I am conservative, but i oppose state governed marriage altogether. what i don't get is how liberal people can argue that a plaque with the 10 commandments in a courthouse is unconstitutional, but state sanctioned marriage, whether it be hetero or homosexual is constitutional? marriage is by definition a religious union between a man and a woman, so what happened to the seperation of church and state? this can't be a new idea, i just don't see how state sanctioned marriage of any kind is constitutional.

 

Marriage once wasn't "sanctioned" at all except as a way to form a union between two families for money or property and to create and heir to keep the bloodlines going. Up until the late 1500's the church wasn't even involved until the the Council of Trent decreed that a priest and two witnesses were needed to validate the marriage. So if we were to go back to the original meaning of marriage, a homosexual union would be frowned upon because a child could not be produced from a mixing of the two families, thereby weakening the family line and their hold on any property the have.

 

You're asking why that "ten commandments" monument in a courthouse is unconstitutional? Because it represents government endorsement of a specific religion. It is a slap in the face to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Wiccans, and other groups whose religions do not observe the bible or decalogue. The second commandment is blantantly and overtly hostile toward other religions, because it basically states that you're right, we're wrong, and your religion and your god are "superior" to all other gods and religions, and that all religions are NOT equal. Therefore, putting up a "ten commandents" is an endorsement of bigotry, hatred, and prejudice towards many millions of Americans who happen to be of other religions. And keep in mind that interracial marriage was once illegal too. But we "altered" the definiton of marriage when we legalized it, because it was the right thing to do.
Now don't get me wrong, Blackmagik, you're entitled to your opinions on religion. If you believe Christianity is the "only" truth out there, then that's your right. But as US citizens, we're all equal under the constitution regardless of our race, religion, gender, or anything else that makes us who we are. "Freedom of Religion" in the first amendment means ANY religion .

 

They're "bad people" because Dweezel's family used to live on these guys' block and they did some assorted shady dealings, but I don't know how much he wants me to get into it.

 

yeah, basically they were two faced ****s that tried to ruin a member of my family's life.

 

wow.. selective reading owns you i guess..

i said, why is it so bad to have the 10 commandments posted on a courthouse when marriage, a traditionally religious joining between man and woman, has been governed by the state for centuries. both should fall under the seperation of church and state, however both do not. try reading the post before you reply next time.

 

but people who are unreligious can get married? you don't have to have priest marry you, and the marriage doesn't have to be under "the eyes of god" in a church, nor does god have to be anywhere in the service. but you're still saying that all marriage is a religious union?

so even though i'm straight, i can't get married according to your definition.

 

I didn't think I was going to be happy reading any of the responses to a gay marriage topic thread but this one surprised me. Good job! An intelligent, unbiased response is > *.*

EDIT - Not intended to make anyone else's responses sound foolish. Just rare to get unbiased facts on a hot topic like this.

 

Oh whatever, this thread wasn't supposed to be yet another discussion of gay marriage, just that these two dudes who are portrayed as crusaders are in fact a couple of assholes.

 

perhaps i didn't state myself clearly enough. what i meant is that in general, for the majority of those that marry, it is a union between man and woman under the eyes of god. so with that in mind, how is it constitutional at all for a governing body to regulate marriage in the first place?