ZubaZ ZubaZ

Should the feds open up benefits to married, gay couples?

▼

Should the feds open up benefits to married, gay couples?

from JoeUser Forums

I heard on the news this morning that the lawyer that got gay marriages recognized in Massachusetts is bringing suit against the federal government to recognize legal marriage by the states and provide equal benefits. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/us/03marriage.html?ref=us)

I support the suit.

Over the past six years I've had the honor of officiating five weddings in Texas.  I firmly believe that the ceremonies I performed had very little to do with the state.  Each was a social or religious agreement between two people to be together forever.  The state had no place there.

Where I believe the state has a place is in a separate, legal situation recognizing a contract between these same two people for the purpose of maintaining property, securing benefits, and situations dealing with children.  The state should be there to record that a contract exists between these people.  The state should *not* call it marriage.

In my magic world, the two events would be made separate.  If your faith allowed gay marriages; great!  If it didn't; great too!  Same for your state governments.  And the federal government . .  their job is to interfere with the states as little as possible.  If a state says that a legal contract exists . . then that is that.  Recognize baby!

The following excerpts are the main provisions of the Act:

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.

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

 

The act itself: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ199.104

 

 

politics
143,359 views 375 replies
Reply #176 from JoeUser Forums Top

Christians HAVE NOT ignored anything.  The dietary laws that were given to the Jews in the OT were NOT given to the Gentiles.  Never were given to the Gentiles in fact.

End of quote

That is exactly right.

As I said, there is no (Biblical) reason for an Eskimo not to eat whale flesh.

 

In fact if you read the book of Acts you would find that Peter (a Jew) was given a vision from God saying that all things were now safe to eat and that the wall that separated Jew and Gentile was now torn down.  Peter had a hard time with this at first especially. 

End of quote

Yes, I don't believe that. But I did quote the part about Peter having a hard time with it to be fair to Peter.

I think the forbidden things became safe to eat when refrigeration and antibiotics were invented. But I still won't eat the forbidden foods if I can avoid it.

 

Reply #177 from PolMach Forums Top

Either way, whether one supports laws that prohibit murder or not is a question of one's religion.
End of quote

I disagree but we can just agree to disagree on this point.

It's not a recommendation. It's a law. It is indeed FORBIDDEN for Jews to eat certain animals by Jewish law. If you read your Bible you will see that the "abominations" in question are listed on stone tablets given to the Israelites as their law. It has nothing to do with other peoples and I don't see why a Jewish book of law should mention specifically that Jewish law does not apply to non-Jews.
End of quote

I'm not saying that it should, necessarily, what I am saying is that if the Christians are going to use the Jewish book of laws as the basis for their religion they shouldn't be picking and choosing which aspects to listen to, especially when such a strong word like "abomination" is being used.

Again, the belief that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage is a religious belief just like the belief that they are different. Which one of the two do you want to be law?
End of quote

Which is why I have been arguing for civil unions.  That way marriages can remain religious in nature and civil unions can simply be a way for two people who make a life-long contract with one another to file taxes together, transfer estates easier, be present when your significant other is on their deathbed (or vice versa), etc.

which is not what our founders wanted at all and I've got lots and lots of their writings to show for it. That's what we're being told today so we can push these types of agendas ahead. Why now? Why are we having these discussions now if the founding fathers were all cozy about this? Allowing homosexuality as an ethical and alternative lifestyle will be the downfall of our culture. It's always the last step before a culture goes down.
End of quote

If they didn't want a secular government then why is there only one reference to a creator of any kind in either the declaration of independence or the US Constitution?  They took great pains to keep religion out of those documents for a reason.  As for your last statement there, I just disagree and I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on that one.

 

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #178 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sacred Scripture is God's written word and since God is not a God of confusion, there can be only one correct sense of it's meaning otherwise we'd have total confusion as to its meaning.
End of quote

EL-DUDERINO POSTS:

Is this why there are so many different denominations of Christianity,
End of quote

Yes, at least in part and that's why I explained it:

Anyone can interpret Sacred Scripture and they may get it right and they might not...and that's the rub. Have 10 people interprete and you'll have 10 different interpretations and then 10 different doctrines based on that person's interpretation. Happens all the time in Protestantism and that's why there are thousands of churches all based on someones's private interpretation. Started with Luther's private interpretation and hasn't stopped since.
End of quote

EL-DUDERINO POSTS #151

not to mention all the denominations of judaism
End of quote

leauki posts #153

You misunderstand the "denominations" of Judaism. They do not actually believe different things. They vary in traditions, not belief. They are also not "different" Judaisms, there is only one Jewish people.
End of quote

Leauki,

Your answer is somewhat misleading. Judaism strictly speaking is the religion while the Jews are a race of people.

While there is only one race of Jewish people, there are different forms of Judaism. Hebraic, sacerdotal or priestly Judaism (Biblical Judaism) was revealed by Our Lord God Himself. The modern forms of Judaism were all developed by man after the Jewish dispersion and the only point of unity with Hebraic Judaism is in reciting the "prayer" called the Shema.

Judaism today is divided synagogically into Orthodox, Reform and Conservative congregations. These are a unit in denying Christian concepts of Mosaic teachings and unbelief that Jesus the Christ is the Messias, the Redeemer of mankind come to restore man to the inheritance lost by the sin of our first parents.

I'd say that Orthodox, Reform and Conservative Judaism not only vary in traditions, but believe different things.

Reply #179 from JoeUser Forums Top

And yes, he had a dirty mind.
End of quote

no he didn't anymore than I do.  What about Jude?  You never commented on his explanation after I mentioned it.  Open your eyes Leauki and read it again without your being swayed by that Rabbi.  Homosexuality was and is still a grievious sin in God's eyes.  That was the last sin in a progression of many.  I believe that's why God said he was going down to check on the wickedness that was crying out to him.  It's like being at the end of their rope.  Their sin had reached the top and God heard and took action. 

It's going to be the same in the end times (which is increasingly growing nearer).  It's put that God will allow us to fill up our cup with wickedness before he pours out his cup of wrath on the whole world.   The acceptance of homosexuality is a big part of this. 

Reply #180 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm not saying that it should, necessarily, what I am saying is that if the Christians are going to use the Jewish book of laws as the basis for their religion they shouldn't be picking and choosing which aspects to listen to, especially when such a strong word like "abomination" is being used.
End of quote

you keep hanging onto this El-D but they don't.  How many times do Leauki and I have to say this.  We don't even have to use the OT or Jewish law.  I can gladly take you to the NT to show this as well.  It's clear in both the OT and NT that this is quite the abomination to God and as far as I know, hasn't been revoked. 

 

 

Reply #181 from JoeUser Forums Top

Your answer is somewhat misleading. Judaism strictly speaking is the religion while the Jews are a race of people.

End of quote

It's difficult to explain to those who think the whole thing is just a religion.

 

While there is only one race of Jewish people, there are different forms of Judaism. Hebraic, sacerdotal or priestly Judaism (Biblical Judaism) was revealed by Our Lord God Himself. The modern forms of Judaism were all developed by man after the Jewish dispersion and the only point of unity with Hebraic Judaism is in reciting the "prayer" called the Shema.

End of quote

The modern form of Judaism wasn't developed my man, it's simply the form of Judaism practiced when there isn't a Temple.

 

Judaism today is divided synagogically into Orthodox, Reform and Conservative congregations. These are a unit in denying Christian concepts of Mosaic teachings and unbelief that Jesus the Christ is the Messias, the Redeemer of mankind come to restore man to the inheritance lost by the sin of our first parents.

End of quote

Lots of religions deny Christianity.

 

I'd say that Orthodox, Reform and Conservative Judaism not only vary in traditions, but believe different things.

End of quote

That's not my experience. There are some differences regarding authorship of the Torah (written by Moses and is directly G-d's words or written by Moses and maybe others and inspired by G-d) but most of the differences are about traditions (women sitting next to men in synagogues etc.).

 

Reply #182 from JoeUser Forums Top

no he didn't anymore than I do.

End of quote

I didn't want to say it out loudly.

I do think that ANYONE who reads homosexuality into a story that doesn't say the word has a mind that makes him or her read these things into the story.

I do it myself when I hear a joke about gay people. In a movie somebody says "fabulous" or "fierce", in themselves not dirty or gay words; but the joke is intended to refer to homosexuals and I notice it and laugh. But it's certainly not the cleanest way to handle these situations.

But when I read holy scripture, I try to keep it down with the smut.

 

Reply #183 from JoeUser Forums Top

But when I read holy scripture, I try to keep it down with the smut.
End of quote

well there is smut in the scripture....so to speak.....scripture is about sinful, fallen men and it's all in there including those who rise above and take the hand of God and welcome not only the cleansing he offers but also the covering of his grace.  Good stuff! 

I do it myself when I hear a joke about gay people. In a movie somebody says "fabulous" or "fierce", in themselves not dirty or gay words; but the joke is intended to refer to homosexuals and I notice it and laugh. But it's certainly not the cleanest way to handle these situations.
End of quote

now see Leauki....I didn't know this......maybe you just have a dirty mind?  :blush:

 

Reply #184 from JoeUser Forums Top

now see Leauki....I didn't know this......maybe you just have a dirty mind?

End of quote

I absolutely do.

But the point is when to apply the dirty mind.

If I read religious law and judge other people, I have no right to apply a dirty mind.

But if I watch or read comedy, I can do what I want.

 

Reply #185 from JoeUser Forums Top

Deleted for having second thoughts!

Reply #186 from JoeUser Forums Top

Think about it...The desk where Obama signed his stimulous package is the same desk that Bill CLinton got his package stimulated
End of quote

Good one!

That reminds me of the Clinton song: "I'm unzipping my Doo-Dah, Zip-A-Dee-Ay..."

 

Reply #187 from JoeUser Forums Top

el-duderino posts #151

Is this why there are so many different denominations of Christianity, not to mention all the denominations of judaism
End of quote

leauki posts:

You misunderstand the "denominations" of Judaism. They do not actually believe different things. They vary in traditions, not belief. They are also not "different" Judaisms, there is only one Jewish people.
End of quote

lula posts:

Your answer is somewhat misleading. Judaism strictly speaking is the religion while the Jews are a race of people.
End of quote

Leauki posts:

It's difficult to explain to those who think the whole thing is just a religion.

End of quote

True. However, the terms Judaism and Jews have different meanings. Judaism, Hebrew, Isrealites and Jews cannot rightly be used interchangeably.

I think you'll find the first mention of the term Jews in the OT in 4Kings 25:25 where it's applied to the people of Judah about whom it no doubt originated.  And it was related to a worshipper of the one true God for the first time in the Book of Esther 2:5. That was about 1000 years after Moses became the Father of the religion called Judaism, through God's revelation to him of the ceremonial law on Mt. Sinai, about 250 years after Jacob's name was changed to Isreal.

Historically, until the advent of modernism in Jewry, the terms Jews was universally applied to believers and worshippers of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob according to the Mosaic Law. the term Isrealites applied to the descendants of Jacob and to their nationality. The term Hebrew was applied to the language of the Jews. 

 

 

 

 

Reply #188 from JoeUser Forums Top

EL-DUDERINO POSTS:

But as far as the law is concerned people in a civil union should be treated the same as those who are married.
End of quote

Civil unions and same-sex "marriage" is a con game with the public. 

The laws of the land are about protecting and benefitting the common good of society. Since when is it beneficial to the common good of society for the law to treat cohabitation (of any arrangement) equal to marriage?

It's not that the people should be barred from government, they shouldn't, but religious beliefs should NOT become laws of the government (ie homosexuals cannot join in civil unions and enjoy the same benefits as marriage from a legal standpoint). Especially in the case of gay marriage or civil unions (whichever you prefer to call it) many feel that when government says that unions can only be between a man and a woman that is forcing some religious doctrine down their throats which is supposedly not allowed in our country.
End of quote

Even taking away the fact that Marriage is an ancient institution of Almighty God, Marriage is part of the Natural or Moral Law....it's essential is a physical and benevolent unity possible only for members of the opposite sex. Since the body parts don't fit, nature denies conception to those of the same sex.

So, even while same-sex friendship, a genre of love, is possible, it precludes sexual expression.  Civil unions/same sex "marriage" is beyond reason and possibility. Marriage is genuine, the real thing....same -sex "marriage" is a mirage; a farce.

The difference is that gay marriage, or civil unions, isn't being forced on anyone.
End of quote

Oh c'mon? Can you say the judicial system?

Name one state where the people have voted to approve changing the defintion of marriage from that of a union between a man a woman?

 

Reply #189 from JoeUser Forums Top

True. However, the terms Judaism and Jews have different meanings. Judaism, Hebrew, Isrealites and Jews cannot rightly be used interchangeably.

End of quote

I don't care about Christians forcing their definitions on a people, no matter how much they believe that they pray to the same god.

Here's the simple definitions:

"Judaism": The culture and religion of the Jewish people. Judaism consists of Qaraite ("reader") Judaism and Rabbinical ("teacher") Judaism. 99% of the Judaism practices today is Rabbinical Judaism. Qaraite communities exist in California, New York, and Israel.

"Hebrew":

1. The Canaanite Semitic language spoken by the Israelites (and hence the Jews)

2. An ethnic group named after the assumption that they once "crossed" (which is what "Hebrew" literally means) from one region into another and/or named after a founder of that ethnic group

"Israelites": A Hebrew (see "Hebrew" definition 2) people allegedly descended from the Biblical character Jacob ("Israel")

"Jews": A people consisting of three (or four if you count Levi) tribes of Israelites who lived in the region Judaea named after one of those tribes (Juda). Other Israelites include Samaritans (who are descendants of another two tribes of Israelites and are also named after the region where they still live) and Ethiopian "Jews" (who are descendants of yet another Israelite tribe).

Now that I come to think of it, if anybody has further questions about any of these, I'll gladly write a blog entry with definitions for the lot ("What's a Samaritan?") including non-Israelite peoples if there is any interest ("What's a Chaldaean?").

 

 

Reply #190 from JoeUser Forums Top

The laws of the land are about protecting and benefitting the common good of society. Since when is it beneficial to the common good of society for the law to treat cohabitation (of any arrangement) equal to marriage?

End of quote

Marriage is a legal framework for cohabitation, hence society must have concluded that encouraging cohabitation is a good thing.

It seems obvious to me that society benefits both from heterosexual and homosexual cohabitations or anything that keeps people of either persuasion from sleeping around and spreading disease.

If you are worried about certain cohabitations not producing offspring we can talk about criminalising marriage without kids or allowing gay couples to adopt.

 

My own demands for homosexual "marriage" are only these:

1. It must be decided democratically, not by an activist judge.

2. Don't redefine the word "marriage".

3. Don't demand that _I_ regard it as the same as a (traditional) marriage if I don't want to.

4. Don't do it in my synagogue (although that really isn't for me to decide but for the community).

5. Yes, I may make jokes about every aspect of it.

What I definitely will support is these points:

1. Grant the same legal rights, duties, and privileges to unions between any two people.

2. Allow any couple (same-sex or otherwise) to adopt children (I don't believe that same-sex partners are by definition worse parents than different-sex partners).

 

I have no problems with people trying to change the world to a place that they like better provided that they don't challenge what is important to me (democracy) and don't change my world. It's simple.

 

 

Reply #191 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't care about Christians forcing their definitions on a people, no matter how much they believe that they pray to the same god.
End of quote

Who's forcing their definition upon anyone....what is, is...Sacred Scripture and history give the origin and use of the term, not this Christian.

 

"Hebrew":

1. The Canaanite Semitic language spoken by the Israelites (and hence the Jews)

2. An ethnic group named after the assumption that they once "crossed" (which is what "Hebrew" literally means) from one region into another and/or named after a founder of that ethnic group
End of quote

Hebrew (Eber) meant originally a stranger, a foreigner. The first person so designated in Scripture Gen. 14:13, was Abraham, forefather of the Isrealites, who was not a Jew becasue he was a foreigner in Canaan, who had come from the other side of "the great river" Euphrates. The name was later given to the language of Canaan, Is. 19:18, and was applied to "Jews" who spoke the "holy language" in contrast to the Hellenistic "Jews" who spoke in Greek only.

Poor Zubaz has been patient with us and our divergence from the main topic and I'll not test him any further. :thumbsup:

 

Reply #192 from JoeUser Forums Top

Who's forcing their definition upon anyone....what is, is...Sacred Scripture and history give the origin and use of the term, not this Christian.

End of quote

Hebrew (Eber) meant originally a stranger, a foreigner. The first person so designated in Scripture Gen. 14:13, was Abraham, forefather of the Isrealites, who was not a Jew becasue he was a foreigner in Canaan, who had come from the other side of "the great river" Euphrates. The name was later given to the language of Canaan, Is. 19:18, and was applied to "Jews" who spoke the "holy language" in contrast to the Hellenistic "Jews" who spoke in Greek only.

End of quote

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/343040/Religious_Support_Thread_for_Should_the_feds_open_up_benefits_to_married_ga

 

Reply #193 from PolMach Forums Top

The laws of the land are about protecting and benefitting the common good of society. Since when is it beneficial to the common good of society for the law to treat cohabitation (of any arrangement) equal to marriage?
End of quote

Equal in the eyes of the law and that's all.  If you want to think of them as unequal in the eyes of god that's your perogative.  Imagine for a second that you are deathly ill and you are in your hospital room about ready to flat line and there is no one around to comfort you in your final moments.  Or imagine that your significant other is deathly ill in a hospital room but the hospital will not let you into their room to hold their hand and say goodbye to them one last time.  Do you think that would be right for either of you to be denied having loved ones around in the final moments of life on this earth?  I don't which is why I'm for civil unions so that loved ones can be allowed into the hospital rooms in situations like that.

Or take a situation where you have made it explicitly clear that if you are on a ventilator and the doctors give you next to no chance of recovery that the plug be pulled.  Do you really want someone else to decide to keep you on the ventilator indefinitely, or vice versa depending on your wishes.  Again a civil union will allow the person you are in the union with to have automatic medical power of attorney so that your wishes can be carried out even if you haven't put together a living will.

Oh c'mon? Can you say the judicial system?

Name one state where the people have voted to approve changing the defintion of marriage from that of a union between a man a woman?
End of quote

What I said is that no one is forcing the definition be changed to marriage is between two men or two women.  They are asking that it be changed to 2 consenting adults.

 

My own demands for homosexual "marriage" are only these:

1. It must be decided democratically, not by an activist judge.

2. Don't redefine the word "marriage".

3. Don't demand that _I_ regard it as the same as a (traditional) marriage if I don't want to.

4. Don't do it in my synagogue (although that really isn't for me to decide but for the community).

5. Yes, I may make jokes about every aspect of it.

What I definitely will support is these points:

1. Grant the same legal rights, duties, and privileges to unions between any two people.

2. Allow any couple (same-sex or otherwise) to adopt children (I don't believe that same-sex partners are by definition worse parents than different-sex partners).



I have no problems with people trying to change the world to a place that they like better provided that they don't challenge what is important to me (democracy) and don't change my world. It's simple.
End of quote

I support everything stated above.

Reply #194 from JoeUser Forums Top

My own demands for homosexual "marriage" are only these:


1. It must be decided democratically, not by an activist judge.

2. Don't redefine the word "marriage".

3. Don't demand that _I_ regard it as the same as a (traditional) marriage if I don't want to.

4. Don't do it in my synagogue (although that really isn't for me to decide but for the community).

5. Yes, I may make jokes about every aspect of it.

What I definitely will support is these points:

1. Grant the same legal rights, duties, and privileges to unions between any two people.

2. Allow any couple (same-sex or otherwise) to adopt children (I don't believe that same-sex partners are by definition worse parents than different-sex partners).



I have no problems with people trying to change the world to a place that they like better provided that they don't challenge what is important to me (democracy) and don't change my world. It's simple.

End of quote

I also completely agree

Reply #195 from JoeUser Forums Top

I heard on the news this morning that the lawyer that got gay marriages recognized in Massachusetts is bringing suit against the federal government to recognize legal marriage by the states and provide equal benefits. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/us/03marriage.html?ref=us)

I support the suit.
End of quote

I don't and my reasons why are found in this link from Massachusetts Resistance.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

 

Reply #196 from JoeUser Forums Top

In the end though, aren't you just asking the government to quit spelling it "M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E" and start spelling it "C-I-V-I-L U-N-I-O-N-S"?

What would be the difference between the two other than spelling?

It sounds like just another trick in the "forced acceptance" arsenal.

Reply #197 from JoeUser Forums Top

It sounds like just another trick in the "forced acceptance" arsenal.
End of quote

No one's pulling the wool over your eye....that's exactly what it is.

Reply #198 from JoeUser Forums Top




In the end though, aren't you just asking the government to quit spelling it "M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E" and start spelling it "C-I-V-I-L U-N-I-O-N-S"?

End of quote


In my case I really am concerned about the meanings of words.




What would be the difference between the two other than spelling?

End of quote


I see the two as different things.




It sounds like just another trick in the "forced acceptance" arsenal.

End of quote


Nobody is forcing you to accept anything. If two men enter a civil union, they merely decide to sign a contract that gives them reponsibility for each other. I fail to see what any of that has to do with you.

Reply #199 from JoeUser Forums Top

Leauki:

I fail to see what any of that has to do with you.
End of quote

Worthless and flimsy argument.  Black Slavery didn't effect the Nothern States, but if it weren't for them, slavery would have lasted much longer.  Since I don't drink alcohol, laws against drinking wouldn't effect me, but those who do enjoy a few drinks would appreciate me voting to keep it legal if the question came up.  I don't smoke so the stupid laws telling bar owners they can't let people smoke in their places don't effect me, but I still have a right to my opinion on that one.

If we kept to laws that only effect us, most of what we consider "progress" would never happen.

Reply #200 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

1. How interested are you in the sex life of other people?

( ) I couldn't care less.

( ) I don't want them to do it where I will see it.

( ) I am very concerned! I need to know what they do and how they do it.

 

2. If two men enter a "civil union" or sign a contract about the sale of a car of the one to the other, what rights should you have in that deal?

( ) I couldn't care less.

( ) I need to know that their deal will not directly harm other people.

( ) I am very concerned! I need to know that I have a veto and that they cannot simply form an agreement among each other with which I might disagree.

 

3. If two men decide to have a "wedding ceremony" for some reason, how would you react?

( ) I couldn't care less.

( ) Don't do it in my house and give me the choice of not being a member of whatever organisation plays along with their funny ideas.

( ) I am very concerned! I think such "wedding ceremonies" should only be available to people who I think it should be available to.

 

4. Would you see yourself as "religious" and an authority on what is right and true?

( ) No.

( ) I am traditional, not religious. This whole thing is if about religion at all certainly about the Allmighty, not about me. So why would it matter what I believe? I would like people to listen to me. But I am not an authority unless people see me as such.

( ) Yes. I am all about loving other people, respecting them as fellow souls created by the Allmighty, and trying to help them to find the way to the Allmighty as long as that way is the one I deem to be the correct one. This is not about the Allmighty but about me and what I believe and what I want people to believe.

 

5. Would you attend a "homosexual wedding" if invited?

( ) Yes or no, I cannot say, I have no opinion on the event as such.

( ) Yes. And I would even refrain from making jokes during the ceremony.

( ) No. I love every creature the Allmighty has made. Hence I wouldn't attend the happiest day of two fellow humans' lives.