Words Fail....

[quietfan 233]

I hate to inform people here in America, but folks that have ZERO religious background get married all across the globe everyday. Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, Shintos, Bahai', Pagans, even worshippers of BMW & Rodeo Drive marry all the time. Where is the "sacredness" in their marriages? There isnt any.

I hate to inform you but there are people getting married everyday at the courthouse and at the local Elvis Wedding Chapel in Vegas. Where is the sacredness in that?

TBV, You & I were likely married in God's eyes, in a church, before a Pastor. Billions more werent. Our marriages are sacred. Billions more arent. If that souinds crude, i am sorry am making a point. SSM isnt about OUR definition of marriage. There are Billions getting married that do not live up to what we proclaim everyday. Why are we picking on one set of beings, the LGBT community, more than the rest? THAT is the whole point.

Should we change and lower our age laws concerning marriage for muslims that wish to practice "maturity at puberty"?

Why or why not?

I think DKW's point--or let's say my point since I don't really want to put words in his mouth--is that marriage in the eyes of the state is not and cannot be based on religion. If the government is going to be in the marriage business at all, it cannot limit the definition of marriage to that of one particular religion or faith. To my way of thinking, those who would insist that only marriage as defined by their particular Christian sect should be legal aren't terribly different in mindset from a Muslim who would insist on his religious rights to marry a 12-year-old.

As for the age of consent, this guy learned that one cannot use religion to justify statutory rape:

http://www.cnn.com/2...lygamist.jeffs/

[August, 2011] San Angelo, Texas (CNN) -- Polygamist leader Warren Jeffs was sentenced Tuesday to life in prison plus 20 years for sexually assaulting two girls he claimed were his "spiritual wives."

Jeffs, 55, will have to spend at least 45 years in prison before being eligible for release, according to Jerry Strickland, spokesman for the Texas Attorney General's office.

The jury sentenced Jeffs to life in prison for aggravated sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl and 20 years in prison for the sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl. He must serve at least 35 years of the life sentence and half of the other sentence, Strickland said. The judge in the case ordered that the sentences be served consecutively.

...

Note that he didn't get a life sentence for polygamy, he got a life sentence for sexual assault of a minor.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"To my way of thinking, those who would insist that only marriage as defined by their particular Christian sect should be legal aren't terribly different in mindset from a Muslim who would insist on his religious rights to marry a 12-year-old."

This is quite a perversion of thought right here. What came first government regulation of marriage or Genesis wherein it is defined? Just because the climate of opinion has been so successfully manipulated and the prevailing sentiment on the subject you cannot suddenly decide its the govt that is the regulatory body that governs what existed long before govt even elected to get involved in it.

[japantiger 4,051]

Not sure I understand the fuss. If you believe that the court will in fact not act impartially; and will not rule within it's constitutional boundaries; and there are statements that lead you to that conclusion; then what other recourse is there? Are you inferring the left won't try any and all means available to get in the way of conservative causes? Look at this President....and look at some of the rulings that come out of the liberal judiciary. I personally think the court now believes it knows all, sees all and constitution be damned. If the court created a right to murder children in the name of a constitutional right to choose; then I can understand why "sane" and "logical" people would take extra-ordinary judicial action to prevent a similar illogical action by the current court. Not an approach I would take; but then again; most of my traditional conservative, christian, hard working, strong family beliefs; don't seem to be in-vogue at present..well, until the tax man needs someone to fund someone else's profligate lifestyle...then "my kind" are real popular.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"the court will in fact not act impartially"

I dont see how it can. Justice, in our system, is supposedly impartial and blind. How can the SCOTUS claim its impartiality when 2 of its 9 Justices have actually performed same sex marriage ceremonies?

[quietfan 233]

"To my way of thinking, those who would insist that only marriage as defined by their particular Christian sect should be legal aren't terribly different in mindset from a Muslim who would insist on his religious rights to marry a 12-year-old."

This is quite a perversion of thought right here. What came first government regulation of marriage or Genesis wherein it is defined? Just because the climate of opinion has been so successfully manipulated and the prevailing sentiment on the subject you cannot suddenly decide its the govt that is the regulatory body that governs what existed long before govt even elected to get involved in it.

There's nothing perverted about it. When it comes to the legal definition of civil marriage, It's not a question of what came first, what Genesis says, or which religion--if any--is the "correct" one. Within the confines of religious belief, of course, every faith and even atheists are entitled to their own definitions. But in the realm of civil, i.e., state-recognized marriage, religion is not a factor.

The U.S. government operates under the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, and all states recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Genesis has no legal standing in the courts. The Constitution forbids government from favoring one particular religion, recognizing a particular establishment of religion, or restricting civil liberties based on a religious test or definition. If the government is going to recognize the institution of marriage in legal terms, it must do so independently of any particular religious definition. The government cannot start counting penises & vaginas at a wedding in obeisance to one particular religious belief, nor must it tolerate statutory rape because of a particular faith.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"To my way of thinking, those who would insist that only marriage as defined by their particular Christian sect should be legal aren't terribly different in mindset from a Muslim who would insist on his religious rights to marry a 12-year-old."

This is quite a perversion of thought right here. What came first government regulation of marriage or Genesis wherein it is defined? Just because the climate of opinion has been so successfully manipulated and the prevailing sentiment on the subject you cannot suddenly decide its the govt that is the regulatory body that governs what existed long before govt even elected to get involved in it.

There's nothing perverted about it. When it comes to the legal definition of civil marriage, It's not a question of what came first, what Genesis says, or which religion--if any--is the "correct" one. Within the confines of religious belief, of course, every faith and even atheists are entitled to their own definitions. But in the realm of civil, i.e., state-recognized marriage, religion is not a factor.

The U.S. government operates under the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, and all states recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Genesis has no legal standing in the courts. The Constitution forbids government from favoring one particular religion, recognizing a particular establishment of religion, or restricting civil liberties based on a religious test or definition. If the government is going to recognize the institution of marriage in legal terms, it must do so independently of any particular religious definition. The government cannot start counting penises & vaginas at a wedding in obeisance to one particular religious belief, nor must it tolerate statutory rape because of a particular faith.

Therein is THE divide. Arriving at the correct interpretation. Funny, you're interjecting the Bill of rights and The Constitution, both of which, in previous arguments you have plainly asserted "we are under no obligation to follow them". Which is it? Thats the reason I have stated my belief that the real battle of ideas is not about competing ideology but ideology versus theology. Do citizens' rights flow from the govt or, like our founders believed, from a higher authority? Its a complicated debate and its not really about religion but about the origin of rights.

[homersapien 11,363]

"To my way of thinking, those who would insist that only marriage as defined by their particular Christian sect should be legal aren't terribly different in mindset from a Muslim who would insist on his religious rights to marry a 12-year-old."

This is quite a perversion of thought right here. What came first government regulation of marriage or Genesis wherein it is defined? Just because the climate of opinion has been so successfully manipulated and the prevailing sentiment on the subject you cannot suddenly decide its the govt that is the regulatory body that governs what existed long before govt even elected to get involved in it.

There's nothing perverted about it. When it comes to the legal definition of civil marriage, It's not a question of what came first, what Genesis says, or which religion--if any--is the "correct" one. Within the confines of religious belief, of course, every faith and even atheists are entitled to their own definitions. But in the realm of civil, i.e., state-recognized marriage, religion is not a factor.

The U.S. government operates under the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, and all states recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Genesis has no legal standing in the courts. The Constitution forbids government from favoring one particular religion, recognizing a particular establishment of religion, or restricting civil liberties based on a religious test or definition. If the government is going to recognize the institution of marriage in legal terms, it must do so independently of any particular religious definition. The government cannot start counting penises & vaginas at a wedding in obeisance to one particular religious belief, nor must it tolerate statutory rape because of a particular faith.

Exactly. This is not a religious issue, it's a civil rights issue.

[quietfan 233]

"To my way of thinking, those who would insist that only marriage as defined by their particular Christian sect should be legal aren't terribly different in mindset from a Muslim who would insist on his religious rights to marry a 12-year-old."

This is quite a perversion of thought right here. What came first government regulation of marriage or Genesis wherein it is defined? Just because the climate of opinion has been so successfully manipulated and the prevailing sentiment on the subject you cannot suddenly decide its the govt that is the regulatory body that governs what existed long before govt even elected to get involved in it.

There's nothing perverted about it. When it comes to the legal definition of civil marriage, It's not a question of what came first, what Genesis says, or which religion--if any--is the "correct" one. Within the confines of religious belief, of course, every faith and even atheists are entitled to their own definitions. But in the realm of civil, i.e., state-recognized marriage, religion is not a factor.

The U.S. government operates under the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, and all states recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Genesis has no legal standing in the courts. The Constitution forbids government from favoring one particular religion, recognizing a particular establishment of religion, or restricting civil liberties based on a religious test or definition. If the government is going to recognize the institution of marriage in legal terms, it must do so independently of any particular religious definition. The government cannot start counting penises & vaginas at a wedding in obeisance to one particular religious belief, nor must it tolerate statutory rape because of a particular faith.

Therein is THE divide. Arriving at the correct interpretation. Funny, you're interjecting the Bill of rights and The Constitution, both of which, in previous arguments you have plainly asserted "we are under no obligation to follow them". Which is it? Thats the reason I have stated my belief that the real battle of ideas is not about competing ideology but ideology versus theology. Do citizens' rights flow from the govt or, like our founders believed, from a higher authority? Its a complicated debate and its not really about religion but about the origin of rights.

I'm not sure exactly what arguments on my part you are referring to, but for the benefit of clarity I'll state my beliefs this way:

Of course the private individual must follow the dictates of his/her conscience and moral compass. But that same individual must be prepared to face the repercussions of his/her actions and accept what consequences such actions might elicit.

The government, however, does not have that freedom of conscience and is constrained to follow the dictates of the Constitution without exception. Neither the Bible nor the Declaration of Independence has any legal jurisdiction in our government or courts. For all legal purposes, the source of our rights is the Constitution. The only question of importance as far as the Supreme Court is concerned is whether those Constitutional rights include equal access to legal matrimony regardless of gender or gender orientation. And most certainly, the Court is not allowed to base its decision upon theological arguments.

In the broader, more philosophical view of things, the source of our rights is a valid question for discussion. Jefferson said we are "endowed by our creator". An atheist might prefer to say "humans rights are inherently a part of being born human". Others may wish to credit said rights with political evolution, arising through documents such as the Magna Carta or the traditions of common law. But whatever their source, we also know that perceived rights change over time. It was once a 'right' to own another human being, to force one's daughter into an arranged marriage, to burn a heretic or hang a witch, or to rape one's wife.

[DKW 86 7,419]

People get married because they love other people and want to be with them the rest of their lives.

Saying marriage is sacred and therefore blah blah blah is just not relevant in CIVIL Law. We have Civil Law and marriages that are in no way are part of the religious ceremony.

Civil marriage, which likely far out numbers Religious Marriage across the globe, is done in almost all countries. Religious marriage is done in some countries but still far outnumbered by Civil marriages.

[TheBlueVue 177]

People get married because they love other people and want to be with them the rest of their lives.

Saying marriage is sacred and therefore blah blah blah is just not relevant in CIVIL Law. We have Civil Law and marriages that are in no way are part of the religious ceremony.

Civil marriage, which likely far out numbers Religious Marriage across the globe, is done in almost all countries. Religious marriage is done in some countries but still far outnumbered by Civil marriages.

I think most people are in favor of allowing same sex couples to legally enter civil unions but the LGBT activists wont have it - they're demanding it be called marriage even if it gave them all the benefits that marriage gives opposite sex couples. Popular choices with regard to ceremony dont prove anything except illustrate that the climate of opinion has been manipulated. Marriage is simultaneously a religious covenant and civil contract.

Even Obama and Hillary didn't favor same sex marriage until the last couple of years.

[DKW 86 7,419]

People get married because they love other people and want to be with them the rest of their lives.

Saying marriage is sacred and therefore blah blah blah is just not relevant in CIVIL Law. We have Civil Law and marriages that are in no way are part of the religious ceremony.

Civil marriage, which likely far out numbers Religious Marriage across the globe, is done in almost all countries. Religious marriage is done in some countries but still far outnumbered by Civil marriages.

I think most people are in favor of allowing same sex couples to legally enter civil unions but the LGBT activists wont have it - they're demanding it be called marriage even if it gave them all the benefits that marriage gives opposite sex couples. Popular choices with regard to ceremony dont prove anything except illustrate that the climate of opinion has been manipulated. Marriage is simultaneously a religious covenant and civil contract.

Even Obama and Hillary didn't favor same sex marriage until the last couple of years.

Most of the world didnt either. It is just silly trying to claim that Civil Marriage is a "sacred" thing to be protected. The numbers are against you.

Look TBV, My marriage and your marriage are not the same as a civil marriage. if you want to conduct your family's business in accordance to your believes, and offer your submission up to God, please do. That would be a great thing to do. Think i will join in with you. But asking nonbelievers or others that dont believe AS you or I do to do as we believe is right is not right on any account. They either do it willingly or it is not in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Our submission, our obeying is all voluntary or Christ died in vain.

[TheBlueVue 177]

People get married because they love other people and want to be with them the rest of their lives.

Saying marriage is sacred and therefore blah blah blah is just not relevant in CIVIL Law. We have Civil Law and marriages that are in no way are part of the religious ceremony.

Civil marriage, which likely far out numbers Religious Marriage across the globe, is done in almost all countries. Religious marriage is done in some countries but still far outnumbered by Civil marriages.

I think most people are in favor of allowing same sex couples to legally enter civil unions but the LGBT activists wont have it - they're demanding it be called marriage even if it gave them all the benefits that marriage gives opposite sex couples. Popular choices with regard to ceremony dont prove anything except illustrate that the climate of opinion has been manipulated. Marriage is simultaneously a religious covenant and civil contract.

Even Obama and Hillary didn't favor same sex marriage until the last couple of years.

Most of the world didnt either. It is just silly trying to claim that Civil Marriage is a "sacred" thing to be protected. The numbers are against you.

Look TBV, My marriage and your marriage are not the same as a civil marriage. if you want to conduct your family's business in accordance to your believes, and offer your submission up to God, please do. That would be a great thing to do. Think i will join in with you. But asking nonbelievers or others that dont believe AS you or I do to do as we believe is right is not right on any account. They either do it willingly or it is not in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Our submission, our obeying is all voluntary or Christ died in vain.

The truth is not subject to negotiation. Sorry. Im not asking anyone to do anything against their will. Funny thing about beliefs - many are false and people often go to great extremes defending beliefs that aren't even true. The best I can be persuaded to agree to is to allow smae sex couples the opportunity to enter civil unions that grants them all the rights of marriage. I dont understand why that falls short for them as it meets all their demands but one. it just goes to show the militant left is unwilling to settle for ANYTHING less than ramming their demands all the way down peoples throats who dont happen to agree with their chosen life style.

[quietfan 233]

People get married because they love other people and want to be with them the rest of their lives.

Saying marriage is sacred and therefore blah blah blah is just not relevant in CIVIL Law. We have Civil Law and marriages that are in no way are part of the religious ceremony.

Civil marriage, which likely far out numbers Religious Marriage across the globe, is done in almost all countries. Religious marriage is done in some countries but still far outnumbered by Civil marriages.

I think most people are in favor of allowing same sex couples to legally enter civil unions but the LGBT activists wont have it - they're demanding it be called marriage even if it gave them all the benefits that marriage gives opposite sex couples. Popular choices with regard to ceremony dont prove anything except illustrate that the climate of opinion has been manipulated. Marriage is simultaneously a religious covenant and civil contract.

Even Obama and Hillary didn't favor same sex marriage until the last couple of years.

Most of the world didnt either. It is just silly trying to claim that Civil Marriage is a "sacred" thing to be protected. The numbers are against you.

Look TBV, My marriage and your marriage are not the same as a civil marriage. if you want to conduct your family's business in accordance to your believes, and offer your submission up to God, please do. That would be a great thing to do. Think i will join in with you. But asking nonbelievers or others that dont believe AS you or I do to do as we believe is right is not right on any account. They either do it willingly or it is not in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Our submission, our obeying is all voluntary or Christ died in vain.

The truth is not subject to negotiation. Sorry. Im not asking anyone to do anything against their will. Funny thing about beliefs - many are false and people often go to great extremes defending beliefs that aren't even true. The best I can be persuaded to agree to is to allow smae sex couples the opportunity to enter civil unions that grants them all the rights of marriage. I dont understand why that falls short for them as it meets all their demands but one. it just goes to show the militant left is unwilling to settle for ANYTHING less than ramming their demands all the way down peoples throats who dont happen to agree with their chosen life style.

1. It seems to me like you're asking same sex couples to settle for something short of "real marriage" against their will and/or denying them the ultimate public declaration of their love and commitment to each other.

2. Brown vs. Board of Education established that "separate" is not, cannot be, "equal".

3. You say that "civil unions...grant them all the rights of marriage", but admit in the very next sentence that "it meets all their demands but one". The only demand the LGBT side has is equality before the law when it comes to civil marital rights, titles, and licenses.

[aubfaninga 16]

People get married because they love other people and want to be with them the rest of their lives.

Saying marriage is sacred and therefore blah blah blah is just not relevant in CIVIL Law. We have Civil Law and marriages that are in no way are part of the religious ceremony.

Civil marriage, which likely far out numbers Religious Marriage across the globe, is done in almost all countries. Religious marriage is done in some countries but still far outnumbered by Civil marriages.

I think most people are in favor of allowing same sex couples to legally enter civil unions but the LGBT activists wont have it - they're demanding it be called marriage even if it gave them all the benefits that marriage gives opposite sex couples. Popular choices with regard to ceremony dont prove anything except illustrate that the climate of opinion has been manipulated. Marriage is simultaneously a religious covenant and civil contract.

Even Obama and Hillary didn't favor same sex marriage until the last couple of years.

Most of the world didnt either. It is just silly trying to claim that Civil Marriage is a "sacred" thing to be protected. The numbers are against you.

Look TBV, My marriage and your marriage are not the same as a civil marriage. if you want to conduct your family's business in accordance to your believes, and offer your submission up to God, please do. That would be a great thing to do. Think i will join in with you. But asking nonbelievers or others that dont believe AS you or I do to do as we believe is right is not right on any account. They either do it willingly or it is not in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Our submission, our obeying is all voluntary or Christ died in vain.

The truth is not subject to negotiation. Sorry. Im not asking anyone to do anything against their will. Funny thing about beliefs - many are false and people often go to great extremes defending beliefs that aren't even true. The best I can be persuaded to agree to is to allow smae sex couples the opportunity to enter civil unions that grants them all the rights of marriage. I dont understand why that falls short for them as it meets all their demands but one. it just goes to show the militant left is unwilling to settle for ANYTHING less than ramming their demands all the way down peoples throats who dont happen to agree with their chosen life style.

1. It seems to me like you're asking same sex couples to settle for something short of "real marriage" against their will and/or denying them the ultimate public declaration of their love and commitment to each other.

2. Brown vs. Board of Education established that "separate" is not, cannot be, "equal".

3. You say that "civil unions...grant them all the rights of marriage", but admit in the very next sentence that "it meets all their demands but one". The only demand the LGBT side has is equality before the law when it comes to civil marital rights, titles, and licenses.

Serious questions (not debating)

You mentioned the constitution and bill of rights earlier. Is there any laguage in either concerning sexual orientation or morals? How can the Federal Government judge on matters that is not addressed in either?

Please show me how this can be a civil rights issue. A homosexaul can get "married" anyday of the week in Alabama just as long as its with the opposite sex.

Words must have meaning. The laws on marriage were written with a specific defintion of marriage in mind. I can understand that words change but that is not the case here. Even if we change the definition of a word the law makers intent and understanding of the word has to count. Is this correct?

Example: When Jesus said "hate" we must also understand that there were no words in Hebrew or Aramaic to express "like less".

Last question: If we twist the definition of marriage then why hold on to (1+1=1)?

This is the only argument for this issue to be a civil rights issue. The concept of "echad" in marriage is from the Torah. Two flesh becoming one.

Thanks in advance

[quietfan 233]

People get married because they love other people and want to be with them the rest of their lives.

Saying marriage is sacred and therefore blah blah blah is just not relevant in CIVIL Law. We have Civil Law and marriages that are in no way are part of the religious ceremony.

Civil marriage, which likely far out numbers Religious Marriage across the globe, is done in almost all countries. Religious marriage is done in some countries but still far outnumbered by Civil marriages.

I think most people are in favor of allowing same sex couples to legally enter civil unions but the LGBT activists wont have it - they're demanding it be called marriage even if it gave them all the benefits that marriage gives opposite sex couples. Popular choices with regard to ceremony dont prove anything except illustrate that the climate of opinion has been manipulated. Marriage is simultaneously a religious covenant and civil contract.

Even Obama and Hillary didn't favor same sex marriage until the last couple of years.

Most of the world didnt either. It is just silly trying to claim that Civil Marriage is a "sacred" thing to be protected. The numbers are against you.

Look TBV, My marriage and your marriage are not the same as a civil marriage. if you want to conduct your family's business in accordance to your believes, and offer your submission up to God, please do. That would be a great thing to do. Think i will join in with you. But asking nonbelievers or others that dont believe AS you or I do to do as we believe is right is not right on any account. They either do it willingly or it is not in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Our submission, our obeying is all voluntary or Christ died in vain.

The truth is not subject to negotiation. Sorry. Im not asking anyone to do anything against their will. Funny thing about beliefs - many are false and people often go to great extremes defending beliefs that aren't even true. The best I can be persuaded to agree to is to allow smae sex couples the opportunity to enter civil unions that grants them all the rights of marriage. I dont understand why that falls short for them as it meets all their demands but one. it just goes to show the militant left is unwilling to settle for ANYTHING less than ramming their demands all the way down peoples throats who dont happen to agree with their chosen life style.

1. It seems to me like you're asking same sex couples to settle for something short of "real marriage" against their will and/or denying them the ultimate public declaration of their love and commitment to each other.

2. Brown vs. Board of Education established that "separate" is not, cannot be, "equal".

3. You say that "civil unions...grant them all the rights of marriage", but admit in the very next sentence that "it meets all their demands but one". The only demand the LGBT side has is equality before the law when it comes to civil marital rights, titles, and licenses.

Serious questions (not debating)

You mentioned the constitution and bill of rights earlier. Is there any laguage in either concerning sexual orientation or morals? How can the Federal Government judge on matters that is not addressed in either?

Please show me how this can be a civil rights issue. A homosexaul can get "married" anyday of the week in Alabama just as long as its with the opposite sex.

Words must have meaning. The laws on marriage were written with a specific defintion of marriage in mind. I can understand that words change but that is not the case here. Even if we change the definition of a word the law makers intent and understanding of the word has to count. Is this correct?

Example: When Jesus said "hate" we must also understand that there were no words in Hebrew or Aramaic to express "like less".

Last question: If we twist the definition of marriage then why hold on to (1+1=1)?

This is the only argument for this issue to be a civil rights issue. The concept of "echad" in marriage is from the Torah. Two flesh becoming one.

Thanks in advance

And thanks for a civilized inquiry without the need for personal insult. That is a scarce commodity on this forum these days!

But addressing your questions/comments:

True, the Constitution does not specifically mention marriage. The Constitution also does not specifically mention education or women. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that public schools cannot be segregated on the basis of race, and women possess the same freedoms as men under the 1st and 14th amendment. The question now before the court is whether those Amendments also protect one's right to civil marriage.

Saying that all are free to marry someone of the opposite gender is not the same as saying all have equal civil rights. Look at it this way: Suppose persons A and B both wish to marry person C, however A & B are of different genders. Is it fair, or consistent with the Constitution, to discriminate against A or B because of the shape of his or her body? And again, we're only talking about equality under the law in civil marriage. Religions are free to practice their beliefs when it comes to "holy" matrimony, but can the state discriminate when it comes to a civil right to marry?

Words do change in meaning with time. "Gay" once had no connection to homosexuality. As for the lawmaker's intent, however: 1. It can be very difficult to read a lawmaker's mind or intent, 2. The actual wording of a law takes precedent over intent. A written law can have repercussions far removed from anything the lawmaker intended or imagined. Lawmakers are neither omniscient nor free of error. 3. Regardless of intent or actual wording, a law that violates the Constitution is invalid. 4. When it comes to the legal status of a civil or government-recognized marriage, neither the Torah, the Bible, nor any other religious text/belief is relevant.

As for the question of polygamy: First, that is not the question before the Court right now. Perhaps one day the Court will have to address the issue, but whether or not laws against polygamy discriminate is a different question than whether discrimination on the basis of gender is constitutional when it comes to state recognition of marriage. To me, it's like discrimination on the basis of race vs. discrimination on the basis of sex: The 15th Amendment outlawed voting discrimination on the basis of race, but it took the 19th Amendment to ban voting discrimination of the basis of sex. (Although in my opinion, the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equality under the law to all "persons" should have included equal voting rights without the need for the additional 15th or 19th Amendments.)

As for my own view of polygamy: I don't see a civil basis for limiting the number of partners in a civil marriage to only two, provided all partners are consenting adults with equal status in the partnership. Unfortunately the reality of multiple partner relationships is that all partners are rarely of equal status. Whether we look at polygamous Mormon sects, polygamous cultures in Africa, or the multiple wives permitted in Islam, the females rarely have equal status as the male but are instead usually subservient to the male.

[aubfaninga 16]

Thanks again quiet!

Especially your A B C people

[autigeremt 6,598]

People get married because they love other people and want to be with them the rest of their lives.

Saying marriage is sacred and therefore blah blah blah is just not relevant in CIVIL Law. We have Civil Law and marriages that are in no way are part of the religious ceremony.

Civil marriage, which likely far out numbers Religious Marriage across the globe, is done in almost all countries. Religious marriage is done in some countries but still far outnumbered by Civil marriages.

I think most people are in favor of allowing same sex couples to legally enter civil unions but the LGBT activists wont have it - they're demanding it be called marriage even if it gave them all the benefits that marriage gives opposite sex couples. Popular choices with regard to ceremony dont prove anything except illustrate that the climate of opinion has been manipulated. Marriage is simultaneously a religious covenant and civil contract.

Even Obama and Hillary didn't favor same sex marriage until the last couple of years.

Most of the world didnt either. It is just silly trying to claim that Civil Marriage is a "sacred" thing to be protected. The numbers are against you.

Look TBV, My marriage and your marriage are not the same as a civil marriage. if you want to conduct your family's business in accordance to your believes, and offer your submission up to God, please do. That would be a great thing to do. Think i will join in with you. But asking nonbelievers or others that dont believe AS you or I do to do as we believe is right is not right on any account. They either do it willingly or it is not in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Our submission, our obeying is all voluntary or Christ died in vain.

The truth is not subject to negotiation. Sorry. Im not asking anyone to do anything against their will. Funny thing about beliefs - many are false and people often go to great extremes defending beliefs that aren't even true. The best I can be persuaded to agree to is to allow smae sex couples the opportunity to enter civil unions that grants them all the rights of marriage. I dont understand why that falls short for them as it meets all their demands but one. it just goes to show the militant left is unwilling to settle for ANYTHING less than ramming their demands all the way down peoples throats who dont happen to agree with their chosen life style.

1. It seems to me like you're asking same sex couples to settle for something short of "real marriage" against their will and/or denying them the ultimate public declaration of their love and commitment to each other.

2. Brown vs. Board of Education established that "separate" is not, cannot be, "equal".

3. You say that "civil unions...grant them all the rights of marriage", but admit in the very next sentence that "it meets all their demands but one". The only demand the LGBT side has is equality before the law when it comes to civil marital rights, titles, and licenses.

Serious questions (not debating)

You mentioned the constitution and bill of rights earlier. Is there any laguage in either concerning sexual orientation or morals? How can the Federal Government judge on matters that is not addressed in either?

Please show me how this can be a civil rights issue. A homosexaul can get "married" anyday of the week in Alabama just as long as its with the opposite sex.

Words must have meaning. The laws on marriage were written with a specific defintion of marriage in mind. I can understand that words change but that is not the case here. Even if we change the definition of a word the law makers intent and understanding of the word has to count. Is this correct?

Example: When Jesus said "hate" we must also understand that there were no words in Hebrew or Aramaic to express "like less".

Last question: If we twist the definition of marriage then why hold on to (1+1=1)?

This is the only argument for this issue to be a civil rights issue. The concept of "echad" in marriage is from the Torah. Two flesh becoming one.

Thanks in advance

And thanks for a civilized inquiry without the need for personal insult. That is a scarce commodity on this forum these days!

But addressing your questions/comments:

True, the Constitution does not specifically mention marriage. The Constitution also does not specifically mention education or women. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that public schools cannot be segregated on the basis of race, and women possess the same freedoms as men under the 1st and 14th amendment. The question now before the court is whether those Amendments also protect one's right to civil marriage.

Saying that all are free to marry someone of the opposite gender is not the same as saying all have equal civil rights. Look at it this way: Suppose persons A and B both wish to marry person C, however A & B are of different genders. Is it fair, or consistent with the Constitution, to discriminate against A or B because of the shape of his or her body? And again, we're only talking about equality under the law in civil marriage. Religions are free to practice their beliefs when it comes to "holy" matrimony, but can the state discriminate when it comes to a civil right to marry?

Words do change in meaning with time. "Gay" once had no connection to homosexuality. As for the lawmaker's intent, however: 1. It can be very difficult to read a lawmaker's mind or intent, 2. The actual wording of a law takes precedent over intent. A written law can have repercussions far removed from anything the lawmaker intended or imagined. Lawmakers are neither omniscient nor free of error. 3. Regardless of intent or actual wording, a law that violates the Constitution is invalid. 4. When it comes to the legal status of a civil or government-recognized marriage, neither the Torah, the Bible, nor any other religious text/belief is relevant.

As for the question of polygamy: First, that is not the question before the Court right now. Perhaps one day the Court will have to address the issue, but whether or not laws against polygamy discriminate is a different question than whether discrimination on the basis of gender is constitutional when it comes to state recognition of marriage. To me, it's like discrimination on the basis of race vs. discrimination on the basis of sex: The 15th Amendment outlawed voting discrimination on the basis of race, but it took the 19th Amendment to ban voting discrimination of the basis of sex. (Although in my opinion, the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equality under the law to all "persons" should have included equal voting rights without the need for the additional 15th or 19th Amendments.)

As for my own view of polygamy: I don't see a civil basis for limiting the number of partners in a civil marriage to only two, provided all partners are consenting adults with equal status in the partnership. Unfortunately the reality of multiple partner relationships is that all partners are rarely of equal status. Whether we look at polygamous Mormon sects, polygamous cultures in Africa, or the multiple wives permitted in Islam, the females rarely have equal status as the male but are instead usually subservient to the male.

I agree with your breakdown. My only question is where "holy" matrimony is being forced into the equation. Civil unions should (in my opinion) be protected but "holy" matrimony should not. The states (and the federal government) should recognize civil unions as a basis of contractual agreement. Marriage should be based on religious preference coupled with civil contract.

If the LGBT movement wanted to win outright they should leave marriage alone and push for civil union adherence.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"...... My only question is where "holy" matrimony is being forced into the equation. Civil unions should (in my opinion) be protected but "holy" matrimony should not. The states (and the federal government) should recognize civil unions as a basis of contractual agreement. Marriage should be based on religious preference coupled with civil contract.

If the LGBT movement wanted to win outright they should leave marriage alone and push for civil union adherence."

I totally agree with you here.In my view the federal govt has no place in determining the parameters of marriage. I can hear folks who will object to that replying yeah but, married couples get tax benefits and insurance benefits and gay people are being excluded. Identity politics has engendered so much envy and malice it has become virtually counter-productive. I do believe its a state by state issue not another to down govt mandate issue. It is not the federal govts role to pursue salvationary policies. They've spent so much time and effort on them however they are virtually neglecting there primary role is which is protecting residents from violence and fraud domestically and abroad.

Allowing civil unions to same sex couples that carry with it all the legal advantages and opportunities it offers marriage would fix every problem but one. That is the designation of being legally "married" that the militant LGBT community insists on having and has made painfully clear they will settle for nothing less.

[quietfan 233]

If the government chose to abandon the term "married" entirely and only recognize civil partnerships, much as we recognize business partnerships now, I would be okay with that. Leave the definition of "marriage" to religious groups or the personal choice of how couples wish to describe their relationship.

I am not okay with the government calling heterosexual partnerships "marriages" and homosexual partnerships "civil unions". Separate is not equal, and in my opinion the government cannot recognize separate partnership definitions for two groups of people based on skin shape any more than it can permit "separate but equal" public schools--or drinking fountains, bathrooms, building entrances, and dining accommodation--based on skin color.

[homersapien 11,363]

People get married because they love other people and want to be with them the rest of their lives.

Saying marriage is sacred and therefore blah blah blah is just not relevant in CIVIL Law. We have Civil Law and marriages that are in no way are part of the religious ceremony.

Civil marriage, which likely far out numbers Religious Marriage across the globe, is done in almost all countries. Religious marriage is done in some countries but still far outnumbered by Civil marriages.

I think most people are in favor of allowing same sex couples to legally enter civil unions but the LGBT activists wont have it - they're demanding it be called marriage even if it gave them all the benefits that marriage gives opposite sex couples. Popular choices with regard to ceremony dont prove anything except illustrate that the climate of opinion has been manipulated. Marriage is simultaneously a religious covenant and civil contract.

Even Obama and Hillary didn't favor same sex marriage until the last couple of years.

Most of the world didnt either. It is just silly trying to claim that Civil Marriage is a "sacred" thing to be protected. The numbers are against you.

Look TBV, My marriage and your marriage are not the same as a civil marriage. if you want to conduct your family's business in accordance to your believes, and offer your submission up to God, please do. That would be a great thing to do. Think i will join in with you. But asking nonbelievers or others that dont believe AS you or I do to do as we believe is right is not right on any account. They either do it willingly or it is not in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Our submission, our obeying is all voluntary or Christ died in vain.

The truth is not subject to negotiation. Sorry. Im not asking anyone to do anything against their will. Funny thing about beliefs - many are false and people often go to great extremes defending beliefs that aren't even true. The best I can be persuaded to agree to is to allow smae sex couples the opportunity to enter civil unions that grants them all the rights of marriage. I dont understand why that falls short for them as it meets all their demands but one. it just goes to show the militant left is unwilling to settle for ANYTHING less than ramming their demands all the way down peoples throats who dont happen to agree with their chosen life style.

Allahu Akbar!!

[homersapien 11,363]

...If the LGBT movement wanted to win outright they should leave marriage alone and push for civil union adherence.

Our legal system refers to the contract as "marriage".