Regarding Marriage Equality, I'm Proud of the American People

[BmorePat87]

(06-27-2015, 11:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Is 37 not more than 13?

A couple of things were wrong that made him smirk via emoji. For starters, it wasn't voted in by all 37 states. That number included all states where the courts had ruled banned to be unconstitutional. Second, it's hilarious to try to suggest that states who want to infringe upon the rights of others are a minority whose rights are being infringed upon the same way that the gay community is a minority that saw their rights voted away via gay marriage bans.

There's a reason why the official Libertarian party position has been support for gay marriage since 1976. Meanwhile, you are butthurt that the government can't deny rights and think that a majority should be able to vote on whether or not the minority has a right.

[CKwi88]

It is very good to see the rapid development and advances in the acceptance of the LGBT community over the past dozen years since Massachusetts first accepted Gay marriage. It's rare that something so big can move so fast, and I dare say that this age of Social Media has helped tremendously.

That being said, America still has its fair share of problems as evidenced in the news almost daily. Hopefully we continue to progress like we have.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-28-2015, 12:02 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Claiming that gays are somehow the majority because they were allowed to marry in 37 states is some of the silliest logic that I've ever read on here.  

Even still, how many of those states had marriage equality due to a popular vote?  It's been repeatedly declared unconstitutional in those states, which is why it was legal...not because it was voted that way.  It probably would be voted in by a popular vote, but people shouldn't even be allowed to vote on issues such as this.  The simpletons of this country should not be tasked with deciding who gets rights and who doesn't.

Gay marriage used to be a minority cause. But it's grown to 70% of the state's approving. It's a credit to them that built a coalition. All in saying it would have been nice to see them finish it the way they built it .... I think it would have been better for the cause overall. Now there will be some who think they have gotten railroaded and will just get creative to deny so they can be difficult.

It's a shame. But this will only promote law makers to get creative with language.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2015, 11:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You say minority but 37 states voted it in....  So actually the gays were the majority.     So this is actually protecting the minority 13 states.

37!?

[Donnyho]

(06-27-2015, 08:47 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah that pesky allowing people to vote for how they wish to live.   Much better to allow unelectable and unaccountable group say so.

You mean the wishes of the people in 28 states to amend their state constitutions to ban same sex marriages? Then 28 of those were overturned by courts? That doens't seem like 'organic acceptance' to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type

And really, weren't the people voting on how they wish other people would live?

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2015, 10:29 AM)Donnyho Wrote: And really, weren't the people voting on how they wish other people would live?

Rep.

[GMDino]

(06-27-2015, 06:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Until they force churches to do gay weddings or force someone to participate in their ceremony against their religious feeedoms.

yeah I've been getting that a LOT from my religious friends.

And its been made clear this ruling has nothing to do with churches.

But as another friend (formerly a Catholic Priest) pointed out to me...the church doesn't recognize divorce.  And hasn't forever.

Why would they suddenly be forced to recognize SSM?

[StLucieBengal]

(06-28-2015, 08:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 37!?

Did I have the number of states that allowed gay marriage wrong?

[StLucieBengal]

(06-28-2015, 03:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: yeah I've been getting that a LOT from my religious friends.

And its been made clear this ruling has nothing to do with churches.

But as another friend (formerly a Catholic Priest) pointed out to me...the church doesn't recognize divorce.  And hasn't forever.

Why would they suddenly be forced to recognize SSM?

If it's considered a "rights" issue. Then if a church denies providing a gay wedding then they could be subject to losing their tax exempt status. Which would basically kill churches across the country. The land taxes alone will crush them.

If there is no wAy for them to lose that tax exempt status then all should be ok, and gays can get a JP wedding. Or find a church willing to do one. There are loads.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-28-2015, 10:29 AM)Donnyho Wrote: You mean the wishes of the people in 28 states to amend their state constitutions to ban same sex marriages? Then 28 of those were overturned by courts? That doens't seem like 'organic acceptance' to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type

And really, weren't the people voting on how they wish other people would live?

If you really think the gay lifestyle hasn't been growing in popularity the last 20 years then your head is in the clouds.

I think a lot of you think it's the 1950's still. ***** eye for the straight guy and will and grace fixed that..... Now everyone has their own go to gay dude to go to for decorating advice.

[Donnyho]

(06-28-2015, 05:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If you really think the gay lifestyle hasn't been growing in popularity the last 20 years then your head is in the clouds.    

I think a lot of you think it's the 1950's still.   ***** eye for the straight guy and will and grace fixed that.....    Now everyone has their own go to gay dude to go to for decorating advice.

Has homosexuality become more accepted in mainstream Ameirca?  Yup. But watching 'Will and Grace' didn't win anyone the right to get married.

Quote:StLucieBengal


You say minority but 37 states voted it in....  So actually the gays were the majority.     So this is actually protecting the minority 13 states.

They didn't all vote it in.  28 of them actually voted in the exact opposite.   Then the courts got involved. It's all in the link I posted.  So....the opposite of organic from a 'let's give these people equal rights' point of view. 

(06-28-2015, 03:09 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Gay marriage used to be a minority cause.   But it's grown to 70% of the state's approving.    It's a credit to them that built a coalition.   All in saying it would have been nice to see them finish it the way they built it

Again, that 70% didn't come from people voting for it.

So, your argument doesn't really work, does it?  Or are you arguing that the 13 remaining states should have:

1:had a vote on same sex unions
2: if some sort of ban or restriction on same sex unions passed, it would be taken to court where...
3: it would have been overturned

Because if that's the case, it's sort of a waste of time, isn't it?  

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2015, 05:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Did I have the number of states that allowed gay marriage wrong?

It's a movie quote reference. I doubted anyone around here is as big a View Askew fan as me.

[BmorePat87]

(06-28-2015, 07:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's a movie quote reference. I doubted anyone around here is as big a View Askew fan as me.

Totally missed that reference.

In a row?

[GMDino]

(06-28-2015, 05:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If it's considered a "rights" issue.   Then if a church denies providing a gay wedding then they could be subject to losing their tax exempt status.    Which would basically kill churches across the country.    The land taxes alone will crush them.  

If there is no wAy for them to lose that tax exempt status then all should be ok, and gays can get a JP wedding.  Or find a church willing to do one.    There are loads.

Yep.  Same argument they made.

My answer is if the church gives up 2000+ years of rules and tenets over money they deserve to be killed.  

Oh, and I do not WANT the church to change its mind on SSM.  The good Christian folks I know would be rioting in the streets.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2015, 07:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's a movie quote reference. I doubted anyone around here is as big a View Askew fan as me.

Missed it too.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-28-2015, 10:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yep.  Same argument they made.

My answer is if the church gives up 2000+ years of rules and tenets over money they deserve to be killed.  

Oh, and I do not WANT the church to change its mind on SSM.  The good Christian folks I know would be rioting in the streets.

Whether you favor religin or hate it.... No church should be forced to pay taxes.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2015, 10:35 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Whether you favor religin or hate it.... No church should be forced to pay taxes.

Why?

[StLucieBengal]

(06-28-2015, 10:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why?

Because if you start taxing them then your limiting their ability to do what they are supposed to do. .... Allow a place to worship freely.

No one should worry of their church will close because they can't afford to pay the tax bill.

[BmorePat87]

(06-28-2015, 10:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Because if you start taxing them then your limiting their ability to do what they are supposed to do. ....  Allow a place to worship freely.  

No one should  worry of their church will close because they can't afford to pay the tax bill.

Shouldn't have to pay for rent, their water bill, or electricity either.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-28-2015, 10:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Shouldn't have to pay for rent, their water bill, or electricity either.

Those are basic operating expenses. But paying Caesar is not...