# Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage



## Vigilante

Some excellent points....

Townhall ^
The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no. The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated! Some may say,...


----------



## emilynghiem

To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.

Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).

All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.

If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.


----------



## emilynghiem

TheOldSchool said:


> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.


???
Sorry TheOldSchool 
for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!

No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.


----------



## TheOldSchool

emilynghiem said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> Sorry TheOldSchool
> for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!
> 
> No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
> should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.
Click to expand...

Interesting.  You should take that up with these guys:

Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage"

Because no one ever said it did.

Indeed, there's no such thing as 'same-sex marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage law that can accommodate both same- and opposite-sex couples.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow all American citizens residing in the states equal protection of (equal access to) the laws of each state – including marriage law.

Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in accordance with each state's marriage law, to deny them access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment – which is why state measures seeking to do so have been invalidated by the courts.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.

On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.

I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.

THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.

if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
> Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.
> 
> Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
> or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).
> 
> All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
> Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.
> 
> If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.


This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> Sorry TheOldSchool
> for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!
> 
> No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
> should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance of, and contempt for, our Constitutional Republic and the rule of law is noted.


----------



## TheOldSchool

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
> Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.
> 
> Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
> or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).
> 
> All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
> Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.
> 
> If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.
Click to expand...

I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land.  That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.


----------



## Vigilante

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
> the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
> is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
> followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.
> 
> On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
> So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
> at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.
> 
> I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
> And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
> would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.
> 
> THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
> based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
> but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.
> 
> if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
> why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!



If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.


----------



## emilynghiem

TheOldSchool said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> Sorry TheOldSchool
> for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!
> 
> No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
> should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.  You should take that up with these guys:
> 
> Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Actually TheOldSchool
they fought the same battles between "states rights vs. federal rights"
and "individual liberty and religious freedom vs. govt mandating laws against the people"

Examples: Thomas Jefferson's letter on the Wall separating church and state.
And William Penn's famous trial where a jury refused to convict him of preaching against the law,
and nullified the law claiming religious freedom.

We are just taking this issue to its natural conclusion that has been going on forever.
It's the same battle on different fronts, and still needs to be resolved or it keeps recurring.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Vigilante said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
> the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
> is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
> followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.
> 
> On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
> So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
> at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.
> 
> I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
> And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
> would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.
> 
> THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
> based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
> but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.
> 
> if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
> why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.
Click to expand...

Like slavery in 1861?


----------



## Vigilante

TheOldSchool said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
> the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
> is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
> followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.
> 
> On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
> So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
> at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.
> 
> I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
> And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
> would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.
> 
> THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
> based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
> but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.
> 
> if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
> why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like slavery in 1861?
Click to expand...

Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?


----------



## emilynghiem

TheOldSchool said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
> Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.
> 
> Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
> or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).
> 
> All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
> Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.
> 
> If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land.  That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.
Click to expand...


TheOldSchool
You act like it shouldn't have already been legal as part of religious freedom.
That's what I don't understand.

Whatever you do for your marriage or wedding should already be up to the people to decide.
How is this NOT a private matter of spiritual or religious beliefs???

Somehow this issue got completely out of hand, when it should have been a simple
First Amendment exercise. Craziness on BOTH sides, if you ask me!


----------



## TheOldSchool

Vigilante said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
> the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
> is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
> followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.
> 
> On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
> So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
> at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.
> 
> I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
> And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
> would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.
> 
> THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
> based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
> but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.
> 
> if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
> why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like slavery in 1861?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?
Click to expand...

Dude ask any southern conservative.  Slavery was just a States Rights issue.


----------



## TheOldSchool

emilynghiem said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
> Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.
> 
> Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
> or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).
> 
> All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
> Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.
> 
> If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land.  That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool
> You act like it shouldn't have already been legal as part of religious freedom.
> That's what I don't understand.
> 
> Whatever you do for your marriage or wedding should already be up to the people to decide.
> How is this NOT a private matter of spiritual or religious beliefs???
> 
> Somehow this issue got completely out of hand, when it should have been a simple
> First Amendment exercise. Craziness on BOTH sides, if you ask me!
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage?  Because that's fine with me.  Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated.”

This is naïve and sophomoric.

The states have only themselves to blame for their measures hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans being struck down by the courts.

Had the states simply obeyed the Constitution, and recognized the equal protection rights of gay Americans by allowing them access to marriage law, there would be no reason to get the Federal courts involved, and no reason for the Supreme Court to weigh in.

But there exists too much fear, ignorance, and hate with regard to gay Americans, too much of a desire to disadvantage them through force of law, giving gay Americans no other choice than to seek relief in Federal court.


----------



## emilynghiem

TheOldSchool said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
> the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
> is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
> followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.
> 
> On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
> So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
> at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.
> 
> I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
> And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
> would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.
> 
> THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
> based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
> but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.
> 
> if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
> why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like slavery in 1861?
Click to expand...


No TheOldSchool 
Like States TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery!
That's why there is opposition to mandates penalizing the free choice of health care.

If the govt is taking someone's labor, depriving them of liberty, without any due process or any crime committed,
that's a form of involuntary servitude.  The people or the states have the right to demand representation where there is taxation involved, especially on the private and free choice of how to manage and pay for health care.


----------



## Vigilante

TheOldSchool said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
> the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
> is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
> followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.
> 
> On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
> So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
> at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.
> 
> I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
> And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
> would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.
> 
> THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
> based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
> but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.
> 
> if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
> why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like slavery in 1861?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude ask any southern conservative.  Slavery was just a States Rights issue.
Click to expand...


Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!


----------



## TheOldSchool

emilynghiem said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
> the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
> is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
> followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.
> 
> On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
> So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
> at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.
> 
> I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
> And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
> would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.
> 
> THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
> based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
> but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.
> 
> if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
> why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like slavery in 1861?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No TheOldSchool
> Like States TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery!
> That's why there is opposition to mandates penalizing the free choice of health care.
> 
> If the govt is taking someone's labor, depriving them of liberty, without any due process or any crime committed,
> that's a form of involuntary servitude.  The people or the states have the right to demand representation where there is taxation involved, especially on the private and free choice of how to manage and pay for health care.
Click to expand...

Umm.... it took a war with massive casualties for your statement of "like states TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery" to happen.  Apartheid happened in South Africa until the 1990's.  How do you know slavery wouldn't have too?


----------



## TheOldSchool

Vigilante said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
> the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
> is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
> followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.
> 
> On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
> So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
> at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.
> 
> I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
> And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
> would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.
> 
> THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
> based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
> but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.
> 
> if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
> why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like slavery in 1861?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude ask any southern conservative.  Slavery was just a States Rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!
Click to expand...

Blacks were declared to be people back then.  Not property.  So wtf are you harping on about?


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> EMILYNGHIEM SAID:
> 
> “THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
> based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated.”
> 
> This is naïve and sophomoric.
> 
> The states have only themselves to blame for their measures hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans being struck down by the courts.
> 
> Had the states simply obeyed the Constitution, and recognized the equal protection rights of gay Americans by allowing them access to marriage law, there would be no reason to get the Federal courts involved, and no reason for the Supreme Court to weigh in.
> 
> But there exists too much fear, ignorance, and hate with regard to gay Americans, too much of a desire to disadvantage them through force of law, giving gay Americans no other choice than to seek relief in Federal court.



Hi C_Clayton_Jones while I AGREE with you that no bans should ever have been put preventing people from marrying freely in churches, it is WRONG to punish the ENTIRE STATE for the wrongs of certain people.

RE: "But there exists too much fear, ignorance, and hate with regard to gay Americans, too much of a desire to disadvantage them through force of law, giving gay Americans no other choice than to seek relief in Federal court."

^ if a law specifically BANS marriage in church which is against religious freedom,
yes, that law can and should be challenged and changed.


----------



## emilynghiem

TheOldSchool said:


> Umm.... it took a war with massive casualties for your statement of "like states TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery" to happen.  Apartheid happened in South Africa until the 1990's.  How do you know slavery wouldn't have too?



Dear TheOldSchool there is STILL slavery today, and people are counteracting that by setting up anti-poverty programs to stop the exploitation.

So we have evolved as a society, where people HAVE access to organize resources and solve problems directly.


----------



## emilynghiem

TheOldSchool said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
> Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.
> 
> Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
> or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).
> 
> All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
> Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.
> 
> If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land.  That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool
> You act like it shouldn't have already been legal as part of religious freedom.
> That's what I don't understand.
> 
> Whatever you do for your marriage or wedding should already be up to the people to decide.
> How is this NOT a private matter of spiritual or religious beliefs???
> 
> Somehow this issue got completely out of hand, when it should have been a simple
> First Amendment exercise. Craziness on BOTH sides, if you ask me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage?  Because that's fine with me.  Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.
Click to expand...


T H A N K   Y O U !!!
Yes, I believe this is neutral ground where everyone can agree.
(After we re-establish neutral ground, if states can work out additional agreements on related policies, great.
If not, just stick to what is common and quit pushing the rest.)
Totally agree!


----------



## TheOldSchool

emilynghiem said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm.... it took a war with massive casualties for your statement of "like states TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery" to happen.  Apartheid happened in South Africa until the 1990's.  How do you know slavery wouldn't have too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear TheOldSchool there is STILL slavery today, and people are counteracting that by setting up anti-poverty programs to stop the exploitation.
> 
> So we have evolved as a society, where people HAVE access to organize resources and solve problems directly.
Click to expand...

Yes it's great that we allowed black people to be happy in the 50 states that make up this wonderful country.  It'll be great when we allow people who are gay to be happy too.


----------



## Vigilante

TheOldSchool said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.
> 
> 
> 
> Like slavery in 1861?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude ask any southern conservative.  Slavery was just a States Rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks were declared to be people back then.  Not property.  So wtf are you harping on about?
Click to expand...


The principle by which persons of African ancestry were considered the* personal property* of others prevailed in North America for almost two-thirds of the three and a half centuries since the first Americans arrived there. Its influences increased even though the English colonies won independence and articulated national ideals directly in opposition to slavery. In spite of numerous ideological conflicts,however, the slavery system was maintained in the United States until 1865, and widespread antiblack attitudes nurtured by slavery continued thereafter.

Sorry, you were wrong, again!

Blacks As Slaves 1600-1865


----------



## TheOldSchool

Vigilante said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like slavery in 1861?
> 
> 
> 
> Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude ask any southern conservative.  Slavery was just a States Rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks were declared to be people back then.  Not property.  So wtf are you harping on about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The principle by which persons of African ancestry were considered the* personal property* of others prevailed in North America for almost two-thirds of the three and a half centuries since the first Americans arrived there. Its influences increased even though the English colonies won independence and articulated national ideals directly in opposition to slavery. In spite of numerous ideological conflicts,however, the slavery system was maintained in the United States until 1865, and widespread antiblack attitudes nurtured by slavery continued thereafter.
> 
> Sorry, you were wrong, again!
> 
> Blacks As Slaves 1600-1865
Click to expand...

Wrong about what?  Are you saying that slavery is okay in our constitution, and therefore barring people from gay marriage is constitutional?

So was banning slavery unconstitutional?  Was approving interracial marriage and equal rights for black people unconstitutional?


----------



## Vigilante

TheOldSchool said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude ask any southern conservative.  Slavery was just a States Rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks were declared to be people back then.  Not property.  So wtf are you harping on about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The principle by which persons of African ancestry were considered the* personal property* of others prevailed in North America for almost two-thirds of the three and a half centuries since the first Americans arrived there. Its influences increased even though the English colonies won independence and articulated national ideals directly in opposition to slavery. In spite of numerous ideological conflicts,however, the slavery system was maintained in the United States until 1865, and widespread antiblack attitudes nurtured by slavery continued thereafter.
> 
> Sorry, you were wrong, again!
> 
> Blacks As Slaves 1600-1865
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong about what?  Are you saying that slavery is okay in our constitution, and therefore barring people from gay marriage is constitutional?
> 
> So was banning slavery unconstitutional?  Was approving interracial marriage and equal rights for black people unconstitutional?
Click to expand...


No, you twit, you claimed they weren't personal property, and they were!


----------



## emilynghiem

TheOldSchool said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm.... it took a war with massive casualties for your statement of "like states TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery" to happen.  Apartheid happened in South Africa until the 1990's.  How do you know slavery wouldn't have too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear TheOldSchool there is STILL slavery today, and people are counteracting that by setting up anti-poverty programs to stop the exploitation.
> 
> So we have evolved as a society, where people HAVE access to organize resources and solve problems directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it's great that we allowed black people to be happy in the 50 states that make up this wonderful country.  It'll be great when we allow people who are gay to be happy too.
Click to expand...


????

You can be happy without having to rely on the state legislating conditions on marriage?

If your happiness relies on your marriage being recognized through the state,
something else is going on.

The laws could flip back and forth on an issue of belief that shouldn't be in state hands to begin with.
Does that mean your well-being will flip back and forth politically with every turn? Gee whiz.
That's no way to live.

If I were someone's marriage counselor I'd advise them not to base their happiness on that!!!!


----------



## TheOldSchool

Vigilante said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude ask any southern conservative.  Slavery was just a States Rights issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks were declared to be people back then.  Not property.  So wtf are you harping on about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The principle by which persons of African ancestry were considered the* personal property* of others prevailed in North America for almost two-thirds of the three and a half centuries since the first Americans arrived there. Its influences increased even though the English colonies won independence and articulated national ideals directly in opposition to slavery. In spite of numerous ideological conflicts,however, the slavery system was maintained in the United States until 1865, and widespread antiblack attitudes nurtured by slavery continued thereafter.
> 
> Sorry, you were wrong, again!
> 
> Blacks As Slaves 1600-1865
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong about what?  Are you saying that slavery is okay in our constitution, and therefore barring people from gay marriage is constitutional?
> 
> So was banning slavery unconstitutional?  Was approving interracial marriage and equal rights for black people unconstitutional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you twit, you claimed they weren't personal property, and they were!
Click to expand...

So what does that have to do with anything?


----------



## emilynghiem

TheOldSchool said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude ask any southern conservative.  Slavery was just a States Rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks were declared to be people back then.  Not property.  So wtf are you harping on about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The principle by which persons of African ancestry were considered the* personal property* of others prevailed in North America for almost two-thirds of the three and a half centuries since the first Americans arrived there. Its influences increased even though the English colonies won independence and articulated national ideals directly in opposition to slavery. In spite of numerous ideological conflicts,however, the slavery system was maintained in the United States until 1865, and widespread antiblack attitudes nurtured by slavery continued thereafter.
> 
> Sorry, you were wrong, again!
> 
> Blacks As Slaves 1600-1865
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong about what?  Are you saying that slavery is okay in our constitution, and therefore barring people from gay marriage is constitutional?
> 
> So was banning slavery unconstitutional?  Was approving interracial marriage and equal rights for black people unconstitutional?
Click to expand...


What the? 
Honey TheOldSchool 
Slaves were MORTGAGED THROUGH THE BANKS AS PROPERTY.
They were sold along with the property as part of the estate.

Maybe you are loosely interpreting the 3/5 rule as recognizing these were "somewhat persons"?

What part of "forcing breeding of more slaves by rape" similar to CATTLE do you not understand?


----------



## TheOldSchool

emilynghiem said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm.... it took a war with massive casualties for your statement of "like states TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery" to happen.  Apartheid happened in South Africa until the 1990's.  How do you know slavery wouldn't have too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear TheOldSchool there is STILL slavery today, and people are counteracting that by setting up anti-poverty programs to stop the exploitation.
> 
> So we have evolved as a society, where people HAVE access to organize resources and solve problems directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it's great that we allowed black people to be happy in the 50 states that make up this wonderful country.  It'll be great when we allow people who are gay to be happy too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> You can be happy without having to rely on the state legislating conditions on marriage?
> 
> If your happiness relies on your marriage being recognized through the state,
> something else is going on.
> 
> The laws could flip back and forth on an issue of belief that shouldn't be in state hands to begin with.
> Does that mean your well-being will flip back and forth politically with every turn? Gee whiz.
> That's no way to live.
> 
> If I were someone's marriage counselor I'd advise them not to base their happiness on that!!!!
Click to expand...

Did you just say that this issue "should'nt be in state hands to begin with"?

What?


----------



## emilynghiem

TheOldSchool said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm.... it took a war with massive casualties for your statement of "like states TODAY that wouldn't approve slavery" to happen.  Apartheid happened in South Africa until the 1990's.  How do you know slavery wouldn't have too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear TheOldSchool there is STILL slavery today, and people are counteracting that by setting up anti-poverty programs to stop the exploitation.
> 
> So we have evolved as a society, where people HAVE access to organize resources and solve problems directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it's great that we allowed black people to be happy in the 50 states that make up this wonderful country.  It'll be great when we allow people who are gay to be happy too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> You can be happy without having to rely on the state legislating conditions on marriage?
> 
> If your happiness relies on your marriage being recognized through the state,
> something else is going on.
> 
> The laws could flip back and forth on an issue of belief that shouldn't be in state hands to begin with.
> Does that mean your well-being will flip back and forth politically with every turn? Gee whiz.
> That's no way to live.
> 
> If I were someone's marriage counselor I'd advise them not to base their happiness on that!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you just say that this issue "should'nt be in state hands to begin with"?
> 
> What?
Click to expand...


That if marriage is a private religious institution, technically spiritual terms of marriage should not be decided by states. I agree with you that civil unions are secular contracts and that can be justified as state jurisdiction.

If people's conflicting beliefs can't be resolved or separated from marriage, that part should remain outside the state and have equal freedom in private. Only pass state laws on the parts neutral enough to avoid injecting or rejecting beliefs, which the state is not supposed to be deciding for people. You don't have Hindus or Muslims suing each other in Court over differences in their religious beliefs about marriage; that is private and they need to resolve it among themselves. Same with people's private beliefs about gay marriage, traditional, etc.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Alright I'm going to bed.  Last thing I'll say is that I fully expect the Supreme court to legalize gay marriage across all 50 states in June.  And though I'm not gay I will be happy for people who happen to be gay.  Because discrimination is a terrible thing.

Our constitution grants the Supreme Court the right to make that decision.  And if they legalize gay marriage and you disagree, just remember that they would completely eviscerate you in a debate about the legality of what they've decided.

Good night.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

TheOldSchool said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Operative word you apparently don't understand, PROPERTY!
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks were declared to be people back then.  Not property.  So wtf are you harping on about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The principle by which persons of African ancestry were considered the* personal property* of others prevailed in North America for almost two-thirds of the three and a half centuries since the first Americans arrived there. Its influences increased even though the English colonies won independence and articulated national ideals directly in opposition to slavery. In spite of numerous ideological conflicts,however, the slavery system was maintained in the United States until 1865, and widespread antiblack attitudes nurtured by slavery continued thereafter.
> 
> Sorry, you were wrong, again!
> 
> Blacks As Slaves 1600-1865
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong about what?  Are you saying that slavery is okay in our constitution, and therefore barring people from gay marriage is constitutional?
> 
> So was banning slavery unconstitutional?  Was approving interracial marriage and equal rights for black people unconstitutional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you twit, you claimed they weren't personal property, and they were!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what does that have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Nothing.

The thread premise is ignorant idiocy.


----------



## emilynghiem

TheOldSchool said:


> Alright I'm going to bed.  Last thing I'll say is that I fully expect the Supreme court to legalize gay marriage across all 50 states in June.  And though I'm not gay I will be happy for people who happen to be gay.  Because discrimination is a terrible thing.
> 
> Our constitution grants the Supreme Court the right to make that decision.  And if they legalize gay marriage and you disagree, just remember that they would completely eviscerate you in a debate about the legality of what they've decided.
> 
> Good night.



It should already be legal by First Amendment Religious Freedom.
Free to exercise in one's personal life and practice.

If you want to open the door to mandating beliefs through the state,
then why not mandate Prolife, why not mandate spiritual healing.
Great!

BTW TheOldSchool personally I have no issue with gay marriage.
But where people do, I respect their beliefs, on both sides equally,
and don't believe the state has the right to impose or exclude or discriminate. So that's why I agree with your earlier statement to keep civil unions with the state and keep marriage private. 

I disagree with COURTS and States enforcing laws on this without
full consent of the people, since it involves spiritual and religious beliefs.
I believe consensus is required where beliefs are involved, so all are protected equally.


----------



## PratchettFan

emilynghiem said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> Sorry TheOldSchool
> for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!
> 
> No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
> should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.
Click to expand...


I believe that is the point.  Everyone should be able to decide for THEMSELVES and not anyone else.  Not allowing two people of the same sex to marry is preventing them from deciding for themselves.


----------



## emilynghiem

PratchettFan said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> Sorry TheOldSchool
> for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!
> 
> No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
> should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that is the point.  Everyone should be able to decide for THEMSELVES and not anyone else.  Not allowing two people of the same sex to marry is preventing them from deciding for themselves.
Click to expand...


Yes, in private, in personal practice of religion or beliefs.
The problem is with PUBLIC POLICY the entire population of each state
doesn't necessarily agree how to word these laws to be neutral or to include or exclude same-sex couples.
So that's where BOTH sides are complaining the "other side is imposing their bias."
it SHOULD be by free choice, so the laws must be written by consensus and not pose a bias either way.
Same with prochoice vs. prolife biases with abortion laws: these require consensus, but that hasn't been enforced.


----------



## PratchettFan

emilynghiem said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> Sorry TheOldSchool
> for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!
> 
> No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
> should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that is the point.  Everyone should be able to decide for THEMSELVES and not anyone else.  Not allowing two people of the same sex to marry is preventing them from deciding for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, in private, in personal practice of religion or beliefs.
> The problem is with PUBLIC POLICY the entire population of each state
> doesn't necessarily agree how to word these laws to be neutral or to include or exclude same-sex couples.
> So that's where BOTH sides are complaining the "other side is imposing their bias."
> it SHOULD be by free choice, so the laws must be written by consensus and not pose a bias either way.
> Same with prochoice vs. prolife biases with abortion laws: these require consensus, but that hasn't been enforced.
Click to expand...

 
There is not a law on the books that everyone agrees with entirely.  There will never be consensus.


----------



## natstew

emilynghiem said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> Sorry TheOldSchool
> for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!
> 
> No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
> should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.
Click to expand...


Any two people of the same sex have always had the right to live together and do whatever they desire with their lives. When it becomes my business is when they effect taxes that we all pay, (or rather that 53%) pay, then it becomes 'our' business.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

natstew said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> Sorry TheOldSchool
> for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!
> 
> No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
> should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any two people of the same sex have always had the right to live together and do whatever they desire with their lives. When it becomes my business is when they effect taxes that we all pay, (or rather that 53%) pay, then it becomes 'our' business.
Click to expand...

 Ignorant nonsense.

The exercising of a civil right isn't subject to 'prerequisites.'


----------



## emilynghiem

natstew said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> Sorry TheOldSchool
> for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!
> 
> No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
> should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any two people of the same sex have always had the right to live together and do whatever they desire with their lives. When it becomes my business is when they effect taxes that we all pay, (or rather that 53%) pay, then it becomes 'our' business.
Click to expand...


Good point, natstew
I hope someone gets this point across:]
Just because Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and Atheism
should be respected equally as free exercise of religion
doesn't make them THE SAME or EQUAL to Christianity.

So why argue that with gay marriage vs. traditional marriage?
Why try to say that laws have to make these things "equal"?

That's not necessary in order to have equal protection of free choice and exercise of beliefs. Society is not required to "endorse or recognize" these religious beliefs or practices.

Buddhism will never be equal to Christianity
because Christianity (and also Constitutionalism) play a different role that
involves enforcing laws by agreement among the people to
represent the whole group agreeing to that principle.  Buddhism isn't used that way but for internal discipline and spiritual harmony with others; it isn't for establishing law for people to follow as a social structure.

It's one thing to want equal protection and not banning a practice.
But trying to get the govt and public to ENDORSE a practice is like trying to
get Shariah practices in Islam or principles in Buddhism written into state laws.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> Sorry TheOldSchool
> for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!
> 
> No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
> should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any two people of the same sex have always had the right to live together and do whatever they desire with their lives. When it becomes my business is when they effect taxes that we all pay, (or rather that 53%) pay, then it becomes 'our' business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorant nonsense.
> 
> The exercising of a civil right isn't subject to 'prerequisites.'
Click to expand...


Yes C_Clayton_Jones 
So why not keep marriage in the church and in private where it isn't subject to govt regulations!
Exactly!


----------



## DGS49

"Marriage" is governed by the states (and must be defined legally) because the institution has a tremendous impact on the lives of several persons, most of whom do not enter voluntarily (children).

Marriage laws protect the interests of the spouses and children in the event of death, divorce, or abandonment.  Largely, the protections are for WIVES and children, who can be made destitute in the case of divorce or abandonment, or in case the husband/father seeks to disinherit them.

OTOH, the religious institution of marriage is similar but actually quite different from the civil institution.  For example, some churches do not recognize civil marriages, and once people are married, they may or may not recognize a civil divorce.  The States do not recognize a religious annulment.  A Catholic entering into a civil marriage then getting divorced, was neither married nor divorced in the eyes of the Church, and can marry inside the church "for the first time."

The Constitution says nothing about marriage, nor does it create a "Right of Privacy."  It only requires that when the State interacts with people, they be treated "equally."  But this has nothing to do with gay marriage because everyone is treated equally by state marriage statutes that prohibit gay marriage. Everyone is equally entitled to marry any competent, unrelated adult of the opposite sex.

And as Rick Santorum pointed out several years ago, if the fictitious Right of Privacy demands that people be permitted to legally marry someone of the same gender, then that same Right of Privacy would demand that they be permitted to marry relatives and multiple partners.  Since it doesn't actually exist (the right of privacy), it can mean whatever a majority on the USSC wants it to mean.


----------



## whitehall

Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the unknown factor especially when the liberal media is on board.  A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR supported his anti-Catholic bigotry by writing the majority opinion that created the modern version of "separation of church and state". The opinion wasn't based on Constitutional law. It was based on a single sentence in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. The "right" of a woman to hire someone to kill her unborn baby does not appear in the Constitution. The liberal Supreme Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist. Since the Bill of Rights has come under assault by the democrat party and the liberal media anything is possible.


----------



## Dante

Vigilante said:


> Some excellent points....
> 
> Townhall ^
> The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no. The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated! Some may say,...



The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to 'define' marriage.

Laws always have covered things they were not "intended" to. You really must go back to Junior High School


----------



## Dante

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage"
> 
> Because no one ever said it did.
> 
> Indeed, there's no such thing as 'same-sex marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage law that can accommodate both same- and opposite-sex couples.
> 
> The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow all American citizens residing in the states equal protection of (equal access to) the laws of each state – including marriage law.
> 
> Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in accordance with each state's marriage law, to deny them access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment – which is why state measures seeking to do so have been invalidated by the courts.



Margaret Marshall's ruling was brilliant.


----------



## Dante

emilynghiem said:


> To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.



The Court is NOT being asked to rule on beliefs.


----------



## Dante

Vigilante said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
> the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
> is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
> followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.
> 
> On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
> So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
> at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.
> 
> I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
> And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
> would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.
> 
> THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
> based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
> but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.
> 
> if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
> why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.
Click to expand...


Except when it is a federally protected right. Read the US Constitution


----------



## Dante

The Court: _Marriage_ is one of the "basic civil _rights_ of man," 

So of course they CANNOT and WILL NOT allow states to violate a most basic right.

Oh well...


----------



## emilynghiem

Dante said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some excellent points....
> 
> Townhall ^
> The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no. The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated! Some may say,...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to 'define' marriage.
> 
> Laws always have covered things they were not "intended" to. You really must go back to Junior High School
Click to expand...


Dear Dante maybe not to you.
But there is a conflict in beliefs in values when Atheists sue to remove Crosses or mentions of the word God due to differences in beliefs. Or when people on both sides of the marriage debate are having to sue or pass legislation to defend their beliefs.

If people or the laws were neutral, there would be no need to sue or pass laws to force change due to beliefs being left out or in conflict with each other over these laws.

Whatever you call that clash in beliefs, it is based on people's creeds.

And yes, the Courts and legislatures are being used or abused to establish
laws, so if these carry some bias that treats beliefs unequally or excludes or favors one more than the other, then the result is protest by the side whose beliefs are not protected equally.  There is no way to get around the fact that creeds are involved on BOTH sides. Just because they don't recognize the other side as a valid creed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Since both sides are protesting it is clear to me that both have beliefs at stake with these laws and rulings.

I"m sorry you can't see this, but from looking at both sides equally they are both yelling to defend their beliefs and values and yelling about discrimination and punishment by the other side. pretty mutual to me.


----------



## Dante

emilynghiem said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some excellent points....
> 
> Townhall ^
> The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no. The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated! Some may say,...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to 'define' marriage.
> 
> Laws always have covered things they were not "intended" to. You really must go back to Junior High School
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Dante maybe not to you..
Click to expand...


and NOT to those making a legal argument before the court.

That is how the courts work, you make legal arguments


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

TheOldSchool said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
> Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.
> 
> Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
> or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).
> 
> All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
> Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.
> 
> If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land.  That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.
Click to expand...

 Just like _Roe v. Wade_ took away all the 'abortion' threads...


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
> Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.
> 
> Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
> or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).
> 
> All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
> Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.
> 
> If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land.  That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like _Roe v. Wade_ took away all the 'abortion' threads...
Click to expand...


What? No, the issue of prolife and prochoice has never been resolved.
There is still not a consensus on laws. There are still legislative battles going on all the time because this hasn't been settled. You are very small minded to just judge things based on what looks convenient to you.

Just because I don't have money to sue and can't find a lawyer
doesn't mean my freedom and beliefs aren't violated by bad laws being passed and enforced.

Are you going to judge if there are any critical issues of elderly abuse, or abuses of mentally retarded
or mentally ill on death row, just because not as many people are posting about those issues?

Why would you want to silence issues instead of resolving the root conflict?

Is it more important for you to impose order and mandates for the sake of your political convenience?

Sorry but that sounds like even the far right Christians who would rather force their laws and their ways and make everyone else shut up. If that's wrong when the right tries to do that, it's just as wrong for the left.

Are you sure you want to use these tactics to establish your views, and then complain if the right does that?
if you want people on the right to use reason and allow people to come to conclusions by free choice,
why wouldn't you respect the same for others?
if you don't want rightwing solutions legislated from the bench to shut down and exclude your beliefs from the left, why would you want to do that to other people? If you don't want govt abused to do that to you?

C_Clayton_Jones
I am curious why you seem to celebrate when strongarmed tactics are used to force things your way through govt, but fear and dread when the rightwing threatens to use govt to silence or exclude your beliefs hoping to shut down dissenting objections.

Why isn't there mutual respect and mutual responsibility for democratic due process?
to make sure govt truly respects equal protection of the laws for ALL beliefs,
not just yours? Isn't that a form of religious bias or political discrimination by creed?

if you don't like govt abused to override your objections, why would you celebrate this?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“But there is a conflict in beliefs in values when Atheists sue to remove Crosses or mentions of the word God due to differences in beliefs. Or when people on both sides of the marriage debate are having to sue or pass legislation to defend their beliefs.”

Laws that seek to conjoin church and state such as government endorsing religion with crosses or references to 'god' are invalidated by the courts because they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, having nothing to do with “differences in beliefs' or 'atheists.'

Just as measures seeking to deny gay Americans their 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection of the law by prohibiting them access to marriage contracts are being invalidated by the courts because they are un-Constitutional, also having nothing to do with 'beliefs.'

Indeed, 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, not private individuals or organizations, in no way compelling anyone to 'defend their beliefs'; those hostile to gay Americans may continue to invest in their beliefs composed of an unwarranted fear and hatred of gays absent interference from government.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“What? No, the issue of prolife and prochoice has never been resolved.”

Actually it has, as far as the law is concerned, decades ago.

But those opposed to privacy right continue to seek to violate those rights; and should the Supreme Court rule in an manner invalidating measures denying gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law and enter into marriage contracts, those opposed to the protected liberty of gay Americans will continue to seek to disadvantage them.


----------



## James Everett

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> EMILYNGHIEM SAID:
> 
> “What? No, the issue of prolife and prochoice has never been resolved.”
> 
> Actually it has, as far as the law is concerned, decades ago.
> 
> But those opposed to privacy right continue to seek to violate those rights; and should the Supreme Court rule in an manner invalidating measures denying gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law and enter into marriage contracts, those opposed to the protected liberty of gay Americans will continue to seek to disadvantage them.


All of this is just mindless dribble from the indoctrinated. Your SCOTUS has as always one interest, and will interject its opinions which have become so contradictory, that your judicial system has become nothing more than a gaggle of Kangaroo courts, operating  in the interests of centralized power through fictional jurisdiction. A child in the womb is a fetus unless it's life is ended by other means than a mothers choice to end that "fetus" child's life, otherwise if that "fetus" child's life is ended in the mothers womb via a drunk driver etc causing its death the perp is charged with murder. It is also interesting that one is considered the " mother" of a "fetus" if a "fetus" is not a child/life, then how can there be a mother?
The re-defining of the set historical,traditional, legal, definition is not a right of the minority, nor is it a 14th amendment issue. The set ,historical, traditional, and legal definition is ...."A contract between a man and a woman" as far back as the earliest dictionary of the English language in 1755. 
Loving v Virginia was a 14th amendment issue because it was indeed a marriage contract between a man and a woman. 
"Gay marriage" is a fiction and does not fit the historical, traditional, or legal definition of a marriage contract.
There is no right to re- define the legal definition of a marriage contract to fit a same sex couple.
There is not a denial of equality in denying the re- defining of a contract to fit that which it does not. The only denial of rights would be if a State denied the right to contract a civil union between same sex couples and for a State to deny the fulfilling of that civil union contract equally between same sex couples. The right to contract cannot be denied unless such contract infringes on the life, liberty, or property of another, yet your SCOTUS is only interested in extending its fictional jurisdiction to further consolidated a centralized power, this was and is the purpose of your 1787 U.S. CONstitution, and the reason why it should be abandoned as a tyrannical system in favor of the return to the Articles of Confederation.


----------



## bodecea

Vigilante said:


> Some excellent points....
> 
> Townhall ^
> The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no. The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated! Some may say,...


Is marriage a legal entity in all states?   

Is homosexual behavior currently illegal?


----------



## bodecea

emilynghiem said:


> To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
> Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.
> 
> Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
> or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).
> 
> All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
> Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.
> 
> If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.


So, what you are saying is...because you have a certain "belief", you can restrict my access to already legal rights.


----------



## bodecea

TheOldSchool said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
> Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.
> 
> Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
> or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).
> 
> All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
> Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.
> 
> If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land.  That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.
Click to expand...

In case you haven't noticed, they are slowing shifting their focus onto PA laws.


----------



## bodecea

Vigilante said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
> the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
> is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
> followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.
> 
> On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
> So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
> at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.
> 
> I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
> And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
> would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.
> 
> THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
> based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
> but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.
> 
> if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
> why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.
Click to expand...

Certain people wanted integration to be a states rights issue as well.


----------



## bodecea

Vigilante said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Vigilante ^ see post above
> the inability to recognize and respect the beliefs of others
> is part of Constitutional principles. What if all the Tea Party
> followers got together and declared Constitutionalism to be a BELIEF.
> 
> On one hand, this would be ACKNOWLEDGED as a "choice" to follow.
> So it would recognize the right of people NOT to believe in States' rights over federal power;
> at the same time, though, it would stop THEM from imposing that against the beliefs of others.
> 
> I think we need to identify and separate the two major denominations going on here.
> And quit imposing them on each other. So decisions in conflict with one or the other
> would need to be resolved first before passing laws by consensus between both.
> 
> THAT to me is equal due process and equal protections of the law:
> based on consent of the governed so nobody's beliefs, rights or freedoms are violated,
> but all people, groups and interests are included in public decisions affecting us.
> 
> if we cannot defend Constitutional beliefs any other way,
> why not defend them as a political religion to check against the other denominations establishing THEIR beliefs through govt. Why not name ALL the parties as denominations and out this entire issue!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, this should be a States Rights issue, let each decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like slavery in 1861?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are 2 gays PROPERTY as blacks were declared to be back then?
Click to expand...

If they were black....yes.


----------



## bodecea

TheOldSchool said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
> Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.
> 
> Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
> or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).
> 
> All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
> Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.
> 
> If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land.  That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool
> You act like it shouldn't have already been legal as part of religious freedom.
> That's what I don't understand.
> 
> Whatever you do for your marriage or wedding should already be up to the people to decide.
> How is this NOT a private matter of spiritual or religious beliefs???
> 
> Somehow this issue got completely out of hand, when it should have been a simple
> First Amendment exercise. Craziness on BOTH sides, if you ask me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage?  Because that's fine with me.  Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.
Click to expand...

That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.


----------



## bodecea

natstew said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> Sorry TheOldSchool
> for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!
> 
> No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
> should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any two people of the same sex have always had the right to live together and do whatever they desire with their lives. When it becomes my business is when they effect taxes that we all pay, (or rather that 53%) pay, then it becomes 'our' business.
Click to expand...

Oh....let's see here.  You want to cut gay citizens (who pay taxes too) from access to the very protections YOU enjoy (that we pay for too)....Can your marriage now become MY business?


----------



## bodecea

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> Sorry TheOldSchool
> for matters of BELIEF, all individuals should have free choice to decide for THEMSELVES not anyone else!
> 
> No expert, nobody in office or judge sitting on a bench
> should be given authority to legislate beliefs for the entire state to follow, much less the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any two people of the same sex have always had the right to live together and do whatever they desire with their lives. When it becomes my business is when they effect taxes that we all pay, (or rather that 53%) pay, then it becomes 'our' business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorant nonsense.
> 
> The exercising of a civil right isn't subject to 'prerequisites.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes C_Clayton_Jones
> So why not keep marriage in the church and in private where it isn't subject to govt regulations!
> Exactly!
Click to expand...

I think you have hit on the next big ticket item for the Social Conservatives on the Right to work for....the appeal of all state civil marriage laws.


----------



## MaryL

Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals  offspring by either artificial insemination  or adoption  outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining  argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because  THEY THEM THEMSELF  can not nor  will  they ever  be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.


----------



## bodecea

whitehall said:


> Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the unknown factor especially when the liberal media is on board.  A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR supported his anti-Catholic bigotry by writing the majority opinion that created the modern version of "separation of church and state". The opinion wasn't based on Constitutional law. It was based on a single sentence in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. The "right" of a woman to hire someone to kill her unborn baby does not appear in the Constitution. The liberal Supreme Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist. Since the Bill of Rights has come under assault by the democrat party and the liberal media anything is possible.


Remember...if there is NO separation of church and state, that will give the state carte blanche to tell the churches what they can and cannot be.


----------



## bodecea

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> EMILYNGHIEM SAID:
> 
> “What? No, the issue of prolife and prochoice has never been resolved.”
> 
> Actually it has, as far as the law is concerned, decades ago.
> 
> But those opposed to privacy right continue to seek to violate those rights; and should the Supreme Court rule in an manner invalidating measures denying gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law and enter into marriage contracts, those opposed to the protected liberty of gay Americans will continue to seek to disadvantage them.


Thus the PA end-around.


----------



## bodecea

MaryL said:


> Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals  offspring by either artificial insemination  or adoption  outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining  argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because  THEY THEM THEMSELF  can not nor  will  they ever  be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.


So all our children don't exist?


----------



## TheOldSchool

MaryL said:


> Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals  offspring by either artificial insemination  or adoption  outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining  argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because  THEY THEM THEMSELF  can not nor  will  they ever  be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.


Nice viewpoint.  Too bad that dog won't be hunting anywhere!


----------



## MaryL

bodecea said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals  offspring by either artificial insemination  or adoption  outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining  argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because  THEY THEM THEMSELF  can not nor  will  they ever  be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> So all our children don't exist?
Click to expand...

All our children is a soap opera. What is your question, clarify.


----------



## MaryL

TheOldSchool said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals  offspring by either artificial insemination  or adoption  outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining  argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because  THEY THEM THEMSELF  can not nor  will  they ever  be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice viewpoint.  Too bad that dog won't be hunting anywhere!
Click to expand...

Too bad facts put people off. Hunt were you like.


----------



## TheOldSchool

MaryL said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals  offspring by either artificial insemination  or adoption  outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining  argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because  THEY THEM THEMSELF  can not nor  will  they ever  be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice viewpoint.  Too bad that dog won't be hunting anywhere!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad facts put people off. Hunt were you like.
Click to expand...

Cool 

Keep saying those "facts" to yourself when same sex marriage is legal across the land!


----------



## MaryL

TheOldSchool said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals  offspring by either artificial insemination  or adoption  outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining  argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because  THEY THEM THEMSELF  can not nor  will  they ever  be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice viewpoint.  Too bad that dog won't be hunting anywhere!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad facts put people off. Hunt were you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool
> 
> Keep saying those "facts" to yourself when same sex marriage is legal across the land!
Click to expand...

Across the land? Wrong!  And on what planet do people that can't naturally reproduce need marriage, and for reason do they "NEED it"?


----------



## TheOldSchool

MaryL said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals  offspring by either artificial insemination  or adoption  outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining  argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because  THEY THEM THEMSELF  can not nor  will  they ever  be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice viewpoint.  Too bad that dog won't be hunting anywhere!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad facts put people off. Hunt were you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool
> 
> Keep saying those "facts" to yourself when same sex marriage is legal across the land!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Across the land? Wrong?  And on what planet do people that can't naturally reproduce need marriage, and for reason do they "NEED it"?
Click to expand...

37 states, and soon to be 50


----------



## MaryL

I question that, and where you got that number. But most of all, I question your rationale for thinking that conformity is right, let alone accepting something so basically unreasonable  and unnecessary as  homosexual marriage is acceptable  to begin with.


----------



## James Everett

bodecea said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some excellent points....
> 
> Townhall ^
> The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no. The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated! Some may say,...
> 
> 
> 
> Is marriage a legal entity in all states?
> 
> Is homosexual behavior currently illegal?
Click to expand...

Marriage is legal in all of the States within the union, however, marriage is by historical, traditional and legal definition existed as a contract between a man and a woman, not a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. There is no right for a minority to redefine a marriage contract to include something that it does not. There are other contracts that can be established between same sex partners. 
The laws are not uniform throughout the union of States, if they were, then I would have every right to arm myself in every State as I do I my home State.


----------



## James Everett

bodecea said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, it's a matter of respecting, including, protecting and representing ALL beliefs equally.
> Neither beliefs in gay marriage, nor beliefs in traditional marriage can be discriminated against OR forced on the public by law. If you focus on the fact that these are BELIEFS, then all sides can be treated EQUALLY, regardless which side they take or take exception to. Those are still BELIEFS.
> 
> Either agree how to write laws NEUTRALLY on "civil unions, contracts and/or marriages"
> or keep the conflicting term "marriage" OUT of the law (the same way atheists would object to the word God).
> 
> All these BELIEFS about marriage should already tell you it is outside govt jurisdiction.
> Those are private religious conflicts and should be mediated outside of courts, not decided by them.
> 
> If people in a state cannot agree on marriage laws, remove all conflicting language and just leave the parts they agree are valid and equally enforceable for all people, regardless of beliefs about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land.  That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool
> You act like it shouldn't have already been legal as part of religious freedom.
> That's what I don't understand.
> 
> Whatever you do for your marriage or wedding should already be up to the people to decide.
> How is this NOT a private matter of spiritual or religious beliefs???
> 
> Somehow this issue got completely out of hand, when it should have been a simple
> First Amendment exercise. Craziness on BOTH sides, if you ask me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage?  Because that's fine with me.  Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.
Click to expand...

No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage. 
But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.


----------



## James Everett

bodecea said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the unknown factor especially when the liberal media is on board.  A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR supported his anti-Catholic bigotry by writing the majority opinion that created the modern version of "separation of church and state". The opinion wasn't based on Constitutional law. It was based on a single sentence in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. The "right" of a woman to hire someone to kill her unborn baby does not appear in the Constitution. The liberal Supreme Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist. Since the Bill of Rights has come under assault by the democrat party and the liberal media anything is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember...if there is NO separation of church and state, that will give the state carte blanche to tell the churches what they can and cannot be.
Click to expand...

The only reference to any separation of church and State is the first amendment which simply states that congress can make NO LAW, until congress makes a law one way or the other, any SCOTUS opinion is another attempt to establish a fictional jurisdiction.
No law passed by congress means no violation of that separation of Church and State, such law is the only way a violation can exist.


----------



## TheOldSchool

James Everett said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the unknown factor especially when the liberal media is on board.  A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR supported his anti-Catholic bigotry by writing the majority opinion that created the modern version of "separation of church and state". The opinion wasn't based on Constitutional law. It was based on a single sentence in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. The "right" of a woman to hire someone to kill her unborn baby does not appear in the Constitution. The liberal Supreme Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist. Since the Bill of Rights has come under assault by the democrat party and the liberal media anything is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember...if there is NO separation of church and state, that will give the state carte blanche to tell the churches what they can and cannot be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reference to any separation of church and State is the first amendment which simply states that congress can make NO LAW, until congress makes a law one way or the other, any SCOTUS opinion is another attempt to establish a fictional jurisdiction.
> No law passed by congress means no violation of that separation of Church and State, such law is the only way a violation can exist.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how gay marriage makes conservatives suddenly think they are more knowledgable about the law than the courts that have unanimously upheld gay marriage and even the SCOTUS!


----------



## bodecea

MaryL said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals  offspring by either artificial insemination  or adoption  outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining  argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because  THEY THEM THEMSELF  can not nor  will  they ever  be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice viewpoint.  Too bad that dog won't be hunting anywhere!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad facts put people off. Hunt were you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool
> 
> Keep saying those "facts" to yourself when same sex marriage is legal across the land!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Across the land? Wrong!  And on what planet do people that can't naturally reproduce need marriage, and for reason do they "NEED it"?
Click to expand...

Can't reproduce?  You think gays are sterile?


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> EMILYNGHIEM SAID:
> 
> “What? No, the issue of prolife and prochoice has never been resolved.”
> 
> Actually it has, as far as the law is concerned, decades ago.
> 
> But those opposed to privacy right continue to seek to violate those rights; and should the Supreme Court rule in an manner invalidating measures denying gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law and enter into marriage contracts, those opposed to the protected liberty of gay Americans will continue to seek to disadvantage them.
> 
> 
> 
> All of this is just mindless dribble from the indoctrinated. .
Click to expand...


Oh the irony! The irony.

Ahem. People of usmb: whenever people speak like this "indoctrinated" you know it's going to be dull and boring


----------



## Dante

MaryL said:


> I question that, and where you got that number. But most of all, I question your rationale for thinking that conformity is right, let alone accepting something so basically unreasonable  and unnecessary as  homosexual marriage is acceptable  to begin with.


Do you always state opinions as fact?


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some excellent points....
> 
> Townhall ^
> The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no. The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated! Some may say,...
> 
> 
> 
> Is marriage a legal entity in all states?
> 
> Is homosexual behavior currently illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is legal in all of the States within the union, however, marriage is by historical, traditional and legal definition existed as a contract between a man and a woman, not a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. There is no right for a minority to redefine a marriage contract to include something that it does not. There are other contracts that can be established between same sex partners.
> The laws are not uniform throughout the union of States, if they were, then I would have every right to arm myself in every State as I do I my home State.
Click to expand...


Actually marriage is a federally recognized basic right. This itself trumps any state law that would disallow marriage.

Marriage is a legal contract that does not recognize gender. It is a contract between two people. To make a gender distinction like _man_ and _woman_ would take a new law. Marriage contracts are not between man and woman, they are between people. Maybe you are confusing a religious ceremony with a civil one. If so you need to go back to grade school civics class.

The state (federal government) has not defined marriage as between a man and a woman. 

Laws that are not uniform across the states cannot trump a federal law in the specific area. Read the US Constitution


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land.  That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool
> You act like it shouldn't have already been legal as part of religious freedom.
> That's what I don't understand.
> 
> Whatever you do for your marriage or wedding should already be up to the people to decide.
> How is this NOT a private matter of spiritual or religious beliefs???
> 
> Somehow this issue got completely out of hand, when it should have been a simple
> First Amendment exercise. Craziness on BOTH sides, if you ask me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage?  Because that's fine with me.  Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
Click to expand...



Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people. 

Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest. 

Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this


----------



## Faun

Vigilante said:


> Some excellent points....
> 
> Townhall ^
> The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no. The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated! Some may say,...


That's as dumb as dumb can be. That's the same as saying the 18th Amendment didn't bring about a prohibition of alcohol because alcohol was legal in the states.


----------



## Dante

TheOldSchool said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the unknown factor especially when the liberal media is on board.  A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR supported his anti-Catholic bigotry by writing the majority opinion that created the modern version of "separation of church and state". The opinion wasn't based on Constitutional law. It was based on a single sentence in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. The "right" of a woman to hire someone to kill her unborn baby does not appear in the Constitution. The liberal Supreme Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist. Since the Bill of Rights has come under assault by the democrat party and the liberal media anything is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember...if there is NO separation of church and state, that will give the state carte blanche to tell the churches what they can and cannot be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reference to any separation of church and State is the first amendment which simply states that congress can make NO LAW, until congress makes a law one way or the other, any SCOTUS opinion is another attempt to establish a fictional jurisdiction.
> No law passed by congress means no violation of that separation of Church and State, such law is the only way a violation can exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's amazing how gay marriage makes conservatives suddenly think they are more knowledgable about the law than the courts that have unanimously upheld gay marriage and even the SCOTUS!
Click to expand...

yep


----------



## bodecea

Ironically, the posters who wish for a future with no civil laws on marriage, just religious ones wish for a future where just as many gays will get married if not more than now.  I was religiously married way before civil gay marriage became legal.


----------



## James Everett

TheOldSchool said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the unknown factor especially when the liberal media is on board.  A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR supported his anti-Catholic bigotry by writing the majority opinion that created the modern version of "separation of church and state". The opinion wasn't based on Constitutional law. It was based on a single sentence in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. The "right" of a woman to hire someone to kill her unborn baby does not appear in the Constitution. The liberal Supreme Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist. Since the Bill of Rights has come under assault by the democrat party and the liberal media anything is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember...if there is NO separation of church and state, that will give the state carte blanche to tell the churches what they can and cannot be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reference to any separation of church and State is the first amendment which simply states that congress can make NO LAW, until congress makes a law one way or the other, any SCOTUS opinion is another attempt to establish a fictional jurisdiction.
> No law passed by congress means no violation of that separation of Church and State, such law is the only way a violation can exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's amazing how gay marriage makes conservatives suddenly think they are more knowledgable about the law than the courts that have unanimously upheld gay marriage and even the SCOTUS!
Click to expand...

Sir, 
I am no conservative, yet any fool, liberal, conservative, or whatever can, if only, they open their eyes see the BS and contradiction that YOUR SCOTUS, offer as opinion is only for the purpose of extending it's own jurisdiction to further consolidate power to the national body, which has no interest in individual liberty or rights and every interest in expanding its power. Can you say "homeland security", "CIA", "FBI", "NSA"?


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this place doesn't get too boring once gay marriage is legal across the land.  That'll take away like 25% of the threads posted on here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool
> You act like it shouldn't have already been legal as part of religious freedom.
> That's what I don't understand.
> 
> Whatever you do for your marriage or wedding should already be up to the people to decide.
> How is this NOT a private matter of spiritual or religious beliefs???
> 
> Somehow this issue got completely out of hand, when it should have been a simple
> First Amendment exercise. Craziness on BOTH sides, if you ask me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage?  Because that's fine with me.  Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.


----------



## MaryL

Dante said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I question that, and where you got that number. But most of all, I question your rationale for thinking that conformity is right, let alone accepting something so basically unreasonable  and unnecessary as  homosexual marriage is acceptable  to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you always state opinions as fact?
Click to expand...

Do I?  You are confused.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool
> You act like it shouldn't have already been legal as part of religious freedom.
> That's what I don't understand.
> 
> Whatever you do for your marriage or wedding should already be up to the people to decide.
> How is this NOT a private matter of spiritual or religious beliefs???
> 
> Somehow this issue got completely out of hand, when it should have been a simple
> First Amendment exercise. Craziness on BOTH sides, if you ask me!
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage?  Because that's fine with me.  Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
Click to expand...

Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool
> You act like it shouldn't have already been legal as part of religious freedom.
> That's what I don't understand.
> 
> Whatever you do for your marriage or wedding should already be up to the people to decide.
> How is this NOT a private matter of spiritual or religious beliefs???
> 
> Somehow this issue got completely out of hand, when it should have been a simple
> First Amendment exercise. Craziness on BOTH sides, if you ask me!
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage?  Because that's fine with me.  Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
Click to expand...

A marriage has always been defined...legally as a "contract between a man and a woman"?

really? 

DOMA. Why was it supposed to be needed? That would be like making a federal Free Speech law. D'Oh! already exists.

Blacks won the argument to inter racial marriage on the grounds that a legal contract between two people could not be denied them. Our Southern White Christian Conservative racists tried to use a Jim Crow law stating no one, blacks or whites had a right to marry those of another race.


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage?  Because that's fine with me.  Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
Click to expand...


The right to pursue happiness? Is that being argued in the Court?


----------



## Dante

MaryL said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I question that, and where you got that number. But most of all, I question your rationale for thinking that conformity is right, let alone accepting something so basically unreasonable  and unnecessary as  homosexual marriage is acceptable  to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you always state opinions as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I?  You are confused.
Click to expand...

yet one more opinion

see?


----------



## MaryL

I am not merely opining when I state  GAYS cannot have children...No, THAT IS A fact.  Love whomever you want. Not taking that away from anyone. But I don't think homosexuals need marriage anymore that a  fish needs a bicycle. It's just a status symbol for them, and a  empty one at that.


----------



## TheOldSchool

James Everett said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the unknown factor especially when the liberal media is on board.  A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR supported his anti-Catholic bigotry by writing the majority opinion that created the modern version of "separation of church and state". The opinion wasn't based on Constitutional law. It was based on a single sentence in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. The "right" of a woman to hire someone to kill her unborn baby does not appear in the Constitution. The liberal Supreme Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist. Since the Bill of Rights has come under assault by the democrat party and the liberal media anything is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember...if there is NO separation of church and state, that will give the state carte blanche to tell the churches what they can and cannot be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reference to any separation of church and State is the first amendment which simply states that congress can make NO LAW, until congress makes a law one way or the other, any SCOTUS opinion is another attempt to establish a fictional jurisdiction.
> No law passed by congress means no violation of that separation of Church and State, such law is the only way a violation can exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's amazing how gay marriage makes conservatives suddenly think they are more knowledgable about the law than the courts that have unanimously upheld gay marriage and even the SCOTUS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sir,
> I am no conservative, yet any fool, liberal, conservative, or whatever can, if only, they open their eyes see the BS and contradiction that YOUR SCOTUS, offer as opinion is only for the purpose of extending it's own jurisdiction to further consolidate power to the national body, which has no interest in individual liberty or rights and every interest in expanding its power. Can you say "homeland security", "CIA", "FBI", "NSA"?
Click to expand...

The thread has just entered Crazytown


----------



## Dante

MaryL said:


> I am not merely opining when I state  GAYS cannot have children...No, THAT IS A fact.  Love whomever you want. Not taking that away from anyone. But I don't think homosexuals need marriage anymore that a  fish needs a bicycle. It's just a status symbol for them, and a  empty one at that.


you need to check into a lunatic asylum
Of course they can and do.  They can artificial insemination, adopt, foster..

unless you want to go against Couples that do these things and their children,


----------



## MaryL

What is the big deal here, anyway? Gays can't get married, not exactly the biggest threat to human rights I can think of. WHY is this even an issue?


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to pursue happiness? Is that being argued in the Court?
Click to expand...

Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.


----------



## MaryL

Dante said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not merely opining when I state  GAYS cannot have children...No, THAT IS A fact.  Love whomever you want. Not taking that away from anyone. But I don't think homosexuals need marriage anymore that a  fish needs a bicycle. It's just a status symbol for them, and a  empty one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> you need to check into a lunatic asylum
> Of course they can and do.  They can artificial insemination, adopt, foster..
> 
> unless you want to go against Couples that do these things and their children,
Click to expand...

Hmm, nice response. ARTIFICIAL insemination, adoption, not exactly what I call healthy sexuality. No. totally false dead end argument to support  homosexual marriage. If we allow  people to eat human flesh, that makes cannibalism alright too. No, get off the groupthink
 express, Junior.


----------



## Dante

go away Crazy Mary.. maybe go look for Jakey?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MaryL said:


> I am not merely opining when I state  GAYS cannot have children...No, THAT IS A fact.  Love whomever you want. Not taking that away from anyone. But I don't think homosexuals need marriage anymore that a  fish needs a bicycle. It's just a status symbol for them, and a  empty one at that.


You're as hateful as you are ignorant.

Infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry in all 50 states – do you 'think' infertile opposite-sex couples need marriage anymore than a fish needs a bicycle. Is it just an empty status symbol for them as well?


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to pursue happiness? Is that being argued in the Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.
Click to expand...

OF course? This is a legal argument in Court? Who is asking the law allow gay marriage on those grounds? What lawyer?


----------



## Faun

MaryL said:


> What is the big deal here, anyway? Gays can't get married, not exactly the biggest threat to human rights I can think of. WHY is this even an issue?


That's a beauty of America -- some things which are not important to you but are important to others can be treated just as equally important to others; just as some things you do find important can be treated for you.


----------



## MaryL

TheOldSchool said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the unknown factor especially when the liberal media is on board.  A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR supported his anti-Catholic bigotry by writing the majority opinion that created the modern version of "separation of church and state". The opinion wasn't based on Constitutional law. It was based on a single sentence in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. The "right" of a woman to hire someone to kill her unborn baby does not appear in the Constitution. The liberal Supreme Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist. Since the Bill of Rights has come under assault by the democrat party and the liberal media anything is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember...if there is NO separation of church and state, that will give the state carte blanche to tell the churches what they can and cannot be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only reference to any separation of church and State is the first amendment which simply states that congress can make NO LAW, until congress makes a law one way or the other, any SCOTUS opinion is another attempt to establish a fictional jurisdiction.
> No law passed by congress means no violation of that separation of Church and State, such law is the only way a violation can exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's amazing how gay marriage makes conservatives suddenly think they are more knowledgable about the law than the courts that have unanimously upheld gay marriage and even the SCOTUS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sir,
> I am no conservative, yet any fool, liberal, conservative, or whatever can, if only, they open their eyes see the BS and contradiction that YOUR SCOTUS, offer as opinion is only for the purpose of extending it's own jurisdiction to further consolidate power to the national body, which has no interest in individual liberty or rights and every interest in expanding its power. Can you say "homeland security", "CIA", "FBI", "NSA"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread has just entered Crazytown
Click to expand...

Said the bird flying over the coo-coo's nest. Jeese.


----------



## Dante

Faun  I do know this:

In the Supreme Court, the two lesbian and gay couples who are challenging Proposition 8, urge a broader position. They argue that Proposition 8 not only violates the Equal Protection Clause, but denies gay and lesbian persons the fundamental right to marriage guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.  The Same-Sex Marriage Cases Equality and the Pursuit of Happiness Brennan Center for Justice​


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to pursue happiness? Is that being argued in the Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OF course? This is a legal argument in Court? Who is asking the law allow gay marriage on those grounds? What lawyer?
Click to expand...

No, the legal argument is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What do you think it's protecting?


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to pursue happiness? Is that being argued in the Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OF course? This is a legal argument in Court? Who is asking the law allow gay marriage on those grounds? What lawyer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the legal argument is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What do you think it's protecting?
Click to expand...


To quote Obama "words matter"

and you're wrong


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> Faun  I do know this:
> 
> In the Supreme Court, the two lesbian and gay couples who are challenging Proposition 8, urge a broader position. They argue that Proposition 8 not only violates the Equal Protection Clause, but denies gay and lesbian persons the fundamental right to marriage guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.  The Same-Sex Marriage Cases Equality and the Pursuit of Happiness Brennan Center for Justice​


What do you think establishes marriage as a fundamental right?


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to pursue happiness? Is that being argued in the Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OF course? This is a legal argument in Court? Who is asking the law allow gay marriage on those grounds? What lawyer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the legal argument is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What do you think it's protecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To quote Obama "words matter"
Click to expand...

That doesn't actually answer my question, now does it?


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage?  Because that's fine with me.  Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

You are only partially correct. You are incorrect in your assertion that...."marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right."
While it is, and everyone does have a constitutional right to contract, as long as said contract does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another, however,  a marriage while indeed is a contract, it is and has always been defined specifically, historically, traditionally and legally "a contract between a man and a woman".
Same sex couples who wish to contract with the one they love a binding lifelong devotion to be legally recognized may be done via a civil union contract. That is where their legally argument should be, not a legal case to re-define a  marriage contract. What this silliness is doing is granting the central government a fictional jurisdiction expanding its power, and authority over the rights of the individual.


----------



## Dante

for Faunnon too bright

*Equal Protection: An Overview*
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. _See_ U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. _See_ Civil Rights.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are only partially correct. You are incorrect in your assertion that...."marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right."
> While it is, and everyone does have a constitutional right to contract, as long as said contract does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another, however,  a marriage while indeed is a contract, it is and has always been defined specifically, historically, traditionally and legally "a contract between a man and a woman".
> Same sex couples who wish to contract with the one they love a binding lifelong devotion to be legally recognized may be done via a civil union contract. That is where their legally argument should be, not a legal case to re-define a  marriage contract. What this silliness is doing is granting the central government a fictional jurisdiction expanding its power, and authority over the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...


The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a most basic right


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to pursue happiness? Is that being argued in the Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OF course? This is a legal argument in Court? Who is asking the law allow gay marriage on those grounds? What lawyer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the legal argument is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What do you think it's protecting?
Click to expand...


equal application of the law?

stop making your side look so dumb. seriously


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to pursue happiness? Is that being argued in the Court?
Click to expand...

No, the case is to redefine a contract, specifically a "marriage contract" to include something that it never has included, thus re-defining what a marriage contract is, hence expanding the central governments authority over the rights of the individual by granting further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS. 
The happiness can be pursued via the constitutional right to contract, not the redefining of a specific contract.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are only partially correct. You are incorrect in your assertion that...."marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right."
> While it is, and everyone does have a constitutional right to contract, as long as said contract does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another, however,  a marriage while indeed is a contract, it is and has always been defined specifically, historically, traditionally and legally "a contract between a man and a woman".
> Same sex couples who wish to contract with the one they love a binding lifelong devotion to be legally recognized may be done via a civil union contract. That is where their legally argument should be, not a legal case to re-define a  marriage contract. What this silliness is doing is granting the central government a fictional jurisdiction expanding its power, and authority over the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

Oh? And who's right to life, liberty, or property is being infringed by a gay couple marrying each other?


----------



## MaryL

Faun said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the big deal here, anyway? Gays can't get married, not exactly the biggest threat to human rights I can think of. WHY is this even an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a beauty of America -- some things which are not important to you but are important to others can be treated just as equally important to others; just as some things you do find important can be treated for you.
Click to expand...

 To me this is a totally artificial issue.  We all are treated equally, and sometimes that means you don't get what you want because you just want to get your way. Gays with deep pockets and lawyers and lots of weepy eyed stories, they still haven't proven WHY they need marriage to me. I believe in being fair and in science and in facts.  Marriage shouldn't be cheapened to a status symbol.


----------



## TheOldSchool

MaryL said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember...if there is NO separation of church and state, that will give the state carte blanche to tell the churches what they can and cannot be.
> 
> 
> 
> The only reference to any separation of church and State is the first amendment which simply states that congress can make NO LAW, until congress makes a law one way or the other, any SCOTUS opinion is another attempt to establish a fictional jurisdiction.
> No law passed by congress means no violation of that separation of Church and State, such law is the only way a violation can exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's amazing how gay marriage makes conservatives suddenly think they are more knowledgable about the law than the courts that have unanimously upheld gay marriage and even the SCOTUS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sir,
> I am no conservative, yet any fool, liberal, conservative, or whatever can, if only, they open their eyes see the BS and contradiction that YOUR SCOTUS, offer as opinion is only for the purpose of extending it's own jurisdiction to further consolidate power to the national body, which has no interest in individual liberty or rights and every interest in expanding its power. Can you say "homeland security", "CIA", "FBI", "NSA"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread has just entered Crazytown
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Said the bird flying over the coo-coo's nest. Jeese.
Click to expand...

*cuckoo


----------



## MaryL

Faun said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the big deal here, anyway? Gays can't get married, not exactly the biggest threat to human rights I can think of. WHY is this even an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a beauty of America -- some things which are not important to you but are important to others can be treated just as equally important to others; just as some things you do find important can be treated for you.
Click to expand...

 To me this is a totally artificial issue.  We all are treated equally, and sometimes that means you don't get what you want because you just want to get your way. Gays with deep pockets and lawyers and lots of weepy eyed stories, they still haven't proven WHY they need marriage to me. I believe in being fair and in science and in facts.  Marriage shouldn't be cheapened to a status symbol.


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> for Faunnon too bright
> 
> *Equal Protection: An Overview*
> The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. _See_ U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. _See_ Civil Rights.


It's a pity you resort to invective while discussing this issue, but regardless, your argument falls apart when you equate marriage, which is a state sponsored contract; with an employee entering into a private contract.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

This is the issue before the Supreme Court:

“[W]hether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.”

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/1d121333b449f82a71_icm6ivueb.pdf


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting the state should completely remove itself from the business of marriage?  Because that's fine with me.  Everyone gets a "civil union" from the state from now on and if you can find a Church that will marry you then good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A marriage has always been defined...legally as a "contract between a man and a woman"?
> 
> really?
> 
> DOMA. Why was it supposed to be needed? That would be like making a federal Free Speech law. D'Oh! already exists.
> 
> Blacks won the argument to inter racial marriage on the grounds that a legal contract between two people could not be denied them. Our Southern White Christian Conservative racists tried to use a Jim Crow law stating no one, blacks or whites had a right to marry those of another race.
Click to expand...

Again, you are incorrect.....
Loving v Virginia was a case concerning the "MARRIAGE " contract between a man and a woman of different race, hence such fit the definition of a marriage, that being " a contract between a man and a woman". 
You are attempting to equate apples and ham.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to pursue happiness? Is that being argued in the Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the case is to redefine a contract, specifically a "marriage contract" to include something that it never has included, thus re-defining what a marriage contract is, hence expanding the central governments authority over the rights of the individual by granting further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS.
> The happiness can be pursued via the constitutional right to contract, not the redefining of a specific contract.
Click to expand...

You're using a political argument. This is a legal issue. 

No one is redefining a civil marriage contract. 

your legal argument is who can be denied one

the other side's argument is about unlawful discrimination on the part of government in the are of civil contracts


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MaryL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the big deal here, anyway? Gays can't get married, not exactly the biggest threat to human rights I can think of. WHY is this even an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a beauty of America -- some things which are not important to you but are important to others can be treated just as equally important to others; just as some things you do find important can be treated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To me this is a totally artificial issue.  We all are treated equally, and sometimes that means you don't get what you want because you just want to get your way. Gays with deep pockets and lawyers and lots of weepy eyed stories, they still haven't proven WHY they need marriage to me. I believe in being fair and in science and in facts.  Marriage shouldn't be cheapened to a status symbol.
Click to expand...

Fortunately you don't get to make that decision – one of the many benefits of living in a Constitutional Republic as opposed to a democracy.


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to pursue happiness? Is that being argued in the Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OF course? This is a legal argument in Court? Who is asking the law allow gay marriage on those grounds? What lawyer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the legal argument is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What do you think it's protecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> equal application of the law?
> 
> stop making your side look so dumb. seriously
Click to expand...

Marriage is a legal status bestowed upon us by the state. It absolutely is bound by the equal protection of the laws.

On which side do you _think_ I'm on?

And how come I can't get you to answer the question ... what establishes marriage as a fundamental right?


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> for Faunnon too bright
> 
> *Equal Protection: An Overview*
> The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. _See_ U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. _See_ Civil Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pity you resort to invective while discussing this issue, but regardless, your argument falls apart when you equate marriage, which is a state sponsored contract; with an employee entering into a private contract.
Click to expand...

invective?

wtf are you, 13 years old?


----------



## James Everett

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is the issue before the Supreme Court:
> 
> “[W]hether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> 
> http://freemarry.3cdn.net/1d121333b449f82a71_icm6ivueb.pdf


Yet, here is no violation of the fourteenth. Your SCOTUS will likely claim there is in order to further expand it fictional jurisdiction, no surprise there, it is simply the people begging to have more government regulation in their lives, such is the wish of fools.


----------



## MaryL

TheOldSchool said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reference to any separation of church and State is the first amendment which simply states that congress can make NO LAW, until congress makes a law one way or the other, any SCOTUS opinion is another attempt to establish a fictional jurisdiction.
> No law passed by congress means no violation of that separation of Church and State, such law is the only way a violation can exist.
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how gay marriage makes conservatives suddenly think they are more knowledgable about the law than the courts that have unanimously upheld gay marriage and even the SCOTUS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sir,
> I am no conservative, yet any fool, liberal, conservative, or whatever can, if only, they open their eyes see the BS and contradiction that YOUR SCOTUS, offer as opinion is only for the purpose of extending it's own jurisdiction to further consolidate power to the national body, which has no interest in individual liberty or rights and every interest in expanding its power. Can you say "homeland security", "CIA", "FBI", "NSA"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread has just entered Crazytown
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Said the bird flying over the coo-coo's nest. Jeese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *cuckoo
Click to expand...

 Damn you spelled it right and everything. Do you understand the reference, too, sweetie?


----------



## TheOldSchool

MaryL said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how gay marriage makes conservatives suddenly think they are more knowledgable about the law than the courts that have unanimously upheld gay marriage and even the SCOTUS!
> 
> 
> 
> Sir,
> I am no conservative, yet any fool, liberal, conservative, or whatever can, if only, they open their eyes see the BS and contradiction that YOUR SCOTUS, offer as opinion is only for the purpose of extending it's own jurisdiction to further consolidate power to the national body, which has no interest in individual liberty or rights and every interest in expanding its power. Can you say "homeland security", "CIA", "FBI", "NSA"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread has just entered Crazytown
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Said the bird flying over the coo-coo's nest. Jeese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *cuckoo
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you spelled it right and everything. Do you understand the reference, too, sweetie?
Click to expand...

Better than you understand the law, clearly


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> for Faunnon too bright
> 
> *Equal Protection: An Overview*
> The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. _See_ U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. _See_ Civil Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pity you resort to invective while discussing this issue, but regardless, your argument falls apart when you equate marriage, which is a state sponsored contract; with an employee entering into a private contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> invective?
> 
> wtf are you, 13 years old?
Click to expand...

No, but I am trying to maintain an adult conversation.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A marriage has always been defined...legally as a "contract between a man and a woman"?
> 
> really?
> 
> DOMA. Why was it supposed to be needed? That would be like making a federal Free Speech law. D'Oh! already exists.
> 
> Blacks won the argument to inter racial marriage on the grounds that a legal contract between two people could not be denied them. Our Southern White Christian Conservative racists tried to use a Jim Crow law stating no one, blacks or whites had a right to marry those of another race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you are incorrect.....
> Loving v Virginia was a case concerning the "MARRIAGE " contract between a man and a woman of different race, hence such fit the definition of a marriage, that being " a contract between a man and a woman".
> You are attempting to equate apples and ham.
Click to expand...

 you are wrong yet again and horribly wrong


*Legal provision:* Equal Protection

Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Question 
Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion
Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."​


----------



## Faun

MaryL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the big deal here, anyway? Gays can't get married, not exactly the biggest threat to human rights I can think of. WHY is this even an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a beauty of America -- some things which are not important to you but are important to others can be treated just as equally important to others; just as some things you do find important can be treated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To me this is a totally artificial issue.  We all are treated equally, and sometimes that means you don't get what you want because you just want to get your way. Gays with deep pockets and lawyers and lots of weepy eyed stories, they still haven't proven WHY they need marriage to me. I believe in being fair and in science and in facts.  Marriage shouldn't be cheapened to a status symbol.
Click to expand...

If we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to pursue happiness? Is that being argued in the Court?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OF course? This is a legal argument in Court? Who is asking the law allow gay marriage on those grounds? What lawyer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the legal argument is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What do you think it's protecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> equal application of the law?
> 
> stop making your side look so dumb. seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a legal status bestowed upon us by the state. It absolutely is bound by the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> On which side do you _think_ I'm on?
> 
> And how come I can't get you to answer the question ... what establishes marriage as a fundamental right?
Click to expand...

You are definitely NOT on the side of factual truth. Do not misrepresent your own side. It always comes back to bite you in the ass -- gay straight, transgendered or bi...


----------



## MaryL

I will defend anyone that is actually being hurt. Gays not be able to marry, really? How is that a issue? How is that hurting anyone?  Get real.     They have EVERY and I mean EVERY right anyone, man woman or child has, so what,  what is that BIG FLIPPIN deal?


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the big deal here, anyway? Gays can't get married, not exactly the biggest threat to human rights I can think of. WHY is this even an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a beauty of America -- some things which are not important to you but are important to others can be treated just as equally important to others; just as some things you do find important can be treated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To me this is a totally artificial issue.  We all are treated equally, and sometimes that means you don't get what you want because you just want to get your way. Gays with deep pockets and lawyers and lots of weepy eyed stories, they still haven't proven WHY they need marriage to me. I believe in being fair and in science and in facts.  Marriage shouldn't be cheapened to a status symbol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?
Click to expand...

You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get married


----------



## Dante

During arguments for Loving v Virginia James Everett 
"Persons"

Section 259, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:

_Punishment for marriage._ -- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.
Loving v. Virginia LII Legal Information Institute
...  

The Lovings have never disputed in the course of this litigation that Mrs. Loving is a "colored person" or that Mr. Loving is a "white person" within the meanings given those terms by the Virginia statutes​


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. The right to pursue happiness is identified as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution codifies the protection of our inalienable rights. If a right is infringed upon by the government, state or local, we reserve the right to seek redress from within our judicial system. I believe the current leading argument in the courts revolves primarily on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment -- which specifically forbids the government from treating people unequally to deny them their inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> OF course? This is a legal argument in Court? Who is asking the law allow gay marriage on those grounds? What lawyer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the legal argument is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What do you think it's protecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> equal application of the law?
> 
> stop making your side look so dumb. seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a legal status bestowed upon us by the state. It absolutely is bound by the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> On which side do you _think_ I'm on?
> 
> And how come I can't get you to answer the question ... what establishes marriage as a fundamental right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are definitely NOT on the side of factual truth. Do not misrepresent your own side. It always comes back to bite you in the ass -- gay straight, transgendered or bi...
Click to expand...

What do you contend I've misrepresented?

And again, why do you refuse to answer -- what do you think establishes marriage as a fundamental right?


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the big deal here, anyway? Gays can't get married, not exactly the biggest threat to human rights I can think of. WHY is this even an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a beauty of America -- some things which are not important to you but are important to others can be treated just as equally important to others; just as some things you do find important can be treated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To me this is a totally artificial issue.  We all are treated equally, and sometimes that means you don't get what you want because you just want to get your way. Gays with deep pockets and lawyers and lots of weepy eyed stories, they still haven't proven WHY they need marriage to me. I believe in being fair and in science and in facts.  Marriage shouldn't be cheapened to a status symbol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get married
Click to expand...

Certainly, you don't have to. But it is a primary reason.

And again, what do you think makes marriage a fundamental right?


----------



## MaryL

I am astounded by all the intelligent people here  that are  so hoodwinked  by the phony homosexual propaganda. You are better than that, think for YOURSELVES. If what you people  post is your own opinion YOU came too as an individual, I can resect  that. But somehow, I don't think that's how most of your minds work. Bahhh, we are poor witto sheep that lost our way...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That indeed would be equal....if the state drops legal marriage licenses for ALL.   Now, I would very much like to see that become the next battleground for the RW.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A marriage has always been defined...legally as a "contract between a man and a woman"?
> 
> really?
> 
> DOMA. Why was it supposed to be needed? That would be like making a federal Free Speech law. D'Oh! already exists.
> 
> Blacks won the argument to inter racial marriage on the grounds that a legal contract between two people could not be denied them. Our Southern White Christian Conservative racists tried to use a Jim Crow law stating no one, blacks or whites had a right to marry those of another race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you are incorrect.....
> Loving v Virginia was a case concerning the "MARRIAGE " contract between a man and a woman of different race, hence such fit the definition of a marriage, that being " a contract between a man and a woman".
> You are attempting to equate apples and ham.
Click to expand...

No, you're incorrect.

_Loving_ concerned the state seeking to disadvantage an interracial couple because of the make up of that couple, in violation of the 14th Amendment, just as the states today seek to disadvantage same-sex couples solely because of their make up:

“[Anti-miscegenation] statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Loving v. Virginia LII Legal Information Institute

Whether interracial or same-sex, to seek to deny a couple access to marriage based solely on its composition is un-Constitutional; such prohibitions are not rationally based, they are devoid of objective, documented evidence in support, and they pursue no proper legislative end – they seek only to harm same-sex couples, something the states may not do. (_Romer v. Evans_)


----------



## bodecea

The OP needs to contact the lawyers arguing in front of SCOTUS asap to let them know what and how to make his winning argument.


----------



## bodecea

MaryL said:


> I am astounded by all the intelligent people here  that are  so hoodwinked  by the phony homosexual propaganda. You are better than that, think for YOURSELVES. If what you people  post is your own opinion YOU came too as an individual, I can resect  that. But somehow, I don't think that's how most of your minds work. Bahhh, we are poor witto sheep that lost our way...


What exactly is "phony"?


----------



## Faun

MaryL said:


> I will defend anyone that is actually being hurt. Gays not be able to marry, really? How is that a issue? How is that hurting anyone?  Get real.     They have EVERY and I mean EVERY right anyone, man woman or child has, so what,  what is that BIG FLIPPIN deal?


You didn't answer the question ... how is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love *equal* to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?

You said they're equal -- I'm searching for *equality* here ...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MaryL said:


> I am astounded by all the intelligent people here  that are  so hoodwinked  by the phony homosexual propaganda. You are better than that, think for YOURSELVES. If what you people  post is your own opinion YOU came too as an individual, I can resect  that. But somehow, I don't think that's how most of your minds work. Bahhh, we are poor witto sheep that lost our way...


There is no 'homosexual propaganda,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> for Faunnon too bright
> 
> *Equal Protection: An Overview*
> The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. _See_ U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. _See_ Civil Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pity you resort to invective while discussing this issue, but regardless, your argument falls apart when you equate marriage, which is a state sponsored contract; with an employee entering into a private contract.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a specific contract, one that has always been defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman. What is being attempted, and successfully is a re- defining of what a marriage contract is, which at some point will require the exclusion of a group such as polygamists, incest, etc, else such contract becomes so diluted as to be useless as a contract, as there are no  perimeters. 
The legal argument should not extend beyond the U.S. CONstitutions enumerated right to contract, else all the LGBT communities are doing is begging to grant a fictional jurisdiction to the government into their private lives wherein they have always fought to keep it and religion away from its interjection.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Marriage is a specific contract, one that has always been defined...legally as a contract between a man and a woman



still not true, no matter how many times you re-post it


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> for Faunnon too bright
> 
> *Equal Protection: An Overview*
> The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. _See_ U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. _See_ Civil Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pity you resort to invective while discussing this issue, but regardless, your argument falls apart when you equate marriage, which is a state sponsored contract; with an employee entering into a private contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a specific contract, one that has always been defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman. What is being attempted, and successfully is a re- defining of what a marriage contract is, which at some point will require the exclusion of a group such as polygamists, incest, etc, else such contract becomes so diluted as to be useless as a contract, as there are no  perimeters.
> The legal argument should not extend beyond the U.S. CONstitutions enumerated right to contract, else all the LGBT communities are doing is begging to grant a fictional jurisdiction to the government into their private lives wherein they have always fought to keep it and religion away from its interjection.
Click to expand...

Are my questions so tough, no one can answer them?

You [accurately] stated before. "...everyone does have a constitutional right to contract, as long as said contract *does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another...*"

Here's the question again which went unanswered ... who's right to life, liberty or property is being infringed upon by a gay couple being allowed to legally marry?

As far as marriage being "traditionally" defined as restricted to one man and one woman, I find that argument irrelevant. Times change. Traditions change. Even the Constitution changes.


----------



## MaryL

Dante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the big deal here, anyway? Gays can't get married, not exactly the biggest threat to human rights I can think of. WHY is this even an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a beauty of America -- some things which are not important to you but are important to others can be treated just as equally important to others; just as some things you do find important can be treated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To me this is a totally artificial issue.  We all are treated equally, and sometimes that means you don't get what you want because you just want to get your way. Gays with deep pockets and lawyers and lots of weepy eyed stories, they still haven't proven WHY they need marriage to me. I believe in being fair and in science and in facts.  Marriage shouldn't be cheapened to a status symbol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get married
Click to expand...

No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples  get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster  or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights  don't take it seriously anymore.


----------



## Faun

MaryL said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the big deal here, anyway? Gays can't get married, not exactly the biggest threat to human rights I can think of. WHY is this even an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a beauty of America -- some things which are not important to you but are important to others can be treated just as equally important to others; just as some things you do find important can be treated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To me this is a totally artificial issue.  We all are treated equally, and sometimes that means you don't get what you want because you just want to get your way. Gays with deep pockets and lawyers and lots of weepy eyed stories, they still haven't proven WHY they need marriage to me. I believe in being fair and in science and in facts.  Marriage shouldn't be cheapened to a status symbol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get married
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples  get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster  or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights  don't take it seriously anymore.
Click to expand...

Still no answer ...

How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love *equal* to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?

You said they're equal -- I'm searching for *equality* here ... but you won't answer ... ?


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun  I do know this:
> 
> In the Supreme Court, the two lesbian and gay couples who are challenging Proposition 8, urge a broader position. They argue that Proposition 8 not only violates the Equal Protection Clause, but denies gay and lesbian persons the fundamental right to marriage guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.  The Same-Sex Marriage Cases Equality and the Pursuit of Happiness Brennan Center for Justice​
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think establishes marriage as a fundamental right?
Click to expand...




Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the next battle will be polygamy and incest marriage.
> But if it is a matter of equality, then all that is needed is one woman to use the 14 th to gain equality in her right to walk in public with her breast bared as do men legally walk in public without a shirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are only partially correct. You are incorrect in your assertion that...."marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right."
> While it is, and everyone does have a constitutional right to contract, as long as said contract does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another, however,  a marriage while indeed is a contract, it is and has always been defined specifically, historically, traditionally and legally "a contract between a man and a woman".
> Same sex couples who wish to contract with the one they love a binding lifelong devotion to be legally recognized may be done via a civil union contract. That is where their legally argument should be, not a legal case to re-define a  marriage contract. What this silliness is doing is granting the central government a fictional jurisdiction expanding its power, and authority over the rights of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? And who's right to life, liberty, or property is being infringed by a gay couple marrying each other?
Click to expand...

There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a beauty of America -- some things which are not important to you but are important to others can be treated just as equally important to others; just as some things you do find important can be treated for you.
> 
> 
> 
> To me this is a totally artificial issue.  We all are treated equally, and sometimes that means you don't get what you want because you just want to get your way. Gays with deep pockets and lawyers and lots of weepy eyed stories, they still haven't proven WHY they need marriage to me. I believe in being fair and in science and in facts.  Marriage shouldn't be cheapened to a status symbol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get married
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples  get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster  or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights  don't take it seriously anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no answer ...
> 
> How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love *equal* to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
> 
> You said they're equal -- I'm searching for *equality* here ... but you won't answer ... ?
Click to expand...

Who are you asking ?


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun  I do know this:
> 
> In the Supreme Court, the two lesbian and gay couples who are challenging Proposition 8, urge a broader position. They argue that Proposition 8 not only violates the Equal Protection Clause, but denies gay and lesbian persons the fundamental right to marriage guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.  The Same-Sex Marriage Cases Equality and the Pursuit of Happiness Brennan Center for Justice​
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think establishes marriage as a fundamental right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Polygamists cannot challenge the laws on the same grounds because in order to marry another a divorce must be entered into. A marriage is civil contract between two people.
> 
> Incest? Why would you even imagine anything like that? You sound disturbed.  Incestual relations are prohibited by an overriding state interest.
> 
> Why would a woman use the 14th for that argument? You sound more and more like a moron on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you are incorrect. A marriage has always been defined historically, traditionally, and legally as a "contract between a man and a woman". The minority attempt to redefine it on equal rights grounds, now opens the further re-defining on those same equal rights grounds, because the definition is being turned into fiction, in order to expand the jurisdiction of the central government based on a fictional creation. You are too short sighted, and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that's true, it's the government's job to make same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right; in accordance with the right to pursue happiness. And it's the government's job to secure our rights. Neither a person's gender nor the gender of the person they love has anything to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are only partially correct. You are incorrect in your assertion that...."marrying the person you love and want to be legally bound to for life is a fundamental right."
> While it is, and everyone does have a constitutional right to contract, as long as said contract does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another, however,  a marriage while indeed is a contract, it is and has always been defined specifically, historically, traditionally and legally "a contract between a man and a woman".
> Same sex couples who wish to contract with the one they love a binding lifelong devotion to be legally recognized may be done via a civil union contract. That is where their legally argument should be, not a legal case to re-define a  marriage contract. What this silliness is doing is granting the central government a fictional jurisdiction expanding its power, and authority over the rights of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? And who's right to life, liberty, or property is being infringed by a gay couple marrying each other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.
Click to expand...

If there's no infringement, there's absolutely no legal excuse to ban them from getting married. The law is not restricted by "tradition."


----------



## Syriusly

Basically every judge that has looked at the issue has said that the 14th Amendment does apply

Like in Wisconsin

It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional


----------



## bodecea

MaryL said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the big deal here, anyway? Gays can't get married, not exactly the biggest threat to human rights I can think of. WHY is this even an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a beauty of America -- some things which are not important to you but are important to others can be treated just as equally important to others; just as some things you do find important can be treated for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To me this is a totally artificial issue.  We all are treated equally, and sometimes that means you don't get what you want because you just want to get your way. Gays with deep pockets and lawyers and lots of weepy eyed stories, they still haven't proven WHY they need marriage to me. I believe in being fair and in science and in facts.  Marriage shouldn't be cheapened to a status symbol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get married
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples  get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster  or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights  don't take it seriously anymore.
Click to expand...

Marriage is the topic you know....not procreation.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me this is a totally artificial issue.  We all are treated equally, and sometimes that means you don't get what you want because you just want to get your way. Gays with deep pockets and lawyers and lots of weepy eyed stories, they still haven't proven WHY they need marriage to me. I believe in being fair and in science and in facts.  Marriage shouldn't be cheapened to a status symbol.
> 
> 
> 
> If we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get married
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples  get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster  or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights  don't take it seriously anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no answer ...
> 
> How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love *equal* to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
> 
> You said they're equal -- I'm searching for *equality* here ... but you won't answer ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you asking ?
Click to expand...

Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.

Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.

She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.


----------



## Faun

Dante ... why do you refuse to answer?

What do you believe establishes marriage as a fundamental right?


----------



## MaryL

If they just want to profess their "love"  to their mate, WHY DEMAND society has to take note  of it and make a  human rights issue on par with food, housing or healthcare? It  isn't on par with heterosexual marriage  on the basic grounds they in and of them selves out of their own sexuality without creating artificial logic cannot   have kids and therefore don't need marriage.  It isn't that hard.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

TheOldSchool said:


> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.



Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.


----------



## TheOldSchool

TheGreatGatsby said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
Click to expand...

The founder's were so dumb huh?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

TheOldSchool said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
Click to expand...


How old are you, dude? You argue like a twit.


----------



## James Everett

Syriusly said:


> Basically every judge that has looked at the issue has said that the 14th Amendment does apply
> 
> Like in Wisconsin
> 
> It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
> Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
> affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
> by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
> interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
> Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
> as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
> same-sex couples are unconstitutional


Your SCOTUS will always render an opinion that furthers it's fictional jurisdiction in order to grant more power to the central body to which it is part . The fools beg for it to grant itself further fictional jurisdiction over their liberty, such will end in an eventual dictatorship or the like, thus is the same path traveled time and again throughout history.


----------



## MaryL

I just posted this on another  board, I won't buy ideological bullshit from ANYONE.


----------



## James Everett

TheOldSchool said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?[/QUOTE
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
Click to expand...


----------



## James Everett

TheGreatGatsby said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
Click to expand...

So true!!!!!
They are political appointees, appointed to extend further fictional jurisdiction by whatever means to the national government over the State governments.


----------



## Faun

MaryL said:


> If they just want to profess their "love"  to their mate, WHY DEMAND society has to take note  of it and make a  human rights issue on par with food, housing or healthcare? It  isn't on par with heterosexual marriage  on the basic grounds they in and of them selves out of their own sexuality without creating artificial logic cannot   have kids and therefore don't need marriage.  It isn't that hard.


Why demand equal rights?

Seriously???


----------



## Faun

TheGreatGatsby said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
Click to expand...

Ummm ... not for nothing but ... straight marriage isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution either.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we are already treated equally, how is it you get to marry the person you love but gays do not?
> 
> 
> 
> You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get married
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples  get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster  or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights  don't take it seriously anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no answer ...
> 
> How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love *equal* to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
> 
> You said they're equal -- I'm searching for *equality* here ... but you won't answer ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you asking ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.
> 
> Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.
> 
> She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.
Click to expand...

The answer to that question is simple....
Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.


The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional. 

People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman



not under the law. 

quote "Section 3 of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" has been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. Committed same-sex couples who are legally married in their own states can now receive federal protections - like Social Security, veterans' benefits, health insurance and retirement savings. DOMA at the Supreme Court."​The Supreme Court has recognized same sex marriages


----------



## Dante

TheGreatGatsby said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
Click to expand...


You hate America, Nothing new there


----------



## Dante

MaryL said:


> I just posted this on another  board, I won't buy ideological bullshit from ANYONE.


good.

go hang out over there


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So true!!!!!
> They are political appointees, appointed to extend further fictional jurisdiction by whatever means to the national government over the State governments.
Click to expand...


Why do you hate the US Constitution?


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
Click to expand...

How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.


----------



## MaryL

Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry  doesn't deprive them of  human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false  argument. Bullshit,  not buying it.


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.
> 
> 
> 
> The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.
> 
> People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed marriage is a basic right, and marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. The right to contract itself is a basic right under your CONstitution, and same sex couples can contract a civil union between themselves without fighting to redefine marriage and extend fictional jurisdiction to the central government. 
You simply don't understand the real issue. You are begging the central body of government to extend a fictional jurisdiction over your individual rights by incorrectly arguing an issue in which you beg it to interject itself where it has no jurisdiction. Think logically, not emotionally.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get married
> 
> 
> 
> No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples  get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster  or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights  don't take it seriously anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no answer ...
> 
> How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love *equal* to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
> 
> You said they're equal -- I'm searching for *equality* here ... but you won't answer ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you asking ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.
> 
> Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.
> 
> She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer to that question is simple....
> Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.
Click to expand...

What makes heterosexual marriage a right?


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.
> 
> 
> 
> The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.
> 
> People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along
Click to expand...

Are you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.
> 
> 
> 
> The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.
> 
> People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, indeed marriage is a basic right, and marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. The right to contract itself is a basic right under your CONstitution, and same sex couples can contract a civil union between themselves without fighting to redefine marriage and extend fictional jurisdiction to the central government.
> You simply don't understand the real issue. You are begging the central body of government to extend a fictional jurisdiction over your individual rights by incorrectly arguing an issue in which you beg it to interject itself where it has no jurisdiction. Think logically, not emotionally.
Click to expand...


A civil marriage is a civil contract and under the law civil contracts are between two people. You mentioned Loving v Virginia and you ended up looking like the fool you truly are. That case was decided on the rights of two people, not the right of a man and woman to marry. Read the ruling


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do NOT have to love somebody to get married. Your argument is analogous to Mary saying you need to bear children to get married
> 
> 
> 
> No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples  get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster  or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights  don't take it seriously anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no answer ...
> 
> How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love *equal* to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
> 
> You said they're equal -- I'm searching for *equality* here ... but you won't answer ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you asking ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.
> 
> Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.
> 
> She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer to that question is simple....
> Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.
Click to expand...

If it's not marriage, it's not the same.

If it's not the same, it's not equal.


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples  get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster  or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights  don't take it seriously anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Still no answer ...
> 
> How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love *equal* to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
> 
> You said they're equal -- I'm searching for *equality* here ... but you won't answer ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you asking ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.
> 
> Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.
> 
> She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer to that question is simple....
> Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes heterosexual marriage a right?
Click to expand...

MArriage is a right. WTF is heterosexual marriage? Is there a hetero contract? Stop being manipulated into bolstering the other side's argument when you use their framing


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.
> 
> 
> 
> The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.
> 
> People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?
Click to expand...


Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a  legal point.

people like you do more harm than good

the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good


----------



## Faun

MaryL said:


> Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry  doesn't deprive them of  human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false  argument. Bullshit,  not buying it.


Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.

And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no answer ...
> 
> How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love *equal* to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
> 
> You said they're equal -- I'm searching for *equality* here ... but you won't answer ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you asking ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.
> 
> Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.
> 
> She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer to that question is simple....
> Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes heterosexual marriage a right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MArriage is a right. WTF is heterosexual marriage? Is there a hetero contract? Stop being manipulated into bolstering the other side's argument when you use their framing
Click to expand...

Sorry, you don't get to tell me how to argue my points.

Hell, you won't even defend your own. You still refuse to answer -- why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
Click to expand...

Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you asking ?
> 
> 
> 
> Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.
> 
> Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.
> 
> She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer to that question is simple....
> Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes heterosexual marriage a right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MArriage is a right. WTF is heterosexual marriage? Is there a hetero contract? Stop being manipulated into bolstering the other side's argument when you use their framing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, you don't get to tell me how to argue my points.
> 
> Hell, you won't even defend your own. You still refuse to answer -- why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?
Click to expand...

Of course I get to criticize you as the idiot you are. What, you hate free speech now?


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry  doesn't deprive them of  human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false  argument. Bullshit,  not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.
> 
> And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.
Click to expand...

Now you're arguing inalienable rights?


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry  doesn't deprive them of  human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false  argument. Bullshit,  not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.
> 
> And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.
Click to expand...

Again, we are all treated differently when it comes to sex. Separate sex restrooms, men going topless in public, while women cannot, etc. redefining a specific contract such as a marriage contract which is between a man and a woman, is not a fundamental right, such rights may be achieved via the right to contract a civil union,


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
Click to expand...

It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry  doesn't deprive them of  human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false  argument. Bullshit,  not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.
> 
> And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're arguing inalienable rights?
Click to expand...

No, I'm defending them.


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.
> 
> 
> 
> The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.
> 
> People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a  legal point.
> 
> people like you do more harm than good
> 
> the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
Click to expand...

When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry  doesn't deprive them of  human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false  argument. Bullshit,  not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.
> 
> And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're arguing inalienable rights?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm defending them.
Click to expand...

that would lose in a court of law. you're arguing ideology and politics, not law


----------



## MaryL

Who the hell are the vetted experts, anyway?  Screw that.  Common sense. People that can never have babies want all the sanctuary of childbearing marriage  because they mistake narcissism for love. I don't know were to go with that. Having kids isn't about sexing each other up and a turkey baster and adoption,  if  you don't get it, you are  lost.


----------



## Dante

We are in the Constitution Forum, NOT the Politics Forum


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no infringement, that is why they have the right to contract a civil union between themselves professing their lifelong commitment to one another, however a marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. The same commitment , and rights may be achieved without refi fining a marriage contract.
> 
> 
> 
> The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.
> 
> People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a  legal point.
> 
> people like you do more harm than good
> 
> the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less
Click to expand...

Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.

And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Dante

Just a bunch of sloppy half ass trolling all over this thread by you. People make arguments and all you can come back with multiple posts is random insults about people hating America and the Constitution. You're a gd disgrace to your trade.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.
> 
> People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along
> 
> 
> 
> Are you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a  legal point.
> 
> people like you do more harm than good
> 
> the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.
> 
> And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?
Click to expand...


Don't ask Dante shit repeatedly. I've seen him ignore questions time and time again when he gets in a corner. He's only here to throw out noise. Do us all a favor and stop feeding the fucking troll.


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry  doesn't deprive them of  human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false  argument. Bullshit,  not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.
> 
> And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're arguing inalienable rights?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm defending them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would lose in a court of law. you're arguing ideology and politics, not law
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I'm not a lawyer nor do I profess to be one. Regardless, the Constitution is a framework to protect our rights and the government is sworn to uphold it. I can't imagine on what legal basis a court could Constitutionally deny a person their inalienable rights?


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
Click to expand...

You 


Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
Click to expand...

You still don't get it.
Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end? 
Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
 To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend?  The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.


----------



## Faun

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a  legal point.
> 
> people like you do more harm than good
> 
> the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.
> 
> And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't ask Dante shit repeatedly. I've seen him ignore questions time and time again when he gets in a corner. He's only here to throw out noise. Do us all a favor and stop feeding the fucking troll.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. I've asked him about a dozen times to explain why he thinks marriage is a fundamental right but he's too scared to answer because he knows the answer tacitly admits I'm right.


----------



## MaryL

My bother in law, married  my sister, turns out to be a homosexual, umm, transsexual, umm, I don't know. Had a child, flew under the freekin radar for years. Tired of the lies and the deception.  Love? Lies, who can tell. A big bloody soap opera . Stop the lies. Be honest, what do you have to lose?


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> 
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don't get it.
> Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
> Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
> To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend?  The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.

As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a  legal point.
> 
> people like you do more harm than good
> 
> the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.
> 
> And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't ask Dante shit repeatedly. I've seen him ignore questions time and time again when he gets in a corner. He's only here to throw out noise. Do us all a favor and stop feeding the fucking troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see what you mean. I've asked him about a dozen times to explain why he thinks marriage is a fundamental right but he's too scared to answer because he knows the answer tacitly admits I'm right.
Click to expand...

Are you addressing James Everett with this question...,,
I have stated that it is a constitutional guarantee to contract. I do believe that the right to contract a marriage is a right, but I also believe that it is also a right to contract a civil union. The two are separate contracts, by sex, but outside that, can be enforced equally.
Now if you were addressing me, I have answered, if not, then I apologize.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Faun said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a  legal point.
> 
> people like you do more harm than good
> 
> the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.
> 
> And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't ask Dante shit repeatedly. I've seen him ignore questions time and time again when he gets in a corner. He's only here to throw out noise. Do us all a favor and stop feeding the fucking troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see what you mean. I've asked him about a dozen times to explain why he thinks marriage is a fundamental right but he's too scared to answer because he knows the answer tacitly admits I'm right.
Click to expand...


Well whether he's scared or not, he's here to be a chaos factor. He's not a serious poster whatsoever. There's no need to feed him.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> 
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don't get it.
> Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
> Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
> To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend?  The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.
> 
> As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?
Click to expand...

Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> 
> 
> When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.
> 
> And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't ask Dante shit repeatedly. I've seen him ignore questions time and time again when he gets in a corner. He's only here to throw out noise. Do us all a favor and stop feeding the fucking troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see what you mean. I've asked him about a dozen times to explain why he thinks marriage is a fundamental right but he's too scared to answer because he knows the answer tacitly admits I'm right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you addressing James Everett with this question...,,
> I have stated that it is a constitutional guarantee to contract. I do believe that the right to contract a marriage is a right, but I also believe that it is also a right to contract a civil union. The two are separate contracts, by sex, but outside that, can be enforced equally.
> Now if you were addressing me, I have answered, if not, then I apologize.
Click to expand...

The target of that observation was Dante.

But I have asked you too and you still haven't answered ... *WHY* do you think marriage is a fundamental right?


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don't get it.
> Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
> Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
> To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend?  The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.
> 
> As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.
Click to expand...

Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

To deny them access to that marriage law clearly violates the 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment jurisprudence is being applied consistently and appropriately: the state may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons absent a rational basis, absent a compelling governmental interests, and absent a proper legislative end.

Because the states have failed to meet these fundamental criteria, Federal courts have seen fit to invalidate measures denying gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law:

“May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?

Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.”

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/9a0ebdd321767e4e54_bbm6ii0xa.pdf


----------



## James Everett

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.
> 
> To deny them access to that marriage law clearly violates the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 14th Amendment jurisprudence is being applied consistently and appropriately: the state may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons absent a rational basis, absent a compelling governmental interests, and absent a proper legislative end.
> 
> Because the states have failed to meet these fundamental criteria, Federal courts have seen fit to invalidate measures denying gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law:
> 
> “May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?
> 
> Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.”
> 
> http://freemarry.3cdn.net/9a0ebdd321767e4e54_bbm6ii0xa.pdf
Click to expand...

Your argument is equal rights, IE the equal right to contract, yet marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, such does not mean that the same rights may not be achieved via a civil union contract. The case is in forcing your State to recognize the right of same sex couples to contract a civil union contract that is equal to a marriage contract, and all aspects of that contract to be recognized. A State must recognize the civil union contract, but what is being done is to re-define a marriage contract unnecessarily which established a fictional jurisdiction using a false misrepresentation of the 14th amendment and Loving V Virginia.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> 
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don't get it.
> Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
> Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
> To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend?  The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.
> 
> As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?
Click to expand...

Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.


----------



## James Everett

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.
> 
> To deny them access to that marriage law clearly violates the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 14th Amendment jurisprudence is being applied consistently and appropriately: the state may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons absent a rational basis, absent a compelling governmental interests, and absent a proper legislative end.
> 
> Because the states have failed to meet these fundamental criteria, Federal courts have seen fit to invalidate measures denying gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law:
> 
> “May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?
> 
> Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.”
> 
> http://freemarry.3cdn.net/9a0ebdd321767e4e54_bbm6ii0xa.pdf
Click to expand...

I have little doubt that your SCOTUS will render an opinion in your favor so that it may continue to expand its jurisdiction and further consolidate power to the National government of which it is part, but in the foolish way in which the ends are achieved will do nothing more than continue the march toward giving away individual liberty through short sighted emotional means. It is never my intent to limit freedom, but rather to use logic in the protection thereof. One must always strive to focus on a return to common law jurisdiction wherein one is free to do a done chooses so long as in exercising that freedom one does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another. In the way this case is being used, colorable jurisdiction is being furthered.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

James Everett said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> 
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.
> 
> To deny them access to that marriage law clearly violates the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 14th Amendment jurisprudence is being applied consistently and appropriately: the state may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons absent a rational basis, absent a compelling governmental interests, and absent a proper legislative end.
> 
> Because the states have failed to meet these fundamental criteria, Federal courts have seen fit to invalidate measures denying gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law:
> 
> “May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?
> 
> Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.”
> 
> http://freemarry.3cdn.net/9a0ebdd321767e4e54_bbm6ii0xa.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have little doubt that your SCOTUS will render an opinion in your favor so that it may continue to expand its jurisdiction and further consolidate power to the National government of which it is part, but in the foolish way in which the ends are achieved will do nothing more than continue the march toward giving away individual liberty through short sighted emotional means. It is never my intent to limit freedom, but rather to use logic in the protection thereof. One must always strive to focus on a return to common law jurisdiction wherein one is free to do a done chooses so long as in exercising that freedom one does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another. In the way this case is being used, colorable jurisdiction is being furthered.
Click to expand...

Prohibiting the state from violating citizens' rights, such as gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law, places greater limitations on government, greater restraints on government, rendering our liberties further immune from attack by the state.


----------



## James Everett

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> 
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.
> 
> To deny them access to that marriage law clearly violates the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 14th Amendment jurisprudence is being applied consistently and appropriately: the state may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons absent a rational basis, absent a compelling governmental interests, and absent a proper legislative end.
> 
> Because the states have failed to meet these fundamental criteria, Federal courts have seen fit to invalidate measures denying gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law:
> 
> “May a State of the Union constitutionally deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry?
> 
> Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.”
> 
> http://freemarry.3cdn.net/9a0ebdd321767e4e54_bbm6ii0xa.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have little doubt that your SCOTUS will render an opinion in your favor so that it may continue to expand its jurisdiction and further consolidate power to the National government of which it is part, but in the foolish way in which the ends are achieved will do nothing more than continue the march toward giving away individual liberty through short sighted emotional means. It is never my intent to limit freedom, but rather to use logic in the protection thereof. One must always strive to focus on a return to common law jurisdiction wherein one is free to do a done chooses so long as in exercising that freedom one does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another. In the way this case is being used, colorable jurisdiction is being furthered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prohibiting the state from violating citizens' rights, such as gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law, places greater limitations on government, greater restraints on government, rendering our liberties further immune from attack by the state.
Click to expand...

What is being accomplished with this re-defining of a marriage contract is simply the changing of jurisdiction granting fictional jurisdiction to a central body that has already consolidated its power beyond measure and been allowed to define to itself no limit to its power.
Equal protection is not gained through colorable jurisdiction, in fact it simply limits individual liberty. In essence one master is being exchanged for a master with unlimited authority over the individual. Are the State governments the authority over homeland security?
NSA?
CIA?
FBI?
IRS?
The government that is being offered further fictional jurisdiction here has no restraints.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> 
> 
> You
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don't get it.
> Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
> Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
> To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend?  The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.
> 
> As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
Click to expand...

Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.

Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.


----------



## dblack

The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, plenty of straight heterosexual couples  get married and then learn to hate each other, some even have children out of lust turned to hate. It happens, marriage is being perverted (no pun intended) all the time by straights and now gays think all you need is a turkey baster  or adopt. No, not buying it. No. it is getting weird here. I am beginning to wonder about gay marriage if even straights  don't take it seriously anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Still no answer ...
> 
> How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love *equal* to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
> 
> You said they're equal -- I'm searching for *equality* here ... but you won't answer ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you asking ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.
> 
> Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.
> 
> She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer to that question is simple....
> Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it's not marriage, it's not the same.
> 
> If it's not the same, it's not equal.
Click to expand...

No, they can never be the same, however they can provide equality and the same rights under two separate contracts. A man and a woman are not physically the same, but can share equal rights to the extent that their physiological differences allow.


----------



## James Everett

dblack said:


> The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.


Sex is not a class distinction it is a physical distinction.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> You
> You still don't get it.
> Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
> Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
> To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend?  The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.
> 
> As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> You
> You still don't get it.
> Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
> Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
> To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend?  The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.
> 
> As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.
Click to expand...

There is as much a right to claim equality in the use of toilets by eliminating sex as labels being men and women facilities as there is in re-defining a marriage contract to eliminate sex, as in the female being a wife, and the male being a husband. A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman just as toilet facilities are labeled male and female to define the difference by sex.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no answer ...
> 
> How is your ability to be legally married by the state to the person you love *equal* to that of a gay person who is not legally allowed to marry the person they love?
> 
> You said they're equal -- I'm searching for *equality* here ... but you won't answer ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you asking ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mary, the person to whom I posted. She claimed homosexuals are being treated "equally" as heterosexuals.
> 
> Given such a claim, I seek her ability to rationally explain how they're equal when she can legally marry the person she loves but a gay person can't.
> 
> She refuses to answer. Whether she realizes it or not, her refusal to answer, answers for her. Her refusal to answer informs me she can't rationally explain how they're equal because they're not actually equal, despite her desolate claim to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer to that question is simple....
> Marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman. If no man may marry another man, then there is no violation of rights because marriage is a specified contract being between a man and a woman. Same sex couples should be allowed to exercise their legal right to contract a civil union that would be equivalent to a marriage contract, which is a contract between a man and a woman, only theirs would be a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, which simply is not a marriage contract by definition, yet can be every bit as binding and recognizable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it's not marriage, it's not the same.
> 
> If it's not the same, it's not equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they can never be the same, however they can provide equality and the same rights under two separate contracts. A man and a woman are not physically the same, but can share equal rights to the extent that their physiological differences allow.
Click to expand...

Separate contracts is not equality. The law demands everyone's rights be treated equally. I have complete confidence the Supreme Court will decide in favor of same-sex marriage because it protects the inalienable right to marriage for everyone, not just for some.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.
> 
> As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.
> 
> As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is as much a right to claim equality in the use of toilets by eliminating sex as labels being men and women facilities as there is in re-defining a marriage contract to eliminate sex, as in the female being a wife, and the male being a husband. A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman just as toilet facilities are labeled male and female to define the difference by sex.
Click to expand...

I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry  doesn't deprive them of  human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false  argument. Bullshit,  not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.
> 
> And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.
Click to expand...

It harms no one to be treated as per their physiological difference in sex, such is nature. Women are made to cover their breast in public, while men are not, this is a physical difference based on sex. Surely if sex, and physical differences are eliminated, then all would still not be equal.


----------



## MaryL

I used to think sex and right and wrong and gravity and facts MATTER, who am I to say? A  fleeting  group of  folks tell me what to think. Gays can't  naturally have babies but they can tell us what to think.  Still don't  understand it, but that's how modern politics works.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is as much a right to claim equality in the use of toilets by eliminating sex as labels being men and women facilities as there is in re-defining a marriage contract to eliminate sex, as in the female being a wife, and the male being a husband. A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman just as toilet facilities are labeled male and female to define the difference by sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.
Click to expand...

Your SCOTUS renders opinions, not rulings, and it will always render opinions that expand its fictional jurisdiction on order to expand the central governments power over the individual citizen , as well as the "State" governments. Such are the establishments of Kangaroo courts.


----------



## James Everett

MaryL said:


> I used to think sex and right and wrong and gravity and facts MATTER, who am I to say? A  fleeting  group of  folks tell me what to think. Gays can't  naturally have babies but they can tell us what to think.  Still don't  understand it, but that's how modern politics works.


Such is the fault of the establishment of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, in replacement of the Articles, of Confederation. The U.S. CONstitution has been a failure from its establishment in preserving the union, and individual liberty, through the consolidation if power.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry  doesn't deprive them of  human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false  argument. Bullshit,  not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.
> 
> And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It harms no one to be treated as per their physiological difference in sex, such is nature. Women are made to cover their breast in public, while men are not, this is a physical difference based on sex. Surely if sex, and physical differences are eliminated, then all would still not be equal.
Click to expand...

You fail again as being naked in public, like toilets, is not an inalienable right.

Try harder!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

James Everett said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not a class distinction it is a physical distinction.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:

“In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 _._


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is as much a right to claim equality in the use of toilets by eliminating sex as labels being men and women facilities as there is in re-defining a marriage contract to eliminate sex, as in the female being a wife, and the male being a husband. A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman just as toilet facilities are labeled male and female to define the difference by sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.
Click to expand...

I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is as much a right to claim equality in the use of toilets by eliminating sex as labels being men and women facilities as there is in re-defining a marriage contract to eliminate sex, as in the female being a wife, and the male being a husband. A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman just as toilet facilities are labeled male and female to define the difference by sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your SCOTUS renders opinions, not rulings, and it will always render opinions that expand its fictional jurisdiction on order to expand the central governments power over the individual citizen , as well as the "State" governments. Such are the establishments of Kangaroo courts.
Click to expand...

They render legally binding decisions. You may not like that but that doesn't really mean anything anyway.

Still, I can show you where they determined marriage is an inalienable right.

You can cite no one but yourself claiming toilets are an inalienable right.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is as much a right to claim equality in the use of toilets by eliminating sex as labels being men and women facilities as there is in re-defining a marriage contract to eliminate sex, as in the female being a wife, and the male being a husband. A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman just as toilet facilities are labeled male and female to define the difference by sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.
Click to expand...

Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is as much a right to claim equality in the use of toilets by eliminating sex as labels being men and women facilities as there is in re-defining a marriage contract to eliminate sex, as in the female being a wife, and the male being a husband. A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman just as toilet facilities are labeled male and female to define the difference by sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your SCOTUS renders opinions, not rulings, and it will always render opinions that expand its fictional jurisdiction on order to expand the central governments power over the individual citizen , as well as the "State" governments. Such are the establishments of Kangaroo courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They render legally binding decisions. You may not like that but that doesn't really mean anything anyway.
> 
> Still, I can show you where they determined marriage is an inalienable right.
> 
> You can cite no one but yourself claiming toilets are an inalienable right.
Click to expand...

I can cite where your SCOTUS has contradicted itself time and again in order to expand fictional jurisdiction. Your current misuse of your 14th will simply lead to such cases as I offer concerning toilets and YOUR SCOTUS will render contradictory opinions based each time on expanding its fictional jurisdiction.
Don't be angry at my pointing to the truth. I do not argue that your SCOTUS will not render in your favor, I simply point to the fact that you are begging to grant more power to a centralized national government that already holds unlimited power over all persons and things. In the end it will continue to use that power to limit individual liberty using these expanded fictional jurisdictions.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is as much a right to claim equality in the use of toilets by eliminating sex as labels being men and women facilities as there is in re-defining a marriage contract to eliminate sex, as in the female being a wife, and the male being a husband. A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman just as toilet facilities are labeled male and female to define the difference by sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your SCOTUS renders opinions, not rulings, and it will always render opinions that expand its fictional jurisdiction on order to expand the central governments power over the individual citizen , as well as the "State" governments. Such are the establishments of Kangaroo courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They render legally binding decisions. You may not like that but that doesn't really mean anything anyway.
> 
> Still, I can show you where they determined marriage is an inalienable right.
> 
> You can cite no one but yourself claiming toilets are an inalienable right.
Click to expand...

No argument that a marriage contract is a right, the argument is that it is a contract between a man and a woman, and re-defining it is not necessary to gain equality .


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is as much a right to claim equality in the use of toilets by eliminating sex as labels being men and women facilities as there is in re-defining a marriage contract to eliminate sex, as in the female being a wife, and the male being a husband. A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman just as toilet facilities are labeled male and female to define the difference by sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.
Click to expand...

It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes. 
Husband being male, wife being female.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.
> 
> 
> 
> There is as much a right to claim equality in the use of toilets by eliminating sex as labels being men and women facilities as there is in re-defining a marriage contract to eliminate sex, as in the female being a wife, and the male being a husband. A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman just as toilet facilities are labeled male and female to define the difference by sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your SCOTUS renders opinions, not rulings, and it will always render opinions that expand its fictional jurisdiction on order to expand the central governments power over the individual citizen , as well as the "State" governments. Such are the establishments of Kangaroo courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They render legally binding decisions. You may not like that but that doesn't really mean anything anyway.
> 
> Still, I can show you where they determined marriage is an inalienable right.
> 
> You can cite no one but yourself claiming toilets are an inalienable right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can cite where your SCOTUS has contradicted itself time and again in order to expand fictional jurisdiction. Your current misuse of your 14th will simply lead to such cases as I offer concerning toilets and YOUR SCOTUS will render contradictory opinions based each time on expanding its fictional jurisdiction.
> Don't be angry at my pointing to the truth. I do not argue that your SCOTUS will not render in your favor, I simply point to the fact that you are begging to grant more power to a centralized national government that already holds unlimited power over all persons and things. In the end it will continue to use that power to limit individual liberty using these expanded fictional jurisdictions.
Click to expand...

Seems all you have is your opinion based on nothing but your imagination that toilets are inalienable rights. You can't cite much of what you claim because you're making it up as you go along. At the same time, you oddly claim that establishing people have more individual liberties is somehow providing the central government with additional powers when the opposite is actually the case. And I have nothing to be angered with you about. You, trying to validate your own claims by calling them, "the truth," when it's actually just you citing yourself is far more humorous than it is angering.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.
> 
> 
> 
> There is as much a right to claim equality in the use of toilets by eliminating sex as labels being men and women facilities as there is in re-defining a marriage contract to eliminate sex, as in the female being a wife, and the male being a husband. A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman just as toilet facilities are labeled male and female to define the difference by sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
> You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
> Husband being male, wife being female.
Click to expand...

Last time I'm going to ask this ....... *WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?


----------



## James Everett

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not a class distinction it is a physical distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
> 
> “In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”
> 
> Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 _._
Click to expand...

Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is as much a right to claim equality in the use of toilets by eliminating sex as labels being men and women facilities as there is in re-defining a marriage contract to eliminate sex, as in the female being a wife, and the male being a husband. A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman just as toilet facilities are labeled male and female to define the difference by sex.
> 
> 
> 
> I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
> You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
> Husband being male, wife being female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last time I'm going to ask this ....... *WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?
Click to expand...

I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must be recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
> You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
> Husband being male, wife being female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last time I'm going to ask this ....... *WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?
Click to expand...

No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a *right to contract*. There is a right to marriage.

You didn't answer that because I asked you *WHY* you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask. 

Do you want me to give you the answer?


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not a class distinction it is a physical distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
> 
> “In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”
> 
> Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 _._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a right to contract.

There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not a class distinction it is a physical distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
> 
> “In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”
> 
> Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 _._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a right to contract.
> 
> There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.
Click to expand...

Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution. 
Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman,  forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the  14th amendment to your CONstitution.


----------



## Syriusly

MaryL said:


> If they just want to profess their "love"  to their mate, WHY DEMAND society has to take note  of it and make a  human rights issue on par with food, housing or healthcare? It  isn't on par with heterosexual marriage  on the basic grounds they in and of them selves out of their own sexuality without creating artificial logic cannot   have kids and therefore don't need marriage.  It isn't that hard.



Why do any of us 'demand society' take note- oh wait- when my wife and I got married, we just went to City Hall and got a marriage license.

Equal rights for a same gender couple means equal rights- they should be able to get married exactly like my wife and I- and for the same reasons as my wife and I got married.

It isn't hard at all- equal rights versus discrimination.


----------



## Syriusly

TheGreatGatsby said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are you, dude? You argue like a twit.
Click to expand...


I was wondering the same thing about you- i figure you are about 13 years old and just are parroting what you hear from Conservative web sites.


----------



## Syriusly

James Everett said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically every judge that has looked at the issue has said that the 14th Amendment does apply
> 
> Like in Wisconsin
> 
> It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
> Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
> affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
> by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
> interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
> Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
> as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
> same-sex couples are unconstitutional
> 
> 
> 
> Your SCOTUS will always render an opiniony.
Click to expand...


The difference between the opinion of Scotus and yours is
a) The Supreme Court has actual authority- you have none.
b) The Supreme Court actually understands the law and the Constitution- and you do not.


----------



## James Everett

Syriusly said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they just want to profess their "love"  to their mate, WHY DEMAND society has to take note  of it and make a  human rights issue on par with food, housing or healthcare? It  isn't on par with heterosexual marriage  on the basic grounds they in and of them selves out of their own sexuality without creating artificial logic cannot   have kids and therefore don't need marriage.  It isn't that hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do any of us 'demand society' take note- oh wait- when my wife and I got married, we just went to City Hall and got a marriage license.
> 
> Equal rights for a same gender couple means equal rights- they should be able to get married exactly like my wife and I- and for the same reasons as my wife and I got married.
> 
> It isn't hard at all- equal rights versus discrimination.
Click to expand...

The same sex couple should have the same right to enter into a civil union contract, just as you and your wife had the right to enter into a marriage contract.


----------



## Syriusly

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not a class distinction it is a physical distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
> 
> “In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”
> 
> Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 _._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a right to contract.
> 
> There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
> A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
> Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman,  forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the  14th amendment to your CONstitution.
Click to expand...



Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

_Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"

In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*

In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

_Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


----------



## Syriusly

James Everett said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they just want to profess their "love"  to their mate, WHY DEMAND society has to take note  of it and make a  human rights issue on par with food, housing or healthcare? It  isn't on par with heterosexual marriage  on the basic grounds they in and of them selves out of their own sexuality without creating artificial logic cannot   have kids and therefore don't need marriage.  It isn't that hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do any of us 'demand society' take note- oh wait- when my wife and I got married, we just went to City Hall and got a marriage license.
> 
> Equal rights for a same gender couple means equal rights- they should be able to get married exactly like my wife and I- and for the same reasons as my wife and I got married.
> 
> It isn't hard at all- equal rights versus discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The same sex couple should have the same right to enter into a civil union contract, just as you and your wife had the right to enter into a marriage contract.
Click to expand...


Equal is the exact same 'contract'. Unequal is not the same contract.


----------



## Syriusly

MaryL said:


> Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry  doesn't deprive them of  human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false  argument. Bullshit,  not buying it.



The Supreme Court says that marriage is a human right- but I understand why bigots like yourself don't think homosexuals should have equal rights.


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

_Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"

In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*

In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

_Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


----------



## James Everett

Syriusly said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically every judge that has looked at the issue has said that the 14th Amendment does apply
> 
> Like in Wisconsin
> 
> It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
> Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
> affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
> by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
> interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
> Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
> as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
> same-sex couples are unconstitutional
> 
> 
> 
> Your SCOTUS will always render an opiniony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between the opinion of Scotus and yours is
> a) The Supreme Court has actual authority- you have none.
> b) The Supreme Court actually understands the law and the Constitution- and you do not.
Click to expand...

No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment nullifies protected classes.
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not a class distinction it is a physical distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
> 
> “In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”
> 
> Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 _._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a right to contract.
> 
> There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
> A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
> Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman,  forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the  14th amendment to your CONstitution.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not provide a right to contract. 

_No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, *or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts*, or grant any Title of Nobility._​ 
The Constitution forbids the states from "impairing the *obligation* of contracts. That does not say people have an inalienable right to enter a contract. Which you should be happy about since had it meant such, that would be yet another reason the government has to allow same-sex marriage.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
> You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
> Husband being male, wife being female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last time I'm going to ask this ....... *WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a *right to contract*. There is a right to marriage.
> 
> You didn't answer that because I asked you *WHY* you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.
> 
> Do you want me to give you the answer?
Click to expand...

Oh, yes I did answer your question, as I never said it was an inalienable right, I simply stated it was a right recognized by YOUR CONstitution as a right to contract. Again, you need to read your own CONstitutions Article I section 10. A State cannot impair the obligation of a civil union contract between Sam sex couples, however their is NO RIGHT to redefine a marriage contract, establishing a fictional jurisdiction misusing your 14th amendment.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically every judge that has looked at the issue has said that the 14th Amendment does apply
> 
> Like in Wisconsin
> 
> It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
> Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
> affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
> by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
> interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
> Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
> as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
> same-sex couples are unconstitutional
> 
> 
> 
> Your SCOTUS will always render an opiniony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between the opinion of Scotus and yours is
> a) The Supreme Court has actual authority- you have none.
> b) The Supreme Court actually understands the law and the Constitution- and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.


----------



## James Everett

Syriusly said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not a class distinction it is a physical distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
> 
> “In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”
> 
> Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 _._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a right to contract.
> 
> There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
> A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
> Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman,  forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the  14th amendment to your CONstitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Loving v Virginia
> 
> "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
> 
> Zablocki v. Rehail
> 
> Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
> 
> _Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"
> 
> In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*
> 
> In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
> 
> "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
> 
> _Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)
> 
> "While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,
> 
> Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
> 
> "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
Click to expand...

No argument that a marriage is a right,as it  falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman. Hence a man and a woman do have the right to enter into a marriage contract. Same sex couples also have the right to contract a civil union contract between themselves that is equivalent to a marriage contract and those obligations must not be impaired by the State. There is no right for a minority of individuals to redefine what is the definition of a marriage contract. Loving v Virginia was a case concerning a man and a woman's right to contract a marriage between themselves, not a redefining of a marriage contract.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically every judge that has looked at the issue has said that the 14th Amendment does apply
> 
> Like in Wisconsin
> 
> It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
> Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
> affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
> by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
> interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
> Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
> as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
> same-sex couples are unconstitutional
> 
> 
> 
> Your SCOTUS will always render an opiniony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between the opinion of Scotus and yours is
> a) The Supreme Court has actual authority- you have none.
> b) The Supreme Court actually understands the law and the Constitution- and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.
Click to expand...

And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed? 
It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
> You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
> Husband being male, wife being female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last time I'm going to ask this ....... *WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a *right to contract*. There is a right to marriage.
> 
> You didn't answer that because I asked you *WHY* you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.
> 
> Do you want me to give you the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, yes I did answer your question, as I never said it was an inalienable right, I simply stated it was a right recognized by YOUR CONstitution as a right to contract. Again, you need to read your own CONstitutions Article I section 10. A State cannot impair the obligation of a civil union contract between Sam sex couples, however their is NO RIGHT to redefine a marriage contract, establishing a fictional jurisdiction misusing your 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

It's not a right at all between two independent people. Your mistake is thinking the government is entering a contract with two individuals. It is not. It is providing a license which is tantamount to granting permission for the two parties to enter into a marriage with each other.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Syriusly said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness it will be vetted experts making the decision instead of random posters on internet message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal logic: Nine anointed men and women in robes are allowed to pretend that something that never existed in the Constitution should be the law of the land as they go against the great unwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are you, dude? You argue like a twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was wondering the same thing about you- i figure you are about 13 years old and just are parroting what you hear from Conservative web sites.
Click to expand...


I don't know who ya are, bro. But you'd better do your homework; cos it's clear you don't know s___ about me. So, don't come at me with such weak sauce unless you're basically conceding upfront that you're a troll.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not a class distinction it is a physical distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
> 
> “In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”
> 
> Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 _._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a right to contract.
> 
> There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
> A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
> Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman,  forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the  14th amendment to your CONstitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not provide a right to contract.
> 
> _No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, *or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts*, or grant any Title of Nobility._​
> The Constitution forbids the states from "impairing the *obligation* of contracts. That does not say people have an inalienable right to enter a contract. Which you should be happy about since had it meant such, that would be yet another reason the government has to allow same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Again, and again, I never said 
"an inalienable  right" I said a right under your CONstitution. Again, and again, marriage is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and yes same sex couples do have the right under article I section 10 of your CONstitution to contract a civil union between themselves and the obligations thereof cannot be impaired.
You exist in a state of confusion, and misunderstanding. Read and study your own CONstitution, such will help lift the fog wherein you reside.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
> You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
> Husband being male, wife being female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last time I'm going to ask this ....... *WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a *right to contract*. There is a right to marriage.
> 
> You didn't answer that because I asked you *WHY* you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.
> 
> Do you want me to give you the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, yes I did answer your question, as I never said it was an inalienable right, I simply stated it was a right recognized by YOUR CONstitution as a right to contract. Again, you need to read your own CONstitutions Article I section 10. A State cannot impair the obligation of a civil union contract between Sam sex couples, however their is NO RIGHT to redefine a marriage contract, establishing a fictional jurisdiction misusing your 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

Nope, you never answered. Even that there was such a thing as a right to contract, that in itself would not raise a contract to the level of an inalienable right. Now you're just grasping for straws because you've completely exhausted all rationale for a defense of your position. Even if such a right existed, your claim that a right to contract would mean I have the right to enter a contract with a casino, thereby establishing gambling as an inalienable right. I hope even you can spot how ludicrous that is.


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry  doesn't deprive them of  human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false  argument. Bullshit,  not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.
> 
> And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're arguing inalienable rights?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm defending them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would lose in a court of law. you're arguing ideology and politics, not law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps. I'm not a lawyer nor do I profess to be one. Regardless, the Constitution is a framework to protect our rights and the government is sworn to uphold it. I can't imagine on what legal basis a court could Constitutionally deny a person their inalienable rights?
Click to expand...

You can't?

sadly,
History is full of examples.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> 
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founder's were so dumb huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don't get it.
> Equal treatment is achieved via the right to contract a civil union between same sex partners, not by redefining a separate contract such as a marriage contract which is a contract between a man and a woman. Re-defining a marriage contract creates fictional jurisdiction. Where does this re-defining of a marriage contract end other than allowing your SCOTUS to extend its jurisdiction in defining this new fictional jurisdictions end?
> Shall it end with polygamist rights to include that of several wives or husbands? Or that of the incestuous ?
> To Where does this new fictional jurisdiction extend?  The remedy is simple without the re-definition of a marriage contract, if the proper argument is made wherein your SCOTUS jurisdiction is not extended into further fiction.
Click to expand...


The Court is NOT being asked to define marriage.

end of story


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court has stated on numerous occasions that marriage is a basic right. As such, denying two people that right because of who they are will be ruled unConstitutional.
> 
> People like you can reframe and misrepresent all you want. In the end you will wake up to the fact you have been wrong all along
> 
> 
> 
> Are you prepared to answer yet? Why do you think marriage is a fundamental right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has argued that as a legal argument in court? It may be an argument to back things up but no one I've heard of is arguing it as a  legal point.
> 
> people like you do more harm than good
> 
> the greatest harm is often done by those professing to do good
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the founders' were not "dumb" however from among the founders' came the rats/ratifiers who were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation because the central body did not hold enough power under that wholly federal system, therefore, those who sought to extend centralized authority devised a new CONstitution to consolidate the States under a wholly national system of government in order to establish an authority over the individual citizen, and an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things.
> Such is the need for extended fictional jurisdiction which the fools beg to grant to the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you argue that the Constitution establishes more authority over the individual citizen; while pointing out how people are petitioning the courts, which you claim empower the government and your proclaimed imposed limitations on peoples' individual rights -- when the people are seeking legal redress to their claim that the government is infringing on their individual liberties? You don't get to eat your cake and have it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you misunderstand, and I feel I must be posting beyond your understanding. It is a matter of segueing the correct case in order to achieve the legal remedy being sought. It is being incorrectly argued to the advantage of centralized government in granting it further fictional jurisdiction and authority over our private lives. The case should be argued not under the 14th amendment, and the right to re-define a marriage contract, but rather the constitutional right to contract a civil union between same sex couples that grant them the equal treatment of a man and a woman who contract a marriage. The way this is being argued is all wrong and does nothing but establish further fictional jurisdiction to your SCOTUS, and expanded power to a central authority over the individual citizen. Does this explain action help your understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It helps me understand you are completely wrong. They absolutely should not be seeking the jurisdiction limiting them to be classified differently than others. They are correctly seeking to be treated equally under the law. But you were claiming they are giving the government more power to limit individual liberties; when in fact, they are seeking increased individual liberties. *Ironically, you're the one proposing an infringement upon their individual liberties.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When gays ask to be protected as a class, they are arguing they are different. Gawd, you need to pay more attention and speak/write less
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so we've established you can't answer a simple question ... now you're playing with strawmen. I didn't say anything about them seeking protection as a class. I said they are seeking the same protection of their inalienable rights that straight people have. That doesn't make them a special class -- that makes their rights equal under the law.
> 
> And again I ask -- why do you think marriage is an inalienable right?
Click to expand...

inalienable? 

the Court has called it a basic right


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am simply stating facts and truth over fiction, baying at the moon as you call it is simply espousing truth and logic,over emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
> You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
> Husband being male, wife being female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last time I'm going to ask this ....... *WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a *right to contract*. There is a right to marriage.
> 
> You didn't answer that because I asked you *WHY* you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.
> 
> Do you want me to give you the answer?
Click to expand...




Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
> You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
> Husband being male, wife being female.
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I'm going to ask this ....... *WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a *right to contract*. There is a right to marriage.
> 
> You didn't answer that because I asked you *WHY* you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.
> 
> Do you want me to give you the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, yes I did answer your question, as I never said it was an inalienable right, I simply stated it was a right recognized by YOUR CONstitution as a right to contract. Again, you need to read your own CONstitutions Article I section 10. A State cannot impair the obligation of a civil union contract between Sam sex couples, however their is NO RIGHT to redefine a marriage contract, establishing a fictional jurisdiction misusing your 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you never answered. Even that there was such a thing as a right to contract, that in itself would not raise a contract to the level of an inalienable right. Now you're just grasping for straws because you've completely exhausted all rationale for a defense of your position. Even if such a right existed, your claim that a right to contract would mean I have the right to enter a contract with a casino, thereby establishing gambling as an inalienable right. I hope even you can spot how ludicrous that is.
Click to expand...

You are lost in confusion. Your CONstitution recognizes the right to contract, which is different from an inalienable right. A civil union contract is a legal contract, just as is a marriage contract, in a State where gambling is legal, you do have the right to contract with a casino. Most States have legalized gambling in one form or another be it lotto, or stocks. In such case as a marriage or civil union the obligations of those contracts cannot be impaired.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody here is wishing to harm Homosexuals. Not allowing them to marry  doesn't deprive them of  human rights or hurt them in any way. Phony arguments aside. there isn't any NEED to allow homosexual marriage. It's a red herring. A false  argument. Bullshit,  not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.
> 
> And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, we are all treated differently when it comes to sex. Separate sex restrooms, men going topless in public, while women cannot, etc. redefining a specific contract such as a marriage contract which is between a man and a woman, is not a fundamental right, such rights may be achieved via the right to contract a civil union,
Click to expand...

Obscenity and nudity laws can be changed. It is about the moral standards and a state interest. The nation does not consider same sex marriage to be immoral. No one has used that argument in Court because it would be laughed out of court. . 

Unisex bathrooms. Open to all sexes -- one at a time. Marriage isn't about sex either. Try that argument in a court and get laughed out again.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically every judge that has looked at the issue has said that the 14th Amendment does apply
> 
> Like in Wisconsin
> 
> It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
> Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
> affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
> by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
> interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
> Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
> as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
> same-sex couples are unconstitutional
> 
> 
> 
> Your SCOTUS will always render an opiniony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between the opinion of Scotus and yours is
> a) The Supreme Court has actual authority- you have none.
> b) The Supreme Court actually understands the law and the Constitution- and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?
> It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.
Click to expand...

Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.

Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...

_8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. *But not the marriage contract*, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.

290 U.S. 398 (1934)
HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided January 8, 1934_​ 
This is referenced by:

_This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. *With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses.* (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 654, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest

71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
376 N.E.2d 1382
JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Opinion filed May 26, 1978._​ 
Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
> You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
> Husband being male, wife being female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last time I'm going to ask this ....... *WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a *right to contract*. There is a right to marriage.
> 
> You didn't answer that because I asked you *WHY* you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.
> 
> Do you want me to give you the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I'm going to ask this ....... *WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a *right to contract*. There is a right to marriage.
> 
> You didn't answer that because I asked you *WHY* you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.
> 
> Do you want me to give you the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, yes I did answer your question, as I never said it was an inalienable right, I simply stated it was a right recognized by YOUR CONstitution as a right to contract. Again, you need to read your own CONstitutions Article I section 10. A State cannot impair the obligation of a civil union contract between Sam sex couples, however their is NO RIGHT to redefine a marriage contract, establishing a fictional jurisdiction misusing your 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you never answered. Even that there was such a thing as a right to contract, that in itself would not raise a contract to the level of an inalienable right. Now you're just grasping for straws because you've completely exhausted all rationale for a defense of your position. Even if such a right existed, your claim that a right to contract would mean I have the right to enter a contract with a casino, thereby establishing gambling as an inalienable right. I hope even you can spot how ludicrous that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are lost in confusion. Your CONstitution recognizes the right to contract, which is different from an inalienable right. A civil union contract is a legal contract, just as is a marriage contract, in a State where gambling is legal, you do have the right to contract with a casino. Most States have legalized gambling in one form or another be it lotto, or stocks. In such case as a marriage or civil union the obligations of those contracts cannot be impaired.
Click to expand...

You are lost in confusion. Both a civil union and a marriage are civil contracts. 

State laws cannot trump federal laws, so your gambling example is nutty as a fruit cake at a gay wedding


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are not stating fact. It is not a fact that toilets are an inalienable right nor am I aware of anyone fighting to establish that as a right in a court of law. Until you show me otherwise, all I hear is baying.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact that both are an argument based on sex. A marriage contract is based on sex, being a contract between the male and female sex.
> You simply are denying the fact on which your case is based, which is the definition of a marriage contract wherein you wish to change the fact that it is a contract based on opposing sexes.
> Husband being male, wife being female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last time I'm going to ask this ....... *WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a *right to contract*. There is a right to marriage.
> 
> You didn't answer that because I asked you *WHY* you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.
> 
> Do you want me to give you the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I'm going to ask this ....... *WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered that question. A marriage contract falls under the right to contract, and a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, otherwise it is a different contract by all historical, traditional and past legal definition. There is also a right for same sexes to contract a civil union in which the same legal rights as a marriage contract must berecognized recognized. Did you mis it the first time I answered your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you didn't answer. There's no such thing as a *right to contract*. There is a right to marriage.
> 
> You didn't answer that because I asked you *WHY* you think marriage is an inalienable right. You answered the question, can you make up a fictitious right called a right to contract, which I didn't ask.
> 
> Do you want me to give you the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, yes I did answer your question, as I never said it was an inalienable right, I simply stated it was a right recognized by YOUR CONstitution as a right to contract. Again, you need to read your own CONstitutions Article I section 10. A State cannot impair the obligation of a civil union contract between Sam sex couples, however their is NO RIGHT to redefine a marriage contract, establishing a fictional jurisdiction misusing your 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you never answered. Even that there was such a thing as a right to contract, that in itself would not raise a contract to the level of an inalienable right. Now you're just grasping for straws because you've completely exhausted all rationale for a defense of your position. Even if such a right existed, your claim that a right to contract would mean I have the right to enter a contract with a casino, thereby establishing gambling as an inalienable right. I hope even you can spot how ludicrous that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are lost in confusion. Your CONstitution recognizes the right to contract, which is different from an inalienable right. A civil union contract is a legal contract, just as is a marriage contract, in a State where gambling is legal, you do have the right to contract with a casino. Most States have legalized gambling in one form or another be it lotto, or stocks. In such case as a marriage or civil union the obligations of those contracts cannot be impaired.
Click to expand...

If I'm confused, it's from trying to keep up with your nonsense.

You said the answer to the question, _"why do you think marriage is an inalienable right,"_ is the _"right to contract."_

I merely extended that to it's logical conclusion that if the Constitution's contract clause establishes marriage as an inalienable right because of the contract clause, then that would render anything legal bound by contract as an inalienable right.

You don't think your positions through before you spit them out, do ya?


----------



## Faun

Dante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it harms them. It treats them differently. That is harmful no matter who you are.
> 
> And it deprives them of inalienable rights the government is tasked with protecting.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're arguing inalienable rights?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm defending them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would lose in a court of law. you're arguing ideology and politics, not law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps. I'm not a lawyer nor do I profess to be one. Regardless, the Constitution is a framework to protect our rights and the government is sworn to uphold it. I can't imagine on what legal basis a court could Constitutionally deny a person their inalienable rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't?
> 
> sadly,
> History is full of examples.
Click to expand...

Now that you're back, does this mean you're ready to answer the question or are you going to continue running from it ....

*WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right?


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're arguing inalienable rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm defending them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would lose in a court of law. you're arguing ideology and politics, not law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps. I'm not a lawyer nor do I profess to be one. Regardless, the Constitution is a framework to protect our rights and the government is sworn to uphold it. I can't imagine on what legal basis a court could Constitutionally deny a person their inalienable rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't?
> 
> sadly,
> History is full of examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that you're back, does this mean you're ready to answer the question or are you going to continue running from it ....
> 
> *WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right?
Click to expand...

Jesus. Marriage is NOT an inalienable right. The Court has said marriage is a basic right, one of the most basic.

seriously.


----------



## Dante

Faun

you may be interested in this
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

While writing about fundamental rights and in Loving v Virginia “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” the Court is asked to rule on specific legal challenges. While political and ideological arguments get into the court records as reasoning and argument, they are usually not the points ruled on such as seeking redress under the 14th amendment, 2nd amendment, equal protection clause of...and necessary and proper clause and on and on...

The Court does not rule on text out of the Declaration of Independence. That document is NOT the law of the land


----------



## Dante

*Here is a list of the fourteen cases*, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

no where does the Court do what James Everett claims: mention marriage as only between a man and a woman


----------



## PratchettFan

MaryL said:


> I am not merely opining when I state  GAYS cannot have children...No, THAT IS A fact.  Love whomever you want. Not taking that away from anyone. But I don't think homosexuals need marriage anymore that a  fish needs a bicycle. It's just a status symbol for them, and a  empty one at that.


 
It's not only not a fact, it is amazingly wrong.  It is also hypocritical because you would not dream of using that argument in the case of heterosexual people who really can't have children.  My father, for example, remarried after my mother died.  He was in his late 70's and she in her late 60's, so you would clearly have denied them the right to marry - correct?  You think people should have to take tests to make sure they can have children before they are allowed to marry - right?  Because if you don't, then your argument is nothing more than an excuse.

What other people need is really none of your business.


----------



## PratchettFan

MaryL said:


> What is the big deal here, anyway? Gays can't get married, not exactly the biggest threat to human rights I can think of. WHY is this even an issue?


 
Ahhh.. the old "it isn't happening to me so it can't be important" argument.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your SCOTUS will always render an opiniony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between the opinion of Scotus and yours is
> a) The Supreme Court has actual authority- you have none.
> b) The Supreme Court actually understands the law and the Constitution- and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?
> It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.
> 
> Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...
> 
> _8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. *But not the marriage contract*, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.
> 
> 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
> HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
> Supreme Court of United States.
> Decided January 8, 1934_​
> This is referenced by:
> 
> _This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. *With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses.* (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 6 54, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest
> 
> 71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
> 376 N.E.2d 1382
> JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
> Supreme Court of Illinois.
> Opinion filed May 26, 1978._​
> Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol
Click to expand...

You ask....."now what?"
I ask do you even understand what you posted?
Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s  must do so via the legal system.
So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract. 
No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.


----------



## Syriusly

James Everett said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Gay Americans manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
> 
> “In making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it.”
> 
> Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 _._
> 
> 
> 
> Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a right to contract.
> 
> There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
> A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
> Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman,  forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the  14th amendment to your CONstitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Loving v Virginia
> 
> "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
> 
> Zablocki v. Rehail
> 
> Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
> 
> _Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"
> 
> In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*
> 
> In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
> 
> "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
> 
> _Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)
> 
> "While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,
> 
> Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
> 
> "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No argument that a marriage is a right,as it  falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.
Click to expand...


Says who?

Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution. 

Not one of the cases I cited. 

This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....


----------



## bodecea

Has the OP submitted his ideas to the Legal Team arguing against gay marriage in front of SCOTUS yet?  They could really use the help.


----------



## James Everett

Says 


Syriusly said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, same sex couples are not being denied the right to contract, the issue is not their right to equality but rather the redefining of a marriage contract. Equality can be established via the right to contract a same sex civil union.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a right to contract.
> 
> There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
> A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
> Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman,  forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the  14th amendment to your CONstitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Loving v Virginia
> 
> "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
> 
> Zablocki v. Rehail
> 
> Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
> 
> _Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"
> 
> In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*
> 
> In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
> 
> "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
> 
> _Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)
> 
> "While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,
> 
> Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
> 
> "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No argument that a marriage is a right,as it  falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.
> 
> Not one of the cases I cited.
> 
> This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....
Click to expand...

Says who?
Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract. 
You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT  marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
Such is the folly of fools.


----------



## James Everett

bodecea said:


> Has the OP submitted his ideas to the Legal Team arguing against gay marriage in front of SCOTUS yet?  They could really use the help.


The truth, and facts, "ideas" you call them are not relevant in a political body such as your SCOTUS. Facts and truth are irrelevant, as the only purpose of your SCOTUS is to establish fictional jurisdiction in order to consolidate power to the National government. Fools feed the beast that control their individual liberty thinking that the establishment of a new law or opinion based in fiction will somehow grant them more protection, when in reality it only grants further fictional jurisdiction, and control over their rights by a centralized political body, who's interest  is in its own power, not individual liberty. But then fools will be fools.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Says
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a right to contract.
> 
> There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
> A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
> Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman,  forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the  14th amendment to your CONstitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Loving v Virginia
> 
> "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
> 
> Zablocki v. Rehail
> 
> Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
> 
> _Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"
> 
> In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*
> 
> In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
> 
> "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
> 
> _Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)
> 
> "While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,
> 
> Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
> 
> "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No argument that a marriage is a right,as it  falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.
> 
> Not one of the cases I cited.
> 
> This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who?
> Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
> You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT  marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
> You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
> Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
> A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
> Such is the folly of fools.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the OP submitted his ideas to the Legal Team arguing against gay marriage in front of SCOTUS yet?  They could really use the help.
> 
> 
> 
> The truth, and facts, "ideas" you call them are not relevant in a political body such as your SCOTUS. Facts and truth are irrelevant, as the only purpose of your SCOTUS is to establish fictional jurisdiction in order to consolidate power to the National government. Fools feed the beast that control their individual liberty thinking that the establishment of a new law or opinion based in fiction will somehow grant them more protection, when in reality it only grants further fictional jurisdiction, and control over their rights by a centralized political body, who's interest  is in its own power, not individual liberty. But then fools will be fools.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage is about the Court consolidating power for some imaginary secret government?


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the OP submitted his ideas to the Legal Team arguing against gay marriage in front of SCOTUS yet?  They could really use the help.
> 
> 
> 
> The truth, and facts, "ideas" you call them are not relevant in a political body such as your SCOTUS. Facts and truth are irrelevant, as the only purpose of your SCOTUS is to establish fictional jurisdiction in order to consolidate power to the National government. Fools feed the beast that control their individual liberty thinking that the establishment of a new law or opinion based in fiction will somehow grant them more protection, when in reality it only grants further fictional jurisdiction, and control over their rights by a centralized political body, who's interest  is in its own power, not individual liberty. But then fools will be fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay marriage is about the Court consolidating power for some imaginary secret government?
Click to expand...

Your childish little faces, only diminish any point you are trying to make.
Who said anything about an imaginary government? Not I. I am posting concerning your national government.


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
> A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
> Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman,  forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the  14th amendment to your CONstitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loving v Virginia
> 
> "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
> 
> Zablocki v. Rehail
> 
> Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
> 
> _Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"
> 
> In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*
> 
> In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
> 
> "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
> 
> _Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)
> 
> "While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,
> 
> Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
> 
> "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No argument that a marriage is a right,as it  falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.
> 
> Not one of the cases I cited.
> 
> This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who?
> Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
> You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT  marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
> You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
> Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
> A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
> Such is the folly of fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.
Click to expand...

And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
"It depends on what your definition of is, is"
Or the definition of " strategery".
If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the OP submitted his ideas to the Legal Team arguing against gay marriage in front of SCOTUS yet?  They could really use the help.
> 
> 
> 
> The truth, and facts, "ideas" you call them are not relevant in a political body such as your SCOTUS. Facts and truth are irrelevant, as the only purpose of your SCOTUS is to establish fictional jurisdiction in order to consolidate power to the National government. Fools feed the beast that control their individual liberty thinking that the establishment of a new law or opinion based in fiction will somehow grant them more protection, when in reality it only grants further fictional jurisdiction, and control over their rights by a centralized political body, who's interest  is in its own power, not individual liberty. But then fools will be fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay marriage is about the Court consolidating power for some imaginary secret government?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your childish little faces, only diminish any point you are trying to make.
> Who said anything about an imaginary government? Not I. I am posting concerning your national government.
Click to expand...

your imaginary secret government: "in order to consolidate power to the National government." as if their is a national government that is not of 'we the people'


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loving v Virginia
> 
> "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
> 
> Zablocki v. Rehail
> 
> Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
> 
> _Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"
> 
> In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*
> 
> In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
> 
> "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
> 
> _Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)
> 
> "While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,
> 
> Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
> 
> "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
> 
> 
> 
> No argument that a marriage is a right,as it  falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.
> 
> Not one of the cases I cited.
> 
> This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who?
> Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
> You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT  marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
> You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
> Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
> A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
> Such is the folly of fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
> "It depends on what your definition of is, is"
> Or the definition of " strategery".
> If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.
Click to expand...


marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people. 

you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown

14 cases
14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the OP submitted his ideas to the Legal Team arguing against gay marriage in front of SCOTUS yet?  They could really use the help.
> 
> 
> 
> The truth, and facts, "ideas" you call them are not relevant in a political body such as your SCOTUS. Facts and truth are irrelevant, as the only purpose of your SCOTUS is to establish fictional jurisdiction in order to consolidate power to the National government. Fools feed the beast that control their individual liberty thinking that the establishment of a new law or opinion based in fiction will somehow grant them more protection, when in reality it only grants further fictional jurisdiction, and control over their rights by a centralized political body, who's interest  is in its own power, not individual liberty. But then fools will be fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay marriage is about the Court consolidating power for some imaginary secret government?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your childish little faces, only diminish any point you are trying to make.
> Who said anything about an imaginary government? Not I. I am posting concerning your national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your imaginary secret government: "in order to consolidate power to the National government." as if their is a national government that is not of 'we the people'
Click to expand...

Really? REALLY? 
Do I really need to educate you on your own CONstitutional system?
Please, read your CONstitutional debates #s 39 and 62 and let the "rat"
James Madison explain your government system to you. Your CONstitution was a combination of two opposing systems cobbled together to form the original 1787/1789 system. The federal portion was removed via the 17th amendment, leaving only the national system in place. 
If you can't understand the basic foundation of the system, then you should not be involved in any constitutional legal discussion, as you will only show yourself to be ignorant.


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No argument that a marriage is a right,as it  falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.
> 
> Not one of the cases I cited.
> 
> This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who?
> Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
> You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT  marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
> You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
> Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
> A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
> Such is the folly of fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
> "It depends on what your definition of is, is"
> Or the definition of " strategery".
> If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
Click to expand...

Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman. 
There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between the opinion of Scotus and yours is
> a) The Supreme Court has actual authority- you have none.
> b) The Supreme Court actually understands the law and the Constitution- and you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?
> It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.
> 
> Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...
> 
> _8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. *But not the marriage contract*, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.
> 
> 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
> HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
> Supreme Court of United States.
> Decided January 8, 1934_​
> This is referenced by:
> 
> _This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. *With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses.* (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 6 54, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest
> 
> 71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
> 376 N.E.2d 1382
> JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
> Supreme Court of Illinois.
> Opinion filed May 26, 1978._​
> Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ask....."now what?"
> I ask do you even understand what you posted?
> Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s  must do so via the legal system.
> So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
> So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
> A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract.
> No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
> When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.
Click to expand...

Ah, your desperation grows.  Neither myself nor the court cases I cited contend a marriage is not a contract, as you ridiculously ascribe to my position based upon nothing but your own inability to comprehend what I wrote.

Those cases do not state marriage is not a contract -- they state *marriage contracts are not protected by the Constitution's contract clause, * as you wrongly asserted.

Therefore, as stated earlier, your thesis crumbles. So again I wonder ... _What next...?_


----------



## Dante

Faun said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> that would lose in a court of law. you're arguing ideology and politics, not law
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps. I'm not a lawyer nor do I profess to be one. Regardless, the Constitution is a framework to protect our rights and the government is sworn to uphold it. I can't imagine on what legal basis a court could Constitutionally deny a person their inalienable rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't?
> 
> sadly,
> History is full of examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that you're back, does this mean you're ready to answer the question or are you going to continue running from it ....
> 
> *WHY* do you think marriage is an inalienable right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus. Marriage is NOT an inalienable right. The Court has said marriage is a basic right, one of the most basic.
> 
> seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you committed to evading the question. Figures.
> 
> _These statutes also *deprive the Lovings of liberty* without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. *The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.*
> Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). *To deny this fundamental freedom* on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications *so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.* The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State._​
> The pursuit of happiness is unquestionably an inalienable right and the fundamental right to marriage is a central aspect of that pursuit.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?
> It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.
> 
> Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...
> 
> _8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. *But not the marriage contract*, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.
> 
> 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
> HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
> Supreme Court of United States.
> Decided January 8, 1934_​
> This is referenced by:
> 
> _This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. *With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses.* (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 6 54, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest
> 
> 71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
> 376 N.E.2d 1382
> JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
> Supreme Court of Illinois.
> Opinion filed May 26, 1978._​
> Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ask....."now what?"
> I ask do you even understand what you posted?
> Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s  must do so via the legal system.
> So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
> So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
> A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract.
> No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
> When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, your desperation grows.  Neither myself nor the court cases I cited contend a marriage is not a contract, as you ridiculously ascribe to my position based upon nothing but your own inability to comprehend what I wrote.
> 
> Those cases do not state marriage is not a contract -- they state *marriage contracts are not protected by the Constitution's contract clause, * as you wrongly asserted.
> 
> Therefore, as stated earlier, your thesis crumbles. So again I wonder ... _What next...?_
Click to expand...

again, you are using reasoning and argument that was used to back up the legal opinion. 

Dante never spoke of the Constitution;'s contract clause... That was James.

The court ruled on the 14th, not the Declaration of Independence. That is a political and ideological argument. The court was not asked to rule marriage as an inalienable right. Read the words you've posted


----------



## Syriusly

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.
> 
> Not one of the cases I cited.
> 
> This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
> You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT  marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
> You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
> Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
> A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
> Such is the folly of fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
> "It depends on what your definition of is, is"
> Or the definition of " strategery".
> If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
Click to expand...



Just going to point out this is merely your opinion, unsupported by any legal authority or reality, and that your opinion is the opinion of a person who believes the Confederacy still exists.

So- your opinion is immaterial.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.
> 
> Not one of the cases I cited.
> 
> This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
> You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT  marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
> You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
> Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
> A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
> Such is the folly of fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
> "It depends on what your definition of is, is"
> Or the definition of " strategery".
> If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
Click to expand...


Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'

Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender

you lose


----------



## Syriusly

James Everett said:


> Says
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a right to contract.
> 
> There is such a thing as a right to marriage -- which gays are denied to marry the person of they want to be married to.
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
> A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
> Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman,  forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the  14th amendment to your CONstitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Loving v Virginia
> 
> "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
> 
> Zablocki v. Rehail
> 
> Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
> 
> _Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"
> 
> In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*
> 
> In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
> 
> "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
> 
> _Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)
> 
> "While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,
> 
> Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
> 
> "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No argument that a marriage is a right,as it  falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.
> 
> Not one of the cases I cited.
> 
> This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who?
> Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
> Such is the folly of fools.
Click to expand...


And yet you are unable to support your claim- at all. 

Such is your foolish folly.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your SCOTUS renders opinions based often on assumptions, and contradicts prior opinions based on whatever expands its jurisdiction, and centralized power to which it is part. No in your opinion, political appointees hold authority over the rights of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?
> It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.
> 
> Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...
> 
> _8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. *But not the marriage contract*, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.
> 
> 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
> HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
> Supreme Court of United States.
> Decided January 8, 1934_​
> This is referenced by:
> 
> _This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. *With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses.* (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 6 54, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest
> 
> 71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
> 376 N.E.2d 1382
> JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
> Supreme Court of Illinois.
> Opinion filed May 26, 1978._​
> Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ask....."now what?"
> I ask do you even understand what you posted?
> Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s  must do so via the legal system.
> So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
> So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
> A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract.
> No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
> When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, your desperation grows.  Neither myself nor the court cases I cited contend a marriage is not a contract, as you ridiculously ascribe to my position based upon nothing but your own inability to comprehend what I wrote.
> 
> Those cases do not state marriage is not a contract -- they state *marriage contracts are not protected by the Constitution's contract clause, * as you wrongly asserted.
> 
> Therefore, as stated earlier, your thesis crumbles. So again I wonder ... _What next...?_
Click to expand...

First, I ask why so many think that posting childish faces solidifies their ignorant assertions? 
It would not surprise me to see such printed in your SCOTUS opinions, as such is the intellect of that body as well.
What does article I section 20 state?
It states that no state shall any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
No your Kangaroo SCOTUS states that marriage is a contract as you have correctly agreed, then states that marriage contracts are not protected by article I section 10. Now can you show where in article I or anywhere else in YOUR CONstitution that marriage is NOT protected as a contract?
Do you see how you accept such BS from your SCOTUS without question, or rational?
So as I rightly questioned you conserving you opinion that a marriage is not a contract. It is a contract, thus protected via Article I section 10. 
You and your SCOTUS wish to state that it is a contract but yet not protected as a contract. Can you say "CONTRADICTION" ?
Oh ye suckers.


----------



## James Everett

Syriusly said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading Article I section ten of your CONstitution.
> A marriage contract is a specific contract between a man and a woman, and that falls under the right to contract under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution.
> Again, it is a matter if a specific contract called a marriage contract which has always been specifically defined, historically, traditionally, and legally as a contract between a man and a woman,  forming a husband, (male) and a wife, (female) contractual relation. The same recognized relation may be obtained through a same sex civil union contract, without this short cited granting of fictional jurisdiction, to Your SCOTUS by allowing the misuse of the  14th amendment to your CONstitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loving v Virginia
> 
> "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
> 
> Zablocki v. Rehail
> 
> Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
> 
> _Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"
> 
> In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*
> 
> In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
> 
> "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
> 
> _Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)
> 
> "While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,
> 
> Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
> 
> "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No argument that a marriage is a right,as it  falls under Article I section 10 of your CONstitution, however a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman.t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> Not the Supreme Court. Not the Constitution.
> 
> Not one of the cases I cited.
> 
> This case will be resolved by the Supreme Court, and then you can go back to dreaming of the glory days of the Condederacy.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who?
> Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
> Such is the folly of fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you are unable to support your claim- at all.
> 
> Such is your foolish folly.
Click to expand...

Support my claim?
I cite the earliest dictionary of the English language, being Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755) edition.....
Marriage...
"A contract between a man and a woman".
I just supported my claim. I apologize for not citing such support before, but I have cited it many many times.


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says
> Says who?
> Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
> You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT  marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
> You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
> Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
> A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
> Such is the folly of fools.
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
> "It depends on what your definition of is, is"
> Or the definition of " strategery".
> If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
Click to expand...

A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony. 
In government terms it is considered a civil contract.


Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says
> Says who?
> Says the historical, traditional and legal definition since long before your SCOTUS existed and up until this attempt to redefine the definition of a marriage contract.
> You may also note I the case that you cited, that your SCOTUS defined marriage as a contract and that it has more to do with morals of civilization of a people than any other institution and that the State legislatures prescribe the age at which parties may CONTRACT  marriage, the procedure and FORM ESSENTIAL to constitute a marriage, duties and obligations that that contract creates.
> You are spitting into the wind, and dancing just as does your SCOTUS to fit square pegs into round holes to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction. You are to short cited in handing authority over your liberties to political bodies.
> Nothing is resolved by your SCOTUS, as I have just sheen you using prior court opinions which contradict your current court opinions.
> A future opinion will be dictated by politics just as is this one, and can just as easily contradict any current opinion to further that bodies fictional jurisdiction at that time.
> Such is the folly of fools.
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
> "It depends on what your definition of is, is"
> Or the definition of " strategery".
> If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
Click to expand...

Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions? 
Where does such foolish folly end? 
Answer...,,
Most likely in Babble .


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the SCOTUS is legally deemed entity to render such decisions. Your opinions do not impact any Supreme Court decision in any way whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?
> It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.
> 
> Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...
> 
> _8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. *But not the marriage contract*, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.
> 
> 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
> HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
> Supreme Court of United States.
> Decided January 8, 1934_​
> This is referenced by:
> 
> _This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. *With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses.* (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 6 54, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest
> 
> 71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
> 376 N.E.2d 1382
> JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
> Supreme Court of Illinois.
> Opinion filed May 26, 1978._​
> Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ask....."now what?"
> I ask do you even understand what you posted?
> Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s  must do so via the legal system.
> So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
> So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
> A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract.
> No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
> When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, your desperation grows.  Neither myself nor the court cases I cited contend a marriage is not a contract, as you ridiculously ascribe to my position based upon nothing but your own inability to comprehend what I wrote.
> 
> Those cases do not state marriage is not a contract -- they state *marriage contracts are not protected by the Constitution's contract clause, * as you wrongly asserted.
> 
> Therefore, as stated earlier, your thesis crumbles. So again I wonder ... _What next...?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, I ask why so many think that posting childish faces solidifies their ignorant assertions?
> It would not surprise me to see such printed in your SCOTUS opinions, as such is the intellect of that body as well.
> What does article I section 20 state?
> It states that no state shall any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
> No your Kangaroo SCOTUS states that marriage is a contract as you have correctly agreed, then states that marriage contracts are not protected by article I section 10. Now can you show where in article I or anywhere else in YOUR CONstitution that marriage is NOT protected as a contract?
> Do you see how you accept such BS from your SCOTUS without question, or rational?
> So as I rightly questioned you conserving you opinion that a marriage is not a contract. It is a contract, thus protected via Article I section 10.
> You and your SCOTUS wish to state that it is a contract but yet not protected as a contract. Can you say "CONTRADICTION" ?
> Oh ye suckers.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you, arguing the context of the Constitution while summarily disregarding the opinions of those with the authority to render such opinions; voids yours.

You can't construct a rational argument which is based on a clause in the Constitution while at the same time, dismiss another part of the Constitution because it destroys your position.

Like it or not, we are a nation of laws. That comes with accepting Supreme Court decisions even if you disagree with them. They stand as the law even if you have a different opinion. Their decisions are the law while yours are nothing but your opinion. Valuable to you, perhaps, but meaningless in a debate when the law has been defined.

As far as spelling out the meaning of the clause you reference. I need not. The justices who rendered the opinion that marriage contracts are not protected by the contract clause are far more knowledgeable on the Constitution than am I and I rely on their expertise in these matters.

You don't have to like the law, but you do have to live with it.

So what's yours next argument since this one failed you miserably?


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.
> 
> 
> 
> And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
> "It depends on what your definition of is, is"
> Or the definition of " strategery".
> If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
> In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
> In government terms it is considered a civil contract.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is NOT being asked to define marriage. It is being asked to rule on a matter of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
> "It depends on what your definition of is, is"
> Or the definition of " strategery".
> If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
> Where does such foolish folly end?
> Answer...,,
> Most likely in Babble .
Click to expand...

marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.

marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have  historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition

in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if your SCOTUS rendered an opposing opinion to yours on this or any other issue, your opinion wouldn't mean jack either. And no SCOTUS opinion has been reversed?
> It simply ignores prior opinion to suit its present need for extending its fictional jurisdiction. By the way, you mean affect, not impact. Also ignoring logic and your CONstitution only show that you are led by emotion rather than logic, which lead to chaos.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.
> 
> Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...
> 
> _8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. *But not the marriage contract*, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.
> 
> 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
> HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
> Supreme Court of United States.
> Decided January 8, 1934_​
> This is referenced by:
> 
> _This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. *With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses.* (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 6 54, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest
> 
> 71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
> 376 N.E.2d 1382
> JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
> Supreme Court of Illinois.
> Opinion filed May 26, 1978._​
> Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ask....."now what?"
> I ask do you even understand what you posted?
> Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s  must do so via the legal system.
> So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
> So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
> A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract.
> No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
> When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, your desperation grows.  Neither myself nor the court cases I cited contend a marriage is not a contract, as you ridiculously ascribe to my position based upon nothing but your own inability to comprehend what I wrote.
> 
> Those cases do not state marriage is not a contract -- they state *marriage contracts are not protected by the Constitution's contract clause, * as you wrongly asserted.
> 
> Therefore, as stated earlier, your thesis crumbles. So again I wonder ... _What next...?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, I ask why so many think that posting childish faces solidifies their ignorant assertions?
> It would not surprise me to see such printed in your SCOTUS opinions, as such is the intellect of that body as well.
> What does article I section 20 state?
> It states that no state shall any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
> No your Kangaroo SCOTUS states that marriage is a contract as you have correctly agreed, then states that marriage contracts are not protected by article I section 10. Now can you show where in article I or anywhere else in YOUR CONstitution that marriage is NOT protected as a contract?
> Do you see how you accept such BS from your SCOTUS without question, or rational?
> So as I rightly questioned you conserving you opinion that a marriage is not a contract. It is a contract, thus protected via Article I section 10.
> You and your SCOTUS wish to state that it is a contract but yet not protected as a contract. Can you say "CONTRADICTION" ?
> Oh ye suckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, arguing the context of the Constitution while summarily disregarding the opinions of those with the authority to render such opinions; voids yours.
> 
> You can't construct a rational argument which is based on a clause in the Constitution while at the same time, dismiss another part of the Constitution because it destroys your position.
> 
> Like it or not, we are a nation of laws. That comes with accepting Supreme Court decisions even if you disagree with them. They stand as the law even if you have a different opinion. Their decisions are the law while yours are nothing but your opinion. Valuable to you, perhaps, but meaningless in a debate when the law has been defined.
> 
> As far as spelling out the meaning of the clause you reference. I need not. The justices who rendered the opinion that marriage contracts are not protected by the contract clause are far more knowledgeable on the Constitution than am I and I rely on their expertise in these matters.
> 
> You don't have to like the law, but you do have to live with it.
> 
> So what's yours next argument since this one failed you miserably?
Click to expand...

That is my point in questioning you. You offer no article that contradicts Article I section 10, wherein is stated that a marriage contract is exempt from Article I section 10. 
"A Nation of laws"? 
What a joke, and only spoken from the indoctrinated suckers.
SCOTUS opinions are not law, law is established via bill signed into law. Your SCOTUS simply render opinions.
As for these political appointees being far more knowledgeable, I can only smile in the face of foolishness.
These political appointees render opinions that are contradictory as I have just proven to be the case, which you could not dispute that fact as presented, but only state that they are far more knowledgeable than you. I cannot contradict your statement there, as you have sheen little knowledge and great acceptance of fiction based in sheep like following. However I can state that these political appointees are nothing more than just that, holding in many cases either poor understanding of their own CONstitutional system or outright knowingly disregarding their CONstitution such as I have just pointed out to you.


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
> "It depends on what your definition of is, is"
> Or the definition of " strategery".
> If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
> In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
> In government terms it is considered a civil contract.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
> "It depends on what your definition of is, is"
> Or the definition of " strategery".
> If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
> Where does such foolish folly end?
> Answer...,,
> Most likely in Babble .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.
> 
> marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have  historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition
> 
> in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court
Click to expand...

Yes, it is different than a marriage, yet can contract a mirror image except that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. This should not be so complicated to grasp. Two words defining the sex of the couple engaged in this contract specifies the difference.


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
> "It depends on what your definition of is, is"
> Or the definition of " strategery".
> If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
> In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
> In government terms it is considered a civil contract.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> And law must include proper definitions, else all is gibberish, as in....
> "It depends on what your definition of is, is"
> Or the definition of " strategery".
> If a case is being considered based on a cats physiology, then a dog cannot be used as the definition of a cat in that case, else the case will be based in fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage a contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
> Where does such foolish folly end?
> Answer...,,
> Most likely in Babble .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.
> 
> marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have  historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition
> 
> in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court
Click to expand...

Further, it is not denying a right when denying a re-defining of a contract to mean that which it does not.
It is not a right for a man to call himself a woman when applying for a State issued D/L or any other application.
The denial of rights would be a deprecate issue concerning the obligations of the contract that has been entered into between two individuals. A marriage contract becomes a different contract based on the sex of the individuals entering into it, it is then not a marriage contract, but rather a civil union between Bill , and Bob, yet all else aside from the sex of the contractors remains the same in obligation, words such as husband and wife would be replaced by partner (a) being Bob, and partner (B) being Bill.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course my opinion has no bearing on Supreme Court decisions. And the one leading by emotion is you. You are arguing that your opinion should matter more than a Supreme Court ruling. But until the day comes when you're nominated to that esteemed bench, it never will.
> 
> Here's another example of how the Supreme Court knows more about the law than you ever will. In stark contrast to your [mis]understanding of the Constitition's "contract clause"...
> 
> _8. Contracts, within the meaning of the clause, have been held to embrace those that are executed, that is, grants, as well as those that are executory. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43. They embrace the charters of private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518. *But not the marriage contract*, so as to limit the general right to legislate on the subject of divorce. Id., p. 629; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210. Nor are judgments, though rendered upon contracts, deemed to be within the provision. Morley v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 162, 169. Nor does a general law, giving the consent of a State to be sued, constitute a contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527.
> 
> 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
> HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL ET AL.
> Supreme Court of United States.
> Decided January 8, 1934_​
> This is referenced by:
> 
> _This statutory construction, plaintiff persists, does not mitigate the constitutional infirmity of the provision. His position remains that the transfer of an interest in his property to a spouse who had no interest in that property, even if only upon termination of marriage, impairs his contractual relations with third persons and divests him of vested property rights. *With regard to the contract clauses of the Federal and State constitutions (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10; Ill. Const. (1970), art. I, sec. 16), plaintiff's constitutional objection is difficult to discern. Plaintiff agrees that it is not the marriage contract between the spouses which is being impaired, for marriage contracts are not deemed to be protected by the constitutional contract clauses.* (Maynard v. Hill (1888), 125 U.S. 190, 210, 31 L.Ed. 6 54, 658, 8 S.Ct. 723, 729; Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1933), 290 U.S. 398, 429 n. 8, 78 L.Ed. 413, 424 n. 8, 54 S.Ct. 231, 236 n. 8; Rothman v. Rothman (1974), 65 N.J. 219, 225 n. 4, 320 A.2d 496, 499 n. 4.) Plaintiff, however, hypothesizes that his interest
> 
> 71 Ill.2d 563 (1978)
> 376 N.E.2d 1382
> JOSEPH KUJAWINSKI, Appellee, v. BETTY ANN KUJAWINSKI et al. — (Edward O. Laumann, Appellant.)
> Supreme Court of Illinois.
> Opinion filed May 26, 1978._​
> Now what? Time to whip up a new defense. lol
> 
> 
> 
> You ask....."now what?"
> I ask do you even understand what you posted?
> Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s  must do so via the legal system.
> So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
> So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
> A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract.
> No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
> When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, your desperation grows.  Neither myself nor the court cases I cited contend a marriage is not a contract, as you ridiculously ascribe to my position based upon nothing but your own inability to comprehend what I wrote.
> 
> Those cases do not state marriage is not a contract -- they state *marriage contracts are not protected by the Constitution's contract clause, * as you wrongly asserted.
> 
> Therefore, as stated earlier, your thesis crumbles. So again I wonder ... _What next...?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, I ask why so many think that posting childish faces solidifies their ignorant assertions?
> It would not surprise me to see such printed in your SCOTUS opinions, as such is the intellect of that body as well.
> What does article I section 20 state?
> It states that no state shall any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
> No your Kangaroo SCOTUS states that marriage is a contract as you have correctly agreed, then states that marriage contracts are not protected by article I section 10. Now can you show where in article I or anywhere else in YOUR CONstitution that marriage is NOT protected as a contract?
> Do you see how you accept such BS from your SCOTUS without question, or rational?
> So as I rightly questioned you conserving you opinion that a marriage is not a contract. It is a contract, thus protected via Article I section 10.
> You and your SCOTUS wish to state that it is a contract but yet not protected as a contract. Can you say "CONTRADICTION" ?
> Oh ye suckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, arguing the context of the Constitution while summarily disregarding the opinions of those with the authority to render such opinions; voids yours.
> 
> You can't construct a rational argument which is based on a clause in the Constitution while at the same time, dismiss another part of the Constitution because it destroys your position.
> 
> Like it or not, we are a nation of laws. That comes with accepting Supreme Court decisions even if you disagree with them. They stand as the law even if you have a different opinion. Their decisions are the law while yours are nothing but your opinion. Valuable to you, perhaps, but meaningless in a debate when the law has been defined.
> 
> As far as spelling out the meaning of the clause you reference. I need not. The justices who rendered the opinion that marriage contracts are not protected by the contract clause are far more knowledgeable on the Constitution than am I and I rely on their expertise in these matters.
> 
> You don't have to like the law, but you do have to live with it.
> 
> So what's yours next argument since this one failed you miserably?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is my point in questioning you. You offer no article that contradicts Article I section 10, wherein is stated that a marriage contract is exempt from Article I section 10.
> "A Nation of laws"?
> What a joke, and only spoken from the indoctrinated suckers.
> SCOTUS opinions are not law, law is established via bill signed into law. Your SCOTUS simply render opinions.
> As for these political appointees being far more knowledgeable, I can only smile in the face of foolishness.
> These political appointees render opinions that are contradictory as I have just proven to be the case, which you could not dispute that fact as presented, but only state that they are far more knowledgeable than you. I cannot contradict your statement there, as you have sheen little knowledge and great acceptance of fiction based in sheep like following. However I can state that these political appointees are nothing more than just that, holding in many cases either poor understanding of their own CONstitutional system or outright knowingly disregarding their CONstitution such as I have just pointed out to you.
Click to expand...

Au contraire ... I gave you better than articles -- I gave you two court rulings which defined the Constitution's contract clause as powerless in terms of marriage contracts. I understand you wish to reject that since you built the foundation of your flimsy defense upon that clause, but seeking alternative relief because the highest authoritative voice on matter takes your knees out from under you is not going to help your flailing position.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
> In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
> In government terms it is considered a civil contract.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
> Where does such foolish folly end?
> Answer...,,
> Most likely in Babble .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.
> 
> marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have  historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition
> 
> in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is different than a marriage, yet can contract a mirror image except that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. This should not be so complicated to grasp. Two words defining the sex of the couple engaged in this contract specifies the difference.
Click to expand...

Even if one were to accept your notion that marriage contracts were between a man and a woman, that does not preclude the terms of such contracts in the future from containing different terms.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
> In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
> In government terms it is considered a civil contract.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
> Where does such foolish folly end?
> Answer...,,
> Most likely in Babble .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.
> 
> marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have  historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition
> 
> in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is different than a marriage, yet can contract a mirror image except that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. This should not be so complicated to grasp. Two words defining the sex of the couple engaged in this contract specifies the difference.
Click to expand...


No where has the Supreme Court ever said marriage for legal purposes was only between a man and a woman --  for legal purposes.  You people never understood a penalty for constitutional purposes functioning as a tax either


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
> In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
> In government terms it is considered a civil contract.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by the state has a definition: a civil contract between two people.
> 
> you have chosen to ignore the examples cited where this is clearly shown
> 
> 14 cases
> 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage a contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
> Where does such foolish folly end?
> Answer...,,
> Most likely in Babble .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.
> 
> marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have  historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition
> 
> in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Further, it is not denying a right when *denying a re-defining of a contract *to mean that which it does not.
> It is not a right for a man to call himself a woman when applying for a State issued D/L or any other application.
> The denial of rights would be a deprecate issue concerning the obligations of the contract that has been entered into between two individuals. A marriage contract becomes a different contract based on the sex of the individuals entering into it, it is then not a marriage contract, but rather a civil union between Bill , and Bob, yet all else aside from the sex of the contractors remains the same in obligation, words such as husband and wife would be replaced by partner (a) being Bob, and partner (B) being Bill.
Click to expand...



are you drunk : "*denying a re-defining of a contract " *no one's contract is being redefined. The court is NOT being asked to redefine a contract. You're making absolutely non sense here except maybe to yourself


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask....."now what?"
> I ask do you even understand what you posted?
> Marriage is a contract. In order to undo a marriage contract, I.E. Devore the party,s  must do so via the legal system.
> So desperate are you that you are grasping and not fully reading the links that you are posting.
> So now you are contending based on your lack of reading and understanding of the case law that you copy and paste, that marriage is not a contractual agreement?
> A marriage is as I have stated, a specific contract. And again, article I section 10 protect the right to contract.
> No, the facts remain the same, there is no need to establish a new defense, all that is needed is to continue to point to the facts of the case.
> When you are unaware of even Article I sec 10 of your ownCONstitution you may wish to be careful citing case law that you don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, your desperation grows.  Neither myself nor the court cases I cited contend a marriage is not a contract, as you ridiculously ascribe to my position based upon nothing but your own inability to comprehend what I wrote.
> 
> Those cases do not state marriage is not a contract -- they state *marriage contracts are not protected by the Constitution's contract clause, * as you wrongly asserted.
> 
> Therefore, as stated earlier, your thesis crumbles. So again I wonder ... _What next...?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, I ask why so many think that posting childish faces solidifies their ignorant assertions?
> It would not surprise me to see such printed in your SCOTUS opinions, as such is the intellect of that body as well.
> What does article I section 20 state?
> It states that no state shall any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
> No your Kangaroo SCOTUS states that marriage is a contract as you have correctly agreed, then states that marriage contracts are not protected by article I section 10. Now can you show where in article I or anywhere else in YOUR CONstitution that marriage is NOT protected as a contract?
> Do you see how you accept such BS from your SCOTUS without question, or rational?
> So as I rightly questioned you conserving you opinion that a marriage is not a contract. It is a contract, thus protected via Article I section 10.
> You and your SCOTUS wish to state that it is a contract but yet not protected as a contract. Can you say "CONTRADICTION" ?
> Oh ye suckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, arguing the context of the Constitution while summarily disregarding the opinions of those with the authority to render such opinions; voids yours.
> 
> You can't construct a rational argument which is based on a clause in the Constitution while at the same time, dismiss another part of the Constitution because it destroys your position.
> 
> Like it or not, we are a nation of laws. That comes with accepting Supreme Court decisions even if you disagree with them. They stand as the law even if you have a different opinion. Their decisions are the law while yours are nothing but your opinion. Valuable to you, perhaps, but meaningless in a debate when the law has been defined.
> 
> As far as spelling out the meaning of the clause you reference. I need not. The justices who rendered the opinion that marriage contracts are not protected by the contract clause are far more knowledgeable on the Constitution than am I and I rely on their expertise in these matters.
> 
> You don't have to like the law, but you do have to live with it.
> 
> So what's yours next argument since this one failed you miserably?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is my point in questioning you. You offer no article that contradicts Article I section 10, wherein is stated that a marriage contract is exempt from Article I section 10.
> "A Nation of laws"?
> What a joke, and only spoken from the indoctrinated suckers.
> SCOTUS opinions are not law, law is established via bill signed into law. Your SCOTUS simply render opinions.
> As for these political appointees being far more knowledgeable, I can only smile in the face of foolishness.
> These political appointees render opinions that are contradictory as I have just proven to be the case, which you could not dispute that fact as presented, but only state that they are far more knowledgeable than you. I cannot contradict your statement there, as you have sheen little knowledge and great acceptance of fiction based in sheep like following. However I can state that these political appointees are nothing more than just that, holding in many cases either poor understanding of their own CONstitutional system or outright knowingly disregarding their CONstitution such as I have just pointed out to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Au contraire ... I gave you better than articles -- I gave you two court rulings which defined the Constitution's contract clause as powerless in terms of marriage contracts. I understand you wish to reject that since you built the foundation of your flimsy defense upon that clause, but seeking alternative relief because the highest authoritative voice on matter takes your knees out from under you is not going to help your flailing position.
Click to expand...

You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better? 
I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
THANKS.


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
> In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
> In government terms it is considered a civil contract.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage a contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
> Where does such foolish folly end?
> Answer...,,
> Most likely in Babble .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.
> 
> marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have  historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition
> 
> in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Further, it is not denying a right when *denying a re-defining of a contract *to mean that which it does not.
> It is not a right for a man to call himself a woman when applying for a State issued D/L or any other application.
> The denial of rights would be a deprecate issue concerning the obligations of the contract that has been entered into between two individuals. A marriage contract becomes a different contract based on the sex of the individuals entering into it, it is then not a marriage contract, but rather a civil union between Bill , and Bob, yet all else aside from the sex of the contractors remains the same in obligation, words such as husband and wife would be replaced by partner (a) being Bob, and partner (B) being Bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are you drunk : "*denying a re-defining of a contract " *no one's contract is being redefined. The court is NOT being asked to redefine a contract. You're making absolutely non sense here except maybe to yourself
Click to expand...

No, I am stating fact. The SCOTUS is being asked to grant a right to same sex couples to marry based on the 14th amendment. Correct?
If they render an opinion that same sex couples have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then they are allowing via their opinion the re- defining of a marriage contract to be that of same sex couples... Correct?


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
> In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
> In government terms it is considered a civil contract.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* Yes, marriage is however a specific civil contract between a man and a woman.
> 
> *2)*There can be established between same sex partners a civil union contract that is the equivalent to a marriage contract, however it is not a marriage contract. There are various civil contracts, each being specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
> Where does such foolish folly end?
> Answer...,,
> Most likely in Babble .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.
> 
> marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have  historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition
> 
> in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is different than a marriage, yet can contract a mirror image except that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. This should not be so complicated to grasp. Two words defining the sex of the couple engaged in this contract specifies the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No where has the Supreme Court ever said marriage for legal purposes was only between a man and a woman --  for legal purposes.  You people never understood a penalty for constitutional purposes functioning as a tax either
Click to expand...

Without a set definition there can be no set law. Just because the court has never stated that marriage is only between a man and a woman does not make a marriage contract open for debate on what a marriage is, nor since the court has never legally stated the definition of "is" is does not mean the definition of "is" is cow. What you are indicating is that there is no legal definition to anything unless the court states what they deem to be the definition. Again go back and read the 1662 marriage contract.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> 
> 
> A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
> In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
> In government terms it is considered a civil contract.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage a contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
> Where does such foolish folly end?
> Answer...,,
> Most likely in Babble .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.
> 
> marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have  historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition
> 
> in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Further, it is not denying a right when *denying a re-defining of a contract *to mean that which it does not.
> It is not a right for a man to call himself a woman when applying for a State issued D/L or any other application.
> The denial of rights would be a deprecate issue concerning the obligations of the contract that has been entered into between two individuals. A marriage contract becomes a different contract based on the sex of the individuals entering into it, it is then not a marriage contract, but rather a civil union between Bill , and Bob, yet all else aside from the sex of the contractors remains the same in obligation, words such as husband and wife would be replaced by partner (a) being Bob, and partner (B) being Bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are you drunk : "*denying a re-defining of a contract " *no one's contract is being redefined. The court is NOT being asked to redefine a contract. You're making absolutely non sense here except maybe to yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1) *No, I am stating fact. The SCOTUS is being asked to grant a right to same sex couples to marry based on the 14th amendment. Correct?
> 
> *2)* If they render an opinion that same sex couples have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then they are allowing via their opinion the re- defining of a marriage contract to be that of same sex couples... Correct?
Click to expand...


*1) *Partly, yes: not a bad primer: Five key arguments loom in gay marriage case

"To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so," the 10th Circuit majority wrote in the Utah case. "One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage."

Posner, in the unanimous 7th Circuit case, said tradition cannot be grounds for discrimination no matter how long a practice has been in effect.​*2)* No. You're a bit confused here. No problem, people on both sides are. They won't be re-defining a marriage contract to include same sex couples. They will be saying same sex couples have the same right to a marriage contract -- to marry as opposite sex couples do and bi-racial couples do. 

A marriage contract as a legal document (not a tradition in society or religion) has always been color and gender neutral


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> 
> 
> A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
> In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
> In government terms it is considered a civil contract.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman, but a civil marriage contract is not the one you think of in a religious ceremony. No where do any legal decisions handed down by the courts mention 'marriage of a man and a woman' but they do mention 'people/persons'
> 
> Marriage contracts are between two citizens and have never specified gender
> 
> you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
> Where does such foolish folly end?
> Answer...,,
> Most likely in Babble .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.
> 
> marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have  historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition
> 
> in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is different than a marriage, yet can contract a mirror image except that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. This should not be so complicated to grasp. Two words defining the sex of the couple engaged in this contract specifies the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No where has the Supreme Court ever said marriage for legal purposes was only between a man and a woman --  for legal purposes.  You people never understood a penalty for constitutional purposes functioning as a tax either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without a set definition there can be no set law. Just because the court has never stated that marriage is only between a man and a woman does not make a marriage contract open for debate on what a marriage is, nor since the court has never legally stated the definition of "is" is does not mean the definition of "is" is cow.* What you are indicating is that there is no legal definition to anything unless the court states what they deem to be the definition.* Again go back and read the 1662 marriage contract.
Click to expand...


No. you are misconstruing what Dante is plainly saying: there is a legal definition: a marriage contract is a civil contract of a union of two persons as one


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, your desperation grows.  Neither myself nor the court cases I cited contend a marriage is not a contract, as you ridiculously ascribe to my position based upon nothing but your own inability to comprehend what I wrote.
> 
> Those cases do not state marriage is not a contract -- they state *marriage contracts are not protected by the Constitution's contract clause, * as you wrongly asserted.
> 
> Therefore, as stated earlier, your thesis crumbles. So again I wonder ... _What next...?_
> 
> 
> 
> First, I ask why so many think that posting childish faces solidifies their ignorant assertions?
> It would not surprise me to see such printed in your SCOTUS opinions, as such is the intellect of that body as well.
> What does article I section 20 state?
> It states that no state shall any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
> No your Kangaroo SCOTUS states that marriage is a contract as you have correctly agreed, then states that marriage contracts are not protected by article I section 10. Now can you show where in article I or anywhere else in YOUR CONstitution that marriage is NOT protected as a contract?
> Do you see how you accept such BS from your SCOTUS without question, or rational?
> So as I rightly questioned you conserving you opinion that a marriage is not a contract. It is a contract, thus protected via Article I section 10.
> You and your SCOTUS wish to state that it is a contract but yet not protected as a contract. Can you say "CONTRADICTION" ?
> Oh ye suckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, arguing the context of the Constitution while summarily disregarding the opinions of those with the authority to render such opinions; voids yours.
> 
> You can't construct a rational argument which is based on a clause in the Constitution while at the same time, dismiss another part of the Constitution because it destroys your position.
> 
> Like it or not, we are a nation of laws. That comes with accepting Supreme Court decisions even if you disagree with them. They stand as the law even if you have a different opinion. Their decisions are the law while yours are nothing but your opinion. Valuable to you, perhaps, but meaningless in a debate when the law has been defined.
> 
> As far as spelling out the meaning of the clause you reference. I need not. The justices who rendered the opinion that marriage contracts are not protected by the contract clause are far more knowledgeable on the Constitution than am I and I rely on their expertise in these matters.
> 
> You don't have to like the law, but you do have to live with it.
> 
> So what's yours next argument since this one failed you miserably?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is my point in questioning you. You offer no article that contradicts Article I section 10, wherein is stated that a marriage contract is exempt from Article I section 10.
> "A Nation of laws"?
> What a joke, and only spoken from the indoctrinated suckers.
> SCOTUS opinions are not law, law is established via bill signed into law. Your SCOTUS simply render opinions.
> As for these political appointees being far more knowledgeable, I can only smile in the face of foolishness.
> These political appointees render opinions that are contradictory as I have just proven to be the case, which you could not dispute that fact as presented, but only state that they are far more knowledgeable than you. I cannot contradict your statement there, as you have sheen little knowledge and great acceptance of fiction based in sheep like following. However I can state that these political appointees are nothing more than just that, holding in many cases either poor understanding of their own CONstitutional system or outright knowingly disregarding their CONstitution such as I have just pointed out to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Au contraire ... I gave you better than articles -- I gave you two court rulings which defined the Constitution's contract clause as powerless in terms of marriage contracts. I understand you wish to reject that since you built the foundation of your flimsy defense upon that clause, but seeking alternative relief because the highest authoritative voice on matter takes your knees out from under you is not going to help your flailing position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
> I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
> THANKS.
Click to expand...

You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
> In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
> In government terms it is considered a civil contract.
> Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
> Where does such foolish folly end?
> Answer...,,
> Most likely in Babble .
> 
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.
> 
> marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have  historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition
> 
> in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Further, it is not denying a right when *denying a re-defining of a contract *to mean that which it does not.
> It is not a right for a man to call himself a woman when applying for a State issued D/L or any other application.
> The denial of rights would be a deprecate issue concerning the obligations of the contract that has been entered into between two individuals. A marriage contract becomes a different contract based on the sex of the individuals entering into it, it is then not a marriage contract, but rather a civil union between Bill , and Bob, yet all else aside from the sex of the contractors remains the same in obligation, words such as husband and wife would be replaced by partner (a) being Bob, and partner (B) being Bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are you drunk : "*denying a re-defining of a contract " *no one's contract is being redefined. The court is NOT being asked to redefine a contract. You're making absolutely non sense here except maybe to yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1) *No, I am stating fact. The SCOTUS is being asked to grant a right to same sex couples to marry based on the 14th amendment. Correct?
> 
> *2)* If they render an opinion that same sex couples have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then they are allowing via their opinion the re- defining of a marriage contract to be that of same sex couples... Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1) *Partly, yes: not a bad primer: Five key arguments loom in gay marriage case
> 
> "To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so," the 10th Circuit majority wrote in the Utah case. "One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage."
> 
> Posner, in the unanimous 7th Circuit case, said tradition cannot be grounds for discrimination no matter how long a practice has been in effect.​*2)* No. You're a bit confused here. No problem, people on both sides are. They won't be re-defining a marriage contract to include same sex couples. They will be saying same sex couples have the same right to a marriage contract -- to marry as opposite sex couples do and bi-racial couples do.
> 
> A marriage contract as a legal document (not a tradition in society or religion) has always been color and gender neutral
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Every legal definition that I have sourced states the opposite, of your assertion of gender neutrality. Every legal dictionary wherein I have sought the legal definition of a marriage contract defines such as being between a man and woman, husband and wife. Please cite your source that states otherwise.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I ask why so many think that posting childish faces solidifies their ignorant assertions?
> It would not surprise me to see such printed in your SCOTUS opinions, as such is the intellect of that body as well.
> What does article I section 20 state?
> It states that no state shall any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
> No your Kangaroo SCOTUS states that marriage is a contract as you have correctly agreed, then states that marriage contracts are not protected by article I section 10. Now can you show where in article I or anywhere else in YOUR CONstitution that marriage is NOT protected as a contract?
> Do you see how you accept such BS from your SCOTUS without question, or rational?
> So as I rightly questioned you conserving you opinion that a marriage is not a contract. It is a contract, thus protected via Article I section 10.
> You and your SCOTUS wish to state that it is a contract but yet not protected as a contract. Can you say "CONTRADICTION" ?
> Oh ye suckers.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, arguing the context of the Constitution while summarily disregarding the opinions of those with the authority to render such opinions; voids yours.
> 
> You can't construct a rational argument which is based on a clause in the Constitution while at the same time, dismiss another part of the Constitution because it destroys your position.
> 
> Like it or not, we are a nation of laws. That comes with accepting Supreme Court decisions even if you disagree with them. They stand as the law even if you have a different opinion. Their decisions are the law while yours are nothing but your opinion. Valuable to you, perhaps, but meaningless in a debate when the law has been defined.
> 
> As far as spelling out the meaning of the clause you reference. I need not. The justices who rendered the opinion that marriage contracts are not protected by the contract clause are far more knowledgeable on the Constitution than am I and I rely on their expertise in these matters.
> 
> You don't have to like the law, but you do have to live with it.
> 
> So what's yours next argument since this one failed you miserably?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is my point in questioning you. You offer no article that contradicts Article I section 10, wherein is stated that a marriage contract is exempt from Article I section 10.
> "A Nation of laws"?
> What a joke, and only spoken from the indoctrinated suckers.
> SCOTUS opinions are not law, law is established via bill signed into law. Your SCOTUS simply render opinions.
> As for these political appointees being far more knowledgeable, I can only smile in the face of foolishness.
> These political appointees render opinions that are contradictory as I have just proven to be the case, which you could not dispute that fact as presented, but only state that they are far more knowledgeable than you. I cannot contradict your statement there, as you have sheen little knowledge and great acceptance of fiction based in sheep like following. However I can state that these political appointees are nothing more than just that, holding in many cases either poor understanding of their own CONstitutional system or outright knowingly disregarding their CONstitution such as I have just pointed out to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Au contraire ... I gave you better than articles -- I gave you two court rulings which defined the Constitution's contract clause as powerless in terms of marriage contracts. I understand you wish to reject that since you built the foundation of your flimsy defense upon that clause, but seeking alternative relief because the highest authoritative voice on matter takes your knees out from under you is not going to help your flailing position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
> I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
> THANKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.
Click to expand...

Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.
> 
> marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have  historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition
> 
> in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court
> 
> 
> 
> Further, it is not denying a right when *denying a re-defining of a contract *to mean that which it does not.
> It is not a right for a man to call himself a woman when applying for a State issued D/L or any other application.
> The denial of rights would be a deprecate issue concerning the obligations of the contract that has been entered into between two individuals. A marriage contract becomes a different contract based on the sex of the individuals entering into it, it is then not a marriage contract, but rather a civil union between Bill , and Bob, yet all else aside from the sex of the contractors remains the same in obligation, words such as husband and wife would be replaced by partner (a) being Bob, and partner (B) being Bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are you drunk : "*denying a re-defining of a contract " *no one's contract is being redefined. The court is NOT being asked to redefine a contract. You're making absolutely non sense here except maybe to yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1) *No, I am stating fact. The SCOTUS is being asked to grant a right to same sex couples to marry based on the 14th amendment. Correct?
> 
> *2)* If they render an opinion that same sex couples have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then they are allowing via their opinion the re- defining of a marriage contract to be that of same sex couples... Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1) *Partly, yes: not a bad primer: Five key arguments loom in gay marriage case
> 
> "To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so," the 10th Circuit majority wrote in the Utah case. "One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage."
> 
> Posner, in the unanimous 7th Circuit case, said tradition cannot be grounds for discrimination no matter how long a practice has been in effect.​*2)* No. You're a bit confused here. No problem, people on both sides are. They won't be re-defining a marriage contract to include same sex couples. They will be saying same sex couples have the same right to a marriage contract -- to marry as opposite sex couples do and bi-racial couples do.
> 
> A marriage contract as a legal document (not a tradition in society or religion) has always been color and gender neutral
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I beg to differ. Every legal definition that I have sourced states the opposite, of your assertion of gender neutrality. Every legal dictionary wherein I have sought the legal definition of a marriage contract defines such as being between a man and woman, husband and wife. Please cite your source that states otherwise.
Click to expand...

Dictionaries? I was talking about laws. Sources were cited numerous occasions. You've just chosen to ignore them


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, arguing the context of the Constitution while summarily disregarding the opinions of those with the authority to render such opinions; voids yours.
> 
> You can't construct a rational argument which is based on a clause in the Constitution while at the same time, dismiss another part of the Constitution because it destroys your position.
> 
> Like it or not, we are a nation of laws. That comes with accepting Supreme Court decisions even if you disagree with them. They stand as the law even if you have a different opinion. Their decisions are the law while yours are nothing but your opinion. Valuable to you, perhaps, but meaningless in a debate when the law has been defined.
> 
> As far as spelling out the meaning of the clause you reference. I need not. The justices who rendered the opinion that marriage contracts are not protected by the contract clause are far more knowledgeable on the Constitution than am I and I rely on their expertise in these matters.
> 
> You don't have to like the law, but you do have to live with it.
> 
> So what's yours next argument since this one failed you miserably?
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point in questioning you. You offer no article that contradicts Article I section 10, wherein is stated that a marriage contract is exempt from Article I section 10.
> "A Nation of laws"?
> What a joke, and only spoken from the indoctrinated suckers.
> SCOTUS opinions are not law, law is established via bill signed into law. Your SCOTUS simply render opinions.
> As for these political appointees being far more knowledgeable, I can only smile in the face of foolishness.
> These political appointees render opinions that are contradictory as I have just proven to be the case, which you could not dispute that fact as presented, but only state that they are far more knowledgeable than you. I cannot contradict your statement there, as you have sheen little knowledge and great acceptance of fiction based in sheep like following. However I can state that these political appointees are nothing more than just that, holding in many cases either poor understanding of their own CONstitutional system or outright knowingly disregarding their CONstitution such as I have just pointed out to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Au contraire ... I gave you better than articles -- I gave you two court rulings which defined the Constitution's contract clause as powerless in terms of marriage contracts. I understand you wish to reject that since you built the foundation of your flimsy defense upon that clause, but seeking alternative relief because the highest authoritative voice on matter takes your knees out from under you is not going to help your flailing position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
> I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
> THANKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.
Click to expand...

you've been trolling for quite some time. Time for you to play games elsewhere


----------



## James Everett

Ple


Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> A marriage is defined in the earliest dictionary of the English language as a "contract between a man and a woman" not two citizens, not usually, but rather specifically. Such is the definition that both the founders' and the framers' would have considered in 1781 and 1787.
> In a religious ceremony there is reference to Holy Matrimony.
> In government terms it is considered a civil contract.
> Please see the 1662 example of a marriage contract which contradicts your poor assertion. In a marriage contract husband and wife are mentioned: are we now also to refi fine what is a husband and what is a wife to go against all past definitions?
> Where does such foolish folly end?
> Answer...,,
> Most likely in Babble .
> 
> 
> 
> marriage recognized by a religious institution versus a marriage between two citizens.
> 
> marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman...you keep saying same sex couples can form unions..does that mean a union is different than a marriage? in the courts rulings are made on civil contracts between two persons that have  historically been between a man and a woman exclusively. You are speaking of tradition
> 
> in law tradition is a consideration, but to deny some citizens benefits or rights other citizens have a compelling state interest must be given...that has been attempted and been laughed out of court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is different than a marriage, yet can contract a mirror image except that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. This should not be so complicated to grasp. Two words defining the sex of the couple engaged in this contract specifies the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No where has the Supreme Court ever said marriage for legal purposes was only between a man and a woman --  for legal purposes.  You people never understood a penalty for constitutional purposes functioning as a tax either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without a set definition there can be no set law. Just because the court has never stated that marriage is only between a man and a woman does not make a marriage contract open for debate on what a marriage is, nor since the court has never legally stated the definition of "is" is does not mean the definition of "is" is cow.* What you are indicating is that there is no legal definition to anything unless the court states what they deem to be the definition.* Again go back and read the 1662 marriage contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. you are misconstruing what Dante is plainly saying: there is a legal definition: a marriage contract is a civil contract of a union of two persons as one
Click to expand...

Please refer to Blacks Law dictionary of a marriage contract.


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point in questioning you. You offer no article that contradicts Article I section 10, wherein is stated that a marriage contract is exempt from Article I section 10.
> "A Nation of laws"?
> What a joke, and only spoken from the indoctrinated suckers.
> SCOTUS opinions are not law, law is established via bill signed into law. Your SCOTUS simply render opinions.
> As for these political appointees being far more knowledgeable, I can only smile in the face of foolishness.
> These political appointees render opinions that are contradictory as I have just proven to be the case, which you could not dispute that fact as presented, but only state that they are far more knowledgeable than you. I cannot contradict your statement there, as you have sheen little knowledge and great acceptance of fiction based in sheep like following. However I can state that these political appointees are nothing more than just that, holding in many cases either poor understanding of their own CONstitutional system or outright knowingly disregarding their CONstitution such as I have just pointed out to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Au contraire ... I gave you better than articles -- I gave you two court rulings which defined the Constitution's contract clause as powerless in terms of marriage contracts. I understand you wish to reject that since you built the foundation of your flimsy defense upon that clause, but seeking alternative relief because the highest authoritative voice on matter takes your knees out from under you is not going to help your flailing position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
> I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
> THANKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you've been trolling for quite some time. Time for you to play games elsewhere
Click to expand...

Please refer to Blacks law dictionary concerning the definition of a marriage contract, as well as all others.
I am Not playing games, I am posting the facts and truth.


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further, it is not denying a right when *denying a re-defining of a contract *to mean that which it does not.
> It is not a right for a man to call himself a woman when applying for a State issued D/L or any other application.
> The denial of rights would be a deprecate issue concerning the obligations of the contract that has been entered into between two individuals. A marriage contract becomes a different contract based on the sex of the individuals entering into it, it is then not a marriage contract, but rather a civil union between Bill , and Bob, yet all else aside from the sex of the contractors remains the same in obligation, words such as husband and wife would be replaced by partner (a) being Bob, and partner (B) being Bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you drunk : "*denying a re-defining of a contract " *no one's contract is being redefined. The court is NOT being asked to redefine a contract. You're making absolutely non sense here except maybe to yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1) *No, I am stating fact. The SCOTUS is being asked to grant a right to same sex couples to marry based on the 14th amendment. Correct?
> 
> *2)* If they render an opinion that same sex couples have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then they are allowing via their opinion the re- defining of a marriage contract to be that of same sex couples... Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1) *Partly, yes: not a bad primer: Five key arguments loom in gay marriage case
> 
> "To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so," the 10th Circuit majority wrote in the Utah case. "One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage."
> 
> Posner, in the unanimous 7th Circuit case, said tradition cannot be grounds for discrimination no matter how long a practice has been in effect.​*2)* No. You're a bit confused here. No problem, people on both sides are. They won't be re-defining a marriage contract to include same sex couples. They will be saying same sex couples have the same right to a marriage contract -- to marry as opposite sex couples do and bi-racial couples do.
> 
> A marriage contract as a legal document (not a tradition in society or religion) has always been color and gender neutral
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I beg to differ. Every legal definition that I have sourced states the opposite, of your assertion of gender neutrality. Every legal dictionary wherein I have sought the legal definition of a marriage contract defines such as being between a man and woman, husband and wife. Please cite your source that states otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dictionaries? I was talking about laws. Sources were cited numerous occasions. You've just chosen to ignore them
Click to expand...

Oh, now that's rich!
So legal dictionary's are irrelevant to law? That's a good one.
No surprise that you would suggest I leave, can't have facts and truth posted,now can we?


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, arguing the context of the Constitution while summarily disregarding the opinions of those with the authority to render such opinions; voids yours.
> 
> You can't construct a rational argument which is based on a clause in the Constitution while at the same time, dismiss another part of the Constitution because it destroys your position.
> 
> Like it or not, we are a nation of laws. That comes with accepting Supreme Court decisions even if you disagree with them. They stand as the law even if you have a different opinion. Their decisions are the law while yours are nothing but your opinion. Valuable to you, perhaps, but meaningless in a debate when the law has been defined.
> 
> As far as spelling out the meaning of the clause you reference. I need not. The justices who rendered the opinion that marriage contracts are not protected by the contract clause are far more knowledgeable on the Constitution than am I and I rely on their expertise in these matters.
> 
> You don't have to like the law, but you do have to live with it.
> 
> So what's yours next argument since this one failed you miserably?
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point in questioning you. You offer no article that contradicts Article I section 10, wherein is stated that a marriage contract is exempt from Article I section 10.
> "A Nation of laws"?
> What a joke, and only spoken from the indoctrinated suckers.
> SCOTUS opinions are not law, law is established via bill signed into law. Your SCOTUS simply render opinions.
> As for these political appointees being far more knowledgeable, I can only smile in the face of foolishness.
> These political appointees render opinions that are contradictory as I have just proven to be the case, which you could not dispute that fact as presented, but only state that they are far more knowledgeable than you. I cannot contradict your statement there, as you have sheen little knowledge and great acceptance of fiction based in sheep like following. However I can state that these political appointees are nothing more than just that, holding in many cases either poor understanding of their own CONstitutional system or outright knowingly disregarding their CONstitution such as I have just pointed out to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Au contraire ... I gave you better than articles -- I gave you two court rulings which defined the Constitution's contract clause as powerless in terms of marriage contracts. I understand you wish to reject that since you built the foundation of your flimsy defense upon that clause, but seeking alternative relief because the highest authoritative voice on matter takes your knees out from under you is not going to help your flailing position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
> I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
> THANKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.
Click to expand...

Do you even realize you're asking me to accept your opinion of that clause over the opinion of every justice who said it does not protect a marriage contract? Even worse for you, you are asking that of me without providing a shred of evidence corroborating your opinion.  Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that.

Now if you think you can establish a rational argument for why you're right and they're all wrong, I'll be more than happy to consider it; but so far, you've offered nothing.

Start with explaining how protecting the *obligation* of contracts extends to the contracts themselves. From there, work your way on over to explaining how protecting contractual obligations extends to contracts not yet entered in to.

G'head ... give it your best shot ... !


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point in questioning you. You offer no article that contradicts Article I section 10, wherein is stated that a marriage contract is exempt from Article I section 10.
> "A Nation of laws"?
> What a joke, and only spoken from the indoctrinated suckers.
> SCOTUS opinions are not law, law is established via bill signed into law. Your SCOTUS simply render opinions.
> As for these political appointees being far more knowledgeable, I can only smile in the face of foolishness.
> These political appointees render opinions that are contradictory as I have just proven to be the case, which you could not dispute that fact as presented, but only state that they are far more knowledgeable than you. I cannot contradict your statement there, as you have sheen little knowledge and great acceptance of fiction based in sheep like following. However I can state that these political appointees are nothing more than just that, holding in many cases either poor understanding of their own CONstitutional system or outright knowingly disregarding their CONstitution such as I have just pointed out to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Au contraire ... I gave you better than articles -- I gave you two court rulings which defined the Constitution's contract clause as powerless in terms of marriage contracts. I understand you wish to reject that since you built the foundation of your flimsy defense upon that clause, but seeking alternative relief because the highest authoritative voice on matter takes your knees out from under you is not going to help your flailing position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
> I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
> THANKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even realize you're asking me to accept your opinion of that clause over the opinion of every justice who said it does not protect a marriage contract? Even worse for you, you are asking that of me without providing a shred of evidence corroborating your opinion.  Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that.
> 
> Now if you think you can establish a rational argument for why you're right and they're all wrong, I'll be more than happy to consider it; but so far, you've offered nothing.
> 
> Start with explaining how protecting the *obligation* of contracts extends to the contracts themselves. From there, work your way on over to explaining how protecting contractual obligations extends to contracts not yet entered in to.
> 
> G'head ... give it your best shot ... !
Click to expand...

Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
Really?
A contract is a written obligation.
It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
Such is akin to blind following.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Au contraire ... I gave you better than articles -- I gave you two court rulings which defined the Constitution's contract clause as powerless in terms of marriage contracts. I understand you wish to reject that since you built the foundation of your flimsy defense upon that clause, but seeking alternative relief because the highest authoritative voice on matter takes your knees out from under you is not going to help your flailing position.
> 
> 
> 
> You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
> I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
> THANKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even realize you're asking me to accept your opinion of that clause over the opinion of every justice who said it does not protect a marriage contract? Even worse for you, you are asking that of me without providing a shred of evidence corroborating your opinion.  Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that.
> 
> Now if you think you can establish a rational argument for why you're right and they're all wrong, I'll be more than happy to consider it; but so far, you've offered nothing.
> 
> Start with explaining how protecting the *obligation* of contracts extends to the contracts themselves. From there, work your way on over to explaining how protecting contractual obligations extends to contracts not yet entered in to.
> 
> G'head ... give it your best shot ... !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
> Really?
> A contract is a written obligation.
> It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
> My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
> Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
> Such is akin to blind following.
Click to expand...

Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cited opinions that contradict Your CONstitution which is suppose to be the "supreme law" of the land. Your SCOTUS just waved their hands and dismissed Article I section 10 by stating that marriage is a contract, but not protected as a contract. All you have sheen is that your SCOTUS disregards your CONstitutions enumerations, which I already knew, and openly profess, while you even when in the face of this fact state you have done better?
> I think not. All you have done is cited another opinion by your SCOTUS that backs up my point.
> THANKS.
> 
> 
> 
> You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even realize you're asking me to accept your opinion of that clause over the opinion of every justice who said it does not protect a marriage contract? Even worse for you, you are asking that of me without providing a shred of evidence corroborating your opinion.  Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that.
> 
> Now if you think you can establish a rational argument for why you're right and they're all wrong, I'll be more than happy to consider it; but so far, you've offered nothing.
> 
> Start with explaining how protecting the *obligation* of contracts extends to the contracts themselves. From there, work your way on over to explaining how protecting contractual obligations extends to contracts not yet entered in to.
> 
> G'head ... give it your best shot ... !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
> Really?
> A contract is a written obligation.
> It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
> My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
> Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
> Such is akin to blind following.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?
Click to expand...

You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such. 
You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.


----------



## Faun

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have offered no evidence whatsoever that they (and that's "they" as in plural as several justices reached the same opinion) are wrong and you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even realize you're asking me to accept your opinion of that clause over the opinion of every justice who said it does not protect a marriage contract? Even worse for you, you are asking that of me without providing a shred of evidence corroborating your opinion.  Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that.
> 
> Now if you think you can establish a rational argument for why you're right and they're all wrong, I'll be more than happy to consider it; but so far, you've offered nothing.
> 
> Start with explaining how protecting the *obligation* of contracts extends to the contracts themselves. From there, work your way on over to explaining how protecting contractual obligations extends to contracts not yet entered in to.
> 
> G'head ... give it your best shot ... !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
> Really?
> A contract is a written obligation.
> It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
> My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
> Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
> Such is akin to blind following.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
> By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
> You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.
Click to expand...

Not at all. *You said, *_"it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."_

Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you drunk : "*denying a re-defining of a contract " *no one's contract is being redefined. The court is NOT being asked to redefine a contract. You're making absolutely non sense here except maybe to yourself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1) *No, I am stating fact. The SCOTUS is being asked to grant a right to same sex couples to marry based on the 14th amendment. Correct?
> 
> *2)* If they render an opinion that same sex couples have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then they are allowing via their opinion the re- defining of a marriage contract to be that of same sex couples... Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1) *Partly, yes: not a bad primer: Five key arguments loom in gay marriage case
> 
> "To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so," the 10th Circuit majority wrote in the Utah case. "One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage."
> 
> Posner, in the unanimous 7th Circuit case, said tradition cannot be grounds for discrimination no matter how long a practice has been in effect.​*2)* No. You're a bit confused here. No problem, people on both sides are. They won't be re-defining a marriage contract to include same sex couples. They will be saying same sex couples have the same right to a marriage contract -- to marry as opposite sex couples do and bi-racial couples do.
> 
> A marriage contract as a legal document (not a tradition in society or religion) has always been color and gender neutral
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I beg to differ. Every legal definition that I have sourced states the opposite, of your assertion of gender neutrality. Every legal dictionary wherein I have sought the legal definition of a marriage contract defines such as being between a man and woman, husband and wife. Please cite your source that states otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dictionaries? I was talking about laws. Sources were cited numerous occasions. You've just chosen to ignore them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, now that's rich!
> So legal dictionary's are irrelevant to law? That's a good one.
> No surprise that you would suggest I leave, can't have facts and truth posted,now can we?
Click to expand...

You've purposefully ignored everything people have posted that contradicts your insanity

whatever your issues are they are not about entering into a rational and reasonable debate or argument.

you're a troll and a poor one at that


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1) *No, I am stating fact. The SCOTUS is being asked to grant a right to same sex couples to marry based on the 14th amendment. Correct?
> 
> *2)* If they render an opinion that same sex couples have a right to enter into a marriage contract, then they are allowing via their opinion the re- defining of a marriage contract to be that of same sex couples... Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1) *Partly, yes: not a bad primer: Five key arguments loom in gay marriage case
> 
> "To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so," the 10th Circuit majority wrote in the Utah case. "One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage."
> 
> Posner, in the unanimous 7th Circuit case, said tradition cannot be grounds for discrimination no matter how long a practice has been in effect.​*2)* No. You're a bit confused here. No problem, people on both sides are. They won't be re-defining a marriage contract to include same sex couples. They will be saying same sex couples have the same right to a marriage contract -- to marry as opposite sex couples do and bi-racial couples do.
> 
> A marriage contract as a legal document (not a tradition in society or religion) has always been color and gender neutral
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I beg to differ. Every legal definition that I have sourced states the opposite, of your assertion of gender neutrality. Every legal dictionary wherein I have sought the legal definition of a marriage contract defines such as being between a man and woman, husband and wife. Please cite your source that states otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dictionaries? I was talking about laws. Sources were cited numerous occasions. You've just chosen to ignore them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, now that's rich!
> So legal dictionary's are irrelevant to law? That's a good one.
> No surprise that you would suggest I leave, can't have facts and truth posted,now can we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've purposefully ignored everything people have posted that contradicts your insanity
> 
> whatever your issues are they are not about entering into a rational and reasonable debate or argument.
> 
> you're a troll and a poor one at that
Click to expand...

No, 
You are simply attempting to sidestep, because you have lost.
The legal definition of a marriage via every legal dictionary is a contract between a man and a woman, and the only way for same sex couples to enter into a marriage contract would be to change the definition.
You deny this, claiming that marriage has nothing to do with the sex of the couple according to the courts, yet legal definitions are what the courts refer to in any case concerning such.
You are crying and calling me a troll, because you have no case to defeat the facts that I have presented. I never addressed you first, you addressed me, and continue to do so, hence you would be the troll here. Stop whining and face the truth.


----------



## James Everett

Faun said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but I sourced your own CONstitutions Article I section 10, as evidence that I am correct and that your SCOTUS disregards that Article and section without cause.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even realize you're asking me to accept your opinion of that clause over the opinion of every justice who said it does not protect a marriage contract? Even worse for you, you are asking that of me without providing a shred of evidence corroborating your opinion.  Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that.
> 
> Now if you think you can establish a rational argument for why you're right and they're all wrong, I'll be more than happy to consider it; but so far, you've offered nothing.
> 
> Start with explaining how protecting the *obligation* of contracts extends to the contracts themselves. From there, work your way on over to explaining how protecting contractual obligations extends to contracts not yet entered in to.
> 
> G'head ... give it your best shot ... !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
> Really?
> A contract is a written obligation.
> It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
> My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
> Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
> Such is akin to blind following.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
> By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
> You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. *You said, *_"it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."_
> 
> Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.
Click to expand...

Your CONstitution cannot protect a contract yet to be established, and same sex couples cannot enter into a marriage contract because they do not fit the qualifications based on the fact that they are if the same sex. They may however contract a same sex partnership that mirrors a marriage contract in wording other that certain references to the sex of the individuals must be changed, as a man is not a woman, a husband is not a woman, and a wife is not a man. Once those terms are changed to fit same de couples, it is no longer a marriage contract, but rather a civil union partnership, and that contract holds the same protections under Article I section 10. The obligations of any contract not yet established can possibly be impaired, because it does not yet exist.
Now, I have typed this very s l o w l y so please read very slowly so that this time you may grasp the facts presented.


----------



## PratchettFan

James Everett said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even realize you're asking me to accept your opinion of that clause over the opinion of every justice who said it does not protect a marriage contract? Even worse for you, you are asking that of me without providing a shred of evidence corroborating your opinion.  Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that.
> 
> Now if you think you can establish a rational argument for why you're right and they're all wrong, I'll be more than happy to consider it; but so far, you've offered nothing.
> 
> Start with explaining how protecting the *obligation* of contracts extends to the contracts themselves. From there, work your way on over to explaining how protecting contractual obligations extends to contracts not yet entered in to.
> 
> G'head ... give it your best shot ... !
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
> Really?
> A contract is a written obligation.
> It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
> My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
> Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
> Such is akin to blind following.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
> By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
> You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. *You said, *_"it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."_
> 
> Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your CONstitution cannot protect a contract yet to be established, and same sex couples cannot enter into a marriage contract because they do not fit the qualifications based on the fact that they are if the same sex. They may however contract a same sex partnership that mirrors a marriage contract in wording other that certain references to the sex of the individuals must be changed, as a man is not a woman, a husband is not a woman, and a wife is not a man. Once those terms are changed to fit same de couples, it is no longer a marriage contract, but rather a civil union partnership, and that contract holds the same protections under Article I section 10. The obligations of any contract not yet established can possibly be impaired, because it does not yet exist.
> Now, I have typed this very s l o w l y so please read very slowly so that this time you may grasp the facts presented.
Click to expand...

 
Out of curiosity, you keep using the word "your".  "Your Constitution", "your SCOTUS", etc.  I take it you are not a US citizen?


----------



## Dante

PratchettFan said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
> Really?
> A contract is a written obligation.
> It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
> My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
> Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
> Such is akin to blind following.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
> By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
> You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. *You said, *_"it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."_
> 
> Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your CONstitution cannot protect a contract yet to be established, and same sex couples cannot enter into a marriage contract because they do not fit the qualifications based on the fact that they are if the same sex. They may however contract a same sex partnership that mirrors a marriage contract in wording other that certain references to the sex of the individuals must be changed, as a man is not a woman, a husband is not a woman, and a wife is not a man. Once those terms are changed to fit same de couples, it is no longer a marriage contract, but rather a civil union partnership, and that contract holds the same protections under Article I section 10. The obligations of any contract not yet established can possibly be impaired, because it does not yet exist.
> Now, I have typed this very s l o w l y so please read very slowly so that this time you may grasp the facts presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, you keep using the word "your".  "Your Constitution", "your SCOTUS", etc.  I take it you are not a US citizen?
Click to expand...

HE's a mentally retarded Confederate Ghost


----------



## Dante

The reasoning behind DOMA?

It was an acknowledgement the idea behind the concept that marriage contracts can only be between a man and a woman was not a sound legal argument. DOMA was A long time before the same sex marriage case in Massachusetts


----------



## James Everett

PratchettFan said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how an obligation extends to a contract?
> Really?
> A contract is a written obligation.
> It is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into.
> My rational argument is the simple text in Article I section 10, a marriage is a contract, your SCOTUS admits this, and then states that it's obligations are not protected under that very article and section from diminishment by the State.
> Now, were the arguments reversed, you would be stating that I am a fool and your SCOTUS correct.
> Such is akin to blind following.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
> By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
> You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. *You said, *_"it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."_
> 
> Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your CONstitution cannot protect a contract yet to be established, and same sex couples cannot enter into a marriage contract because they do not fit the qualifications based on the fact that they are if the same sex. They may however contract a same sex partnership that mirrors a marriage contract in wording other that certain references to the sex of the individuals must be changed, as a man is not a woman, a husband is not a woman, and a wife is not a man. Once those terms are changed to fit same de couples, it is no longer a marriage contract, but rather a civil union partnership, and that contract holds the same protections under Article I section 10. The obligations of any contract not yet established can possibly be impaired, because it does not yet exist.
> Now, I have typed this very s l o w l y so please read very slowly so that this time you may grasp the facts presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, you keep using the word "your".  "Your Constitution", "your SCOTUS", etc.  I take it you are not a US citizen?
Click to expand...

I shall explain.....
It is a self evident truth that governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I was born, and reside in Tennessee, I am a Tennessean, hence an American citizen. Your U.S. Government claims me as a corporate U.S. Citizen by birth via your 14th amendment. I do not willfully grant my consent to your U.S. Government, nor do I willfully participate in any way in Your governments political process. Hence it does not have my voluntary consent to govern, thus is not my government, I am simply coerced to live under it via duress. See Blacks law dictionary for the definitions of coercion and duress.
The system of government that exists today is not that of the founders' nor that of the framers' of your CONstitution, it is a perversion thereof.


----------



## Dante

talk about krazy talk


Whooeee


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?
> 
> 
> 
> You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
> By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
> You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. *You said, *_"it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."_
> 
> Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your CONstitution cannot protect a contract yet to be established, and same sex couples cannot enter into a marriage contract because they do not fit the qualifications based on the fact that they are if the same sex. They may however contract a same sex partnership that mirrors a marriage contract in wording other that certain references to the sex of the individuals must be changed, as a man is not a woman, a husband is not a woman, and a wife is not a man. Once those terms are changed to fit same de couples, it is no longer a marriage contract, but rather a civil union partnership, and that contract holds the same protections under Article I section 10. The obligations of any contract not yet established can possibly be impaired, because it does not yet exist.
> Now, I have typed this very s l o w l y so please read very slowly so that this time you may grasp the facts presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, you keep using the word "your".  "Your Constitution", "your SCOTUS", etc.  I take it you are not a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I shall explain.....
> It is a self evident truth that governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
> I was born, and reside in Tennessee, I am a Tennessean, hence an American citizen. Your U.S. Government claims me as a corporate U.S. Citizen by birth via your 14th amendment. I do not willfully grant my consent to your U.S. Government, nor do I willfully participate in any way in Your governments political process. Hence it does not have my voluntary consent to govern, thus is not my government, I am simply coerced to live under it via duress. See Blacks law dictionary for the definitions of coercion and duress.
> The system of government that exists today is not that of the founders' nor that of the framers' of your CONstitution, it is a perversion thereof.
Click to expand...

can we save this for posterity?


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?
> 
> 
> 
> You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
> By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
> You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. *You said, *_"it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."_
> 
> Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your CONstitution cannot protect a contract yet to be established, and same sex couples cannot enter into a marriage contract because they do not fit the qualifications based on the fact that they are if the same sex. They may however contract a same sex partnership that mirrors a marriage contract in wording other that certain references to the sex of the individuals must be changed, as a man is not a woman, a husband is not a woman, and a wife is not a man. Once those terms are changed to fit same de couples, it is no longer a marriage contract, but rather a civil union partnership, and that contract holds the same protections under Article I section 10. The obligations of any contract not yet established can possibly be impaired, because it does not yet exist.
> Now, I have typed this very s l o w l y so please read very slowly so that this time you may grasp the facts presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, you keep using the word "your".  "Your Constitution", "your SCOTUS", etc.  I take it you are not a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HE's a mentally retarded Confederate Ghost
Click to expand...

So sad DANTE, 
That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.
Your pseudo intellectual jargon has been proven incorrect with my simple citing of the facts and truth, hence you have resorted to this pathetic attempt at insulting me. It's similar to those who post the childish faces to accompany their verbiage thinking that such childishness validates their point.
I point to the contradiction, and fiction established by your SCOTUS, I apologize for offending you with truth and facts. You attempted to state that the case had nothing to do with the definition of a marriage contract, and I proved you to be incorrect. All that you need do is man up and admit that you were wrong, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and have always done so in the past when shewn to be incorrect. I unlike you do not feel the need to resort to insults when I have been proven wrong.
Yes it is true that I am a Confederate, and yes it is true that I believe the Articles of Confederation and that wholly federal system are the better system for a union of States. Anyone who believes in a union of States, which is a. Confederacy of States is a Confederate supporter. Your current government is a wholly national system wherein the States have been consolidated into a single national government. You simply accept fiction as fact. For example....
Your Presidents assume the power to make law under the fictional executive order, that exists no where in Your CONstitution, and you cannot explain the limits on that fictional power, yet you will argue that such exists lawfully. Don't hate the messenger of TRUTH.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> So sad DANTE,
> That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.


get over yourself


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> So sad DANTE,
> That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.
> 
> Your pseudo intellectual jargon has been proven incorrect with my simple citing of the facts and truth, hence you have resorted to this pathetic attempt at insulting me. It's similar to those who post the childish faces to accompany their verbiage thinking that such childishness validates their point.
> 
> I point to the contradiction, and fiction established by your SCOTUS, I apologize for offending you with truth and facts. You attempted to state that the case had nothing to do with the definition of a marriage contract, and I proved you to be incorrect. All that you need do is man up and admit that you were wrong, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and have always done so in the past when shewn to be incorrect. I unlike you do not feel the need to resort to insults when I have been proven wrong.
> 
> Yes it is true that I am a Confederate, and yes it is true that I believe the Articles of Confederation and that wholly federal system are the better system for a union of States. Anyone who believes in a union of States, which is a. Confederacy of States is a Confederate supporter. Your current government is a wholly national system wherein the States have been consolidated into a single national government.
> 
> You simply accept fiction as fact. For example....
> Your Presidents assume the power to make law under the fictional executive order, that exists no where in Your CONstitution, and you cannot explain the limits on that fictional power, yet you will argue that such exists lawfully. Don't hate the messenger of TRUTH.


wow!

a true case of something on display


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sad DANTE,
> That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.
> 
> Your pseudo intellectual jargon has been proven incorrect with my simple citing of the facts and truth, hence you have resorted to this pathetic attempt at insulting me. It's similar to those who post the childish faces to accompany their verbiage thinking that such childishness validates their point.
> 
> I point to the contradiction, and fiction established by your SCOTUS, I apologize for offending you with truth and facts. You attempted to state that the case had nothing to do with the definition of a marriage contract, and I proved you to be incorrect. All that you need do is man up and admit that you were wrong, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and have always done so in the past when shewn to be incorrect. I unlike you do not feel the need to resort to insults when I have been proven wrong.
> 
> Yes it is true that I am a Confederate, and yes it is true that I believe the Articles of Confederation and that wholly federal system are the better system for a union of States. Anyone who believes in a union of States, which is a. Confederacy of States is a Confederate supporter. Your current government is a wholly national system wherein the States have been consolidated into a single national government.
> 
> You simply accept fiction as fact. For example....
> Your Presidents assume the power to make law under the fictional executive order, that exists no where in Your CONstitution, and you cannot explain the limits on that fictional power, yet you will argue that such exists lawfully. Don't hate the messenger of TRUTH.
> 
> 
> 
> wow!
> 
> a true case of something on display
Click to expand...

It's called TRUTH, that is what is on display.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sad DANTE,
> That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.
> 
> Your pseudo intellectual jargon has been proven incorrect with my simple citing of the facts and truth, hence you have resorted to this pathetic attempt at insulting me. It's similar to those who post the childish faces to accompany their verbiage thinking that such childishness validates their point.
> 
> I point to the contradiction, and fiction established by your SCOTUS, I apologize for offending you with truth and facts. You attempted to state that the case had nothing to do with the definition of a marriage contract, and I proved you to be incorrect. All that you need do is man up and admit that you were wrong, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and have always done so in the past when shewn to be incorrect. I unlike you do not feel the need to resort to insults when I have been proven wrong.
> 
> Yes it is true that I am a Confederate, and yes it is true that I believe the Articles of Confederation and that wholly federal system are the better system for a union of States. Anyone who believes in a union of States, which is a. Confederacy of States is a Confederate supporter. Your current government is a wholly national system wherein the States have been consolidated into a single national government.
> 
> You simply accept fiction as fact. For example....
> Your Presidents assume the power to make law under the fictional executive order, that exists no where in Your CONstitution, and you cannot explain the limits on that fictional power, yet you will argue that such exists lawfully. Don't hate the messenger of TRUTH.
> 
> 
> 
> wow!
> 
> a true case of something on display
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called TRUTH, that is what is on display.
Click to expand...

what is amazing is how much a caricature of a caricature you are.

simply amazing


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sad DANTE,
> That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.
> 
> 
> 
> get over yourself
Click to expand...

Well, at least your past the pathetic insult stage.


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sad DANTE,
> That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.
> 
> Your pseudo intellectual jargon has been proven incorrect with my simple citing of the facts and truth, hence you have resorted to this pathetic attempt at insulting me. It's similar to those who post the childish faces to accompany their verbiage thinking that such childishness validates their point.
> 
> I point to the contradiction, and fiction established by your SCOTUS, I apologize for offending you with truth and facts. You attempted to state that the case had nothing to do with the definition of a marriage contract, and I proved you to be incorrect. All that you need do is man up and admit that you were wrong, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and have always done so in the past when shewn to be incorrect. I unlike you do not feel the need to resort to insults when I have been proven wrong.
> 
> Yes it is true that I am a Confederate, and yes it is true that I believe the Articles of Confederation and that wholly federal system are the better system for a union of States. Anyone who believes in a union of States, which is a. Confederacy of States is a Confederate supporter. Your current government is a wholly national system wherein the States have been consolidated into a single national government.
> 
> You simply accept fiction as fact. For example....
> Your Presidents assume the power to make law under the fictional executive order, that exists no where in Your CONstitution, and you cannot explain the limits on that fictional power, yet you will argue that such exists lawfully. Don't hate the messenger of TRUTH.
> 
> 
> 
> wow!
> 
> a true case of something on display
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called TRUTH, that is what is on display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is amazing is how much a caricature of a caricature you are.
> 
> simply amazing
Click to expand...

Oh, bounce back to pathetic insults huh?
Look, why not post something of relevance to the discussion, or have you exhausted your ability to continue spreading fiction as fact?


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sad DANTE,
> That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.
> 
> 
> 
> get over yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, at least your past the pathetic insult stage.
Click to expand...

why are you so crazy? are there others nearby you? do you get together and do things?


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sad DANTE,
> That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.
> 
> Your pseudo intellectual jargon has been proven incorrect with my simple citing of the facts and truth, hence you have resorted to this pathetic attempt at insulting me. It's similar to those who post the childish faces to accompany their verbiage thinking that such childishness validates their point.
> 
> I point to the contradiction, and fiction established by your SCOTUS, I apologize for offending you with truth and facts. You attempted to state that the case had nothing to do with the definition of a marriage contract, and I proved you to be incorrect. All that you need do is man up and admit that you were wrong, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and have always done so in the past when shewn to be incorrect. I unlike you do not feel the need to resort to insults when I have been proven wrong.
> 
> Yes it is true that I am a Confederate, and yes it is true that I believe the Articles of Confederation and that wholly federal system are the better system for a union of States. Anyone who believes in a union of States, which is a. Confederacy of States is a Confederate supporter. Your current government is a wholly national system wherein the States have been consolidated into a single national government.
> 
> You simply accept fiction as fact. For example....
> Your Presidents assume the power to make law under the fictional executive order, that exists no where in Your CONstitution, and you cannot explain the limits on that fictional power, yet you will argue that such exists lawfully. Don't hate the messenger of TRUTH.
> 
> 
> 
> wow!
> 
> a true case of something on display
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called TRUTH, that is what is on display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is amazing is how much a caricature of a caricature you are.
> 
> simply amazing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, bounce back to pathetic insults huh?
> Look, why not post something of relevance to the discussion, or have you exhausted your ability to continue spreading fiction as fact?
Click to expand...

your persona is much more interesting and entertaining than any silly thread subject


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sad DANTE,
> That you feel so desperate that you need resort to insults.
> 
> Your pseudo intellectual jargon has been proven incorrect with my simple citing of the facts and truth, hence you have resorted to this pathetic attempt at insulting me. It's similar to those who post the childish faces to accompany their verbiage thinking that such childishness validates their point.
> 
> I point to the contradiction, and fiction established by your SCOTUS, I apologize for offending you with truth and facts. You attempted to state that the case had nothing to do with the definition of a marriage contract, and I proved you to be incorrect. All that you need do is man up and admit that you were wrong, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and have always done so in the past when shewn to be incorrect. I unlike you do not feel the need to resort to insults when I have been proven wrong.
> 
> Yes it is true that I am a Confederate, and yes it is true that I believe the Articles of Confederation and that wholly federal system are the better system for a union of States. Anyone who believes in a union of States, which is a. Confederacy of States is a Confederate supporter. Your current government is a wholly national system wherein the States have been consolidated into a single national government.
> 
> You simply accept fiction as fact. For example....
> Your Presidents assume the power to make law under the fictional executive order, that exists no where in Your CONstitution, and you cannot explain the limits on that fictional power, yet you will argue that such exists lawfully. Don't hate the messenger of TRUTH.
> 
> 
> 
> wow!
> 
> a true case of something on display
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called TRUTH, that is what is on display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is amazing is how much a caricature of a caricature you are.
> 
> simply amazing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, bounce back to pathetic insults huh?
> Look, why not post something of relevance to the discussion, or have you exhausted your ability to continue spreading fiction as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your persona is much more interesting and entertaining than any silly thread subject
Click to expand...

Well, that's sweet that you find me so interesting. But then you know as little about me as you do about the subject of this thread, therefore the conversation would be all one sided.
You can find all that you need to know through my articles at CSAgov.org


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow!
> 
> a true case of something on display
> 
> 
> 
> It's called TRUTH, that is what is on display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is amazing is how much a caricature of a caricature you are.
> 
> simply amazing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, bounce back to pathetic insults huh?
> Look, why not post something of relevance to the discussion, or have you exhausted your ability to continue spreading fiction as fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your persona is much more interesting and entertaining than any silly thread subject
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that's sweet that you find me so interesting. But then you know as little about me as you do about the subject of this thread, therefore the conversation would be all one sided.
> You can find all that you need to know through my articles at CSAgov.org
Click to expand...

think I've been there


----------



## Dante

been to: csagov.org  csagovernment.org  csa.systekproof.com

but not to FB page


----------



## James Everett

Dante said:


> been to: csagov.org  csagovernment.org  csa.systekproof.com
> 
> but not to FB page


CSAgovernment.org 
Is a fake site created by two individuals from Indiana to create confusion.
If you wish to deviate further from this thread into discussion other than, you should take it to the FB page, as here is for a specific discussion.


----------



## Dante

James Everett said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> been to: csagov.org  csagovernment.org  csa.systekproof.com
> 
> but not to FB page
> 
> 
> 
> CSAgovernment.org
> Is a fake site created by two individuals from Indiana to create confusion.
> If you wish to deviate further from this thread into discussion other than, you should take it to the FB page, as here is for a specific discussion.
Click to expand...

*The 14th Amendment Requires Same-Sex Marriage Be Recognized As Constitutionally Legal *


----------



## natstew

TheOldSchool said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why has this issue been conceded to gays when the whole premise is questionable? Allowing homosexuals  offspring by either artificial insemination  or adoption  outright is artifice, it's a phony self sustaining  argument. Homosexuals don't need marriage because  THEY THEM THEMSELF  can not nor  will  they ever  be able to reproduce within their own sex. Biology 101. Why all the games? Hence, no need for marriage. it's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice viewpoint.  Too bad that dog won't be hunting anywhere!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad facts put people off. Hunt were you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool
> 
> Keep saying those "facts" to yourself when same sex marriage is legal across the land!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Across the land? Wrong?  And on what planet do people that can't naturally reproduce need marriage, and for reason do they "NEED it"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 37 states, and soon to be 50
Click to expand...


And how many of those  states voted for it? One, or maybe two? it was done by Homo judges and violates the Constitution.


----------



## PratchettFan

James Everett said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me your rational argument applies to existing contracts, not contracts not entered into. So of course I'm confused why you think the Constitution's Contract Clause applies to future marriage contracts between two men or two women?
> 
> 
> 
> You simply seem to be unable to comprehend simple logic.
> By legal definition, a marriage contract is specific to a man and a woman, such does not deny a same sex couple to contract the equivalent obligations between themselves, yet such is not by legal, historical, and traditional definition a marriage contract which requires the party's entering into it to be of the opposite sex to fulfill the definition of such.
> You seem to be of the misunderstanding that unless the same sex contract is labeled by definition a marriage contract that the obligations therein are somehow being impaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. *You said, *_"it is impossible to impair a contractual obligation before that contract is made, however a State cannot diminish the obligations of that contract once it is entered into."_
> 
> Meaning you admit the Constitution's contract clause offers no protection to marriage contracts for same-sex couples who have not yet entered into marriage. At least you finally admit that clause is irrelevant in terms of people who haven't gotten married yet. That's a start anyway. That also means it's irrelevant for gay couples to join in marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your CONstitution cannot protect a contract yet to be established, and same sex couples cannot enter into a marriage contract because they do not fit the qualifications based on the fact that they are if the same sex. They may however contract a same sex partnership that mirrors a marriage contract in wording other that certain references to the sex of the individuals must be changed, as a man is not a woman, a husband is not a woman, and a wife is not a man. Once those terms are changed to fit same de couples, it is no longer a marriage contract, but rather a civil union partnership, and that contract holds the same protections under Article I section 10. The obligations of any contract not yet established can possibly be impaired, because it does not yet exist.
> Now, I have typed this very s l o w l y so please read very slowly so that this time you may grasp the facts presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, you keep using the word "your".  "Your Constitution", "your SCOTUS", etc.  I take it you are not a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I shall explain.....
> It is a self evident truth that governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
> I was born, and reside in Tennessee, I am a Tennessean, hence an American citizen. Your U.S. Government claims me as a corporate U.S. Citizen by birth via your 14th amendment. I do not willfully grant my consent to your U.S. Government, nor do I willfully participate in any way in Your governments political process. Hence it does not have my voluntary consent to govern, thus is not my government, I am simply coerced to live under it via duress. See Blacks law dictionary for the definitions of coercion and duress.
> The system of government that exists today is not that of the founders' nor that of the framers' of your CONstitution, it is a perversion thereof.
Click to expand...

 
Well, as long as you're being coerced, then that's ok.


----------

