Yep...just like the bailouts and stimulus packages.What would have been surprising is if they would have passed it.
In EVERY STATE where the citizens have voted this type of measure has been turned down. In the case of New York the citizens didn't vote but rather the Senators cast their votes. They simply voted the will of the people.
Well that may not be an accurate portrayal. It could just as easily be argued that the supporters of gay marriage want the government to redefine marriage by injecting government into the traditional family. So who is really looking for bigger, more intrusive government?The same folks that "claim" to want less government and more freedom, want to tell other folks who they can and can't marry?....Makes no sense.
Well that may not be an accurate portrayal. It could just as easily be argued that the supporters of gay marriage want the government to redefine marriage by injecting government into the traditional family. So who is really looking for bigger, more intrusive government?
Well that may not be an accurate portrayal. It could just as easily be argued that the supporters of gay marriage want the government to redefine marriage by injecting government into the traditional family. So who is really looking for bigger, more intrusive government?
Heh...why did I just jump into a gay marriage thread.....these always seem to go so well.
Traditional in a religious sense.
How about traditional as in traditional. What other type of marriage has there been until this current generation in any society or culture but between a man and a woman...
I'm sorry. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed so maybe I missed it. Is one on the list an example of an official marriage not involving a man and a woman?
What he said !Good post groovatron...A church should not use its influence on the state as to what it can and cannot recognize as a union. If the church does not want to recognize it as being a true union, then that is their freedom to do so, and I would fully support them in that decision. Also, if a church wants to recognize same sex marriage, that's all fine and dandy with me as well. I have recently changed my views on this matter, as my libertarian ideals are becoming stronger than my conservative views. You cannot believe in freedom and justice for all if you will not allow certain segments of society the same rights as you because of your religious or personal upbringing. I personally do not agree with same sex relationship practices, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist, nor should I have any control over them because of what I believe.
Did you read the first one? Besides, you are missing the whole point. But if I must, here is a Wiki entry.....
Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[32] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[33]
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[citation needed] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[34]
The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[35] While there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships were tolerated in ancient Rome, the frequency and nature of same-sex unions during that period is unclear.[36] In 342 AD, Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[37]
Except that this appears to be almost entirely made of whole cloth, based on the writing of a John Boswell, which is very effectively questioned in another Wiki entry here. It appears that Mr. Boswell takes an ancient ceremony of fraternity (kind of like joining Delta Chi or making "blood brothers") and broadly translating it into a modern civil union without a thread of support from others who researched his claims. Co'mon, if you're arguing for honesty, physician, heal thyself.
That's fine. I definitely don't believe all Wiki entries. But when someone asks you to give them examples, you gotta bring it. Especially when they don't like the paragraphs you've already written. We can argue about the legitamacy all day. But then we would totally be missing the point. And if the whole physician healing thyself is a reference to me, then shame shame. I cited my source and never once claimed it to be absolute truth. What's so dishonest about that?...........................But anyway, how bout we get off this chasing around historic opinions. Do you want to respond to the other 1000 words I typed? Do you have responses to my actual accusations, or are we just gonna chase our tales all night?
What would have been surprising is if they would have passed it.
In EVERY STATE where the citizens have voted this type of measure has been turned down. In the case of New York the citizens didn't vote but rather the Senators cast their votes. They simply voted the will of the people.