Today is a sad day in American history

[Charles L. Cotton]

Marriage is both a spiritual status recognized and held sacred by God, and a legal status recognized by the state. Property rights, child custody and support and other matters are determined by the legal status of marriage.

There's no need for so-called domestic partnerships; that's just a euphemism for marriage, just as "a matter of choice" is a euphemism for baby-killing. Anyone can set up a partnership to establish property rights, rights of survivorship, etc. That's been possible since before Texas became a state. The simple truth is people who support same-sex marriage don't merely want "rights," they want society to recognize them as being a married couple just as we do a man and a woman.

Chas.

If you only need to be recognized by a religion then, at least two major US religions affirm gay marriage.
Another one has no problem with polygamous marriage, and its membership is what, one billion people now.

If religion is your argument thats fine, but be careful what you wish for.

Reread what I posted. I never said the institution of marriage exists solely because it meets two elements of 1) being recognized in a religious sense; and 2) is also recognized as legal status. I said it is has both religious status and legal status, neither of which depends upon recognition by the other.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Hey folks, since this is a CHL Forum and this is a politcal thread, can we get back to CHL stuff? Our Governor has called another special session to start Monday and left all gun is issues off the call again.

The death of HB508 affects all of us a whole lot more than what the SCOTUS did today. Lets see what we can do regarding the "will of the people".

The Forum has long since grown beyond merely CHL issues and discussions.

Chas.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Marriage is both a spiritual status recognized and held sacred by God, and a legal status recognized by the state. Property rights, child custody and support and other matters are determined by the legal status of marriage.

There's no need for so-called domestic partnerships; that's just a euphemism for marriage, just as "a matter of choice" is a euphemism for baby-killing. Anyone can set up a partnership to establish property rights, rights of survivorship, etc. That's been possible since before Texas became a state. The simple truth is people who support same-sex marriage don't merely want "rights," they want society to recognize them as being a married couple just as we do a man and a woman.

Chas.

If you only need to be recognized by a religion then, at least two major US religions affirm gay marriage.
Another one has no problem with polygamous marriage, and its membership is what, one billion people now.

If religion is your argument thats fine, but be careful what you wish for.

Reread what I posted. I never said the institution of marriage exists solely because it meets two elements of 1) being recognized in a religious sense; and 2) is also recognized as legal status. I said it is has both religious status and legal status, neither of which depends upon recognition by the other.

Chas.

Then neither is sufficient support.
If the government is going to be involved then it has to meet the fundamental tenants of the Constitution inclusive of the Bill of Rights and all Amendments.
What religion says about it is utterly irrelevant.

I am going to bow out of this discussion as its tangential to CHL and I don't want to get in trouble for my opinions.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. Religious persecution, at some level is people of a particular religious affiliation not granting the same rights as those who are not associated. I agree with you that there is nothing constitutional guaranteeing a separation of church and state, but I believe it is a fundamental principle.

No, they were fleeing King George and they wanted free land and to get rich.

Homosexuality is not a constitutionally protected class, so your attempt to harken back to racial issues fails.

There were no protected classes when the constitution was drafted. I think that fact validates my argument even more. The fact is that as we evolve as a country, the things that need protection change.

There still aren't. Protected classes are unconstitutionally created by federal statutes. Every single protected class in existence today was created by bill that passed Congress (age, race, religion, etc.). No such statute exists for homosexuals, thus there's no basis for the Supreme Court's decision.

I'm an attorney and I know precisely what all citizens rights are in terms of currently available partnerships. Taxation is different in terms of the different marriage deduction for federal income tax purposes, but apparently you forgot about the so-called "marriage penalty" that actually penalized married couples.

No, I didn't forget. If you're an attorney, you're probably well educated and I can't imagine that you believe that same-sex couples have the exact same rights as married couples.

I never said that "they" had the same rights as married couples, nor should they. Heterosexuals who are unmarried do not have the same rights as married couples, at least in the context in which you reference "rights." I pointed out that they can accomplish almost the same goals by the use of contracts, as can heterosexuals.

I don't make "my morality," and this is precisely the problem. When liberals and those supporting them argue that there is no "truth," no "right," and that each person should establish their own morality, then society is doomed. There is one morality, like it or not, accept it or not.

We all make our own morality to some degree. If personal morality was black and white, things would be a lot easier.
To me, this isn't an issue about a moral right.. I don't argue morality here. I argue equality. If I felt that there was civil equality and legal equality, then things would be different on my end.

No we don't, we don't have that right, authority or ability. Some CLAIM to create their own morality as an excuse for doing that which is unacceptable to society. Unfortunately, an ever increasing segment of American society buys your argument that everyone should be able to "do what is right in their own eyes." That's why this country isn't a shadow of what it once was only a few decades ago and why it will likely not survive many more.

I also could not disagree with you more on the issue of what our servicemen fought and died for in so many wars.
Chas.

I think they fought and died so we can have civil disagreements. So we can live in a country that is diversive in terms of belief system. So we can live in a country where the majority class doesn't try and exterminate a minority class, just because they judge themselves to be morally (or genetically) superior... And yea, I'm being dramatic, but in the past this country has a history of discriminating with great prejudice against unprotected minority citizens.

Too bad there isn't a way to ask veterans and active servicemen if their service was/is so each person back home can do whatever is right in their own eyes and thumb their noses at morals that society has accepted until recently. I think you would be disappointed.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Marriage is both a spiritual status recognized and held sacred by God, and a legal status recognized by the state. Property rights, child custody and support and other matters are determined by the legal status of marriage.

There's no need for so-called domestic partnerships; that's just a euphemism for marriage, just as "a matter of choice" is a euphemism for baby-killing. Anyone can set up a partnership to establish property rights, rights of survivorship, etc. That's been possible since before Texas became a state. The simple truth is people who support same-sex marriage don't merely want "rights," they want society to recognize them as being a married couple just as we do a man and a woman.

Chas.

If you only need to be recognized by a religion then, at least two major US religions affirm gay marriage.
Another one has no problem with polygamous marriage, and its membership is what, one billion people now.

If religion is your argument thats fine, but be careful what you wish for.

Reread what I posted. I never said the institution of marriage exists solely because it meets two elements of 1) being recognized in a religious sense; and 2) is also recognized as legal status. I said it is has both religious status and legal status, neither of which depends upon recognition by the other.

Chas.

Then neither is sufficient support.
If the government is going to be involved then it has to meet the fundamental tenants of the Constitution inclusive of the Bill of Rights and all Amendments.
What religion says about it is utterly irrelevant.

I am going to bow out of this discussion as its tangential to CHL and I don't want to get in trouble for my opinions.

If you want on read and post only in threads directly related to CHL, then do so.

The "fundamental tenants of the Constitution . . ." is a grandiose but meaningless phrase. Show me where the Constitution denies citizens, through their elected officials, the right to define the legal status (not religious, that's for the church) of marriage. It doesn't exist. As Baldeagle pointed out, the danger in the Supreme Court's action yesterday lies not specifically with the so-called "gay marriage" issue, but with the extreme expansion of usurped authority in which it engaged.

Chas.

[VMI77]

I am disappointed that this thread has gotten so far off track. If you go back and read my original post, it had nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with the elitist attitude of our Supreme Court Justices thinking that government officials are free to ignore any laws they disagree with. I'd appreciate it if we could get back on topic. This has serious implications to our gun rights. Basically the Court has ruled that government officials are free to impose anything they want on us by fiat and it will get their imprimatur.

They did that long ago. They also did it with Obamacare. I think it more or less comes down to how many activist judges are on the court seeking to advance the collectivist agenda....and there are at least three. Once they become a clear majority, it's all over. I think we all know that if one of the five who voted for gun rights leaves the court while Obama is president, the 2nd Amendment is a dead letter.

[VMI77]

Why must we live in a multicultural environment? What good is that?

I don't see any advantage to it frankly and lots of conflict, tension, unease, violence and worse.

And therein lies the reason: multiculturalism is a tool of the left to destroy the country.

[anygunanywhere]

Why must we live in a multicultural environment? What good is that?

I don't see any advantage to it frankly and lots of conflict, tension, unease, violence and worse.

And therein lies the reason: multiculturalism is a tool of the left to destroy the country.

But...but....what would we do without diversity?

Anygunanywhere

[Charles L. Cotton]

Why must we live in a multicultural environment? What good is that?

I don't see any advantage to it frankly and lots of conflict, tension, unease, violence and worse.

And therein lies the reason: multiculturalism is a tool of the left to destroy the country.

And the goal of the left is not merely multiculturalism, but multiculturalism while destroying Christianity. Christians are demonized, while all other religions are presented as peace-loving people. What a load of crap!

Chas.

[VMI77]

Why must we live in a multicultural environment? What good is that?

I don't see any advantage to it frankly and lots of conflict, tension, unease, violence and worse.

And therein lies the reason: multiculturalism is a tool of the left to destroy the country.

But...but....what would we do without diversity?

Anygunanywhere

Thrive.

[JALLEN]

In Lebanon, Marriage, Divorce and inheritance are Religious issues, handled by recognized religious courts with their own judges.

In those countries following Sharia, EVERYTHING is a religious issue. Not only is there no separation of church and state, it is theoretically impossible, and unimaginable to the Muslim.

[anygunanywhere]

Why must we live in a multicultural environment? What good is that?

I don't see any advantage to it frankly and lots of conflict, tension, unease, violence and worse.

And therein lies the reason: multiculturalism is a tool of the left to destroy the country.

But...but....what would we do without diversity?

Anygunanywhere

Thrive.

Precisely. We do not achieve greatness emphasizing our differences. We achieve greatness emphasizing what we have in common, and that used to be freedom and free exercise of our God given rights.

Anygunanywhere

[VMI77]

Why must we live in a multicultural environment? What good is that?

I don't see any advantage to it frankly and lots of conflict, tension, unease, violence and worse.

And therein lies the reason: multiculturalism is a tool of the left to destroy the country.

And the goal of the left is not merely multiculturalism, but multiculturalism while destroying Christianity. Christians are demonized, while all other religions are presented as peace-loving people. What a load of crap!

Chas.

I don't think the left cares about multiculturalism at all, except as a tool for advancing collectivism. Division has always been an effective method for ruling over people. When I say a tool to destroy the country I include all those elements of the Republic that made the US what it is/was, especially Christianity and the family --along with the Constitution. Once the left accumulates enough power virtually all those things that fall under the umbrella of "multiculturalism," like "gay rights," will be vigorously repressed. The liberals supporting many of these causes are mostly useful idiots.

[talltex]

Marriage is both a spiritual status recognized and held sacred by God, and a legal status recognized by the state. Property rights, child custody and support and other matters are determined by the legal status of marriage.

There's no need for so-called domestic partnerships; that's just a euphemism for marriage, just as "a matter of choice" is a euphemism for baby-killing. Anyone can set up a partnership to establish property rights, rights of survivorship, etc. That's been possible since before Texas became a state. The simple truth is people who support same-sex marriage don't merely want "rights," they want society to recognize them as being a married couple just as we do a man and a woman.

Chas.

Can't say that I blame them for wanting that recognition...they pay in the same money, they should receive the same benefits. Recognition of legal status as a civil union would give same-sex couples legal standing regarding health insurance, death benefits, ability to file joint tax returns, Social Security survivor benefits, etc...things which heterosexual couples take for granted. They are NOT recognized by the Federal government in those instances, and it's not just a matter of setting up a partnership to rectify those inequities. I've been married to the same woman for 29 years...who someone else wants to marry has no effect on my marriage and I don't have a problem with it.

[talltex]

Precisely. We do not achieve greatness emphasizing our differences. We achieve greatness emphasizing what we have in common, and that used to be freedom and free exercise of our God given rights.
Anygunanywhere

I agree with this...my grandparents immigrated from Germany before WWI broke out and my grandfather always said the greatest day of his life was when he became a U.S. Citizen. There is a HUGE difference between those earlier European immigrants and today...they strove to become AMERICANS and assimilate into the AMERICAN culture, norms and social mores as quickly as they could. Today it's almost the exact opposite...each group wants to maintain the ethnic roots and language and social customs of their native country and makes little effort to adapt to the existing culture and language. The U.S. used to be called the "great melting pot"...now the ingredients are not being stirred.