Strange point Doug.  That would deprive  many Americans of their political rights,  and a representative government of its power to govern.

/

Really?  The Founding Fathers wanted to avoid Church interference, and they wanted to avoid Government interference in religion.

/

Really? The Founding Fathers wanted to avoid Church interference, and they wanted to avoid Government interference in religion. --Doug W

 Doug, a nation is bound by laws, rather than by a vague ethic identified as what the founding fathers "wanted".


"Church interference" as you refer to it,; is inclusive of the rights of church members to actively practice Civil Rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, I will be more than happy to explain it to you.

By your simplistic standard, any political activity whatsoever, is "Church interference".


Or you might consider it in this context my friend. If the 2nd Amendment; expressly states that their shall be no "infringement" on the right to keep and bear, it is similarly valid that no infringement upon rights to political advocacy are equally valid.

In that regard, if you insist upon restrictions at law; to restrain "church interference"it violates the religious clause of the First Amendment.

/

/Looks like 8 passes in Cali anyway....Yippeeee.....to heck with "activist" courts.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/3384493/Proposition-8-ballot-to-ban-gay-marriage-set-to-pass-in-California.html


According to other online sources, A ban on gay marriage was approved in Arizona and a similar measure looked set to pass in Florida. Meanwhile in Arkansas, voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents.

 And with the election of Barack Obama to the presidency, along with his pledge to force the legitimization of homosexual behavior on America, other states may yet be victimized by judicial activism.

/


/
Edited to remove all of the nbsp's.  It was making it hard to read.

Not a problem with the Gay relationships.   However, same status
decreed by law, and equal treatment for benefits well
maybe.   Seems like gun control, where does this go and when does
it end?   Somehow it seems like opening Pandora Box.   Don't ask,
don't tell, worked really well in the service under Clinton right?
Let's see also turns into hate crimes, discrimination, and the list
still continues.   This is all before church, and 1st amendment gets
consideration.   Nope, would like to see this remain as is I think.
Probably if not for Hollywood, it would not be a consideration.

Okay, let's get one thing straight:

From a legal standpoint, marriage is not a right.  It's a privilege.  Just like driving and concealed carry in most states.  Anything you're required to have a license for is not a right, it is a privilege.

States require licenses for you to get married and thus, it is not a right.  It is something the state, by virtue of its magnanimity, may permit.  But rights are things that you can do without any bureaucrats' permission.  Rights are something that require no consent from any other person than yourself.

When gay marriage is concerned, those who promote it are not demanding equal rights, they are begging for equal privilege.  They want the state to endorse or condone them -- which is something that the state may or may not do according to its whims.  They want to be coddled by the state like it were some loving, supportive parent who says "Whatever you decide, we're 100% behind you!"

If you think marriage is your right, then you should want the government out of it.  From a legal stand point, this means you push the matter entirely into the purview of contract law.  You remove licensing, tax quirks, and all those other weird legal idiosyncrasies that have been attached to the matter and leave it be.

If one church prescribes a certain kind of contract as acceptable marriage, that's their decision.  It won't be a matter of church meddling with state.  It will be a church offering its consent.  This, in no way, violates the principles advocated in the First Amendment.

If you think marriage is your right, then you should want the government out of it.  From a legal stand point, this means you push the matter entirely into the purview of contract law.  You remove licensing, tax quirks, and all those other weird legal idiosyncrasies that have been attached to the matter and leave it be.

Exactly my line of thinking. The government has no place in marriage any more than any other contract.

   Nolo, 

   Your proposition about:

  "Exactly my line of thinking.  The government has no place in marriage any more than any other contract."----Nolo

   Is not consistent with the law however.   The idea of state regulation  is a right of the state, because the state has a vested interest in its citizenry.   Matters such as disease enter into the issue.

   The idea that all "rights" are only vested in the INDIVIDUAL, and never in the STATE,   is not an accurate legal argument. 

   I'm not a Lawyer, and would have to do an extensive internet search to dig up the facts,  but   having studied the issue previously,  the state also has the right to regulate marriage.

/

     

 

Nolo,

   Your proposition about:

  "Exactly my line of thinking.  The government has no place in marriage any more than any other contract."----Nolo

   Is not consistent with the law however.   The idea of state regulation  is a right of the state, because the state has a vested interest in its citizenry.   Matters such as disease enter into the issue.

   The idea that all "rights" are only vested in the INDIVIDUAL, and never in the STATE,   is not an accurate legal argument.

   I'm not a Lawyer, and would have to do an extensive internet search to dig up the facts,  but   having studied the issue previously,  the state also has the right to regulate marriage.

Oh, I am sure it's not. Most of my beliefs aren't.

Is not consistent with the law however.   The idea of state regulation  is a right of the state, because the state has a vested interest in its citizenry.   Matters such as disease enter into the issue.

Nonsense. Balderdash. Utter hogwash and a faulty statement.

The state's "vested interest" in a human being is a fantasy. The state has no ownership of human beings. "Vested" is a term with a specific meaning and it's inapplicable in the statement that I've quoted.

People have rights. We grant to the states certain powers and authority in order to do particular things.

Same sex marriage is wrong anywhere, anytime, in any circumstance. 

If there were a shed of truth to what you post here, then it would be also a fact that states in the USA had never regulated marriages. The fact that states do, indicate that you are utterly ignorant on the subject.

Brian Dale is talking about the very nature of government. People like to give it superhuman status, but in reality government is only given powers by the people who support it.
One can think of government as an extra-societal entity, and I am sure that it would enjoy that very much, but it isn't. It's just a group of people whom the rest of society has put into managerial positions.
Now, society can allow government to do certain things, but the power flows from the bottom up.

  to George Hill:

      So where is any discrimination evident?

   The only way normative dialogue of public ballot issues can be be labelled as DISCRIMINATORY,  is that no definition of the term be acknowldged,  and thereafter,  normative discussion be prohibited in a biased manner.

    If a forum  adopts a policy that  normative social behavior  such as Marriage between opposite sexes, and advocacy for it is DISCRIMINATORY,  I know that I'm in a forum which serves as a front  for Gay, Lesbian and other aberrant advocacies.

   
/

/

/

The fact that large numbers of people think something is wrong is not, by itself, a good enough reason for the government to prevent people from doing it.

There are oodles of people in the world who think hunting is wrong. There are even more who think seeing a woman's face in public is wrong. There are more still who think eating pork is wrong. A majority of Americans evidently think voting for McCain was wrong. Some folks think using electricity is wrong.

This nation was founded in large part by people who were minorities in their home countries and persecuted because their countrymen thought they were wrong.

Thank God that America is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the right.

  Anyway you look at it same sex marriage is wrong. God instuited marriage between one man and one woman. It made me sick when I heard some states leagleized same sex marriage. I don't like it at all when I saw the news story on the news.

And Neo-Nazis marching through the streets is wrong, too.  But they still have the legal right to do so.  We are not discussing the morality of homosexuality here, we are discussing the legal rights of American citizens.  Are same sex unions the same as marriage?  The fact that we even have to differentiate suggests otherwise.  If a gay man dies, does his partner receive the deceased federal pension?  What about community property and estate planning?  There are very real economic benefits that accrue with marriage beyond the simple desire to have the same dignity that heterosexuals may have.  Barney Frank may be okay with introducing his partner as "my lover" but I know a whole lot of of gays would prefer to use the terms "husband" or "wife."

Oh, and guys, states don't regulate marriages through the licenses, they simply recognize them.  A marriage license is equivalent to a deed or a lien in that it recognizes an intangible legal relationship.  With the exception of same sex marriage and inter-racial marriage up until the seventies, the clerk of the court is not in the habit of denying or rescinding marriage licenses.