Gay Marriage Debate - Milwaukee, WI

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Milwaukee, WI.

Do you support gay marriage?

Milwaukee opposes
Oppose
 
260
Support
 
224

Vote now in Milwaukee:

Since: Apr 11

Pewaukee, WI

#606 Aug 2, 2012
enough wrote:
<quoted text> God, the big guy that looks like “Dog The Bounty Hunter”, and floats in the clouds right? The Bible, the book written by a bunch of old guys, decades or much more after the supposed events happened. They wrote about all kinds of screwy unbelievable magic stuff that has never happened again. This belief is falling apart at the seams. Science continues to discount the concocted events in “The Book”. Religions keep back peddling to change the story to try and fit the facts. Wake up from the goofy dream.
The FOUNDATION upon which the bible rests is FAITH/BELIEF.

Believing that biblical events really did happen takes an INCREDIBLE amount of faith.

I do agree with you to a certain extent.

Some biblical events are hard to fathom.

When was the last time anyone saw a dead man rise from the grave after being dead for three days???

When was the last time anyone saw a man swallowed up by a whale & live???

When was the last time anyone saw a man stay in a den of lions & not be consumed by the lions???

These events are hard to believe.

But the ones who do believe,the ones who follow the tenets of christian beliefs,those are the ones who will receive the ultimate prize...ETERNAL LIFE IN HEAVEN.
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#607 Aug 2, 2012
cnw95 wrote:
<quoted text>
The FOUNDATION upon which the bible rests is FAITH/BELIEF.
Believing that biblical events really did happen takes an INCREDIBLE amount of faith.
I do agree with you to a certain extent.
Some biblical events are hard to fathom.
When was the last time anyone saw a dead man rise from the grave after being dead for three days???
When was the last time anyone saw a man swallowed up by a whale & live???
When was the last time anyone saw a man stay in a den of lions & not be consumed by the lions???
These events are hard to believe.
But the ones who do believe,the ones who follow the tenets of christian beliefs,those are the ones who will receive the ultimate prize...ETERNAL LIFE IN HEAVEN.
Here is the thing...
We as a Nation are not a theocracy. What you believe your bible to say and mean (many Christian sects view the Bible vs re homosexuality differently) does not matter when it comes to rights given a United states Citizen. So believe what you want, just dont try to use your holy book as reason to deny equal rights to all U.S. citizens.

Tell me one thing... Why should two United States Citizens who have been together for 15 years and happen to be a ssc be denied the rights and legal standing of a couple married 15 minutes
enough

Thiensville, WI

#608 Aug 2, 2012
cnw95 wrote:
<quoted text>
The FOUNDATION upon which the bible rests is FAITH/BELIEF.
Believing that biblical events really did happen takes an INCREDIBLE amount of faith.
I do agree with you to a certain extent.
Some biblical events are hard to fathom.
When was the last time anyone saw a dead man rise from the grave after being dead for three days???
When was the last time anyone saw a man swallowed up by a whale & live???
When was the last time anyone saw a man stay in a den of lions & not be consumed by the lions???
These events are hard to believe.
But the ones who do believe,the ones who follow the tenets of christian beliefs,those are the ones who will receive the ultimate prize...ETERNAL LIFE IN HEAVEN.
Eternal life is a concept humans created to crush the anxiety of getting old, and dying. That’s all. Face it...We’re worm food. Enjoy NOW, be good to eachother NOW, there is no "Do Over". If we followed the Bible, and the universe was only a couple thousand years old, most of the stars in the sky would not be visible (yet)(as they are many thousands of LIGHT YEARS away)

Since: Apr 11

Pewaukee, WI

#609 Aug 2, 2012
no big O wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the thing...
We as a Nation are not a theocracy. What you believe your bible to say and mean (many Christian sects view the Bible vs re homosexuality differently) does not matter when it comes to rights given a United states Citizen. So believe what you want, just dont try to use your holy book as reason to deny equal rights to all U.S. citizens.
Tell me one thing... Why should two United States Citizens who have been together for 15 years and happen to be a ssc be denied the rights and legal standing of a couple married 15 minutes
There are THREE areas in which one can debate the validity of homosexual relations...

1.Nature aspect.
2.Religious aspect.
3.Legal/constitutional aspect.

Numbers 1 & 2 have posed difficulties for proponents of gay marriage to argue.

But number 3 is where they have a more realistic shot at winning the debate.

There is NOTHING in the constitution that could be construed as being against ssc. BUT there isn't anything that could be construed that it supports it either.

This creates somewhat of a stalemate.

Enter the 10th amendment.

But even this doesn't really solve the problem.

Gays want UNIVERSAL acceptance.

This is difficult to achieve if SOME states are LEGALLY allowed to accept gay marriage while the neighboring state denies it..

Also,i don't think the U.S.Supreme court would hear a case involving gay marriage.

As you stated,we DO NOT live in a THEOCRACY and since the FOUNDATION of marriage is rooted in religion and since we have freedom of religion,the gov can't tell a church to recognize nor ignore same sex marriage.

Therefore,this is a state issue.
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#610 Aug 2, 2012
cnw95 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are THREE areas in which one can debate the validity of homosexual relations...
1.Nature aspect.
2.Religious aspect.
3.Legal/constitutional aspect.
Numbers 1 & 2 have posed difficulties for proponents of gay marriage to argue.
But number 3 is where they have a more realistic shot at winning the debate.
There is NOTHING in the constitution that could be construed as being against ssc. BUT there isn't anything that could be construed that it supports it either.
This creates somewhat of a stalemate.
Enter the 10th amendment.
But even this doesn't really solve the problem.
Gays want UNIVERSAL acceptance.
This is difficult to achieve if SOME states are LEGALLY allowed to accept gay marriage while the neighboring state denies it..
Also,i don't think the U.S.Supreme court would hear a case involving gay marriage.
As you stated,we DO NOT live in a THEOCRACY and since the FOUNDATION of marriage is rooted in religion and since we have freedom of religion,the gov can't tell a church to recognize nor ignore same sex marriage.
Therefore,this is a state issue.
a) THE NATURE ISSUE... Since homosexauality has been found in many many many species the nature arguement is moot... it is not "unnatural"...
B) the religious aspect... Marriage at its core is a contract, no religion needed for it. so moot
C)"There is NOTHING in the constitution that could be construed as being against ssc. BUT there isn't anything that could be construed that it supports it either."
Nothing more or less than what support osm...
You mention the 10th... which is interestting until you look at the 14th
equal protection clause. Basically saying that a state can not have a law for one set of people and another for a different set. So to say that hetero's can marry yet homo. can not is a direct violation of this amendment.

"As you stated,we DO NOT live in a THEOCRACY and since the FOUNDATION of marriage is rooted in religion and since we have freedom of religion,the gov can't tell a church to recognize nor ignore same sex marriage."

Here is where you are wrong. The foundation of marriage is not rooted in religion. It is rooted in contractual law. If it was religous based only clergy could perform the "ceremony" . As is. Judges, captains of ships (off shore a certain distance) and depending on state justices of peace can perform it. Technically speaking once the two individuals sign the marriage certificate (contract) the marriage/contract is in effect. The "show" in church or where ever is exactly that ... a show. The contract is already in effect. So the religious deal doesn't fly.

Your argument was used in loving v virginia. Basically saying that marriage was a states rights issue... see what happened there

Plus with DOMA it is a federal rights issue... soon to be before SCOTUS.

Since: Apr 11

Pewaukee, WI

#611 Aug 3, 2012
no big O wrote:
<quoted text>
C)"There is NOTHING in the constitution that could be construed as being against ssc. BUT there isn't anything that could be construed that it supports it either."
Nothing more or less than what support osm...
You mention the 10th... which is interestting until you look at the 14th
equal protection clause. Basically saying that a state can not have a law for one set of people and another for a different set. So to say that hetero's can marry yet homo. can not is a direct violation of this amendment.
"As you stated,we DO NOT live in a THEOCRACY and since the FOUNDATION of marriage is rooted in religion and since we have freedom of religion,the gov can't tell a church to recognize nor ignore same sex marriage."
Here is where you are wrong. The foundation of marriage is not rooted in religion. It is rooted in contractual law. If it was religous based only clergy could perform the "ceremony" . As is. Judges, captains of ships (off shore a certain distance) and depending on state justices of peace can perform it. Technically speaking once the two individuals sign the marriage certificate (contract) the marriage/contract is in effect. The "show" in church or where ever is exactly that ... a show. The contract is already in effect. So the religious deal doesn't fly.
Your argument was used in loving v virginia. Basically saying that marriage was a states rights issue... see what happened there
Plus with DOMA it is a federal rights issue... soon to be before SCOTUS.
I will admit the current concept of marriage interpreted as being a contract isn't that far fetched.(although i find this comparison to be a bit IMPERSONAL)

But what i was talking about was the OVERALL foundation of marriage & where it's fundamental concepts lay.

I'm quite certain that whenever the VERY first marriage was performed that there wasn't an association between it & contract law.

At some point the concept of marriage MORPHED into what you perceive it to be now...a contract.

But HOW & WHY did this happen???

I think this can be used by ssc proponents to claim a constitutional violation citing the right to contract.

Regarding loving v virginia....

There is definitely room for a 14th amendment argument but even legislative evidence points to this being mainly a STATES RIGHTS issue.

Look at D.O.M.A....Section 2. Powers reserved to the states."No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship".

The 14th amendment angle could only be used AFTER there was a change in the definition of what a marriage is.

And this has been successfully accomplished as we now know accept marriage as a CONTRACT.

But if this is a due process issue then how was D.O.M.A. passed???

It's been 45 years since you claimed in loving v virginia that marriage is NOT a states rights issue & yet D.O.M.A is allowed to pass which converts this issue back to the states.

And if this is such a blatant violation of the 14th amendmant,why hasn't the supreme court acted much sooner in nullyfing D.O.M.A????

It's been 16 years since D.O.M.A was passed & the supreme court has yet to touch ANYTHING in it.

WHY????
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#612 Aug 3, 2012
cnw95 wrote:
<quoted text>
I will admit the current concept of marriage interpreted as being a contract isn't that far fetched.(although i find this comparison to be a bit IMPERSONAL)
But what i was talking about was the OVERALL foundation of marriage & where it's fundamental concepts lay.
I'm quite certain that whenever the VERY first marriage was performed that there wasn't an association between it & contract law.
At some point the concept of marriage MORPHED into what you perceive it to be now...a contract.
But HOW & WHY did this happen???
I think this can be used by ssc proponents to claim a constitutional violation citing the right to contract.
Regarding loving v virginia....
There is definitely room for a 14th amendment argument but even legislative evidence points to this being mainly a STATES RIGHTS issue.
Look at D.O.M.A....Section 2. Powers reserved to the states."No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship".
The 14th amendment angle could only be used AFTER there was a change in the definition of what a marriage is.
And this has been successfully accomplished as we now know accept marriage as a CONTRACT.
But if this is a due process issue then how was D.O.M.A. passed???
It's been 45 years since you claimed in loving v virginia that marriage is NOT a states rights issue & yet D.O.M.A is allowed to pass which converts this issue back to the states.
And if this is such a blatant violation of the 14th amendmant,why hasn't the supreme court acted much sooner in nullyfing D.O.M.A????
It's been 16 years since D.O.M.A was passed & the supreme court has yet to touch ANYTHING in it.
WHY????
"I'm quite certain that whenever the VERY first marriage was performed that there wasn't an association between it & contract law.
At some point the concept of marriage MORPHED into what you perceive it to be now...a contract."

Actually the contract came first... Back in the days where women came with dowries.. and marriages were not about love but matchmaking to build a better class, the contract was there... you agree to marry, you get 4 oxens and a wagon.. no love... quid pro quo. Your dowry not enough... no deal.

"Regarding loving v virginia....
There is definitely room for a 14th amendment argument but even legislative evidence points to this being mainly a STATES RIGHTS issue."

It is... until the state violates the 14th. In loving, virginia law banning interracial marriage was argued as a states rights issue. When brought before SCOTUS, all judges found in favor of loving stateing the 14th. Now how is it different for ssm?

Look at D.O.M.A.....

Actually no. DOMA will be fought on 14th grounds on federal law. Federal law takes away federal rights based on nothing more than sex.
It, imho, clearly violates both the spirit and intent of the 14th. When DOMA goes, ssm will be seen as constitutional... then states will have to fall in line.

"But if this is a due process issue then how was D.O.M.A. passed???"

Laws are passed all the time which are found unconstitutional. DOMA is relatively new.. it will take time for it to go through the appeals process and make it to SCOTUS. A federal appeals court recently found DOMA to be unconstitutional. My bet with in the next two sessions of SCOTUS DOMA will be before the court.

"if this is such a blatant violation of the 14th amendmant,why hasn't the supreme court acted much sooner in nullyfing D.O.M.A????"

As a rule, SCOTUS doesn't just step in. It must be brought before them. To do so steps must be taken, suits filed, appealed appeal appealed.. So it is coming... just cant rush justice
.

Since: Apr 11

Pewaukee, WI

#613 Aug 4, 2012
no big O wrote:
<quoted text>
"I'm quite certain that whenever the VERY first marriage was performed that there wasn't an association between it & contract law.
At some point the concept of marriage MORPHED into what you perceive it to be now...a contract."
Actually the contract came first... Back in the days where women came with dowries.. and marriages were not about love but matchmaking to build a better class, the contract was there... you agree to marry, you get 4 oxens and a wagon.. no love... quid pro quo. Your dowry not enough... no deal.
"Regarding loving v virginia....
There is definitely room for a 14th amendment argument but even legislative evidence points to this being mainly a STATES RIGHTS issue."
It is... until the state violates the 14th. In loving, virginia law banning interracial marriage was argued as a states rights issue. When brought before SCOTUS, all judges found in favor of loving stateing the 14th. Now how is it different for ssm?
Look at D.O.M.A.....
Actually no. DOMA will be fought on 14th grounds on federal law. Federal law takes away federal rights based on nothing more than sex.
It, imho, clearly violates both the spirit and intent of the 14th. When DOMA goes, ssm will be seen as constitutional... then states will have to fall in line.
"But if this is a due process issue then how was D.O.M.A. passed???"
Laws are passed all the time which are found unconstitutional. DOMA is relatively new.. it will take time for it to go through the appeals process and make it to SCOTUS. A federal appeals court recently found DOMA to be unconstitutional. My bet with in the next two sessions of SCOTUS DOMA will be before the court.
"if this is such a blatant violation of the 14th amendmant,why hasn't the supreme court acted much sooner in nullyfing D.O.M.A????"
As a rule, SCOTUS doesn't just step in. It must be brought before them. To do so steps must be taken, suits filed, appealed appeal appealed.. So it is coming... just cant rush justice
.
Well we will just have to wait & see IF and/or WHEN the court will hear any ssc cases.

Your right,cases like these have to go through appeals processes and the like & it could take literally YEARS before it even reaches a point when the court will even consider it.

And even then,they can turn down the case & not hear it altogether.

There are only a few cases that the supreme court MUST hear without an appeal.

All other cases the court can either choose to hear it or not hear it.

I wonder what they will do???????
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#614 Aug 4, 2012
cnw95 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well we will just have to wait & see IF and/or WHEN the court will hear any ssc cases.
Your right,cases like these have to go through appeals processes and the like & it could take literally YEARS before it even reaches a point when the court will even consider it.
And even then,they can turn down the case & not hear it altogether.
There are only a few cases that the supreme court MUST hear without an appeal.
All other cases the court can either choose to hear it or not hear it.
I wonder what they will do???????
You are correct. In fact one case involving Minnesota was denied for want of a federal question. However since DOMA is a federal question regarding federal benefits,,,, the court can not sidestep it. Now I will say that up until Obamacare fiasco, I felt the courts when faced with DOMA would rule unconstitutional. Yet we saw how they figured Obama care unconstitutional but then called it a tax.... so on that level it was constitutional.... So who knows now.
meat lopp

Bellevue, WA

#615 Aug 4, 2012
one male dog humps another male dog.
CHOICE

Milwaukee, WI

#616 Aug 4, 2012
God gives us free will of choice...its up to each individual rather we chose right or left. and thats with any decsion we make in our lives. no man nor woman on this earth has the right to judge anybody no SIN is greater than the other. JUDGE NOT...
Elizabeth

Apache Junction, AZ

#617 Aug 5, 2012
If you are so against Roman Polanski's behavior who slept with one 13 year old, where is your indignation about the disgusting pedophile preists who assaulted thousdands of little boys and girls, many under the age of 13?
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#618 Aug 5, 2012
Elizabeth wrote:
If you are so against Roman Polanski's behavior who slept with one 13 year old, where is your indignation about the disgusting pedophile preists who assaulted thousdands of little boys and girls, many under the age of 13?
You do realize that pedophilia has no relation to homosexuality.....

Since: Apr 11

Pewaukee, WI

#619 Aug 5, 2012
CHOICE wrote:
God gives us free will of choice...its up to each individual rather we chose right or left. and thats with any decsion we make in our lives. no man nor woman on this earth has the right to judge anybody no SIN is greater than the other. JUDGE NOT...
I agree with you in that God gives us free will.

But our decisions aren't LEFT or RIGHT decisions.

They are RIGHT & WRONG decisions.

You CANNOT neutralize the concept of RIGHT & WRONG.

As far as JUDGING goes...what about criminals???

You claim that," no man nor woman on this earth has the right to judge anybody".

And yet criminals are JUDGED when they go through the justice system.

What do we do with them???

Are they not to be judged for the crimes they have committed???

And don't get me wrong,i see your point about NOT being judgmental.

But you leave the impression that society as a whole should NOT judge ANYTHING and that there is neither a right nor wrong decision.

If something is neither CORRECT nor INCORRECT then what do we call it????

Since: Apr 11

Pewaukee, WI

#620 Aug 5, 2012
no big O wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that pedophilia has no relation to homosexuality.....
I think we are getting a LITTLE of topic.
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#621 Aug 5, 2012
cnw95 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we are getting a LITTLE of topic.
Just responding to the post as written.....

Since: Apr 11

Pewaukee, WI

#622 Aug 6, 2012
no big O wrote:
<quoted text>
Just responding to the post as written.....
Yeah, this is a touchy topic & i'm not blaming you.

Even though you and i are on opposite sides of the topic,it's been a civil & informative exchange with BOTH of us staying on topic.

It's so easy to get off course to the point where the exchange does no good when stop discussing the RELEVANT issue.

I recently found some good info regarding how the supreme court determines what is a 14th amendment violation.

When i gather all the info i'll get back to you.

Since: Apr 11

Pewaukee, WI

#623 Aug 6, 2012
no big O wrote:
<quoted text>
DOMA will be fought on 14th grounds on federal law. Federal law takes away federal rights based on nothing more than sex.
It, imho, clearly violates both the spirit and intent of the 14th. When DOMA goes, ssm will be seen as constitutional... then states will have to fall in line.
The supreme court has determined certain classifications to be constitutionally suspect.

Discrimination based on any characteristic that the court has declared suspect is presumed to be irrational & constitutionally invalid.

When such discrimination is constitutionally challenged, the courts proceed with STRICT SCRUTINY & the government carries a difficult burden of proof to justify the legitimacy of it's actions.

For example,RACE & RELIGION have been declared by the supreme court to be suspect.

Therefore,GOVERNMENT discrimination against racial minorities or religious groups is unlikely to be upheld.

Does same sex marriage fall under the courts definition of suspect classification????

I argued that marriage is rooted in religion and because of this,that the government would be reluctant to dictate to a church who they can and cannot marry.

Religion is already a suspect class under the courts definition but many ssc proponents reject the idea of any religious tenets.

And yet this would be the perfect way to make ssc legal.

Your claim that marriage is a contract,while technically correct does not fit the definition of suspect classification.

So while marriage may be a contract,there's nothing in place to FORCE every government body to ACCEPT the conditions of the contract.

In order for the gov to accept ssm,the courts would have to change the definition of what marriage is.

Is changing the definition of marriage a proper role for ANY governmental body to do????
diandra kroening

Milwaukee, WI

#625 Dec 6, 2012
i support everyone needs happiness
Milw TaXpayer

Waukesha, WI

#626 Dec 7, 2012
Really,
Some guy doing another guy.....yea, that the way to precreate!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Milwaukee Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Woman fatally stabbed near 28th, Hadley 3 hr Thming 4
Prostitution Franklin 20 hr jman 1
Milwaukee Liberians worry about Ebola back home Tue Bean 4
Erin Salmon: A year behind bars (Feb '14) Tue Huh 2
Obama: 'Revving' economy calls for higher wages Oct 20 Batch 37 Pain Is ... 131
nnn Oct 20 Tenant 2
Jesus Christ, the Son of God Oct 20 Bowed 2

Milwaukee Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]