now for something completely different

[xiphoid2010]

History in the making right now as supreme court examines the constitutionality of same sex marriage.

So let's side track from pharmacy topics for a moment to talk about this potentially historical ruling.

Personally, as a bit of a widely swinging centrist (my view are equally divided between very liberal and very conservative depending on the issues), I don't understand why we must redefine marriage. I am perfectly fine with (and support) gays and lesbians having the same legal rights as married couples. Just call it de facto marriage or legal union or some new term, afford the same rights and protection by law, but let's keep the thousand year old term of "marriage" to what it has been. I know all existing marital laws will now have to changed to include a second definition, but hey, we got 80% of the lawyers in the world.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[rxlea]

Separate but equal never worked for us.

 

[bacillus1]

I think the liberty to marry falls into the fundamental rights category (life, liberty and property), and the government should protect the fundamental rights of minorities when the majority fails to do so.
It's kind of the same as with abortion (abortion being in the "property" category, i.e. bodily domain).

 

[xiphoid2010]

Separate but equal never worked for us.

Truly equal should work. Its the not equal but disguised as ones that doesn't work. My question is why we must call an orange an apple when its not, even though both are popular in their own rights? Must we throw away every tradition to accommodate new phenomenon? Should traditions have the right to exist?

 

[bacillus1]

Truly equal should work. Its the not equal but disguised as ones that doesn't work. My question is why we must call an orange an apple when its not, even though both are popular in their own rights? Must we throw away every tradition to accommodate new phenomenon? Should traditions have the right to exist?

We're not throwing it away. We are not saying that you can only marry the same sex now. Your individual priest/rabbi/religious figure would still have the right to refuse marrying same-sex couples because it is "un-traditional". However, it is an issue of protecting people who the current tradition majorly hurts emotionally and financially.

 

[Skrumpy]

History in the making right now as supreme court examines the constitutionality of same sex marriage.

So let's side track from pharmacy topics for a moment to talk about this potentially historical ruling.

Personally, as a bit of a widely swinging centrist (my view are equally divided between very liberal and very conservative depending on the issues), I don't understand why we must redefine marriage. I am perfectly fine with (and support) gays and lesbians having the same legal rights as married couples. Just call it de facto marriage or legal union or some new term, afford the same rights and protection by law, but let's keep the thousand year old term of "marriage" to what it has been. I know all existing marital laws will now have to changed to include a second definition, but hey, we got 80% of the lawyers in the world.

TBH I feel as if I'm being discriminated against as I am a heterosexual male that wants to be able to be married to as many women at one time as I want. I don't think the state should be able to limit the number of female individuals I am allowed to enter a contractual union with at any given time. LEGALIZE POLYGYNY!

Let people get married to whomever they want however they want. It has no affect on how others live their lives and no one should be meddling in the personal affairs of others unless it does. Why does marriage get to be exempt from modernization? Maybe we should have kept slavery around as it was a 1000+ year old institution? Times change, people initially resist the change, and then eventually come to accept it and adapt. Soon gays will eventually be able to freely marry one another and trust me you will still wake up in the morning.

 

[wahaha]

Truly equal should work. Its the not equal but disguised as ones that doesn't work. My question is why we must call an orange an apple when its not, even though both are popular in their own rights? Must we throw away every tradition to accommodate new phenomenon? Should traditions have the right to exist?

I'm not sure I want to say "I'm getting civil unioned". It doesn't have that nice ring to it( the ring of me saving money).

 

[xiphoid2010]

TBH I feel as if I'm being discriminated against as I am a heterosexual male that wants to be able to be married to as many women at one time as I want. I don't think the state should be able to limit the number of female individuals I am allowed to enter a contractual union with at any given time. LEGALIZE POLYGYNY!

Let people get married to whomever they want however they want. It has no affect on how others live their lives and no one should be meddling in the personal affairs of others unless it does. Why does marriage get to be exempt from modernization? Maybe we should have kept slavery around as it was a 1000+ year old institution? Times change, people initially resist the change, and then eventually come to accept it and adapt. Soon gays will eventually be able to freely marry one another and trust me you will still wake up in the morning.

Incorrect argument. Slavery is based on depriving human rights and demote one to property.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, polygamy hasn't been legal for thousands of years. Personal, I think the reason is simple, social instability. If you allow anyone to tie down multiple partners, you got a bunch of people who can't get get find partner rebelling due to disenfranchisment. Sorry, unless males outnumber females, you are't going to see a polygamy society lasting for too long me thinks.

 

[Skrumpy]

Truly equal should work. Its the not equal but disguised as ones that doesn't work. My question is why we must call an orange an apple when its not, even though both are popular in their own rights? Must we throw away every tradition to accommodate new phenomenon? Should traditions have the right to exist?

Homosexuality is a new phenomenon? You should look up the homosexuality in the Roman empire and investigate its prevalence in nature. I'm not saying it's my cup of tea, but it has existed, it exists, and it will continue to exist. Traditions are an extension of the mores that a society is based on. As society evolves/changes so to must traditions. You can't divorce social change from the evolution of tradition, they go hand in hand and doing so would be tantamount to making the seen, unseen, (i.e impossible).

 

[croquemonsieur]

In case you haven't noticed, polygamy hasn't been legal for thousands of years. Personal, I think the reason is simple, social instability. If you allow one person to tie down multiple partners, you got a bunch of people who can't get get find partner rebelling due to disenfranchisment. Sorry, unless males outnumber females, you are't going to see a polygamy society lasting for too long me thinks.

i'm curious to know in what way(s) you are "very liberal." i've never gotten anything but an uber conservative vibe from you. for example, your argument (term used loosely) here is essentially: that's the way it's always been, so that's the way it has to be.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Homosexuality is a new phenomenon? You should look up the homosexuality in the Roman empire and investigate its prevalence in nature. I'm not saying it's my cup of tea, but it has existed, it exists, and it will continue to exist. Traditions are an extension of the mores that a society is based on. As society evolves/changes so to must traditions. You can't divorce social change from the evolution of tradition, they go hand in hand and doing so would be tantamount to making the seen, unseen, (i.e impossible).

Legal recognition is a new phenomenon. I'm am aware of historical societies that tolerated homosexuality better than we did, not its still not the same as legalizing marriage. The funny thing is that is what I am asking "why must we throw away traditional acceptances and legal tolerance, instead forced to call apple = oranges? Must all traditions be worthless, is nothing sacred?"

 

[Skrumpy]

In case you haven't noticed, polygamy hasn't been legal for thousands of years. Personal, I think the reason is simple, social instability. If you allow anyone to tie down multiple partners, you got a bunch of people who can't get get find partner rebelling due to disenfranchisment. Sorry, unless males outnumber females, you are't going to see a polygamy society lasting for too long me thinks.

Wait what? Polygamy hasn't been illegal for thousands of years.. the bible contains several references to polygamists (specifically the old testament) and doesn't reject polygamy. David, Jacob, Abraham all had multiple wives, and King Solomon had somewhere around 700 of them.. I'm just looking for a small fraction of that. It looks as if you are suffering from reference bias. Your "traditions" should be sacred as long as you think there is merit to hold them as such, whereas other "traditions" should be illegal to promote "social stability." You can't have it both ways.

 

[ucrx]

Personally, as a bit of a widely swinging centrist (my view are equally divided between very liberal and very conservative depending on the issues), I don't understand why we must redefine marriage. I am perfectly fine with (and support) gays and lesbians having the same legal rights as married couples. Just call it de facto marriage or legal union or some new term, afford the same rights and protection by law, but let's keep the thousand year old term of "marriage" to what it has been. I know all existing marital laws will now have to changed to include a second definition, but hey, we got 80% of the lawyers in the world.

If it's the same exact thing, why call it something else? If I married the woman I was dating in the past, how is it any different than marrying the man I'm dating now?

 

[wahaha]

Legal recognition is a new phenomenon. I'm am aware of historical societies that tolerated homosexuality better than we did, not its still not the same as legalizing marriage. The funny thing is that is what I am asking "why must we throw away traditional acceptances and legal tolerance, instead forced to call apple = oranges? Must all traditions be worthless, is nothing sacred?"

Changing a tradition doesn't mean that it's not sacred or meaningless. Allowing gays to marry doesn't make marriage cheap. It's still marriage. It's still a committment that you make to someone you love(most of the time). The concept of marriage has evolved so much over the course of human history. At times it was used to dominate women or unite kingdoms without any intent of love. Allowing gays to marry merely reinforces what modern(not traditional) marriage should be about.

 

[naseuy]

Incorrect argument. Slavery is based on depriving human rights and demote one to property.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, polygamy hasn't been legal for thousands of years. Personal, I think the reason is simple, social instability. If you allow anyone to tie down multiple partners, you got a bunch of people who can't get get find partner rebelling due to disenfranchisment. Sorry, unless males outnumber females, you are't going to see a polygamy society lasting for too long me thinks.

Polygamy is still legal in many countries and cultures.

We should just get rid of marriage all together (at least in the eyes of the law), and let everybody get civil unions. Let people deal with their traditions and religious unions separately.

 

[bacillus1]

TBH I feel as if I'm being discriminated against as I am a heterosexual male that wants to be able to be married to as many women at one time as I want. I don't think the state should be able to limit the number of female individuals I am allowed to enter a contractual union with at any given time. LEGALIZE POLYGYNY!

Let people get married to whomever they want however they want. It has no affect on how others live their lives and no one should be meddling in the personal affairs of others unless it does. Why does marriage get to be exempt from modernization? Maybe we should have kept slavery around as it was a 1000+ year old institution? Times change, people initially resist the change, and then eventually come to accept it and adapt. Soon gays will eventually be able to freely marry one another and trust me you will still wake up in the morning.

Actually, I fully agree with you on polygamy/polyamory, as long as it's fully consensual. Fits into the same category as gay marriage, so why treat it differently? Just because something "hasn't been legal for thousands of years" does not mean that it has no basis for legalization.

 

[Skrumpy]

Polygamy is still legal in many countries and cultures.

We should just get rid of marriage all together (at least in the eyes of the law), and let everybody get civil unions. Let people deal with their traditions and religious unions separately.

Exactly.

 

[bacillus1]

Polygamy is still legal in many countries and cultures.

We should just get rid of marriage all together (at least in the eyes of the law), and let everybody get civil unions. Let people deal with their traditions and religious unions separately.

But you forget about all the federal incentives of being married, and collecting your spouse's life insurance and whatnot. In the end, it's all about money.

 

[Digsbe]

I think SSM is and should remain a states' rights issue. A state can chose to legalize it or not recognize it. States issue the marriage certificate and I think its perfectly fine for a state to chose to legally recognize SSM or to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

 

[BenJammin]

Not really sure how gay marriage is legal under the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Gay people aren't denied the right to marry, just the right to marry the same sex. The Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that sodomy wasn't a crime which makes sense because gays were denied something that straights were given automatically: the right to consensual adult sex. But you can't have sex with a 15 year old gay or straight because our society agrees that it is offensive and disturbing (which it is). I'm not comparing nouns, I'm comparing philosophies. The right to have consensual sex with a 15 year old isn't protected by the EP clause. Why would gay marriage? I'm just trying to think how the argument against gay marriage is being processed.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Again, polygamy is not legal in the US and most of the world for thousands of years. You can not not use a few to justify the majority. That's a fallocy.

Also, love, equal or not, does not marriage makes. I loved my first girldriend more than any other, but it isn't marriag. Again, definition isn't the same.

I understand gays and lesbians want equal rights, and I support those. But let's call apples what they are instead of forcing everyone to call apples oranges out of political correctness.

 

[rxlea]

I think SSM is and should remain a states' rights issue. A state can chose to legalize it or not recognize it. States issue the marriage certificate and I think its perfectly fine for a state to chose to legally recognize SSM or to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

Except if a couple decides to move...

It's still discrimination.

The purpose of marriage has changed over the years and marriage for love (no matter how much it's romanticized in movies) is a relatively new idea. However, there are over 1000 rights that the institution of marriage grants. And giving some people marriage and not others is, in fact, discrimination against a minority, which the 14th amendment is supposed to prohibit. Interracial marriage was banned at one time and overturned with that amendment...same for women's rights. It should be universal across states.

The "traditional" definition of marriage people refer to is based on a religious belief, which quite frankly should not influence federal or state laws.

 

[BMBiology]

who cares? how is this going to affect my marriage?

 

[rxlea]

Not really sure how gay marriage is legal under the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Gay people aren't denied the right to marry, just the right to marry the same sex. The Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that sodomy wasn't a crime which makes sense because gays were denied something that straights were given automatically: the right to consensual adult sex. But you can't have sex with a 15 year old gay or straight because our society agrees that it is offensive and disturbing (which it is). I'm not comparing nouns, I'm comparing philosophies. The right to have consensual sex with a 15 year old isn't protected by the EP clause. Why would gay marriage? I'm just trying to think how the argument against gay marriage is being processed.

This is probably one of the more ridiculous arguments I've heard over the years. People should be allowed to marry who they want as long as they are consenting adults. Not sure how this relates to sex with a 15 year old...

 

[All4MyDaughter]

This is probably one of the more ridiculous arguments I've heard over the years. People should be allowed to marry who they want as long as they are consenting adults. Not sure how this relates to sex with a 15 year old...

Because being gay is JUST LIKE having sex with a minor. Or a goat, for that matter.

 

[ucrx]

The "traditional" definition of marriage people refer to is based on a religious belief, which quite frankly should not influence federal or state laws.

This.

 

[rxlea]

Because being gay is JUST LIKE having sex with a minor. Or a goat, for that matter.

Exactly.

 

[BenJammin]

This is probably one of the more ridiculous arguments I've heard over the years. People should be allowed to marry who they want as long as they are consenting adults. Not sure how this relates to sex with a 15 year old...

I told you I'm comparing philosophy, not the noun. I'm comparing the use of the EP clause in two different situations. It relates to a lot of things including sex with a 15 year old being just one of many. You guys who think I'm comparing gays with pedophilia are clearly not reading what I posted. Don't bother responding if you aren't going to read what you're replying to.

 

[BenJammin]

Except if a couple decides to move...

It's still discrimination.

The purpose of marriage has changed over the years and marriage for love (no matter how much it's romanticized in movies) is a relatively new idea. However, there are over 1000 rights that the institution of marriage grants. And giving some people marriage and not others is, in fact, discrimination against a minority, which the 14th amendment is supposed to prohibit. Interracial marriage was banned at one time and overturned with that amendment...same for women's rights. It should be universal across states.

The "traditional" definition of marriage people refer to is based on a religious belief, which quite frankly should not influence federal or state laws.

Not all discrimination is illegal and your reference to the 14th amendment being about discrimination against a minority isn't correct. The federal government doesn't even recognize sexual orientation as a separate and identifiable group like gender or race.

 

[naseuy]

Again, polygamy is not legal in the US and most of the world for thousands of years. You can not not use a few to justify the majority. That's a fallocy.

Polygyny is still largely legal in the Middle East and Africa. It has only become illegal in the last century in most of Asia. I would not say that it's just a few cultures.

 

[FlavyFlav]

Not really sure how gay marriage is legal under the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Gay people aren't denied the right to marry, just the right to marry the same sex. The Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that sodomy wasn't a crime which makes sense because gays were denied something that straights were given automatically: the right to consensual adult sex. But you can't have sex with a 15 year old gay or straight because our society agrees that it is offensive and disturbing (which it is). I'm not comparing nouns, I'm comparing philosophies. The right to have consensual sex with a 15 year old isn't protected by the EP clause. Why would gay marriage? I'm just trying to think how the argument against gay marriage is being processed.

I'm pretty sure you're arguing two different things here. You acknowledge legal adults of consenting age have the right to sex, and then make an argument that compares legal adults having sex to an adult having sex with a minor. I'm confused.

Personally, I believe the government has no right to decide who gets married and who doesn't assuming both parties are of legal age. Saying that, we already allow civil unions performed by a JP, why can't we allow that for same-sex relationships? All it allows is the same rights and protections that an officially recognized marriage would have. Since we should all agree that all men are created equal, then all should be afforded that basic right of happiness.

As for the argument of whether or not it's a choice... If you still say that homosexuals chose to be that way, then I want to know when you chose to like the opposite sex.

 

[rxlea]

Not all discrimination is illegal and your reference to the 14th amendment being about discrimination against a minority isn't correct. The federal government doesn't even recognize sexual orientation as a separate and identifiable group like gender or race.

That's the problem. It should be a protected class and many institutions see it as such.

The LGBT community is indeed a minority.

And why do you think discrimination is OK in this instance?

 

[xiphoid2010]

who cares? how is this going to affect my marriage?

I'm no lawyer, but I am gonna try to jump in nevertheless. Say you put your child for adoption. Do you have the right to choose a heterosexual couples for your child? If not, then is your right being infringed upon due to political correctness?

There are several challenges pending Supreme Court ruling right now, for example, preference for admitting minority students vs qualified white students due to affirmative action by Texas and Michigan. Is that fair?

 

[Digsbe]

Except if a couple decides to move...

It's still discrimination.

The purpose of marriage has changed over the years and marriage for love (no matter how much it's romanticized in movies) is a relatively new idea. However, there are over 1000 rights that the institution of marriage grants. And giving some people marriage and not others is, in fact, discrimination against a minority, which the 14th amendment is supposed to prohibit. Interracial marriage was banned at one time and overturned with that amendment...same for women's rights. It should be universal across states.

The "traditional" definition of marriage people refer to is based on a religious belief, which quite frankly should not influence federal or state laws.

It is unconstitutional to deny someone the right to marry based on race. However, marriage as a legal and societal term may be defined by the states. I think an amendment to the Constitution specifically outlining that marriage is a Constitutional right and that it cannot be discriminated against based on gender/sexual orientation is what it should take to overturn the state constitutions that do not include same sex relationships in their definition of marriage. I think that DOMA is unconstitutional because it infringes upon a states' rights to give federal benefits to legally wed same sex couples in the states that legally recognize SSM. Some states allow for marriage between first cousins, others do not. It may be discrimination, but I don't think it's unlawful for a state to uphold the definition of marriage that has been the standard in the country for hundreds of years or to change it based on what the people in the state want. No one can take away a homosexual's right to have consensual adult sex, but I don't think that the Constitution forces all states to legally recognize same sex marriage or be forced to change the definition of marriage to allow for same sex couples to be married.

I think religious beliefs should absolutely be allowed to influence how people vote and what laws/policies we want put into place. It would be wrong to enact a theocratic law based on religious doctrine or to make a law respecting a specific religion, but the rights and beliefs of those who base their political/social opinions on their religion are just as equal and should be just as valid when it comes to enacting policy as those who base their political/social opinions on purely secular reasoning. Personally I support SSM and civil unions, I think homosexuals who love each other and decide to make a life commitment to one another should have the same legal benefits as any heterosexual couple that does the same thing. However, I think that because marriage is a state issue and because I don't think it's unconstitutional to legally uphold the traditional view of marriage I think it's acceptable for a state to recognize or ban SSM.

 

[BenJammin]

I'm pretty sure you're arguing two different things here. You acknowledge legal adults of consenting age have the right to sex, and then make an argument that compares legal adults having sex to an adult having sex with a minor. I'm confused.

Personally, I believe the government has no right to decide who gets married and who doesn't assuming both parties are of legal age. Saying that, we already allow civil unions performed by a JP, why can't we allow that for same-sex relationships? All it allows is the same rights and protections that an officially recognized marriage would have. Since we should all agree that all men are created equal, then all should be afforded that basic right of happiness.

As for the argument of whether or not it's a choice... If you still say that homosexuals chose to be that way, then I want to know when you chose to like the opposite sex.

I'm not arguing two different things, you're not understanding what I'm saying. Just because one group of people do not get access to certain types of things does not mean they are being deprived the right of equal protection. A man can have consensual sex with a man or a woman in this country. A man cannot have consensual sex with a 15 year old. Equal protection doesn't apply to the latter because consensual sex can still be an option, just with people of age. It's the same thing with marriage. A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. Equal protection doesn't apply to a homosexual because they are not being deprived of the right to marriage.

Honestly, I would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting the state and federal government from recognizing any type of marriage. Strip benefits from everyone and start writing up individual business contracts.

 

[BenJammin]

That's the problem. It should be a protected class and many institutions see it as such.

The LGBT community is indeed a minority.

And why do you think discrimination is OK in this instance?

I never said that the discrimination was OK, just that it is legal. You don't have to support things that are legal, you know that right? I think flag burning is a disgrace but I acknowledge it's freedom of speech.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution or pass a law. Society will not evolve through strict/loose interpretations of the 14th amendment.

 

[rxlea]

I never said that the discrimination was OK, just that it is legal. You don't have to support things that are legal, you know that right? I think flag burning is a disgrace but I acknowledge it's freedom of speech.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution or pass a law. Society will not evolve through strict/loose interpretations of the 14th amendment.

Society has evolved actually. The majority of Americans support same sex marriage.

 

[BenJammin]

Society has evolved actually. The majority of Americans support same sex marriage.

If that is true then why did California pass Proposition 8 in 2008?

 

[rxlea]

If that is true then why did California pass Proposition 8 in 2008?

I encourage you to educate yourself. NPR had a great program about this the other day.

 

[BenJammin]

I encourage you to educate yourself. NPR had a great program about this the other day.

You just said that a majority of Americans support same sex marriage. If that is the case then why did the voters of California vote to insert "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" into their state constitution?

 

[naseuy]

I encourage you to educate yourself. NPR had a great program about this the other day.

Oh god, I listen to NPR all night during my night shift (and Maddow podcasts)

Recent polls show that more than 50% of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage. The opposition to same sex marriages is dying (literally), and young voters are more likely to be in favor of same sex marriage.

 

[FlavyFlav]

I'm not arguing two different things, you're not understanding what I'm saying. Just because one group of people do not get access to certain types of things does not mean they are being deprived the right of equal protection. A man can have consensual sex with a man or a woman in this country. A man cannot have consensual sex with a 15 year old. Equal protection doesn't apply to the latter because consensual sex can still be an option, just with people of age. It's the same thing with marriage. A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. Equal protection doesn't apply to a homosexual because they are not being deprived of the right to marriage.

Honestly, I would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting the state and federal government from recognizing any type of marriage. Strip benefits from everyone and start writing up individual business contracts.

I see what you're saying now, sorry.

Once again though, it is my belief that a group of people are being deprived the right of happiness as it's only allowed for them to marry someone they don't love in order to establish certain protections and rights. Of course, I then recognize that people don't see it this way, and still believe that consensual gay marriage should be treated the same as people who choose to be with someone or something that can't consent.

 

[rxlea]

You just said that a majority of Americans support same sex marriage. If that is the case then why did the voters of California vote to insert "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" into their state constitution?

And I said go educate yourself. There were several tactics used....

And a lot can happen in 5 years. Like people changing their views.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Society has evolved actually. The majority of Americans support same sex marriage.

Opinions and surveys do not make laws. Hence federal laws are governed by congress and the Supreme Court via check and balance.

 

[npage148]

The people against gay marriage today would have been the people against interracial marriage 50 years. It boils down to their feeling that the discriminated person is in some way inferior and not privlegded to the same rights. The states and the citizens have repeated demonstrated that they can not be trusted when it comes to civil liberties and that the federal govt needs to enforce equal rights under the 14th ammendment.

In addition, marriage of today is not some magical religious thing it was 100 years ago. It's a legal processes that grants two people numerous rights that can not be obtained via other means.

 

[universalcynic]

It is unconstitutional to deny someone the right to marry based on race. However, marriage as a legal and societal term may be defined by the states. I think an amendment to the Constitution specifically outlining that marriage is a Constitutional right and that it cannot be discriminated against based on gender/sexual orientation is what it should take to overturn the state constitutions that do not include same sex relationships in their definition of marriage. I think that DOMA is unconstitutional because it infringes upon a states' rights to give federal benefits to legally wed same sex couples in the states that legally recognize SSM. Some states allow for marriage between first cousins, others do not. It may be discrimination, but I don't think it's unlawful for a state to uphold the definition of marriage that has been the standard in the country for hundreds of years or to change it based on what the people in the state want. No one can take away a homosexual's right to have consensual adult sex, but I don't think that the Constitution forces all states to legally recognize same sex marriage or be forced to change the definition of marriage to allow for same sex couples to be married.

This is a purely legal argument. So what? Are you concerned with what is legal, or what is right? Laws need to change to reflect valid ethics, not the other way around.

I think religious beliefs should absolutely be allowed to influence how people vote and what laws/policies we want put into place. It would be wrong to enact a theocratic law based on religious doctrine or to make a law respecting a specific religion, but the rights and beliefs of those who base their political/social opinions on their religion are just as equal and should be just as valid when it comes to enacting policy as those who base their political/social opinions on purely secular reasoning.

Absolutely not. If the policy infringes on the rights of others who may not share the religious beliefs (as in this case), then it is unacceptable to use those religious beliefs as the basis for enacting such policy.

Personally I support SSM and civil unions, I think homosexuals who love each other and decide to make a life commitment to one another should have the same legal benefits as any heterosexual couple that does the same thing. However, I think that because marriage is a state issue and because I don't think it's unconstitutional to legally uphold the traditional view of marriage I think it's acceptable for a state to recognize or ban SSM.

You're confusing your ethics with legality again. What do you mean when you say you think it's "acceptable"? You mean just because its currently lawful, you're ok with it regardless of whether it's right? The current law itself is unacceptable and needs to be changed. If that means we need a new constitutional amendment, so be it. I hope we get one.

 

[xiphoid2010]

In addition, marriage of today is not some magical religious thing it was 100 years ago. It's a legal processes that grants two people numerous rights that can not be obtained via other means.

I beg to differ. 85% of Americans are religious. I'm a centrist baptist, much more tolerant of same sex marriage than my wife, who is a religiously conservative catholic. There is no way you can take religion out of politics in this country.

 

[universalcynic]

The people against gay marriage today would have been the people against interracial marriage 50 years.

Truth.

 

[npage148]

I beg to differ. 85% of Americans are religious. I'm a centrist baptist, much more tolerant of same sex marriage than my wife, who is a religiously conservative catholic. There is no way you can take religion out of politics in this country.

Which is the problem because religion as it is practiced today is basically an exersise in descriminstion using a work of fiction as a moral cover. I'm crossing my fingers that the country become largely arelgious as older generations die and the young see how distorted modern religion has become

 

[rxlea]

I beg to differ. 85% of Americans are religious. I'm a centrist baptist, much more tolerant of same sex marriage than my wife, who is a religiously conservative catholic. There is no way you can take religion out of politics in this country.

Just because you're religious doesn't mean you're against gay marriage. Many of my Christian friends support it.