Obama administration says marriage law unfair

[Guest NewsBot]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration filed court papers Monday claiming a federal marriage law discriminates against gays, even as government lawyers continued to defend it....

 

By DEVLIN BARRETT

 

More...

[Ahhlee]

Oh sh!t. Here we go....

[Old Salt]

Mormons and Muslims will probably join the suit. Their religious beliefs allow multiple wives, but U.S. law forbids it so I guess current federal marriage laws discriminate against them.

 

More to follow....

 

<but not from me>

[RoyalOrleans]

Anyone who subscribes to some tired, old, antiquated religious dogma and clings to the government to uphold said demagoguery is truly a recitative imbecile.

 

So, in short, I agree with PrezBo on the issue, but if this gets anymore press coverage than a murmur it is a distraction from the administration's deplorable performance.

[Ahhlee]

Anyone who subscribes to some tired, old, antiquated religious dogma and clings to the government to uphold said demagoguery is truly a recitative imbecile.

 

So, in short, I agree with PrezBo on the issue, but if this gets anymore press coverage than a murmur it is a distraction from the administration's deplorable performance.

 

I totally agree.

 

+10 points for "demagoguery", too. I like that word.

[ImWithStupid]

My personal opinion is this. "Marriage" has a Judeo/Christian stigma and should be dumped, legally.

 

All should be "legal unions" or whatever the fukk legalese name you want to give them, and can be referred to as marriages in the churches or by the people, but as far as the government goes they should be considered as a legal contract and whatever rights that go along with that.

[timesjoke]

Anyone who subscribes to some tired, old, antiquated religious dogma and clings to the government to uphold said demagoguery is truly a recitative imbecile.

 

You mean like the Constitution? Is that a tired old antiquated religious dogma too? Should we not ask out Government to uphold this demagoguery in all it's forms?

 

 

 

Every law from the beginning of time has it's basis in religious moral beliefs. Sure recent times have diluted the moral factor but still they have their foundations in community and a wider belief on what is right for the whole on a moral level. The Constitution was such an action of moral expression based in many thing to include religious beliefs. Prayers were held before and after the meetings of the members to ask for God's help and wisdom to form their work and yet today people like to pretend God has nothing to do with America's success.......

 

 

I have no problem with civil unions where "legal" rights are afforded to same sex relationships on the legal side of the coin, but I do not support their use of the term "marriage" because that term was a religious term to describe a relationship between man, woman, and God long before the constitution was ever written.

[RoyalOrleans]

You mean like the Constitution? Is that a tired old antiquated religious dogma too? Should we not ask out Government to uphold this demagoguery in all it's forms?

 

The Constitution, which I believe to be the greatest charter since the advent of written language, does not set up a national church nor delegate legislative or judicial authority to the clergy.

 

Every law from the beginning of time has it's basis in religious moral beliefs. Sure recent times have diluted the moral factor but still they have their foundations in community and a wider belief on what is right for the whole on a moral level. The Constitution was such an action of moral expression based in many thing to include religious beliefs. Prayers were held before and after the meetings of the members to ask for God's help and wisdom to form their work and yet today people like to pretend God has nothing to do with America's success.......

 

Have you read the First Amendment? Do you understand it?

 

If a body or a gathering agrees to have a prayer before a meeting, it is the decision of the people and not because it is demanded by the Constitution.

 

Yes... oh my God! It protects Muslims, Satanists, Jehovah Witnesses, and me: Roman Catholic.

 

I have no problem with civil unions where "legal" rights are afforded to same sex relationships on the legal side of the coin, but I do not support their use of the term "marriage" because that term was a religious term to describe a relationship between man, woman, and God long before the constitution was ever written.

 

Marriage is from Old French which was adapted from the Vulgar Latin root.

 

Let morality be left to the individual to decide and let the state tax them.

[timesjoke]

The Constitution, which I believe to be the greatest charter since the advent of written language, does not set up a national church nor delegate legislative or judicial authority to the clergy.

 

And your point?

 

What does that have to do with defending marriage as being a founding principle being between man, woman, and God? My point was to show that from our humble beginnings we have had God as an important part, even in our founding documents so I see no reason to erase this example of morals any more than I see any reason to erase the moral example that the Constitution represemts.

 

 

Have you read the First Amendment? Do you understand it?

 

Yep, but maybe you don't understand it if you think the Government "Recognizing" religious pairings is the same thing as making a law doing so.

 

"Marriage existed before our Constitution, not after. All we are doing now is "Recognizing" the religious bonding that already existed. That is why I support other types of social bondings as legal as well, no harm in that. They just should not use the same term as the already established religious term.

 

 

If a body or a gathering agrees to have a prayer before a meeting, it is the decision of the people and not because it is demanded by the Constitution.

 

Never said it did so what is your point?

 

My point is the involvement of religion in the shaping of America and how that religious element was part of our success.

 

Marriage is from Old French which was adapted from the Vulgar Latin root.

 

Let morality be left to the individual to decide and let the state tax them.

 

The idea of bondings is as old as time itself, but the exact term "marriage" is and has always been a religious term

[RoyalOrleans]

And your point?

 

What does that have to do with defending marriage as being a founding principle being between man, woman, and God? My point was to show that from our humble beginnings we have had God as an important part, even in our founding documents so I see no reason to erase this example of morals any more than I see any reason to erase the moral example that the Constitution represemts.

 

I'll agree with that, but I think the invocation of God in the Constitution is to represent the ultimate "witness" in the document.

 

Yep, but maybe you don't understand it if you think the Government "Recognizing" religious pairings is the same thing as making a law doing so.

 

The state itself reserves the right to nullify or disregard the marriage of anything other than man and woman. That is, if it is the consensus view. The queers and plural families can move to the desert for all I care, but I believe if we recognize one pairing then all must be represented.

 

What does the state care anyways? If I were a governor, I would see a chance to cease more taxes (Two working men as opposed to a wife staying home with the kids, etc.). You won't understand, though.

 

"Marriage existed before our Constitution, not after. All we are doing now is "Recognizing" the religious bonding that already existed. That is why I support other types of social bondings as legal as well, no harm in that. They just should not use the same term as the already established religious term.

 

I know. I know. I know. For Christ's sake! Don't be such a condescending little sh!t to believe that I have never cracked a history book. Jesus!

 

My first marriage was in the Justice of the Peace courtroom, does that make the pairing illegitimate with the aspects of religious pretexts? Am I going to hell for recognizing the tax implifications rather than producing an heir to all this sh!t?

 

 

Never said it did so what is your point?

 

My point is the involvement of religion in the shaping of America and how that religious element was part of our success.

 

If you take God out of the equation, you will have brave men fighting for liberty, justice, fairness, and individuality.

 

The idea of bondings is as old as time itself, but the exact term "marriage" is and has always been a religious term

 

Evidence of cohabitation existed at the dawn of mankind, but did they practice religion?

[timesjoke]

I'll agree with that, but I think the invocation of God in the Constitution is to represent the ultimate "witness" in the document.

 

And to show their inspiration.

 

 

The state itself reserves the right to nullify or disregard the marriage of anything other than man and woman. That is, if it is the consensus view. The queers and plural families can move to the desert for all I care, but I believe if we recognize one pairing then all must be represented.

 

What does the state care anyways? If I were a governor, I would see a chance to cease more taxes (Two working men as opposed to a wife staying home with the kids, etc.). You won't understand, though.

 

I already said I support alternative bondings. Sex with the same sex, sex with a cow, sex with a pile of poo, it is all the same deviant sexual soup some humans will follow. I do not have to like or support the sexual deviant lifestyles to see there is a legal obligation for our Government to offer the same protections to same sex bondings as they offer to those who are married.

 

 

I know. I know. I know. For Christ's sake! Don't be such a condescending little sh!t to believe that I have never cracked a history book. Jesus!

 

And yet your saying "Have you read the First Amendment? Do you understand it?" was not condescending at all right?

 

lol

 

I have a full and complete understanding of the 1st amendment, and as I just pointed out, that has nothing to do with the conversation so why would you bring it up?

 

 

My first marriage was in the Justice of the Peace courtroom, does that make the pairing illegitimate with the aspects of religious pretexts? Am I going to hell for recognizing the tax implifications rather than producing an heir to all this sh!t?

 

Only you can answer to your moral or immoral intent.

 

 

If you take God out of the equation, you will have brave men fighting for liberty, justice, fairness, and individuality.

 

All doing so bolstered by their faith. Without faith, America was mostly populated by people looking for religous freedoms, at least those who took leadership rolls were and the resistence against England were all very involved in their religious rights.

 

 

"GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to the Speaker of the House of Burgesses, Dec. 1756

 

The ways of Providence being inscrutable, and the justice of it not to be scanned by the shallow eye of humanity, nor to be counteracted by the utmost efforts of human power or wisdom, resignation, and as far as the strength of our reason and religion can carry us, a cheerful acquiescence to the Divine Will, is what we are to aim.

 

 

 

 

Evidence of cohabitation existed at the dawn of mankind, but did they practice religion?

 

I was not there, but I can say that God made man, man made the many religions in his futile attempt to understand God.