David Tyree is a moron

[IceCap]

I didn't know that Court system granted rights.

Sigh. It doesn't.

The Constitution guarantees rights that we already possess. But rights don't have to be listed in the Constitution (see "Amendment, 9th").

Courts are sometimes called upon to determine if state action interferes with our rights. Which they have done several times on this issue, reaffirming the Constitutional right to marry every time.

So, given that marriage is a fundamental right, on what grounds should we deny gay couples their rights?

Indeed. The Constitution says nothing about a right to privacy, but the Court system in the United States as determined that the Constitution guarantees that right. Same thing here.

The fact that the gay marriage debate is still going on in the United States, a country founded on progressive ideals, is extremely disheartening.

[illwauk]

I apologize if this sounds the wrong way, but I don't see why people got so angry over the results of the Prop 8 vote; the process was (whether you agree with it or not) done by the majority's voice.

You think Civil Rights laws would of passed in the 50's and 60's? If it was put to a vote, Jim Crow may still be in effect in the south. People should NEVER vote on a another persons rights. PERIOD.

Hell, one of the Jim Crow states (I believe it was Mississippi) couldn't even get the ban on interracial marriage revoked on the ballot even though it can't even be enforced legally.

[IceCap]

I apologize if this sounds the wrong way, but I don't see why people got so angry over the results of the Prop 8 vote; the process was (whether you agree with it or not) done by the majority's voice.

You think Civil Rights laws would of passed in the 50's and 60's? If it was put to a vote, Jim Crow may still be in effect in the south. People should NEVER vote on a another persons rights. PERIOD.

Hell, one of the Jim Crow states (I believe it was Mississippi) couldn't even get the ban on interracial marriage revoked on the ballot even though it can't even be enforced legally.

Mississippi didn't even ratify the 13th Amendment until 1995. It's best not to take what Mississippi says or does seriously.

[illwauk]

In the interest of fairness, it should be pointed out that there are many churches ready and eager to marry gay people, but are prevented under these unjust laws. Somehow that never comes up when the bigots raise the "religious freedom" canard.

I agree... and for the record, good on those churches. But the fact remains that this (like so many others in our history) is a problem entirely due to the intolerance... and outright hatred, in many instances... perpetuated by the institution of organized religion.

I agree with so much of what illwauk stands for, but stuff like this makes me go "why's it gotta be this way?" People are capable of believing in G-d without hating teh gays. It's quite easy, actually. Polls indicate that a majority of people in Canada and the United States (I would venture to say the majority of the western world actually) that identify as being religious support marriage equality. Lumping all of organized religion in with the fringe wackos is just as disingenuous as lumping all black people together as homophobic.

In short being open minded in one respect doesn't do you much good if you're going to be closed minded in another.

I have no problem with anyone believing in a higher power... heck, I do myself (albeit, in a way that's not acceptable to the "Jesus Christ is your savior" crowd). I just think that folks relationship with a higher/deeper/metaphysical/supernatural power (regardless of what they call it) should be just that... personal, and I fail to see how a rigidly organized institution is necessary for this. Especially when said institution has such a long and dubious history of standing in the way of the civil rights and political liberation of so many.

[Sodboy13]

I have no problem with anyone believing in a higher power... heck, I do myself (albeit, in a way that's not acceptable to the "Jesus Christ is your savior" crowd).

Church of the Beer Barrel Man?

[Brass]

It's funny to look back at the consequences people said would happen if they allowed interracial marriage and then you realize they are the same consequences that people talk about today for gay couples.

[illwauk]

I have no problem with anyone believing in a higher power... heck, I do myself (albeit, in a way that's not acceptable to the "Jesus Christ is your savior" crowd).

Church of the Beer Barrel Man?

Nah, if I joined any logo-based religion it'd be the Holy Order of the Ball-in-Glove which split from the BBM Church in the Great Schism of 1978

[IceCap]

In the interest of fairness, it should be pointed out that there are many churches ready and eager to marry gay people, but are prevented under these unjust laws. Somehow that never comes up when the bigots raise the "religious freedom" canard.

I agree... and for the record, good on those churches. But the fact remains that this (like so many others in our history) is a problem entirely due to the intolerance... and outright hatred, in many instances... perpetuated by the institution of organized religion.

I agree with so much of what illwauk stands for, but stuff like this makes me go "why's it gotta be this way?" People are capable of believing in G-d without hating teh gays. It's quite easy, actually. Polls indicate that a majority of people in Canada and the United States (I would venture to say the majority of the western world actually) that identify as being religious support marriage equality. Lumping all of organized religion in with the fringe wackos is just as disingenuous as lumping all black people together as homophobic.

In short being open minded in one respect doesn't do you much good if you're going to be closed minded in another.

I have no problem with anyone believing in a higher power... heck, I do myself (albeit, in a way that's not acceptable to the "Jesus Christ is your savior" crowd). I just think that folks relationship with a higher/deeper/metaphysical/supernatural power (regardless of what they call it) should be just that... personal, and I fail to see how a rigidly organized institution is necessary for this. Especially when said institution has such a long and dubious history of standing in the way of the civil rights and political liberation of so many.

There used to be a lot of words here. On second thought I slimmed it down.

I don't believe that religion is any more prone to bigotry and intolerance then any other ideology. Nazi Germany and the USSR both took intolerance to unprecedented heights with secular ideologies. I believe in a personal approach to G-d too, but I don't think that necessarily condemns the idea of structured worship. The Church of England, after all, marries gay couples where possible and allows women and openly gay men to serve as priests.

Basically I feel a belief in G-d isn't a given that someone's going to be a bigot. In fact trends seem to indicate that progressive ideals among the faithful are on the rise. Which I am extremely thankful for.

[rams80]

I apologize if this sounds the wrong way, but I don't see why people got so angry over the results of the Prop 8 vote; the process was (whether you agree with it or not) done by the majority's voice.

You think Civil Rights laws would of passed in the 50's and 60's? If it was put to a vote, Jim Crow may still be in effect in the south. People should NEVER vote on a another persons rights. PERIOD.

Is marriage a right?

Yes it is. Guaranteed under our Constitution.

See Loving v. Virginia.

Doesn't that case say that race can't be used as a barrier in Marriage as opposed to declaring it a right?

No. From the opinion:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"

I didn't know that Court system granted rights.

Sorry. Incorporated rights that should already exist but as the goddamn 10th Amendment allows states to ignore the federal Bill of Rights WITHOUT court cases incorporating them, that process has to happen.

[IceCap]

If you think about, the courts granting rights is actually safer in the long term then legislators doing so.

[Gothamite]

I have no problem with anyone believing in a higher power... heck, I do myself (albeit, in a way that's not acceptable to the "Jesus Christ is your savior" crowd).

Church of the Beer Barrel Man?

Nah, if I joined any logo-based religion it'd be the Holy Order of the Ball-in-Glove which split from the BBM Church in the Great Schism of 1978

I have high hopes that we can bring the folds together under one holy pennant.

Sing it with me, brethren: "in Heaven, there is no Beer..."

[charger77]

I apologize if this sounds the wrong way, but I don't see why people got so angry over the results of the Prop 8 vote; the process was (whether you agree with it or not) done by the majority's voice.

You think Civil Rights laws would of passed in the 50's and 60's? If it was put to a vote, Jim Crow may still be in effect in the south. People should NEVER vote on a another persons rights. PERIOD.

Is marriage a right?

Yes it is. Guaranteed under our Constitution.

See Loving v. Virginia.

Doesn't that case say that race can't be used as a barrier in Marriage as opposed to declaring it a right?

No. From the opinion:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"

I didn't know that Court system granted rights.

Sorry. Incorporated rights that should already exist but as the goddamn 10th Amendment allows states to ignore the federal Bill of Rights WITHOUT court cases incorporating them, that process has to happen.

No it doesn't. The 10th only applies if it is not a power reserved to the Federal Government.

[rams80]

I apologize if this sounds the wrong way, but I don't see why people got so angry over the results of the Prop 8 vote; the process was (whether you agree with it or not) done by the majority's voice.

You think Civil Rights laws would of passed in the 50's and 60's? If it was put to a vote, Jim Crow may still be in effect in the south. People should NEVER vote on a another persons rights. PERIOD.

Is marriage a right?

Yes it is. Guaranteed under our Constitution.

See Loving v. Virginia.

Doesn't that case say that race can't be used as a barrier in Marriage as opposed to declaring it a right?

No. From the opinion:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"

I didn't know that Court system granted rights.

Sorry. Incorporated rights that should already exist but as the goddamn 10th Amendment allows states to ignore the federal Bill of Rights WITHOUT court cases incorporating them, that process has to happen.

No it doesn't. The 10th only applies if it is not a power reserved to the Federal Government.

Pre-14th amendment there was nothing saying that states had to respect the guarantees of the Bill of Rights regarding the citizens. Which means protecting citizens from the (small "S") state was not a power reserved for the federal government. It's ironic how you see the states as being the bastions of small government liberty when in reality without the 14th Amendment Michigan could lock your ass up for sedition with nary a second thought.

/End tangent.

[charger77]

I apologize if this sounds the wrong way, but I don't see why people got so angry over the results of the Prop 8 vote; the process was (whether you agree with it or not) done by the majority's voice.

You think Civil Rights laws would of passed in the 50's and 60's? If it was put to a vote, Jim Crow may still be in effect in the south. People should NEVER vote on a another persons rights. PERIOD.

Is marriage a right?

Yes it is. Guaranteed under our Constitution.

See Loving v. Virginia.

Doesn't that case say that race can't be used as a barrier in Marriage as opposed to declaring it a right?

No. From the opinion:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"

I didn't know that Court system granted rights.

Sorry. Incorporated rights that should already exist but as the goddamn 10th Amendment allows states to ignore the federal Bill of Rights WITHOUT court cases incorporating them, that process has to happen.

No it doesn't. The 10th only applies if it is not a power reserved to the Federal Government.

Pre-14th amendment there was nothing saying that states had to respect the guarantees of the Bill of Rights regarding the citizens. Which means protecting citizens from the (small "S") state was not a power reserved for the federal government. It's ironic how you see the states as being the bastions of small government liberty when in reality without the 14th Amendment Michigan could lock your ass up for sedition with nary a second thought.

/End tangent.

This is 2011 so a "pre-14th Amendment" based argument isn't really valid.

Actually, the "pre-14th Amendment" based argument was only valid up until July 8th 1868.

[rams80]

And post 14th Amendment you still need the Supreme Court to incorporate them. Which means Michigan could still toss your ass in the pokey-its just that you would have a legal recourse to get out now.

[charger77]

And post 14th Amendment you still need the Supreme Court to incorporate them. Which means Michigan could still toss your ass in the pokey-its just that you would have a legal recourse to get out now.

Isn't it the Executive Branch's duty to enforce the laws?

[thespleenenator]

I apologize if this sounds the wrong way, but I don't see why people got so angry over the results of the Prop 8 vote; the process was (whether you agree with it or not) done by the majority's voice.

You think Civil Rights laws would of passed in the 50's and 60's? If it was put to a vote, Jim Crow may still be in effect in the south. People should NEVER vote on a another persons rights. PERIOD.

Is marriage a right?

Yes it is. Guaranteed under our Constitution.

See Loving v. Virginia.

Doesn't that case say that race can't be used as a barrier in Marriage as opposed to declaring it a right?

No. From the opinion:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"

I didn't know that Court system granted rights.

Sorry. Incorporated rights that should already exist but as the goddamn 10th Amendment allows states to ignore the federal Bill of Rights WITHOUT court cases incorporating them, that process has to happen.

No it doesn't. The 10th only applies if it is not a power reserved to the Federal Government.

Pre-14th amendment there was nothing saying that states had to respect the guarantees of the Bill of Rights regarding the citizens. Which means protecting citizens from the (small "S") state was not a power reserved for the federal government. It's ironic how you see the states as being the bastions of small government liberty when in reality without the 14th Amendment Michigan could lock your ass up for sedition with nary a second thought.

/End tangent.

17 dollars.

I hope someone gets this.

[illwauk]

I have no problem with anyone believing in a higher power... heck, I do myself (albeit, in a way that's not acceptable to the "Jesus Christ is your savior" crowd).

Church of the Beer Barrel Man?

Nah, if I joined any logo-based religion it'd be the Holy Order of the Ball-in-Glove which split from the BBM Church in the Great Schism of 1978

I have high hopes that we can bring the folds together under one holy pennant.

Sing it with me, brethren: "in Heaven, there is no Beer..."

See, its this exact nonsense about a beer-less heaven that caused the rift in the first place! The HOBiG teaches that not only is heaven overflowing with beer, but it is served by hot wenches who look even hotter when one sips from the divine stein. Appropriately, the only polka that is ever sung by the Holy Order is "Roll Out The Barrels."

ZING! (boom tarrerel )

[Viper]

The fact that the gay marriage debate is still going on in the United States, a country founded on progressive ideals, is extremely disheartening.

Ah, but many of the same people who oppose gay marriage also insist that the United States was founded as a Christian nation with Christian values and ideals, not progressive ones. (And to be fair, they're actually right about the not-progressive part at least, because "progressivism" as it is generally defined didn't come about until around the turn of the 20th century, over a hundred years after the nation's founding.)

That said, even if they are right about the United States being founded Christian, guess what, folks: The country and its culture has obviously changed drastically in the last 235 years. There's nothing shameful, weak or evil about that - it happens to every society over time. Purism is at least as futile in the larger cultural realm as it is in sports. That, it seems to me, is the Achilles' heel of social conservatism in general, not just its opposition to gay marriage: the notion that civilization will fall apart if its underlying culture wanders too far off its reservation. Even if that's true, it's just another way of saying civilization isn't flexible enough to adapt to cultural change, and that's civilization's problem, not culture's.

[DEAD!]

I have no problem with anyone believing in a higher power... heck, I do myself (albeit, in a way that's not acceptable to the "Jesus Christ is your savior" crowd).

Church of the Beer Barrel Man?

Nah, if I joined any logo-based religion it'd be the Holy Order of the Ball-in-Glove which split from the BBM Church in the Great Schism of 1978

I have high hopes that we can bring the folds together under one holy pennant.

Sing it with me, brethren: "in Heaven, there is no Beer..."

See, its this exact nonsense about a beer-less heaven that caused the rift in the first place! The HOBiG teaches that not only is heaven overflowing with beer, but it is served by hot wenches who look even hotter when one sips from the divine stein. Appropriately, the only polka that is ever sung by the Holy Order is "Roll Out The Barrels."

ZING! (boom tarrerel )

The only problem is in HOBiG, the only beer that's served is Miller Lite...