Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[Draconian Guppy]

Sigh. No.

 

I'm saying the anti gay crowd is ACTIVELY oppressing the gays, denying them the same rights they have.

 

the gay's are only asking to get the same rights, they're not oppressing anyone, they're not forcing us hetero's to be gay, they're not forcing churches or priests to marry them, they're just asking for the right to be married by the state and/or churches that aren't intolerant and support their right to be who they are born as. 

Why is that so hard to understand

 

 

[Nerd Rage]

Sigh. No.

 

I'm saying the anti gay crowd is ACTIVELY oppressing the gays, denying them the same rights they have.

 

the gay's are only asking to get the same rights, they're not oppressing anyone, they're not forcing us hetero's to be gay, they're not forcing churches or priests to marry them, they're just asking for the right to be married by the state and/or churches that aren't intolerant and support their right to be who they are born as. 

 

I'm not arguing that.  I'm saying by your definition of bigot, which was "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own" that the pro-gay crowd contains a lot of bigots as well.  I don't see very many in the vocal pro-gay crowd that are tolerant of the anti-gay crowds beliefs that gay marriage is wrong.

[DConnell Member]

I'm sorry, but calling someone a bigot.

 

 

is NOT the same as denying other people the same rights as you, and calling them hateful names, bigot in this case is a factual statement, so it's not even calling names. 

 

And what of those of us who don't agree with the decision or lifestyle, but choose to let others live according to their own beliefs? Are WE bigots? And are those who attack us for our beliefs and how we choose to live our lives bigots?

 

Many Christians do not seek to deny others rights, but the attacks on the religious, both here and elsewhere, make no distinction. Not all Christians are Southern Fundamentalist extremists, you know.

[Dashel]

I still haven't heard a valid reason to be against same sex marriage from anybody.

Wonder why everybody is up in arms about this.

Letting other people get married has no effect on you personally what so ever.

Two main things I'd say.  One, institutionally redefining the word marriage - the union between male and female and then calling it a right.

 

Second, the perks and benefits (and the justification therin) that come with being married.  Both impact the average citizen.  The sad thing is that the legitimate issues are yet to be heard, though they are starting those drums now (will probably fail).  That is the intolerance that should be fixed first.  I'm not opposed to the homosexual wanting to express their love, but this is so cart before the horse. 

 

Think of it this way, if we renamed them to civil unions (for all), do you think the 'benefits' wouldn't change?  How does this not reduce marriage to a system of approving emotional bonds or distributing legal privilege?

[Jennifer Lynn Ewards]

Thank you... I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the fact that Christianity is the following of the New Testament and doing away with the law of Moses. And it clearly states to mind your own business and do not judge. Love one another and love God. My wife and I were married on February 10th. The day after they started issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples in Alabama. And I have never been happier that we can file our taxes together now and that I can add her to my health insurance. I know that must have really caused a traumatic experience for those of you that oppose same sex marriage. (eyes rolling)

[PGHammer]

Bro.. most people now a days only get married because of the tax breaks, insurance breaks, all the legal perks of marriage.  Why should someones sexual orientation stop that?  My sister got married last year.  Her and her husband had the pastor read the most generic no bible quotes script for their marriage.  Their marriage was about them.. not some god, some bearded wonder, etc.  It was 100% a non religious thing.

 

Bro.. most people now a days only get married because of the tax breaks, insurance breaks, all the legal perks of marriage.  Why should someones sexual orientation stop that?  My sister got married last year.  Her and her husband had the pastor read the most generic no bible quotes script for their marriage.  Their marriage was about them.. not some god, some bearded wonder, etc.  It was 100% a non religious thing.

firey - that COULD be addressed by simply not mandating that marriage be a qualifier - which most of the opposition to SSM has no problem with.  However, the most vocal of the pro-SSM arguers (note I did NOT say the majority) are unwilling to accept that sort of compromise - for them, it's "our way period".  Short-term victory with unknown long-term consequences (which could, in fact, be quite Pyrrhic in nature).

[Quillz]

That's the thing about the bible, it can be interpreted many different ways, often in a way that aligns with and supports the existing beliefs of the interpreter.

Exactly... People interpret the Bible literally when it supports their agenda, metaphorically when it does, or they just pick and choose which parts of the Bible they choose to believe in, again, to support whatever agenda they have. And it's the same with most holy books. Torah, Koran, etc.

[DefyTheOutcome]

Were Dred Scott and Plessey v. Ferguson enforced nationwide?  Surprisingly, no.  Both SCOTUS rulings would, in fact, eventually get reversed.  What is needed is an implementation framework - which doesn't exist yet (and may never exist in some states).  All the ruling says is that you can't do things the "unconstitutional" way any more.  The onus is - correctly - on the state governments and the voters of the several states.  But until one or the other acts, it will take time.

 

You are insisting upon "immediacy".  Not even SCOTUS rulings work that way.  What's the rush?

 

Immediacy? The Texas AG is not just dragging his feet, he is actively trying to figure out ways to circumvent the Supreme court decision

 

 

Pot, meet kettle.  This is what I'm talking about.  You are probably, when you say bigots and hypocrites, referring to the same people that would call gay people hate terms and use insults, but now you are not respecting their beliefs and insulting them.  It's a two way street, you can't say the anti-gay crowd has to respect the pro-gay crowd, but the respect doesn't have to run the opposite way back.  If you don't give respect, you usually won't get it in return.  You don't have to agree with people, but respect that some people might have differing belief systems....and that's OK.  The world would be boring if we were all sheep that believed the same thing.

 

Two-way street? For what? For respect??? You are mistaken: I am not interested in such respect. I am interested in having Freedom FROM Religion when laws are applied. Why would clerks issue or not marriage licenses on their own religious beliefs?

Clerk 1 is not a religious person, Clerk 2 is a religious person. Why should SSM couples be treated differently? one couple is lucky because he got clerk 1, the other must come back later and hope to get the proper clerk.  

 

Where is the equality in front of the law for citizens? This is one of the clause the 14th amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

How would you judge the religious character of a person? is it the number of time he goes to the Church? the sum put in the collection basket?

 

I have my own religious beliefs and they apply to me and only me. In my job, my religious beliefs are stored in a safe and I interact with people with the exact same level of professionalism. I expect that from others.

[TMYW]

Two main things I'd say.  One, institutionally redefining the word marriage - the union between male and female and then calling it a right.

 

The default position from a constitutional standpoint is that you have all rights and freedoms that aren't explicitly restricted. Laws can be written by local, state, or federal governments to curb rights and freedoms, but those laws must then be applied equally. IOW, the default position is that any two people, regardless of sex or race (or even age), can get married. Laws can then be enacted to place restrictions (e.g. minimum age), but they must be applied EQUALLY. The restriction on age is considered constitutional because it concerns the ability of a party to give consent, which a child does not have. There used to be laws restricting inter-racial marriage. Many years ago those laws were challenged and they were struck down on the basis of violation of equal protection. Laws restricting same-sex marriage were struck down last week for the same reason.

 

What this means is that same-sex couples ALWAYS had the right to get married, and it's only because of unconstitutional laws that they weren't allowed to.

[DConnell Member]

Bro.. most people now a days only get married because of the tax breaks, insurance breaks, all the legal perks of marriage.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure there should be any legal perks to marriage, or more to the point, why a partnership with tax/insurance/whatever benefits should be defined by love/claims of love.

 

My aunt & uncle lived together - a purely platonic/fraternal relationship. They shared expenses, maintained the house together, were partners in a very real, though non-romantic/non-sexual sense. This was a lifelong partnership, but not a marriage by anyone's definition. So there was no tax benefit, no insurance benefit (which considering my aunt had a degenerative disease - a big reason she never married - might have been a plus). Based on that, I really don't see why romantic love/sex should the essential criteria for getting those benefits. Why should tangible and financial benefits be tied to "being in a relationship"?

 

Frankly, rather than limiting the economic benefits of to just "heterosexual married couples" or even "married couples" (of either type), I would separate the idea of "personal partnership" (so to speak) from the idea of "marriage" entirely. Make it a legal contract between any two parties - expense sharing, tax benefit, ability to be on insurance, etc. It could be any two family members, close friends, or, yes, even people who just get together to reap the benefits, so long as they agree on  and abide by a set of rules. A marriage would be a "personal partnership" of course, but the benefits of a "personal partnership" would no longer be exclusive to married couples.

[HawkMan]

And what of those of us who don't agree with the decision or lifestyle, but choose to let others live according to their own beliefs? Are WE bigots? And are those who attack us for our beliefs and how we choose to live our lives bigots?

 

Many Christians do not seek to deny others rights, but the attacks on the religious, both here and elsewhere, make no distinction. Not all Christians are Southern Fundamentalist extremists, you know.

 

Seeing as that would make you not intolerant, no that would not make you a bigot. and the criticism in this thread has not been towards any of the religious people who say they do not oppose gay marriage. Only the bigots who carry posters at gatherings, actively oppose letting other people live the life they where born with differently or in general actively hounding them for not suppressing who they are. 

[Emn1ty]

Oh, I totally understand what you are saying, and do realize that is a modern definition.  But it begs questioning of why dont you modernize your definition ?

 

He doesn't have to, and modern doesn't mean correct. It just means current. People seem to forget this.

[TMYW]

He doesn't have to, and modern doesn't mean correct. It just means current. People seem to forget this.

Modern means "correct" in the only time that it really matters--the "now". And, yes, he SHOULD change his definition, unless he enjoys looking like pouting, petulant child.

[HawkMan]

Two main things I'd say.  One, institutionally redefining the word marriage - the union between male and female and then calling it a right.

 

Second, the perks and benefits (and the justification therin) that come with being married.  Both impact the average citizen.  The sad thing is that the legitimate issues are yet to be heard, though they are starting those drums now (will probably fail).  That is the intolerance that should be fixed first.  I'm not opposed to the homosexual wanting to express their love, but this is so cart before the horse. 

 

Think of it this way, if we renamed them to civil unions (for all), do you think the 'benefits' wouldn't change?  How does this not reduce marriage to a system of approving emotional bonds or distributing legal privilege?

 

What religion is supposed to have monopoly on saying what marriage is since the construct of "man and woman" is something that was only added recently when the idea of ssm came up. Even within the same religion there' disagreement amount SSM and many churches support marrying gay people.

 

Is it so hard to accept that gays being married won't effect you, and it won't cause god to rain down sulphur and brimstone or flood the world, even if the WBC would like to think so. 

[firey]

Honestly, I'm not sure there should be any legal perks to marriage, or more to the point, why a partnership with tax/insurance/whatever benefits should be defined by love/claims of love.

 

My aunt & uncle lived together - a purely platonic/fraternal relationship. They shared expenses, maintained the house together, were partners in a very real, though non-romantic/non-sexual sense. This was a lifelong partnership, but not a marriage by anyone's definition. So there was no tax benefit, no insurance benefit (which considering my aunt had a degenerative disease - a big reason she never married - might have been a plus). Based on that, I really don't see why romantic love/sex should the essential criteria for getting those benefits. Why should tangible and financial benefits be tied to "being in a relationship"?

 

Frankly, rather than limiting the economic benefits of to just "heterosexual married couples" or even "married couples" (of either type), I would separate the idea of "personal partnership" (so to speak) from the idea of "marriage" entirely. Make it a legal contract between any two parties - expense sharing, tax benefit, ability to be on insurance, etc. It could be any two family members, close friends, or, yes, even people who just get together to reap the benefits, so long as they agree on  and abide by a set of rules. A marriage would be a "personal partnership" of course, but the benefits of a "personal partnership" would no longer be exclusive to married couples.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[TPreston]

[Emn1ty]

Modern means "correct" in the only time that it really matters--the "now". And, yes, he SHOULD change his definition, unless he enjoys looking like pouting, petulant child.

 

Perhaps you should stop spewing undeserved ad hominem's. The only indication here of a poor argument is when you must resort to demeaning the opposition to make yourself look better. Come up with a logical argument for why time dictates correctness. Maybe in a social sense, but certainly not otherwise. And marriage is both a social and legal concept (both of which should be entirely separate of each other but aren't currently).

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

My home state. They'll allow it, just like texas will legalize marijuana....NEVER! I don't see it happening. Especially in Louisiana. (You have to live there for over twenty years to know what I'm talking about)

[COKid]

My home state. They'll allow it, just like texas will legalize marijuana....NEVER! I don't see it happening. Especially in Louisiana. (You have to live there for over twenty years to know what I'm talking about)

 

Louisiana and Mississippi officials have begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/louisiana-starts-issuing-same-sex-marriage-licenses/

 

 

[Stoffel]

Two main things I'd say.  One, institutionally redefining the word marriage - the union between male and female and then calling it a right.

 

Second, the perks and benefits (and the justification therin) that come with being married.  Both impact the average citizen.  The sad thing is that the legitimate issues are yet to be heard, though they are starting those drums now (will probably fail).  That is the intolerance that should be fixed first.  I'm not opposed to the homosexual wanting to express their love, but this is so cart before the horse. 

 

Think of it this way, if we renamed them to civil unions (for all), do you think the 'benefits' wouldn't change?  How does this not reduce marriage to a system of approving emotional bonds or distributing legal privilege?

 

You are really hung up on the work marriage? Really?!?

 

How does it impact already married people that gay people are allowed to marry now?

You are trying to bring the bible back in to it. We are not talking about marriage in front of the church, just for the state.

Why would you not grant gay people who want to spend their lives together the same benefits as straight people. You can't find a single reason for this unless you bring the bible back into it.

[Gone]

heterosexuals engage in sodomy every day. To pretend that it's only a homosexual act would be disingenuous and you know it.

 

Priests aren't going to be forced to marry homosexuals, just like they're not forced to marry heterosexual couples. They choose to do so everyday.

Bakers are being forced to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings against their will or shut down,

Religion is the next thing for the homosexuals to "dominate".

[TPreston]

Bakers are being forced to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings against their will or shut down

Yet these bakers DEMAND that anyone who refuse to bake cakes for Christians against their will be subjected to the same fate.

Repeal title II of the civil rights act and then we can talk about this.

You have redefined religion to apply to public services. It does not.

[wakjak]

Bakers are being forced to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings against their will or shut down,

Religion is the next thing for the homosexuals to "dominate".

They're not forced to do anything. To think otherwise is being disingenuous.

[HawkMan]

Bakers are being forced to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings against their will or shut down,

Religion is the next thing for the homosexuals to "dominate".

 

they can deny any job they want, but not for discriminatory reasons

[Dashel]

You are really hung up on the work marriage? Really?!?

 

How does it impact already married people that gay people are allowed to marry now?

You are trying to bring the bible back in to it. We are not talking about marriage in front of the church, just for the state.

Why would you not grant gay people who want to spend their lives together the same benefits as straight people. You can't find a single reason for this unless you bring the bible back into it.

Words are concepts and ideas, so yes, I am really that hung up on the fundamental removal of that concept from language.  Instead, we now just have a new distinction, gay married.

 

Nothing I said has anything at all to do with the Bible or religion.  They are spoken from a secular perspective.  I'm curious as to your thoughts on my last question.  Particularly to poster below me that has, "...never been happier that we can file our taxes together now and that I can add her to my health insurance."  Its not about love, its about money.

 

I 110% agree that any business should have to sell their wares to anyone regardless.  The cake issue is a little more thorny because it wasn't the cake, but what they wanted written on it that was the issue.  On such items I'll stand with the freedom of the market.

 

To seta's point, there is so much legal smashed into state run 'marriage' that there is no way to separate it now without tossing it completely.  Since that won't happen,  I'm generally ok with the ruling as being the most practical path to bring about a desired outcome.  The way does still bother me though and is an opening for appeal.