Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,907
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 313:
Line 313: − − == It's not your business. == − − Just because a majority of Americans are Christians, doesn't mean that every citizen has to be subjected to their opinions and values. The Constitution very specifically states that Congress shall make no law respecting any institution of religion, and a majority of gay marriage (notice the lack of quotation marks!) opposition comes from the Religious Right. Buddhism (early Buddhism) makes no complaint about gay marriage, so why should American Buddhists have their right to get married to whoever they want to denied? The denomination of Judaism I belong to (Reform) doesn't have a problem with it either. − − Basically, if I want to get married to a girl, it's not the government's business. At all. Amendment 9 of the Constitution has been used before to protect privacy rights of US citizens and I believe it needs to be used again. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. If you don't like homosexual behavior, don't participate in it. But ''do not'' tell me that I can't. − − Some girls want to marry girls. Some guys want to marry guys. Suck it up. − − (The last line is attributed to FCKH8.com)
Reverted edits by Aleksyevt (talk) to last revision by Karajou
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)