1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Crist supports federal override of state marriage laws

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by Dan82, Aug 30, 2010.

  1. Dan82

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago IL
    http://www.gaypolitics.com/2010/08/29/crist-supports-federal-override-of-state-marriage-laws/

     
  2. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    marriage is a legal institution, not a sacred one.

    Religion did not create marriage, expcially christanity, which came thousands of years after the notion of marriage began to form.

    Next they are going to say tha funerals are the creation of religion. Then, it will be baseball... BASEBALL!!!
     
  3. Martin

    Board Member Admin Team Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,266
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Meh, he's wasting his breath.

    If it couldn't pass in 2004 then I can't ever see it passing now. Too much has changed since then.
     
  4. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    besides, technically, such a ammendment is not constitutional. The arguements brought forward by anti-equality factions are overwhelmingly religious in nature, and the attempts at none religious arguements are easially disproven by basic factual reality.

    The constitution does not give the goverment the right to interfere in the private personal sex lives of consenting adults (silly, because like heterosexual couples, not every gay couple is in a sexual relationship). Thge supreme court has already made it clear that it is unconstitutional to deny the rights of gay people to be in relationships.

    seeing as the constitution does not allow goverment to mandate a religion or religious viewpoint, and the fact that the attempted non-religious, secular attacks on equality are not valid, then crist is simply trying to pander to the far right.
     
  5. Revan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,850
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Canada
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    When I first saw the title...I actually thought it said Christ supports federal override :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

    ---------- Post added 31st Aug 2010 at 12:36 AM ----------

    Also do these people not get it? Federal-wide same-sex marriage is coming, GET USE TO IT!
     
  6. You'll regret having said this after you've been forced out of the closet, which is going to be just a few years in the future. Enjoy your time as a self-loathing hypocrite, asshole.
     
  7. paco

    paco Guest

    i think it's great how "it's just how i feel" is a valid argument for a constitutional amendment. i hear that statement all the time, and i don't understand why it flies.
     
  8. Alex19

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,157
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York
    ikr? this guy is just plain stupid. id be like, "well i feel like being a good human being and giving people rights" (if i were the guy he was talking to) and i dont think republicans, even, would go for this. its total government control- something that i hear republicans are strongly against
     
  9. seadog

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Washington
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    A few people
    I fully agree with Emberstone. A conservative reading of the Constitution forbids the state or federal government from impeding the choice of who one chooses to love. That said, the "state" can certainly create classes and names for citizens holding different ranks, so to speak; however, the "state" i.e. government entity, may not discriminate in the rights afforded to the various ranks. Its all tied up in the rights of privacy, equal protection, and due process. IMHO there is no need for a state or federal STATUTE. The US Constitution already covers it. Hopefully soon the Supreme Court Justices will so rule and we can move on to discrimination against bald individuals.
     
  10. IsItSo

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York-ish
    Gender:
    Male
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Neither a new idea nor a good one.
     
  11. Johnnieguy

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    I support a federal override of state marriage laws-ALL of the DISCRIMINATORY ones that is!