (2) At one time in our history, business owners said, e.g., " well, I can't put a Black guy on my parts counter, my customers won't like it. It will harm my business." That ridiculous argument didn't last long because we knew we couldn't allow a complaint stemming from anti-Black sentiment to be legitimate as far as claiming harm. It's a circular argument, and claims of harm from anti-gay people use the same logic.
starry: But in fact it is employed by anyone arguing harm to others from homosexual marriage. In essence ALL those arguments are basically saying, "homosexual marriage makes me uncomfortable, or makes someone uncomfortable, and so therefore, does harm." But in fact, the harm springs from homophobia and anti-gay prejudice. If you eliminate the homophobia, the harm disappears.
shiek: religious ceremony? Are you talking about a wedding? Plenty of people get married without a wedding. You don't even need to leave the courthouse to get married. No religious preference, procedure, or other thing is required. No one in this debate cares about the religious aspect - it's all about the state recognizing the relationship as a legal marriage.
shiek: Re: "Marriage was never intended for gay people" is like saying that Blacks were not intended to marry Caucasians. You're making a "natural order" argument. All those arguments are anti-gay prejudice rationales. The Constitution guarantees equal rights to every citizen unless you can show some compelling reason why it shouldn't. You can't show any reason why the gov't needs to be evaluating what sort of sex anyone has in private. Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone.
Who said government should interfere in what sex people had, however the seperation of church and state should prohibit the government from forcibly changing a religious ceremony. Yes you are correct when you say someone can go to the courthouse and get married. The thing is until 1885 you couldn't, until then it was a private matter between a couple and their family friends and church, in 1885 the Government took it on itself to become the church when it came to marriage.
Shiek: The government needed to recognize marriage because it impacts so many aspects of legal life, e.g., inheritance. If you are saying that the government must rely only on the church's definition of marriage, it could do that, as long as that definition doesn't collide with the Constitution. All citizens must have access to the institution of marriage as it exists as a reality in our society. If no church marriage is available, the gov't must provide some way for that person to be married.
Right, I said that last night....""...a need to document births, deaths and marriages that could not be substantiated for legal cases "
And I do agree with you that any two people who wish to set up a household together should be afforded those same legal rights as those who enter the religous based institution of marraige, However the government should not be in the business of interpreting to religious people what marriage is when it was their institution to begin with.
shiek: But you're insisting that marriage is being "substantiated" for legal csses, as if marriage is "outside" the government's jurisdiction. It's not outside; marriage itself is a legal act, and then whatever else you would like to make it. Anyone who wishes to set up a household should certainly NOT be afforded those same legal rights. You are trying to re-argue whether the government has the right to define when two people are married. That argument is done, the gov't has the right.
Hello again, thanks for the response. Those weren't my words, they were from the Pennsylvania lawmakers who made one of the first comprehensive marriage laws in 1885. I think a big problem is that some gay people are insulted by " civil unions ". They see it as an unworthy compromise or as if they are being thrown a bone. It is much less sinister than that. It is an attempt to afford equal legal rights to homosexualls, while at the same time respecting the religious institution of marriage.
shiek: Marriage is a legal institution in the United States, with various laws, rights, privileges, surrounding it. People get a license to get married, they are often married right there in the courthouse, they can be legally married by the captain of a ship at sea, etc. Since marriage is a legal matter, the gov't can define marriage as to what it will recognize as a legal marriage. The religious aspect of marriage has nothing to do with this. The courts are clear on this.
I think that's the part you're not getting, marriage was never intended to be a legal institution. Until 1885 it was a private matter between a couple, their friends, family, and church. Under the guise of " protecting " legal rights of married people, the State stepped in and forced people to register with the state. Marriage is not a right it is a religious institution, however rights are afforded to married couples. Civil Unions are an attempt to give these rights to gays.
shiek: You say, "marriage was never intended . . ." I understand your argument, but I don't buy it. It matters not whether it was "under the guise" of anything, it only matters that statutes, laws, or case law give "state marriage" the force of law. But even beyond that, "marriage" is a culturally recognized institution, part of the way a society organizes itself, without regard to whether someone is married in a church or not, or whether parties to a marriage are religious folk.
shiek: (2) This societal aspect is why the gov't can insist that private businesses not discriminate against Blacks in terms of housing and jobs. The government can, in fact, insist that opposite-sex and same-sex legally married folks have the right to be considered "married" as part of our society for any legal purpose in our society.
I think you are confusing the rights afforded to a married couple with the idea that marriage is a right. Oddly enough, I am having the same conversation on another thread, no I'm not a glutton for punishment, I just make comments and people respond, give me a minute to copy and paste some stuff.
I will try to explain how marriage evolved from a religious institution into a state run mockery. After the civil war, the new Federal Beast had many agendas. High on their list was to imopse an income tax on it's new subjects and to commercialize our court system. The first income tax was imposed after the war, but later stricken down. In order to tax everyone and charge them for civil services, you have to know where and who everyone is, and get them involved in the system. In 1885......
after several failed attempts, Pennsylvania drafted one of the countries first comprehensive marriage laws, until then it was between the people and their church and that was that. Under the guise of " protecting " these couples rights, the state now took it upon themselves to act as the church, for a small fee of course. Now 123 years later, no one seems to know much about or have any respect for marriage, the waters have been muddied and are almost unrecognisable, even among heterosexualls.
shiek: Sorry, big guy, no sale. Going over ancient history has no effect whatever on the fact that the question of marriage is a legal matter. Whether it is also other things has no effect on its legality. The courts repeatedly honor the legality of marriage just as they recognize legal partnerships or any other legal arrangement between people.
shiek: You claim I can't understand you, when in fact, you're simply ignoring my argument. You believe that you can just ignore the law of the land as it actually is. Worse, you bring up cognitive dissonance, as if that's supposed to be persuasive. I doubt you would know how to apply the meaning of cognitive dissonance to this situation. Cognitive dissonance requires dissonance - trust me, there's nothing dissonant about my understanding of our argument.
photo: It's actually both. You can nip on down to the JP (justice of the peace) court, get a license and get married right there and then. No one is concerned about the religious aspects of marriage. What is at issue is the right of the gov't to deny the guarantees of the 14th amendment (an equal right to enjoy the institution of marriage) to certain citizens because it doesn't like how they have sex.
in the usa we spend a lot of time on non-issues. this is a good example. should same sex couples have the exact same legal status as hetero couples? yeah, duh. to think otherwise is bigotry at worst, unjustified government discrimination at best. btw religion is glorified superstition, i'm sorry if anyone has been lead to believe otherwise - deities are imaginary. seems like this guy wants to bring back poliginy or atleast regrets it having been outlawed - thats what hes saying.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
gays getting married is silly, its not NORMAL to be gay.I just dont understand why people are afraid to admit that. Just give them a silly little certificate from city hall or some placer that will recognize it. someone said its not a matter of gay rights its a matter of human rights. Well in many peoples opinion its not normal to be gay and you would be suprised how many people feel this way who work, have freindships, and are related to gay folk. Its adam and eve not adam and steve.
"So couples who can't have kids shouldn't be allowed to get married?"
Well thats a no-brainer! Obviously the people against marriage are trying to further their agenda of institutionalized suicide for those over 60 yrs old. Marriage has the sole purpose of propagation, if you aren't fucking, or squeezing out a kid, you'll be killed and broken down into proteins for the living to use.
Is a dog humping your leg natural? Will that be allowed for humans to do, as dogs do it naturally? What about humping other males to show their dominance over one another? Can I fuck you to show how subservient you are compared to me? It happens naturally and often in nature, well its good enough for me.
"Please find somewhere dark,and go die there,fucking douchebag"
I can understand you emotional upheaval. Usually when someone is drastically beaten with their own stupidity they have outbursts of emotional content. It's ok, I don't take it too personally. Maybe in the future you will learn from this, and can be a better individual with a greater insight into one's ability to think critically.
This has been flagged as spam show
Get a peace to your life with an Latino girl rockmycity.info
ETHEUNICE 1 year ago
what is he saying tho?
Welch33 1 year ago
What a wonderful and heartfelt response from Senator Smith.
JohnRhysMusician 2 years ago
magic mormon underpants
Steadno 2 years ago
When then"homosexual community" obtains their "marriage rights" then we will see Mormon {Polygamy in all its glory. It nullifies all non mormon marriages and contracts, defines innocent blood and threatens Joe;s wife with murder. What does the homo' community have in store for us?
IExposeMormonism 2 years ago
That's actually a wonderful response by Gordon Smith, even though he's wrong on the issue.
mtf10 2 years ago 2
to the person who posted this
"what is Gordon smith saying"
are you serious???
you need to know that mormons were kicked out of new york and sent to utah cause they belived in polygamy.
he doesn't want that to happen to gays and lesbians. THAT is what he is saying.
thedayxyz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ATTENTION GAYS!
HILARIOUS!!! See "The Game" to "Get The Girls"
Go To Site:
NiceGuysToWiseGuys (dotcom)
(Has Men's Blog TOO!... Priceless)
EbeEazy 3 years ago
How does it feel you neocon prick? You attacked the only real conservative in the race Constitution Party candidate Dave Brownlow and guess what? Mr. Brownlow stole all of your conservative support away, you turncoat warmongering corporate sellout. Good night and good riddance to another RePUKEandCON criminal.
Boomshoggalogga 3 years ago
the goddamned govt shouldn't be involved in these matters at all. treat everyone as individuals, regardless of who they fuck
shroomingnewman 3 years ago
Aimen to that
AWE319 3 years ago
When he's not busy pushing his NEOCON agenda, Smith spends his days pretending to be a Democrat to garner votes.
skinnydaddyjoe 3 years ago
Without federal interference. What we have now is the probability that if a state allows gay marriage into the law books (rather than civil unions) the supreme courts will hear the case to make a concurrence between federal and state law.
ultimate175gm 3 years ago
Hopefully the states can define marriage as they like and if anyone solicits those laws to the supreme court as a republican controlled supreme court they would deny hearing that case. Meaning they would uphold the states decision to support gay marriage. I think a better compromise though would have been defining marriage as between one person to another. That way Smith would have eliminated polygamy concerns and states could still decide.
ultimate175gm 3 years ago
Conservatives want us to believe that the sphere of the church and the state shouldn't be separated on this issue. The reason I say this is because for most Conservatives they actually think the term marriage as employed by the church is the same as the term employed by the state. They aren't equivalent so long as we treat the church and state as separate entities. I agree with JohnBach on this issue. And I think that is what Smith was saying, but as a 'good' republican would as a state issue.
ultimate175gm 3 years ago
Not that I support him or not. I found this response really insightful. He didn't equate homosexuality with polygamy in fact he agreed with a civil union compromise. He actually used this issue and this vote as a criticism of radical members of his own church. He then went with a really moderate position: he separated the def. of marriage by the church to that which the state accommodates. Conservatives who want to ban civil unions/marriage don't make that distinction.
ultimate175gm 3 years ago 4
I don't see how the definition of marriage matters to the heterosexuals who aren't affected by it. Marriage for a muslim or Japanese person means something different... it's cultural. This is why we need to keep the CIVIL side of marriage separate from religion... it's just a way of making sure the partner who survives the person gets help to take care of what was left behind. This has nothing to do with redefining Christian marriage.
JohnBach 3 years ago
Keep your religion to yourself, douche. Stop trying to use your power to impose it on the rest of Oregon. Equal rights for every man, woman and child.
Merkley 08
skinnydaddyjoe 3 years ago
Gordon Smith- douchebag
skinnydaddyjoe 3 years ago
He's equating homosexuality with polygamy.
And he does not want gays to marry or they will be run out of the country like the early mormans. Makes perfect sense. He's concerned about gays having a home! How sweet!
How did this tool become a senator. Jeez.
BTW, he hires illegal aliens.
LandSurveyor1 3 years ago 3
Maybe he should ask his gay son about it. Oh wait, he committed suicide. Maybe Gordon should shut the hell up, then.
ragemanchoo82 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
HEY ragemanchoo82
guess what ur a fandan fantrasmicon, go eat a melted sheep sauage. u mother jew shit in ur mouth fucker dong wank
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK!
diggitydangdoo2 3 years ago
^incoherent redneck
ragemanchoo82 3 years ago
I think youll find what hes trying to say is, its a bit of a cheap shot insulting his dead son like that.
Alphie90 3 years ago
Gordon didn't exactly encourage his son to be himself. So yeah. No sympathy from me
ragemanchoo82 3 years ago
yeah no sympathy from you ya prick.
diggitydangdoo2 3 years ago
Nazi, follow your leader. Kill yourself.
ragemanchoo82 3 years ago
Does he even realize that the FMA would nullify everything the state accomplished. He is a panderer.
robbie8220 3 years ago 2
By the way government has no business being in people bedrooms. If they aren't hurting anyone then so be it. Gays can get married if they want and why anyone marry more then one women is beyond me. whatever.
sandwichx 3 years ago
Its not just a bedroom issue.
ragemanchoo82 3 years ago
You supposed to represent the public at large not the views of a small group.
sandwichx 3 years ago
what a GREAT man!
omiolo 3 years ago
what so hard to understand? he see's gay marriage the same way he sees mormon marriage which is "Polygomy". It shouldn't be judged or determined by the opinion of the state, what he actually said was pretty brave.
jaxpoetix 3 years ago 3
It really couldn't be said better.
Skippy8984 3 years ago
My head hurts!
AccidentalDem 3 years ago
Ummmm, It's somewhat inaccurate that the marriage is defined by the religion.
haobio 3 years ago
States rights vs. the Fed. Can you say 'Civil War II'?
GOPSpinMachineInOD 3 years ago
Mr. Smith, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it, may God have mercy on your soul
jprc03 3 years ago 3
LoL-Billy Madison
ekim403 3 years ago
What a douche
Justcurious51 3 years ago
I have no clue what he just said.... I tried. Really I did.
SquallCloud 3 years ago
Good title: what the hell was that? So...is he for or against homosexual marriage? I'm guessing he's against it, but it was a strange tap dance.
bernlin2000 3 years ago
He just took a very long time to say absolutely nothing.
karinablack 3 years ago
no one is going to force a church to perform a gay marriage against the church's will. But there is marriage outside of the system of churches. Secular marriage. And that's what's going to happen. The California decision was based on rock solid argument that separate is not equal. It wasn't in the day of "white" and "colored" water fountains and it isn't in the case of marriage for heteros and "civil unions" or domestic partnerships" for lesbians and gays. It's coming, like it or not.
GretchenDawntreader 3 years ago
The title, I'm guessing, stems from the fact that the Senator seems to endorse one view (individual states should retain authority over definitions of & rules regarding marriage, even when those definitions marginalize certain segments of society), and then attempts to support it w/ an emotional argument that appears to better support the opposite view (let's open the definition of marriage to prevent discrimination). The 1st idea defends his vote. The 2nd defends his support of civil unions.
crownofspoons 3 years ago
also, let's face it, a Mormon railing against variations in marriage tradition is pretty freaking funny. *cough*polygamy*cough*
GretchenDawntreader 3 years ago
marriage is not a strictly religious institution. It's nice that he's religious and has been in 1 marriage for that long (in contrast to the hypocrasy of most gay marriage critics, usually on marriage 3 or 4) but the specialness of his commendable marriage will be affected
NOT ONE BIT
by gays and lesbians being able to be married.
It is not fair for his religious convictions to deny rights to others that he enjoys himself.
GretchenDawntreader 3 years ago
How is it so difficult to see what the Gordon Smith is saying? He's saying there must be a way to satisfy both sides of the issue without escalating the conflict. He would like to avoid the prejudice and persecution that his ancestors experienced. All of the comments posted seem to convey the exact opposite of that message. It's time to reconcile and stop the hate.
silii1441 3 years ago
he's sayin he's against gay marriage. i hope you understand.
piece2prosperity 3 years ago
Yeah, What the heck IS he talking about? Marriage is a social institution, not a religious one like he says. It's not defined by religion and it shouldn't be. so it would be discriminatory to exclude homosexuals. Yeah, the bible is against homosexual marriage, but thank god we don't live in a country with laws defined by the bible.
malachimata 3 years ago
Government has no right to your life...If God can let us live free, to choose for ourselves all the aspecs of our lives without intervention (including partners), then who does our government or anyone else to think they are to take such higher authority to decide.
pensacotti 3 years ago
What is wrong with keeping it one man one woman? This coincides with Natural Law. Homosexuality doesn't.
PIRATEER2007 3 years ago
An illegal war in Iraq and you wanna debate marriage ^^ Who cares, let people marry whoever thay want to!! There are more important shit to take care of.
pDiceS 3 years ago 2
I am against homosexual marriage, but I am also against heterosexual marriage. What do you say to that?
Malpheron 3 years ago
Sodomite!
Warlockforsale 3 years ago
Is there something wrong with anal sex?
Malpheron 3 years ago
Rip Van Winkle awoke on a clear Catskill morning and fearing his wide might find him after a twenty year sleep, he snuck into a little hat. In that very hat he sat and one day a fella peered into his hat. Just as the fella was about to throw two stones at him to get him out, Ol' Rip Van Winkle whooped up a yarn longer n the stitches that hold up the sky. He told him a great story from which the man started a cult and got mighty famous. So he let poor Rip Van Winkle live in his hat e'er after.
thotheros 3 years ago
A zen monestary took in a stray cat, but during evening meditation the cat would whine and wail and hiss, disrupting the monks terribly. The head abbott decided they would tie the cat up in the basement until after meditations. 300 years later a monk went to his superior and asked him why they tied a cat up in the basement during evening meditations, he had no idea, but they still did it anyway.
ShiekYerbooty 3 years ago
I don't agree with him, but I thought this was at least an honest, thoughtful attempt to explain how he feels about the issue.
GrownupPhan 3 years ago
for a second there I thought he was going to come out.
papakilatube 3 years ago
me too. After, "My campaign people are going to kill me for this".
5460996 3 years ago
shouldnt all US citizens have the same rights? The only thing that takes away rights in our country is commiting a crime. Are you people bold enough to say that being different is a crime?
taddison92 3 years ago
The marriage license issued by the state were invented in the 1920's to prevent black men from marring white women.
Now marriage licenses are being used to keep gay people from having rights.
Marriage licenses are unconstitutional. Their sole purpose is to discriminate.
il128 3 years ago
Civil unions and Church marriages are already separate under law. If you get married in a church you are not seen as legally married till you have a civil ceremony. They are both called the same thing due to laziness but really are not.
The sad thing is that most people actually agree, its just one side that wants everything when in fact they have already been offered everything they asked for. Which leads me to think they are not being honest about what they really want, to be honest.
jjoshaugh 3 years ago
"From the bottom of my heart," I'd like to tell you to stop imposing your Mormon religion and its hateful prejudices on others.Haven't we had enough of this? Can't we allow others to live their lives with the SAME RIGHTS? What IS WRONG with you??? I can barely believe the people of Oregon actually elected you and hope that they rectify that situation at their next opportunity. When is your term up? There HAS to be a viable Democratic candidate who can take out this obvious bigot.
tenayaca 3 years ago
Perpetuating the GAY = CREEPY PERVERT stereotype helps move people to the polls.
Fear of gays is now intrinsic to the Republican vote machine.
That sad fact is bound to keep gays "in the back of the bus" for a long time still.
For the time being, at least you can find comfort in a large and mature chunk of the population.
MrZippa 3 years ago
He has cans full of answers in his cupboard. If he ever needs one, he just opens one up and dumps out a talking point.
ecko8747 3 years ago
As an Oregonian, I'm gonna say it.
Gordan it's time to pack up the U-haul and head for Utah. Your last minute "now I'm against the war" isn't gonna cut it you will be tied to your Bush party like all your fellow toxic slime GOPers that you run adds for this year!
atripa645 3 years ago
I used to buy the marriage for heterosexuals and "gay unions" for homosexuals argument
but the I listen and think, this may be for
may just another way of putting down and
marginalizing homosexuals or simply a "safe" avenue for politicians and exactly what does Gordon Smith mean when he refers to starting
"an even bigger problem? Anyone who goes in
this direction without throughly presenting
his reason is simply catering to the private
prejudices of the public.
Pilgrim812 3 years ago
If you don't like the concept of gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex- its
that simple. As for Gordon Smith's remark
about "starting an even bigger problem" - Anyone who iscatering to the private prejudices of common people without any explanation or reasoning is simply a demagogue whether he is intelligent enough to realize it or not.
Pilgrim812 3 years ago
Im not exactly sure what problems he is referring to as in trying to spare us from. It would be interesting to gere something more concrete and substantial. Because I can't seem to think of any problems it would cause really.
jellygraph 3 years ago
why does a politician even mention "religion" it has no place coming out of his mormon mouth
cqyuesefu 3 years ago
cqy: I believe he was attempting to show how his statement might be viewed by knowing facts about his religious background. This is what Romney was doing when he gave his speech about his religion.
nicholas9999 3 years ago 2
Phenomenally inarticulate.
andrewdykers 3 years ago
wHUUUT????
actesq 3 years ago
True marraige is a personal commitment between two people regardless of their sex, nationality, race etc.
The problem is that there are legal ramifications associated with marraige in the US and the individual states.
If you abolish the legal status of marriage - in other words all marraiges are "legal unions" as far as the state goes, then you have no problems..... it is all a bogus, state imposed proposition. Do you really need the govt. to decide what marraige is?
EatonNeck 3 years ago
he is afraid of gay marriage, thinking it will "damage" straight marriage, but he is "doing the best he can" by "giving" some contractual rights, if I understand him correctly.
Pls people, think it through; if marriage is a legal entity, it is unconstitutional 2 deny it to gay people, and if the state only regulates the legal aspect and marriage is a religious institution, then give the contracts equally to both gay and straight, and let churches use the word "marriage" and marry who they wish.
apollodionysus7 3 years ago 3
apollo: I see where you're going, but the word "marriage" is meaningful in our culture. Even if a gov't is only concerned with the legal question of marriage, the "real-life" essence of marriage is part of the culture, one of society's key institutions. Thus the state must retain the word "marriage" as the name for it, and recognize it equally for gays and heterosexuals. It's like separate but equal - no quarter must be given to anti-gay prejudice.
nicholas9999 3 years ago 2
"Thus the state must retain the word "marriage" as the name for it, and recognize it equally for gays and heterosexuals. It's like separate but equal - no quarter must be given to anti-gay prejudice."
Realizing that there are big differences between a heterosexual union and a homosexual one is not being anti-gay. It is simply a fact.
Starry2000 3 years ago
starry: There are no differences between heterosexual and homosexual marriages that need to be worried about from the standpoint of recognition by the government. The essence of homophobia is the perception that differences between gay and straight are dramatic as opposed to innocuous. A homosexual union has the same needs for spousal protection of access to insurance coverage, homestead law protection, etc. as does a heterosexual one. That's what is important.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
nich, I am completely and totally with you on this, and in trying to condense my response, perhaps muddled it.
I say equality in all aspects, or stripping "marriage" of its legal status, and allowing it to be a mere function of the church, for instance.
apollodionysus7 3 years ago
apollo: your second sentence is confusing to me. I believe in equality. I believe marriage has a general meaning in society. I believe that, from the standpoint of the state's position, it cannot prevent same-sex marriages because it is in effect discriminating against individuals based on their private sexual behavior. In no way other than private sex is same-sex marriage different from hetero marriage. Are you saying the same thing?
nicholas9999 3 years ago
Rights are god-given, and our Constitution states that all people are created equal. You don't have the moral authority to tell someone he can or cannot have equal rights. Equality is basic, and those who fight against it are fools or morally flawed.
apollodionysus7 3 years ago
Our rights are human-given, in spite of God.
themoderndejavu 3 years ago
Apollo
It seems to me that Rights are not "god-given"
Human rights are just that, human. It's conditioning that alters that..whether by book or by hook.
Please show me in any "god" book on this planet where it says they are god given. I would be most interested in reading it and it's roots
Thank you
ou8one2forme 3 years ago
ou8: Here's a nice discussion of how we ended up with "endowed by our creator" in our Declaration of Independence. Google: natural rights of man and click on the top link.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
nich, Q: you understand that this is regarding the christian god, right. The one who "says" gays are damned in hell?
You know the ALL loving god.. Who grants life,liberty and the right to happeness to ALL humans(except during the crusades&inquisition)And it seems unless your gay.
Is that the one your talking about?
Human rights are just that...for ALL humans..Too bad this guy is AS ALWAYS just trying to save his own butt. They NEVER answer a DIRECT Question with a DIRECT Answer..
ou8one2forme 3 years ago
ou8: I can see you're making a distinction between god-given and natural rights, but in this context, I don't think it makes much of a difference. But sure, I completely agree that we don't need the "support" provided by the idea of a "creator" in order to legitimize the idea of inalienable (guaranteed just 'cause you're human) rights.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
Nich,
I see that you do agree to this effect by your posting too.
Peace my friend, this planet is in dire need of it at this time...
ou8one2forme 3 years ago
ou8: I fully agree!
nicholas9999 3 years ago
Good point. Our rights are human, and the most basic belief among human beings in civilization is of the legal equality of all men and women.
The gay issues are simply a matter of an ignorant populace being slow to catch up to the fact that many of its members are gay.
We are still waiting on complete acceptance and equality. We are still having to educate people over and over again.
Ramble, ramble... lol, thanks for the fussy point, though. Point taken.
apollodionysus7 3 years ago
wtf?
dubaiedge 3 years ago
Whats wrong with one woman having three husbands?
SatwaMan 3 years ago 2
Ummm understand what?
Typical answer from a politician.
Oh, I did catch the "not to be driven out of your own country" part..But that was about it
And WE the people just keep letting these folks tell us our laws?
Wake up sleepers..it's time
Peace
ou8one2forme 3 years ago
ou8: sorry, please be explicit, not sure what you're saying there. "letting these folks tell us our laws?" ??? Not sure what you mean, part of gov't is to make and enforce laws. Do you have an argument against that??
nicholas9999 3 years ago
Nicholas
Why yes I do..
Gov. is to make laws in which WE THE PEOPLE have influenced by informing us of what is "on the table" and then given the opportunity to react to and or change by our Statesmen/women. NOT the other way around. Have you been paying attention to our laws over the past oh, 10+ years now? Or even the past 7yrs? We ARE TOLD what the laws will be, not what laws we have agreed upon thru our senators and such. Do you use news sources other than the main stream media?
ou8one2forme 3 years ago
ou8one: Reading your comment, it appears you feel that the Bush administration didn't allow enough public input into lawmaking processes. There's no doubt that the Bush admin has engaged in a lot of top-down governing, the FCC has been especially guilty of this. Hopefully, an Obama administration will be more open and flexible. If you have credible news sources you want to source, be explicit about them.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
Nich, If your only using fox, cnn, nbc, abc and cbs, then your not getting all the news reported. Your only get what they want to show you..
Use alternate media, and use other countries as well. If you do not do this, then we're just going to keep going around and around.
If you still do not understand what I'm talking about, then you either haven't been here in the US very long, or your still sleeping..either way it's ok, just wake up to the fear and war mongering going on around us,daily
ou8one2forme 3 years ago
ou8: I use a variety of news sources, including bbc, al jazeera, dem now, and even rightwing sources like new repub, various blogs, etc., but it wouldn't matter whether I knew what you were referring to or not, I would still insist that you point to some sort of credible news source(s) before I would pay attention to anything you were saying.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
Yeah, nic,
that's why you commented on my first comment posted here.. Funny, it wouldn't matter if you knew what I was talking about or not?!?
You should reread your comments PRIOR to posting, otherwise folks will either A.stop paying attention to you or B.point out your doubletalk and point their finger at you and laugh..to say the least.
I use the internet, hows that?
ou8one2forme 3 years ago
ou8: In other words, you just make stuff up as you go along, and I'm supposed to trust that you know what you're talking about? I don't think so.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
Nich, to insist is like throwing yourself on the floor and throwing a tamtrum.
But as I said the Internet is a wonderful thing if used properly. For my comments you can look at the laws that are in print from Congress. You can look up anything I said just with a search engine. Then from there you cross reference and research it.I don't take the news at face value.I question just about everything,critical thinking has been given to "experts" to we can go back to sleep and to stay that way..
ou8one2forme 3 years ago
ou8: In other words, you can't point to anything specific, you just make stuff up and somehow everyone is supposed to agree with you and your views. Too bad, no sale.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
marriage is a LEGAL act in this country, not a religious one, and anyone who tries to tie the government with religion is trying to destroy the constitution that this country is built on. although i see where smith is coming from (he's mormon? lol i should pay more attention to my own senators) the problem is already very big as it stands.
spicylemon 3 years ago
@spicylemon,
Hi. Let's do a fact check. Marriage was specifically a religious act until the Health Department started regulating is in the early 1900s. Philosophically, marriage has always been a religious tradition, not a legal contract.
lidixmang 3 years ago 2
lidi: Marriage is a relationship recognized by the state. There are good reasons for doing so that have to do with pensions, home ownership, inheritance, and a variety of other legal and civil aspects. The origins of such recognition don't matter, we're concerned about the right of a homosexual's marriage to be recognized by the state. The 14th amendment guarantees equal rights to all citizens, so unless someone can show harm, gays have the right to be married.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
@nicholas9999:
At what point of my fact check did I argue for or against federal regulation of marriage or for or against the rights of homosexuals?
The history of 'marriage' in this country has always been about the religious beliefs of the people taking the vows, UNTIL the Health Department was created in the early 1900s, altering the constitution and putting more regulations on people, taking power away from the States.
Yes, of course all people should have equal rights.
thehomiecdub 3 years ago
thehomie: Re: "At what point . . ?" when you challenge marriage as a legal institution in the U.S., you're arguing for "religious definitions" of marriage which ultimately may lead to definitions that exclude certain religiously-unacceptable unions. You're one of those Ron Paul people who want to ruin the country. No thanks.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
live and let live!
Steadno 3 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKs
HotBoney 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Same sex marriage is like saying a baseball team needs a goalie....
goalies are not part of baseball, same sex is not part of marriage
ShiekYerbooty 3 years ago
and you, sir, are an atomic dick-hole. they aren't hurting you by existing. they want equal rights like everyone else. let 'em live. thats what i say. its not some global plan to dismantle religion or anything like that. open your mind and shut your face. also, sheikyerbooty? really?
thefunkycrew 3 years ago
I didn't attack anyone, I simply made an analogy. I have nothing against gay people, in fact the more gay guys there are, the better my odds get. I am just trying to point out that marriage was never intended for gay people, just like baseball was never intended to have a goalie. Gay people suing for marriage is like a goalie suing to be on a baseball team.
ShiekYerbooty 3 years ago
"marriage was never intended for gay people" that is thoughtless and laughable, man. You are imagining some straight person intending marriage. Marriage just happened to be between man and woman, because the gay folks were in hiding, so they wouldnt get killed or imprisoned. The majority -straights- became the tradition. No great moral authority or "Decider" came up with a universal "definition" of marriage. These marriage arguments have no logical or legal merit.
apollodionysus7 3 years ago 2
For two thousand years marraige was a religious act, it is mistakenly seen as a legal action after June 23rd 1885, but it was never intended as such, it was according to lawmakers "...a need to document births, deaths and marriages that could not be substantiated for legal cases "
I can understand why you would want tax breaks and other financial rewards afforded to the married. Yet why on Earth would you want a religious ceremony, when the religion says everything you are doing is wrong ?
ShiekYerbooty 3 years ago
Who said anything about a religious ceremony?
Marriage is a legal status that comes with
a great many legal rights attached to it.
If you don't like gay marriage then I suggest
you don't marry someone of the same
sex.
Pilgrim812 3 years ago
I think that was my point, marraige was never meant to be a " legal " status. That was an unintended consequence of having people register with the health and census bureaus
Yet if history is not good enough for you, let's try logic. If marraige is not a religious ceremony, why do the ceremonies differ from religion to religion ? If it were a legal action, wouldn't all the ceremonies be the same?
ShiekYerbooty 3 years ago
And, if marriage is "religious", why can you get married in a civil ceremony (if you are not same sex) and be considered "married" the same as if you were married in a religious ceremony?
And for that matter, you can get married by a pagan priest or minister (forgive me, I don't know the proper terminology here) and be considered by the state (and fed) to be married the same as if you had a religious (Baptist, Catholic, Jewish, etc.) ceremony?
hraka1962 3 years ago
shiek: I think your example here defeats your own argument. Ceremonies differ from religion to religion (I will take your word for it), and that is a matter for students of religion. The state has nothing to say about those ceremonies, but is only concerned with marriage as a legal arrangement. Marriage must be open to all citizens, even ones who want to marry someone of the same sex.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
Marriage happens to be "subsidized" for the benefits and purposes that heterosexual couples may provide. Homesexual couples can't fulfill the purposes and intents that are being legally subsidized, sorry.
Further, "marriage" is defined as a union between a man and a woman.
So if you find another term for homosexual unions + are not eligible for subsidies you can't fulfill, you are left with what you already have.
So whats the deal?
Starry2000 3 years ago
starry: Sorry, the 14th amendment guarantees equal rights to all citizens. There must be a compelling state interest to prevent a marriage, such as inability to give consent. Any subsidy for heterosexual marriage applies just as well to homosexual marriage. The subsidy argument against gay marriage is a rationale for anti-gay prejudice.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
All citizens have equal rights Nicholas9999.
Tax breaks and subsidies are NOT rights, especially when they are specifically for purposes specific and unique to heterosexual couples.
I am not eligible for many tax breaks and subsidies that other types of citizens have, such that the blind and disabled have for example. Native Americans also get help from the government for certain things as well.
Starry2000 3 years ago
starry: And if you can make an argument that such subsidies and taxes are specifically for hetero couples, then you might be able to make that stick, but you can't win the argument. You can make the argument for blind and disabled, but you can't for heterosexual/homosexual couples. In all the ways that matter for society, there are no differences between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Such arguments are merely vehicles for discriminating against gay people.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
"In all the ways that matter for society, there are no differences between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Such arguments are merely vehicles for discriminating against gay people."
Discrimination =/= hate, wrong
There are huge differences between hetero- and homo- couples, and what they offer for society. That is all there is to it. Period.I can't even figure out how you fail to realize that. So, I guess we have to agree to disagree.
Starry2000 3 years ago
starry: I "fail to realize that" because in every way except the privacy of their own bedroom, there are no differences. Each person has the right to choose his/her partner to make a life with him or her. It's an equal rights thing. When people are married, they're a bit more stable, they are probably more likely to help out in community affairs. They have coupleship goals, they may have and raise children. In all important ways, gay and straight marriages are the same.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
"Each person has the right to choose his/her partner to make a life with him or her"
And they can.
"they may have and raise children. In all important ways, gay and straight marriages are the same."
WRONG.
I would write a more elaborate response that debates all of your points, but YT comments are inadequate for such discussion.
Starry2000 3 years ago
starry: The biggest problem for people against gay marriage is that they can't show that there is any harm in it. Even if they could show that gays don't really enjoy marriage or that gays become disappointed because they can't have kids, it still wouldn't work. The reason is that people against gay marriage can't really show that gay marriage actually hurts anything or anyone else. It certainly doesn't hurt hetero marriage. In fact, it hurts nothing and no one.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
it hurts my eyes when i see gay people O_O... j/k
clericalerror 3 years ago
clerical: even tho' you're kidding around, I think for some people just the mere awareness that a gay marriage exists in their city is enough for them to lose sleep!! I'm sure the same thing could be said for mixed-race marriages at one time. Oh well . . .
nicholas9999 3 years ago
hmm i see well i was just replieng to ur comment where it saids " in fact, it hurst nothing and no one". ur right and u know i think the cause of all this is religion, becouse if ur gay ur automatically "Sinning" how stupid is that? and am starting to see alot of people not give a crap about religion anymore.
clericalerror 3 years ago
cleric: Lol, yup, i knew what you meant, and I was agreeing with you. But as far as religion, I believe that people have anti-gay prejudice, and then they sort of "use" religion in order to feel self-righteous while they practice their anti-gay discrimination. I figure they are probably particularly devout when it comes to anti-homosexual teachings, and not so devout about other things, like the central message from Jesus about forgiveness and tolerance in the New Testament.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
This is an AWESOME comment! Great point that I'd not thought of.... thanks man for being the steady presence of reason in this lively discussion. Much appreciated.
apollodionysus7 3 years ago 2
Actually, there is plenty of proof that it does negatively impact the meaning and solidity of the hetero marriage. And indeed, families lifestyles. Where at? It is all over the internet,in multiple books, and in the form of reports from the nations that have legalized gay marriage. Not opinions, but proven statistical data.
There are other arguments I can form, purely secular (non-religious), but as I said before youtube comments are inadequate for this kind of discussion.
Starry2000 3 years ago
starry: Lol, how would that work? "Families' lifestyles" in hetero familes are impacted by the existence of a homosexual marriage? If it's all over the internet, then surely you can name at least one credible report? The only reason there would be for an impact is the existence of anti-gay prejudice. Just as in the case of progress in matters of race, we can't consider anti-gay feelings as legitimate reasons to prevent gay marriage.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
starry: (2) At one time in our history, business owners said, e.g., " well, I can't put a Black guy on my parts counter, my customers won't like it. It will harm my business." That ridiculous argument didn't last long because we knew we couldn't allow a complaint stemming from anti-Black sentiment to be legitimate as far as claiming harm. It's a circular argument, and claims of harm from anti-gay people use the same logic.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
" well, I can't put a Black guy on my parts counter, my customers won't like it. It will harm my business."
Nice try Nicholas9999. "That ridiculous argument" was not, in fact, employed by myself.
Starry2000 3 years ago
starry: But in fact it is employed by anyone arguing harm to others from homosexual marriage. In essence ALL those arguments are basically saying, "homosexual marriage makes me uncomfortable, or makes someone uncomfortable, and so therefore, does harm." But in fact, the harm springs from homophobia and anti-gay prejudice. If you eliminate the homophobia, the harm disappears.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
Not everyone has the same religious belief, obviously.
SubmarinerAndroid 3 years ago
shiek: religious ceremony? Are you talking about a wedding? Plenty of people get married without a wedding. You don't even need to leave the courthouse to get married. No religious preference, procedure, or other thing is required. No one in this debate cares about the religious aspect - it's all about the state recognizing the relationship as a legal marriage.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
shiek: Re: "Marriage was never intended for gay people" is like saying that Blacks were not intended to marry Caucasians. You're making a "natural order" argument. All those arguments are anti-gay prejudice rationales. The Constitution guarantees equal rights to every citizen unless you can show some compelling reason why it shouldn't. You can't show any reason why the gov't needs to be evaluating what sort of sex anyone has in private. Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
Who said government should interfere in what sex people had, however the seperation of church and state should prohibit the government from forcibly changing a religious ceremony. Yes you are correct when you say someone can go to the courthouse and get married. The thing is until 1885 you couldn't, until then it was a private matter between a couple and their family friends and church, in 1885 the Government took it on itself to become the church when it came to marriage.
ShiekYerbooty 3 years ago 2
Shiek: The government needed to recognize marriage because it impacts so many aspects of legal life, e.g., inheritance. If you are saying that the government must rely only on the church's definition of marriage, it could do that, as long as that definition doesn't collide with the Constitution. All citizens must have access to the institution of marriage as it exists as a reality in our society. If no church marriage is available, the gov't must provide some way for that person to be married.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
Right, I said that last night....""...a need to document births, deaths and marriages that could not be substantiated for legal cases "
And I do agree with you that any two people who wish to set up a household together should be afforded those same legal rights as those who enter the religous based institution of marraige, However the government should not be in the business of interpreting to religious people what marriage is when it was their institution to begin with.
ShiekYerbooty 3 years ago
shiek: But you're insisting that marriage is being "substantiated" for legal csses, as if marriage is "outside" the government's jurisdiction. It's not outside; marriage itself is a legal act, and then whatever else you would like to make it. Anyone who wishes to set up a household should certainly NOT be afforded those same legal rights. You are trying to re-argue whether the government has the right to define when two people are married. That argument is done, the gov't has the right.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
Hello again, thanks for the response. Those weren't my words, they were from the Pennsylvania lawmakers who made one of the first comprehensive marriage laws in 1885. I think a big problem is that some gay people are insulted by " civil unions ". They see it as an unworthy compromise or as if they are being thrown a bone. It is much less sinister than that. It is an attempt to afford equal legal rights to homosexualls, while at the same time respecting the religious institution of marriage.
ShiekYerbooty 3 years ago
shiek: Marriage is a legal institution in the United States, with various laws, rights, privileges, surrounding it. People get a license to get married, they are often married right there in the courthouse, they can be legally married by the captain of a ship at sea, etc. Since marriage is a legal matter, the gov't can define marriage as to what it will recognize as a legal marriage. The religious aspect of marriage has nothing to do with this. The courts are clear on this.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
I think that's the part you're not getting, marriage was never intended to be a legal institution. Until 1885 it was a private matter between a couple, their friends, family, and church. Under the guise of " protecting " legal rights of married people, the State stepped in and forced people to register with the state. Marriage is not a right it is a religious institution, however rights are afforded to married couples. Civil Unions are an attempt to give these rights to gays.
ShiekYerbooty 3 years ago
shiek: You say, "marriage was never intended . . ." I understand your argument, but I don't buy it. It matters not whether it was "under the guise" of anything, it only matters that statutes, laws, or case law give "state marriage" the force of law. But even beyond that, "marriage" is a culturally recognized institution, part of the way a society organizes itself, without regard to whether someone is married in a church or not, or whether parties to a marriage are religious folk.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
shiek: (2) This societal aspect is why the gov't can insist that private businesses not discriminate against Blacks in terms of housing and jobs. The government can, in fact, insist that opposite-sex and same-sex legally married folks have the right to be considered "married" as part of our society for any legal purpose in our society.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
I think you are confusing the rights afforded to a married couple with the idea that marriage is a right. Oddly enough, I am having the same conversation on another thread, no I'm not a glutton for punishment, I just make comments and people respond, give me a minute to copy and paste some stuff.
ShiekYerbooty 3 years ago
I will try to explain how marriage evolved from a religious institution into a state run mockery. After the civil war, the new Federal Beast had many agendas. High on their list was to imopse an income tax on it's new subjects and to commercialize our court system. The first income tax was imposed after the war, but later stricken down. In order to tax everyone and charge them for civil services, you have to know where and who everyone is, and get them involved in the system. In 1885......
ShiekYerbooty 3 years ago
after several failed attempts, Pennsylvania drafted one of the countries first comprehensive marriage laws, until then it was between the people and their church and that was that. Under the guise of " protecting " these couples rights, the state now took it upon themselves to act as the church, for a small fee of course. Now 123 years later, no one seems to know much about or have any respect for marriage, the waters have been muddied and are almost unrecognisable, even among heterosexualls.
ShiekYerbooty 3 years ago
shiek: Sorry, big guy, no sale. Going over ancient history has no effect whatever on the fact that the question of marriage is a legal matter. Whether it is also other things has no effect on its legality. The courts repeatedly honor the legality of marriage just as they recognize legal partnerships or any other legal arrangement between people.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
If you don't understand now, you really don't want to. Look up the meaning of the term cognitive disonance.
ShiekYerbooty 3 years ago
shiek: You claim I can't understand you, when in fact, you're simply ignoring my argument. You believe that you can just ignore the law of the land as it actually is. Worse, you bring up cognitive dissonance, as if that's supposed to be persuasive. I doubt you would know how to apply the meaning of cognitive dissonance to this situation. Cognitive dissonance requires dissonance - trust me, there's nothing dissonant about my understanding of our argument.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
.............?
numbah1pinoy 3 years ago
true....marrriage is a religious act not a political one
radicalGOD 3 years ago
Gordon Smith (barely) touches upon a fundamentally important point about marriage: it is a matter of religion, not politics.
photodube 3 years ago 2
photo: It's actually both. You can nip on down to the JP (justice of the peace) court, get a license and get married right there and then. No one is concerned about the religious aspects of marriage. What is at issue is the right of the gov't to deny the guarantees of the 14th amendment (an equal right to enjoy the institution of marriage) to certain citizens because it doesn't like how they have sex.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
WTF is joe bunk sayng?
osiris33 3 years ago
in the usa we spend a lot of time on non-issues. this is a good example. should same sex couples have the exact same legal status as hetero couples? yeah, duh. to think otherwise is bigotry at worst, unjustified government discrimination at best. btw religion is glorified superstition, i'm sorry if anyone has been lead to believe otherwise - deities are imaginary. seems like this guy wants to bring back poliginy or atleast regrets it having been outlawed - thats what hes saying.
joebonk 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
gays getting married is silly, its not NORMAL to be gay.I just dont understand why people are afraid to admit that. Just give them a silly little certificate from city hall or some placer that will recognize it. someone said its not a matter of gay rights its a matter of human rights. Well in many peoples opinion its not normal to be gay and you would be suprised how many people feel this way who work, have freindships, and are related to gay folk. Its adam and eve not adam and steve.
duck1dodger 3 years ago
" Its adam and eve not adam and steve"
Good use of right-wing religious propaganda, it can't be mindlessly blurted out enough.
BTW what is normal? Why isn't being gay considered normal?
BayerLexan 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
because you can't reproduce with two men or two women,don't be stupid.
volumedealer1 3 years ago
So couples who can't have kids shouldn't be allowed to get married?
mrpickles4pres 3 years ago 3
"So couples who can't have kids shouldn't be allowed to get married?"
Well thats a no-brainer! Obviously the people against marriage are trying to further their agenda of institutionalized suicide for those over 60 yrs old. Marriage has the sole purpose of propagation, if you aren't fucking, or squeezing out a kid, you'll be killed and broken down into proteins for the living to use.
BayerLexan 3 years ago
Is a dog humping your leg natural? Will that be allowed for humans to do, as dogs do it naturally? What about humping other males to show their dominance over one another? Can I fuck you to show how subservient you are compared to me? It happens naturally and often in nature, well its good enough for me.
Here's a thought for you, don't be stupid.
BayerLexan 3 years ago
Please find somewhere dark,and go die there,fucking douchebag
volumedealer1 3 years ago
volumedealer1:
"Please find somewhere dark,and go die there,fucking douchebag"
I can understand you emotional upheaval. Usually when someone is drastically beaten with their own stupidity they have outbursts of emotional content. It's ok, I don't take it too personally. Maybe in the future you will learn from this, and can be a better individual with a greater insight into one's ability to think critically.
BayerLexan 3 years ago
wow, good point! So reproduction is what confers rights on a couple, cool.
apollodionysus7 3 years ago
oh it IS Adam and Eve is it???? Silly me I thought that was a silly little fantasy story
slh950 3 years ago 5