24
Oct
Marriage Amendment Forum
Monday, I spoke on the “yes” position on the Nov. 7th ballot initiative to define marriage hosted by the Alliance for Local Leadership. This definition will define marriage as the union between one man & one woman. A constitutional amendment is required to keep a liberal activist judge from throwing out current SC Law. Speaking the “no” side was Asha Leong with the SC Equality Coalition. I applaud those that will come out and passionately defend their beliefs, even if they are on the wrong side of the issue. That’s how democracy works. The Anderson Independent gave fair coverage as well as TV-4.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Has anyone thought about what would happen if the United States Constitution were interpreted to require state recognition of same sex marriages from other states? If there is a conflict between our constitution and the U.S. Constitution, I believe the U.S. Constitution prevails. This amendment may not do what you think it will do.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Has anyone thought about what would happen if the United States Constitution were interpreted to require state recognition of same sex marriages from other states? If there is a conflict between our constitution and the U.S. Constitution, I believe the U.S. Constitution prevails. This amendment may not do what you think it will do.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
The Supreme Court ruled on this a couple of weeks ago
http://www.lc.org/pressrelease/2006/nr101006.htm
October 24th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
The Supreme Court ruled on this a couple of weeks ago
http://www.lc.org/pressrelease/2006/nr101006.htm
October 25th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
That is a good decision, but I must point out that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case and the “couple” were not “married” in any state. Plessy v Ferguson (separate but equal schools are not unconstitutional) was also the decision of the Supreme Court. All it takes for the Court to hear a case is the desire of 4 of the 9 Justices to hear it (grant cert.). I hope it never happens, but the Court changes its opinions on occasion.
God bless.
October 25th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
That is a good decision, but I must point out that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case and the “couple” were not “married” in any state. Plessy v Ferguson (separate but equal schools are not unconstitutional) was also the decision of the Supreme Court. All it takes for the Court to hear a case is the desire of 4 of the 9 Justices to hear it (grant cert.). I hope it never happens, but the Court changes its opinions on occasion.
God bless.
October 25th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
I attended the marriage forum in Anderson. I was saddened by all the people saying that a lawful union between one man and one woman is the only union that can naturally produce a child and thus the only union that should be recognized by the state. What about infertile couples-we should definitely ban the union of one man and one woman if either or both are infertile, b/c they can’t naturally produce a child either.
I was also saddened by that fact the you mentioned Ronald Reagan as one of your political heroes-in fact he opposed artificial insemination-which has brought life in the form of children to many families.
Amendment #1 is discrimination, it is the unfair treatment of a entire segment of society based on a closed minded religon. It is taxation without representation. If homosexual people don’t meet your standards for marriage, why do their property taxes meet your standards for public eduation-all that gay money should not meet your “gold standard”.
I was also appauled by the number of people saying homosexuality was a behavior. Religion is a behavior, it is taught, learned, nutured from childhood-thats why you see DIFFERENT religions all over the word-you are not born a believer-you became one. If religion was nature we would all have the same religion. Homosexuality is not a behavior, b/c it is constant and found throughout the world. I don’t care where you go you will find gay people and every society nutures differently, but gay is constant!
Passing this amendment only makes it harder to go back and fix it later, America was founded on the avoidance of religions oppression-its funny how a group of people are now being oppressed by religion.
October 25th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
I attended the marriage forum in Anderson. I was saddened by all the people saying that a lawful union between one man and one woman is the only union that can naturally produce a child and thus the only union that should be recognized by the state. What about infertile couples-we should definitely ban the union of one man and one woman if either or both are infertile, b/c they can’t naturally produce a child either.
I was also saddened by that fact the you mentioned Ronald Reagan as one of your political heroes-in fact he opposed artificial insemination-which has brought life in the form of children to many families.
Amendment #1 is discrimination, it is the unfair treatment of a entire segment of society based on a closed minded religon. It is taxation without representation. If homosexual people don’t meet your standards for marriage, why do their property taxes meet your standards for public eduation-all that gay money should not meet your “gold standard”.
I was also appauled by the number of people saying homosexuality was a behavior. Religion is a behavior, it is taught, learned, nutured from childhood-thats why you see DIFFERENT religions all over the word-you are not born a believer-you became one. If religion was nature we would all have the same religion. Homosexuality is not a behavior, b/c it is constant and found throughout the world. I don’t care where you go you will find gay people and every society nutures differently, but gay is constant!
Passing this amendment only makes it harder to go back and fix it later, America was founded on the avoidance of religions oppression-its funny how a group of people are now being oppressed by religion.
October 25th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
I understand that the law is today what the Supreme Court says it is and that tomorrow it might be different, but that is not a reason to stop passing laws. This reminds me of Senator Bryant’s stand on the death penalty for child molesters. What the court may or may not do should not be the impetus for lawmakers. And, if the Court strikes down one law or another, then the people may take the next step, i.e. federal constiutional amendment. Fear of the Court gets us nowhere but into an oligarchy. No thanks.
October 25th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
I understand that the law is today what the Supreme Court says it is and that tomorrow it might be different, but that is not a reason to stop passing laws. This reminds me of Senator Bryant’s stand on the death penalty for child molesters. What the court may or may not do should not be the impetus for lawmakers. And, if the Court strikes down one law or another, then the people may take the next step, i.e. federal constiutional amendment. Fear of the Court gets us nowhere but into an oligarchy. No thanks.
October 25th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
pc
No one should be afraid of our system, except those who have commited serious crimes. My purpose is simply to help people understand what this amendment will do, and what it won’t. There is already a statute dealing with this specifically. Most think an amendment decides the matter forever. That is simply not the case.
October 25th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
pc
No one should be afraid of our system, except those who have commited serious crimes. My purpose is simply to help people understand what this amendment will do, and what it won’t. There is already a statute dealing with this specifically. Most think an amendment decides the matter forever. That is simply not the case.
October 25th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
This amendment will stop a liberal court from ruling the statute unconstitutional. Yes, I will vote for this amendment for fear of our court system.
October 25th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
This amendment will stop a liberal court from ruling the statute unconstitutional. Yes, I will vote for this amendment for fear of our court system.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Am I the only one who thinks it is sad that a State Senator cannot use “there” and “their” correctly?
Am I the only one who thinks that Republicans have their power in the fear they generate?
November 1st, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Am I the only one who thinks it is sad that a State Senator cannot use “there” and “their” correctly?
Am I the only one who thinks that Republicans have their power in the fear they generate?
November 1st, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Also, coverage was spelled wrong. But to get back on the subject, vote “yes” on Tuesday!
November 1st, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Also, coverage was spelled wrong. But to get back on the subject, vote “yes” on Tuesday!
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:04 pm
seth,
OK, gay is constant. Well, not on its own–by definition. You have some major problems with your definitions “it is constant and found throughout the world” is also true of religion. Perhaps your point is that there is variance in religion and so it isn’t constant?
Well, there’s a lot of variance among homosexual relations as well. I won’t go into the sick, disgusting details, but there is a lot of variance. Some gays think pedophilia and transgender relations are wrong while pedophilia was the height of the “enlightened” Greek men.
Be careful on your definitions–especially marriage. Be careful on your misguided conclusions about sterile couples as well.
I recognize that homosexuals are part of the neighbor group that Scripture commands me to love. But the Bible is clear about the sin that lies therein.
You know, my stance against homosexual marriage is also motivated out of love for these people. Vows are made to God, not to man. This is preventing them from defiling those vows. God is not easy on people that break vows.
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:04 pm
seth,
OK, gay is constant. Well, not on its own–by definition. You have some major problems with your definitions “it is constant and found throughout the world” is also true of religion. Perhaps your point is that there is variance in religion and so it isn’t constant?
Well, there’s a lot of variance among homosexual relations as well. I won’t go into the sick, disgusting details, but there is a lot of variance. Some gays think pedophilia and transgender relations are wrong while pedophilia was the height of the “enlightened” Greek men.
Be careful on your definitions–especially marriage. Be careful on your misguided conclusions about sterile couples as well.
I recognize that homosexuals are part of the neighbor group that Scripture commands me to love. But the Bible is clear about the sin that lies therein.
You know, my stance against homosexual marriage is also motivated out of love for these people. Vows are made to God, not to man. This is preventing them from defiling those vows. God is not easy on people that break vows.
November 6th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
married man’s minivan,
the vows made to God were not adopted until between the 12th and 14th century by the catholic church-other churchs followed suite with their own doctrine, the protestant contractarian model, the lutheran contractarian model, and more recently in the last two centuries the enlightenment model.
love is not defiling vows, if you choose to live your life in fear b/c of what you have read of the few books of the bible that have acutally been published then that is your own accord.
I am well aware that amendment #1 will pass, probably with flying colors-Enlightened and progressive thinkers are simply out-numbered in this State of denial.
November 6th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
married man’s minivan,
the vows made to God were not adopted until between the 12th and 14th century by the catholic church-other churchs followed suite with their own doctrine, the protestant contractarian model, the lutheran contractarian model, and more recently in the last two centuries the enlightenment model.
love is not defiling vows, if you choose to live your life in fear b/c of what you have read of the few books of the bible that have acutally been published then that is your own accord.
I am well aware that amendment #1 will pass, probably with flying colors-Enlightened and progressive thinkers are simply out-numbered in this State of denial.
November 8th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Go to France, then.
November 8th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Go to France, then.
November 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
“vows made to God were not adopted until between the 12th and 14th century”
I’ll assume you’re right in that the formal wedding vows were adopted around then. But that’s not what I said. Vows have been around since the creation of man. A vow is a promise to God and it is better to never make a vow than to break one (read I & II Corinthians).
November 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
“vows made to God were not adopted until between the 12th and 14th century”
I’ll assume you’re right in that the formal wedding vows were adopted around then. But that’s not what I said. Vows have been around since the creation of man. A vow is a promise to God and it is better to never make a vow than to break one (read I & II Corinthians).