Supreme Court.......STRIKES DOWN...Defence of Marriage Act !

[delldude]

If ya would have left the last sentence out of your post, it would have been better received...by me anyway.

 
In the end, I think he's right.

 

[Ms Tree]

Laugh if you will, Twig, but the fact is that acceptance today is a far cry from where it was 20 years ago. Just look at the makeup of network TV -- every show has at least one gay character, just like every show had at least one black character in the 70's... It's accepted. Not universally, but it's well beyond the point of being a minority view.

I absolutely have no problem with equality on a secular basis.

What I take issue with is that marriage is a religious sacrament that's been borrowed/seized for civil purposes. Simply getting a license from the State isn't a marriage, certainly not in the historical definition any more than me jumping the broom at our wedding would have made me black. It's a different level of commitment and expectation, one I wouldn't expect you to understand.

You're the big fan of separation of church & state, right? Perhaps it's time to focus less on inscriptions that say "In God We Trust" or a replica of the Ten Commandments, and spend a little more time getting the term marriage removed and substituted by civil partnership in the tax code, health care laws, etc.

You don't have to follow my or any other faith, but the First doesn't give you the right to steal from religion for secular purposes.

And no, I really don't expect you to understand the difference. That would require actually understanding and exploring faith to a deeper level than you apparently did before your realization that you are the center of your world.

I agree that gays are more accepted than previously but I think there is still a ling way to go.

I guess I am not concerned about what term is used. I think the issue of using the word marriage is a ship that has sailed long ago. The time to argue that point was when licences were first issued and I dont know if that would have even worked. Most people back then were religious and got married in a church. The word became engrained in society long ago.

I use a q-tip not a cotton swab. I use a band-aid not a medical adhesive strip. It is easier to say and everyone knows what I am talking about.

I do not beleive marriage will leave our vocabulary any tjme soon, at least not in my life time.

 

[delldude]

Ms Tree

I know I am going to regret asking but how in the world do you equate to himans getting married and animals wbo do not have the legal right to concent? An animal has no rights under the COTUS.
 

 
Sadly if one looks at beastiality,  in the EU, they are big time on NOT changing the laws regarding animal sex......Look it up.
 
With that said, our progressive socialist model that we endear to copy is based on the progressive EU model.........anyone want a piece of ass?

 

[Dog Wonder]

Southwind?

 

[delldude]

Southwind?

 
No, he's not a progressive liberal.....

 

[Dog Wonder]

But he's on a desert island with Nancy Pelosi.

 

[delldude]

But he's on a desert island with Nancy Pelosi.

 
Source

 

[Ms Tree]

What I take issue with is that marriage is a religious sacrament that's been borrowed/seized for civil purposes. Simply getting a license from the State isn't a marriage, certainly not in the historical definition any more than me jumping the broom at our wedding would have made me black. It's a different level of commitment and expectation, one I wouldn't expect you to understand.

The thing is we are not in the 1700's any more. We are in the 2000's and times have changed. My wife and I got married at a B&B in South Texas and it was officiated by a JP. Whether or not that meets some historical requirement or not is irrelevant to us. Not sure what commitment or expectation you are referring to. I will say that my parents were also married by a JP and they were married for 58 years till my mother passed. I am committed to my wife as anyone else.

As I tried to explain to East, the concept of marriage has changed. Historically marriage was an exchange of property and a way to make alliances or gain property. A woman had nothing with out a husband. She could not own property, was considered a spinster ... etc. When married she gave up her identity which still happens today out of tradition. She gives up her name and takes on his. This is also part of the history and tradition of marriage. I assume this is not something you want to return to.

The reality of today is that the concept of marriage has split. There is still a religious based marriages but as far as I am aware no established religious institution will conduct a marriage with out a state issued license. So anyone with a marriage license can get married with or with out a church.

You can try to change the word but I doubt you will have much luck.

This is all besides the point. I have seen you argue the finer points of contracts and what they do or do not allow so I am at a loss as to why you are still fighting marriage equality. Is there any legal to prohibit same sex or plural marriages? If there is not then the rights must be granted, if there is then lets hear it.

 

[southwind]

Source

Dog and Pelosi are tight!

 

[southwind]

All I'm saying, which apparently you can't comprehend is, since you don't have a problem with 2 gay people getting married, there rights and all, you shouldn't have a problem with Dog marrying his dog, you know, his rights and all that !

I know I am going to regret asking but how in the world do you equate to himans getting married and animals wbo do not have the legal right to concent? An animal has no rights under the COTUS.

What I am saying is 25-30 years ago people would have thought 2 men getting married was absurd...........what do you think will not be considered "Absurd" 25-30 years from now?

Ever here of Pandora's box?

 

[Ms Tree]

What I am saying is 25-30 years ago people would have thought 2 men getting married was absurd...........what do you think will not be considered "Absurd" 25-30 years from now?

Ever here of Pandora's box?

Seventy years ago they would have thought a white and a non-white getting married was absurd not to mention illegal. If they knew what changes would take place.

The law does not work that way. The law is not concerned with what might happen in the future. Either something is legal or it's not. Do you want to apply this same 'logic' to the 2nd amendment? I'm guessing not.

There is no legal reason why same sex or plural marriages should be illegal.

 

[eolesen]

As I said, the narrative changes with the times, and not always for the better.
 
There are already religious marriages being conduced which don't get recognized by the states.  They happen fairly regularly along those who follow the Book of Mormon as it was originally written, and not as it was conveniently changed when the Feds came after the State of Utah in the 1890's....  The show "Big Love" may have been entertainment, but it's also grounded in the reality that there are plural households in the suburbs of Salt Lake and in just about every other major town in Utah..
 

Government pressure to end polygamy
After the Mormons' announcement of plural marriage in 1852 kindled the nation's anger, the U.S. government engaged in a vigorous tug of war with the Mormons in Salt Lake City. For nearly 40 years, the government applied as much political and social pressure as possible to get the Mormons to abandon the hated practice. Congress created antipolygamy legislation that gradually tightened the noose around the Church.
Here's a thumbnail sketch:

• In 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Antibigamy Act, which made practicing polygamy a felony. However, this law was full of loopholes (not the least of which was that bigamy means only two wives!) and didn't hold any weight in the Mormon-dominated Utah courts.

• In 1874, the government resolved that judicial loophole with the Poland Act. This law stated that all polygamy cases would be tried in federal courts with federally appointed judges. This way, Mormon judges or juries couldn't just dismiss the cases.

• In 1882, the Edmunds Act made unlawful cohabitation a crime, and anyone who broke the law could be imprisoned for six months. Unlawful cohabitation was a much easier judicial standard to prove than bigamy or polygamy, because prosecutors didn't have to provide evidence of a marriage.

• In 1887, Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act in a final attempt to drive the nail in the coffin of polygamy. This act accomplished three things:

• It disfranchised (took the vote away from) all the women of Utah and polygamous men.
• It froze all the Church's assets in excess of $50,000, basically bankrupting the Church and crippling its missionary efforts.
• It declared all children of plural marriages to be illegitimate in the eyes of the government.
When the Supreme Court declared that this law was constitutional, the Mormons knew that continuing plural marriage could result in the government closing down their temples and threatening the very survival of the Church. Faced with this terrible situation, President Wilford Woodruff issued a document (now known as the Woodruff Manifesto) in 1890 ending the practice of plural marriage. Although the manifesto is included in every Mormon's collection of scriptures as part of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), they refer to it as an official declaration rather than a revelation, and God isn't mentioned in it at all.

 
 
 
Next up will be a lowering of the age of consent, since today's 13 year olds are more worldly and savvy than they were 25 years ago....  You can already see that stage being set with the coverage of the basketball player high school lesbians down in Florida.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Dog and Pelosi are tight!

Like Southwind and sheep.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Source

 
 

A man was washed up on a beach after a terrible shipwreck. Only a sheep and a sheepdog were washed up with him. After looking around, he realized that they were stranded on deserted island.

After being there awhile, he got into the habit of taking his two animal companions to the beach every evening to watch the sunset. One particular evening, the sky was a fiery red with beautiful cirrus clouds, the breeze was warm and gentle - a perfect night for romance.

As they sat there, the sheep started looking better and better to the lonely man. Soon, he leaned over to the sheep and put his arm around it. But the sheepdog, ever protective of the sheep, growled fiercely until the man took his arm from around the sheep. After that, the three of them continued to enjoy the sunsets together,
but there was no more cuddling.

A few weeks passed by and, lo and behold, there was another shipwreck.

The only survivor was Nancy Pelosi. That evening, the man brought Nancy to the evening beach ritual. It was another beautiful evening, red sky, cirrus clouds, a warm and gentle breeze, a perfect for a night of romance.

Pretty soon, the man started to get "those feelings" again. He fought the urges as long as he could but he finally gave in and leaned over to Nancy and told her he hadn't had sex for months. Nancy batted her eyelashes and asked if there was anything she could do for him.

He said, "Would you mind taking the dog for a walk?"

A Southwind love story.

 

[delldude]

The thing is we are not in the 1700's any more. We are in the 2000's and times have changed. My wife and I got married at a B&B in South Texas and it was officiated by a JP. Whether or not that meets some historical requirement or not is irrelevant to us. Not sure what commitment or expectation you are referring to. I will say that my parents were also married by a JP and they were married for 58 years till my mother passed. I am committed to my wife as anyone else.

As I tried to explain to East, the concept of marriage has changed. Historically marriage was an exchange of property and a way to make alliances or gain property. A woman had nothing with out a husband. She could not own property, was considered a spinster ... etc. When married she gave up her identity which still happens today out of tradition. She gives up her name and takes on his. This is also part of the history and tradition of marriage. I assume this is not something you want to return to.

The reality of today is that the concept of marriage has split. There is still a religious based marriages but as far as I am aware no established religious institution will conduct a marriage with out a state issued license. So anyone with a marriage license can get married with or with out a church.

You can try to change the word but I doubt you will have much luck.

This is all besides the point. I have seen you argue the finer points of contracts and what they do or do not allow so I am at a loss as to why you are still fighting marriage equality. Is there any legal to prohibit same sex or plural marriages? If there is not then the rights must be granted, if there is then lets hear it.

 
I saved the cost of a JP and chose to live in sin.
She can still take me to the cleaners if she left, just like your old lady.
So tell me the difference.