Yes, with this issue, the shoe fits. A political position that is rooted in hate and bigotry is just that.
Food for thought.
Gay couple to sue Church over gay marriage opt-out | Trending Central
Yes, I know, it's England and nothing that happens in England would ever occur in the US.
X-factor's political positions are not based on hatred or bigotry,and he is certainly not a douchebag.
I am as outspoken against homophobia as anybody, but I am able to distinguish between homophobic bigotry and differences of opinions as to particulars. Perhaps you should learn this as well.
Food for thought.
Gay couple to sue Church over gay marriage opt-out | Trending Central
Yes, I know, it's England and nothing that happens in England would ever occur in the US.
1.)there needs to be a third option and it is to have government stop recognizing marriage all together.
have everyone gay or straight sign a contract of civil union and that contract and only that contract is recognized under the eyes of the law
let the title of marriage be in the hands of the religious institutions to decide who it applies to
there needs to be a third option and it is to have government stop recognizing marriage all together.
have everyone gay or straight sign a contract of civil union and that contract and only that contract is recognized under the eyes of the law
let the title of marriage be in the hands of the religious institutions to decide who it applies to
translation: you have ZERO problem with government just the word marriage
there are about 1200 federal rights and protections im granted along based on the marriage contract and government factually needs to protect those, government will always be involved one way or another, if its not this ONE contract it will be 20 others trying to equate to it and falling short making less protection for me and my family.
civil unions are factually not equal and legal marriage has nothing to do with religion, bringing up religion on this topic is meaningless.
it solves the problem from both sidesSo "Civil Unions" apply to everyone.
Anyone can then go to a religious organization and get "married".
There are religious organizations that marry same-sex couples and there are religious organizations that marry only different-sex couples.
In the end everyone still has the option for the title Civil Union and Religious Marriage.
Don't see the difference.
(But then Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage aren't the same thing.)
>>>>
Ok for some fantasy reason there's going to be a national vote on equal rights for gays.
Save me all the failed arguments that its not equal rights or it should be left to the states or the government should be out of it all together blah blah blah nonsense, thats in other threads. This is simply about how YOU would vote if this happened.
and yes for the conspiracy theorist out there we will waste time and double down on the first amendment and say of course churches cant be forced to do these legal marriages, even though it has nothing to do with them anyway and this already cant happen.
so there it is, its voting time, what do you do.
Yes - you think gays should have equal rights and the right to legal marriage
No - you dont think they should have equal rights and you want them banned from getting legal marriage.
No vote - you stay home and dont vote at all
and have those 1200 federal rights that where applied to the title of marriage only apply to the contract of civil union
1.)it solves the problem from both sides
2.) gays get the rights they want and the anti-gay marriage crowd are not forced by law to recognize the title of marriage on same sex couples because now there is no legal recognition of the title of marriage
Define equal rights.
Ok for some fantasy reason there's going to be a national vote on equal rights for gays.
Save me all the failed arguments that its not equal rights or it should be left to the states or the government should be out of it all together blah blah blah nonsense, thats in other threads. This is simply about how YOU would vote if this happened.
and yes for the conspiracy theorist out there we will waste time and double down on the first amendment and say of course churches cant be forced to do these legal marriages, even though it has nothing to do with them anyway and this already cant happen.
so there it is, its voting time, what do you do.
Yes - you think gays should have equal rights and the right to legal marriage
No - you dont think they should have equal rights and you want them banned from getting legal marriage.
No vote - you stay home and dont vote at all
it solves the problem from both sides
gays get the rights they want and the anti-gay marriage crowd are not forced by law to recognize the title of marriage on same sex couples because now there is no legal recognition of the title of marriage
so you are deflecting from the OP, got it
why thats dumd. Why go through all that time and wasted money and since theres many many other things those 1200 things 1200 dont cover with other rights and states right what about those?
its completely asainine to TRY and do that and probably fail because of all the rules, regulations and case precedence already set up.
theres zero logic in that
simple grant equal rights and be down with it.
simply give me one logical sound reason to TRY and do it this way not to mention a reason that is easier and can be quickly accomplished. there are none
this would create MORE problems, make the system less secure/protected and it would fix nothing, not one issue would be resolved by it.
If this was a national I would probably stay home because of the views on the subject.
If this was just Georgia and did not effect any other state, I would vote yes.
Although I have no problem with gays marrying one another, I also feel the national or federal government should not be in the business of determining, telling everyone in the U.S. who can or who can"t be married. that should be between the two who get married. Georgia right does not allow it, but any gay couple in the state of Georgia can go to one of what, 13 or there about states and get married. As time goes by more and more states are recognizing gay marriage.
No it doesn't.
Take the case of Elane Photography (the famous photography case from New Mexico). New Mexico doesn't have Same-sex Civil Marriage, therefore there was no "marriage" title right? Nope, people can still get married and not have a state license. The photographer was in violation of the state Public Accommodation law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses for various reasons: race, ethnicity, country of origin, age, disability, sex, and sexual orientation.
So even though the state wasn't in the "marriage" business for same-sex couples, the photographer was still breaking the laws of that state.
The problem (IMHO) ISN'T Civil Marriage laws, the problem is Pubic Accommodation laws where the government mandates business models instead of allowing the market to make the decision.
>>>>
1.)so instead of a compromise that will give both groups what they want you rather just dismiss the views of one group all together and be vindictive
2.)there is no debating with people like you there is no compromise in your vocabulary
3.) it is either give me what I want I don't give a dam how you feel or you can go to hell
4.) just like your King Obama
No, I answered it. I would vote NO.
yes this is true id say 5 years max before its national
potentially it could be as high as 30 states in the next two-three years unless SCOTUS acts first
is there a right to get married? if so can you link to the law or statute saying so?
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
if you get rid or the legal recognition of the title of marriage all together from same sex and straight then there is no equal treatment under the law because marriage is not recognized as an equal right under the law only a civil union is
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?