North Carolina votes for marriage ammendment.

[Timestepper]

Heck, I'm on my third (and final) marriage. I say if they're dumb enough to put themselves through that, by <deity> let 'em!

Edited May 14, 2012 by Timestepper

[gregintenn]

God has no business in government.

Actually, marriage is a religious union, and Government shouldn't have anything to do with it at all.

Also, marriage is a union between one man and one woman. I suppose a gay guy could marry a woman. A lesbian could marry a man. H3ll, I don't know why a gay man couldn't marry a lesbian! For two of the same sex to marry would require a change in the definition of the word.

[Guest ThePunisher]

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?

[Guest bkelm18]

Actually, marriage is a religious union, and Government shouldn't have anything to do with it at all.

Also, marriage is a union between one man and one woman. I suppose a gay guy could marry a woman. A lesbian could marry a man. H3ll, I don't know why a gay man couldn't marry a lesbian! For two of the same sex to marry would require a change in the definition of the word.

I think Merriam-Webster is way ahead of you.

MARRIAGE

a.(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

b. : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock

c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

Edited May 14, 2012 by bkelm18

[Guest bkelm18]

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?

You got that right.

Edited May 14, 2012 by bkelm18

[TripleDigitRide]

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?

I have no problem with gay marriage, but that's hardly a vote-swaying issue for me.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch using Tapatalk 2

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeah, marriage is some great institution. Never mind the inordinate number of them that end in divorce. Letting gays marry would really ruin it for everybody.

Since you want to bring the number of divorces into it, why don't you address the problem, or the solution? The institution of marriage is great.

It's like everything and everyone else has flaws, except you, Spock. Sarcasm doesn't help much with that.

"Letting gays marry". It's not part of their culture. It's a part they want, but don't fit into it.

Edited May 14, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[1pointofview]

funny how the left is all about democracy until it goes against what they want and then they change the rules.

here is the deal, marraig imo is a between a man and a woman. I believe being gay is not natural but I have my own sin to worry about so I do not care if you chose to be gay or not. i like many others have gay friends, work with people who are gay and do not think of them any less of a person because I accept them as an individual. with all that that said I believe the only reason homosexuals want gay marriage is purely out of main stream acceptance. But i feel marriage is a religious sacrament so I can not approve of gay marriage.

now if you want to have something called civil unions or what ever else you want to call it then I am fine with that. but at the end of the day, it is the government's control over the process that also has to change. but it will not change until we take all the tax implications out of the equation. We need to flatten the tax code so you pay the same taxes regardless of how many kids you have or how much money you make.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Just because Merriam-Webster adds additional refinements to the definition of marriage doesn't mean as much as you think it does, Spock.

Take that definition to a priest and see how long your argument stands up. There are quite a few more that would disagree and have voted,

rather than allow someone to redefine what a tradition is and isn't. To date, there is a large majority that will stand against your lack of

substance on this issue. 64% of the states(32 states, that is) have made their intentions known by a ballot, and that majority will probably rise

because of the politicization of the issue.

i just think a lot of you folks have fallen into a trap set by people who wish to distract you and keep you off base while they're tinkering on more

important issues. I saw a post on RedState by a gay member who is criticizing his own group/class for their lack of togetherness and substance

over this. He says there seems to be many of his own kind that don't really care about this and wish it would go away. I guess there are a bunch

of imagined "straights" who wish to defend based on a bunch of nothing.

For those of you who wish to keep beating the drum of "benefits", I would still be married without them, so take them away while you wreck

something for the benefit of the downtrodden gays. Poor victims.

This isn't an issue for me in the election and Obama will soon realize it isn't helping his campaign any more. That fool should have kept his mouth

shut, but I guess he must have needed the Hollywood campaign contributions real bad.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Is there not a way to preserve the sanctity of marriage yet still give gays and lesbians equal rights? I say YES there is a way to do that! Maybe I'm being too simple minded but it does not seem like it would be hard to do. What I am wondering is if this simple fix would be part of the liberal agenda or not. The liberal's want everyone to embrace their lifestyle and denounce the old lifestyles.

The liberals will not be satisfied at legalizing gay marriage. They will always want more and more. "Why should marriage just be between two adults?" Bigamy anyone? That is why God made conservatives. To keep the liberals in check. It's a question of balance.

Marriage isn't a right prescribed anywhere as a right, so what is this talk about giving them equal rights? they already have the same rights you

and I have. Marriage needs to be defined by government? It's not the same thing. Some want to make it the same thing, though, by the heavy

hand of government. Is that right?

[BPE]

God has no business in government.

This.... is why this government has gone to Hell. The country was based, partially, for freedom of religion. Government should never be allowed to mandate a required religion of choice. However, to ignore God within government and social issues is, in my opinion, a mistake. What else shall we use for the litmus test for what is socially acceptable and what is not? There must be a constant in the consistently degradation in our social environment. But, I realized what I see as deterioration another may see as evolution. Just my two cents.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Heck, I'm on my third (and final) marriage. I say if they're dumb enough to put themselves through that, by <deity> let 'em!

I used to think like that, but the trouble with that is the fact that it's difficult to undo things once they've been enacted. Laws and social

structuring by government always have unintended consequences.

Some things are best left alone.

Edited May 14, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So the state shouldn't be involved in marriage if God is a part of the relationship, right? So all legal marriage that doesn't involve God can be recognized.

The state is, at this moment, acknowledging God's presence in marriage. I guess you want that to change, also?

All you new age thinkers around here are only proposing things like the Constitution really is a living, breathing document, and is so

flexible as to change marriage? Does that make anyone think? Let's just go full out on the communist experiment. If you buy this crap

about gay marriage that will fulfill them better, why not? Hey, I'm convinced

[Guest ThePunisher]

Wow, now the Merriam-Webster dictionary has eclipsed the word of God as the ultimate authority of defining marriage. That might be the reason family and the government today is so dysfunctional, and everything is going down the tubes. Everybody is taking God out of every institution of this country. Well, the ancient Israelites forgot God and worshiped Baal, and we know the result was the dispersing of the Jews all over the world.

Oh jeeze, so now the Merriam-Webster dictionary and liberalism is the Baal of our time. Nothing astonishes me anymore. No wonder the majority of people in this country believe America's best days are behind her.

[Guest lostpass]

surprised by your response AR. I don't think that is a libertarian position or one that Ayn Ran would have taken.

[Daniel]

Wow, now the Merriam-Webster dictionary has eclipsed the word of God as the ultimate authority of defining marriage. That might be the reason family and the government today is so dysfunctional, and everything is going down the tubes. Everybody is taking God out of every institution of this country. Well, the ancient Israelites forgot God and worshiped Baal, and we know the result was the dispersing of the Jews all over the world.

Oh jeeze, so now the Merriam-Webster dictionary and liberalism is the Baal of our time. Nothing astonishes me anymore. No wonder the majority of people in this country believe America's best days are behind her.

You are saying this as if everyone held the same belief system you do.

As to the constitution being a living document... of course it is.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

surprised by your response AR. I don't think that is a libertarian position or one that Ayn Ran would have taken.

Do you have to reject God, or religion, to believe in reason and logic? I didn't know Libertarians had to be atheists, either.

No, I think a lot of folks hide their persona behind a firewall called the internet to sometimes say what they wouldn't dare

person to person, including disrespect of another's religious beliefs. Politeness is another thing that went away.

Edited May 14, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So, it's subject to change at a whim to be relevant? If it is what you think, Daniel, you swore an oath to defend a moving target,

and Jefferson is rolling over in his grave. Ruth Bader Ginsberg agrees with you.

[Guest bkelm18]

So, it's subject to change at a whim to be relevant? If it is what you think, Daniel, you swore an oath to defend a moving target,

and Jefferson is rolling over in his grave. Ruth Bader Ginsberg agrees with you.

The founding fathers gave us the ability and the process to change the Constitution if necessary. However the process to enact a constitutional amendment is far from being "at a whim".

Edited May 14, 2012 by bkelm18

[Daniel]

If you are referring to me, I attend TGO functions and will gladly tell you that I think any and all gods are untrue. Then we can have a burger.

[Daniel]

So, it's subject to change at a whim to be relevant? If it is what you think, Daniel, you swore an oath to defend a moving target,

and Jefferson is rolling over in his grave. Ruth Bader Ginsberg agrees with you.

The first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been amended seventeen times (for a total of 27 amendments) and its principles are applied in courts of law by judicial review.

It appears to me that a document that has been amended 17 times is pretty much not set in stone.

[Daniel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratified_amendments

[Mike.357]

If two people are married by a JP it is in fact called marriage.

Certainly being married by a JP is not a religious ceremony.

I am not sure how being married is religious, and god is not always involved. People can write their own vows, there needs be no mention of god for it to be legal.

When i get a second i will dig out my marriage license, pretty sure there is no mention of god on it.

And i don't see why gays getting married is such a big deal.

Funny topic it is.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's pretty set in stone by the process. The bulk of constitutional principles has essentially not changed, except by bastardized

interpretations from political whims that have not served very well, from time to time. I'll be glad have a burger with you, Daniel

Those 17 Amendments, several of which were outright mistakes, one of which was abolished, were supposed to be refinements

and there is one that needs to be replaced outright soon. It was intended to be difficult to be changed.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"A prominent endorsement of the Living Constitution concept was heard in the 2000 presidential campaign by the Democratic candidate, Al Gore.^[2] One of its most vocal critics is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.^[3]"

From your wiki about the living and breathing aspect. Kinda telling to me. I understand why Al Gore would call it that, but not from

some of you.

Read this and tell me what you think, then.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891351/posts Just a post in another thread, elsewhere.