SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, August 25, 2008 13:24
VIEWED: 10943
PAGE 15 of 15
What does Obama believe ? I guess we now know what he personally believes. What does he think the federal government should do in support of his personal belief ? Nothing.
Sounds fair to me.
***************************************************************
Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
More generally - what I don't get is how the government - at any level - can decide who churches can and can't marry. Isn't it up to the doctrines of the respective churches ?
***************************************************************
legal disclaimer: Except in cases of coercion, underage participant(s), polygamy (stupid law, that), or close relatives.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There was a time when "white areas"... like immigrant Irish neighborhoods... were dangerous, and the people who lived in them were considered trash.
It's more about poverty than anything.
---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Usually when you speak of "evil whitey", especially in the historic sense, you mean the British, the Germans, or some other Europeans...
Spain is part of Europe. You can look at a map and see it right there.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
As a half-blood European Spaniard (My father's family came over from Castille about a century ago), I can verify that European Spaniards are considered Caucasian.
This has caused some amusement in my family, as my wife is black, resulting in our daughter having a complexion and hair texture easily mistaken for Latina, which, combined with a Spanish last name, causes a great many people to assume that she's Chicana, or Puerto Rican, or any number of other possible ethnicities. She recently returned from a vacation in Belize, where she was more than once taken for a native -- until her North American accent gave her away.
Now, on to the main topic of this thread. First, I think Senator Obama spoke the simple truth about both his personal feelings on the issue, and the relationship of those feelings with constitutional law (which is to say, not much). Personally, while I don't agree with him 100%, I find his attitudes perfectly reasonable, and politically acceptable.
Let me elaborate, by way of offering a definition.
Marriage is two things.
One: It is a religious ceremony signifying the spiritual union of individuals.
Two: It is a civil contract spelling out certain domestic and property rights and responsibilities between individuals.
Due to the separation of church and state in the U.S., the government should not be involved in the first part of the equation. Due to the same separation, religious institutions should not be involved in the second half. Period.
Unfortunately, due to historic accident, the two halves have been conflated -- religious strictures against who can and cannot enter into a state of matrimony have been legislated into the laws that govern the civil contractual end, and those strictures have become so ingrained into our cultural default programs that many find it difficult to accept any variations.
Putting it simply, it should be the right of any religious institution or spiritual system to define marriage as they like it. If they want to limit it to one man/one woman relationships (like mainstream Christianity), that's their right. (and despite the misapprehension of a poster above, no law can force a religion to perform a marriage against their beliefs).
By the same token, if a faith wants to expand the parameters to allow polygamy, polyandry, group bondings, or other variations (such as Wicca, and other neo-pagan movements do), that's fine too.
But -- again, by the same token -- no religion should be allowed to legislate their beliefs into common law. I feel the government's only legitimate interest should be in enforcing the civil contract -- and that should be available to anyone. No church can, or should be, able tell me who I can or cannot enter into a civil contract with.
The obvious, if counter-intuitive answer, as I see it, is to take the government out of the marriage business! As far as I'm concerned, the government's only legitimate function is on the civil level. Just as the government issues birth certificates, but doesn't perform baptisms, all marriages should be considered civil unions under the law, and the term "marriage" should be reserved for the spiritual ceremony only.
So, if your church wants to say no marriage is legitimate except between one man and one woman, fine. If you also want to stipulate that it doesn't count unless it takes place on a rainy Tuesday under a full moon with all participants dancing a conga while wearing pink-polka-dot high-heel sneakers, go for it. Your religion, your choice. Just leave my civil union out of it.
As for the argument that same-gender bondings open a slippery slope, well that same argument made marri
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
www.rense.com
BREAKING NEWS:
Lawsuit Filed Today in PA to stop Obama running for president!
Foreign-born citizens of Kenya are not eligible!
Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
http://larrysinclair0926.com/2522.html?entryId=f7ec29e1601d8ad0e1e2a01
474d2affa
Plaintiff attorney is US prosecutor Philip Berg, who sued Bush under the RICO Act for perping the 9/11 Massacres:
http://911forthetruth.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, Piratenews. Still giving paranoid schizophrenia a bad name, I see.
"They're coming to take me away, ha ha! They're coming to take me away, ho ho! To the happy home, with trees and flowers and chirping birds, and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats, and they're coming to take me away, ha ha!" -- Napoleon XIV
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulfenstar wrote:
Quote:
"My belief, my core not-so- bigoted-as-you-would-like-to-think belief, is that marriage is still, and always will be, a religious institution."
I brought this up the last time this debate raged:
From "The Scottish Case That Led to Hardwicke's Marriage Act" by LEAH LENEMAN http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/17.1/leneman.html
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, a quick review of the marriage law of England and Scotland at the time (1753) sets the case in context. The only thing necessary for a legal marriage was the free consent of both parties, as long as they were of age (twelve for girls, fourteen for boys), were not within the forbidden degrees of kinship, and were free of any other marriage. Neither the consent of parents nor the presence of witnesses were required. A marriage could be established by verbal de praesenti, that is, the statement of consent by both parties, or by verba de futuro, a promise of marriage in the future, followed by sexual intercourse. Because such things happened in private, various types of evidence came to be accepted in disputed marriage cases, such as letters in which the man wrote, or referred, to the woman as his wife, "habit and repute" (that is, the couple cohabited and were considered by their neighbors and relations to be husband and wife), and so forth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the law before 1753 in England and Scotland Marriage was a civil matter not a religious one. It was brought into the church as a practical matter to avoid disputes over inheritance and legitimacy.
I also did a fair bit of reading about ancient marriage traditions in other cultures and from my recollection many of them were business like rather than religious with the payment of a bride price or similar exchange of goods and/or money and/or fealty.
So my understanding remains the same. Marriage was not always a religious matter, at least, not in Scotland and England.
I also said that I would be genuinely interested if anyone had any evidence to contradict this. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that one afternoon’s research makes me an expert, so, please, to any and all historians out there, is this source accurate or am I barking up the wrong tree?
If the above is correct, then your argument that religious institutions do not allow gay marriage, therefore a union between two persons of the same sex cannot be a marriage falls down. In England and Scotland at least Religion came late to the party.
In fairness, I think your argument that same sex unions should not be called marriages would be better supported by an argument based on historic rather than religious precedent. In my admittedly brief exploration of the subject I could only find one reference to legally recognised same sex marriage. From memory it was in ancient China and I have a feeling it was on a Gay support website, so, if you want to shout “BIAS!” I can’t stop you.
My personal opinion remains the same; I still find it ridiculous that my completely godless registry office ceremony is considered a marriage by both the law and the Church of England when a similar ceremony between two people of the same sex is not. But, I have to accept that just because I feel that way I cannot instantly make Church, State and every individual agree with me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again, (I feel like I say this anytime one of these discussions comes up), marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.
Civil Unions are NOT a religious institution.
The gay party (or partAy) and its supporters made a fatal error in pushing for it to be called/thought of as, marriage. IF they had pushed for a CIVIL UNION (thereby allowing for all rights to be bestowed) they MIGHT have gotten it.
As it is, if a gay couple speaks about their "marriage", I always laugh. Its no more a marriage than if some redneck yokel married his favorite dog, or if some spoiled lib married his mother.
I, by far, am not religious. Don't get me wrong. But I fail to see how following their tenents makes them any more "bigoted" than the ulta-libs who push THEIR beliefs and views on folks.
I'm fine with Civil Unions, should you want to choose to be that way. But calling it a marriage, and expecting people to see it as such, is foolish and the worst kind of hypocrisy.
Gays want to prtoect their "civil rights". Fine, Im all for it. JUST DO NOT IMPINGE ON SOMEONES ELSES RIGHTS WHEN DOING SO.
Well the bible says that I have to "submit" to my husband and that said husband can have many wives. Progress has negated the former and law has made the latter illegal - so why can't my gay son "marry" whomever he pleases? I don't see that it is your business or anyone else's.
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
To follow your lead Frem,
Africa, minding it's own business when WHITE muthaf***ers decided to take slaves & rape & pillage & spread new diseases decimating chunks of the continent...it was WHITE muthaf***ers that wiped out millions of Native North, South & Central Americans...*
* yes, I check the 'White' box, but I'm aware of what some of my ancestors were all about in setting up present day inequities, so pardon me if I seem somewhat less than willing to point a finger at those still feeling the ripple effect of such historical abuse.
That said, those that use it as an excuse for violence ( Rap killa songs) have my sincere contempt.
I'm pissed when I have to check the "White" box. If HR wants to know the color of my skin, they can take their worthless overpaid asses down to my office and find out for themselves.
As for Africa, blacks are no different than whites. Man has been enslaving man without regard to color all the time. The only reason you're sweating that shit now is because Jessie and his ilk have been pushing that agenda for years now.
If we didn't bring them over here we wouldn't have a Dream Team or a Redeem Team, the latter of which are all millionaires today I might add. They also wouldn't be getting a free ride on my dime today and be driving around in Ghetto Cruisers they buy with drug money when they can barely support the house they're living in today.
I'm just saying it like it is. My family was poor. There were no slave owners. I refuse to join your self-pity party here.
Or theirs, for that matter. I know plenty of black people who have really made a name for themselves, and many who haven't but are somehow much more content and stress free than I am on a day-to-day basis. Hell, one guy I worked with looked to be about 27 years old and he was almost 40. I never seen him without a smile on his face. When he got sent to prison for a 5 year stint for intent to distribute cocaine, the judge yelled at him for smiling when the sentence came down. He just smiled and said "what am I supposed to do? Get angry? You've already made up your mind."
If only I could live in the moment like that.
I don't feel sorry for anyone in this country, cept of course, those who are dumb enough to not see that they are willingly trading their freedom for a false sense of security...
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What does Obama believe ? I guess we now know what he personally believes. What does he think the federal government should do in support of his personal belief ? Nothing.
Sounds fair to me.
***************************************************************
Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.
We know about as much about what Obama really believes as we do what Bush really believes. For all we know they both sacrafice goats while partaking in "Eyes Wide Shut" rituals. These people are the scum of the earth and you can only truly know the character of a man by what he does when he knows no one is watching.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME