Anti-Semitism In France!

[Ron Cusano 0]

That is not true. Sodomy and same sex marriage is the law in most states. It has become more of an issue in recent years. The battle now by liberal groups is to enact law to ALLOW same sex marriage because it does not exist at present.

No one tried to marry another person of the same sex until recent times, which is why there hasn't been a law banning homosexual marriage before. Homosexual marriage was not illegal in most cases, just so far outside the norm that no one thought to ban it before now.

The fact remains that there is no need for a constitutional amendment to ban something that is already illegal. So either lawmakers are tying to amend the constitution because they know that gay marriage isn't illegal, or they are wasting their time because it is already illegal. Either way, they're idiots.

[Ron Cusano 0]

PS - The reason for the constitional ammendment is to make same sex marriage illegal on a Federal Level so it can't be overturned on the state level.

That is not true. Sodomy and same sex marriage is the law in most states. It has become more of an issue in recent years. The battle now by liberal groups is to enact law to ALLOW same sex marriage because it does not exist at present.

[Ron Cusano 0]

One correction! Slavery is spoken of and was usual in Old Testament times, but under the New Covenent, all are equal in the eyes of God. Even under the Old Tesstament dispensation, much of slavery was voluntary to pay off debt.

The problem with that argument is, none of those things are addressed in the Bible, except divorce, and that was allowed under Mosaic Law and in the New Testament, if adulty was involve. People may THINK those laws came from the Bible, but that did not.

[anonemouse 1]

Sodomy and same sex marriage is the law in most states.

Yes, homosexual acts were illegal (although sodomy is not necessarily homosexual), but the fight over same sex marriage is one of convention. In many cases, they've had to change the wording on marriage licenses because it didn't limit it to "one man and one woman". That is really the basis of a lot of the legal challenges, because homosexual marriage wasn't explicitly denied. Otherwise, the challenges wouldn't have gotten anywhere. A lot of the fight is over whether something that is not explicitly denied is permitted. In other words, the legal-ese. Again, unless something is specifically denied, it isn't necessarily illegal.

[Ron Cusano 0]

From Wikipledia -

However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit; indeed, most legal scholars believe that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states by statute. Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004. Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey and California have created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law to same-sex couples. Maine, Hawaii and the District of Columbia have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.

In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage."

Opponents of same-sex marriage have attempted to prevent individual states from recognizing such unions by amending the United States Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In 2006, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages, was approved by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party line vote, and was debated by the full United States Senate, but was ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress.[

Yes, homosexual acts were illegal (although sodomy is not necessarily homosexual), but the fight over same sex marriage is one of convention. In many cases, they've had to change the wording on marriage licenses because it didn't limit it to "one man and one woman". That is really the basis of a lot of the legal challenges, because homosexual marriage wasn't explicitly denied. Otherwise, the challenges wouldn't have gotten anywhere. A lot of the fight is over whether something that is not explicitly denied is permitted.

[wavydaby 1]

So you say there is nothing the bible where passage after passage tells you how you are supposed to treat your slaves, which makes slavery OK?

Nothing in the bible that tells you about interracial marriage, but it has passage after passage on inter-religious marriage, which is what people based that on.

Thou shalt have no God before me.

The basis of not recognizing other religions.

But the fact is that we have laws based on God's laws on the books. OR based on someone's interpretation of God's laws.

What makes divorce ok now???? The fact that the law recognises not everyone belives in God's law.

[anonemouse 1]

In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage."

ANd in much of these cases, these are recent developments. Again, if it was already illegal, they didn't need constitutional amendments or to change their laws.

[Wheetsin 714]

Sodomy and same sex marriage is the law in most states.

What do you mean they are the law in most states?

[Ron Cusano 0]

If you took the time to read it, I sent a correction to say the Old Testament sopke about slavery, but the New Testament does no support it under Christ.

You want to show me passages that talk about inter-racial marriage??

In God's admonition to Israel, He tells than to only worship the God of Israel and no to inter-marry with none Jews. That has nothing to do with inter-racial marriage or forced religion. That was directed to Israel.

You are making no sense at all!

So you say there is nothing the bible where passage after passage tells you how you are supposed to treat your slaves, which makes slavery OK?

Nothing in the bible that tells you about interracial marriage, but it has passage after passage on inter-religious marriage, which is what people based that on.

Thou shalt have no God before me.

The basis of not recognizing other religions.

But the fact is that we have laws based on God's laws on the books. OR based on someone's interpretation of God's laws.

What makes divorce ok now???? The fact that the law recognises not everyone belives in God's law.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Typo. Should have read they are against the law . . .

What do you mean they are the law in most states?

[Ron Cusano 0]

Turn that around! Is it was already legal, there would be no need to enact laws to make it legal.

Again, the Constitutional Ammendment will make same sex marriage illegal on the FEDERAL level, so it cannot be over turned on the state level.

It is late and I am going to bed. Have a good night!

ANd in much of these cases, these are recent developments. Again, if it was already illegal, they didn't need constitutional amendments or to change their laws.

[anonemouse 1]

Is it was already legal, there would be no need to enact laws to make it legal.

You forget that they aren't writing laws to make it legal. They are writing them to make it illegal.

Again, the Constitutional Ammendment will make same sex marriage illegal on the FEDERAL level, so it cannot be over turned on the state level.

It isn't so it can't be overturned on a state level, it's because there is a law in place that states that marriages recognized by one state must be recognized by another. In other words, if you got married in Nevada, you would still be married if you moved to Kansas.

[wavydaby 1]

There is passage after passage where the treatment of slaves is mentioned in the new testament.. shall i get them for you?

The other "Nothing in the bible that tells you about interracial marriage, but it has passage after passage on inter-religious marriage, which is what people based that on."

What I meant to say is that for years, people used the passages on banning inter-religious marriage to mean a ban on inter-racial marriage.

It was years before people agreed that they were wrong and inter-racial marriage was ok.

The third

We dont recognise other religions based on the first commandment

And lastly, we CHANGED some laws because, oops, somepeople do NOT worship God, and since we have some laws based on what is wrong/right in the bible, I guess we have to change that.

We are creating a law against homosexuality strictly based on what God said, or what we think what God said.

That, in a free society, is wrong.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Just this week, NJ recognized same-sex unions granting certain legal right that married couples have. If same sex marriage, why would they do this. The same is true with the other sates where they have such recognition of "unions". Check out the following -

Same-sex marriage in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article documents a current event.

Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.Same-sex marriage, often called gay marriage, is a marriage between two persons of the same gender. The issue is a divisive political issue in the United States and elsewhere. The social movement to obtain the legal protections of civil marriage for same-sex couples began in the early 1970s, and the issue became a prominent one in U.S. politics in the 1990s.

The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) Thus, no act or agency of the U.S. federal government currently recognizes same-sex marriage.

However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit; indeed, most legal scholars believe that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states by statute. Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004. Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey and California have created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law to same-sex couples. Maine, Hawaii and the District of Columbia have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.

In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage."

Opponents of same-sex marriage have attempted to prevent individual states from recognizing such unions by amending the United States Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In 2006, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages, was approved by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party line vote, and was debated by the full United States Senate, but was ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress.[1]

Some states have it in the constitution that they recognize marriage from another state.

You forget that they aren't writing laws to make it legal. They are writing them to make it illegal.

It isn't so it can't be overturned on a state level, it's because there is a law in place that states that marriages recognized by one state must be recognized by another. In other words, if you got married in Nevada, you would still be married if you moved to Kansas.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Yes, I want you to show me where it talks about treatment of slaves in the New Testament. The word slave is only used once in the entire New Testament, in the Book of Revelations, and mentions nothing about treatment or ownership. Have you ever even read the Bible??

There is passage after passage where the treatment of slaves is mentioned in the new testament.. shall i get them for you?

The other "Nothing in the bible that tells you about interracial marriage, but it has passage after passage on inter-religious marriage, which is what people based that on."

What I meant to say is that for years, people used the passages on banning inter-religious marriage to mean a ban on inter-racial marriage.

It was years before people agreed that they were wrong and inter-racial marriage was ok.

If the Bible doesn't even mention interracial marriage then how can you blame the Bible for interratial marriage. If people came this wrong conslusion, how can you blame the Bible!

The third

We dont recognise other religions based on the first commandment

What in the world does that even mean?

And lastly, we CHANGED some laws because, oops, somepeople do NOT worship God, and since we have some laws based on what is wrong/right in the bible, I guess we have to change that.

Again, What in the world does that even mean?

We are creating a law against homosexuality strictly based on what God said, or what we think what God said.

That, in a free society, is wrong.

Wrong! Nobody is "creating a law against homosexuality"! We already have laws against same sex marriage. They are fighting for a Constitional Amendment to make the law a Federal Law mandatory upon all the states.