<p>Back to the original question. I’m an atheist, who’d like the phrase removed, but it doesn’t kill me for it to be there. I just omit that part when I say the pledge</p>
<p>Strike God from the pledge? You should start practicing your Arabic now because with thoughts like this then the terrorists win.</p>
<p>"Yes… you DO need a slip of paper to be considered married. You need a slip of paper for a legal agreement. "</p>
<p>Only for the GOVERNMENT to recognize it. People don’t ask you for a slip of paper at a party to prove you’re married. So you can’t be devoted your entire life to another person unless you have a license? People marry because they love eachother and want a life together, not for the government to recognize it. </p>
<p>“This contradicts the first sentence of this paragraph that says it’s a legal agreement. Legal agreements are recognized by a “government agency”.”</p>
<p>Oral contracts? Common law marriage? There are plenty of agreements that are not written. </p>
<p>“First off- marriage isn’t a natural right at all. And there are historical societies where gay marriage is legal. Plus, for a long time, interracial marriage wasn’t legal. But that didn’t stop the courts from allowing it.”</p>
<p>I said our history, I believe. Meaning America. The vast majority of cultures do not allow gay marriage. I believe homosexuality was historically met with oppression and execution, not acceptance. Like I said, read the opinion in Lawrence v texas and other cases involving “gay rights.” The courts won’t consider them a suspect class, extend them minority status, or give them marriage rights. Interracial marriage was no longer banned because of Civil Rights legislation, not court cases. The courts enforced laws banning discrimination in public and private sectors based on race, meaning agencies were forced to recognize interracial marriage. It was not a “right” created by the courts. The courts are very hesitent to create new rights. I would bet that if gay marriage is recognized, it will be done through legislation, not court cases. Civil rights were the creation of legislation, not cases. The courts didn’t grant civil rights until after 1964, and used the commerce clause to justify it. </p>
<p>Maybe I’m a progressive, but I think you need a marriage license to be married- the act of being married does change whether you have a license or not, the license is not just for government bureaucrats.</p>
<p>I want to be able to have joint life/health insurance and such with my spouse. I want to be able to have spousal benefits for my spouse from my job/the government/etc. It should not matter what genitalia my spouse has.</p>
<p>Let’s see…you really just want benefits? That is quite progressive. Maybe instead of attacking the government you should be going to individual agencies asking for revision of current policies. From my experience, if you tell the nurses you’re family, they let you in. If this is about wanting tax credits and discounted insurance, I think that’s a bit shallow. No one is saying you can’t move in with the person you love, have sex with them, conduct yourself as their spouse. Where in the constitution does it say marriage is a right? </p>
<p>Only recognizing tradtional marriage is not denying gays life. It’s not denying liberty- they have the freedom to enter into whatever consensual sexual relationships they want to. I personally don’t give a **** who gets married to whom, as long as it’s voluntary. I just don’t think gay marriage is a natural right. The courts aren’t going to all of a sudden overule cases from as recent as 03 and say gay marriage is a natural right. Heck, sodomy isn’t considered a natural right. Like I said, I don’t care either way. But nothing is preventing gays from being together or anything. There aren’t laws attacking gays. They have equal rights under the law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is blatantly false. But I am done now.</p>
<p>"This is blatantly false. But I am done now. "</p>
<p>Really? Last I checked Lawrence won. Can you give any support for that statement? Is there any instance in which the courts said “oh, x is gay, he has no civil liberties?” I hate when people make such ridiculous statements without any backing. Yes, inequaities occur, but that doesn’t mean the entire system is rigged against minority groups. </p>
<p>What law states that gays don’t have equal rights? What court case ruled that gays aren’t protected by the constitution? Wait. There aren’t any.</p>
<p>Gay marriage doesn’t exist, which in my opinion seems a blatant violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Legislation like DOMA, as well as various state laws, denies gays equal rights to heterosexual couples - marriage (and marriage specifically) is of the utmost legal and social importance in our society today. </p>
<p>Of course, If you are going to casually dismiss gays who want to be able to see their loved ones in a hospital, I doubt there is anything I can say to get through to you.</p>
<p>"If you are going to casually dismiss gays who want to be able to see their loved ones in a hospital, I doubt there is anything I can say to get through to you.
Tappmann is online now "</p>
<p>Haha, playing the whole intolerant card I see. Did I ever say gays shouldn’t be allowed to visit loved ones? No. You just want to make me look heartless. Instead of sticking to the facts. Classic liberal debate techniques. Great way to switch the debate about facts to emotions. </p>
<p>The fourteenth amendment applies to the states. DOMA is a federal law. As I recall, gay marriage is legal in some states. How is marriage a right? Does legal recognition give any more meaning to marriage? Gays being able to carry spouses on their health insurance isn’t a right. Gays getting additional tax breaks for being married isn’t a right. They are benefits and entitlements. DOMA only means states aren’t forced to recognize gay marriage. It doesn’t deny any rights. </p>
<p>I don’t see why not granting gay couples additional tax benefits qualifies as oppression. Like I’ve said before, I have no problem with legalizing gay marriage. I just don’t think it’s a right rooted in our constitution or traditions. Neither do the courts.</p>
<p>I know that this has somehow turned into an argument about gay marriage, but I just wanted to comment on the bit about the US being founded as a Christian nation.</p>
<p>We are not now, nor will ever be (probably) a Christian nation. However, we were founded as one.</p>
<p>Eleven of the first thirteen states required faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible as a qualification for holding public office.</p>
<p>James Madison- “Father of the Constitution”- We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future … upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.</p>
<p>1841 Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America):</p>
<p>In the United States of America the sovereign authority is religious there is no other country in the world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America.</p>
<p>1891 The U.S. Supreme Court restates that America is a Christian Nation.</p>
<p>Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation we find everywhere a clear definition of the same truth this is a Christian nation. (Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, 143 US 457, 36 L ed 226, Justice Brewer)</p>
<p>
Surely a joke… surely… right? Yeah, let’s ignore the fact that the extremist Muslims WANT a religious state, and that “God” in the pledge could just as easily refer to the Muslim God as the Christian God (oh wait, even if it WERE the Christian God, it still would be the Muslim God, too, as it is THE SAME GOD. All the Abrahamic religions share the same God - Yahweh is Hebrew, Allah is Arabic, God is English, Deus is Latin, Dia is Irish, etc). So no, unless there are radical atheists bombing the US to get this removed, removing “God” from the pledge would not be a victory for any terrorist group.</p>
<p>^I can’t believe you dignified that with a response lol.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You misattributed that quote, and you may want to look at more of that statement: [Talk</a> To Action | WHEREAS, the Christian Nationalists are at it again…](<a href=“| Reclaiming Citizenship, History, and Faith”>| WHEREAS, the Christian Nationalists are at it again...)</p>
<p>I find it humorous when people get offended by that, and I’m someone who isn’t even that religious or anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By “Anglo Saxon ideals”, I assume you mean things like separation of church and state, human rights, and democracy.</p>
<p>Those are just derivatives of Enlightenment (French and humanist/atheist) and Classical (Greek and pagan) ideals.</p>
<p>So let’s give credit where credit is due and say that we’re a Franco-Greco Atheistic-Pagan Nation. A bunch of Anglo-Saxon Deists just happened to act as the middlemen.</p>
<p>Tiff only 9 states currently allow common law marriages. Only 5 states “grandfathered” in correct common law marriages when they took this out of their laws/statues/books whatever.</p>
<p>[Common</a> Law Marriage](<a href=“Legislative News, Studies and Analysis | National Conference of State Legislatures”>http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265)</p>
<p>
“Anglo-Saxon” would be “English”, and England (especially in 1776) hardly stood for the separation of church and state, human rights, or democracy. So I wouldn’t call those Anglo-Saxon ideals. Therefore, I agree with you about them being Enlightenment ideals. Also, how many founders were Deists? I don’t think it’s accurate to call them all Deists (as it is not accurate to call them all Christians).</p>
<p>Tiff, I suggest you educate yourself on gay rights and the struggles the LGBT community has had to face. I reccommend Good As You and reading over the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Especially the liveblogging of the case back in January. It’s a tragedy that so few people have actually taken the time to read it and educate themselves.</p>
<p>tl;dr: The Yes on 8 side has no leg to stand on, their only two “Expert Witnesses” actually made the case for OUR side more than theirs. That’s how appallingly bad they were (not that I’m complaining about appallingly bad bigots).</p>
<p>^Itach. Don’t bother. She’s set that marriage is not a right and there’s nothing we can do about that. Unfortunately, people like this will always exist :/</p>
<p>^Yeah… true. I’m just one of those… gay guys that can’t understand (even though I <i>get</i> it) how people can hold such monsterous beliefs about the LGBT community. Yet I’ve seen far, far, far worse and I’m one of the lucky ones. On another site just last week some very uncouth person (who takes umbridge with my being a Psychologist-in-training too) had the grapes to suggest I should consider myself lucky to live in a country where “my kind” are allowed out of the closet and not killed on sight. </p>
<p>I get it, but I can’t… get it, if that makes sense? All I know is it’s…infuriating. You want to… shake them but you can’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you actually arguing that the privileges or immunities clause only applies to the states and not the federal government? You should do some more reading on constitutional law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you clearly don’t understand what you’re you’re trying to discuss. You’re talking about Section 2. Read Section 3 of DOMA - it specifically states that the federal government is to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Granted this section was just struck down a few weeks ago, but there will almost certainly be appeals.</p>
<p>On the original topic, I agree with the poster who said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh trust me I understand. I’m not straight and grew up with liberal, yet anti-gay marriage parents in a Catholic school. (Luckily, I’ve since made them see the error of their ways).</p>