• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

church vs state

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

A

ammstormy

Guest
What is the name of your state? new york
curious-
1.
how can the us government consider same sex marriages as contitutional or un-constitutional based on morals?

isn't that a direct contradiction to the church vs. state seperation.

2. how can the us government deny the basic right of marriage based soley on the sex of thier partners?

isn't that a violation of "all men are created equal"

it's been in the news, figgured i'd get some help understanding why this is such a big deal-thanks
 


I

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
My response:

Easy!

This country moves very slowly in terms of morality. Just replace homosexual in your post (or same sex) with the word "women" or the word "Negro".

How long did it take for women to even have some semblance of equality? At one point in our history, they were considered "chattel", and had no voting rights, among other deprivation of rights.

And, how long has the Civil Rights movement been going on - - even to this day? Did you really believe that JFK, LBJ and MLK ended discrimination? Did you know that, at one point in our history, that the Negro wasn't considered to be "human", and as such, had no constitutional rights?

There are many, many more examples of inequalities in the United States. Some take longer than others to fix.

Stay tuned. There's more changes coming around the bend.

IAAL
 
A

ammstormy

Guest
ok-but

i thought we had moved beyond that line of both reasoning and lack of compassion- why should it take me two days to get a marriage license and someone else twho hundred? I though we were a country of evolved civilzation- isn't that what is the basic logic behind iraq right now, that we extended all men are created equal to mean all men around the worl who wanted that freedom and were willing to fight for it?

i know this sounds like im not grasping the idea- i di hear what you had to say- i just would have hopped that we as americans, as a human race had evolved more than we really had. perhapes it is the same as with wemon and people of minorites- the bend is just long.

thanks for the imput though- the kind of answer that gives humanity hope- isn't it?
 
S

Selina Sedai

Guest
Well, there are two reasons (one stupid and one not-as-stupid) why it's so hard to have gay marriages recongized in the US.

1. (stupid) because gay marriages are considered 'evil' and 'a threat to society' by a bunch of morons who don't know how to read Greek and don't understand that there is a difference between homosexuality and pedastry.

2. (not as stupid) because if homosexuals can get married, why not polygamists? Or what about children? Why can't kids get married? What about arranged marriages? Or marriages with animals? Why base anything on morality? It's all relative, right?

I'm not against homosexual marriages, as long as it's the legislature that decides to amend the statutes to allow them. I don't think it would open the door to everything else if the legislature does it.
 
E

emersonpoet

Guest
interesting

but still applying morals- humans are not animals and- common sense tells me we should be trated equally and given equal rights no matter what

some day i suppose
 
A

ammstormy

Guest
i thought we had moved beyond that 'evil' and 'corrupt' mentality- perhapes my great-grand kids will be able to be gay and have no fear

we need another martin luther king, jr.

where are you?
 
I

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
abezon said:
His name was Harvery Milk. He was assassinated in the 70's.
Click to expand...

My response:

His name was City Councilman "Harvey" Milk, killed with the Mayor of San Francisco, George Moscone - - both of whom were staunch Civil Rights protectors. But, isn't that what happens to Civil Rights leaders?

This was the trial where the "Twinkie Defense" came from.

IAAL
 
M

mailman16

Member
I just read this and feel compelled to respond. Selina, you should just have one category called stupid. Allow me to elaborate. No one, other than polygamists, cited in your #2 example are capable of making informed decisions. Children are not, animals are not, and if the parties are willing to get married then it's not much of an arrangement. As far as polygamy goes, there are actually people perfectly comfortable with that situation and if they're all consenting adults, who cares what they do in their relationships. Your #2 example is exactly what's wrong with the entire argument that some people try to make. I, for the life of me, will never, ever, ever understand how the leap is made from consenting adults getting married to sex with animals. That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
 
Last edited:
H

hexeliebe

Guest
His name was Harvery Milk. He was assassinated in the 70's.
Click to expand...
Although I respect the stance that Harvey Milk took in his openess in San Francisco Politics, equating him with MLK is a slap in the face to the civil rights leaders who took on a nation, put themselves in harms way and defied death every day to bring a nation's consciencousness to light.

Harvey Milk was local to San Francisco, NEVER put himself in harms way intentionally and Never stood on the national stage.

If you want to learn about civil rights and the true people who fought and died for ALL people not just gays, not just blacks, not just hispanics, then go back to Stephen Douglass, Medger Evers and three white college students murdered for handing out voting ballots in Mississippi.

The point of this whole thread is getting ridiculous. The marriage of gays has nothing to do with church and state. It has to do with legislators and voters who hold that their religious beliefs are the only right one and that it should translate to legislative certainty.

If you want to come out and say you favor gay marriages, fine. That's your right. But just flapping your jaw won't get anything done while the 'other' side is sitting in congress.

Otherwise, you get what you vote for. PERIOD!
 
I

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
hexeliebe said:



Harvey Milk was local to San Francisco, NEVER put himself in harms way intentionally and Never stood on the national stage.

==================================

My response:

Oh, you're so wrong, Hex. Harvey Milk was big in California. He just happened, however, to hold office in San Francisco - - but, he was still BIG in Civil Rights, specifically Gay rights.

He also, on many occasions, placed himself in harm's way in San Fransisco, marching arm-in-arm with the huge Gay and Lesbian groups in the San Fransisco "tenderloin" district, and was constantly being barraged with hate from the conservatives of the time - - any one of which who could have been an assassin.

He was well on his way to national prominence when he and Mayor Mascone were both gunned down by Dan White. He just happened to be at the City level when disaster struck.

Although, at the time, he was on the "state level", his stance on Civil Rights was never anything less than the heroic deeds of other Civil Rights leaders at that time, when such a stance was extremely unpopular. Gays, Blacks, Hispanic and other minorities were all a part of California culture and the Civil Rights movement, with no group being bigger or lesser than the other.

Had he lived, I am sure he would have made it to the "national level" just like the others who preceded him, and those after him. He was a part of the movement laying the groundwork for some of the laws we have today - - and will have in the future as Civil Rights continue to evolve.

IAAL
Click to expand...
 
H

hexeliebe

Guest
You and I will have to agree to disagree on this one big guy. But to equate him with MKL is always going to be a slap in the face to me.

Makes you love those damn conservatives don't it :D
 
I

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
hexeliebe said:


But to equate him with MKL is always going to be a slap in the face to me.

=====================================

My response:

Why?

MLK started at the city level - - or don't you remember Selma and Memphis, and the many other cities? Thereafter, MLK rose to State prominence. All because MLK was fighting for the Civil Rights of the Negro, doesn't make Harvey Milk's efforts any less heroic on behalf of the Gay communities. In terms of Civil Rights, they were both just as heroic and effective.

Was Cezar Chavez any less heroic in his efforts for migrant farm workers? Was Margaret Sanger any less heroic for her efforts to liberate women?

In the end, they were all fighting for Civil Rights - - just for differing sects of people who were all no less, yet equally, affected by the injustices of the day. Each of these people, and many others, had a "dream" of equality and Civil Rights.

IAAL
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
H

hexeliebe

Guest
Never said "less Heroic" but on the same level, the same affect to world politics, to social conscience? No.

Sanger yes. Chavez maybe. But then where is FDR? Bobby Kennedy? Golda Mier? Mahatma Gandhi?

And what about Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil, Ezell Blair Jr. and David Richmond?

We could go on and on but on this issue I'm pretty damn obstinate. Gay rights, Migrant Worker Rights or Women's rights, although legitimate rights to be expected, have very specific targets and affected classes.

However, when the Civil Rights movement began with registering black disenfranchised voters in the south and grew to emcompass every race, every walk of life, it moves beyond one group and becomes a world issue.

By the way, even an idiot president like Lyndon Johnson became a very important part of the Civil Rights Movement when he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 followed in 1965 by the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

Both acts have affected more than just blacks, migrant farmers, women or gays. They affect all people across the nation.
 
I

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
My response:

I cannot believe that we are having some sort of disagreement over the issue of "national prominence", and the "importance" of one "form" of Civil Rights leader over another! Whether big or small, the "movement" rolls on with both big and small players.

To be sure, all of the people we have mentioned, whether national or local, were not any less important to one another, or the nation, in that great big wheel called Civil Rights. Each of these people were a spoke in that wheel - - a wheel which is turning and rolling to this day, and will continue to roll with future leaders - - both local and national.

I really don't think we're "arguing" at all. In my view, Civil Rights, whether on a small local level, or on a large national scale, has importance to all of us because even the local level leaders have "spill over" into the national consciousness.

Are Gays not "national"?

Do you really believe that the influence of Harvey Milk didn't spill over, with other's, into the national consciousness - - that Milk's beliefs didn't influence, in some small measure, the Gays in, say, Maryland, or over the entire nation?

Ideas do not have boundaries, and I rather doubt Harvey Milk's ideas and beliefs stopped at the California border - - all because he was only a City Councilman.

IAAL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top