If ya love controversial topics, how about this with the Supreme Court

Some people love controversy. I must admit to being one of them. I don't respond much to building topics here because I'm no where near being able to build what I would like and all I have are questions, no answers. I like some of the information here and have printed much to PDF files for future reference. There's even controvery between methods used by some builders. I've learned a lot from the two Dons.

Corporations urge Supreme Court to embrace gay marriage

From todays Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,7571188.story


For the record I believe it is about time. Some of my best most loyal and dependable friends are in long term monogamous gay or lesbian relationships.


"More than 200 businesses will urge the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to strike down a federal law that restricts the definition of marriage to heterosexual unions.

Lawyers representing the businesses said they would file a brief in the case.

Companies including Microsoft Corp, Google Inc, Starbucks Corp and Pfizer Inc are among those that joined the brief. Others included Aetna Inc, Amazon.com, Inc and Citigroup Inc.

Thomson Reuters Corp is another signatory. The Reuters news agency is part of Thomson Reuters.

The companies want the Supreme Court to strike down a key provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Separately, lawyers representing another group of employers, including some of the same companies, had said already that they planned to file a brief on Thursday in a related case that questions a California law that bans gay marriage.

The two cases are to be argued before the Supreme Court on March 26 and 27.

In the brief filed on Wednesday, attorney Sabin Willett wrote that DOMA "requires that employers treat one employee differently from another, when each is married, and each marriage is equally lawful."

DOMA does not create any uniformity nationwide, Willett said, because 12 states in total either authorize same-sex marriage or recognize marriages that have been performed in other states.

That creates a burden for employers, particularly those who do business nationwide, he added.

Willett also wrote that the law forces companies to discriminate, sometimes in contravention of their own internal policies and local laws, when dealing with healthcare plans and other benefits.

"We must do all of this in states, counties and cities that prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and demand equal treatment of all married individuals," he added.

In briefs already filed in support of marriage being restricted to heterosexual unions, business interests have not been represented. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has not taken a stand on the issue."

I find it odd that the LGBT community tends to hate anything to do with Christianity or traditional religion, yet they want to be recognized as "married" which is first and foremost a religious ceremony. So I guess I am more inclined to be less resistant to using the term "civil union" as opposed to marriage. I know this is merely semantics.

I also am somewhat confused by the LGBT movement, which seems to be focused to make the world convinced that alternative sexual lifestyles are normal and healthy. Which I feel they are not. Don't get me wrong... it is none of my damn business what somebody wants to do in private on their own property. But don't come into my home via entertainment or schools via the legal system and start to teach how this is normal and healthy. It isn't. It is hedonistic at best. Look at any of the pro-gay demonstrations / marches that happen..... it is frequently a freak show of scantily clad alternative types who merely are there to revel in their own individual sexuality.

A few years ago, I remember the Hispanic protests regarding the treatment of illegal residents. They protested, disrupted traffic, trashed parks, shut down businesses, and generally promoted anarchy. I would be more inclined to respectfully listen to their arguments and help them formally join our community if they were working together for the good of the community. Heck, same with the occupation protesters. Sort of same with LGBT.... make your cause more about love than about sexuality.

I am frustrated that LGBT groups and liberal causes are forcing their lifestyle onto conservatives. It tends to be an "in your face whether you like it or not" sort of situation.... much like the recent attack on the morality stance of the Boy Scouts. Rather than go and start their own scouting organization which would be less discriminating in terms of morality, and no association to divinity of any type, they have to attack the Boy Scouts... and demand that they change their policy. WTH? I see the same thing with the term "marriage". Same with the chik-fil-a story. Don't like it that the store supports traditional marriage? Go eat somewhere else. Call it a civil union or something other than marriage. Leave conservative traditions alone.

I am perfectly fine if we want to find a way by which a non-married person can have a civil union with someone else (hetero or not) which results in the second party having access to benefits of the first. I do not believe that sexuality needs to be a criteria for any of this. License it, charge them fees to make a union, and charge them fees to separate.

Anyone who stands in opposition is a declared a homophobe. What nonsense.

Good to see somebody with a thought they wanted to express on this. I thought this was just not comfortable enough for everyone. Some of the displays paraded in some LGBT demonstrations do seem a little over the top or in your face, for certain. But then so are the displays presented by the westboro baptist church. Both, though they make many people angry and uncomfortable, are a guaranteed right here in the USA. So from time to time our resolve for true personal freedoms has to be tested it seems.

Here’s my viewpoint. I believe any law that declares marriage can only be between a man and a woman is wrong because it impinges on my rights under constitutional amendments. We are guaranteed the freedom to decide our religious choice. That includes the choice of choosing no religion. There’s no drop down menu to choose from.

It seems to me that all the pronouncements that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman have their roots in theology. I am a non believer although I was raised in a seemingly normal practicing devout catholic family, but that is another sordid story and irrelevant here. I do not believe there ever was a god. I believe religion is an invention of men to comfort the unknown and to control people.

So I take offense at being made to obey a law that has its roots in religion. That’s pretty much it.

Is it normal for same sex people to have intimate personal relations? I think so. In the non human animal world evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior has been documented in over a thousand species. Why should people be forced into opposite sex restrictions?

Is it healthy? When mental health is included I’d say a resounding Yes is the correct answer. I have family members who “turned out” to be gay and lesbian. I have close friends who are lesbian and gay couples and some who are bisexual. I also have numerous friends and relatives who are in heterosexual relationships. An old friend from school days is a male to female transgender. She is now a better adjusted and more happy, less self destructive person.

To my knowledge none of these people have ever marched in one of the in your face LGBT pride parades When I meet them for a lunch or dinner or a hike or a camping trip or whatever social event they seem as ordinary as most heterosexual people are.

Well, that's pretty much a stretch in constitutional interpretation.

What if you wanted to create your own religion that included cruelty, human sacrifice, or something equally heinous? Are you arguing that your choice of religion or lack of it allows you to do whatever you want?

I like to believe that we hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than that of the sexuality of animals. My neighbor's dog has moments of indiscretion and like to lick himself when he is at the park around children. Should we follow suit and allow people to do the same?

Of course not. Using examples of beasts being bestial, or using religion freedom to be hedonistic or cruel is no defending argument.

Also, associating the Westboro nuts as representative of the majority of right winger folks is also somewhat weak. That is a group that is completely denounced by all true Christians and the vast majority of conservatives. However, most (all?) LGBT parades are focused on displays of their sexuality. I don't believe I have ever heard an LGBT group speak out against the public displays of sexual weirdness during their gatherings. They accept it and as such it is an accurate representation of their collective morals.

You point out that marriage has its roots in theology. I agree. So why the demand to call civil unions "marriage" instead of "unions"? I suspect because those who seek this want acceptance and endorsement that what they are doing is normal and acceptable. In their own minds they have doubt, but if the government endorses it, then it must be ok.

Let's put this to the acid test. One condition or the other... absolute hyperbole on this. What happens to the human race if we insist that all humans practice heterosexuality only? What happens to the human race if we practice homosexuality only?

That which merely makes someone feel good is not sufficient to be called morally acceptable. If we only pursue that which makes us feel good, we will find ourselves living in complete anarchy very quickly.

Saying that it is normal for same sex people to have intimate relations is not a well defined statement. If you are saying that it is normal for them to have intimate sexual relations, then I disagree. You will have a very hard time supporting that statement.

BTW, many folks believe that Christians hate homosexuals. This is not true. We hate the sin, not the sinner. We believe that sexual acts performed outside of marriage (even between heterosexual couples) is a sin. I understand that lots of folks feel otherwise.

Once again, I am not going to march in the streets denouncing homosexuals. I am not going to march in the street promoting heterosexuals. I'd like that the LGBT community show me the same courtesy.

I've got friends who are lesbian also. Heck, I built a portal on their shop at no cost for them when one was out of work and needed space to start an art business. They are decent folks and I like their company. I've never seen them act inappropriately, nor have I heard them promote their choice of sexuality. As conducted, we have mutual respect for each other, and we get along fine.

I'm simply not interested in what they do in the privacy of their homes, as long as they keep it in their homes. If they were to show up at my house promoting that lifestyle, or demanding religious recognition by insisting that we use the term marriage, things would change fast.

You stole the words right out of my mouth NM! What a contradiction to want a guarantee of a religious transaction/covenant/ordinance, yet say any law based on religion is irrelevant. I have more relatives, coworkers and friends that are in this group than anyone, so don't give me any ignorance line, please. I think they should have any legal rights to their mate such as inheritance and spousal priviledge, but that is NOT marriage. Call it a civil union as it already exists. I love the line of stay out of our bedroom, don't forbid our freedoms, yet now they want to stuff it down out throats. I am with NM, whatever two consenting adults do behind locked doors concerns me zero, but don't piss down my back and tell me its raining. Ok, I am done.