Michael Sams (Page 3)

Nice!

Go Michael Sams!  Tear it down!!! 

It will hurt no one.

I have yet to hear anyone put it any better than that guy.  Nicely done.

So true - that was brilliantly said. 

And yet, today has made me very sad.  Just when I think this country is making progress, along comes something to completely dishearten me.  How in the world is this OK???  

New Kansas Law

Sigh.  

I agree, and I'll even point out that the beginning portion where he points out the comparisons is powerful stuff and I couldn't agree with it more.

I have some differing opinions here and there about this topic that haven't really been discussed on BT (perhaps another thread some day), but no matter what NOBODY should be treated any different.  We are ALL equals in the eye of our creator and we ALL have the right to pursue life liberty and happiness in this great country we call America.

I didn't read the bill, so I'm basing this on the following text of the article:
They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples -- or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.

I'm not entirely sure what problem they're trying to fix, but I feel that a church has a legitimate right to not perform a same sex wedding if they don't want to and  I'm guessing that most of you would probably agree with that.

So, I guess I think of this as a completely different discussion than SSM in general because the state recognizing or permitting SSM is one thing, but allowing a church to determine who they marry doesn't seem that out of line to me.
I do wonder though: was there really a problem that needed to be addressed in the legislation?  With SSM not being legal in the state I'm going to say no, so overall I agree it's probably more of a political statement and in that context I probably wouldn't support this.

"We're going to treat them like a human being first and foremost"....... I wonder how much thought that took? LOL

One thing for sure that I can say is I've become a lot more Libertarian about this topic and many others, thanks in large part to my friends here on BT.  I don't like either side using the legislature to push controversial issues and in many ways wish the government would just get the bleep out of the marriage business period (gay or straight).

I'm sure I'm over simplifying it, but give anyone the right to form a legal partnership that's recognized by the State and Feds and call it good.  I'm sure you'd have to exempt family members and such to avoid tax avoidance schemes.  If churches or individuals still want to have marriage ceremonies that's fine, but the legal recognition of the partnership is what should matter to the State from a legal standpoint.

No matter what, there are going to be people who are for traditional marriage and no matter what there are going to be people for marriage for all.  One side can win an election and put in laws banning everything in one state and the next year a new regime can pass laws making it legal and on and on.

I don't feel that forcing a church to to accept/conduct SSM through legislation is any different than banning SSM through legislation.  They're both bad, so why do either.

Not even sure if I make sense, but I'm trying to search for a compromise here that everyone can live with.    Please vote for me in 2016

I guess I'm just too dumb to understand why people can't marry whoever they want. Geez.

BRING IT.   I would love to get marriage out of government. 

I'm cool with that too. 

I think the main issue here is state's rights vs. federal government mandates. Which generally, I am in favor of states retaining their rights and the feds keeping their noses out of things.

Simple solution to all this is to simplify the tax code. Flat percentage for everyone would go a long way to eliminating the fight over who can marry who. When you financially reward people for being married, there is always going to be a fight over "if they can marry such and such why can't I marry such and such, it's not fair. Like was said, get the government out of marriage and the fight stops. People who want to be married in church will get married in church, people who want an alternative ceremony of some sort will have it and it shouldn't bother anyone either way.

ditto. 

I think you hit on a great point that often gets sidestepped.  Obviously in America anyone can live with or hang out with whoever they want.  It really boils down to the state recognition of "marriage" which is utilized as the foundation for most of our laws.  Hospital visitation, property rights, inheritance, you name it, it all circles around the government recognition of the "marriage".

I think there always has to be some sort of government recognition of the "marriage", "partnership" or whatever you want to call it due to all of the legal implications that come along with it.  However, for the financial stuff you are 100% correct.  If there's no financial incentive to be married then that's one less thing for the government to be meddling with.