Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-08-2009, 01:14 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Vermont legislature overrides Gov veto to allow for Gay Marriage.

This state was the first to have civil unions and not they are the first to make it law in this fashion.


Vermont legalizes same-sex 'marriage' with veto override
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 4/7/2009 10:35:00 AM

Updated 4/7/2009 2:15 PM



The way has been paved for Vermont homosexuals to legally "marry" -- another indication, says one Christian activist, of the current political climate in Washington, DC.

Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize homosexual marriage -- and the first to do so with a legislature's vote. The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing homosexuals to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override. The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel, poses this question: "How long can a nation founded on the laws of nature and nature's God expect to find favor in his eyes when we continue to mock God?"

Vermont's decision, he believes, sends waves throughout the country -- including the nation's capitol. "I believe that the purveyors of evil around the country feel emboldened right now with the current political climate in Washington, DC," Barber states, what with both the Oval Office and Congress inhabited by "people who are bent on thumbing their nose at God."

Barber believes states without constitutional amendments to protect marriage need to speed the process. In addition, he warns that if the Obama administration is successful in overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, even conservative states may have to recognize homosexual marriages legal in other jurisdictions.


Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council closely monitored the vote. "It's particularly disappointing that there were at least three legislators who betrayed the institution of marriage by switching their vote," Sprigg laments. "Fifty-two had voted against this bill last week. That would have been enough to sustain the veto -- but only 49 voted against it [on Tuesday]." He suggests that Vermont voters may want to keep those individuals in mind when they come up for re-election.

Sprigg also points out this is the first time that any state has ever enacted same-sex marriage through any kind of democratic process. "All of the other states that currently have same-sex marriage -- Massachusetts, Connecticut, and soon to be Iowa -- have had it imposed upon them through judicial activism by their state supreme court," he observes.

Sprigg also notes that the Washington, DC, council has voted to recognize homosexual marriages in states where it is legal.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-08-2009, 02:12 AM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Who is it going to hurt?

For those who don't like them, don't attend them.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-08-2009, 02:24 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard
For those who don't like them, don't attend them.
It is not the event it is the ramification of the bond. Already several churches have been sued and lost because they refused to hold gay marriages. Also Christians business owners would be forced to accept a lifestyle choice that goes against their beliefs which violates their constitutional rights, while marriage is not a right. SO your lack of the facts has no doubt lead to your short sighted point of view.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-08-2009, 02:44 AM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F
It is not the event it is the ramification of the bond. Already several churches have been sued and lost because they refused to hold gay marriages. Also Christians business owners would be forced to accept a lifestyle choice that goes against their beliefs which violates their constitutional rights, while marriage is not a right. SO your lack of the facts has no doubt lead to your short sighted point of view.
How will their marriage hurt you personally? Is it because you don't like it? If so, don't go. No one is saying you have to accept it, just like no one tells me that I have to believe in a God.

Christian business owners don't have to accept it either. They can choose not to accept it too. How do you figure it violates Christians constitutional rights if gays get married?

Can you point to some news of the lawsuits against these churches please. I did a cursory search and didn't find any in the U.S.A.

I believe that your shortsighted view is due to religious fanaticism.

Again, how will it hurt you personally?

EDIT:

Do you think discrimination is a good thing?

Last edited by Buzzard; 04-08-2009 at 02:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:24 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard
How will their marriage hurt you personally? Is it because you don't like it? If so, don't go. No one is saying you have to accept it, just like no one tells me that I have to believe in a God.I already explained how it affects me. Reread my post. It infringes on my right to religion by forcing me to accept via force of law. Since marriage i more then civil union it changes the laws. As a minister I could be sued for refusing to marry gays. It has already happened. Get your head out of the sand.

Christian business owners don't have to accept it either. They can choose not to accept it too. How do you figure it violates Christians constitutional rights if gays get married?Again I already answered this. A business owner would be forced to give insurance and such to gays even tho it violates their principals. This too has already happened in several states

Can you point to some news of the lawsuits against these churches please. I did a cursory search and didn't find any in the U.S.A.I will see if I cna get you a direct link. It is old (2008)so it may be archived

I believe that your shortsighted view is due to religious fanaticism. Read the constitution Buzzard Marriage is not a right. You must have learned civics from a football coach.

Again, how will it hurt you personally?Again I already showed you how.

EDIT:

Do you think discrimination is a good thing? No way. What constitutional rights are they being discriminated against? You are falling for propaganda and unfounded paranoia.
Answers above in red.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:30 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

What is the difference between a marriage and a civil union? I'm talking from a purely secular, legal standpoint. Why were civil unions simply not good enough for the homosexuals?

Do they believe that being allowed to marry is going to somehow make them more accepted by the average American? Honestly, I believe it's going to have the exact opposite effect.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-08-2009, 04:21 AM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F
I already explained how it affects me. Reread my post. It infringes on my right to religion by forcing me to accept via force of law. Since marriage i more then civil union it changes the laws. As a minister I could be sued for refusing to marry gays. It has already happened. Get your head out of the sand.
Exactly what section and article of the CONUS are you saying is violated if gays get married? Seriously, I would like to hear the specific parts and have a chance at a rebuttal, and why you think that. It doesn't infringe on your right to religion, as you still get to practice your religion, and it doesn't force you to accept it. As a minister, you could also be sued for refusing a service to an interracial couple. Do you have a problem with that too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F
A business owner would be forced to give insurance and such to gays even tho it violates their principals. This too has already happened in several states
As a business owner you could also be sued if you refused to give insurance to an employee who is a single gay person if you discriminated against that person based on sexual orientation too, so I don't really think that you have a case on this part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F
What constitutional rights are they being discriminated against?
"The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason. The absence of any reasonable relationship between, on the one hand, an absolute disqualification of same-sex couples who wish to enter into civil marriage and, on the other, protection of public health, safety, or general welfare, suggests that the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual. "The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." Limiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution...."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...Goodridge.html

Granted, this is from
Quote:
Hillary GOODRIDGE & others vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another.
SJC-08860
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
, but I think that it also will or should hold ground in every other state.

In addition, it violates the provision in the DOI of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Quote:
The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appeared in the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[3], which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. Chief Justice Warren wrote: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

The phrase was also used in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)[4], which is seen as the seminal case interpreting the "liberty" interest of the Due Process clause of the fourteenth amendment as guaranteeing, among other things, a right to the pursuit of happiness, and, consequently, a right to privacy.
From the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_l...t_of_happiness If you find the wikipedia source to be incorrect, please let me know.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:27 AM
Miss Foxy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard
For those who don't like them, don't attend them.
Im sorry but I don't want my children to think that is an acceptable way of life. Marriage is very sacred and should be kept as intended between man and wife.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:49 AM
Vizion's Avatar
Vizion Vizion is offline
Hughes fanboy
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melissa Villaseņor
Im sorry but I don't want my children to think that is an acceptable way of life. Marriage is very sacred and should be kept as intended between man and wife.
Good point. Guys like Buzzard keep asking us "how does it hurt you?" Easy to say when you favor such a thing.

However, keeping our children morally upright before God is our top priority. Gay marriage threatens the traditional family structure...so yea, that's why it hurts us personally.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-08-2009, 04:40 AM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizion
Good point. Guys like Buzzard keep asking us "how does it hurt you?" Easy to say when you favor such a thing.

However, keeping our children morally upright before God is our top priority. Gay marriage threatens the traditional family structure...so yea, that's why it hurts us personally.
How does it hurt you physically? financially? Will you lose money? your job? your husband/wife? How does it effect your own marriage? Are you not secure enough in your own marriage that you would let a homosexual marriage half way across the country interfere with your own? You can still encourage your children in the "traditional" ways. Gay marriage will only threaten it if you let it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.