Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Is the rest of the country going crazy over Dan Cathy's comments about marriage or is it just down here in the South? If you support them Wednesday is "Chic-fil-a Appreciation day" and if you don't well I guess you just don't go there anymore.

Personally, I think it is there First Amendment right to say whatever they want. Secondly, how can anyone be suprised that these are the views held and supported by a CHRISTIAN organization? They have never hidden that fact, and they are one of the few, maybe even only, national chain that is closed on Sunday!

Is the rest of the country going crazy over Dan Cathy's comments about marriage or is it just down here in the South? If you support them Wednesday is "Chic-fil-a Appreciation day" and if you don't well I guess you just don't go there anymore.

Personally, I think it is there First Amendment right to say whatever they want. Secondly, how can anyone be suprised that these are the views held and supported by a CHRISTIAN organization? They have never hidden that fact, and they are one of the few, maybe even only, national chain that is closed on Sunday!

Chic-Fil-A often has a public safety pricing program.

Personally, I think it is there First Amendment right to say whatever they want. Secondly, how can anyone be suprised that these are the views held and supported by a CHRISTIAN organization? They have never hidden that fact, and they are one of the few, maybe even only, national chain that is closed on Sunday!

1. The First Amendment protects you from actions from the government, not the public. Boycotts are perfectly legal in this country. They have every right to support any cause they want and people have every right to ask others not to eat there, just as you have a right to call an appreciation day. Oddly enough, the freedom of speech applies to everyone, not just the people you want to support.

2. Funny how Christians find passages in the Old Testament to justify their actions and not what Christ taught. Show me a passage where Jesus condemned gay people. Also odd how "Christians" forget that He taught about the grace of God and to not judge others. Nor do I think He or God appointed anyone down here to decide who goes to hell and who doesn't. I really don't think Christ would be real choked up about all the haters who call themselves Christians. I believe I'm a Christian, which means I try to follow the teachings of Jesus, not homophobics.

At what point does homophobia reach the level of these idiots? Do you see a problem with their actions? They pretty much share the same beliefs as Chick-Fil-A, don't they? They just take it to a higher level. Where's the line or do you see no problem with them picketing and disrupting veterans' funerals?

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll268/jimbellah/309369_504878229527491_1208644106_n.jpg

I'm not gay, have never been sexually attracted to another man nor do I even know any gay people that want to get married. I have no dog in this fight, but I also have never had two men being together cause me the least amount of problem either. But I guess I'm secure enough in my sexuality that they are no threat to me.

What consenting adults do sexually is none of anyone else's business. And if they want to get married, the only downside I see is it will put more money in the pockets of divorce lawyers.

I know this goes beyond the gay marriage issue, but I get tired of people worrying about what others do and think they're the only ones with rights. The Constitution says nothing about marriage and gay couples are only wanting the legal rights entitled to a married couple. Not your's or anyone else's religious blessings.

I don't care what anyone does behind closed doors. I care when they flaunt it in public....hetrosexual or homosexual. I don't care about anothers view. I will listen, but their actions are what I care about.

CF employs homosexuals, serves homosexuals and never has shown bias in action towards them. I don't care what the boss thinks. He is entitled to his or her view and opinion. I think extremists on both ends are turning a nothing into something.


As a Catholic, I am pretty disgusted with the Catholic church. I went to Catholic school from pre-K through high school and a Jesuit college. I had no choice. I find some of what the church says and teach is pure ridiculous nonsense, and at points hypocritical. People forget this is America...where you can say and believe what is unpopular, and have the right to do so. Conforming is not what the country was built on.

I don't care what anyone does behind closed doors. I care when they flaunt it in public....hetrosexual or homosexual.

I agree completely. Also add religion to that for me. I don't care what your religious views are either. It's nice you have them, but keep them to yourself and/or your fellow church (or whatever) members.

I don't care if you're gay or fundamentalist Christian, but please don't throw either in my face.

I really don't think Christ would be real choked up about all the haters who call themselves Christians. I believe I'm a Christian, which means I try to follow the teachings of Jesus, not homophobics.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll268/jimbellah/309369_504878229527491_1208644106_n.jpg



Sorry, I know you were serious and I agreed with everything you wrote.

But I did kind of crack up when right in the middle of the "Jesus loves everyone and who are we to judge " commentary was the "Now let's go out and smite the Westboro Baptists" picture. :yesnod::biggrin5:

It's an old argument that even Paul and Peter had (not homosexuality, but old and new testament). Judaism is rule based. Live by their 613 laws, and you will be rewarded. Christianity added love as the fundamental rule for everything. It is a very hard thing to live your life looking at others (anyone) and believing in your heart that they are loved as much as you by God and the fundamental tenant of Christianity is to try and love everyone as God does. There are people that I cannot love because of what they have done and that's my failing and burden.

That doesn't mean there is no justice, judgements or values. I don't think anyone is going to advocate adultery simply because it's consenting adults. It might not be a crime but it's certainly a tenant of faith. It's a tough question because I think it's obvious that Jesus would minister to prostitutes but not be a prostitute. He would minister to adulterers but not be an adulterer.

I can see no reason for the government not to accept gay marriage but I can also understand a church not wanting to perform gay weddings but not a christian church that doesn't accept gay members.

I just thought the poster was funny. I came across it a month or so ago and saved it, thinking it would come in handy sometime....:biggrin5:

I really don't care what those idiots believe, they can jump up and down in their church all they please. I don't care if they protest outside of gay nightclubs, it's the fact they go after innocent people who have nothing to do with their tainted beliefs that it bothers me. If they want to scream "Thank God for dead soldiers" inside their little hovels, I couldn't care less. But it's a bit much for me when they do it at funerals where homosexuality is completely irrelevant.

If a church doesn't want to perform gay marriages, that's fine. And realistically, if they don't want to accept gay members, that's their business. But I don't see where they can/should try to force the government to bend to their religious beliefs. If a gay couple want to have a civil ceremony, what does that have to do with anyone else's rights?

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll268/jimbellah/G2D-WLitEkisSyOcLY2MkQ2.jpg

While I'm not surprised by Chik-Fil-A's homophobic stance/statements, I don't really appreciate them either, even as a heterosexual. I don't have any issue with homosexuality and while everyone has a right to their own opinion, including businesses like Chik-Fil-A, I'd just as soon you kept your opinion to yourself about it. At the end of the day, the sexual activity that two consenting adults engage in is none of your business, and I don't understand how said activity could have any impact on a fried chicken fast food chain, or anything else for that matter!!

The Cathys are very good friends of mine and those that are "protesting" them can eat a big bowl of **** and die for all I care. When these sissy *** protesters take their candy asses to someplace like Egypt or Iran where they put you to death for being gay, then I will give them some attention. Till then they can STFU.

The Cathys are very good friends of mine and those that are "protesting" them can eat a big bowl of **** and die for all I care. When these sissy *** protesters take their candy asses to someplace like Egypt or Iran where they put you to death for being gay, then I will give them some attention. Till then they can STFU.

There was quite a stir some years back, when police groups wanted to boycott Ben & Jerry's (http://mocop.tripod.com/id23.html) over their support for Mumia Abu Jamal.

The reasoning was that if the owners were going to take the profits from the business and donate it to a cause that the officers so strongly disagreed with, they would simply not give their money to that cause.

This is exactly the same thing.

I have no problem with this. People who don't agree with the positions of a company or their ownership have every right not to do business with that company.

Even if some of us disagree with the issue at heart.

-Citicop.

The CEO of Amazon gave $1.5 million to support gay marriage. Let's see if anyone wants to boycott them.

I think it is sad when a thug mayor say he will block them from doing business because Chic-fi-a does not have chicago values( I guess that means murder,crime and corruption) . Chic-fi-a does not ban gays from eating there or bans them from working there. I cant belive it will be legal to stop them becuse of what the owner thoughts are. most people do say that marriage should be between one man and one women. no state in the USA bans gays from getting married as long if they are not the same sex

most people do say that marriage should be between one man and one women.

Um... Not true. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx) Most Americans favor gay marriage, and the trend in the numbers is clear and will likely continue.


no state in the USA bans gays from getting married as long if they are not the same sex

Would you make the same argument if states banned interracial marriage (again)? "Black people aren't banned from getting married... they just can't marry WHITE PEOPLE."

Um... Not true. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx) Most Americans favor gay marriage, and the trend in the numbers is clear and will likely continue.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up the language train. Most Americans don't care if gays marry. Personally, as a straight person, I favor heterosexual marriage. I don't see that trend changing any time soon. :) Prison changes that trend I guess but I don't see prison in my future.

Chic-Fil-A makes a mean chicken sandwich. I also love the waffle fries.:party:

I going to Chik-Fil-A for lunch. Not because I support the CEOs position, because I really don't care what gay people do in their house, but I agree with their ability to say what they believe. It really isn't much of stretch to think the CEO doesn't support gay marriage, since they aren't open on Sunday because it is the Sabbath.

This country has gotten away from the principle of free speech. The Constitution does prevent the government from infringing on most speech. People seem to think that only the speech that agrees with them is allowed. It most decidedly is not. ALL speech is free. ALL people have a choice to visit your business after hearing your speech, but it is still free. That is why many business owners try to keep their speech neutral, so they don't offend anybody in an effort to maximize profits.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up the language train. Most Americans don't care if gays marry.

Support for it is growing. According to this, only 28% are opposed to any legal recognition and it was 2009..

Poll: Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows - Political Hotsheet - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4972643-503544.html)

I found a Gallup poll from last year that said something like 53% favor gay marriage, but they didn't have the civil union option in it.

Support for Gay Marriage Outweighs Opposition in Polls - NYTimes.com (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/support-for-gay-marriage-outweighs-opposition-in-polls/)

Regardless, nowhere near the majority of Americans are opposed to it.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll268/jimbellah/YPbQiYginkOL2tOjykUxiQ2.jpg

I found a Gallup poll from last year that said something like 53% favor gay marriage, but they didn't have the civil union option in it.

Regardless, nowhere near the majority of Americans are opposed to it.

I was being a little flippant as the wording implies 53% would favor a gay marriage over their own heterosexual one. "You know honey, I think I would favor a Gay marriage now. My attorney is working on the paperwork."

If I were to guess I'd say about 5% of the population is gay. Maybe 1-2% are interested in marrying. Obviously a majority of Americans don't oppose them getting married from the polls.

But to get to the nuts and bolts, the real reason this is an issue now is that Obama and his campaign know the religious right are going to the polls no matter what. Obamacare, the economy, immigration, etc, etc are driving them to the polls. Gay marriage isn't going to change that (they are all going, more aren't going to show up).

Gays are generally more affluent for various reasons related to expenses and children, etc, etc, and the economy has made them rather apathetic to voting.

Religious African-Americans have been the biggest obstacle to Democrats adopting Gay marriage as a platform plank (and still are). Previous Democrats could not afford to risk that demographic not showing up over that issue. This is a calculated risk by Obama that he won't face major defections over this single issue like Clinton, Gore and Kerry would. Lining up the NAACP was the first step. It's like the old cliche "Only Nixon could go to China." Obama needs to keep his base from being apathetic about voting for him and he will create these wedge issues to motivate them (Republicans do it too but they already have a motivated base so they will focus on antagonizing the various factions that would turn out for Obama. I would expect to soon see ads about how Obamacare will make teachers, police and fire unions pay more in taxes with less benefits. Maybe ads promising tax cuts for American companies that hire back American union workers, etc, etc as well petroleum jobs in the Gulf and pipelines all just to make them think twice about voting for Obama).

Call me a cynic but this is really a very small special interest being made into a disproportionate one. The faster gay marriage becomes accepted, it will only be a matter of time until they become a conservative voting block simply based on economics.

That's my political rant for the day.

If you think that the lefts rage against Chick Fil A has anything to do with gay marriage then you are an idiot. The left does not like Chick Fil A because it is a Christian run company and proud of it. If those asshats were really protesting for gay marriage then they would give up gasoline because OPEC supports killing gays. Hypocrits should be shot in the face often and without remorse.

This was the crowd in the lobby at the very first Chick Fil A today at noon. The line for the drive through wrapped around the building twice.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2ec124x.jpg

I think it will be interesting to see the results of this later today. Maybe Chick-fil-A will set a new one day record for sales!

I wonder how well they did in areas of the country outside the South.

I wonder how well they did in areas of the country outside the South.

As much as I wanted to avoid this thread , figured I'd help you out:


Chick-fil-A fans show support in western Pa.
'Appreciation Day' organized after gay marriage controversy

UPDATED 3:33 PM EDT Aug 01, 2012


PITTSBURGH -
Business was brisk Wednesday as Chick-fil-A customers lined up on foot and in cars to show support after a company executive's recent comments about marriage.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, declared it a national "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day."

WTAE's Ashlie Hardway found plenty of people at Greengate Centre in Hempfield Township, where the drive-through line wrapped around the restaurant and out of the parking lot.

In Cranberry Township, the lobby of Chick-fil-A on Route 228 was packed with people and the line was out the door. The parking lot and drive-through lane were also full.

It was a similar scene at Monroeville's Miracle Mile Shopping Center and on Washington Road in Upper St. Clair.

At the Ross Park Mall food court, Luisa Mineo said she couldn't watch a "celebration of discrimination," so she closed her Dolce Mia restaurant for the day in support of the gay and lesbian community.

Watch Ashlie Hardway's report tonight on WTAE Channel 4 Action News at 5 p.m.

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press last month that the company was "guilty as charged" for backing "the biblical definition of a family." That drew criticism from gay rights groups and others, who have called for boycotts and efforts to block the chain from opening new locations.

Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, who recently came out in support of same-sex marriage, is among a handful of U.S. city mayors who have spoken publicly about the Chick-fil-A issue.



Read more: Chick-fil-A fans show support in western Pa. | Westmoreland Co. News - WTAE Home (http://www.wtae.com/news/local/westmoreland/Chick-fil-A-fans-show-support-in-western-Pa/-/10932546/15920216/-/7vdc44/-/index.html#ixzz22Kd9235S)

If nothing else, this works against the left. Although I have no problem with citizens reacting to Cathy's remark, this is illegal as hell, IMO.


Republican Party announced last week it would file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights and Attorney General Lisa Madigan over the discriminatory action by Alderman Proco (Joe) Moreno against the food chain Chick-fil-A.

The party is now expanding their complaint to cover Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel as well. According to a press release, the Chicago Republican Party says that "the complaint states that the Alderman and the Mayor have broken civil rights laws pertaining to religious freedom and the First Amendment in denying Chick fil A a permit to operate its business in the City of Chicago."

Following Chick fil A's CEO Dan Cathy's support of traditional marriage, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and San Francisco liberal politicians spoke out against the food chain and threatened to block Chick fil A from opening any business or further businesses in their cities.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel said that Chick fil A's values were not "Chicago values."

WBEZ reported last week that Chicago's Moreno now wants Chick fil A to put into writing that it “won’t support any groups with a political agenda, including those with an anti-gay marriage stance” before he’ll consider allowing zoning rights to a Chick fil A restaurant in his ward.

"If they’re serious about that, and they’re willing to put that in writing and they’re willing to adopt that. I think those are the grounds where we can move forward," Moreno said.

"Chick-fil-A may have a pretty good case under the First Amendment if the city uses their religious or political beliefs as a basis for denying a business license or ability to do business in the city. That is the kind of thing that happens in fascist states," said Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow and former Justice Department attorney to the assistant attorney general for civil rights.



PICKET: Chicago GOP to file complaint against Rahm Emanuel over Chick fil A flap - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/aug/1/picket-chicago-gop-file-human-rights-complaint-aga/)

If you think that the lefts rage against Chick Fil A has anything to do with gay marriage then you are an idiot. The left does not like Chick Fil A because it is a Christian run company and proud of it. If those asshats were really protesting for gay marriage then they would give up gasoline because OPEC supports killing gays. Hypocrits should be shot in the face often and without remorse.

Yes, a lot of them hate Chick Fil A because they hate religion in general. This latest stuff though is to keep it in the media. Obama wants gays to go vote and wants to scare them into voting. His choice is apathy or manufacture a rage du jour. yes, they are scapegoating Chick Fil A and it could easily have been any other issue they wanted to manufacture (i.e. abortion or prayer in school) because it's easy but it they are targeting a particular demographic that they want to vote.



If nothing else, this works against the left. Although I have no problem with citizens reacting to Cathy's remark, this is illegal as hell, IMO.

Yup. Unfortunately that US Attorney that went after Blagojevich is gone. It would have been interesting to see him initiate a criminal civil rights probe. Not going to happen now though. the requirement for a statement by the corporation is also problematic. If I were chick fil a, I would just issue the standard EEOC boilerplate statement or use the whatever boilerplate that the City has on their hiring documents.

not sue if you knew it but many states have voted on this and they say one man one women. and this has nothing about interrracial marrage .

not sue if you knew it but many states have voted on this and they say one man one women. and this has nothing about interrracial marrage .

RDS's reference was historical. Virginia had a law that prevented interracial marriage. Their argument to the Supreme Court was that it wasn't discriminatory because it didn't prevent any single person from marrying. The same argument you made when you said gay people could get married so long as it was a different gender. Virginia lost that Supreme Court decision on that argument. Bringing the same argument with Gay marriage isn't going to fly very far. Stare decisis is a principle held mostly by the conservative members of the court so your looking at a 9-0 ruling for gay marriage if that's the argument you wish to make.

A better argument is that it's a states rights issue (that was what Clinton said in his signing statement defining marriage for the Federal government) and that's supported by the fact that there are no marriage licenses issued by the federal government. You'd then have to overcome the equal protection clauses in 14th amendment and comity clauses in the Constitution. Historically states haven't required married people to reapply for a marriage license when they move from state to state (unlike drivers licenses) even when such marriages would not be obtainable in that state (e.g. if a state allows 16 y/o's to marry without parental consent, they can move to a state that doesn't allow it but they are still married).

not sue if you knew it but many states have voted on this and they say one man one women. and this has nothing about interrracial marrage .

The problem with that standard is that this is a highly charged issue for only two groups of people, gays and people vehemently against gay marriage. The majority of people are straight and have no dog in that fight and less likely to go to the polls and vote. Oregon passed Measure 36 banning gay marriage, but less than half the people voted and we have mail in voting. It was 56% to 44% at that. But also there was a hell of a lot of money spent opposing gay marriage and very little spent in support, we were plastered with ads supporting the anti gay measure, but the people who were for it didn't have the money to spend because such a small percentage of the population would gain from it.

The principle with gay and interracial marriage is close, people are fired up about something that really only really affects their sense of outrage, not their real lives. I grew up in the segregated South and remember what would have happened to an interracial couple.

When I was in the Army in the 60's, I worked for a black captain who was an excellent officer and one of the most brilliant men I ever met. He was married to a white woman though and was going to be sent to Ft. Benning in Columbus, GA when they were training infantry troops like mad for Vietnam so the post had expanded quickly. When he learned that he wouldn't be able to get post housing, he told me that he was going to try to resign his commission, no way could he and his wife be able to live off post. A lot of feel the same way about gay couples. Seriously, how does a gay couple being married going to effect you in how you go about your life?

If those asshats were really protesting for gay marriage then they would give up gasoline because OPEC supports killing gays. Hypocrits should be shot in the face often and without remorse.

Boycotting something like a fast food outlet is easy, I do it all the time. Not because of political issues, but I'm not going to eat that sh!t no matter what they believe or don't believe.

The idea of boycotting OPEC is silly because it's as about as possible as boycotting things made in China, everyone needs gas. I tried that when the Chinese were holding that Navy plane when Bush was first elected and realized that damn near everything is made there.

But you have a point, the left in general care more about screwing with right wingers than the issue of gay marriage itself.

A lot of feel the same way about gay couples. Seriously, how does a gay couple being married going to effect you in how you go about your life?

Marriage is pretty much FUBAR as an institution anyways, so, IMO, it won't.

Some would argue against gay marriage being afforded the same tax and benefit opportunities as regular couples who are trying to raise kids, however, there are plenty of regular marriages that don't produce kids. IMO, the tax burden should be the same regardless of whether a citizen is legally married or not.

Some would argue against gay marriage simply because it opens the door to a wide variety of interpretations of what a "marriage" can mean. If not man and woman, than why not multiple wives / husbands / whatever.

Regardless, when a business is denied a license for unpopular, but LAWFUL, beliefs, I have a problem with that, as should every citizen.

Marriage is pretty much FUBAR as an institution anyways, so, IMO, it won't.


http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll268/jimbellah/ga9jcurhf8.jpg

Ha ha @ the "WAS HIS" license plate!!!

I'd like to know if the overwhelming success of the unofficial "Chik-Fil-A appreciation day" comes from the fact that everyone is supporting Chik-Fil-A's right to freedom of speech, or if it's coming from the fact that so many people actually agree with the statements Chik-Fil-A made?

The fact that gays cannot be married in most states does not mean they don't have "equal
Rights" as there is no "right to marriage" wanna marry your first cousin? Is WA state you're outta luck, wanna marry two people? Again no dice. Wanna marry a sibling? Forget about it. So why it is that gays insist they are being denied rights is outright absurd. This is an actual conversation I had with a gay rights supporter.

me: marriage is intended to provide a stable family structure to rear children
GRS: marriage is not about procreation it's about happiness
me: so what if a man wants to marry his sister?
GRS: well that's dangerous to any children for genetic reasons
me: but what about their right to be happy?
GR: but that's disgusting
Me: why are you imposing your sense of morality on everyone else you hateful bigot?


never got another response to that one. Simple point is, I trapped him in his own double talk. For anyone who supports gay marriage, I ask, why not allow incest and cousin marriages and polygamy? If you say you support allowing all that in the name of freedom, then really you have the high road and I won't argue with you, but if you don't then why are you uniquely qualified to decide how to twist the definition of marriage?

It really drives me nuts, people who talk about gay persecution here ought a go on a vacation, I hear the Kingdom is nice this time of year

The fact that gays cannot be married in most states does not mean they don't have "equal
Rights" as there is no "right to marriage" wanna marry your first cousin? Is WA state you're outta luck, wanna marry two people? Again no dice. Wanna marry a sibling? Forget about it. So why it is that gays insist they are being denied rights is outright absurd. This is an actual conversation I had with a gay rights supporter.

me: marriage is intended to provide a stable family structure to rear children
GRS: marriage is not about procreation it's about happiness
me: so what if a man wants to marry his sister?
GRS: well that's dangerous to any children for genetic reasons
me: but what about their right to be happy?
GR: but that's disgusting
Me: why are you imposing your sense of morality on everyone else you hateful bigot?


never got another response to that one. Simple point is, I trapped him in his own double talk. For anyone who supports gay marriage, I ask, why not allow incest and cousin marriages and polygamy? If you say you support allowing all that in the name of freedom, then really you have the high road and I won't argue with you, but if you don't then why are you uniquely qualified to decide how to twist the definition of marriage?

I am married and have no kids. I was never asked if I was going to raise a family when I got my marriage license, and am aware of no legal requirement that raising a family be a part of a marriage.

Should my marriage be illegal, as according to you I am not fulfilling the "intended purpose" of marriage?

You said "there is no right to marriage." The courts in the US (including SCOTUS) disagree with you (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm).

I'll ask you your own question. What makes YOU qualified to define marriage?

Because verifying everyones family plans is an unreasonable burden on the state. The state can assume that a couple getting married will have children, even if they do not.

Loving v Virginia Is the controlling case, and it does not establish a right of marriage, only that a state had no compelling reason to ban interracial marriage. Again we go back to the issue of cousin marriage. In every state where laws against cousin have been challenged the was have been upheld with the exception of louisiana. Now if loving established a right to marry those laws would've fallen like dominos. First cousin marriage is legal in rhode island for instance, if such s couple were to move to Texas or even my home state of Washington, the marriage would be ruled invalid and they would not have the benefits of married couples in such states. I am unaware of any federal court ruling demanding states like WA accept their marriage licenses from states like RI. What say you?

my idea of what a marriage should be comes from the bible, my secular support for such a position comes from legal research and understanding of relevant case law, along with precedent in how we treat other absurd marriage requests (like siblings) you never even addressed my point there, if marriage is not for procreation and only about fulfillment and happiness why not allow polygamy and incest? Are gays now some protected class that has the right to be happy, why don't polygamists have the right to be happy? What if we get the FLDS church to put together a polygamy pride march? Can they be happy then too? See the problem is most gay rights activists claim they are victims of persecution while at the same time saying that their view of marriage is valid but other abnormal forms of marriage should remain illegal I don't really care about people being gay, but I hate the victim mentality they try to guilt me with

Have you read the Loving decision (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1)?

The majority oponion said (among other things):


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 argument for or against polygamy is a different argument than the one for gay marriage. Feel free to start a new thread discussing it if you want to. Until then, you seem to be using it here to confuse the issue. Let's focus on one issue at a time.

I would note, though, that tax and property issues become much more complex when more than two people are involved. Perhaps that's why...

Know what else (http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A28-29&version=NIV) the bible said about marriage?



If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives

So biblical marriage also seems to include requiring rape victims to marry their rapists, so long as they pay the victim's father.

What's you're stance on that?

So biblical marriage also seems to include requiring rape victims to marry their rapists, so long as they pay the victim's father.

What's you're stance on that?

well my stance on that would be that if you read the verse, it does not require the victim to marry her attacker, merely establishes that a rapist can be compelled to marry his victim. Now that we're going into biblical law, that verse is from Deuteronomy I believe, it establishes the law that ancient israelites followed. In an ancient culture an unmarried woman would not be provided for, fed housed. Etc. ancient cultures placed a value on virginity as it was considered a sign following the laws of the lord. If a rapist took that away it destroyed her ability to be married to anyone but the attacker, so that verse is actually forcing the rapist to provide for his victim. And if you want to make the claim that Deuteronomy is unfair to the victims of rape then keep this in mind.... If the rapist refused To pay the shekels and marry her he could be summarily killed by stoning, so actually the bible is a lot more strict on rape then are the criminal codes of all 50 states.

also if the rapist attacked a woman betrothed to be married he would be summarily executed on the spot.

well my stance on that would be that if you read the verse, it does not require the victim to marry her attacker

Read it again. The victim does not get a say.


He must marry the young woman

Not "can be compelled to"
Not "should provide for her"
It reads "MUST marry." There is no option here.

And under other biblical law (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:22&version=NIV), wives are required to submit to thier husbands just like they submit to God himself:


Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.

So those passages taken together are pretty clear: A single rape victim gets married off to her rapist and then has to spend the rest of her life submitting herself to his will.

That's directly from the source you're quoting.

If you're going to say that you're stance on marriage is based on the bible, should you be able to pick and choose which parts of the bible you're going to refer to?

It really drives me nuts, people who talk about gay persecution here ought a go on a vacation, I hear the Kingdom is nice this time of year

The Kingdom you refer to is a perfect example of what happens when the rule of law is dictated by a religion. I don't want to be governed by Muslim law nor do I want to be ruled by the ancient Judea law you keep referring to in your Old Testament passages.

The cool thing about this country is, you not only have freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. Marriage in this country is a state defined institution, not defined by anyone's religious views. Otherwise, polygamy would be just fine. That's why church and other religious wedding ceremonies are optional.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll268/jimbellah/401656_3383595784617_1009036191_n.jpg

The cool thing about this country is, you not only have freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. Marriage in this country is a state defined institution, not defined by anyone's religious views. Otherwise, polygamy would be just fine. That's why church and other religious wedding ceremonies are optional.

And the majority of states presently ban gay marriage! So the states have in fact defined what constitutes in a marriage in their state. Utah was founded by Mormon settlers with the idea of being allowed to practice polygamy, the church had to change their minds in order to admit Utah to statehood. So really that state had no choice at all. The majority of states also retain the eugenic era laws that forbid marriage between cousins (which is legal in every other developed country in the world) Texas even sets criminal penalties for attempting such a marriage. I have no problem with massachusetts deciding gay marriage is ok, but states shouldn't be forced to accept it. Which is not a new concept as evidenced by the above example. I'm ok to let it be a state issue

The majority oponion said (among other things):


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

Ironic considering it usually ruins the happiness of free men :D


Sorry I couldn't resist.

I think it's maybe time I set the record straight on how I feel on the issue just so that there is no more confusion.

My beef is not with gay people, I have several gay friends, I hold no animosity towards them at all.

likewise I don't mind if states choose to allow gay marriages

however if states choose to restrict it then I believe that restriction should be valid, I don't want it to be a federal issue.

And ImHO the majority of gay rights supporters are not really sincere. As I pointed out earlier. The gay rights supporter who thought it was morally wrong for cousins to get married. That view is widely held amongst gay rights supporters at least that I've talked to. Along with the majority of gays I know think the same way. So really they don't want equal rights, the want a limited extension of a privilege to just them. See that I don't like.

And just in case it was floating in the back of your head, no I have no desire to date or marry a first cousin.
I use it as an example only because it's the closest possible example

And I think that government officials like mayor Rahmbo of Chicago publically threatening a lawful business from moving into chicago or Boston is inn appropriate. Chick fil-a should be allowed to open up anywhere they can get a permit to build as long as they follow local laws.

I don't know what's with the uproar, personally. Other companies, like Ben & Jerry's, have funded liberal organizations (didn't they recently attempt to donate money to the Occupy movement?). If I don't want to support the groups which they donate money to, then I don't buy their products. By the same token, if I don't care about who or what they support, then I'll buy their products. Simple as that.

And I'm pretty sure it's not a secret that Chik-Fil-A is a conservative, Christian company. Why should anyone be surprised when they admit to having conservative, Christian values? No one should be surprised. Seriously.

People need to move on with their lives.

Ironic considering it usually ruins the happiness of free men :D


Sorry I couldn't resist.

Oh, so you're "free" until you're married?

I'll remember that, "dear." :toetap05:

Oh, so you're "free" until you're married?

I'll remember that, "dear." :toetap05:

At least most prisoners have a chance at parole. :)

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/1821/imagescb.jpg




At least most prisoners have a chance at parole. :)

LOL...well isn't that called divorce in the marital realm? Though I guess that's more like being on lifetime probation, what with alimony, child support, and so on...

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/1821/imagescb.jpg.

I thought it was funny that Rahm Emmanuel went out to say Chick Fil-A is not welcome they "don't represent Chicago Values" And the next day he has Luis Farrakhan in town to help curb the violence in Chicago, Screwy Louie has said all sorts of non-flattering remarks about gays all the time, So recap: Dan Cathy says "I support tradition marriage" and now he's not welcome in Chi-town, Farrakhan called gays "degenerate crap" and "garbage" but he's welcome with open arms to solve the cities problems. interesting indeed

First cousin marriage is legal in rhode island for instance, if such s couple were to move to Texas or even my home state of Washington, the marriage would be ruled invalid and they would not have the benefits of married couples in such states. I am unaware of any federal court ruling demanding states like WA accept their marriage licenses from states like RI. What say you?


I believe you are exactly wrong. That marriage would never be ruled invalid. This has been proven over and over as I said earlier with states that have different ages of consent for marriage. States have different requirements for under-18 marriages. Some allow pregnant 16 y/o to marry without parental consent. Some do not. The term "elope" would not exist if marriages were not recognized by other states. A pregnant 16 y/o elopes to a state, gets a license to get married, get's married, then returns. The state she returns to is obligated to recognize her as married. This happens all the time.

This is how it works: The state grants you a license to get married when you meet that state's requirements. The marriage is performed and you get a marriage certificate that indicates your status as "married." At that point it becomes a status, not a license.

Your birth certificate works the same way. Once a state has issued a birth certifcate, it's a status, not a license. States have different laws for birth certificates. All recognize birth certificates from other states. A state cannot revoke your birth status or deny you residence in the state or any benefit of a resident because of a difference in laws in issuing birth certificates.

This all stems from the "full faith and credit" clause in the constitution and the federal government can set laws on what acts, records and proceedings are forced to be recognized. DOMA is an attempt to limit that for Gay marriages. If DOMA is upheld, state amendments that refuse to recognize gay marriages will be valid.

But as for your request, here are a number of marriage "full faith and credit" rulings forcing states to recognize marriages htat originated in other states in other states.

Parish v. Minvielle, 217 So.2d 684, 688 (Ct. Of App. La. 1969) (Louisiana does
not recognize or permit common-law marriages but must give effect to them when validly
contracted in Texas); Guidry v. Mezeal, 487 So. 2d 780, 781 (Ct. Of Appeals La. 3rd Cir.
1986); Succession of Rodgers, 499 So. 2d 429, 495 (Ct. Of Appeals La. 2d. Cir. 1986);
Commonwealth ex rel. Alexander v. Alexander, 289 A.2d 83, 86 (Pa. 1971) (Jones, J.,
concurring) (Pennsylvania must give full faith and credit to a Georgia marriage certificate);
Orsburn v. Graves, 210 S.W.2d 496 (Ak. 1948) (Arkansas must give full faith and credit to
validly contracted Texas common-law marriage). Although New York does not recognize
common-law marriages, it gives Art. IV ' 1 full faith and credit to marriages that are valid under
the laws of other states. Thomas v. Sullivan, 922 F.2d 132, 134 (2nd Cir. 1990); Ram v.
Ramharack, 571 N.Y.S.2d 190 (N.Y. Sp. Ct. Queens Cty 1991).

I thought it was funny that Rahm Emmanuel went out to say Chick Fil-A is not welcome they "don't represent Chicago Values" And the next day he has Luis Farrakhan in town to help curb the violence in Chicago, Screwy Louie has said all sorts of non-flattering remarks about gays all the time, So recap: Dan Cathy says "I support tradition marriage" and now he's not welcome in Chi-town, Farrakhan called gays "degenerate crap" and "garbage" but he's welcome with open arms to solve the cities problems. interesting indeed
That is one of the few things I agree with you on in this thread. Emmanuel and the mayor of Boston are way out of line being critical of Cathy. THAT is what the first amendment is about.

Johnson versus Johnson, Washington Supreme Court rules that a marriage contracted to avoid Washington law is invalid if the parties are Washington residents. I don't believe any of the case law you provided (which normally I would read the opinions but almighty google is coming up short, thats what sucks about law suits involving people with common names) refer to full faith and credit permitting evasive marriage.

Because state courts have consistently rule evasive marriages illegal. so if a pair of WA residents who are 1st cousins flies to Rhode Island, get married there and return, WA can legally rule their marriage void because they would have travelled to avoid Washington law, i find all sorts of court cases in state courts as recently as 2010 that have ruled this, I dont think that would be the case if SCOTUS or a Circuit court had definitively ruled all out of state marriages must be recognized.

Also, Arizona, Utah, Texas, and New Hampshire have laws on the books stating they will not recognize an out of state first cousin marriage by anyone. I'm not sure how often that is enforced or if it is even enforcable. to be honest I've been having a hell of a time finding case law for out of state marriages of any kind frankly

And ImHO the majority of gay rights supporters are not really sincere. As I pointed out earlier. The gay rights supporter who thought it was morally wrong for cousins to get married. That view is widely held amongst gay rights supporters at least that I've talked to. Along with the majority of gays I know think the same way. So really they don't want equal rights, the want a limited extension of a privilege to just them. See that I don't like.



I don't see that cousins marrying is "morally" wrong, the problem is that they may have kids with inbred problems. That wouldn't be an issue with gay people. Again, I don't see how gay people getting married and having the same rights as heterosexual couples will be a detriment to society where kids from inbreeding may.

Right now in Washington, proponents of gay marriage aren't doing bad in the polls. That referendum may not pass if a lot of liberals come to vote for Obama.

Losing streak for gay marriage over? Polls | Strange Bedfellows — Politics News - seattlepi.com (http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/08/02/losing-streak-for-gay-marriage-over-polls/)

Opponents generally win because it's a hot button issue with fanatics and not so much with people who are unaffected. And there aren't that many gay people to vote.

Bezos from Amazon.com gave $2.5 million in support for it in Washington so for one of the few times, there will be money backing it. When Oregon voted for it, only the opponents of gay marriage ran ads.

I don't see that cousins marrying is "morally" wrong, the problem is that they may have kids with inbred problems. That wouldn't be an issue with gay people. Again, I don't see how gay people getting married and having the same rights as heterosexual couples will be a detriment to society where kids from inbreeding may.

From what I understand children of first cousins rarely have problems with inbreeding. It usually takes 5 to 7 generations of sustained marriages of the sort AT LEAST to make genetic problems. I can make the argument that children might not develop psycologically in a healthy way in a household from same sex parents, and becuase a gay marriage is equal to any marriage in your eyes, they would (and are in states where gay marriage is legal) be fully able to adopt children.... So I can equal your argument there.

And what susbstantial damage to society does inbreeding do, the entire Pennsylvania Amish are descended from a few hundred settlers in the late 1600s. and Hell the Amish almost looks like the ideal society. everyone cares for each other, they share their toys, never use violence, get together and do stuff as a community. obviously inbreeding hasnt made their soceity that much worse for wear.

No argument, if that causes no problem, then we should let them marry. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other about polygamy either. If a man is dumb enough to have more than one wife, that should be his problem.

The "moral" aspect of it is too abstract for me. As long as everyone are consenting adults, I don't think a lot of it is other peoples' business.

Besides, society's morals are really fluid and change all the time. When I was a young vice cop, I arrested and got convictions on people for running numbers games. Today, it's known as your state lottery. Also we arrested people for selling the same pornography you can rent on your cable or satellite pay per view. I have little doubt that marijuana is going to be legal at some point, maybe a decade or two from now, but it will happen. When something becomes socially acceptable enough, laws have to change to accommodate as long as the issue is just a "moral" one and involves consenting adults.