Reply With Quote
Why should government "handle" marriage at all?
Why can't states decide this ? Oh wait, they already do. Marriage should be handled by the states. If gambling, unions, and medicinal weed are handled by the states then marriage should be as well. If you don't like that, tough . If you want to live in a state where two dudes can get married, move there and be happy and shut the up about it.
Why does Uncle Sam have to tell every state "you're gonna do it this way or we're gonna make you do it this way"? What right does the federal government have to tell Wyoming how it should run marriage laws and regulations?
Abortion should be handled on the state level too. And Ron Paul was right. Planned Parenthood should get nothing.
Why should government "handle" marriage at all?
Why do people like you get so worked up over federal law vs state law
States have rights and that should never be forgotten, brah.
Just think of how much money America would save if money that was going to special interests was used to help poor people, the homeless, and veterans.
Democrats and liberals are hypocrites in the sense that they love to pick and choose what states can and can't do.
Not worth getting worked up over, imo.
shup and put on that purty dress I brung ya.
Squeeeeeeal like a pig
Why should states pick and choose who can marry whom?
It's more about definitions. Gay people and couples should probably get the same that straight married couples get but they shouldn't be given anything more than that. I am talking about definitions and defining things. Local and state governments should be allowed to "define" marriage. The federal government has no right to make that call. I know I'm quoting South Park but if a state wants to call two guys being together "butt buddies" then fine.
At the end of the day, I truely don't care either way. If the federal government defines marriage in whatever they want, I don't give a . I'm not going to lose sleep over two guys having kinky gay sex or getting married so they can pretend to be like straight couples which is weird because they're gay, not straight. If you're gay, be gay. If you're straight, be straight. Shut the up about it and do whatever. Gay couples can get married or pretend to be like straight couples but most people will always see a bride and a groom at a wedding. A wiener and a bun make a hot dog. You can't have a hot dog with two buns or two wieners. That's just simple math and food knowledge.
And stop with this whole gay rights , you don't get special rights because you're gay. You get rights because you're a person just like everyone else. Being a minority doesn't make you special or better or worse than those in the majority.
Why should any government be allowed to define what marriage is?
List exactly what rights LGBT are demanding that is beyond what non-LGBT have.
They want to make a big deal about their gayness when the majority of people basically have the at ude of "you're gay, so what". Most people don't care. Being gay does not make an individual special or unique. You are not a victim either. Gay people are gay. So what, who the cares? Shut up about it and move on.
Crap Dumper, I will tell you why the government shouldn't be involved in defining marriage. Prop. 8 in California is a fine example of that. The voters of California clearly voted that they weren't fans of Prop. 8.
However, cry baby gay people couldn't be mature about it and accept defeat and basically ed to get an activist judge to over rule what voters had already decided. Gay marriage enthusiasts in California shouldn't have been bashing religion, Christians, and Prop. 8 supporters. They should have been bashing themselves for not showing up and making sure that voters would vote their way. They have no one to blame but themselves. Prop. 8 haters should have accepted defeat and tried again to get another vote on the matter and try to be better at convincing voters to side with them on the issue.
If you are gay and want to get married and marriage means to much to you, then why not just be a grown ass mature adult and move to a state where it's allowed? Instead of ing about it, why not just move?
So let me get this straight-- conservatives are mad because the federal government is not going to defend any longer the cons utionality of a federal law that conflicts with state law in the case of marriage- something that is licensed by the states?
A true conservative would not support the federal government in any role when it comes to defining and regulating marriage.
Conservatives are suppose to be about small and limited government and saving money by spending less. It's not about gay people or abortion.
You didn't read the question correctly.
Why should any government define marriage?
The Money Pit
Why should any government define marriage between Tom Hanks and S y Long?
repellent even to consider, better left unmentioned
"majority of people basically have the at ude of "you're gay, so what""
but it's the hating "Christian" Christ-loving hating fringe that's denying LGBT equal rights.
Being gay does DOES make one special as a target of anti-gay hate and persecution, makes you a victim.
"voters of California clearly voted that they weren't fans of Prop. 8"
Gay-hating Mormon cultists from out-of-state bought that election.
Gay Dallas Judge Won't Perform Marriages
Judge Tonya Parker says she will not perform marriages in court
By Greg Janda | Friday, Feb 24, 2012 |
A Dallas County judge says she does not officiate marriage ceremonies because gay couples in Texas are not allowed to wed.
Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker says she won't perform marriage ceremonies until gay couples can wed.
During a Feb. 21 meeting, Parker told the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas that while she has the power to perform legal marriage ceremonies in her court, she will not.
“I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,” Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of, ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it."
"I do not perform [marriages] because it is not an equal application of the law. Period," Parker told the Dallas Voice.
Though she chooses not to perform the ceremonies, Parker said she passes marriage ceremonies on to other judges so they can be completed.
Update: Judge Parker released the following statement to the media on Thursday afternoon.
I faithfully and fully perform all of my duties as the Presiding Judge of the 116th Civil District Court, where it is my honor to serve the citizens of Dallas County and the parties who have matters before the Court.
Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court. It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code. I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it. Because it is not part of our duties, some Judges even charge a fee to perform the ceremonies.
I do not, and would never, impede any person’s right to get married. In fact, when people wander into my courtroom, usually while I am presiding over other matters, I direct them to the Judges in the courthouse who do perform marriage ceremonies. If my deputy is not busy, I will even ask him to escort or help these individuals find another Judge who performs the ceremonies. I do this because I believe in the right of people to marry and pursue happiness.
During the meeting, Parker also mentioned other steps she takes to promote equality for gay, lesbian, and transgender issues, including adding the word "partner" to the list of people the jury is not supposed to communicate about the ongoing case with and admonishing an attorney who used the terms "child molester" and " sexual" interchangeably.
Parker was elected in 2010 and is the first lesbian to be elected as a county judge in Dallas.
Good for her, IMHO.
Since DOJ is a department within the executive branch of the government, I'd say: since he was elected. Questioning that is like asking why the CEO of a corporation can dictate to the Human Resources department of that corporation.
As for the decision itself, I think it's a bad one. I support the view that DOMA is rather silly, creates substantial full faith and credit problems (and just wishes away that cons utional obligation by fiat), and is slowly but surely becoming archaic, none of those things supports (in my view) this sort of approach to the law.
If Obama doesn't want to enforce DOMA, I'd argue that the better course for doing that is proposing legislation that would do away with DOMA.
Republican Lawmakers Appeal DOMA Ruling To Ninth Circuit
A group of congressional Republicans defending the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will appeal this week’s District Court ruling against the law to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Earlier this week, District Judge Jeffrey White, a George W. Bush appointee, found DOMA violated the Cons ution’s equal protection clause because it denied benefits to gay and lesbian couples. Some justices on the Ninth Circuit have previously ruled that the law is uncons utional, although those cases did not establish a binding precedent. The House of Representatives, led by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), is defending DOMA in court after the Obama administration said it no longer would.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/0...ninth-circuit/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
