Warren Buffett donates to the Gates foundation.

[Jonny R]

While commendable, that's not really exclusive to Christian couples. I made the same commitment when I married Mrs. Arkitkt 12 years ago and we're not exactly the most christian of couples.

Don't mean to state that...my point in response to grosse_schwarz earlier on was that the church is actively involved in trying to restore that nature of commitment and work-ethic in marriage, the same nature that you're enacting in your own example.

[big_black]

Why? What makes it so?

Just interested to hear your thoughts on what makes it so...

This is a part of the opinion in the case Loving v. Virginia (1967), which essentially ended race-based legal restriction of marriage in the US. In spirit, this is no different.

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 discriminations. 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.

I know the language regards race here, but it also points to the 14th Amendment, which ensures equal protection under the Law and in spirit that "all men are created equal". If a state honors a Hetro out of state marriage, the MUST acknowledge a same-sex marriage or it is providing special protection. Social Conservatives do not want to risk this fight, so they are going for the Constitutional Amendment...which in its essence "forgets" that we are created equal and deserve to be treated so.

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.

In my opinion, a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriages would prevent segments of society from "Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"....this being Unconstitutional.

What is your opposition to same-sex marriages? I don't want to hear about children, dogs, or any other smokescreen nonsense. We are talking about two consenting adults. I'm curious.

[MartinSixStringCustoms]

I can't even comprehend what you could do with that much money.

Me either. I just can't imagine

[neosadist]

Funny....where I grew up there was no religion in public school. They adhered to the whole idea of "Separation of Church and State." No religion had its day. Maybe it was just an examplary school, maybe they just realized that if it was important enough then the parents would provide for their kids in that manner. I find it amusing that you're so interested in getting back to the roots of the thread when others seem to be lining up and successfully taking your ass to the intellectual, historical and spiritual cleaners.

First, that's an idea. Is it in the Constitution? No. Therefore it's "unconstitutional". Now it is an idea, and I don't mind it, but I've heard too many people acting as if it's law to enjoy hearing it any more. And no, no one is taking me to the cleaners. Public opinion doesn't make right or wrong.

[neosadist]

...the representative from somewhere near P-Town would like to motion to the representative to somewhere near Miami Beach that he might be better served reading the newspapers now and again. Seriously? You missed the threesome on the cover of TIME?

No, I'm asking you to prove this. Tell me who. Don't just blurt out that someone somewhere is doing something evil without telling me who/what/when/where.

[neosadist]

Well, there are some names mentioned here. You'd have to pull the roll to get the full vote list.

That's ... gay!
Seriously though, it's up to the public to decide about same sex marriage. Every voice gets to voice their opinion on the matter. I've already voiced mine. Let's wait until it's passed or dumped to be worried about that.

[neosadist]

Not a religious dispute? The only reason offered in opposition is because "God sez so". The only groups that offer opposition do so on religious grounds. Once long ago, it was illegal for a black man to marry a white woman too you know.

1) There's more than "god sez so". There's psychology. But I've already said this so I'm not going to "torture" you "poor" people again with it.
2) So? Once a while back it was legal for people to commit crimes against Jews in Nazi Germany. While I've said some things are a social, not religious, issue, I find it funny that while you can't legislate morality, you can't allow laws to govern the morality of the people either.

[neosadist]

"They" are. While other elements in society fought for no-fault divorce - but still wanted to call the relationship 'marriage' - Christian groups have created Covenant Marriage to return to the original intent of marriage; a commitment for life. As an aside though, is there something that makes state recognition of your relationship a human right? If you're talking medical procedures etc, why not just amend power of attorney laws?

That's why it's a democracy / republic here. If 1% of the population wants "no dissolution" clause, let them. It's their voice, and they have just as much right to be heard as we have to not hear what they have to say. I don't think marriage laws should change either way: leave divorce laws alone, and leave gay marriage as illegal. But still, I don't care any more. This nation is going to krap very quickly. Soon it's going to be illegal to pray or preach. That won't stop me from doing good in God's name. My Authority is higher.

[big_black]

That's ... gay!
Seriously though, it's up to the public to decide about same sex marriage. Every voice gets to voice their opinion on the matter. I've already voiced mine. Let's wait until it's passed or dumped to be worried about that.

Wrong. We have a Constitution and Amendments that stand regardless of what Congress decides. It does not matter how many votes you get. If it violates the Constitution...well...it's unconstitutional.

[neosadist]

Tony Perkins successfully submitted a bill to the Louisiana Legislature when he was a state senator that established a covenant marriage law.
As I said earlier: These arguments aren't leaking; they've disintegrated the bucket.

And that's how that state works. You can also try to rally behind a measure to repeal that. Because our nation is democratic, the laws are subject to the swaying whim of the public.

[big_black]

1) There's more than "god sez so". There's psychology. But I've already said this so I'm not going to "torture" you "poor" people again with it.
2) So? Once a while back it was legal for people to commit crimes against Jews in Nazi Germany. While I've said some things are a social, not religious, issue, I find it funny that while you can't legislate morality, you can't allow laws to govern the morality of the people either.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Can you give me a better idea?

Psychology? What does Nazi Germany have to do with this?

[JB_From_Hell]

I find it funny that while you can't legislate morality, you can't allow laws to govern the morality of the people either.

Don't both of those statements say the same thing?

[Willis]

First, that's an idea. Is it in the Constitution? No. Therefore it's "unconstitutional".

That isn't what "unconstitutional" means...

[JB_From_Hell]

That isn't what "unconstitutional" means...

Shhhhhh...... he's on a roll.

[tone4days]

Shhhhhh...... he's on a roll.

+1 lmao !!!

[big_black]

That's why it's a democracy / republic here. If 1% of the population wants "no dissolution" clause, let them. It's their voice, and they have just as much right to be heard as we have to not hear what they have to say. I don't think marriage laws should change either way: leave divorce laws alone, and leave gay marriage as illegal. But still, I don't care any more. This nation is going to krap very quickly. Soon it's going to be illegal to pray or preach. That won't stop me from doing good in God's name. My Authority is higher.

Gay marriage is not illegal. Five states currently have domestic partnerships or something of the like, and same-sex marriage is LEGAL in Massachusetts. Through the Full Faith and Credit Clause, all states must recognize those partnerships, or face violation of the 14th Amendment. I would actually compromise and settle on leaving things the way they are, as long as marriages and partnerships were honored as hetero marriages ans partnerships are.

So you would be alright with leaving things as they are?

[Arkitkt]

I have no idea what you are saying here. Can you give me a better idea?

Psychology? What does Nazi Germany have to do with this?

+1

He just lost me there,too

[neosadist]

Marriage is a Civil Right. In this country we are guaranteed Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...same grounds interracial marriage bans where thrown out once people came to their senses. Why amend anything? Let States decide. I am willing to at least settle on that. Laws cannot be brought about in this country on a religious basis alone and still stand as Constitutional.

"Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" aren't constitutional. They're in the declaration of independence, not the constitution. Let's see, where shall I begin....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." I.e. there should be no laws for OR against religion. Not being allowed to pray publicly in school is a violation of this, as is the right to read the Bible in public. You can't stop me from OR force me to do it. So as to separation of church and state, that's a sucky way to say it. Separation doesn't mean I can't do something religious on public ground. It means that the two things are separate and cannot tell each other what to do. It means the two are separate, independent things, not that we cannot be religious if we are in public / government. If that were not so, then no one who is religious is allowed to be in a government job or office, etc.

"Or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." Meaning I can say all I want, and so can you. However:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So even if a right isn't listed in the Constitution, I can still keep it? Like the right to run naked in the street? The right to play porn on my DVD in my car for everyone in public to see?

The way to bring it back to balance: freedom must be used with caution. Abuse of freedoms can cause detriment to the public. My freedoms end where they infringe on yours. My right to punch you in the nose stops at your nose, etc. My right to do what I want (murder you) stops where it infringes on your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. I have the "right", but I cannot because it infringes on your rights). But usually people are too concerned with expressing their own rights that they forget to make sure they don't infringe anyone else's rights. The focus should be on making sure you treat others right, not being a spoiled brat that gets to do anything he/she wants.

[big_black]

"Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" aren't constitutional. They're in the declaration of independence, not the constitution. Let's see, where shall I begin....

You seem to be jumping around and selectively ignoring my posts.

Let me help you.

This is a part of the opinion in the case Loving v. Virginia (1967), which essentially ended race-based legal restriction of marriage in the US. In spirit, this is no different.

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 discriminations. 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.

I know the language regards race here, but it also points to the 14th Amendment, which ensures equal protection under the Law and in spirit that "all men are created equal". If a state honors a Hetro out of state marriage, the MUST acknowledge a same-sex marriage or it is providing special protection. Social Conservatives do not want to risk this fight, so they are going for the Constitutional Amendment...which in its essence "forgets" that we are created equal and deserve to be treated so.

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.

In my opinion, a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriages would prevent segments of society from "Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"....this being Unconstitutional.

What is your opposition to same-sex marriages? I don't want to hear about children, dogs, or any other smokescreen nonsense. We are talking about two consenting adults. I'm curious.

Maybe "unconstitutional" was the wrong term, but it certainly violates the spirit of what this country was founded upon.

[JB_From_Hell]

But usually people are too concerned with expressing their own rights that they forget to make sure they don't infringe anyone else's rights. The focus should be on making sure you treat others right, not being a spoiled brat that gets to do anything he/she wants.

Is that where the anti-gay marriage thing comes from?