It's this simple, so quit wasting my time media

Marriage=state right

State= vote gay marriage yes or no

State= vote yes, if you don't like it, move. If that seems ridiculous, go to your church and see if they will be doing gay marriages, if not, you can stay, if so, leave and go to another church

State= vote no If you are gay and want to get married, go to another state that allows it

End of story, end of a waste of my time. I could care less what other people do, as long as it doesn't affect me. Christians should accept others for what they are and not judge. Gay people should quit acting like the world revolves around them. Agnostics and atheists should not care one way or other unless they are gay.

Gay marriage is by no means the new civil rights act. You aren't being segregated, you aren't being treated like (*)(*)(*)(*), you aren't being shoved to the back of the buss, and you aren't being paid less because you can't get married. Shut up. This is nothing like what black people had to go through in the 50-60s. In fact, you are probably celebrated more than needed to be. Let's just move on so I don't have to hear about a bunch of BS anymore.

 

Sorry... "state" does not get to affect every right, in every manner it wishes. Tyranny of the majority has been and can be a problem, where people's rights are involved. (We already know this.)

Please, see/comprehend the above.

Not necessarily so. (See the above.)

The nation is NOT a "church". (Your analogy is less-than-accurate.)

So, what you are suggesting (whether you realize/care about it), is that by popular vote, rights/liberties can be determined or restricted.
That isn't necessarily permissible under the U.S. Constitution... at least not yet.

You can choose to focus upon many other things if you wish; really, you don't OWN this discussion or debate. This issue of same-sex marriage, is a lot bigger than any one person's willingness or ability to form a singular view about.

So, don't blame the "media" for covering what truly is a massively important issue (story).

Problem is, we don't all live on isolated islands. Sometimes our little 'sphere' of reality presses or bumps up against someone else's.

Good points. Still, the issue is not new... AND many have (over time) been denied what they likely should not have been. There are no easy discussions to be had over this; reaching a substantial solution will be as tedious as what you're complaining about now. Even so, many knew that it would come to this.

Easy for YOU to say; not so easy for you to convince a nation which has pushed that Constitutional issue up to its HIGHEST courts.

You're analogies aren't necessarily 'off', but what you conclude by the same is what's being DEBATED (whether you care for the debate or not).

If there was an issue you thought was important to you (i.e. or perhaps the 2nd Amendment), would YOU want your fellow Americans to tell you to "Shut up."? (I suggest that most would not want that.)

Well yes, it IS "like what black people had to go through in the 50-60s."

I was there; I am Black; I am gay. The 'parallels' (legally and socially) to what African Americans suffered due to discrimination are almost identical. The physical violence exists as well.

Maybe people should celebrate the fact that YOUR OPINION isn't the only one to consider.

If you had a conviction concerning a human right or legal status which you thought/believed you were denied... your attitude (as expressed above) would NOT be as it is.

 

Or we can just set up a system where contractual unions are available to all who are legally allowed to enter them (most commonly shown as consenting adults) where people can receive the same benefits, privileges and rights towards it like inheritance, visitation rights, adoption etc. After that you won't need to be worried about the media reporting it as much.

Sadly though the legal process is a slow one and takes years to petition and get support so the issue of marriage equality isn't going to go away anytime soon, that and also the obvious disagreement with the proposal and people petitioning against it also won't go away anytime soon as you won't suddenly change everyone's mind just by changing a law.

 

No- we won't shut up. We will fight until there is equal treatment under the law for same sex couples.

Yes, there are many similarities between our struggle and the struggles of black folks- we have both suffered discrimination because of innate characteristics.

Why should anyone have to move to be treated equally under the law? Are you kidding me? If that's not segregation, then I don't know what is.

And finally- if you don't like hearing about the struggles of same sex couples, then don't listen and don't take the time to post on an internet forum.

 

that doesn't address the federal benefits

 

Personally I think articles should have a gong and hook feature.

 

If a state bans interracial marriage, would the federal government have any business repealing such a ban?
If a state bans same-sex marriage, would the federal government have any business repealing such a ban?

Are your answers to those two questions different? If so, why?

 

Sorry- just because you are tired of hearing about it doesn't make the issue go away. Just because you have one view of how things are doesn't make you- or anyone one of us right.

This is the reason the issues were in the Supreme Court last week- if it was simple then we would all be on agreement about something.

 

Thats what you say but we all know you mean same sex couples who happen to be gay.

 

The races of the man and woman are irrelevant tto the governmental interest in encouraging biological parents to provide and care for their own children. Interracial couples procreate just like same race couples. Children of interracial couples can suffer from the detrimental effects of the absence of one of those parents, just like children of same race couples. On the other hand the gender of the couples IS rationally related to serving this interest. Only heterosexual couples produce children in need of someone to provide and care for them.

One is constitutional the other clearly is not.

 

Every one of those benefits was enacted by congress, intending them to go exclusively to married men and women. If texas were to legalize marriage between a man and his horse, it would be absurd to argue that the Congress ever had any intent to extend the benefits to men who have married their horse.
If DOMA is struck down, I would advocate Texas create a "Federal Marriage". Leave regular marriage as it is for men and women and create federal marriage for any two consenting adults who wish the federal benefits of marriage. Dont include the presumption of paternity that can only be correct in the case of a man and woman. Eliminate any presumption of sexual relations or requirements of consummation. Sex has no relation to the need or ability to form a stable home. Dont promote homosexuality and instead provide equality.

 

Why would that be? What would homosexual men gain from that?

 

what business is of yours if congress recognizes homosexuality?

 

You sound like a very angry person.

 

Discrimination is illegal if the distinction used is not rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest. Discrimination solely for the benefit of those not discriminated against is unconstitutional.

 

so take it to court

 

No one is arguing that the intention of DOMA was to allow federal benefits for any other union than a man a woman. It's purpose was "to express moral disapproval of homosexuality". It's not being "reinterpreted" by the court in any way as with state "marriage" law, SCOTUS will merely be striking down the discriminatory Section 3 with it's clear anti-gay motivation for being there.

 

No one claimed they were. Step away from the strawmen.

- - - Updated - - -

Make up your mind. Is it none of my business or should I take it to court?

 

Who is seriously advocating for human on animal relations?

 

You did a reductio-ad-absurdium by bringing up a man marrying his horse and saying that it would be absurd to argue that congress intended the federal benefits would go to them (which would be impossible because a horse isn't a person and isn't entitled to rights/property ownership). No one is arguing they intended them to go to gay people, and that's not even the basis on which DOMA Section 3 will likely be struck down. It's not about "reinterpreting" the word marriage, it's about determining the Constituonality of a law enacted specifically to express disapproval of homosexuality.

 

No one. Never mind, Ive only seemed to confuse you. An extreme example used to make a point.

 

My point would be the same had I instead used the example of mother and grandmother. Merely more dramatic.

 

It made no sense because you cannot compare a human to a horse. How can laws affecting only humans apply to non-humans?

I'll bite the mother/grandmother one. If a state legalised it, without DOMA Section 3 the federal benefits would apply, since the definition obviously refers back to the states (as in the case of different age restrictions). But regardless, as I said, the reasoning for DOMA is clear, and when laws are scrutinised motivation matters.

 

Just cant let go of the irrelevant, can you.

 

How was it irrelevant? You're the one slicing and dicing my posts and responding to the "irrelevant" bits only, try the second bit perhaps?

- - - Updated - - -

How was it irrelevant? You're the one slicing and dicing my posts and responding to the "irrelevant" bits only, try the second bit perhaps?