NH House Re-approves Gay Marriage Bill

[Chuangtzu]

Accepting and approving the Senate added conscience clause.

It's on Governor John Lynch's desk, now:

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2009/05/06/NH-Legislature-approves-gay/1241652968.html

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Good.

Coming soon: New York.

[gastoys1]

Accepting and approving the Senate added conscience clause.

It's on Governor John Lynch's desk, now:

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2009/05/06/NH-Legislature-approves-gay/1241652968.html

As long as they open up marriage to any an all. So if I want to marry my father or say my sister or maybe my uncle or maybe even a family pet.

[Chuangtzu]

As long as they open up marriage to any an all. So if I want to marry my father or say my sister or maybe my uncle or maybe even a family pet.

Between pole A and pole B, of your logic leap, is a yawning gulf of unconnected argument points you never even tried to make.

[Chuangtzu]

The conscience clause to which I alluded:

57:37 Affirmation of Freedom of Religion in Marriage. Members of the clergy as described in RSA 457:31 or other persons otherwise authorized under law to solemnize a marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by part I, article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HB0436.html?loc=interstitialskip

[grapabeaux]

Between pole A and pole B, of your logic leap, is a yawning gulf of unconnected argument points you never even tried to make.

The guiding principle behind "gay marriage" is that anybody should be able to marry who they love. If the previous post is a leap of unconnected argument points, then so is the "gay marriage" argument.

[Chuangtzu]

The guiding principle behind "gay marriage" is that anybody should be able to marry who they love. If the previous post is a leap of unconnected argument points, then so is the "gay marriage" argument.

But you're wrong: the guiding principle is only that the state sanctioned and protected contract afforded consenting adults of opposite gender cannot now be denied to consenting adults of the same gender, on the basis of their gender alone.

[Antrel]

As long as they open up marriage to any an all. So if I want to marry my father or say my sister or maybe my uncle or maybe even a family pet.I agree with this.

[Chuangtzu]

I agree with this.

A pet cannot give legal consent.

[Residential Bob]

Between pole A and pole B, of your logic leap, is a yawning gulf of unconnected argument points you never even tried to make.Not to worry. Libs will connect the dots. Give it time.

[Chuangtzu]

Not to worry. Libs will connect the dots. Give it time.

Huh?

Are you seriously suggesting that liberals will promote inter-species marriage?

[Antrel]

A pet cannot give legal consent.I overlooked this. I shall revoke my agreement until dog-human translation is developed.

[Residential Bob]

Huh?

Are you seriously suggesting that liberals will promote inter-species marriage?Patience, my friend. You've only given it two minutes so far.

[Chuangtzu]

Patience, my friend. You've only given it two minutes so far.

Then I shall continue not taking you seriously.

[grapabeaux]

But you're wrong: the guiding principle is only that the state sanctioned and protected contract afforded consenting adults of opposite gender cannot now be denied to consenting adults of the same gender, on the basis of their gender alone.

a) The "protected contract" you speak of is by definition (beyond the law) as a contract restricted between one man and one woman.

b) The basis for restricting it has never been based on "gender alone". There are inherent deficiencies in same-sex couples that make it a legitimate restriction on entering a marriage for the sake of public policy. Pretending those deficiencies (lack of a dual-gender parental household, lack of a stable household, lack of sexual monogamy within same-sex couples) aren't there doesn't mean you have made your case.

[barik]

As long as they open up marriage to any an all. So if I want to marry my father or say my sister or maybe my uncle or maybe even a family pet.

You know, these threads get more and more amusing as each state one by one recognizes gay marriage.

[BOOOOOOSHHHH]

so were these voted on by the people or was it one or two judges opnions that made it law?

[yesterdaystomorrow]

so were these voted on by the people or was it one or two judges opnions that made it law?

A state legislature.

[darknessesedge]

Accepting and approving the Senate added conscience clause.

It's on Governor John Lynch's desk, now:

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2009/05/06/NH-Legislature-approves-gay/1241652968.html

God is not amused.

[BOOOOOOSHHHH]

oh OK. A FEW libs in a state legislature=legalized gay marriage.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Reading Lib responses about this sad sinful situation I thought the PEOPLE voted for it.:think:

That would never happen (same with abortion) because thy would never pass into law.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

God is not amused.

I'm glad you know what God thinks.

[Droog]

The State should not be involved in marriage, period.

[Droog]

BTW Tzu...knowing your views tend to lean left, I appreciate the simple honesty of your sig image. It's dead-on.

[darknessesedge]

oh OK. A FEW libs in a state legislature=legalized gay marriage.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Reading Lib responses about this sad sinful situation I thought the PEOPLE voted for it.:think:

That would never happen (same with abortion) because thy would never pass into law.

agreed.
but maybe those who support it already paid the $$ for a wedding dress?

[ThinkingMan]

Huh?

Are you seriously suggesting that liberals will promote inter-species marriage?

Let's not jump to conclusions. There are some who question whether having sex with a chicken is worse than keeping it in the coop.

Unless Ivy League philosophy professors come to their senses, I would just give it time.

[darknessesedge]

I'm glad you know what God thinks.

you should read some and you might too.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

you should read some and you might too.

I choose to live in reality, and refuse to base my life and actions on a book written over several hundred years, by several groups of people, edited countless times.

[darknessesedge]

I choose to live in reality, and refuse to base my life and actions on a book written over several hundred years, by several groups of people, edited countless times.

a math book?
science book?
what book are you refering too?

[yesterdaystomorrow]

a math book?
science book?
what book are you refering too?

I'm referring to the bible since we were talking about God.

[darknessesedge]

I'm referring to the bible since we were talking about God.

you dont believe in documented history?

[yesterdaystomorrow]

you dont believe in documented history?

I could write down a few pages of messages I've "received" from God, and I guess it would be documented history.

[BOOOOOOSHHHH]

I'm glad you know what God thinks.

We do know. Try reading the bible.:rolleyes:

[Droog]

God didn't write the Bible. Not one word is written in the first person.

[Dale in GA]

The guiding principle behind "gay marriage" is that anybody should be able to marry who they love. If the previous post is a leap of unconnected argument points, then so is the "gay marriage" argument.


I think the underlying argument for gay marriage is that any adult should be able to marry the person they love.

Not the mineral or the animal.

Key components of marriage are love, equality and reciprocality, things that cannot exist in a relationship between a human and an animal, or an inanimate object.

[Broseph]

If we legalize gay marriage, then people will want to marry animals.

If we legalize drugs, everyone will be messed up all of the time.

If we legalize guns, everyone will be killing people all of the time.

...

See what I'm getting at? People have these inane fears that never manifest anywhere except in their mind. Get over it, and let people live their lives as they see fit as long as they don't hurt you or your property.

[Broseph]

God didn't write the Bible. Not one word is written in the first person.

:)) True, true.

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

If we legalize gay marriage, then people will want to marry animals.

If we legalize drugs, everyone will be messed up all of the time.

If we legalize guns, everyone will be killing people all of the time.

...

See what I'm getting at? People have these inane fears that never manifest anywhere except in their mind. Get over it, and let people live their lives as they see fit as long as they don't hurt you or your property.

If we legalize governments millions of people would be slaughtered. Wait. That one came to fruition.

[Broseph]

If we legalize governments millions of people would be slaughtered. Wait. That one came to fruition.

Hahaha, yeah. Sad but true.

Government, the only monopoly that is legal everywhere.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

If we legalize gay marriage, then people will want to marry animals.

If we legalize drugs, everyone will be messed up all of the time.

If we legalize guns, everyone will be killing people all of the time.

...

See what I'm getting at? People have these inane fears that never manifest anywhere except in their mind. Get over it, and let people live their lives as they see fit as long as they don't hurt you or your property.

100% true.

[Chuangtzu]

oh OK. A FEW libs in a state legislature=legalized gay marriage.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Reading Lib responses about this sad sinful situation I thought the PEOPLE voted for it.:think:

That would never happen (same with abortion) because thy would never pass into law.

NH has a single abortion law: all other laws were repealed by a Republican dominated legislature, and signed out of existence by a Democratic governor. The single abortion law on the books was enacted by a mixed legislature, and taken to the Supreme Court by the current Dem governor.

***

As for the various arguments against, below: if the sole variable between marriage A and marriage B is the gender of the participants, then gender discrimination is the difference.

***

Thx, Droog.

[Chuangtzu]

a) The "protected contract" you speak of is by definition (beyond the law) as a contract restricted between one man and one woman.

Only "by defintion" because of an argument-from-insistence. Definitions change, including those which outline the limits of legal contractual arrangements. The marriage contract is no longer discriminatory, on the basis of gender, in four New England states (soon to be five).

b) The basis for restricting it has never been based on "gender alone". There are inherent deficiencies in same-sex couples that make it a legitimate restriction on entering a marriage for the sake of public policy. Pretending those deficiencies (lack of a dual-gender parental household, lack of a stable household, lack of sexual monogamy within same-sex couples) aren't there doesn't mean you have made your case.

Deficiencies? By what standard do you judge?

[BOOOOOOSHHHH]

God didn't write the Bible. Not one word is written in the first person.

The Holy Spirit INSPIRED the written word (The Bible). God can do anything.

[Chuangtzu]

I think the underlying argument for gay marriage is that any adult should be able to marry the person they love.

Not the mineral or the animal.

Key components of marriage are love, equality and reciprocality, things that cannot exist in a relationship between a human and an animal, or an inanimate object.

That is the moral argument, certainly. But the legal argument is much simpler: marriage is a legally binding contract protected by public courts of law. Denying it on the basis of gender alone is discriminatory, regardless of any arguments from tradition.

[Chuangtzu]

The Holy Spirit INSPIRED the written word (The Bible). God can do anything.

And?

What you believe to be true about the Bible relates to NH's legislative legalization of gay marriage (pending gubernatorial signature or non-signature) how?

[Mobulis]

The Holy Spirit INSPIRED the written word (The Bible). God can do anything.

And of course we know the bible is divinely inspired because the bible says so.

[cfinstr]

The New Hampshire legislature must be populated with an overabundance of sexual deviants. Amazing that so many should agree that habitual buggery is on a par with the religious sacrament of Marriage. It shows how sick those law makers really are; scum!

[Chuangtzu]

The New Hampshire legislature must be populated with an overabundance of sexual deviants. Amazing that so many should agree that habitual buggery is on a par with the religious sacrament of Marriage. It shows how sick those law makers really are; scum!

Quoted for posterity. Because, you know, lesbians are bogomils.*

The actual root of the word "bugger."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogomilism

[BOOOOOOSHHHH]

There is so much consistency and proof the Bible is the Inspired Written WORD of GOD- YET the opponents of Christianity are so foolish they just do not want to study it themselves.:lol:

[yesterdaystomorrow]

There is so much consistency and proof the Bible is the Inspired Written WORD of GOD- YET the opponents of Christianity are so foolish they just do not want to study it themselves.:lol:

Consistency? Quite the opposite. It is filled with contradictions and archaic moral values. I bet you especially like the section where holding women as slaves and raping them is approved of?
Also if you've ever eaten shellfish in your life, it is considered an abomination in "gods eyes"

I'd like to see some proof that the Bible is the written word of God without you pointing to other passages in the Bible itself.

[BOOOOOOSHHHH]

Consistency? Quite the opposite. It is filled with contradictions and archaic moral values. I bet you especially like the section where holding women as slaves and raping them is approved of?
Also if you've ever eaten shellfish in your life, it is considered an abomination in "gods eyes"

I'd like to see some proof that the Bible is the written word of God without you pointing to other passages in the Bible itself.

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

HERE IS JUST 3 bible prophecies fulfilled to wet your appetite.. please visit the link and come back to me...

(1) Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25-26). He further predicted that the Messiah would be "cut off," killed, and that this event would take place prior to a second destruction of Jerusalem. Abundant documentation shows that these prophecies were perfectly fulfilled in the life (and crucifixion) of Jesus Christ. The decree regarding the restoration of Jerusalem was issued by Persia's King Artaxerxes to the Hebrew priest Ezra in 458 B.C., 483 years later the ministry of Jesus Christ began in Galilee. (Remember that due to calendar changes, the date for the start of Christ's ministry is set by most historians at about 26 A.D. Also note that from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is just one year.) Jesus' crucifixion occurred only a few years later, and about four decades later, in 70 A.D. came the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.)*

(2) In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.)

(3) In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used—just as predicted—for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1011.)

[BOOOOOOSHHHH]

(4) Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1013.)

[BOOOOOOSHHHH]

http://therefinersfire.org/recent_prophecy.htm

[cfinstr]

The perverts of America have unified to promote habitual buggery and other homosexual deviant behaviors.

Sick perverts in the New Hampshire Legislature.

[Antrel]

The theocrats are out late tonight.

[Droog]

The Holy Spirit INSPIRED the written word (The Bible). God can do anything.Did God inspire the council of Nicea where men decided what was The Word and what wasn't?

[Droog]

The New Hampshire legislature must be populated with an overabundance of sexual deviants. Amazing that so many should agree that habitual buggery is on a par with the religious sacrament of Marriage. It shows how sick those law makers really are; scum!Libertarians, actually, who don't think it's their right or responsibility to legislate away what they may or may not consider to be deviant.

[Rurudyne]

The conscience clause to which I alluded:

57:37 Affirmation of Freedom of Religion in Marriage. Members of the clergy as described in RSA 457:31 or other persons otherwise authorized under law to solemnize a marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by part I, article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HB0436.html?loc=interstitialskip
Nice. But not enough.

Add in that no Person will be required to recognize the marriage if doing so violates their religious scruples and then I'll be impressed.

[chef]

"Never Marry" Al Bundy

[Rurudyne]

"Never Marry" Al Bundy
I'm not unconvinced that the mysterious ingredients in wedding cake aren't to blame.

[chef]

In stead of being the "Granite State" it can be the "Purple Lilac State" with a nice phallic shaped granite monument surrounded by tulips, pansies and purple lilacs as a replacement for the Old Man of the Mountain.

[Chuangtzu]

Nice. But not enough.

Add in that no Person will be required to recognize the marriage if doing so violates their religious scruples and then I'll be impressed.

Think on that. See what you're asking for?

[Rurudyne]

Think on that. See what you're asking for?
I know exactly what I'm asking for.

[Chuangtzu]

The perverts of America have unified to promote habitual buggery and other homosexual deviant behaviors.

Sick perverts in the New Hampshire Legislature.

Your obsession with an obscure Balkan sect, nearly expunged by the 1500s, is odd.

[Chuangtzu]

I know exactly what I'm asking for.

The negation of your own religious systems, since that right of conscience would be universal, and would apply to any person who chose not to recognize your marriage, for its religiousness.

[CalConservative51]

horrible

[Chuangtzu]

horrible

I know, right? I mean, the "gay singularity" will consume all of New England by 2010, at the earliest.

And then our already low teen pregnancy, divorce and other social rates will get even lower...

[Rurudyne]

The negation of your own religious systems, since that right of conscience would be universal, and would apply to any person who chose not to recognize your marriage, for its religiousness.
And requiring someperson to recognize homosexual marriage as a matter of laws isn't tyranny? An exercise of raw political power?

[Droog]

Once again, how about we get government out of marriage altogether?

[Chuangtzu]

And requiring someperson to recognize homosexual marriage as a matter of laws isn't tyranny? An exercise of raw political power?

Again, think your argument out several steps, before you make the next move.

[Rurudyne]

Once again, how about we get government out of marriage altogether?
Interestingly, marriage licenses only gained political popularity in many places as a means to attack black families.

I would not consent to be married under administrative law. I have a right (as per A4:S2:C1 or the 9th) to stand only under our rightful common laws which need no government involvement.

[Chuangtzu]

Once again, how about we get government out of marriage altogether?

It's not going to happen, because society is simply more complex than it was in the 1850s, or 1790s.

Complex social relationships involving insurance, credit, custody, disbursement of property all require some legal recognition of familial contract.

Since there are no frontiers or borderlands (south of Nome), all American society is in fact highly interconnected, and our contractual obligations underpin not only that interconnectedness, but the legal and economic relationships we establish.

[Chuangtzu]

Interestingly, marriage licenses only gained political popularity in many places as a means to attack black families.

I would not consent to be married under administrative law. I have a right (as per A4:S2:C1 or the 9th) to stand only under our rightful common laws which need no government involvement.

And what of the many states which have no common law marriage?

[Rurudyne]

Again, think your argument out several steps, before you make the next move.
Again, it is well thought out.

Governments should be responsible for honoring the the Privileges and Immunities or privileges or immunities of the People. But they should have very limited power (and the federal none at all, as there is no enumeration of such a power) to require private persons to do the same.

[Rurudyne]

And what of the many states which have no common law marriage?
The several States are REQUIRED by A4:S2:C1 to respect the common law rights of the People. The right of marriage is among those P&I. Those States are engaged in illegal activity by suppressing such a right.

[Chuangtzu]

Again, it is well thought out.

Not much, really. You're not plotting the consequences of your argument, with regard to your own faith position, or the contractual legality of your incorporated faith institutions.

Governments should be responsible for honoring the the Privileges and Immunities or privileges or immunities of the People. But they should have very limited power (and the federal none at all, as there is no enumeration of such a power) to require private persons to do the same.

This is purest windmill jousting. As a private person, you can choose to have no interaction whatsoever with a married homosexual couple, and government cannot obligate you to do so. Should your employment obligate interaction, you can seek other employment, since you (as a free and consenting adult) agree to the conditions of your employment, or organize to change them. If your position as a government employee obligates interaction, don't work for the government.

[Droog]

It's not going to happen, because society is simply more complex than it was in the 1850s, or 1790s.

Complex social relationships involving insurance, credit, custody, disbursement of property all require some legal recognition of familial contract.

Since there are no frontiers or borderlands (south of Nome), all American society is in fact highly interconnected, and our contractual obligations underpin not only that interconnectedness, but the legal and economic relationships we establish.Recognition, in my opinion, isn't the real issue. Obviously a contractual agreement between two consenting adults should be recognized and protected. Most people simply do not want government to subsidize what they consider to be deviant behavior. I don't think the government should determine what is and what is not deviant behavior, and I don't think they should subsidize or tax behaviors they encourage or discourage. This is a free society, theoretically.

[Chuangtzu]

The several States are REQUIRED by A4:S2:C1 to respect the common law rights of the People. The right of marriage is among those P&I. Those States are engaged in illegal activity by suppressing such a right.

Thank you for exactly outlining the next process of the gay marriage argument. Much obliged.

As for common law marriages, though - you didn't address a person who resides with another, in a state which has no common law marriage. You shifted your argument to portable recognition, between states.

[Chuangtzu]

Recognition, in my opinion, isn't the real issue. Obviously a contractual agreement between two consenting adults should be recognized and protected. Most people simply do not want government to subsidize what they consider to be deviant behavior. I don't think the government should determine what is and what is not deviant behavior, and I don't think they should subsidize or tax behaviors they encourage or discourage. This is a free society, theoretically.

Government doesn't subsidize marriage. Marriage requires a licensing fee. As do the court proceedings for divorce.

[Rurudyne]

Thank you for exactly outlining the next process of the gay marriage argument. Much obliged.

As for common law marriages, though - you didn't address a person who resides with another, in a state which has no common law marriage. You shifted your argument to portable recognition, between states.
Our rightful common laws do not have a place for same-sex unions.

Such is not a P&I.

As for the changing mores of society, these do not matter for what are our rightful P&I. The terms and intent of our Constitution was to fix these when we became a free nation. This is actually stated in one of the most important decisions to address what are the P&I of the people.

Further proof of this inflexibility is found in the need to utilize the amendment process to affect certain artifacts of our rightful common laws: from the end of slavery to changes in who can vote.

You are simply wrong.

PS: ALL STATES must recognize common law marriage as per A4:S2:C1. Marriage between a man and a woman is one of those P&I.

[7ranz]

oh OK. A FEW libs in a state legislature=legalized gay marriage.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Reading Lib responses about this sad sinful situation I thought the PEOPLE voted for it.:think:

That would never happen (same with abortion) because thy would never pass into law.

The title says 'NH House'. Did you assume the OP was talking about a literal house?

[Chuangtzu]

Our rightful common laws do not have a place for same-sex unions.

Well, thank you for the utterance.

Such is not a P&I.

As for the changing mores of society, these do not matter for what are our rightful P&I. The terms and intent of our Constitution was to fix these when we became a free nation. This is actually stated in one of the most important decisions to address what are the P&I of the people.

Privileges and immunities are not fixed in permanence. What may not be reduced is nonetheless not exempted from expansion. The core of all civil rights arguments, really.

Further proof of this inflexibility is found in the need to utilize the amendment process to affect certain artifacts of our rightful common laws: from the end of slavery to changes in who can vote.

Neglecting, of course, the many legislative measures, and judicial rulings, which precede rare Amendment movements.

You are simply wrong.

About your argument? Not one bit. You just haven't thought it out, with regard to how it applies to your own position.

It's very conservative, with regard to your chosen fixed time frame, and for that I personally applaud its consistency, on that note.

But it's not particularly well developed, in relation to how you would escape its application to your own contractual relationships.

[Deak2112]

If this BS keeps passing then the only thing I can hope for is that they don't force ministers and pastors and priests to marry a gay couple or else face termination. That would really get my blood boiling.

[Beccaria]

Between pole A and pole B, of your logic leap, is a yawning gulf of unconnected argument points you never even tried to make.

In the seventies, people said the same thing about the pseudo non-sequitur between recognizing gays as "normal" and gay marriage.

And the gay man responsible for getting the APA to normalize homosexuality (motivated by political pressure, not science, btw) is calling for bestiality to be recognized as well (I at least give the man credit for being honest about his position and the direction it goes).

[Droog]

Government doesn't subsidize marriage. Marriage requires a licensing fee. As do the court proceedings for divorce.Which is pretty much what I'm against. Consenting adults shouldn't need government's permission to enter or exit ANY contractual agreement.

[Beccaria]

If this BS keeps passing then the only thing I can hope for is that they don't force ministers and pastors and priests to marry a gay couple or else face termination. That would really get my blood boiling.

I've already brought up before that when it becomes nationalized (and sadly it will be) Christians will be forced to recognize the marriages as legit. Christian business owners will be sued by homosexual practicioners for not recognizing their "marriage" as real for the purpose of benefits.

And people on this very site have talked out of both sides of their mouths on it. I've read "Oh it won't affect you at all" and then they'll turn around and say "Tough crud" to the scenario I posted above.

You watch. It will happen. We who are Christians had better learn that America is not the Christian nation it used to be, and that the wolves of persecution are being weaned by their godless mothers as we speak in preparation to go on the offensive with us.

Remember though: we've read the book and we win :D

[Rurudyne]

rivileges and immunities are not fixed in permanence. What may not be reduced is nonetheless not exempted from expansion. The core of all civil rights arguments, really.
You are confusing "privileges or immunities" (to use the relevant language of the 14th Amendment) with "Privileges and Immunities".

Civil rights derived from common law are not dependent on the government or any legislation for their existence and they cannot be reduced to nothingness. This is why we have the term "inalienable rights".

What you are referring to is civil rights established under administrative laws — a different basis for laws — in which civil rights may be created, altered or negated through ordinary political processes.

The United States became a free and independent nation in no small part to remain under the "free System of English Laws" and to thereby avoid administrative law which was described as both "Arbitrary government" and "absolute rule".

You may protest that common laws are arbitrary; however, it does no good to only stand on a form of laws that is expressly and wantonly arbitrary instead.

If you do not understand that there are different basis for laws and that the sort you enjoin are factually laws which Americans have the right to not live under then it is no small wonder that you have got this issue so very wrong.

[Beccaria]

Which is pretty much what I'm against. Consenting adults shouldn't need government's permission to enter or exit ANY contractual agreement.

And the point that marriage is an institution of the church, established by God, and not the state, means that the state has no authority in this matter.

BTW, Droog, don't you find it as ironic as I do that those who want "government out of marriage" are accomplishing the exact opposite of their words?

[Chuangtzu]

Which is pretty much what I'm against. Consenting adults shouldn't need government's permission to enter or exit ANY contractual agreement.

It isn't about permission, though. The state cannot deny the marriage contract (unless you're gay, mentally deficient or someone else's dependent). It's just a fee, in the same way that filing fees pay for divorce proceedings.

[Chuangtzu]

You are confusing "privileges or immunities" (to use the relevant language of the 14th Amendment) with "Privileges and Immunities".

Civil rights derived from common law are not dependent on the government or any legislation for their existence and they cannot be reduced to nothingness. This is why we have the term "inalienable rights".

What you are referring to is civil rights established under administrative laws — a different basis for laws — in which civil rights may be created, altered or negated through ordinary political processes.

The United States became a free and independent nation in no small part to remain under the "free System of English Laws" and to thereby avoid administrative law which was described as both "Arbitrary government" and "absolute rule".

You may protest that common laws are arbitrary; however, it does no good to only stand on a form of laws that is expressly and wantonly arbitrary instead.

If you do not understand that there are different basis for laws and that the sort you enjoin are factually laws which Americans have the right to not live under then it is no small wonder that you have got this issue so very wrong.

Your entire argument depends on a legerdemain that I, among others, have caught. Slight of hand is not "stand up."

This is a simple "equality under the law" issue. Contract denied on the basis of gender. Removing that discriminatory bias does not obligate you to accept the marriage of any other person on the planet, unless you voluntarily and willingly undertake employment which obligates you, as the conditions of work, to interact with gay couples.

[Rurudyne]

No slight of hand at all.

"Equality under the law" does not inherently relate to behaviors or preferences.

People do not have rights because of the way they feel. Laws and the basis for laws do not magically transform simply because of shifts in society or the changing a calendar. If they did that would truly be arbitrary and all law would be unfounded ... a vain preening miscarriage of the moment.

Further, by fixing our Common Laws in that point in time the Framers were averting even what was arbitrary about them. It is part of why we do not call our jurist "Lord" because they do not have lawful power to alter our fundamental laws anymore. That Power is only reserved to the people in the amendment process in this country.

In addition to this, it has been made very clear (see Corfield v Coryell) that P&I (as opposed to politically sourced "poi") DO NOT automatically include any extraordinary privilege or immunity that a State may spuriously recognize. They are confined to "these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign."

There has never been a privilege for same sex couples to marry under these laws. There has always been a Privilege for men and women to marry.

Here is where your argument fails: I am NOT a State actor. The ONLY lawful power the federal government has to respect civil rights ONLY affects State actors. I can disparage whomever I may please and our federal government has no lawful power to say one word about it.

Further, I cannot be made to respect any spurious claim to either privilege or immunity simply because people in another State may have deemed it proper.

Simply put: I am a person and not a law. What I do, or what personal prohibitions I enjoin against other persons, do not affect how they stand before federal or State laws. I do not have to make room for them by denying myself anything that I have a fundamental, common law P&I right for.

[-American-]

Consistency? Quite the opposite. It is filled with contradictions and archaic moral values. I bet you especially like the section where holding women as slaves and raping them is approved of?
Also if you've ever eaten shellfish in your life, it is considered an abomination in "gods eyes"

I'd like to see some proof that the Bible is the written word of God without you pointing to other passages in the Bible itself.

Then I'm sure you'll be posting those "contradictions", "archaic moral values", and verses in which the Bible "approves" of holding women as slaves and raping them? I'm also sure you know plenty about the Old Testament Law and the New Testament Law, context etc?

You want proof, there is something called the internet. There are plenty of really good sites that explain in detail the arguments you put forth and answers to your question.

Here is just two I found...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/

It covers the typical skeptics arguments, from "contradictions" to slavery etc. You can even contact the site owner and he'll reply.

http://www.doxa.ws/

Lot's of decent arguments.