Federal Judge rules Utah's ban on gay marrage illegal. Internet about to explode

[El_Machinae]

edit: What should my tradition do now to redefine the correct union of man and woman? Do you care about that?

Get married in a church. Under God. I fully support your right to do that, and would be upset if people tried to take that right away.

 

[JollyRoger]

edit: What should my tradition do now to redefine the correct union of man and woman? Do you care about that?

Church wedding. No need for secular-enhancement of your tradition's bigotry.

 

[Leonel]

I will never, ever, under any circumstance, allow myself to be in such a position that I will recognize a civil union between 2 men or 2 women as "marriage", which is "matrimony", which is "under God".

I don't care what law you trick people to make. I will never observe it.

You don't have to, that's the entire point! No one is forcing you to go to a gay wedding where you'll have to eat the hor d'oeuvres at the reception! You can believe that a civil union between two men or two women isn't marriage all you want, don't try to enforce your believes on those that do by preventing them from doing their own little marriage shindig.

 

[Arwon]

I will never, ever, under any circumstance, allow myself to be in such a position that I will recognize a civil union between 2 men or 2 women as "marriage", which is "matrimony", which is "under God".

I don't care what law you trick people to make. I will never observe it.

Luckily you stamping your tiny feet about things that don't even slightly affect you isn't the basis for how a secular state makes laws and policy.

 

[Adjuvant]

Luckily you stamping your tiny feet about things that don't even slightly affect you isn't the basis for how a secular state makes laws and policy.

What a coincidence. I feel the same way about people who obsessively report my posts here.

 

[IglooDame]

Then under law all marriages can be civil unions, but not all civil unions are marriages. I'd be just fine with that, too.

Yes, that's the pity, isn't it, that a few years back there wasn't a critical mass of people that were willing to get government out of marriage and apply it as civil unions universally, leaving "marriage" to religious organizations.

 

[Adjuvant]

Yes. After so many faithful have done so much from the beginning to now to contribute to what this country is, it's unfortunate we're somehow becoming the enemy.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I do think that by fighting tooth and nail, the goal posts ended up getting shifted from what would previously have been a compromise position. And now, the 'separate but equal' doesn't seem like a fair compromise after a decade of "what's next, marrying your toaster???"

 

[Zelig]

I will never, ever, under any circumstance, allow myself to be in such a position that I will recognize a civil union between 2 men or 2 women as "marriage", which is "matrimony", which is "under God".

I don't care what law you trick people to make. I will never observe it.

I will never, ever, under any circumstance, allow myself to be in such a position that I will recognize a civil union between 2 homophobes as "marriage", which is "matrimony", which is "under god".

I don't care what law you trick people to make. I will never observe it.

 

[Adjuvant]

Yeah, I do think that by fighting tooth and nail, the goal posts ended up getting shifted from what would previously have been a compromise position. And now, the 'separate but equal' doesn't seem like a fair compromise after a decade of "what's next, marrying your toaster???"

Someone tried to marry the Torah once, a long time ago, in another country, somewhere...

I tried to find a reference to it, but couldn't. You just reminded me of it.

 

[Adjuvant]

I will never, ever, under any circumstance, allow myself to be in such a position that I will recognize a civil union between 2 homophobes as "marriage", which is "matrimony", which is "under god".

I don't care what law you trick people to make. I will never observe it.

Well, at least you're starting to get how silly it is to me. We're making progress. We're really communicating. I want to hold your hand.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, I'll recognise the 'under God' marriages as long as they're legal. Then I'll give them the same legal consideration that other marriages get.

 

[bhsup]

This is really good cheese, Shepard. I put some in through the filters. Is it organic?

There's some kind of herb in the cheese that I can't quite place. Is it sage or basil?

It's really rare to get herbed dextro cheeses. The turians almost never bother.

...wait, this is dextro cheese, right. Keelah, did I forget to scan the cheese? This is why I don't drink!

I giggled. Excessively.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

BTW, nobody disputes that the idea of gay marriage is far, far from what the Founding Fathers would consider acceptable right? In many ways America would seem monstrous to them.

One of those ways, of course, is our treatment of non-whites. But another is divorce. Yet another is gay marriage.

 

[Evie]

Why would that matter?

The founding father certainly deserve respect, but one should not lose sight of the fact that they were products of their time.

Even putting that aside, while they certainly had very intelligent and learned men among them, we have access not only to the same knowledge they did, but also the knowledge the founding fathers left behind,a nd the knowledge an extra two centuries of learned men produced since. And we certainly have very intelligent and learned men of our own.

 

[Zelig]

I bet Alexander the Great would enjoy modern-day America.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Oda Nobunaga- For some it might not, but to claim to be a supporter of the traditions of the Founding Fathers and support gay marriage, racial equality, or even an income tax is hypocrisy.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I guess you can claim that all these pleasantries are a logical developments of their concepts, the consistent application of principles which they championed, but erred in not applying them consistently.

I don't really care either way about such claims.

 

[Evie]

Oda Nobunaga- For some it might not, but to claim to be a supporter of the traditions of the Founding Fathers and support gay marriage, racial equality, or even an income tax is hypocrisy.

Bovine manure.

First off, upholding the TRADITIONS of the founding father is something precisely zero defenders of gay marriage argue for. I'm not sure anybody actually argue for preserving their *traditions*. Heck, I'm not even sure what "preserving their traditions" is supposed to *mean*.

Upholding the PRINCIPLES on which america is founded (ie, the founding father's principles) is what matters, now that's an argument many have made. And there is zero bloody hypocrisy in it, because

First, not everything the founding fathers believed was a principle of theirs; and not every principle the founding fathers believed were made into principles of the new nation they founded. It's that last set of principles that matter.

Second, it's the nature of principles that our understanding of them grow and change with our understanding of the circumstances the principles are being applied to. Respecting the principles of the Founding FAthers doesn't mean following their understanding of every situation. The FFs had a certain understanding of marriage, homosexuality, slavery, etc. We, two hundred years later, have a different understanding of the same. So, because we understand the world differently than they did, we apply the principles they left us differently than they did.

Trying to follow the understanding the founding fathers had of their principles...doesn't work. After all, the founding fathers would have understood transportation to refer to sailships and horse-powered stuff. They would have understood speech (as in free speech) to refer to talking to each other and the written word.

Third, even many of the founding fathers themselves were perfectly aware that they were compromising on some of their very own principles to make the nation possible. The contradictions didn't escape them. (See: slavery). They knew what they were setting up was not a perfect nation. So by striving to implement their principles where they couldn't is hardly disrespect for them.

In conclusion: no hypocrisy.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Oda Nobunaga- For some it might not, but to claim to be a supporter of the traditions of the Founding Fathers and support gay marriage, racial equality, or even an income tax is hypocrisy.

To support living in the 21st century is unthinkable to a supporter of the Traditions of the Founding Fathers. 18th Century? Sure. 19th century? It'll do. 20th Century? Nope. 21st Century is right out.