Apparently the issue for many dems, including Carter, party trumps everything no matter what.....no matter what.

Given that same sex marriage is about to be redefined as a right, based on equal protection under the law, would someone please explain to us why the same arguments will not continue on to define polygamy and polyamory as a "right" as well?

In other words, it seems to be likely the LGBTQ movement will soon morph into the LGBTQPP movement.

This is a serious question ... so hopefully someone can provide a serious answer.

Originally Posted by Guest

Given that same sex marriage is about to be redefined as a right, based on equal protection under the law, would someone please explain to us why the same arguments will not continue on to define polygamy and polyamory as a "right" as well?

In other words, it seems to be likely the LGBTQ movement will soon morph into the LGBTQPP movement.

This is a serious question ... so hopefully someone can provide a serious answer.

This issue was discussed on Meet the Press yesterday, and a very clear answer was given by Attorney David Boies. To paraphrase his answer in a succinct way, polygamy or polyamory are choices made by people. People are not born polygamist the same as being born homosexual.

Watch the entire interview on NBC.com

Originally Posted by Guest

I believe a Christian minister should have the right to not marry other faiths, but if two of the same sex profess to being Christian, then the minister is obligated to perform the ceremony. Let God judge. Too many people of faith misinterpret the meaning of their own faith.

Sorry, but that is not a logical conclusion of this issue. Those of us who believe in separation of church and state understand that such a separation requires that the state not tell the church how to perform its religious functions. The state is required to follow the law and equally make available a civil marriage to same sex as they do to non-same sex couples. The state absolutely cannot tell a church what it is "obliged" to do in matters of faith. It the couple wishes a church sanctioned marriage it will have to find a clergyperson or denomination whose interpretation of their faith agrees with the couple.

When you call people names, it reflects badly on you. I am pretty sure you have never met Mike Huckabee. Why do you feel you need to try to belittle someone you don't even know? You are acting like a troll. If you are unfamiliar with the term you can google it.

Originally Posted by Guest

Pearls of stupidity from the mouth of an idiot. Who does Huckabee think believes this garbage? What is his audience?

"If the courts rule that people have a civil right not only to be a homosexual but a civil right to have a homosexual marriage, then a homosexual couple coming to a pastor who believes in biblical marriage who says ‘I can’t perform that wedding’ will now be breaking the law,” he said. “It’s not just saying, ‘I’m sorry you have a preference.’ No, you will be breaking the law subject to civil for sure and possible criminal penalties for violating the law…. If you do practice biblical convictions and you carry them out and you do what you’ve been led by the spirit of God to do, your behavior will be criminal."

You would think (a word perhaps not in Huckabee's skill set) that someone who might have actually performed a few marriages for straight couples in his life would understand that as a "God tells me what to do" person he could refuse to marry any straight couple who came before him in his Church of Huckabee. He could refuse to marry Muslims and Jews and Catholics and Mormons and anyone he wanted to refuse to marry for any reason whatsoever and they had absolutely no civil or legal recourse to force Huckabee to say any magical words he didn't want to say in his Church of Huckabee. And no police are going to arrest him for the crime of not saying his words in his Church of Huckabee. But he cannot seem to understand that were the couple say two men or say two women or say two people he couldn't figure out what they were without checking their tingly parts himself, he could still refuse to marry them no differently than he can refuse now to perform his super special Huckabee approved Church of Huckabee wedding for any damn reason he wants. The man is an idiot.

I don't really care one way of the other but we should at least be honest about this. In my opinion, this is really all about access to spousal Social Security Benefits. You don't need the government to endorse your relationship except if you want access to spousal social security benefits.

Originally Posted by Guest

Prop 8 Attorneys: Marriage Equality Coming Soon - NBC News


For those that missed today's "Meet the Press", Attorneys David Boies and Ted Olsen said they believe the votes are there for the justices to rule in favor of same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

These are the same attorneys who argued successfully to overturn California's Proposition 8.

This case will be argued in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Originally Posted by Guest

I don't really care one way of the other but we should at least be honest about this. In my opinion, this is really all about access to spousal Social Security Benefits. You don't need the government to endorse your relationship except if you want access to spousal social security benefits.

Social Security benefits are just one of many benefits that same-sex couples are denied if they live in one of the 14 states that don't recognize their marriages.

The case that Attorneys David Boise and Ted Olsen argued in front of the Supreme Court, commonly known as the Windsor case, centered around estate taxes.

Yes that Ted Olsen is the same Ted Olsen that represented George W Bush in the Florida recount case in front of the Supreme Court.

Yes, it always comes down to money and what the Government can give you.

Originally Posted by Guest

Social Security benefits are just one of many benefits that same-sex couples are denied if they live in one of the 14 states that don't recognize their marriages.

The case that Attorneys David Boise and Ted Olsen argued in front of the Supreme Court, commonly known as the Windsor case, centered around estate taxes.

Yes that Ted Olsen is the same Ted Olsen that represented George W Bush in the Florida recount case in front of the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, it always comes down to money and what the Government can give you.

How about same-sex spouses being allowed to visit their dying spouses in the hospital, or being allowed to make end-of-life decisions for their spouses when necessary? Where does the government pay-out come in those cases?

Originally Posted by Guest

What part of separation of church and state are you failing to grasp. Clergy are not pharmacists, Churches are not drug stores. The former are non-secular the latter are secular. What laws apply to pharmacies do not apply to churches. A cleric is required by his church to serve his flock, not to provide services to any other people, just his people. A cleric is ordained by his church, the government gets no say in what training, continuing education or even morality the cleric must have (see Catholic church and pedophilia as an example), A pharmacist is licensed by the state with a specific set of regulations on training, morality, and ongoing education. Can you see the difference? The only organization that could force a cleric to officiate a same sex marriage is the hierarchy of that church if they decree that it is requirement for their clergy.

I do understand the difference but it has never stopped the government from trying to back door an issue or offer incentives. If 9 men and women can decide on a national level the redefinition of marriage then I believe they can conveniently redfine many things.

I could give a hoot about people's private lives but this issue of same-sex marriage goes beyond benefits because benefits can be obtained with redefining marriage. No this is about a need to validate a lifestyle to socialize it and then to normalize it and unfortunately with the assistance of liberals and Hollywood now-a-days homosexuals are winning their makeover campaign . There are already increase movements in boy-man relationships and incest and despite experts opinion on pologamy the fact remains that attorneys are quite gifted in inventing rights that never existed or omission of rights that never existed.

There was a case in San Francisco some years back concerning a trolley car that let loose. a woman found only to have a contusion her her thigh made claim that the accident caused her to become quite promiscuous ;albeit she testified that she was quite sexual active in college. She won a very handsome reward.

the moral of the story is never say never

You can specify who can make end of life decisions for you. You can visit non-spouses in the hospital. Neither of these requires Government sanctioned marriages. In the future, you may want to be sure of your facts before posting. It is still all about the money.

Originally Posted by Guest

How about same-sex spouses being allowed to visit their dying spouses in the hospital, or being allowed to make end-of-life decisions for their spouses when necessary? Where does the government pay-out come in those cases?

Originally Posted by Guest

I do understand the difference but it has never stopped the government from trying to back door an issue or offer incentives. If 9 men and women can decide on a national level the redefinition of marriage then I believe they can conveniently redfine many things.

I could give a hoot about people's private lives but this issue of same-sex marriage goes beyond benefits because benefits can be obtained with redefining marriage. No this is about a need to validate a lifestyle to socialize it and then to normalize it and unfortunately with the assistance of liberals and Hollywood now-a-days homosexuals are winning their makeover campaign .

There are already increase movements in boy-man relationships and incest and despite experts opinion on pologamy the fact remains that attorneys are quite gifted in inventing rights that never existed or omission of rights that never existed.

It's clear the Courts will "discover" the right to homosexual marriage.

Your analysis, and predictions about what's next are unfortunately likely correct. The man boy thing is particularly reprehensible. Come to think of it, I wonder if any wacko liberals on this board would like to defend that lifestyle?

Originally Posted by Guest

You can specify who can make end of life decisions for you. You can visit non-spouses in the hospital. Neither of these requires Government sanctioned marriages. In the future, you may want to be sure of your facts before posting. It is still all about the money.

Thanks to President Obama's 2010 directive. Thanks Obama


Obama extends hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners of gays

Is this the same Obama who was on the record for not supporting gay marriages but then was in favor because if could get some more votes? I will modify my statement: it is not all about the money, it is all about the money and getting more votes. Just be honest about the motivations.

Originally Posted by Guest

Thanks to President Obama's 2010 directive. Thanks Obama


Obama extends hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners of gays

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, it always comes down to money and what the Government can give you.

Imagine all those same-sex married people trying to collect the money they have paid in to social security and medicare all those years. No respectful tea party member would ever be involved in these socialist programs.

Originally Posted by Guest

Is this the same Obama who was on the record for not supporting gay marriages but then was in favor because if could get some more votes? I will modify my statement: it is not all about the money, it is all about the money and getting more votes. Just be honest about the motivations.

It wasn't until after the election of 2012 that the president came out in support of same-sex marriage, so whatever the motivations were, they worked. He won by a landslide.