US Court finds AL marriage laws unconstitutional

[selias 2,398]

It's a fair subject, but I am not qualified to discuss the entymology (?) of the word. Having said that, languages evolve. Especially English. I don't see any issues with it.

(BTW, your gay friends didn't "choose" to be gay. At most they decided not to conceal it.)

I don't have gay friends...black friends...Jewish friends...Muslim friends.

I just have friends. Move away from the labels people.

[AUDub 11,158]

It's a fair subject, but I am not qualified to discuss the entymology (?) of the word. Having said that, languages evolve. Especially English. I don't see any issues with it.

(BTW, your gay friends didn't "choose" to be gay. At most they decided not to conceal it.)

I don't have gay friends...black friends...Jewish friends...Muslim friends.

I just have friends. Move away from the labels people.

[homersapien 11,393]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

Agree. The "issue" is "marriage". Civil Union is fine. GOD invented and established marriage. HIS rules. Not man. Any man. Marriage by DEFINITION is One Man/One Woman. JMHO

OK. Good luck in trying to prevent them from getting married and using the term.

In other words, deal with it.

In an exact word NO. We will simply continue to elect those that will appoint non-lib. judges. (Witness the overwhelming victory in the last election)Problem solved. Move along...and have a good evening.

Uh, she's a W appointee. I also mentioned John E. Jones III earlier, another W appointee who overturned the gay marriage law in Penn and presided over the Dover ID trial.

They're conservatives. They're also sane, and thank goodness for it.

I think he has a crazy idea that the tea party can win an election. Can you imagine?

[selias 2,398]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

Agree. The "issue" is "marriage". Civil Union is fine. GOD invented and established marriage. HIS rules. Not man. Any man. Marriage by DEFINITION is One Man/One Woman. JMHO

OK. Good luck in trying to prevent them from getting married and using the term.

In other words, deal with it.

In an exact word NO. We will simply continue to elect those that will appoint non-lib. judges. (Witness the overwhelming victory in the last election)Problem solved. Move along...and have a good evening.

Uh, she's a W appointee. I also mentioned John E. Jones III earlier, another W appointee who overturned the gay marriage law in Penn and presided over the Dover ID trial.

They're conservatives. They're also sane, and thank goodness for it.

I think he has a crazy idea that the tea party can win an election. Can you imagine?

I like the idea of a Tea Party movement. What I don't like is it's implementation. When the government is small, freedom is large

[aubfaninga 16]

If judges continue to correctly weigh these measures against the Constitution, you will continue to lose. You cannot relegate a segment of the citizenry to 2nd class citizens. The U.S. is not a theocracy and the population is not required to live by the laws of your religion or any other.

I am willing to stick my foot in the door to that one.

Forget religion and throw all the books out the door. When words were organized into the constitution of the United States each word had a definition governing it. Can you please point me to what should be used in defining the words written in our original constitution?

[AUDub 11,158]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

Agree. The "issue" is "marriage". Civil Union is fine. GOD invented and established marriage. HIS rules. Not man. Any man. Marriage by DEFINITION is One Man/One Woman. JMHO

OK. Good luck in trying to prevent them from getting married and using the term.

In other words, deal with it.

In an exact word NO. We will simply continue to elect those that will appoint non-lib. judges. (Witness the overwhelming victory in the last election)Problem solved. Move along...and have a good evening.

Uh, she's a W appointee. I also mentioned John E. Jones III earlier, another W appointee who overturned the gay marriage law in Penn and presided over the Dover ID trial.

They're conservatives. They're also sane, and thank goodness for it.

I think he has a crazy idea that the tea party can win an election. Can you imagine?

On another forum I frequent, there's a group hoping for a Rubio/Cruz ticket. Invest in Orville Redenbacher just in case.

[AUDub 11,158]

I like the idea of a Tea Party movement. What I don't like is it's implementation. When the government is small, freedom is large

It definitely could have been better. I was kind of excited during the early stages. Then they just morphed into republican-on-steroid lunacy.

[homersapien 11,393]

If judges continue to correctly weigh these measures against the Constitution, you will continue to lose. You cannot relegate a segment of the citizenry to 2nd class citizens. The U.S. is not a theocracy and the population is not required to live by the laws of your religion or any other.

Cutrent

I am willing to stick my foot in the door to that one.

Forget religion and throw all the books out the door. When words were organized into the constitution of the United States each word had a definition governing it. Can you please point me to what should be used in defining the words written in our original constitution?

Current usage.

[aubfaninga 16]

It's a fair subject, but I am not qualified to discuss the entymology (?) of the word. Having said that, languages evolve. Especially English. I don't see any issues with it.

(BTW, your gay friends didn't "choose" to be gay. At most they decided not to conceal it.)

I am not going down the nature argument.

I will leave it with this. I have in my DNA many things that pushes me to be sexually active. This is very positive and necessary for the human race. BUTTTT, I choose how to control or not control this.

Are we born with an age meter? Are we born with a moral meter? EVERYONE makes many "choices" when it comes to sex.

[selias 2,398]

If judges continue to correctly weigh these measures against the Constitution, you will continue to lose. You cannot relegate a segment of the citizenry to 2nd class citizens. The U.S. is not a theocracy and the population is not required to live by the laws of your religion or any other.

I am willing to stick my foot in the door to that one.

Forget religion and throw all the books out the door. When words were organized into the constitution of the United States each word had a definition governing it. Can you please point me to what should be used in defining the words written in our original constitution?

I'm neither a judge nor judicial/constitutional scholar, so I'm not willing to go through it word by word. Having said that, the basic law of our land does permit 2nd class citizens. If a citizen is in good standing with society there is no reason they should not be afford all rights and privileges due to U.S. citizens. When the government started subsidizing marriages (i.e. tax and estate benefits) all citizen are eligible, regardless of sexual orientation.

[selias 2,398]

It's a fair subject, but I am not qualified to discuss the entymology (?) of the word. Having said that, languages evolve. Especially English. I don't see any issues with it.

(BTW, your gay friends didn't "choose" to be gay. At most they decided not to conceal it.)

I am not going down the nature argument.

I will leave it with this. I have in my DNA many things that pushes me to be sexually active. This is very positive and necessary for the human race. BUTTTT, I choose how to control or not control this.

Are we born with an age meter? Are we born with a moral meter? EVERYONE makes many "choices" when it comes to sex.

If you're going down that path...my wife & I choose not to have children. How are we any different in that sense than a homosexual couple? We, like the homosexual couple, are a net negative in regards to population growth.

[homersapien 11,393]

States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc.

Very reasonable. But really necessary?

Does the resistance really revolve around the term marriage? If so, who gave them an exclusive?

Also homosexuals are presmably just as religious as heteros so they will probably get "married"at a similar rate.

births, christenings, baptisms or confirmations, marriages and deaths were at one time all recorded by the church that was the state church in European countries. In America and now in Europe the state took over control of all of it except baptisms and christenings. The state uses the term marriage, but it has no status with some churches. You still have to be married in the church for the church to recognize it. In fact you can get a civil divorce, but the church you were married in might not recognize it so you are still married per the church. Ask the Kennedy's about that.

Lots of people get married with just a civil ceremony or common law marriage in some states which is completely legal, but it is not a sacrament of any church.

A same sex couple could get a civil union and then if the want, go find some denomination that approves of their request to get married in a church ceremony.

People keep using the term gay marriage, but it is really same sex marriage. Two people could get married just for the purpose of providing financial, health benefits, and to avoid inheritance taxes. Completely legal and will irk politicians seeing that tax revenue slipping away. civil union actually describes that arrangement better.

Well I got married by the judge at the Opelika courthouse and that was it. Believe me, I am (all too) married. Going on 43 years!

[aubfaninga 16]

If judges continue to correctly weigh these measures against the Constitution, you will continue to lose. You cannot relegate a segment of the citizenry to 2nd class citizens. The U.S. is not a theocracy and the population is not required to live by the laws of your religion or any other.

Cutrent

I am willing to stick my foot in the door to that one.

Forget religion and throw all the books out the door. When words were organized into the constitution of the United States each word had a definition governing it. Can you please point me to what should be used in defining the words written in our original constitution?

Current usage.

So what is the current usage of the term "marriage"?

Does majority matter in this discussion when we say usage? If so, does having a religious background disqualify one from the census of finding the majority?

[selias 2,398]

If judges continue to correctly weigh these measures against the Constitution, you will continue to lose. You cannot relegate a segment of the citizenry to 2nd class citizens. The U.S. is not a theocracy and the population is not required to live by the laws of your religion or any other.

Cutrent

I am willing to stick my foot in the door to that one.

Forget religion and throw all the books out the door. When words were organized into the constitution of the United States each word had a definition governing it. Can you please point me to what should be used in defining the words written in our original constitution?

Current usage.

So what is the current usage of the term "marriage"?

Does majority matter in this discussion when we say usage? If so, does having a religious background disqualify one from the census of finding the majority?

You're treading dangerously close to tyranny of the majority. At one time, blacks were considered only 2/3 human by the white majority. Might/majority doesn't necessarily make right

[aubfaninga 16]

It's a fair subject, but I am not qualified to discuss the entymology (?) of the word. Having said that, languages evolve. Especially English. I don't see any issues with it.

(BTW, your gay friends didn't "choose" to be gay. At most they decided not to conceal it.)

I am not going down the nature argument.

I will leave it with this. I have in my DNA many things that pushes me to be sexually active. This is very positive and necessary for the human race. BUTTTT, I choose how to control or not control this.

Are we born with an age meter? Are we born with a moral meter? EVERYONE makes many "choices" when it comes to sex.

If you're going down that path...my wife & I choose not to have children. How are we any different in that sense than a homosexual couple? We, like the homosexual couple, are a net negative in regards to population growth.

Sorry if you thought that was where I was going. I don't pull punches but I was not trying to show a difference between straight and homosexual. I was focused on the word "choice".

My response was toward the "born this way" debate and I hope that everyone respects that I did not want to pull the merky and dark arguments out in this forum. (soft example: I choose not to cheat on my wife which defies my natural born instinct)

[selias 2,398]

It's a fair subject, but I am not qualified to discuss the entymology (?) of the word. Having said that, languages evolve. Especially English. I don't see any issues with it.

(BTW, your gay friends didn't "choose" to be gay. At most they decided not to conceal it.)

I am not going down the nature argument.

I will leave it with this. I have in my DNA many things that pushes me to be sexually active. This is very positive and necessary for the human race. BUTTTT, I choose how to control or not control this.

Are we born with an age meter? Are we born with a moral meter? EVERYONE makes many "choices" when it comes to sex.

If you're going down that path...my wife & I choose not to have children. How are we any different in that sense than a homosexual couple? We, like the homosexual couple, are a net negative in regards to population growth.

Sorry if you thought that was where I was going. I don't pull punches but I was not trying to show a difference between straight and homosexual. I was focused on the word "choice".

My response was toward the "born this way" debate and I hope that everyone respects that I did not want to pull the merky and dark arguments out in this forum. (soft example: I choose not to cheat on my wife which defies my natural born instinct)

Nobody is trying to tell you how to live your life and by the same token, you shouldn't be telling homosexuals how to live. They're citizens, just like you and me. They are due all the right and privileges that entails. We should stop looking at people as homosexual, heterosexual, black, white, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc... we're all citizens of this great nation and that's where it should stop.

I've had a terrible couple of weeks and am half in the bag. I hope my language on screen is translating to what's in my head right now. I lean towards Libertarian and am a live & let live type of person.

[aubfaninga 16]

You're treading dangerously close to tyranny of the majority. At one time, blacks were considered only 2/3 human by the white majority. Might/majority doesn't necessarily make right

Two different subjects. There is no right or wrong in defining a word.

The majority chose how to govern slavery.

We did not change the definition of slavery or any words for that matter and still got a positive result.

[aubfaninga 16]

Nobody is trying to tell you how to live your life and by the same token, you shouldn't be telling homosexuals how to live. They're citizens, just like you and me. They are due all the right and privileges that entails. We should stop looking at people as homosexual, heterosexual, black, white, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc... we're all citizens of this great nation and that's where it should stop.

I've had a terrible couple of weeks and am half in the bag. I hope my language on screen is translating to what's in my head right now. I lean towards Libertarian and am a live & let live type of person. :)/>

Have I offered any advice on how to live their life? It would honestly not bother me if same sex marriage offered more benefits than the one I am in.

Just let me keep the benefit of knowing that my great grandchildren will still be taught the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Let them decide if they want to be "married".

[homersapien 11,393]

If judges continue to correctly weigh these measures against the Constitution, you will continue to lose. You cannot relegate a segment of the citizenry to 2nd class citizens. The U.S. is not a theocracy and the population is not required to live by the laws of your religion or any other.

Cutrent

I am willing to stick my foot in the door to that one.

Forget religion and throw all the books out the door. When words were organized into the constitution of the United States each word had a definition governing it. Can you please point me to what should be used in defining the words written in our original constitution?

Current usage.

So what is the current usage of the term "marriage"?

Does majority matter in this discussion when we say usage? If so, does having a religious background disqualify one from the census of finding the majority?

IMO current usage refers to the legal contract and the comittment it implies.

Not sure I understand the other questions but there is always room for those who think of it as a religious commitment.

[aubfaninga 16]

Well I got married by the judge at the Opelika courthouse and that was it. Believe me, I am (all too) married. Going on 43 years!

I can't even count to 43.

[aubfaninga 16]

Just for those that don't mind hearing all points of a discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+brown+same+sex

[homersapien 11,393]

It's a fair subject, but I am not qualified to discuss the entymology (?) of the word. Having said that, languages evolve. Especially English. I don't see any issues with it.

(BTW, your gay friends didn't "choose" to be gay. At most they decided not to conceal it.)

I am not going down the nature argument.

I will leave it with this. I have in my DNA many things that pushes me to be sexually active. This is very positive and necessary for the human race. BUTTTT, I choose how to control or not control this.

Are we born with an age meter? Are we born with a moral meter? EVERYONE makes many "choices" when it comes to sex.

Sure, you can choose to be celibate or even to have. heterosexual. sex but you can't choose. which sex you are actually attracted to. One cannot "will" their sexuality.

[homersapien 11,393]

Just for those that don't mind hearing all points of a discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+brown+same+sex

Have to watch it later. Dont have my computer.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

I think civil unions are best way for everyone on both sides. I personally don't agree with the term same sex marriage but civil unions for same sex couples are fine. I honestly believe that if you start altering definitions to fit under the umbrella of "marriage" that it's not going to stop at same sex marriage. I think making a distinction with civil unions and marriage will help in preventing any wiggle room for any future advocacies for other types of alternitive lifestyles to argue for a "marriage".

[quietfan 233]

Glad that for once, my home state doesnt look like a bunch of neanderthals.

I share your concern for the image/reputation of the state! I too am tired of Alabama coming off as "a bunch of neanderthals" or at least homo sapiens stuck in the 1800's.

Unfortunately, in this case, it was a federal judge implying that we are near-neanderthals, or rather constitutional idiots, for thinking the Protection of Marriage Act or the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment would pass U.S. Constitutional muster.