Marriage Violates Seperation of Church and State (1 Viewer)

[AllanHampton]

Its for the Goy!

 

[Lakryte]

Yeah, I've heard this so many times.

Still struggling to understand how I, as a stay at home mom, am expected to cover my taxes, etc - when I don't work and instead raise our children that we have together. LOL - nice fantasy, though, treating everyone as if they're an equal heft on society.

As a stay at home mom you don't have income taxes. Your tax burden is less. I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove. Why does the existence of stay at home moms (or dads) mean government should be involved in marriage?

 

[Paschendale]

I like how the premise of this thread ignores any other religion's ideas about marriage. It only belongs to churches and Christians, and it only means what they think it means. Even without the "marriage belongs to religion" nonsense, the argument they put forth is entirely rooted in favoring their own religion over others.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Use of the word Marriage is unconstitutional as it promotes religious beliefs. The state only has the power to grant civil union and all unions are thus civil unions.

Go to church to get married.

Marriage is not strictly a religious ideal. Marriages have happened long before religion stuck its nose in.

 

[Gawain]

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the constitution. You cant find it. Its a modern construct made by a former KKK member and supreme court judge because he didnt like catholics.

 

[Gawain]

Marriage is not strictly a religious ideal. Marriages have happened long before religion stuck its nose in.

If it was how is it all these gay couples are being married by Justices of the peace and very few if any in churches. Easy solution is get government out of marriage. Why should married people have more so called rights than single people?

 

[Kal'Stang]

If it was how is it all these gay couples are being married by Justices of the peace and very few if any in churches. Easy solution is get government out of marriage. Why should married people have more so called rights than single people?

Getting government out of the marriage buisness might be an easy solution, but is it the correct one? I don't think so.

What rights do married couples have that single people don't?

 

[Gawain]

Getting government out of the marriage buisness might be an easy solution, but is it the correct one? I don't think so.

What rights do married couples have that single people don't?

How about tax breaks to start. And all the other things gays say they are being denied .Not really rights just as marriage is not a right its a privilege granted by the state.

 

[Kal'Stang]

How about tax breaks to start. And all the other things gays say they are being denied .Not really rights just as marriage is not a right its a privilege granted by the state.

Tax breaks are not a Right, its a privilege. The reason they get it is most of the time when people marry they have kids and those tax breaks help in raising those kids, so its really an investment on the governments part for the future. What other things? (btw, the tax breaks are not really all that great and sometimes you end up paying more in taxes as a married couple than as single person)

As far as marriage not being a Right, that is incorrect. The courts have already ruled that Marriage is a fundemental Right that the People have. If you wish I will post the cases for you to look at where they state that.

 

[roguenuke]

How about tax breaks to start. And all the other things gays say they are being denied .Not really rights just as marriage is not a right its a privilege granted by the state.

As Kal'Stang said, tax breaks are a privilege. Like getting a break for going green. It is about someone doing something that helps society and them getting rewarded for that. Marriage has been shown to benefit society, in multiple ways.

Marriage comes with few actual tax breaks though. Most couples come up even when people actually compare what they pay together, as married, and what they would pay separately as two single people. Only around 10% of couples actual see a change in their taxes being married rather than just living together and filing as two single people. And almost, if not, half of those pay more being married than if they were single.

 

[Papa bull]

Tax breaks are not a Right, its a privilege. The reason they get it is most of the time when people marry they have kids and those tax breaks help in raising those kids, so its really an investment on the governments part for the future. What other things? (btw, the tax breaks are not really all that great and sometimes you end up paying more in taxes as a married couple than as single person)

As far as marriage not being a Right, that is incorrect. The courts have already ruled that Marriage is a fundemental Right that the People have. If you wish I will post the cases for you to look at where they state that.

And since people can get married in all 50 states, there are no "equal rights" issues. No one is ever excluded just because they were homosexual. Just like you may not be allowed to drive on the highway if you choose to drive a bicycle, you are not excluded from using the highway by the state, but by your choice of vehicle. So it is with marriage that if you choose something other than a consenting adult of the opposite sex, you are not being barred from marriage by the state but by your choice of same sex partner instead of one that would make sense for the sake of marriage.

 

[roguenuke]

And since people can get married in all 50 states, there are no "equal rights" issues. No one is ever excluded just because they were homosexual. Just like you may not be allowed to drive on the highway if you choose to drive a bicycle, you are not excluded from using the highway by the state, but by your choice of vehicle. So it is with marriage that if you choose something other than a consenting adult of the opposite sex, you are not being barred from marriage by the state but by your choice of same sex partner instead of one that would make sense for the sake of marriage.

The "equal rights issue" is based on sex/gender. A woman cannot marry a woman because she is a woman. A man cannot marry a man because he is a man. This is very similar to the interracial marriage issue and the argument used to uphold those laws. "No one is being discriminated against. Black people can get married. White people can get married. No one is denied marriage." Except that a black person could not marry a white person only because of their being black. A white person could not marry a black person or Asian or Native American person (in some states) because of their being white.

There is a reasonable state interest being furthered by not allowing certain vehicles to use certain roads/roadways, including safety of the people. There would be no state interest legitimately shown to be furthered though if say the state said "Asians cannot drive on the freeway" or "men cannot legally drive a truck". Rights reside in people, not inanimate objects. And restrictions on rights and privileges must be shown to further a legitimate state interest.

 

[Papa bull]

The "equal rights issue" is based on sex/gender. A woman cannot marry a woman because she is a woman. A man cannot marry a man because he is a man.

That's right. No woman can marry another woman and no man can marry another man. No one is treated differently or unfairly here. Homosexuality isn't a race. The fact that you don't want to do the whole man/woman relationship thing despite natures efforts to clue you in with sex organs that are only compatible in a male/female way.... that's something in your head and your psyche and not the state's problem to deal with and/or accommodate. In Loving v. Virginia, the only thing that barred a marriage that was otherwise acceptable and otherwise legitimate in every state in the union was race, which was already a suspect class. The entire definition and concept of marriage as a sensible biological pairing of male and female didn't have to be deconstructed and recreated into some facsimile of marriage that no longer has anything to do with male/female biological pairings and procreation but some bizarre "any two people that want to file taxes jointly" contract.

 

[AGENT J]

That's right. No woman can marry another woman and no man can marry another man. No one is treated differently or unfairly here. Homosexuality isn't a race. The fact that you don't want to do the whole man/woman relationship thing despite natures efforts to clue you in with sex organs that are only compatible in a male/female way.... that's something in your head and your psyche and not the state's problem to deal with and/or accommodate. In Loving v. Virginia, the only thing that barred a marriage that was otherwise acceptable and otherwise legitimate in every state in the union was race, which was already a suspect class. The entire definition and concept of marriage as a sensible biological pairing of male and female didn't have to be deconstructed and recreated into some facsimile of marriage that no longer has anything to do with male/female biological pairings and procreation but some bizarre "any two people that want to file taxes jointly" contract.

why do you keep spreading these fallacies and misinformation.
it is an equal rights and civil rights issue
Legal marriage has nothing to do with biology
and when actually pushed and heard by courts, specifically a few state supreme courts they ruled that banning gay marriage violates equality and violates the constitution.

 

[Papa bull]

why do you keep spreading these fallacies and misinformation.
it is an equal rights and civil rights issue
Legal marriage has nothing to do with biology
and when actually pushed and heard by courts, specifically a few state supreme courts they ruled that banning gay marriage violates equality and violates the constitution.

They did not rule that banning gay marriage violates equalty or the constitution. They ruled that the federal government has no interest so important that it should override the state's decision to afford marriage to the citizens it deems fit in the way it deems fit. The constitutional argument from the supreme court only went so far as to slap the federal government's hand away from the tiller on this, not to declare marriage definitions and requirements that are aligned with sensible biological pairings of male and female as unconstitutional.

That's why only 13 states have gay marriage today; because the other 37 are free to maintain their definition of marriage as the traditional definition in spite of all the shrill wailing from the far left.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)They did not rule that banning gay marriage violates equalty or the constitution.
2.) They ruled that the federal government has no interest so important that it should override the state's decision to afford marriage to the citizens it deems fit in the way it deems fit.
3.)The constitutional argument from the supreme court only went so far as to slap the federal government's hand away from the tiller on this, not to declare marriage definitions and requirements that are aligned with sensible biological pairings of male and female as unconstitutional.
4.) That's why only 13 states have gay marriage today; because the other 37 are free to maintain their definition of marriage as the traditional definition in spite of all the shrill wailing from the far left.

1.) ues they did, when the issues has been heard by states supreme courts. Please educate yourself on this topic and reread my post
2.) you are talkign about SCOTUS and a case not related to equality
3.) see 2
4.) wrong again the other states are currently only free because an actual case against it hasnt been heard

facts remain
you keep spreading fallacies and misinformation.
it is an equal rights and civil rights issue
Legal marriage has nothing to do with biology
and when actually pushed and heard by courts, specifically a few state supreme courts they ruled that banning gay marriage violates equality and violates the constitution.

these facts wont change

 

[roguenuke]

That's right. No woman can marry another woman and no man can marry another man. No one is treated differently or unfairly here. Homosexuality isn't a race. The fact that you don't want to do the whole man/woman relationship thing despite natures efforts to clue you in with sex organs that are only compatible in a male/female way.... that's something in your head and your psyche and not the state's problem to deal with and/or accommodate. In Loving v. Virginia, the only thing that barred a marriage that was otherwise acceptable and otherwise legitimate in every state in the union was race, which was already a suspect class. The entire definition and concept of marriage as a sensible biological pairing of male and female didn't have to be deconstructed and recreated into some facsimile of marriage that no longer has anything to do with male/female biological pairings and procreation but some bizarre "any two people that want to file taxes jointly" contract.

That is being treated differently, and it is based on sex/gender. The law says that you cannot treat people differently based on their sex/gender unless you can show an important state interest is being furthered by doing so.

The only thing that is barring a person from being married in the case of same sex marriage bans is their sex/gender, which is protected against such bans.

 

[Papa bull]

That is being treated differently, and it is based on sex/gender. The law says that you cannot treat people differently based on their sex/gender unless you can show an important state interest is being furthered by doing so.

The only thing that is barring a person from being married in the case of same sex marriage bans is their sex/gender, which is protected against such bans.

No one gets barred from marriage because of their gender. There is no state in the Union that prohibits men from getting married - or women from getting married. The fact that marriage requires one of each makes it impossible for you to be correct.

 

[roguenuke]

They did not rule that banning gay marriage violates equalty or the constitution. They ruled that the federal government has no interest so important that it should override the state's decision to afford marriage to the citizens it deems fit in the way it deems fit. The constitutional argument from the supreme court only went so far as to slap the federal government's hand away from the tiller on this, not to declare marriage definitions and requirements that are aligned with sensible biological pairings of male and female as unconstitutional.

That's why only 13 states have gay marriage today; because the other 37 are free to maintain their definition of marriage as the traditional definition in spite of all the shrill wailing from the far left.

Only until another state case on this issue reaches the SCOTUS. Then it is almost certain that the SCOTUS will strike down those laws as well. Kennedy specifically wrote an opinion that condemned the federal government for not recognizing rights that states had already recognized. He didn't actually say that the federal government had no place in marriage or ensuring that state marriage laws abide by the 14th Amendment (which applies to the states, not the federal government, because due process applies to the federal government).

 

[Papa bull]

Only until another state case on this issue reaches the SCOTUS. Then it is almost certain that the SCOTUS will strike down those laws as well. Kennedy specifically wrote an opinion that condemned the federal government for not recognizing rights that states had already recognized. He didn't actually say that the federal government had no place in marriage or ensuring that state marriage laws abide by the 14th Amendment (which applies to the states, not the federal government, because due process applies to the federal government).

I don't think the supreme court will even let themselves get into a position to make a broad ruling on this. They've already made it clear they want this to be handled through the states' legislative processes. Don't get your hopes up.

 

[roguenuke]

No one gets barred from marriage because of their gender. There is no state in the Union that prohibits men from getting married - or women from getting married. The fact that marriage requires one of each pretty much makes it impossible for you to be correct.

There was no state in the union that prohibited blacks or whites from getting married at the time of Loving. Equal protection is not about one race or one gender being completely denied access to something only. It is usually about one race or gender or other group of people being treated differently (meaning not allowed to marry a particular person based on their race or gender or other characteristic).

Marriage doesn't require one of each gender legally. There are no marriage laws that function based upon having one person of each gender. Restrictions upon entering into marriage are not the marriage laws themselves.

 

[roguenuke]

I don't think the supreme court will even let themselves get into a position to make a broad ruling on this. They've already made it clear they want this to be handled through the states' legislative processes. Don't get your hopes up.

Within the next 5 to 10 years, we will see another case in the SCOTUS over state same sex marriage bans. They won't have a choice because eventually lower courts will be striking down the bans and they will have to either support the bans, support the lower courts, or allow them to go down one at a time or in small groups (Appeals Court rulings apply to those districts where the rulings happen). The people would not be happy about having to abide by an Appeals Court ruling and both sides will likely demand the SCOTUS take up the case(s).

 

[Papa bull]

Within the next 5 to 10 years, we will see another case in the SCOTUS over state same sex marriage bans. They won't have a choice because eventually lower courts will be striking down the bans and they will have to either support the bans, support the lower courts, or allow them to go down one at a time or in small groups (Appeals Court rulings apply to those districts where the rulings happen). The people would not be happy about having to abide by an Appeals Court ruling and both sides will likely demand the SCOTUS take up the case(s).

LOL. If it makes you feel better to believe that, you just keep on believing.

 

[roguenuke]

LOL. If it makes you feel better to believe that, you just keep on believing.

I don't have to "feel better" about this issue. I know where we are heading. Just because you are blinded by your beliefs about this issue doesn't mean the rest of us can't see the writing in the sand. Same sex marriage is coming throughout the country within the decade.

 

[Papa bull]

I don't have to "feel better" about this issue. I know where we are heading. Just because you are blinded by your beliefs about this issue doesn't mean the rest of us can't see the writing in the sand. Same sex marriage is coming throughout the country within the decade.

Catastrophic coastal flooding from.AGW , too. There are people just as sure that's coming as you're sure all 37 states that have sensible marriage laws will go along with the homosexual agenda. I'm not confident either is anywhere close to a sure thing.