Homosexual Marriage ban. Constitutional violation?

[Grenartia]

to answer your question, murray dynasty, yes, it would be completely unconstitutional to ban homosexuality or gay marrage. thisis because the 1st amenment protects freedom of speech, expression, and religion. because it protects expression, and homosexuality can be considered expression, they cannot make it illegal. because it protects freedom of religion, that means not everyone is christian, including myself. so, while the christian bible says it is wrong, not everyone's sacred text says it is wrong, so making it illegal can be considered against freedom of religion, and therefore unconstitutional. finally, the constitution also decrees the separation of church and state, so banning it can be considered a connection between church and state, and, once more, unconstitutional. I hope this explaination makes you a wiser and more knowledgable person, which, I am sure you already are.

p.s. telegram me if youu win your lawsuit!

Indeed, though whether the Bible says homosexuality is wrong is up for debate.

[Slarvainian]

to answer your question, murray dynasty, yes, it would be completely unconstitutional to ban homosexuality or gay marrage. thisis because the 1st amenment protects freedom of speech, expression, and religion. because it protects expression, and homosexuality can be considered expression, they cannot make it illegal. because it protects freedom of religion, that means not everyone is christian, including myself. so, while the christian bible says it is wrong, not everyone's sacred text says it is wrong, so making it illegal can be considered against freedom of religion, and therefore unconstitutional. finally, the constitution also decrees the separation of church and state, so banning it can be considered a connection between church and state, and, once more, unconstitutional. I hope this explaination makes you a wiser and more knowledgable person, which, I am sure you already are.

p.s. telegram me if youu win your lawsuit!

Indeed, though whether the Bible says homosexuality is wrong is up for debate.

Different bibles say different things. Some doesn’t say homosexuality is wrong and says marriage is between two people. I find it funny how in some of the different versions say it is wrong the passage is near the chapter where it talks about how god loves you for who you are.

[Shofercia]

So this has been on my mind for a very long time, I am a supporter of the homosexual community, and many of my family members, and friends are homosexual in nature. So through legal studies as a kid during my high school and middle school years, I have been researching, and investigating. I wanted to bring it to nation states to some of the better debate groups on the internet.

So my case is a simple stature of the following;

In the bill of rights (the first ten amendments to the constitution), it states there should be freedom of religion, and all that babble, we all know it and mostly understand it. Though, everytime I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible christianty bias in the United States.

Therefore in my arguement, is it illegal for any state, or even the United States government based on behalf of their constitution by their fore-fathers to make Homosexual Marriage illegal, when Marriage is legalized and administered by the state?

Is it a crime for the government to keep this issue illegal?

My point is that the constution even states a freedom of religion, and etc, etc, etc. So when you base your opinion, and even in many court cases it has been proven that the separation of church and state is prominant, on this issue, why is that still the case? My home state, Maine is putting this issue on the ballot, and with a large elderly community and anti-homosexual community in the state, this bill will likely pass by a short margine, or fail in a tie.

My final question is, can someone gain support and take legal action in a law suit against a state for violation of constitutional rights?

The funny thing is that gays would already have the right to marry, if they spent more time trying to compromise with moderate Christians, and less time trying to go "boohoo, some people calling themselves Christians hate us, down with Christianity!"

I'm a Christian, help me pass a bill that prevents kids in the US from starving and starts a worldwide anti-starvation project, and I'll support Gay Marriage. Deal?

[Paradine]

I too am a christian and I say it is illegal to ban same sex marriage.I have two cousins that are gay and they have my support.Furthermore I for one find myself attracted to Transgender females and a few gay men.So I do not believe same sex marriage is legal to ban and I say who am I or any of us are for that matter to say who someone can marry who or not.

[Enadail]

The funny thing is that gays would already have the right to marry, if they spent more time trying to compromise with moderate Christians, and less time trying to go "boohoo, some people calling themselves Christians hate us, down with Christianity!"

I'm a Christian, help me pass a bill that prevents kids in the US from starving and starts a worldwide anti-starvation project, and I'll support Gay Marriage. Deal?

Is that the sort of compromise you're talking about? Who objects to ending hunger? That's not a compromise... that's a common goal...

The only people I see gay-rights advocates not compromising with are the hateful Christians, and you cannot deny that they are by far the most vocal group. So what sort of compromise do you think would bring this to an end? I, neither gay nor Christian, can think of one. The only thing I see them requesting is the legal right to marry... there is no give or take on that point, so I don't see how there can be compromise.

[Desperate Measures]

So this has been on my mind for a very long time, I am a supporter of the homosexual community, and many of my family members, and friends are homosexual in nature. So through legal studies as a kid during my high school and middle school years, I have been researching, and investigating. I wanted to bring it to nation states to some of the better debate groups on the internet.

So my case is a simple stature of the following;

In the bill of rights (the first ten amendments to the constitution), it states there should be freedom of religion, and all that babble, we all know it and mostly understand it. Though, everytime I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible christianty bias in the United States.

Therefore in my arguement, is it illegal for any state, or even the United States government based on behalf of their constitution by their fore-fathers to make Homosexual Marriage illegal, when Marriage is legalized and administered by the state?

Is it a crime for the government to keep this issue illegal?

My point is that the constution even states a freedom of religion, and etc, etc, etc. So when you base your opinion, and even in many court cases it has been proven that the separation of church and state is prominant, on this issue, why is that still the case? My home state, Maine is putting this issue on the ballot, and with a large elderly community and anti-homosexual community in the state, this bill will likely pass by a short margine, or fail in a tie.

My final question is, can someone gain support and take legal action in a law suit against a state for violation of constitutional rights?

The funny thing is that gays would already have the right to marry, if they spent more time trying to compromise with moderate Christians, and less time trying to go "boohoo, some people calling themselves Christians hate us, down with Christianity!"

I'm a Christian, help me pass a bill that prevents kids in the US from starving and starts a worldwide anti-starvation project, and I'll support Gay Marriage. Deal?

Starving kids will just have to wait their turn for their marriage rights.

[The Ottoman Imperial Union]

I would state that it is perfectly legal for this to be put up for debate; it is, after all, a fundamental issue on The United States perspective on a key economic and social contract. We did the same thing with slavery, despite the fact that the constitution had laws against "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" and "Unrightful Seizing of Property" (and if one's own life isen't their property, then I don't know what is.). It is not as if I agree with what the Marriage Ban crowd has to say... but by all means, let them say it.

Now, I would say a homosexual marriage ban written into a constitution (as is being voted on in my state.) its a constitutional violation on the basis of sullying the meaning of the term constitution. A constitution is a document designed to lay a framework for how a nation is governed, how that government is formed, and who has a say in that government; it is not designed to do what Legislation can. As marriage is a function handled by the States, however, it is not a constitutional violation for them to make a secular law setting limits on it.

[Ceannairceach]

So this has been on my mind for a very long time, I am a supporter of the homosexual community, and many of my family members, and friends are homosexual in nature. So through legal studies as a kid during my high school and middle school years, I have been researching, and investigating. I wanted to bring it to nation states to some of the better debate groups on the internet.

So my case is a simple stature of the following;

In the bill of rights (the first ten amendments to the constitution), it states there should be freedom of religion, and all that babble, we all know it and mostly understand it. Though, everytime I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible christianty bias in the United States.

Therefore in my arguement, is it illegal for any state, or even the United States government based on behalf of their constitution by their fore-fathers to make Homosexual Marriage illegal, when Marriage is legalized and administered by the state?

Is it a crime for the government to keep this issue illegal?

My point is that the constution even states a freedom of religion, and etc, etc, etc. So when you base your opinion, and even in many court cases it has been proven that the separation of church and state is prominant, on this issue, why is that still the case? My home state, Maine is putting this issue on the ballot, and with a large elderly community and anti-homosexual community in the state, this bill will likely pass by a short margine, or fail in a tie.

My final question is, can someone gain support and take legal action in a law suit against a state for violation of constitutional rights?

The funny thing is that gays would already have the right to marry, if they spent more time trying to compromise with moderate Christians, and less time trying to go "boohoo, some people calling themselves Christians hate us, down with Christianity!"

I'm a Christian, help me pass a bill that prevents kids in the US from starving and starts a worldwide anti-starvation project, and I'll support Gay Marriage. Deal?

I'd like evidence of a majority of gay rights advocates pushing for the downfall of Christianity. In triplicate.

[Galloism]

Majority rule, through a individual vote is a cornerstone in American politics. So technically it does rule.

And Christianity, while does not own the word or the concept of marriage, does own it's own interpretation of marriage which is followed by a majority of Americans.

Both of these points can be easily argued for and against either way.

It takes more than a mere majority to override the Constitution. It takes 2/3rds of Congress and 75% of state legislatures.

Or Chuck Norris.

[Shofercia]

The funny thing is that gays would already have the right to marry, if they spent more time trying to compromise with moderate Christians, and less time trying to go "boohoo, some people calling themselves Christians hate us, down with Christianity!"

I'm a Christian, help me pass a bill that prevents kids in the US from starving and starts a worldwide anti-starvation project, and I'll support Gay Marriage. Deal?

Is that the sort of compromise you're talking about? Who objects to ending hunger? That's not a compromise... that's a common goal...

The only people I see gay-rights advocates not compromising with are the hateful Christians, and you cannot deny that they are by far the most vocal group. So what sort of compromise do you think would bring this to an end? I, neither gay nor Christian, can think of one. The only thing I see them requesting is the legal right to marry... there is no give or take on that point, so I don't see how there can be compromise.

Then go after the hateful ones, not the entire religion.

The funny thing is that gays would already have the right to marry, if they spent more time trying to compromise with moderate Christians, and less time trying to go "boohoo, some people calling themselves Christians hate us, down with Christianity!"

I'm a Christian, help me pass a bill that prevents kids in the US from starving and starts a worldwide anti-starvation project, and I'll support Gay Marriage. Deal?

I'd like evidence of a majority of gay rights advocates pushing for the downfall of Christianity. In triplicate.

I'd like evidence showing that I made that claim.

As for you guys wasting your energy and political capital bashing Christianity, here are some quotes from this thread alone:

Though, everytime I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible christianty bias in the United States.

That pretty much says that it's either Bible or Gay Rights. If you're forcing me to make that choice, I'm going with the Bible. Here's the thing though: religion and politics are different, and if you want for homosexuals and heterosexuals to have the same political, civil and social rights, provided by the state, well - the Bible's not your enemy, and you're a fool to make that your enemy.

Its a start though, and I would tell the homosexual community that, and after about a decade states would just give up and vote it in. It all starts with something along those lines before the community just gives up. If the community could actually come to compromise in ten years we would not even discuss the matters of gay marriage, as a civil union would stand as the same, and eventually (with the declining rates of Christianity), would make it incredibly easy to pass the Gay Marriage legalization bill.

Again, you can say that. And you can certainly present it that way. And you can cheer when a religion takes a hit - that's all legal. Just don't expect me to give a shit about your cause if you're attacking my religion. A smarter way to say it is "with more collegiate education available, there's less homophobia among the general population".

[Grenartia]

Is that the sort of compromise you're talking about? Who objects to ending hunger? That's not a compromise... that's a common goal...

The only people I see gay-rights advocates not compromising with are the hateful Christians, and you cannot deny that they are by far the most vocal group. So what sort of compromise do you think would bring this to an end? I, neither gay nor Christian, can think of one. The only thing I see them requesting is the legal right to marry... there is no give or take on that point, so I don't see how there can be compromise.

Then go after the hateful ones, not the entire religion.

I'd like evidence of a majority of gay rights advocates pushing for the downfall of Christianity. In triplicate.

I'd like evidence showing that I made that claim.

As for you guys wasting your energy and political capital bashing Christianity, here are some quotes from this thread alone:

Though, everytime I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible christianty bias in the United States.

That pretty much says that it's either Bible or Gay Rights. If you're forcing me to make that choice, I'm going with the Bible. Here's the thing though: religion and politics are different, and if you want for homosexuals and heterosexuals to have the same political, civil and social rights, provided by the state, well - the Bible's not your enemy, and you're a fool to make that your enemy.

Its a start though, and I would tell the homosexual community that, and after about a decade states would just give up and vote it in. It all starts with something along those lines before the community just gives up. If the community could actually come to compromise in ten years we would not even discuss the matters of gay marriage, as a civil union would stand as the same, and eventually (with the declining rates of Christianity), would make it incredibly easy to pass the Gay Marriage legalization bill.

Again, you can say that. And you can certainly present it that way. And you can cheer when a religion takes a hit - that's all legal. Just don't expect me to give a shit about your cause if you're attacking my religion. A smarter way to say it is "with more collegiate education available, there's less homophobia among the general population".

As an LGBT Christian, I agree with what you're saying. Attack the people who are using their narrow interpretations of Christianity to justify hatred and bigotry, not Christianity itself.

[Paradine]

Is that the sort of compromise you're talking about? Who objects to ending hunger? That's not a compromise... that's a common goal...

The only people I see gay-rights advocates not compromising with are the hateful Christians, and you cannot deny that they are by far the most vocal group. So what sort of compromise do you think would bring this to an end? I, neither gay nor Christian, can think of one. The only thing I see them requesting is the legal right to marry... there is no give or take on that point, so I don't see how there can be compromise.

Then go after the hateful ones, not the entire religion.

I'd like evidence of a majority of gay rights advocates pushing for the downfall of Christianity. In triplicate.

I'd like evidence showing that I made that claim.

As for you guys wasting your energy and political capital bashing Christianity, here are some quotes from this thread alone:

Though, every time I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible Christianity bias in the United States.

That pretty much says that it's either Bible or Gay Rights. If you're forcing me to make that choice, I'm going with the Bible. Here's the thing though: religion and politics are different, and if you want for homosexuals and heterosexuals to have the same political, civil and social rights, provided by the state, well - the Bible's not your enemy, and you're a fool to make that your enemy.

Its a start though, and I would tell the homosexual community that, and after about a decade states would just give up and vote it in. It all starts with something along those lines before the community just gives up. If the community could actually come to compromise in ten years we would not even discuss the matters of gay marriage, as a civil union would stand as the same, and eventually (with the declining rates of Christianity), would make it incredibly easy to pass the Gay Marriage legalization bill.

Again, you can say that. And you can certainly present it that way. And you can cheer when a religion takes a hit - that's all legal. Just don't expect me to give a shit about your cause if you're attacking my religion. A smarter way to say it is "with more collegiate education available, there's less homophobia among the general population".

I have to say I agree here on this.Our faith should not be attacked just because of those who are christian that are speaking out against the Homosexual community.As I said before I too am Christian and I have two cousins that are gay and they have my support.I also agree that it should not be choice between the bible and homosexuality as this just shows a narrow mindedness again.Just like what is being done to Homosexual community by those certain Christians out there speaking against the homosexuality and the same sex marriage.

It's kinda like the same thing that homosexual marriage should be banned.Which I feel we have no right to do as it should be illegal to ban same sex marriage.

[Tekania]

At the time of the writing of the American Constitution, marriage was administered and sanctioned by the church

This statement of yours is false. The colonial governments were codifying marriage laws long before the drafting of the US Constitution.

[Tekania]

Humans can agree on whatever they wish, but IF you support Judeo-Christian beliefs (or Muslim), then you have to accept that the Laws of Moses - Laws of God - do not support homosexual love.

As a Christian, I will unequivocally state that I do not want the Civil government involved with enforcing or policing religious belief/morality. That's purely an issue between a church and her congregates.

[Enadail]

Is that the sort of compromise you're talking about? Who objects to ending hunger? That's not a compromise... that's a common goal...

The only people I see gay-rights advocates not compromising with are the hateful Christians, and you cannot deny that they are by far the most vocal group. So what sort of compromise do you think would bring this to an end? I, neither gay nor Christian, can think of one. The only thing I see them requesting is the legal right to marry... there is no give or take on that point, so I don't see how there can be compromise.

Then go after the hateful ones, not the entire religion.

And most pro-gay rights advocates aren't making it about the religion; only the most vocal ones. You're judging them the same way they judge christian: by the vocal minority.

Either way, Christianity is being used as a weapon, and the only way to fight back against that is to attack the weapon. But I've rarely ever heard it be about dismantling Christianity, but rather that Christianity has no say in the issue.

I'd like evidence of a majority of gay rights advocates pushing for the downfall of Christianity. In triplicate.

I'd like evidence showing that I made that claim.

Oh, common... your claim was right there in your quote:

The funny thing is that gays would already have the right to marry, if they spent more time trying to compromise with moderate Christians, and less time trying to go "boohoo, some people calling themselves Christians hate us, down with Christianity!"

You said it right there, that gays aren't compromising and instead trying to take down Christianity.

As for you guys wasting your energy and political capital bashing Christianity, here are some quotes from this thread alone:

Though, everytime I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible christianty bias in the United States.

That pretty much says that it's either Bible or Gay Rights. If you're forcing me to make that choice, I'm going with the Bible. Here's the thing though: religion and politics are different, and if you want for homosexuals and heterosexuals to have the same political, civil and social rights, provided by the state, well - the Bible's not your enemy, and you're a fool to make that your enemy.

I definitely don't see it saying Bible or Gay rights, and even if it was, I don't see why you're forced into that choice and can't be the bigger man and go past it to a third choice. You're basically saying that everyone else is forcing you to not give gays rights.

Firstly, that reads as there is a Christian BIAS, the word specifically. In the US, we're a secular state, there should be no Christian bias in laws; you're welcome to do as you like privately, but in the public state, its all about secular reasoning.

And even if it was your so called "one or the other" argument, couldn't you overcome it and say "well, how about instead of that, we do this...?" You're complaining about others putting you in a tight spot, but the bible has plenty of parables about overcoming injustice and showing yourself to be stronger (and more merciful) then your opponents.

Its a start though, and I would tell the homosexual community that, and after about a decade states would just give up and vote it in. It all starts with something along those lines before the community just gives up. If the community could actually come to compromise in ten years we would not even discuss the matters of gay marriage, as a civil union would stand as the same, and eventually (with the declining rates of Christianity), would make it incredibly easy to pass the Gay Marriage legalization bill.

Again, you can say that. And you can certainly present it that way. And you can cheer when a religion takes a hit - that's all legal. Just don't expect me to give a shit about your cause if you're attacking my religion. A smarter way to say it is "with more collegiate education available, there's less homophobia among the general population".

You've quoted one person twice, which shows its not a wide spread problem, but rather contained.

Next, where is he attacking your religion there? Christianity is on the decline... people are steadily becoming less religious every year. All I see in this is persecution complex, that anything negative about Christianity is an attack. But from all you've said, I don't think you're like that. And either way, hes right. Most people who propose compromise simply say "wait it out".

You still haven't mentioned what compromise you want to make. And child hunger vs gay rights is not a compromise, as there's really no argument against the first, so basically you're saying is "give me something first, and we'll get to your issue when we're done with it". Not to mention, the two are not vaguely on the same scale. Child hunger will take immense amounts of money and time, while gay rights are pretty simple to implement. So, where is the compromise?

[Tekania]

No, dear, the church grants marriage; the state grants civil unions.

The states have civil marriage laws.... have for some time..... they inherited them from the colonial governments which in turn got them from England. We can go back quite some time.

[The Pacistien Republic]

I suspect gay marriage will become completely legal in the states after the Supreme Court hears the case agains Prop 8 (if it gets that far)

That sounds like it would be fun to watch

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Heterosexual-only marriage laws, while probably not racist or colonialist in origin (i.e. the authors of these laws probably were not thinking "trololol let's fuck over the red people because they're not like us," as the authors of a number of other laws and treaties undeniably were), are certainly racist in character. They imply or assert a privileged position of marriage as it was constructed in the religious structures brought to North America by white European conquerors, over marriage as it was (and remains) constructed in the religious structures of a number (not all) of the native inhabitants of North America, in which same-sex (though differently-gendered) marriages, though not exactly common, were neither forbidden nor unheard-of.

[Neo Art]

to answer your question, murray dynasty, yes, it would be completely unconstitutional to ban homosexuality or gay marrage. thisis because the 1st amenment protects freedom of speech, expression, and religion. because it protects expression, and homosexuality can be considered expression, they cannot make it illegal.

Aren't you, like, in 9th grade?

[JJ Place]

Humans can agree on whatever they wish, but IF you support Judeo-Christian beliefs (or Muslim), then you have to accept that the Laws of Moses - Laws of God - do not support homosexual love.

God still doesn't exist.

[Divair]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a vital part of the American constitution. If we ban same sex marriage then we are not granting homosexuals the right to pursue happiness.

It's as simple as this.

[Neo Art]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a vital part of the American constitution. If we ban same sex marriage then we are not granting homosexuals the right to pursue happiness.

It's as simple as this.

What? no, no it's not!

[Divair]

It's as simple as this.

What? no, no it's not!

"BUT GOD! MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS! STD'S! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"


I can't wait until Generation Y takes over.

[Ostroeuropa]

The guarantee on the seperation of church and state, and in equality before the law pretty much means they are.

If Bob and Joe are going to get married, the only reason they can't is because Bob is a guy as well as Joe. If Bob were a woman, they could get married. etc

[Raeyh]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a vital part of the American constitution. If we ban same sex marriage then we are not granting homosexuals the right to pursue happiness.

Actually that would be the American Declaration of Independence.

Which isn't a legally binding document.