North Carolina votes for marriage ammendment.

[Smith]

I find it ironic that many of you who keep chanting about benefits of same-sex marriageare some of the same ones who complain about ex's getting all their stuff. I also find it ironic that many of the folks here crying for it here are the same ones that want absolute separation of church and state ... except when they want the state to dictate the Church. So the Church can not dictate to the state, but the state can dictate to the Church and that is some how more constitutional?

If you want to talk about tax issues related to marriage that is political ... marriage is not.

Marriage has always (and I mean always) been a religious recognition in all societies between God/god man and woman in every society and every religion. The fact that government has seen fit to involve itself in that is troubling. Separation of church and state unless it is marriage.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Smith

[Guest bkelm18]

So where does God or Church come in to play for people who get married not in a church and not by a religious authority figure? It would seem that there would be as much religion in that sort of marriage then there is in a potato chip. Plenty of atheists are married. So evidently there must be much more to marriage then simply religion. As far as the true separation of church and state, well, my opinion on that matter would be vastly unpopular.

Edited May 14, 2012 by bkelm18

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The people have spoken on the issue of gay marriage, with a better sense of reliability than any poll out there. I think there is really

nothing to add. Let it come to a vote in more states. The majority will just increase. Human nature, even without religion will continue

to bear this one out.

Mike.357, marriage was and is a religious institution that became a legal concept in modern society. why? I'll have to let someone else

answer that, but I suspect it has to do with money.

[Smith]

So where does God or Church come in to play for people who get married not in a church and not by a religious authority figure? It would seem that there would be as much religion in that sort of marriage then there is in a potato chip. Plenty of atheists are married. So evidently there must be much more to marriage then simply religion.

You are on the correct path. So why is marriage an issue to begin with?

[Mike.357]

Mike.357, marriage was and is a religious institution that became a legal concept in modern society. why? I'll have to let someone else

answer that, but I suspect it has to do with money.

No its not a religious institution. Might have been at one time but today certainly not. If society has no problem with two straight people marrying via a JP, which is not religious at all, why should there be such a problem with two gay people doing it?

I don't see where anyone can force a church to marry people, straight or otherwise.

bottom line is always money.

[TMF]

So where does God or Church come in to play for people who get married not in a church and not by a religious authority figure? It would seem that there would be as much religion in that sort of marriage then there is in a potato chip. Plenty of atheists are married. So evidently there must be much more to marriage then simply religion. As far as the true separation of church and state, well, my opinion on that matter would be vastly unpopular.

I am one of those people. Apparently my marriage isn't valid.

I'm not "crying" for gay marriage. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. I just have an opinion. Making comments that suggest I somehow support Obama because he wants to make butt buddies legal is silly.

I'm curios to know how many on this forum that believe in same sex marriage will vote for Obama, now that he is the first gay president?

Its even more silly to think that someone should absolutely agree/disagree with everything a politician says or believes. That's pretty closed minded. I think Obama has/is destroying us economically. If I agree with him on gay marriage does that mean I have to ignore everything else by default? I don't think so. If peter puffer marriage is swaying a person's vote then they need to stay home. We got bigger problems.

I also find it ironic that many of the folks here crying for it here are the same ones that want absolute separation of church and state ... except when they want the state to dictate the Church. So the Church can not dictate to the state, but the state can dictate to the Church and that is some how more constitutional?

Back to the topic, since when did the government dictate who can or can't be married in a church? There are still churches that won't do interracial marriages. Don't see the gov stepping in there. If queers and dykes want a ceremony then churches aren't obligated to perform it. I couldn't even get married in a downtown church here in Clarksville unless I was a member. So I don't think churches will be forced to do anything by the gov, just the JPs.

God has nothing to do with marriage unless you want it to. God has nothing to do with my marriage. If a Hindu gets married here in TN then where is God? Should he have to make YOUR God a part of the ceremony? That doesn't sound like separation of church and state.

Edited May 14, 2012 by TMF 18B

[TMF]

You are on the correct path. So why is marriage an issue to begin with?

Serious question, since God wasn't part of my ceremony should my marriage to my wife not be legal or should it be called a civil union?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Serious question, since God wasn't part of my ceremony should my marriage to my wife not be legal or should it be called a civil union?

That's a good question. if you wish gays to be married, you will get your answer. Even though God wasn't a part of your ceremony, the

ceremony still came from a religious tradition. You can be the one trashing it, but I won't. I will respect your marriage from it's heritage

and meaning. That's the "evolving" part of the problem, to me. Since it has become a legal concept, the religious aspect has become

convenient to trash. The concept of marriage and family seem to be irrelevant to many, nowadays. I guess I am reliving ancient Rome

with the lot.

Now, back to that "Living and Breathing" document, I found a a few paragraphs that might help a few of you.

Borrowed from Renew America, written by Edward Daley

"When a judge refers to it as "living and breathing," what he or she means is that the words within it can be taken in different ways, depending upon who is looking at it at any given time. They also apply words like "evolving" to it, as if it is some sort of life form that routinely adapts to its environment. That, of course, is ridiculous. Our Constitution only "evolves" when an overwhelming majority of the American citizenry determines that a change is necessary, not because of some judge's personal belief in how that document should read.

Words mean what they mean, not what we wish they would mean, whenever we become uncomfortable reading them. One cannot rightfully look at the Constitution and determine that its text means something other than what it has always meant, and was intended to mean upon its ratification. One may only disagree with the principles underlying those words, and seek to further amend the document, thereby introducing new words and rationales into it.

When a judge, at any level of jurisprudence, seeks to RE-interpret the Constitution, tincturing that interpretation with their own personal moral predilections, or their supposed understanding of "society's evolving standards," what they are doing is something which is prohibited by the very Constitution they are regarding.

They are, in effect, amending it themselves, without deference to the one branch of government that is solely charged with that right and responsibility; Congress. They are disregarding the most fundamental aspect of what we refer to as our country's "separation of powers," and are disrespecting the will of the people to whom Congress is accountable... and to whom the judiciary is not."

I think he hit the high points.

[mikegideon]

Serious question, since God wasn't part of my ceremony should my marriage to my wife not be legal or should it be called a civil union?

It can be called marriage as long as your wife isn't a guy. The rules can be bent, as long as we get to discriminate against the folks we don't like.

Besides... if we allow gay marriage, there will be semen flowing in the streets

Edited May 14, 2012 by mikegideon

[Smith]

Serious question, since God wasn't part of my ceremony should my marriage to my wife not be legal or should it be called a civil union?

Technically, it wouldn't be either since both are governmental/political terms (legal/ civil union). Here's another way to think about it. If there is no one around to officiate/witness/document (TEOTW scenario) can there be a marriage or just two people being together?

However, since the government has seen fit to oversee the ordinance it would be legal.

BTW -on a humorous side note, in Medieval Britain if two people made commitments and physically consummated the relationship it was a legal marriage. Needless to say it was a busy time for Dark Age courts!

Edited May 14, 2012 by Smith

[TMF]

The people have spoken on the issue of gay marriage, with a better sense of reliability than any poll out there. I think there is really

nothing to add. Let it come to a vote in more states.

I agree with you on that. States should be the ones to have their say, and nothing is more democratic than a general vote. It should effectively end the argument from both sides until the next time it's up for a vote.

NOK rights are the biggest issue I see with same sex marriage. The government shouldn't dictate who the most important person should be. If you want that person to be the one to pull the plug, authorize treatment or get all your stuff when you die then that's your right. However, a gay couple can make this happen in a few hours on legalzoom.com so I don't find that argument a rights issue but more of a convenience issue. My logic simply makes believe the gov should recognize same sex marriage, but if the people of Tennessee vote it down then that's that.

[gregintenn]

Serious question, since God wasn't part of my ceremony should my marriage to my wife not be legal or should it be called a civil union?

My marriage was a religious ceremony. I'm not sure why, or on what grounds, the government does, or should recognize it at all. It would cost me money, but I'm not sure why marriage should be of any concern to the government.

[Mike.357]

I just dug it out and looked. As I suspected my marriage license makes no mention of god. It does mention legal contract and was signed by a judge and plainly says marriage.

[TMF]

My marriage was a religious ceremony. I'm not sure why, or on what grounds, the government does, or should recognize it at all. It would cost me money, but I'm not sure why marriage should be of any concern to the government.

The only reason I can figure is for legal purposes. Your wedding ceremony is whatever it means to you and your religion. The government involvement is for contractual purposes.

I'll buy that the government doesn't need to be involved in my marriage or anyone else's, but having a contract for legal purposes makes sense, and that's all it is. My vows have nothing to do with that contract and vice versa. This is why I don't understand the problem with gays having that same ability. I'd be willing to change my opinion if there was logic against it that didn't involve religion. Once again, we're talking strictly from the contractual/legal side of this.

[Daniel]

But there isnt... it is strictly a religous based moral objection to homosexuality.

[TMF]

But there isnt... it is strictly a religous based moral objection to homosexuality.

Well it is gross, unless it's two hot chicks and they like to post videos to the Internet.

[R_Bert]

But there isnt... it is strictly a religous based moral objection to homosexuality.

So, did all good morals develop from religions, or did religions incorporate good morals ?

[mikegideon]

Well it is gross, unless it's two hot chicks and they like to post videos to the Internet.

I know a couple of hot lesbos, and a bunch of hairy legged ones. Better off sticking with the Internet.

[Smith]

The only reason I can figure is for legal purposes. Your wedding ceremony is whatever it means to you and your religion. The government involvement is for contractual purposes.

I'll buy that the government doesn't need to be involved in my marriage or anyone else's, but having a contract for legal purposes makes sense, and that's all it is. My vows have nothing to do with that contract and vice versa. This is why I don't understand the problem with gays having that same ability. I'd be willing to change my opinion if there was logic against it that didn't involve religion. Once again, we're talking strictly from the contractual/legal side of this.

The "rights" issue is a red herring. That is already doable through other channels. Heck giving power of attorney would do the same in most cases, living wills, etc. The bigger question is why do some insit on recognized same-sex marriage if those factors are not part of the equation? If marriage is legally recognized, Church's would then be subject to legal retaliation for "discrimination". Not only that but one small groups theology gets dictated to me and I have to abide or risk legal ramifications from the Federal government. Then you would have the State dictating the Church on theology and doctrine. If the State is dictating theology and doctrine then the State has become a church in and of itself. That is neither libertarian, constitutional, nor American. That alone is the main argument, but there are plenty of others.

Why does a very small group of individuals get to dictate an entire culture shift and definition of a matter that is one of the few cultural and religious understandings that has transcended time, religion, and society throughout recorded history?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I just dug it out and looked. As I suspected my marriage license makes no mention of god. It does mention legal contract and was signed by a judge and plainly says marriage.

Which proves what? Anything? When the government made marriage a legal concept, where did it get it from? Not that it matters to some,

It didn't come out of nowhere. Give away some more. It's painless. It's also a crying shame when things, once considered sacred, are now

so blase. I wonder how many other traditions and beliefs are left to trash? History is full of examples where civilizations fell and what caused

them to fall. I wonder where this one will take us. You disrespect for other's beliefs, thinking yours are somehow superior. It's really amazing

how I can converse and respect your belief, yet you wish to make me bend my belief and allow something to happen. That's just about as

profound as can be. If you reject a precept, do I have to? Don't worry, I know the answer. Let the numbers speak. They already have.

[Daniel]

Why does a very small group of individuals get to dictate an entire culture shift and definition of a matter that is one of the few cultural and religious understandings that has transcended time, religion, and society throughout recorded history?

Put simply, because it is wrong.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Daniel

[Smith]

Put simply, because it is wrong.

Accroding to you own inability to know wright and wrong ... you get here from where? Sounds like an absolute to me.

[Mike.357]

Which proves what? Anything? When the government made marriage a legal concept, where did it get it from? Not that it matters to some, It didn't come out of nowhere. Give away some more. It's painless. It's also a crying shame when things, once considered sacred, are now so blase. I wonder how many other traditions and beliefs are left to trash? History is full of examples where civilizations fell and what caused them to fall. I wonder where this one will take us. You disrespect for other's beliefs, thinking yours are somehow superior. It's really amazing how I can converse and respect your belief, yet you wish to make me bend my belief and allow something to happen. That's just about as profound as can be. If you reject a precept, do I have to? Don't worry, I know the answer. Let the numbers speak. They already have.

It seems government sets the rules for marriage. None of us can do it without their blessing and paying their tax to do so. Some don't have the option at all.

Things considered sacred... at one time being left handed was considered very bad, every bit as bad as being gay maybe. Left handed people are not quite as shunned anymore. Civilization did not fall.

As for you thinking I disrespect other's beliefs, I am not sure where you get that from. I don't disrespect anyone elses beliefs anymore than they do mine. You are free to believe as you wish, it is no skin off of my nose. Maybe I am missing your point.

Are you not wishing me to bend my belief?

A majority is not always right.

[mikegideon]

Things considered sacred... at one time being left handed was considered very bad, every bit as bad as being gay maybe. Left handed people are not quite as shunned anymore. Civilization did not fall.

If you shoot left handed, you ARE gay. Everybody knows that

Edited May 14, 2012 by mikegideon

[Mike.357]

If you shoot left handed, you ARE gay. Everybody knows that

i think you just outted me