Why is gay marriage not legal in more places?

Post Reply New Topic

In Japan, most people practice Buddhism and/or Shintoism, though I am not very familiar with either religion, so I don't know what their stance is on homosexuality. The Czech Republic is mostly Catholic, but, as in much of Europe, many are only nominally practicing. I don't know what the religious breakdown is in Australia, but I am guessing the Christians there are mostly nominally practicing, as in Europe.

What sort of stupidity is that? Public law relating to marriage and divorce certainly existed in Imperial Rome, quite separate and apart from any religious control over marriage. One of the first statutes to expressly ban same sex marriage was issued by Constantius II and Constans in CE 342.

In the Common Law world, the legal recognition of marriage dates at least to the 12th Century. It was not until the 13th Century that the Church stepped in and decided, at the Fourth Lateran Council, that customary marriage was no longer canonical, requiring marriages to be announced publicly by a priest. In England and Wales, it was not until 1753 that customary marriage was displaced by statute, requiring all marriages (except those between Quakers and Jews) to be performed by the Church of England.

So, in fact, the law has been involved in marriage long before the Church ever got its grubby little mitts on it.



Yes, but as soon as you mention rights, you have turned the question into a legal question; and that necessarily brings the state into it, because it is only the organs of state that can create public law.



There are two prescribed ways to change laws in the USA: by statute, and by precedent. You live in a country which adheres to the Common Law tradition. The Common Law is, and always has been a feature of the Law in 49 of the 50 states, and in the federal jurisdiction throughout the history of the United States. The Common Law is real law, it is--and always has been--created by and kept current by the courts. When the Common Law and statute are in conflict, statute prevails. But when statute is silent, the law cannot be, and the Common Law is always present to fill the lacuna.



The last time I checked, the law was supposed to cater to every individual. The courts are supposed to advance and protect the rights of individuals which are being suppressed by the State. The law is supposed to dispose of the case in front of it; not abdicate its judicial function to the electorate.

"Activist judges," are the conservative shibboleth for judges that have the audacity to exercise their proper role in holding the legislature to account. While the legislature is the preeminent branch of government, that does not give it the authority to act ultra vires its constitutional jurisdiction.

It is not activist for a court to tell the state that a statute is unconstitutional. It is not activist for a court to step into a legislative lacuna, and pronounce upon the state of the Common Law. It is not activist for a court to determine the legal meaning of a statute enacted by the legislature. Until someone uses the Constitution to deprive courts of their jurisdiction in these matters, the courts are acting perfectly properly.

And woe betide the nation state that moves in that direction; for when the Rule of Law dies, so too do the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Because churches will be forced to compromise their beliefs by the Government. I would say its okay for Civil Unions. But marriage is a scared institution designed By God and it ought not to be screwed with.

Which God?

I don't realistically see that happening, though. There are still some churches that teach repulsively racist theology, but the federal government doesn't step in to make them stop it. Same as the Nation of Islam is both racist against whites and is terribly Antisemitic, but Louis Farrakhan can rant and rave all he wants from the pulpit without the government dragging him off to jail. And so, religious bodies like my own Lutheran Church Missouri Synod can continue to call same sex marriage immoral (a point I very much disagree with my church body about), despite the fact that it's been legalized here in my home state of Washington, as one day it will be in the whole country. And when it does, no one's going to make churches marry gay couples if they don't want to.

Thus speaks the bigot. Don't you ever get tired of hating gay people?

Marriage is a scared institution? Scared of what?

^ I hadn't noticed that.

I put money on him believing he does not hate gays nor is he bigoted against them, instead he will believe that he hates their sin. The trouble with religious whack jobs, they are removed from reality, in this case the reality that nature is not dependent upon a god any god, that gays are only doing what is perfectly natural to them and finally he is removed from the reality that forms of marriage existed before the abrahamic religions where thought up,

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/08/19/single.in.america/

Well, first of all, 43 percent of Americans are single.

Secondly, around 60 percent of marriages end in divorces.

Thirdly, less that 20% of cultures, globally, require monogamy.

Is there really separation of church and state in the US; yes.

But, is there not really separation of church and culture; no, still, sadly so; no.

Are humans even monogamous; well yes, some appear to be, but many studies suggest the majority are not, inherently monogamous.

Marriage is a cultural invention; before this cultural invention the village raised the child and in most primitive societies uncles and aunties are not necessarily blood related and they fulfill the inherent need of the village; raising children to survive to support the tribe.

Modern cultures change this necessity as technology fills the holes that the loss of extended family provides to glue the support necessary to raise a child.

Well, the real historical Jesus as best educated guess scholarly reports suggest is not a proponent of marriage; in fact, Jesus the real man is suggested to believe in heaven right now, in all of nature without marriage as a necessary component of the heaven of now, with folks more like cooperative friends, with free love occurring everywhere.

The real man Jesus, according to these scholarly reports looks a lot more like John Lennon, in philosophical style, than any preacher and most priests who currently walk the earth.

In a nomadic society where extended families are no longer the norm, marriage and the legal protection it offers is a valuable tool for survival.

The worst possible scenario that could happen to anyone in our culture; is if the Muslim ways of church and state as one in other countries ruled here, and marriages are prearranged; women are not allowed to go out in public without their family escort; and horrible other ways of restricting natural human reproductive freedoms that in reality increase the viability of the species through greater diversity that naturally happens when humans pick who they want to have sex with.

And Muhammad was actually an individual that saw GOD as the GOD of nature, ironically so, too.

Interestingly enough, it seems both men at core at their actual time of existence were much more like Classical Pantheist leaning mystic Yogi's than any orthodox way of religion.

Well, we know a lot more about nature now, than was known then, and any man or woman that sees a GOD of nature will likely agree with the observation of it that rings true with science.

I have absolutely no problem showing proof that GOD exists as I definitely see GOD and the interdependent relationship of all of nature one and the same; and yes, this does appear to be the way Jesus and Muhammad really saw it too; one in a solitary cave finding GOD in nature; and one in a desert for 40 days or so finding GOD in nature too; and basically saying screw religion; just be free, and yes humans are moreover definitely evolved for social cooperation; unconditionally as such also known as Sacred Love in some social circles.

The key is in nature there are special features of mother nature also known as GOD that not all folks have access to, sadly enough, as mother nature is simply not fair, in this sense. I guess, in this sense, perhaps there are the chosen ones; it's just the way it works; not much choice but to the best one be and do with what they have. But the key of the special features of nature still rings true; these were the things that the man Yeshua also known as Jesus, and Muhammad were seeking, finding, and trying to communicate to others, to help them out too. Problem though, is some folks don't have the capacity to see the special features and some do; the laws of the Jungle ring true here too.

The rules of the jungle still apply no matter what culture says. Reality is one of yes; love and or social cooperation among most social animals; but yes, competition for reproductive success which involves strength and endurance too. Additionally, the journey for each animal to find the special features, of the interdependent relationship of nature also known as GOD, depending on their inherent and environmental adaptation to do so, that varies with mileage and inherent features of each human being, chosen or not, to use that metaphor again.

So the answer to why more homosexuals can't get married, is simple; it's religious fantasy that makes marriage sacred to only a certain percentage of preconceived folks deserving of this 'special privilege'.

The reality is, at this time, it's more of an economic crutch than anything else; but one that still doesn't work well at all when freedom is mixed with religion in culture; no matter what the constitution says, it still is mixed for now; until the social welfare state is strong enough to run organized religion out of business.

It's still a very tough culture for homosexuals to live in, overall, particularly in places in red state areas like I live, in rural North Florida; marriage offers economic protection but it also says that homosexuals are accepted in this culture we live in that still promotes marriage in churches as a sacred practice; not just an economic practice.

The greatest overriding need for any social animal is to be accepted by the tribe; the fact that at least more areas are legally requiring marriage is a great step towards making the last pariah's of a free country, homosexuals, finally truly free, in a cultural way; not just a legal way.

And it is this type of innovation in freedom that can definitely, eventually, lead to greater sharing of wealth; this can allow a stronger country with a stronger social welfare state, to meet the needs of basic subsistence, so the truly creative and productive members of society can contribute their greatest strengths. This is what people inherently do, when the he lowest Maslow hierarchy level of human needs are met at basic animal homeostasis which requires food, drink, shelter, and yes reproductive freedom, too, as Maslow likely wasn't in a free enough culture at the time, to include that core element too.

Repress it or oppress it and the result is often depression, anxiety, aggression, and yes violence, too.

It's a factor as to why the Muslim countries stay so pissed off; most of the citizens cannot be free at basic human nature; reproductive freedom.

But they'll tell you it's something else.

The laws of the Jungle and or GOD of Nature do still apply

There's no escaping it; without paying some price; and yes the price can be death, ultimately, sadly enough, too.

Things are looking up in the US for the future of freedom surviving; legal marriage of homosexuals is truly a barometer of the health of our society moving to a state of better health.

No one has the right to force churches or church staff to marry anyone. The government is fully capable of handling marriage all on its own.



Like it was okay for blacks to have seperate-but-"equal" facilities?



Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, having existed long before your "god" was dreamt up, and in societies which never had anything to do with Christianity before Europeans arrived. We designed it, and we have every right to determine who can get married. The only moral solution is to permit any number of consenting adults to enter a marriage contract.

Over in Africa, wherever there's a strong Western presence, there's quite a bit of homophobia. But, go back to the villages, or hang with the beach boys, and you get a different story. There's not necessarily gay marriage, but there's a whole lot of other gay somethings going on! And it's not a big deal. People still get married, and have kids (look at the stats!), but they get some on the side as well. Of course, not every culture's the same, so this doesn't apply to every culture found on the continent, but it's pretty wide spread (don't let the bigots know this, one colonization is already one too many!).

Umm...no they won't. This is a very common misconception about the legalization of SSM. Churches will not be forced by the government to do anything.

And if marriage is a sacred institution why does nobody complain about marriage being a government-mandated legal contract w/ no religious affiliation or obligation? Why is only a big deal once same sex couples are involved?

Because it's no longer politically or socially acceptable (for most people) to condemn interracial marriage anymore.