# Breaking News:  Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.

First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.

Second, and more importantly, all of those states had a stay on their rulings until the Supreme Court acted.  Well, guess what?  It just did.  So, the stays in all of those states are about to run out.

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

*Supreme Court declines to hear gay marriages case in surprise move*


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

wonderful news for individual rights


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

> This morning the Court issued additional orders from its September 29 Conference.   Most notably, the Court denied review of all seven of the petitions arising from challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage.  This means that the lower-court decisions striking down bans in Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia should go into effect shortly, clearing the way for same-sex marriages in those states and any other state with similar bans in those circuits.



Today 8217 s orders Same-sex marriage petitions denied SCOTUSblog


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

Yep, they love activist Judges in their black robes until it comes to hobby lobby or something

this means nothing. You can't force a STATE to do anything even though you all love to stomp on the voters who lives in them and votes down homosexual marriage. scratch a liberal find a fascist


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> > This morning the Court issued additional orders from its September 29 Conference.   Most notably, the Court denied review of all seven of the petitions arising from challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage.  This means that the lower-court decisions striking down bans in Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia should go into effect shortly, clearing the way for same-sex marriages in those states and any other state with similar bans in those circuits.
> 
> 
> 
> Today 8217 s orders Same-sex marriage petitions denied SCOTUSblog


Thanks.  Took me a while, but I finally found a link.  I hate posting a "Current Events" story without a link.


----------



## AceRothstein (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Yep, they love activist Judges in their black robes until it comes to hobby lobby or something
> 
> this means nothing. You can't force a STATE to do anything.


Only took four posts until activist judges were mentioned.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Not sure why this happened. By taking the cases they could have set precedent for the entire country, now the rulings vary by which circuit the original cases were held in.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Oh, shit!  I'm hearing a commentator suggesting that this doesn't become the law of the land in those states, but in *the entire district that each of those federal district court holds jurisdiction over*.  That means, the bans still in place in 11 other states in those district also become invalid!


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Not sure why this happened. By taking the cases they could have set precedent for the entire country, now the rulings vary by which circuit the original cases were held in.



they did set precedent. their refusal to take the cases is equal to affirming their decisions. they have no reason to take the cases. there was no disagreement among the circuits and they were satisfied with the result.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 6, 2014)

I never thought the Supreme Court would rule on any of these cases.  They learned their lesson with Roe v Wade.  They won't repeat it with same sex marriage. 

It looks like the activists that wanted a ruling legalizing same sex marriage in the whole of the US are just out of luck.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Oh, shit!  I'm hearing a commentator suggesting that this doesn't become the law of the land in those states, but in *the entire district that each of those federal district court holds jurisdiction over*.  That means, the bans still in place in 11 other states in those district also become invalid!



and what do you think happens to the bans when challenged in other parts of the state?


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> I never thought the Supreme Court would rule on any of these cases.  They learned their lesson with Roe v Wade.  They won't repeat it with same sex marriage.
> 
> It looks like the activists that wanted a ruling legalizing same sex marriage in the whole of the US are just out of luck.



please stop commenting about things you haven't an ounce of understanding about.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Not sure why this happened. By taking the cases they could have set precedent for the entire country, now the rulings vary by which circuit the original cases were held in.


Well, by not taking the case, they have set the precedent for those 7 circuits.  Which will bring the count of states without same sex ban to 31.  Clearly, those who oppose marriage equality are losing this fight.

It should also be noted that the Court said it will not hear any of the cases *during this session*.  As I understand it, this still leaves them the option to pick any of the cases up at a later time...


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > I never thought the Supreme Court would rule on any of these cases.  They learned their lesson with Roe v Wade.  They won't repeat it with same sex marriage.
> ...


Coming from YOU?  Really.  YOU?


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



I understand you're one of the stupidest people on the board. you should probably back away from your keyboard now. you're getting drool over it.

and your insanity does not diminish me in the least. 

but thanks for playing.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > I never thought the Supreme Court would rule on any of these cases.  They learned their lesson with Roe v Wade.  They won't repeat it with same sex marriage.
> ...


Okay...I'm comfuzzled...how come I'm not seeing that post by Katzndogs?  Not that it matters.  His silly post was handled rather adroitly.

ON EDIT:  Never mind...it just showed up...


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> wonderful news for individual rights



Unless you are a baker or a photographer.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



have you placed it on ignore. that's probably wise. I just can't be bothered.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...



bakers and photographers are subject to the same public accommodation laws as everyone else. they can be bigots in their own homes, however. 

your individual rights end at the nose of others.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > I never thought the Supreme Court would rule on any of these cases.  They learned their lesson with Roe v Wade.  They won't repeat it with same sex marriage.
> ...



Please become an attorney before you tell others to shut up and then stop bother all of us


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> I never thought the Supreme Court would rule on any of these cases.  They learned their lesson with Roe v Wade.  They won't repeat it with same sex marriage.
> 
> It looks like the activists that wanted a ruling legalizing same sex marriage in the whole of the US are just out of luck.


Well...not really.  It's just going to be a slower process.  The courts are letting it be done circuit by circuit.  Guess what?  That's working, too.  It's just taking longer.  That's fine with me.  The activists who want to keep gays from enjoying the same rights, and privileges as everyone else are clearly losing this fight.  Marriage equality will now clearly be the law of the land in well over half of the country.  The rest is bound to follow.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 6, 2014)

States are now free to replace judges and legislatures and make a different decision if they wish.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



you need to stop while you're ahead


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



So basically you have to hide in your hole if your belief structure is different from the ruling class. 

Got it. 

I have to think the next fight has to be removing public accommodation laws, or at least limiting them to necessary commerce, not "everything"


----------



## R.D. (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Oh, shit!  I'm hearing a commentator suggesting that this doesn't become the law of the land in those states, but in *the entire district that each of those federal district court holds jurisdiction over*.  That means, the bans still in place in 11 other states in those district also become invalid!


Which is why it's better to understand what  things mean before acting like a faith bashing ass


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



you don't have to hide your bigotry at all. in fact, I think bigotry should  be out in the open so others know what they're dealing with.

they simply have to abide by the law. and the law provides that public accommodation should not be denied based on discriminatory reasons. 

or should we go relitigate the entire end of jim crow?


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, shit!  I'm hearing a commentator suggesting that this doesn't become the law of the land in those states, but in *the entire district that each of those federal district court holds jurisdiction over*.  That means, the bans still in place in 11 other states in those district also become invalid!
> ...




what do you *think* it means?


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS



states don't get to violate the federal constitution

you're welcome steffie baby.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 6, 2014)

When given a chance to rule on one of the most significant issues of their tenure, our justices decide to punt

Looks like they will allow the issue to slowly work its way out before they rule after it is already a done deal


----------



## mdk (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...



If you are baker or photographer and have a business in a state that covers gays in Public Accommodation Laws then you have to follow the law. You can't offer a public service and then deny service for those covered under PA laws.

 Several years ago Muslims cabbies refuses fares on the grounds that it violated their faith. They were violating PA law and ordered not to do so again. That was seen a slap against "creeping sharia" and radical Islam. Christian bakers were told they also can't use their faith as an excuse to deny a public service in states where gays are protected. Some of those same people that cheered the outcome against Muslims cabbies are now hypocritically crying about how their religious freedoms are stomped on. They can't have it both ways.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS
> ...


 and you call yourself an attorney. just awful


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> States are now free to replace judges and legislatures and make a different decision if they wish.


Except these weren't *state courts*.  These were *federal circuit courts*, and  *federal appeals courts*.  Nice thought thought.  And, I'm glad to see right-wing activists admitting that they want to install activist judges that will be more interested in supporting an agenda, than they are the law.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> It should also be noted that the Court said it will not hear any of the cases *during this session*.  As I understand it, this still leaves them the option to pick any of the cases up at a later time...




Regarding: "As I understand it, this still leaves them the option to pick any of the cases up at a later time..."

That is incorrect.  Once cert is denied, that is the end of the case.  There is no "case to pick up later".

Now a different case under different conditions could be "picked-up" under different legal considerations, but these cases are dead.


As an example of what would be "different legal conditions", the current requests were from the 10th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Courts.  The 6th Circuit Court has heard arguments but has not issued an opinion.  **IF** they were to uphold a ban and that ruling was appealed you would then have a split in the Circuit Courts, the losing side of the 6th Circuits case could appeal to the SCOTUS and you would then have a "split" in the Circuit Courts the SCOTUS would have to address.



>>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS



It was accepted long ago that the Supreme Court made a very bad decision when it legalized abortion with the decision in Roe v. Wade.  That decision is what set every subsequent battle over abortion rights.  That's why they refused to hear these cases and left it to the states.   If they had left abortion as a decision to be made by the states none of that would have happened.   These justices weren't about to repeat that mistake which would drag every same sex marriage challenge to the federal level just like abortion has been dragged to the federal level.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, shit!  I'm hearing a commentator suggesting that this doesn't become the law of the land in those states, but in *the entire district that each of those federal district court holds jurisdiction over*.  That means, the bans still in place in 11 other states in those district also become invalid!
> ...


Not once did I bash a faith.  I bashed fanatics who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their faith as a matter of law.  The only people who don't know the difference are the fanatics.  Are *you* a fanatic R.D.?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS




States don't have "rights".  Under the 9th Amendment people have rights, under the 10th Amendment States have "powers".



>>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

>




It always been one of the possibilities (accept writ, reject writ, and delay review to a later conference).


But I didn't think they had to balls to flat out refuse to review the case.


Under the "Rule of Four" it takes only 4 Justices of the 9 to accept a case for review. That means at least one of the 4 "conservative" Justices (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, or Scalia) had to vote *against* review leaving the Appeals Court decision in place.



>>>>


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly, those who oppose marriage equality are losing this fight.
> ...


Wow...so now the Extreme right wing is, as always, advocating violence, and murder when they don't get their way.  Thanks ever so much for demonstrating your complete lack of respect for the law, the Constitution, and this nation.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Jim crow was government and community pressure enforced segregation, it was not up to the people in the stores to decide if they could serve who they wanted. Either they got fined for doing it, or they got flaming molotov cocktails flung into their windows. 

Jim crow was also the result of systemic discrimination, which required the Civil Rights laws to correct. Where public accommodation laws overreach is into non necessary services/goods, where the State has zero compelling reason to force acquiescence. 

I always thought this was about equality, not acceptance. Public accommodation laws force acceptance via government fiat.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > It should also be noted that the Court said it will not hear any of the cases *during this session*.  As I understand it, this still leaves them the option to pick any of the cases up at a later time...
> ...


Okay.  I may have misunderstood the decision, but, as I understood it, they didn't *deny* the cases; they simply chose not to hear them *during this session*.  Did I misunderstand?


----------



## NoNukes (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> wonderful news for individual rights


The right loves the government controlling them. Liking saying who they can marry. They just love big government.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

mdk said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



This is the typical "one size fits all" approach of PA laws that is quite frankly, stupid.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...



LOL.

Progressives love making people live they way the progressives want them to live, or else face government sanction or shaming.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS
> ...



I'm not interested in apples and oranges. thank you


----------



## Anathema (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Wow...so now the Extreme right wing is, as always, advocating violence, and murder when they don't get their way.  Thanks ever so much for demonstrating your complete lack of respect for the law, the Constitution, and this nation.



Might makes Right. Always has a d always will. Nor have I or others like me ever found a reason to follow immoral and valueless Laws, Rules or Regulations. 

I have no respect for ANY Western nation at thus point in history.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



this motto is theirs everyone needs to remember it

Scratch a liberal/progressive/commie find a FASCIST


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS
> ...


True.  But the "bad decision" wasn't that they legalized abortion; the "bad decision" was that they ruled on the wrong issue.  This wasn't really the fault of the court, but on the part of *the lawyers who argued the case*.  This should never have been a question of the very narrow issue of "right of privacy" between a doctor and his/her patient.  It should have been argued as a case of "right of ownership" of one's own body.  That would have made the decision much more definitive, and had a much more comprehensive impact on the question of individual liberty.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Yes you misunderstood (no offense).

In the orders Certiorari was denied, not delayed.  If delayed they would have been saying "we have this item before us now, but will decide on the writ (i.e. Writ of Certiorari) at a later conference.  That's not what they did, they denied the writ, ending any further legal action in to those cases.  The stay(s) that had been in place were conditional on: (a) the SCOTUS accepting the case and issuing a ruling, or (b) the SCOTUS denying the writ.  Now that the writ is denied, the stay is lifted.  It will then revert to the lower courts to remove of their stay's.  The States within their jurisdictions will then be required to follow their decision.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100614zor.pdf


>>>>


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Yep, they love activist Judges in their black robes until it comes to hobby lobby or something
> 
> this means nothing. You can't force a STATE to do anything even though you all love to stomp on the voters who lives in them and votes down homosexual marriage. scratch a liberal find a fascist


For all your bitching about Fascism and your silly avatar calling the president a tyrant, you certainly don't mind repressing freedoms of those you openly hate.  Some might call this hypocrisy.  But judging from your previous posts and attitudes, I simply recognize cruelty coupled with stupidity in you.


----------



## R.D. (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Walk it back


----------



## mdk (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



In many ways social conservatives are exactly the same. Nutty progressive and social conservatives are a different side of the same coin.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Yes you misunderstood (no offense).
> 
> In othe orders Certiorari was denied, not delayed.  If delayed they would have been saying "we have this item before us now, but will decide on the writ (i.e. Writ of Certiorari) at a later conference.  That's not what they did, they denied the writ, ending any further legal action in to those cases.  That stay(s) that had been in place were conditional on: (a) the SCOTUS accepting the case and issuing a ruling, or (b) the SCOTUS denying the writ.  Now that the writ is denied, the stay is lifted.  It will then revert to the lower courts to remove of their stay's.  The States within their jurisdictions will then be required to follow their decision.
> 
> ...


Alrighty then.  Thanks for that.


----------



## mdk (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I am not exactly wild about PA laws myself but sadly it appears they are still   needed. I believe most states don't cover gays under PA laws, my state is one of them in fact.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...


Quote where I bashed a faith.  In fact, I'll do you one better.  I'll quote what I *actually said*:


Czernobog said:


> *Bad news for the religious fanatics.*



Now, would you like explain how "religious fanatics" morphs into "faith bashing", or would you like to just admit to your lie.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



go grow up, you don't even have a clue about a states rights. and this isn't a left or right thing ok. just admit you got ass handed to you then slink away gracefully.


----------



## AceRothstein (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


You are so full of hate.


----------



## R.D. (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I don't have to, you did, again.  It's the faithful who are for traditional marriage, those who you called fanatics.   Coupled with many who don't even practice any faith. 

Those same faithful are not homophobic, against equality, racist or running scared because  fools like yourself try to peg them as such.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Wrong, again.  progressives promote policies that don't "make' people live in any way.  Rather they promote policies - like marriage equality, and Pro-Choice - that allows everyone to live *as they personally see fit*.  You see, there is nothing in the support of marriage equality that says *you* have to marry someone of the same sex - only that you don't get to tell anyone else that they *can't*.  There is noting in Pro-Choice that says *you* must get an abortion - only that you don't get to tell anyone else that they *can't*.

Progressive policies allow *you *to believe anything you want, and to act in accordance with those believes.  The only thing Progressive policies won't allow you to do is to force *other people* to do the same, whether they agree with you, or not.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

mdk said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



PA laws are needed for any form of government service, or quasi-government service. I can also see the need for them for such essential services as transportation, lodging, and basic food-stuff provision.

What they are not needed for are non-essential services, nor to protect the feelings of people. They are designed to prevent systemic discrimination in the public square, not forcing someone to go against their morals.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 6, 2014)

So, with this ruling it looks like 30 states will allow gay marriage

How long before Republicans drop their "one man, one woman" stance?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...


Wrong, again.  There are many, many who are faithful to their religion who do not feel the need to fanatically force those same beliefs on everyone else through the law.

Like I said, the only people who don't see the difference between calling out the fanatics, and "bashing faith" are the fanatics.  Thanks for demonstrating that *you* are one of the fanatics.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Unless you don't want to bake a cake for gay wedding, or be a photographer at one, in those cases the state CAN force you to do it, and people like you cheer it on. 

Forcing the baker to either bake the cake or go out of business is not allowing people to act in accordance with those beliefs.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> So, with this ruling it looks like 30 states will allow gay marriage
> 
> How long before Republicans drop their "one man, one woman" stance?



How much longer until Progressives start going after churches and such to force "tolerance" onto everyone?


----------



## R.D. (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


And thank you for demonstrating, again, the pure idiocy from the left on the matter.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So, with this ruling it looks like 30 states will allow gay marriage
> ...


That would be never.  Gotta love the "slippery slope" arguments of the fanatics.  We don't give a shit about churches, or what the congregation of those churches do *among themselves*.  We only care, such as in the extreme case of Westboro Baptist, what those churches do to *other people, in public*.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...


So says the fanatic.


----------



## mdk (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I am down with non-essential businesses not having to follow PA laws. It seems like a just compromise to me. You don't have to serve anyone that violates your morals and then the public can decide if that practice is worthy of their patronage or not. Let the free market decide.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



If it had been an argument over ownership interests it would have been even worse.  To have a ruling that an individual was subject to ownership would have unleashed a terrible precedent.   If you in fact "own" your body, can you sell it?   Can you sell it as an ownership interest? 

The Roe decision set up every subsequent supreme court challenge.  Had the SC left it to the states, the whole issue would have been dead by now.  That's what they are hoping to do with same sex marriage.  Have it legalized state by state and end any possibility of future supreme court challenges.  That's what they were doing in the cases they refused to hear.  They were prohibiting future cases from coming before the Supreme Court.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So, with this ruling it looks like 30 states will allow gay marriage
> ...


 
We haven't forced christian churches to marry jews yet have we?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


Oh!  But that's just it!  That would have decided, once and for all, that a fetus is *not* an "individual", and this "debate' would have been over 40 years ago. As to the "can you sell your body" question, my opinion is, and has always been, yes.  I have *always* been opposed to prostitution laws.  But, then, I have always been opposed to *any* laws that were designed to "protect us from ourselves".  That was never the intent of law.  The intent of Law was always to protect *me* from *you*.  When we decided to start protecting *me* from *myself*, we created a whole new class of law that invariably infringes on individual liberty.



Katzndogz said:


> The Roe decision set up every subsequent supreme court challenge.  Had the SC left it to the states, the whole issue would have been dead by now.  That's what they are hoping to do with same sex marriage.  Have it legalized state by state and end any possibility of future supreme court challenges.  That's what they were doing in the cases they refused to hear.  They were prohibiting future cases from coming before the Supreme Court.


That, too, may have been true...


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



That is true.  That is exactly what happened.


----------



## sameech (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure why this happened. By taking the cases they could have set precedent for the entire country, now the rulings vary by which circuit the original cases were held in.
> ...



It does, but it is unlikely they will call them up later.  If anything they will look for more tangent cases like maybe a clerk in a Dillon Rule state that needs state action to authorize their acts seeking clarification or something.  I am somewhat surprised they did not act on the Utah case


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



omg, i'm going to barf. as if we couldn't DO any of that already.
one thing homosexual marraige they can't SHOVE on us so they expect the supreme court to do it for them. the brainwashing is complete on you. and you don't care how foolish you look


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



you mean I need to give back my paychecks and resign from practice.

quiet witch.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> States are now free to replace judges and legislatures and make a different decision if they wish.



what are you blathering about?


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



no steffie dear. you do.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly, those who oppose marriage equality are losing this fight.
> ...



are you insane?


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



I only call myself what I am.... your bigotry notwithstanding. but no doubt you and your fellow freaks of nature can amuse yourselves by making yourself feel like you aren't the ignorant, bigoted twits that you are.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > States are now free to replace judges and legislatures and make a different decision if they wish.
> ...



It hasn't a clue.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > It should also be noted that the Court said it will not hear any of the cases *during this session*.  As I understand it, this still leaves them the option to pick any of the cases up at a later time...
> ...




^^^^

that


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS
> ...



the only thing bad about the decision was the WAY it was written.

the only ones who think the ruling was wrong were religious zealots

again, federally protected rights don't get to be undercut by wackos in the states or you loons would still have jim crow laws.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



You should be banned from this thread. You've done nothing but dump on everyone.
I'm done with you and your catty bullshit


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



^^^^

bigoted twit at her finest


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



so responding to insults from people like you is "dumping"

now run along and stop projecting. because no, I don't have to tolerate abuse from loons with single digit IQ's.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> 
> First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.
> 
> ...



So what's that mean? They want each state to decide it for themselves rather than pass a blanket national ruling?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Yep, they love activist Judges in their black robes until it comes to hobby lobby or something
> 
> this means nothing. You can't force a STATE to do anything even though you all love to stomp on the voters who lives in them and votes down homosexual marriage. scratch a liberal find a fascist


Let me be the first to offer you congratulations, Stephanie.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



How is defending another person's right of association and right to make a livelihood within their moral code being a "fanatic"?


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 6, 2014)

When President Putin takes over he will put an end to this nonsense anyway.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> ...


More accurately, it means that the SCOTUS feels the lower *federal* courts made the correct rulings in these cases, and they saw no reason to revisit the cases.  Now, the right-wing fanatics who wanted the SCOTUS to hear the case in the hopes that it would find in their favor and legitimize their Anti-Gay agenda will insist that this means nothing more than  the SCOUS "punted" this  back to the "states" like cowards.  The only problem with that interpretation is that these rulings weren't *state rulings*.  They were *federal circuit rulings*.  This is why the ruling will actually extend beyond the state borders of the specific cases, and will affect the 11 other states in the circuits of these lower federal courts, and will effectively strike down their bans as well.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 6, 2014)

The Republican Party Convention in 2016 has a problem. Do they cling to endorsing a gay marriage ban that most of the nation opposes, just to appease their crazy base?


----------



## paperview (Oct 6, 2014)

Great News!

Thank you SCOTUS!


----------



## Anathema (Oct 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The Republican Party Convention in 2016 has a problem. Do they cling to endorsing a gay marriage ban that most of the nation opposes, just to appease their crazy base?



That depends, do they want to have a party after the 2016 election? If so they need to appease that base.


----------



## paperview (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



poor staph and the social con authoritarians...

Their world just gay-sploded


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


you have no clue what the "right of association" is, do you?  Lemme help you out with that.  The right of association has not one single precedent that suggest that it allows for businesses to *refuse service based on race, creed, or sexual preference.* Quite the opposite, in fact:

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 907-15 (1982) (concerted activities of group protesting racial bias); Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) (denial of official recognition to student organization by public college without justification abridged right of association). The right does not, however, protect the decision of entities not truly private to exclude minorities.​In other words, entities which are public, such as businesses, do not share the same protections from nondiscrimation laws that entities that are private, such as clubs, do.  So, you are, in fact, defending a businesses "right" to behave contrary to constitutionally based law.  The very definition of a fanatic is to encourage ignoring the law for some rigid set of personal beliefs.


----------



## Anathema (Oct 6, 2014)

paperview said:


> poor staph and the social con authoritarians...
> 
> Their world just gay-sploded



Maybe it's time for a real mushroom cloud to be spotted over Washington DC


----------



## paperview (Oct 6, 2014)

QUOTE=Anathema
"If the Courts won't correct the issue then maybe it's time to appeal to a Higher Court and see what Justices Colt, Winchester, Smith, Wesson, Remington, etc..... have to say on the matter"


			
				Anathema said:
			
		

> We have not yet begun to FIGHT. Let's see how many churches, Justices of the Peace, Town Clerks, etc.... are willing to be involved in thus when they start turning up like abortion doctors..... dead.


That sounds like a serious threat to do harm to innocent people.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> 
> First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.
> 
> ...


Why do you have to be an ass hole about it.  Not all religious fanatics hate gays.  I'm christian and I applaud gays having the liberty to get married.  So stuff that in your hat and eat it.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 6, 2014)

Once a nation starts on the road to depravity it doesn't stop until it reaches the very bottom.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> ...


How could they pass a "blanket" national ruling?  The court does not write legislature.  If the legislature wants a blanket national law, they should amend the civil rights act to include sexual orientation.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...so now the Extreme right wing is, as always, advocating violence, and murder when they don't get their way.  Thanks ever so much for demonstrating your complete lack of respect for the law, the Constitution, and this nation.
> ...


yeah...you know...there's a term for those "like you"...it's called "sociopath".  Fortunately most of you end up dead, or in the nut house before you are able to do much harm.  So, I'm not too concerned over your stupid, violent ramblings.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



So the second I try to sell something, you somehow get the right to shit on my moral compass? 

The only fanatics here are those equating supposed "equality" with the ability to force people to live their lives how YOU want them to.

The only fanatics here are those in favor of government jackboots on the necks of those who disagree with them.

I'm sure you look dashing in a quasi-nazi uniform.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Wrong. they denied cert without comment. That means they COULD think the lower courts were right, or they COULD think the cases were not sound enough to warrant review, or the COULD think another, clearer cases is coming up in the docket and they could be waiting for that one. 

Denied cert does not equal "agree with the lower court ruling"


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> ...


Okay...why is it so hard for people on the Right to understand there is a difference between *Christians*, and *religious fanatics!* Dude!  Here's a hint:  if you don't want to pass a bunch of laws to force people to behave in accordance with your persona religious views, *THEN I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU!!!!!!*


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



No, you just like laws that make people act in accordance to YOUR personal political views.


----------



## Anathema (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> yeah...you know...there's a term for those "like you"...it's called "sociopath".  Fortunately most of you end up dead, or in the nut house before you are able to do much harm.  So, I'm not too concerned over your stupid, violent ramblings.



Yet hundreds and thousands of people in thus country have died over the years because of sociopaths.  Just think on that one.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Oct 6, 2014)

To all blacks and Latinos, this is what you get for voting for Dimocrats and helping to put them in power.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Once a nation starts on the road to depravity it doesn't stop until it reaches the very bottom.


RKMBrown - *this guy*, on the other hand?  *He* is a fanatic...


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Well there ya go..  I was just asking you to be more precise.   I'm fanatical about Jesus.  I'm not fanatical about throwing stones at people that eat pork, work on the sabbath, or.. shock want to have a plural marriage, or double shock want to marry someone of the same sex.  I see some of those old rules pretty much the same as Christians see the rules of Islam... some of those really old rules... they need to be rewritten in a more modern context.  I believe some of these old rules were learned based on people dying... and thus seeing said deaths and disease as a sign.  Now we know it's more about monogamy and hygiene.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Once a nation starts on the road to depravity it doesn't stop until it reaches the very bottom.
> ...


My idea of bottom... is we all get a lot more liberty,  Thus back to the basics of freedom and republic we tried to build at the start.  But no I don't think liberty means the liberty of the majority to screw over minority groups.  Or the liberty to murder, rape, or steal from others.  No that's crime not liberty.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


First of all, no one is "shitting" on anything.  You are allowed to have any views you want - *in your private life*.  your professional life isn't your *private life*.  If you want to be able to pick, and choose to whom you will sell, it is really simple - don't open a public business.  Keep your business private, and only work with referrals from, say, your church.  Then you are not subject to the public accommodation laws.  However, the minute you make the choice to become open to the public - either through a store, or online - then you know longer get to use your personal beliefs as an excuse to discriminate.  That is the law.  It is constitutional, and the Supreme Court already ruled on this.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



You get a lot more liberty, providing that the progressives are the sole arbiters of what liberty you are permitted to have.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Exactly.   Gays might have a complaint that their favorite bakery isn't making wedding cakes any more, or that photographer that did such a great job on Cousin Susie's wedding is only doing pet portraits now.  That's just the price they pay for what they got.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Why does the government get to dictate down to that level one's professional life? What is the government's compelling interest in forcing non essential products and services to be open to PA laws? I know it fits your interest in shitting on anyone who disagrees with you, but by what right to you claim the use of government force to impose your own agenda?

Also, Citizen's united is also "constitutional" because the "court said so" I wonder what you think about that one....


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > yeah...you know...there's a term for those "like you"...it's called "sociopath".  Fortunately most of you end up dead, or in the nut house before you are able to do much harm.  So, I'm not too concerned over your stupid, violent ramblings.
> ...


You are wayyyyy over estimating the abilities of sociopaths.  Dude.  You're nothing more than an anonymous coward sitting behind a computer screen spewing violent bullshit, hoping people won't see you for the pussy you are, and praying that you'll scare someone.  Guess what?  It takes more than the sociopathic ramblings of some anonymous internet wannabe tough guy to make me even a little nervous, let alone afraid.

I would, however, suggest that it may be time to talk to your shrink about upping your meds.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Nonsense.  The progressive's idea for liberty is they take my paycheck, and give me back what they think i deserve.  IOW while I applaud the progressives finally seeing the light when it comes to certain types of social liberties, I despise the progressives for not seeing the light when it comes to economic liberty.  Note: economic liberty does not mean the liberty to screw people over.  Thus, we need government to break up monopolies and oligopolies.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Not at all the case, and you know it.  Would you like to throw out any other strawmen?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Because discrimination actually *does* violate people's right to free enterprise.



martybegan said:


> Also, Citizen's united is also "constitutional" because the "court said so" I wonder what you think about that one....


Oh!  It is!  I have never suggested otherwise.  I disagree with the ruling, but the ruling is what it is.  So, now, it is up to Congress to pass an amendment that more clearly defines "speech", if they wish to change that.  In the meantime, I fully support Democrats taking full advantage of the ruling.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



So all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others? The right of a gay couple to not have to go to one more baker trumps a person's right to perform their livelihood in a way they morally choose to? And finally, all of this is important enough to waste government time and effort to punish those who have the audacity to try to live by their moral compass?

You people keep trying to equate this crap with 'get to the back of the bus, ******" and you fail repeatedly, maybe not among your echo-chamber friends, but to those of us who cherish limited government, the failure resonates.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I agree with your point on discrimination..

But I think your nutz to be against the first amendment, as being against the SCOTUS ruling on CU is the same as being against the first amendment.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Likely gays won't know the extent of discrimination.  They will know that they can go to a bakery that says "Get your wedding cake here".   That's the only bakery they will be able to go to.   They won't be able to go to a bakery that says "Sorry, we do not bake wedding cakes" even if they know 10 people who have gotten a wedding cake at that bakery.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 6, 2014)

So now we are up to 30 states which will allow homosexual marriage with the remaining 20 facing legal challenges

Will the Republicans still offer their "one man and one woman" response and still push for a Constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriages?

How much longer till Republicans claim they supported it all along?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly, those who oppose marriage equality are losing this fight.
> ...


^Is this the last resort of the homophobe.....just like it was with the Segregationists?   Violence because you don't get to legally discriminate anymore?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Really?  What exactly does marriage equality *make* you do, that you didn't do before?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 6, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


 
It shows what this country is up against with goons like anathema


----------



## NoNukes (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Yeah, like we let gays marry because it benefits us.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...





Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



It's not what it makes me do, its what it makes OTHERS do, i.e. bake cakes they don't want to bake.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

marriage equality

liberal/commie speak. run when equality is spoken by them


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Yes.  Yes it does.  You know kinda like how it also trumps a black person's right not to have to go to one more baker, or one more restaurant, or find one more water fountain.  Remember?  We already decided 40 years ago that this kind of discrimination is simply not acceptable.  I'm sorry that you want to be allowed to be a bigot, but we don't really cotton to such things in this country.



martybegan said:


> You people keep trying to equate this crap with 'get to the back of the bus, ******" and you fail repeatedly, maybe not among your echo-chamber friends, but to those of us who cherish limited government, the failure resonates.



Well, actually we don't.  You'll notice that the "us people" keep winning the court battles over this with just that argument.  Because discrimination, and bigotry is discrimination and bigotry whether it is based on race, or gender, or sexual preference.  And we just don't like discrimination, and bigotry in this country.  I know that's a bitter pill to swallow, but there it is.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



No, its because you are insufferable busybodies about other people's lives. You are also usually hypocrites because the second government or people try to go after things you hold dear, you start bitching about freedom, and keeping the government out of people's bedrooms.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Really?  They don't want to bake?  Then why did they open a bakery business?  That seems really stupid...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Oh!  I'm not against the first amendment.  I just don't think money is speech.  Money is *property*; there's a difference.


----------



## NoNukes (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Bullshit, the right can only see what  they believe in, and care about 'their own kind'.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Again, this is not the same as racism, institutional racism that you keep bringing up. Black people were also smart enough to realize that there is no sense in going to a service provider that is hostile to you if you can help not to. This, on the other hand is about acceptance no matter how much people like you say otherwise. 

And winning in court does not make your side right. It means our court system is failing us.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



The truth hurts, doesn't it?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



No, you are against it for people who disagree with you. I'm sure you are just all hunky dory when unions spend money on ads.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Says the guy who supports the party that endorsed government mandated trans-vaginal probes, and still endorses government mandated sonograms, and endorses telling people who they can, and cannot marry.  Dude!  You don't get to support the party that endorses these things, and then talk about *others* being "busybodies".  Wellll...I mean, you do, obviously.  You just did.  But you don't get to do that, and expect to be taken seriously!!!


----------



## NoNukes (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


No, it does not hurt at all to speak the truth. You should try it some time.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


What precisely will happen to YOU after marriage equality is recognized in all 50 states?  Do you believe that, because of the expansion of liberty, yours will be eroded?  What government sanctions have ever been imposed upon YOU as a result of the expansion of liberties?

Are you fearful that openly hating those you fear, despise, loathe and dread will earn YOU special treatment meted out by the state?

Or do you see your contempt for things unknown and barely understood by you becoming unpopular?  Well, skippy, it already IS unpopular!


martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Are those special cakes?  Cakes which require different, pe4rhaps exotic and expensive ingredients? 

Or are they just cakes.  period.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I am now.  Hell.  You guys won.  You set the rules for what is acceptable.  Why shouldn't we take advantage of the same standards that you guys set, and crow about as being perfectly reasonable?  Why was this never a problem when you thought it was just gonna be folks like the Koch brothers doing it?  Why, now that the unions are playing by your rules, is this suddenly a problem?


----------



## Anathema (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Guess what?  It takes more than the sociopathic ramblings of some anonymous internet wannabe tough guy to make me even a little nervous, let alone afraid.
> 
> I would, however, suggest that it may be time to talk to your shrink about upping your meds.



No doctors. No medication.  No need for any of it. 

Tell that to the people in the OKC Federal Building. The people in the Twin Towers. The kids at Columbine High School.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



I don't support any of those things. What i support is the right of local state governments to regulate things that are not explicitly given as 1) rights in the bill of rights or 2) given explicitly to the federal government. 

I live in NY, if a gay marriage bill came up, I would vote for it, if a bill making those abortion restrictions legal came up, I would vote against it. If some yahoo's in Mississippi want to enact them via the state legislature, let them go ahead and do it. 

Both parties suck, its just republicans suck less.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> marriage equality
> 
> liberal/commie speak. run when equality is spoken by them


When did equality become an exclusively communist trait?  This is America, zipperhead!  Equality is what we're supposed to be all about!

How the dim witted get confused.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Yes, money is property.  However, spending your money to publish your speech is to the first amendment.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Oh!  And martybegan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what marriage equality is making you do now that you didn't have to do before.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Nope, its just your side is known for skewing the rules. Any move you make against corporate campaign spending is sure to leave loopholes so your butt buddies can keep spending, while you cripple the other side.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Oh!  And martybegan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what marriage equality is making you do now that you didn't have to do before.



It's not what it does not me, its what it does to the Republic when it is enforced by judicial fiat and not through the actions of State Legislatures changing the laws that establish the marriage contract.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


mmmneehhhh...I think that might be stretching the concept of speech a bit.  However, like I said, since that is how the Supreme Court ruled, I am more than happy to play by those rules.  At least, unless, or until someone comes along, and changes the rules.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Oh!  And martybegan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what marriage equality is making you do now that you didn't have to do before.
> ...


Except that isn't what happened.  It was *you guys* who all went rushing to your state legislatures to change the marriage laws to include a restriction - "one man, one woman" - that was never there before, because you didn't like those icky icky fags marrying each other.  All the courts have done is said, "Nope.  You don't get to change the law just because you don't like who happens to be taking advantage of it,"

Also, "The Republic" isn't a person.  Your claim was that we force *people* to behave according to our beliefs.  That means that we are actually forcing *people* to behave differently than they were before.  So, either give us an example of how "we" are doing that, or feel free to find a different argument - preferably one that isn't quite so retarded.


----------



## Anathema (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo,  some of us go out if our way to.avoid dealing with low or no morals individuals.  That becomes much mire difficult when the Government steps in and starts forcing us to do so by eroding our right of NON-association.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Put another way... do you think the feds should be allowed to restrict news, advertising, web pages, books, pamphlets, or are these protected by free speech.  Or still more particularly what part of:


> *Congress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances*.


... are you proposing we throw out.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo,  some of us go out if our way to.avoid dealing with low or no morals individuals.  That becomes much mire difficult when the Government steps in and starts forcing us to do so by eroding *our right of NON-association.*


The constitution guarantees no such right.  Next...


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo,  some of us go out if our way to.avoid dealing with low or no morals individuals.  That becomes much mire difficult when the Government steps in and starts forcing us to do so by eroding our right of NON-association.


Low or no morals, eh?  Who arbitrates morality in your world?  Who has the final judgment?  What law forces you to associate with anyone else?  What rights have actually been eroded?  Are you forced to hang with colored boys due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  Did those darkies muck up your world?

I'm only guessing here because there must be some precedent leading to the warped, dull and thoroughly un-American attitude you are openly displaying.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


No.  However, all of those require a certain level of transparency.  We know who wites new paper article - their name is right there in the byline.  We know - or, at least can find out relatively easily, who *owns* a newspaper - it's a matter of public record.  We know who authors, and publishes webpages, books, and pamphlets.  I have a problem with "Citizens United" allowing people - on the Right, *or* the Left - being allowed to dump shitloads of money into campaigns all while hiding what they are doing.  I just don't see that kind of manipulation as a function of "free speech".


----------



## Anathema (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> The constitution guarantees no such right.  Next...



The First Amendment guarantees the Right of Free Association and Assembly. By extension I have a Right to choose NOT to associate with people as well.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> 
> First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.
> 
> ...


Nice.


Now if we can just get some of that freedom spread around the rest of the place, things will start looking up


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > The constitution guarantees no such right.  Next...
> ...


True.  You have the right to be a hermit.  But if you are in a service business, particularly a business dealing with weddings, you do not have the 'right' to discriminate based on you personal fears and suspicions.  If you bake wedding cakes and a same sex couple wants your services, you have NO 'RIGHT" to refuse them because they are gay.  Just as you have no 'right' to refuse services to Blacks, Asian, Latinos or any other group.  In other words, if you're open to the public, you must be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The Republican Party Convention in 2016 has a problem. Do they cling to endorsing a gay marriage ban that most of the nation opposes, just to appease their crazy base?
> ...



no they don't. they would do better to dump the wacko fringe and expand the bredth of their appeal.  because right now, they're on a path to extinction.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

paperview said:


> QUOTE=Anathema
> "If the Courts won't correct the issue then maybe it's time to appeal to a Higher Court and see what Justices Colt, Winchester, Smith, Wesson, Remington, etc..... have to say on the matter"
> 
> 
> ...



yes. yes it does.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks. 

Then we can talk equity.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > poor staph and the social con authoritarians...
> ...



or maybe its time for people like you to find somewhere to live that is more in keeping with your violence and insanity. I hear putin would be happy to have you.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.
> 
> Then we can talk equity.



er... no.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



^^^^

he says while supporting texas' loony toon restrictions on reproductive choice and war on women.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.
> 
> Then we can talk equity.


married people or people with kids should pay the same amount as single people

those tax breaks just create future victimhood that allow leftist to cry that cons hate kids, or some such non-senes


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

it's armageddon !


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.
> ...


right! equality = victimhood.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The answer is to stop making wedding cakes.   Except for friends and those known to you.


----------



## Anathema (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Low or no morals, eh?  Who arbitrates morality in your world?  Who has the final judgment?  What law forces you to associate with anyone else?  What rights have actually been eroded?  Are you forced to hang with colored boys due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  Did those darkies muck up your world?.



In the world of people I associate with, I get to set the standard. I am forced to exist in a society where I may have to deal with any number of immoral individuals or at least people in positions they ought not be seen doing in a polite society because our society no longer has rules. Try to find a male bank teller when you need one. I lost out on a very nice career opportunity because it would have meant dealing with a female supervisor in an Engineering Department. Now imagine being a business owner trying to hire personnel or deal with customers if you have actual morals.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Ah attack of the buzzwords. What I support is Texas' right to regulate abortion, something that is approved by Roe V. Wade unless it can be shown to be an unreasonable restriction on the ability to get one. 

Lawyers such as yourself are quick on the draw to sue doctors performing other similar procedures without the proper ability to provide emergency care if something goes wrong, but in this case your holy sacrament of abortion is under fire, so eh, they get a pass.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 6, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What are you blithering on about?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.
> 
> Then we can talk equity.


 
They already do


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



The restriction was always implied, it had to be codified because of you assholes. You then went to courts and got them to create a "right" out of thin air, and violated the prerogatives of the state legislatures. 

When government forces you to "bake or go out of business" you are forcing your beliefs on others. That is the only example one needs.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



BAKE YOU DAMN PEASANT BAKE!!!!

You and your ilk have no right to be a bunch of fucking staist jackasses, but you seem to do it anyway. 

FUCK YOU ALL HARD.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Anathema said:
> ...


(snicker)


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Low or no morals, eh?  Who arbitrates morality in your world?  Who has the final judgment?  What law forces you to associate with anyone else?  What rights have actually been eroded?  Are you forced to hang with colored boys due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  Did those darkies muck up your world?.
> ...


I'm hoping that was sarcasm..if not, stepping out in front of a bus might be an option.
btw society has more than enough rules


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


texas has already proven unreasonable restriction to access by closing down 80% of clinics that provided that service...


----------



## Anathema (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> True.  You have the right to be a hermit.  But if you are in a service business, particularly a business dealing with weddings, you do not have the 'right' to discriminate based on you personal fears and suspicions.  If you bake wedding cakes and a same sex couple wants your services, you have NO 'RIGHT" to refuse them because they are gay.  Just as you have no 'right' to refuse services to Blacks, Asian, Latinos or any other group.  In other words, if you're open to the public, you must be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.



That's why I would never own a business. That's why I would never be a Supervisor or Manager.  I would end up shooting myself in the head trying to make the rules those positions are forced to work under mesh with actual morality.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.
> ...



er... Yes


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


it's you who's blathering 

*Definition of BLATHER*
intransitive verb
*:*  to talk foolishly at length —often used with _on_


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Anathema said:
> ...


was that gay or what!?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Not sure where that came from. Equality is that those that produce/raise the future are taxed at a lower rate than those that do not.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You proved two thumbs to be correct?


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Low or no morals, eh?  Who arbitrates morality in your world?  Who has the final judgment?  What law forces you to associate with anyone else?  What rights have actually been eroded?  Are you forced to hang with colored boys due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  Did those darkies muck up your world?.
> ...


Why do bank tellers have to be of a certain gender?  Do male bank tellers count to twenty one and females only to twenty?  Is that why a penis is required to be a teller?

And you could not get along professionally with a woman?  That's regrettable.  I'd place the blame squarely on your upbringing.  I work with women every day and I don't understand why there should be a problem.

Now, are male bank tellers more moral than female tellers?  Are male engineers more moral than female engineers?  Having been an engineer since 1979, I can attest that morality and masculinity in engineering is a non issue for all mature human beings.  Can you count yourself among us?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


does that include gay and lesbian couples that adopt?
people that for medical reasons can't have kids?
what about older siblings raising younger ones?
grandparents?


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


Even if they are poor?  And why discriminate against same sex couples raising a child?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > The constitution guarantees no such right.  Next...
> ...


Actually,. no, you don't.  What the Right of Free Association guarantees is that the Government cannot *prevent* you from meeting together in groups.  It also means that the government cannot for *private clubs* to admit anyone they do not wish to.  However, with NAACP v Clairborn Hardware, The Supreme Court's ruling made it quite clear that such protection from non-discrimination does *not* extend to businesses as they are public accommodations.  Nice try at defending your bigotry, though...


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


yes I've correctly pointed out he's a bigoted asshjole>


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Where did that come from?

Households raising children are non sexual orientation specific


----------



## Anathema (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Why do bank tellers have to be of a certain gender?  Do male bank tellers count to twenty one and females only to twenty?  Is that why a penis is required to be a teller?
> 
> And you could not get along professionally with a woman?  That's regrettable.  I'd place the blame squarely on your upbringing.  I work with women every day and I don't understand why there should be a problem.
> 
> Now, are male bank tellers more moral than female tellers?  Are male engineers more moral than female engineers?  Having been an engineer since 1979, I can attest that morality and masculinity in engineering is a non issue for all mature human beings.  Can you count yourself among us?



In a proper society there is a place for everyone and everyone is in their place. A woman's place is not in a bank or an engineering office. It is in the home.

If maturity requires violation of basic morality them I will happily decline your invitation to join you.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


not publicly no....


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Yes, perhaps (would listen to the arguments), yes and yes


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.
> 
> Then we can talk equity.


Okay.  I like that idea.  It encourages adoption.  I mean, I assume that your intention was not to exclude heterosexuals who are impotent, sterile, or have had permanent sterilization surgeries, was it?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Why do bank tellers have to be of a certain gender?  Do male bank tellers count to twenty one and females only to twenty?  Is that why a penis is required to be a teller?
> ...


where have you been in the last 200 years?


----------



## Anathema (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Actually,. no, you don't.  What the Right of Free Association guarantees is that the Government cannot *prevent* you from meeting together in groups.  It also means that the government cannot for *private clubs* to admit anyone they do not wish to.  However, with NAACP v Clairborn Hardware, The Supreme Court's ruling made it quite clear that such protection from non-discrimination does *not* extend to businesses as they are public accommodations.  Nice try at defending your bigotry, though...



Which us why I would never own a public business or belong to any public organization.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.
> ...



Same sex couples are sterile by their nature, but can use invitro or adopt. Those that can't, and want the deduction, and judged competent would get the deduction


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Anathema said:
> ...


Yes, it is.  So long as you do not run a business open to the public, you have every right to refuse to bake a cake for anyone you damned well feel like.  However, the minute you make your business open to the *public* (notice the key word, there), you are now subject to all of the rules, and regulations that apply to all public accommodations.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


You will have to let us know when some progressive makes you have a gay marriage.


----------



## mdk (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Why do bank tellers have to be of a certain gender?  Do male bank tellers count to twenty one and females only to twenty?  Is that why a penis is required to be a teller?
> ...



Maybe back in the day; however, that model is not economically feasible anymore. In most homes it takes two incomes to support the household.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Actually,. no, you don't.  What the Right of Free Association guarantees is that the Government cannot *prevent* you from meeting together in groups.  It also means that the government cannot for *private clubs* to admit anyone they do not wish to.  However, with NAACP v Clairborn Hardware, The Supreme Court's ruling made it quite clear that such protection from non-discrimination does *not* extend to businesses as they are public accommodations.  Nice try at defending your bigotry, though...
> ...


I'm amazed you're on the net lots of women own and run sites.
also there are womens mod on this board.
by coming here, you've subverted your "morality".


----------



## bodecea (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


Thus all the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Far Right.


----------



## Anathema (Oct 6, 2014)

mdk said:


> Maybe back in the day; however, that model is not economically feasible anymore. In most homes it takes two incomes to support the household.



Then that household has over-extended itself financially.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


pop for senate 2014!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe back in the day; however, that model is not economically feasible anymore. In most homes it takes two incomes to support the household.
> ...


bullshit!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


No it wasn't.  That is, in fact, why you guys keep losing.  There was never any such "implication".  You tried to change the laws, and we simply went to the courts to demand that the laws be returned to their original state.  The right was always there.  It was you who tried to restrict it by adding a clause that had never existed.



martybegan said:


> When government forces you to "bake or go out of business" you are forcing your beliefs on others. That is the only example one needs.



They didn't want to bake?  Then why on earth did they open a bakery?  That seems kind of retarded.  Why would you open a business that requires you to do something you didn't want to do?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



You'd vote for a drunk!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


it worked for jackson!


----------



## bodecea (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So, with this ruling it looks like 30 states will allow gay marriage
> ...


Just like they forced churches to "tolerate" inter-racial couples and inter-faith couples and formerly divorced couples.....right?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Anathema said:
> ...


You do get how stupid you sound, right?  You are claiming that these people opened a bakery, and didn't want to bake! it's real simple.  If they don't want to bake, close the bakery, and open a business that you *do* want to do.  No one is forcing them to be bakers.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Let us know when you are shoved into a homosexual marriage.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


marty has no idea how ignorant and stupid he sounds...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Okay.  I'm okay with this.  Although, I think, as someone already pointed out, we already do this.  That's kinda what the Child Tax Credit is...


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 6, 2014)

AceRothstein said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, they love activist Judges in their black robes until it comes to hobby lobby or something
> ...



Stephanie has a matrix, one which hold only a few responses.  You will notice on some issues she is Joanie on the spot, other times she'll save her ire until she has something to echo, usually a page or two into a thread.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



That ends when the child leaves. It should not. 

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Equity brother, equity


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > True.  You have the right to be a hermit.  But if you are in a service business, particularly a business dealing with weddings, you do not have the 'right' to discriminate based on you personal fears and suspicions.  If you bake wedding cakes and a same sex couple wants your services, you have NO 'RIGHT" to refuse them because they are gay.  Just as you have no 'right' to refuse services to Blacks, Asian, Latinos or any other group.  In other words, if you're open to the public, you must be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
> ...



riiiiight. you won't own a business because someone might make you abide by the law.

yeah, that's the ticket


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Low or no morals, eh?  Who arbitrates morality in your world?  Who has the final judgment?  What law forces you to associate with anyone else?  What rights have actually been eroded?  Are you forced to hang with colored boys due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  Did those darkies muck up your world?.
> ...



you might want to check your own morality.

perhaps start by asking WWJD?

because you're kind of offensive to anyone with actual morals


----------



## Anathema (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?



Your future tax payers use up current resources like school busses, classrooms, etc.... which many of us will never use yet still pay for.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 
You expect a child tax deduction even when you no longer have children?

And you claim liberals want free stuff


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Hmmm...I don't know about that.  I mean the whole point of the tax credit is supposed to be about offsetting the cost of *raising* that "future tax payer".  Just like the marriage deduction is to offset the costs of starting a family.  We don't really have any individual tax breaks that are meant to be rewards simply for the sake of rewards.  I mean we do have some *corporate* tax breaks that are for that purpose, but those are meant to be economic incentives.  To my knowledge we don't have any personal tax breaks that are designed like that.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



so if someone is infertile they should have a different tax rate than someone who can have a child?

rightwingnuthackworld is funny


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Yes


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



and blacks used to be 3/5 of a person and women didn't have the vote... and jim crow was legal... 

and?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Where did that come from?

Do you actually read before insulting

Invitro or adoption are acceptable (see previous posts)

Good lord


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

I love how the right can't tolerate any effort to protect people from their bigotry.

but please, whine about how you aren't bigots and are "moral".


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



you're the one who made the idiotic comment. I just called you on it.

you always do that though... make absurd assertions and then when called on them try to pretend it wasn't what you said.

schizophrenic much?


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?
> ...



yeah, it's pretty clear you've never benefitted from classrooms


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



It's seems times have changed.

Why should I, who supplies the nurses and health care workers needed to care for others who do not supply the same for me, pay at the same rate?

Seems highly unfair brother


----------



## OODA_Loop (Oct 6, 2014)

Marriage falls under the purview of the State.

10th Amendment.  Simple.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



You keep wrongly equating government discrimination with private discrimination.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Thanks for making my point!

Children are great job creators!

Appreciate the help


----------



## bodecea (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Low or no morals, eh?  Who arbitrates morality in your world?  Who has the final judgment?  What law forces you to associate with anyone else?  What rights have actually been eroded?  Are you forced to hang with colored boys due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  Did those darkies muck up your world?.
> ...


Good.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


They still are!


----------



## Anathema (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> yeah, it's pretty clear you've never benefitted from classrooms



Honestly, I learned more from my parents and family than I did in any public school.or university classroom. Maybe that's because both of my parents had been teachers but I bet part of it was the shitty quality of now passes fir education


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 6, 2014)

So, now that gay marriage will become the law of the land.....who will Conservatives turn their hate to next?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> So, now that gay marriage will become the law of the land.....who will Conservatives turn their hate to next?



You, and only you

Feel special?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> wonderful news for individual rights


No. It's a ruling _against_ rights and freedom.
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > I never thought the Supreme Court would rule on any of these cases.  They learned their lesson with Roe v Wade.  They won't repeat it with same sex marriage.
> ...


Remind us on YOUR track record on this board in regards law and Justice.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...


Keep that in mind if you serve on a jury in a crime where the victim is gay.  Keep that in mind when the perversion that this nation has become wants your patriotism.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 6, 2014)

OODA_Loop said:


> Marriage falls under the purview of the State.
> 
> 10th Amendment.  Simple.


 Not when a state violates the Constitution

Simple


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 Are you really this sick?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Equality is that those that produce/raise the future are taxed at a lower rate than those that do not.




Where do you assume that people are taxed at different rates based on being married or not?

The rate is determined by Adjust Gross Income.  The rate of tax is determined by how much you make not really by whether someone is married or not.  The deduction for a single person is $6,200.  The deduction for a married couple is $12,400 for the two people.

The people that produce the "future" (assuming you mean children) get a deduction for each child - that deduction is not conditional on being married or single, straight or gay.

The "Marriage Penalty" has mostly been straightened out now, but it used to be that being married caused you to pay MORE in taxes.


>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Equality is that those that produce/raise the future are taxed at a lower rate than those that do not.
> ...



Why bring sexual orientation into this? I've addressed that. I also addressed the child deduction. It ends when the child leaves home. It, or maybe a lower rate deduction should continue as the child becomes a tax payer.

That is a continuing societal benefit.


----------



## Picaro (Oct 6, 2014)

The Justices are waiting until after the elections to hear these cases. There is nothing stopping them from hearing them or similar cases later. Federal judges unilaterally overturning duly voted on referendums like Prop 8  is a bad precedent for the legal system, and nobody is going to be happy with the consequences of that.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




So a gay or lesbian couple that uses adoption or invitro (egg and/or sperm donation) get's a lower tax rate for life right?



>>>>


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...


TOLERANCE

Not acceptance.

Is it so hard to tolerate someone else?  Must we all conform to a narrow template of morality?  Who arbitrates this morality?  Used to be Queen Victoria, but that was under the aegis of the throne in Great Britain.  But in America?

The government is mandating that two consenting adults without a blood relationship may avail themselves of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract. 

Why do you have a problem with that?  Will same sex marriage ruin your marriage? 

You are just a bigot whose world is shrinking.  Tough.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Arghhhh, been addressed

Yes, if they raised a child they are supplying what is needed for the world to go on.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


That has nothing to do with my post.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Looks like my post went over your head, too. Tolerance means not interfering. Forced acquiescence is interference. Homos want to force their irrelevant behavior onto others. That is the opposite of tolerance.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

Picaro said:


> The Justices are waiting until after the elections to hear these cases. There is nothing stopping them from hearing them or similar cases later.



Picaro,

They didn't defer the cases - which means they would reexamine them at a later conference.

They rejected the writs - those cases are dead.  The Stays are lifted.  Marriages have started or will start soon.




Picaro said:


> TFederal judges unilaterally overturning duly voted on referendums like Prop 8  is a bad precedent for the legal system, and nobody is going to be happy with the consequences of that.




That precedent wasn't set in Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8, 2013), the precedent was set in Loving v. Virginia (1967) - that decision overturned Virginia law, but if also overturned the Constitutional Amendment which put and interracial marriage ban in the Alabama Constitution.  A duly voted on referendum.


>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

The reactionaries who can't believe their world is changing continue to freak out.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



False.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The reactionaries who can't believe their world is changing continue to freak out.


Calling for the protection of children is not 'freaking out'.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Went over your head, too, eh? Explain why it is 'false' as you say.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




OK so the lifetime tax deduction is available to heterosexuals and homosexuals.


Is it based in the individual testing positive for fertility.  In other words the government makes you go to the doctor have a test and submit the medical results?  I guess guys would have to go in and jerk-off in a cup and women would have to have expensive procedures to determine if the eggs were viable.

Or is it based on performance, actually having a child born?

Now for women it's pretty easy to determine performance, but for men - will they need to get a get a DNA test to prove that they qualify because they produced off spring or do we just go with the name on the birth certificate?  So a woman can go out and screw around and the infertile Dad gets credit?



Share with us specifically how this brilliant idea is going to work?



>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

This has been explained continually, Rosh.

No more.  You don't get "just once more."

It's over.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


I cannot see any correlation between marriage equality and anyone force(ing) their irrelevant behavior onto others.  Do heterosexual married couples 'force' their lives upon yours?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Child in home = credit

Child grows to maturity = credit

Simple nuff?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop continues to sniffle.

Ignore him.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> This has been explained continually, Rosh.
> 
> No more.  You don't get "just once more."
> 
> It's over.


You haven't explained a single thing! Acting like you have and wishing it will all go away is a cop out.
Rebut the assertion that forced acquiescence to irrelevant behavior is an infringement on rights and liberty. I dare you.


----------



## Picaro (Oct 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > The Justices are waiting until after the elections to hear these cases. There is nothing stopping them from hearing them or similar cases later.
> ...



True, but there is nothing stopping similar cases from being filed again and heard later, and I'm sure there will be more, and from the same states.



> That precedent wasn't set in Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8, 2013), the precedent was set in Loving v. Virginia (1967) - that decision overturned Virginia law, but if also overturned the Constitutional Amendment which put and interracial marriage ban in the Alabama Constitution.  A duly voted on referendum.



I used the Prop 8 as it is the most pertinent and one most have heard of. If I'm not mistaken the SC heard and ruled on Loving v. Virginia. I'll look it up later, but if so then that isn't similar to the legal issues in this thread re the Federal Courts and the SC not hearing the appeals at all.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


When they create children they have. On those children by their mere existence and others in the sense that new people exist to affect society. Homos cannot create children therefore no need to involve the government or others.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




So it's performance based and not fertility based.

You didn't answer the question about the Dad though, do we just assume who the biological father is or is proof required?




So you loose the credit if the child dies before the age of 18?

But at the age of 18 then poof the tax credit is for the rest of your life?



>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Wrong.  We have campaign finance laws, you can't dump shitloads of money into campaigns all the while hiding what you are doing.  CU wasn't about whether or not campaign donations had to be reported, because they do.  CU was about stopping corporations from running their own advertisements in support of a position.  It was about stopping free speech.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > This has been explained continually, Rosh.
> ...


Is it you assertion that you have the right to discriminate?  Is hatred, fear and suspicion a 'liberty' you feel is being eroded?  And "forced acquiescence".  Are you under the impression that granting the right to avail yourself of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract an act that must be 'forced' upon you?  How does heterosexual marriage effect your views of freedom and liberty?  How on earth could homosexual marriage effect that outlook if heterosexual marriage does not?

Is it your assertion that hatred and discrimination are somehow linked to freedom?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

Picaro said:


> used the Prop 8 as it is the most pertinent and one most have heard of. If I'm not mistaken the SC heard and ruled on Loving v. Virginia. I'll look it up later, but if so then that isn't similar to the legal issues in this thread re the Federal Courts and the SC not hearing the appeals at all.




I was responding to what you said about "Federal judges unilaterally overturning duly voted on referendums like Prop 8 is a bad precedent for the legal system, and nobody is going to be happy with the consequences of that"

Federal judges (which includes District, Circruit, and Supreme Court Judges) resulted in the Alabama Constitutiona "duly voted on" by the people being overturned.

You may also want to look at Romer v. Evans (1996), another case there the people "duly voted" to amend their State Constitution and the result was ruled unconstitutional.



>>>>


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Is procreation a requirement for a marriage license?  Should my widowed mother be permitted to apply for a marriage license at age 81?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


That has nothing to do with anything I posted. Re-read and try again.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Procreation is not a requirement but its possibility was likely the presumed reason for marriage's creation. I expect those who created marriage with procreation in mind assumed things wouldn't get as weird as they have. Like airliners not expecting people to blow themselves up, too, in the process of potentially taking down a plane.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Oct 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage falls under the purview of the State.
> ...



_Windsor_ could have been decided on this very violation of the Constitution.

But it wasn't.

It was affirmed that marriage falls under the purview of the State and in States where they have declared it legal, the Federal government, DOMA, couldn't discriminate.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Should my widowed mother be permitted to apply for a marriage license at age 81?


What does that mean?


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


I am asking about your concept of 'forced acquiescence'.  Please clarify.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Should my widowed mother be permitted to apply for a marriage license at age 81?
> ...


If procreation is seen as a requirement for a marriage license, why does that standard get ignored when the elderly wed?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...





martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


meanwhile, you wrongly equate your bigotry with freedom of speech


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Id let congress handle the details ( I'm far to busy trying to figure out who the hells gonna make the NCAA playoffs), but in my opinion. The household gets the deduction.

In cases of adoption or invitro, and the household breaks apart, the deduction is applied 50/50 to the parents that were within the household when the child is brought home.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 go to any black neighborhood and say that out loud.
piece of neo nazi shit.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


The possibility for adoption into a mother/father circumstance, though unlikely, still exists. Homos can't provide that necessary circumstance. One of the two necessary genders would be missing and empirical data demonstrates that is bad for children and ultimately bad for the society.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> So, now that gay marriage will become the law of the land.....who will Conservatives turn their hate to next?


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


No, it's equality.  Tax breaks are granted to parents, married couples, the uber wealthy and corporations leaving the country.  Now, which of these groups forced acquiescence upon you?  The marriage license is simply that.  A marriage license.  It's not a heterosexual license, nor is it a homosexual license.  The rights, privileges and protections provided apply to each and every license.

Discriminating because of NO SOUND REASON WHATEVER is, indeed Fascism.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


that would be true if that's what was happening ...but it's not ...


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


obviously yes!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The reactionaries who can't believe their world is changing continue to freak out.
> ...


what threat that was already present are you protecting them from..
"what about the children!" is a classic ploy by the right.and a steaming pile.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




But you said "Child grows to maturity = credit".

So they get the tax credit at birth and raising the child to maturity isn't a factor?



>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

Rosh, no "just once more".  It's over.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 6, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...



No matter how you try to justify your bigotry, it's still bigotry. Religious bigotry still has "bigotry" in it.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 6, 2014)

I woke up married in 19 states...I'll go to bed married in 30. What a country!!!!


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> I woke up married in 19 states...I'll go to bed married in 30. What a country!!!!


Grats... just 27 more to go.


----------



## R.D. (Oct 6, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You're posting again after the embarrassment a few months back.   Good for you, ya big bigot tool.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

Jesus is not too worried about R. D.'s pronouncements.

He is simply happy for all His children this day in the USA.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > I woke up married in 19 states...I'll go to bed married in 30. What a country!!!!
> ...


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 6, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...



Are you confusing me with someone else? I've posted pretty much everyday for a couple years now.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Any tax break afforded is a subsidy paid by the rest of the taxpayers. Using and objectionable tax break as rationale to defend and equally objectionable tax break doesn't defend either.
Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a fascist imposition.
There is no need to give homo marriage legal status. They can't procreate as can hetero couples. That is the only and most necessary distinction. There is no denying rights or any undue discrimination.


----------



## Dana7360 (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...






I've been a professional photographer for decades. 

While weddings aren't what I usually do, I would very happily photograph a gay wedding.

Their money spends just the same as money from heterosexual couples.

I have worked with many homosexuals in the last 35 years. I don't care if a person is gay or not. It's none of my business and it has no bearing on whether I will work with anyone or not.

There are many jobs that I refuse to do. None of them ever involved homosexuals.

I wonder what the christian right would do if someone refused to work with them just because they're christian right or just because they were heterosexual.

I wouldn't be surprised if those christians screamed bloody murder that they were being discriminated.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Moron...we get the tax breaks for the kids regardless of whether we are married or not.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 6, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Christians are federally protected from such discrimination. They object to gays being on equal protected footing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

"Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a *fascist *imposition."

laughing out loud at the loony comment


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...





WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



WW, if a child dies before maturity, how is the credit currently handled? Got it?

A credit (does not have to be the current child credit), should apply to those that survive to maturity and creates additional tax revenue. 

Humming to my self the big hit. A brave new worlddddddddddd


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Well how lovely you're also a hater and a bigot. so jump off your high horse


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 6, 2014)

SCOTUS has little incentive to rule when all courts are in agreement and they don't see a huge problem with the decisions. When a more conservative circuit court upholds the bans, then you can bet the court will make a final decision. But this is great news today, because cases that have been appealed are no longer stayed.

Last June, 13 states had laws allowing same-sex couples to marry, and with DOMA not a single state had full marriage equality. Just 15 months later, DOMA is gone for good and with this ruling 30 states will have full marriage equality. I am shocked and delighted at the swiftness individual rights have been spreading across this country. All true Americans should be proud of their country today.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



 Correct, but they should not end at the time that they leave the home, they should continue through the life of the child (maybe at a lower rate).


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



The comment is not hateful, but your observation certainly is hateful, Stephanie.

Your personality exudes hate.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

this thread shows a lot from the homosexuals in this country. They force themselves on the people then turn around and HATE on Christians and everyone else who doesn't agree with this.

you're more disgusting than the people you hate on


----------



## bodecea (Oct 6, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...


Poor boy.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> this thread shows a lot from the homosexuals in this country. They force themselves on the people then turn around and HATE on Christians and everyone else who doesn't agree with this.
> 
> you're more disgusting than the people you hate on


Again, I wish to congratulate you on this glorious day, Stephanie!


----------



## sameech (Oct 6, 2014)

I live in Virginia.  Our local Clerk of Court office says that it won't issue any marriage licenses for same sex couples until it receives clarification of the law/direction from Richmond requiring them to do so since the current statutes do not authorize it.  This Dillon Rule stuff will have to be sorted out.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie, the hate in your heart only hurts you, truly.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

sameech said:


> I live in Virginia.  Our local Clerk of Court office says that it won't issue any marriage licenses for same sex couples until it receives clarification of the law/direction from Richmond requiring them to do so since the current statutes do not authorize it.  This Dillon Rule stuff will have to be sorted out.



The federal judge will issue a compliance summons, the Governor will honor it, and that will be the end of it.  If the Clerk of Court defies that order, s/he will be immediately taken into custody.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 6, 2014)

sameech said:


> I live in Virginia.  Our local Clerk of Court office says that it won't issue any marriage licenses for same sex couples until it receives clarification of the law/direction from Richmond requiring them to do so since the current statutes do not authorize it.  This Dillon Rule stuff will have to be sorted out.


Won't take long for a lawsuit to open those doors.     Now I'll be able to visit my relatives in Virginia without fear of the 3rd World nation type laws there.


----------



## Dana7360 (Oct 6, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?
> ...






Have you ever gone to see a doctor? If you have, you have used the public school system.

Do you like to drive on roads, use a bridge or fly on an airplane? If so you you've used the public school system.

Just about everything you experience in life is because someone else went to school to learn to do it. 

The internet you use to spew your hate was 100% created by tax dollars. By people who went to public schools.

You benefit from and use the public school system every day of your life.


----------



## sameech (Oct 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> > I live in Virginia.  Our local Clerk of Court office says that it won't issue any marriage licenses for same sex couples until it receives clarification of the law/direction from Richmond requiring them to do so since the current statutes do not authorize it.  This Dillon Rule stuff will have to be sorted out.
> ...



Not how it works.  The Governor has no authority over the state courts (separation of powers and all that).  The legislature will have to act or the state supreme court will have to import the decision into state case law for it to be the "law of the land" so to speak.


----------



## sameech (Oct 6, 2014)

bodecea said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> > I live in Virginia.  Our local Clerk of Court office says that it won't issue any marriage licenses for same sex couples until it receives clarification of the law/direction from Richmond requiring them to do so since the current statutes do not authorize it.  This Dillon Rule stuff will have to be sorted out.
> ...



There is nothing "third world" about Virginia law.  It is a little too business friendly at the expense of consumers, but otherwise, we have the very best bond rating of any state in the country for a reason.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

This has been explained to you how it will work.  The Clerk of the Court will follow the Governor's order; if not, the judge will issue an order; if not, the Clerk does pass go and will pay a lot more than $200.  The Clerk is not the decider of law.


----------



## sameech (Oct 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> This has been explained to you how it will work.  The Clerk of the Court will follow the Governor's order; if not, the judge will issue an order; if not, the Clerk does pass go and will pay a lot more than $200.  The Clerk is not the decider of law.



Neither is the governor.  You really should learn up on _stare decisis_.  Governors do not dictate law to the Courts.  The state courts take direction from the state Supreme Court, legislature, or prior court decisions unless they each want to import the decision by circuit.  At this point, it is obvious that my circuit is waiting for direction from Richmond as in the Virginia Supreme Court or the legislature.  The Governor has nothing to do with it.  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the only one that can issue orders to Courts.  PERIOD.


----------



## Qball (Oct 6, 2014)

This is just a gross misuse of the separation of powers doctrine and blatantly ignoring the people's will. Seriously ask yourself: how much acceptance will gays have if gay marriage is just going to be rammed through by shenanigans like this? Let the Circuit Courts strike down duly passed constitutional amendments and state laws, and then the SCOTUS just lets those lower court rulings stand because it's easier than doing it themselves. And why is it okay to pick-and-choose when we're going to acknowledge the majority? When a poll says a majority supports gay marriage, it's hailed as the gospel. But when the majority actually votes and doesn't approve of it, it's okay to just get that overturned on principle. Somebody name me one other supposed "civil right" that has been enacted through judges essentially legislating from the bench.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

You truly do not understand and are simply being intransigent.

Watch your clerk crumple into compliance cravenly.  Gotta love alliteration.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

One, this is an issue about law, not culture.

Two, if we bring in culture, the millennials (who all can vote in 2016) overwhelmingly support this news.

Three, they outnumber the social con right.

Four, this is over.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> One, this is an issue about law, not culture.
> 
> Two, if we bring in culture, the millennials (who all can vote in 2016) overwhelmingly support this news.
> 
> ...


Your are conflating the bigoted religious folk on the left and right with some sort of whimsical win by the left.  In short... why don't you go play with yourself.


----------



## Dana7360 (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...






I know several homosexual women who became pregnant and gave birth to a child. 

All they need is sperm. A sperm bank can provide that. Or a male friend can. 

The reproductive organs in homosexual women work the exact same way as they do in heterosexual women.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 6, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



As I can well attest. I've used donated sperm from a friend and IVF. Everything worked just fine. Five healthy babies.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > One, this is an issue about law, not culture.
> ...


You continue to prove you don't have a clue.  The issue is over.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 6, 2014)

mdk said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



It shouldn't be both ways. I should be free to discriminate when it comes to doing business with people, and so should the Muslims.


----------



## Qball (Oct 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> One, this is an issue about law, not culture.
> 
> Two, if we bring in culture, the millennials (who all can vote in 2016) overwhelmingly support this news.
> 
> ...



I'd slightly disagree. Millennials support gay marriage insofar as they associate disagreement with it with the Christian right and homophobia. They look at the debate over gay marriage as being a referendum on homosexuality, and "who cares about people who are gay???", so thus, they "support" it. But, like you said, this is an issue about law, not culture.

I would also suggest you could polarize even the "millennials" by fully explaining that gay marriage isn't simply being "legalized", it's being declared the law by judges. It might be all well and good now, but let a Republican administration or Republican-appointed judge do something similar and suddenly they will get that pesky separation of powers doctrine actually has a purpose.


----------



## Dana7360 (Oct 6, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...





They're very unAmerican.

It's very unAmerican to discriminate against people. 

I can see that some people put their religion before our nation and being an American. Yet they are the same people who scream they're the true Americans and the only ones who love our nation.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

Not when it is public.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

Qball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > One, this is an issue about law, not culture.
> ...



You misunderstand millennials.  The ones I knew is East Texas and western Louisiana, almost all church attenders, thought the anti gay marriage laws to be simply incomprehensible, along with prejudices against ageism, sexism, and racism.

They don't get it, and they won't support those positions.  It has nothing to do with being anti-Christian.  They simply disagree with the evangelical and fundamentalist positions on those issues.


----------



## Dana7360 (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...







Who do I hate?

I'm trying to get some people to put themselves in other people's shoes. How would they feel if they were discriminated just because they were christians or heterosexual? 

Maybe if a person can see it from that perspective, as in the selfish perspective, then they can understand where homosexual people are coming from.

If you want our laws to sanction bigotry then our laws have to sanction ALL bigotry.

You can't pick and choose.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



you should try being a nice human being. maybe if you work on it someday you might not be such a snob people can't stand to be around


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

Did some research.  The right-leaning Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, to be exact, may actually uphold the Ban. If it allows the same sex marriage, then Ginsburg stated that the Court will likely take on the case.  If so, Sotomayor has at least a six to three majority, if not seven to two.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > Anathema said:
> ...



Steph, honey, that is your mirror to which you are talking.  And, yes, take your advice.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

ok, suggestions are coming in what to do over all this. here's one I ran across

Two things these businesses should start doing immediately:
1. Start recording all transactions with customers yourselves.
2. DO NOT commit to any engagement while the customer is on the premises. Tell them that they will receive a letter the next business day regarding your availability (we have to check our calendar before we can give you an answer). All refusals of service should not be done in person and no reason should be given other than “schedule doesn’t permit that date or time”.

this was another comment about this from an article on it here:
Supreme Court declines to hear same-sex marriage cases making it legal in five new states Hot Air
the truly slippery slope is this:
if the State has no controlling interest (as decided by the Supremes) in who gets married (man/woman, man/man, woman/woman and any other non-cis-centric designations you wish to imagine) … then what is the validity of restricting it to just 2 people? why not 3? 4? any number?
why be arbitrary with only 2 people being “married”?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Okay...ummm...I have absolutely no clue what you're babbling on about...


----------



## Dana7360 (Oct 6, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...







That's wonderful. 

Wow 5 new lives! 

You're truly very blessed.

If those 5 are still small, enjoy it now. My husband and I have been having a debate on whether it was a good idea to teach our child how to talk or not. When they get to the teen years they have a LOT to say. Whether you like to or not. LOL.

But it's very incredible to watch that little baby grow to become a strong and independent adult right before your eyes in just 18 short years.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Dumbass, homos can't have kids together.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


yeah, I notice you just skipped right over my response to you martybegan.  Why is it that?  Is it easier to just pretend that I didn't reply than to try to argue against reason, and logic?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...


So, just to clarify, it is your contention that the only people who should be allowed to marry are those who can, and will, procreate?  A simple yes, or no will suffice.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


The issue will be over when gays can get married in all states.. and the laws discriminating against gays are thrown out.  You are calling this to early.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...




No I don't "got it".  Current tax credits last until they reach adulthood, you are one one that wants a new permanent tax credit for procreating.

You said that those that produce children under YOUR new plan would receive a tax credit forever (well as long as they are alive).  Then you said "Child in home = credit, Child grows to maturity = credit" which changes things.

Either they get your tax credit for as long as they live once they have a child or they perpetual tax credit is dependent on their reaching the age of maturity.


Which is it?


>>>>


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Who, *eaxctly*, are they "forcing their behavior" onto, and in what manner, *specifically*?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > Anathema said:
> ...


Well...isn't that an Ironic Post.


----------



## novasteve (Oct 6, 2014)

Now incest an polygamy in those states have to legal otherwise the "marriage equality" people are bigots and lying.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

sameech said:


> I live in Virginia.  Our local Clerk of Court office says that it won't issue any marriage licenses for same sex couples until it receives clarification of the law/direction from Richmond requiring them to do so since the current statutes do not authorize it.  This Dillon Rule stuff will have to be sorted out.


I don't see how that applies.  Your local Clerk of Court is demanding "clarification" of a law that has already been clarified.  The court has rolled back the "between one man, and one woman" clause that was added to the law.  Insisting that the Clerk of Court has no "authority" to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples only works if that same clerk is also insisting that they do not have the authority to issue marriage licenses to *any* couple.  Otherwise all it is is a delaying tactic to avoid having to abide by the ruling of the court.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Does anyone other than you give a fuck?
It ain't gunna happen and gay marriage will soon be the law of the land


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 6, 2014)

novasteve said:


> Now incest an polygamy in those states have to legal otherwise the "marriage equality" people are bigots and lying.


Oh NOOooooooooo

Slippery slope


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Qball said:


> This is just a gross misuse of the separation of powers doctrine and blatantly ignoring the people's will. Seriously ask yourself: how much acceptance will gays have if gay marriage is just going to be rammed through by shenanigans like this? Let the Circuit Courts strike down duly passed constitutional amendments and state laws, and then the SCOTUS just lets those lower court rulings stand because it's easier than doing it themselves. And why is it okay to pick-and-choose when we're going to acknowledge the majority? When a poll says a majority supports gay marriage, it's hailed as the gospel. But when the majority actually votes and doesn't approve of it, it's okay to just get that overturned on principle. Somebody name me one other supposed "civil right" that has been enacted through judges essentially legislating from the bench.


You get that he court isn't about "acknowledging the majority", right?  If "the majority" of Americans said "It is okay to shoot blond people on Sundays", the Court would still be obliged to say, "No, it isn't", because the Court's job is to decide if a law is constitutional, or not; not whether the majority of Americans like a particular law, or not.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



A credit to assist raising the future tax payer

Then a credit for raising the new tax payer successfully

It ain't really that hard to understand


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> > Now incest an polygamy in those states have to legal otherwise the "marriage equality" people are bigots and lying.
> ...



But true, or is it icky


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

novasteve said:


> Now incest an polygamy in those states have to legal otherwise the "marriage equality" people are bigots and lying.


Personally, I don't give two shits about incest, or polygamy.  If you wanna marry your sister, *and* your cousin, novasteve, feel froggy.  It doesn't affect me one way or the other.  Not really my thing, but, hey!  Whatever pulls your pantyhose.  You see, you just really don't get the concept of, "If it does not cause *you* harm, it is not any of your fucking business", do you?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> > Now incest an polygamy in those states have to legal otherwise the "marriage equality" people are bigots and lying.
> ...


Welllll...and let's face it, RW; that slope isn't really all that slippery.  I mean, I actually agree with him.  So long as we are talking about he activities of two consenting adults, incest, and polygamy affect me just about as much as gay marriage.  So, my reaction is kind of a great big, "Meh."


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > novasteve said:
> ...


Both.  although that's just my personal opinion.  I kinda think incest *is* icky.  However, his statement is also true.  Since it has no affect on me, my personal morality,  how I will personally live my life, or my personal sex life, i don't particularly give so much as a single flying fuck what two - or more, in the case of polygamy - consenting adults do in their personal lives.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> wonderful news for individual rights


The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> So, just to clarify, it is your contention that the only people who should be allowed to marry are those who can, and will, procreate?  A simple yes, or no will suffice.


That's a stupid question, but par for the course for the idiot left. Marriage has been for families since recorded history. It's what usually happens when men and women get together. The few that don't procreate don't really change what the male/female union, each with their special aspects of gender bring to the table. The big lie is that two fags mimic this somehow and we are all supposed to park our brains and go along with the fantasy. 

The bigger story for me is that the fact that the Supremes refused to hear the case proves that is is not a Constitutional issue, which I and many have said all along. It isn't a matter of "equality" but a matter of states rights to decide what the definition of marriage is. Homosexual marriages will NEVER be seen the same, people may pretend to go along with it but it will always be a joke.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> 
> First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.
> 
> ...


Since the states choose to create laws that prevented such acts the states spoke. It was federal judges that made the change This is not over by a long SHOT.bang bang..


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


So when do you start a push to protect incest?


----------



## Plasmaball (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Yep, they love activist Judges in their black robes until it comes to hobby lobby or something
> 
> this means nothing. You can't force a STATE to do anything even though you all love to stomp on the voters who lives in them and votes down homosexual marriage. scratch a liberal find a fascist


seriously punch yourself in the face for being this fucking stupid that you can't even grasp how our nation works.


----------



## hipeter924 (Oct 6, 2014)

Same-sex marriage should be legal in every state by the end of the decade, but for now there will be a lot of court battles and appeals. There are sure to be hold out states.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

To you who are still in denal: STFU, no one cares.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 6, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > So, just to clarify, it is your contention that the only people who should be allowed to marry are those who can, and will, procreate?  A simple yes, or no will suffice.
> ...


The states decided but the federal courts ruled other wise so it still in the courts eye not a state issue. At least not when the federal government appointed judges dictated otherwise.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Immaterial, son.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

The constitutional issues are always the feds' responsibility.

The ruling now is that states cannot prevent marriage equality.

Push will come to shove if a fed appellate court says a ban is legal.

If so, that will go to SCOTUS.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > I never thought the Supreme Court would rule on any of these cases.  They learned their lesson with Roe v Wade.  They won't repeat it with same sex marriage.
> ...


I've read that the phrase "the law of the land" was prominently used by the kings court of England...which was part of the tyranny the founders fought to get out from under. I think the S Court today recognized the danger in gay-marriage as a "right" ....so they weaseled their way out. Pathetic really...but somewhat better than calling it a "right".   Marshall justified judicial review in part by saying all cases should be heard.....not this bull shit, where even tho they have more clerks and bigger budgets than ever, they routinely turn down cases......It shows a need for judicial reform.



mamooth said:


> The Republican Party Convention in 2016 has a problem. Do they cling to endorsing a gay marriage ban that most of the nation opposes, just to appease their crazy base?


 I am a registered Democrat that opposes gay-marriage...and the prop 8 vote in California demonstrates that many other Democrats do also. Opinion polls can be manipulated.



Qball said:


> This is just a gross misuse of the separation of powers doctrine and blatantly ignoring the people's will. Seriously ask yourself: how much acceptance will gays have if gay marriage is just going to be rammed through by shenanigans like this? Let the Circuit Courts strike down duly passed constitutional amendments and state laws, and then the SCOTUS just lets those lower court rulings stand because it's easier than doing it themselves. And why is it okay to pick-and-choose when we're going to acknowledge the majority? When a poll says a majority supports gay marriage, it's hailed as the gospel. But when the majority actually votes and doesn't approve of it, it's okay to just get that overturned on principle. Somebody name me one other supposed "civil right" that has been enacted through judges essentially legislating from the bench.


 Excellent post.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...


Actually, the founders of this country pointedly remained silent on the issue of morality, while framing The Constitution.  This would be because they did not feel it was the job of government to mandate morality.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > So, just to clarify, it is your contention that the only people who should be allowed to marry are those who can, and will, procreate?  A simple yes, or no will suffice.
> ...


Bullshit.  Men and women have gotten together since time immemorial *without ever producing children*.  There have been numerous cultures that have tolerated homosexual relations.  The suggestion that the purpose of marriage is "only for procreation" is anything other than a new argument meant to impugn the idea of same sex marriage is as disingenuous as it is idiotic.



Iceweasel said:


> The bigger story for me is that the fact that the Supremes refused to hear the case proves that is is not a Constitutional issue, which I and many have said all along. It isn't a matter of "equality" but a matter of states rights to decide what the definition of marriage is. Homosexual marriages will NEVER be seen the same, people may pretend to go along with it but it will always be a joke.


Again, this is just plain stupid, and shows a complete lack of understanding of what has happened.  lemme help you out with this.  The Supreme court didn't leave the ruling of the *State Courts* in place; they left the previous ruling of the *Federal Circuit Courts* in place.  In other words, this wasn't a State Issue; it was a Federal Issue, and the Supreme Court decided that it had already been decided.  Furthermore, this action not only makes the marriage ban in these seven states invalid, it also makes the marriage bans *in the other eleven states in their jusrisdiction illegal.*  "Homosexual marriage" *is* being seen as "the same"; 30 states out of 50.  Sorry pal, your archaic, bigoted view is simply going the way of all bigotry - it is losing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

Sigh.  The Constitution says you can't discriminate even if you have a majority that wants to discriminate.  So step off, haters.  Welcome to Utah's new state flag.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 6, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


You get that the Supreme Court's move today not only has the effect of striking down the gay marriage ban in each of these cases, but also made the bans in *the other eleven states in their jurisdiction* invalid, as well.  It sounds a whole lot like the Supreme Court just recognized the federal circuit courts' decision that gay marriage *is* a right.  This just increased the number of states that recognize marriage equality from a paltry 19 minority to an impressive 30 majority of the nation.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




when did muslim cabbies refuse fares? 

it's easy to say that you should be free to discriminate in public accommodation when you're white male and christian.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...



the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Want to bet they didn't?
Who said this?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Would that be the same thing as a moral judgement ?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Sure they did but they did not make sure we had rights to protect perversions.


----------



## AceRothstein (Oct 6, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Just because you say something is a perversion doesn't mean it is a perversion.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Some Muslim Cabbies Refuse Fares Carrying Alcohol

well within their rights, says I

Now, why do you assume I'm white, Christian, and male?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Probably John Adams.  Since you are neither moral nor righteous, you don't need to worry about it.


----------



## Plasmaball (Oct 6, 2014)

Remember the hobby lobby case and how the right decided to rub it in everyones faces that they won something. So we got thread after thread about it. 

So in response to that: hahahaahhahahhahaha fuck you


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



so they didn't refuse to take people. they refused to take liquor? and what happened when they did that?

my assumption is that if you aren't defending minority rights, you are white, male and christian. of course, you might not be all three at once. but it's a good bet you're at least one of those.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 6, 2014)

AceRothstein said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


It is it's also abnormal

per·ver·sion
pərˈvərZHən/
_noun_

*1*.
the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.
ab·nor·mal
abˈnôrməl/
_adjective_

deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 6, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You are conflating going to school in general with going to public school in particular. So technically that is not true in all cases.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

ran across this from another site:


Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.

The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, gay marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.
Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to think about the Supreme Court's decision concerning DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect. Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Article IV, Section 1 power, the Full Faith and Credit clause, to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states, and gives the states the power to ignore gay marriages recognized in other states. But Section 2 is wrongly being ignored by both judges and justices imo. *DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the states*
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay “rights,” such as gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, the troubling question is why are legal professionals who are supposed to be protecting state laws prohibiting gay marriage evidently not arguing the above points in defense of such laws?
Sen. Cruz releases statement about Supreme Court actions today Homosexual Marriage


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 6, 2014)

I've got mixed feelings abou this.  The Court again punted the football, but they are running out of places to punt it to. 

clearly, the court's majority (the four liberals plus Kennedy) want to declare gay marriage for the whole country, but they want to get more coverage from the lower courts without having to pull the trigger themselves. 

Lawrence and Roemer have already set the precedent. You can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But the court doesn't want to pull that trigger on marriage -  yet.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

No one really cares about Teddie since he lost his power last fall in the debt and budgt debacles.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> ran across this from another site:
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.
> ...


Cruz is a fucking idiot and a liar.  He lost my vote ... forever.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> ran across this from another site:
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.
> ...



thanks for sharing some of cruz's idiocy. he sure knows how to play you wackadoodles


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > ran across this from another site:
> ...



cruz didn't say it. it was from someone on the SITE with the article on Senator Cruz for crying out loud


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > ran across this from another site:
> ...



you nut jobs can't understand what is fucking said. CRUZ isn't the one who said that. you hypercritical witch


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is 145 Tragic and Indefensible 146 and 145 Judicial Activism at its Worst 146 Ted Cruz U.S. Senator for Texas
I'll repeat... he's lost my vote.  I'll vote for anyone before him... well anyone but a democrat but I'll write in screw you both before voting for cruz.

Cruz is just making shit up.  Not doing something is defacto law making.. what a POS.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



so are we suppose to care who you vote for? really


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

again, this is something to think about without all you hysterical loons jumping in with your dramatics

---------------
Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.

The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, gay marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.
Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to think about the Supreme Court's decision concerning DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect. Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Article IV, Section 1 power, the Full Faith and Credit clause, to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states, and gives the states the power to ignore gay marriages recognized in other states. But Section 2 is wrongly being ignored by both judges and justices imo. *DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the states*
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay “rights,” such as gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, the troubling question is why are legal professionals who are supposed to be protecting state laws prohibiting gay marriage evidently not arguing the above points in defense of such laws?


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I'm going to do EVERYTHING in my power to make sure Cruz is never re-elected in this state.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



go ahead break your neck doing it. the dramatics you believe yourself so powerful


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


He's dead to me.  And dead to this state.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

again, this is something to think about without all you hysterical loons jumping in with your dramatics

---------------
Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.

The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, gay marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.
Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to think about the Supreme Court's decision concerning DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect. Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Article IV, Section 1 power, the Full Faith and Credit clause, to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states, and gives the states the power to ignore gay marriages recognized in other states. But Section 2 is wrongly being ignored by both judges and justices imo. *DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the states*
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay “rights,” such as gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, the troubling question is why are legal professionals who are supposed to be protecting state laws prohibiting gay marriage evidently not arguing the above points in defense of such laws?


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


Homophobic bigoted POS republicans have no place in my government.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

I posted the above for anyone who want's to consider the LEGAL end of things..your choice to look at or not

I'm out of here can't stomach the hysterical hyperventilating  loony toons


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage.




Here is where your repeated post fails Steph....


................. The Constitution is not a document, and never has been, that must enumerate rights.



>>>>


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You have no god damn place in my country leave faggot.


----------



## guno (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



only government cheese


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> I've got mixed feelings abou this.  The Court again punted the football, but they are running out of places to punt it to.
> 
> clearly, the court's majority (the four liberals plus Kennedy) want to declare gay marriage for the whole country, but they want to get more coverage from the lower courts without having to pull the trigger themselves.
> 
> Lawrence and Roemer have already set the precedent. You can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But the court doesn't want to pull that trigger on marriage -  yet.


Want to bet I can't discriminate? I will never hire a faggot as long as I run my company.


----------



## guno (Oct 6, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...




Such white christer rage!!


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 6, 2014)

jillian said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



iF you're going to play word games. I'll move on.. What are you, in kindergarten?



Minnesota s Muslim cab drivers face crackdown Reuters


Here's some that refuse to allow service animals in their cabs

By the way, what you have just essentially admitted to is that SOME discriminating is okay. Which is true, under the CRA of 1965 and all subsequent addendum SOME discrimination is alright, while others isn't. And that makes the law a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the COTUS.

How the 14th Amendment got extended to private businesses is ridiculous. No other part of the COTUS extends constitutional protections from a private business violating your rights.Not one.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



they're just showing their so called "tolerance" for others they crow they are famous for having more of. disagree with them and you get called all kinds of cute little names because they are so empty of anything else


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 6, 2014)

guno said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You're a fucking faggot ass hypocrite
Who said this?
"Homophobic bigoted POS republicans have no place in my government."
Now go suck another dick.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


At least I'm not a hypocrite like they are I am very intolerant to their perversions and abnormal acts


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

this what CRUZ actually said. so some of you get your razor blades and wrist ready

SNIP:
*Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is ‘Tragic and Indefensible,’ and ‘Judicial Activism at its Worst’*
*Sen. Cruz releases statement about Supreme Court actions today*
* October 6, 2014 *
* | *
*(202) 228-7561
WASHINGTON, DC --U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to reject requests from five States to review state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible,” said Sen. Cruz. “By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.

“This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens.  Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.

“The Supreme Court is, de facto, applying an extremely broad interpretation to the 14th Amendment without saying a word – an action that is likely to have far-reaching consequences. Because of the Court’s decision today, 11 States will likely now be forced to legalize same-sex marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. And this action paves the way for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage to be overturned in any state.

“It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.*

ALL of it here:
Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is 145 Tragic and Indefensible 146 and 145 Judicial Activism at its Worst 146 Ted Cruz U.S. Senator for Texas


----------



## J.E.D (Oct 6, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...


They made sure we have the right to be free. And that means the freedom to marry the person of your choice. And that's what the SC ensured by refusing to hear the appeals of bigoted attorneys general. Sorry, Bigderp, you lose.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



The Muslim's were cited under State law and not Federal law.

The ruling against them was by Minnesota State courts and the appeal was heard by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the decision issued by Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks who is not a federal judge.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court Minnesota Public Radio News
Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks - Judgepedia


>>>>


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

J.E.D said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



who cares who you marry. marry your damn goat


----------



## J.E.D (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> this what CRUZ actually said. so some of you get your razor blades and wrist ready
> 
> SNIP:
> *Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is ‘Tragic and Indefensible,’ and ‘Judicial Activism at its Worst’*
> ...


Who gives a shit what Pedro Cruz, the Canadian-Mexican, has to say? He's going to introduce a Constitutional amendment? Oooo we're all so scared. Good luck with that


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


I
And I wholeheartedly disagree with the ruling. Those Muslims should be free to serve whichever customers they see fit.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I've got mixed feelings abou this.  The Court again punted the football, but they are running out of places to punt it to.
> ...



You don't run a company, unless you are subcontracting in your field of employment.  Thus you are not a company, merely a subcontractor.  Now get off your knees.


----------



## J.E.D (Oct 6, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


You're still here? I figured you'd be busy stocking your bunker. Has your head exploded yet?


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

found this on another site I posted on earlier:
Supreme Court declines to hear same-sex marriage cases making it legal in five new states Hot Air


> Your religion may not like that, but as a matter of secular government, you don’t get to determine what a marriage is for other consenting adults and deny them taxpayer benefits based upon your personally preferred definition.
> Good Lt on October 6, 2014 at 1:02 PM


So a secular government is free to redefine the meaning of a word to fit and advance their rights over others? How Orwellian.
At what point does the redefinition of the meaning of certain words end?
Frankly, a secular government can define a new term, ‘civil unions’ and extend to them the same rights and responsibilities as those in a ‘marriage’ without having to redefine a word or permitting a minority to leverage a tyranny over the majority in the name of ‘rights’ – where their ‘rights’ are more endowed by the secular government than the ‘rights’ of others.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Companies subcontract other companies all the time , so it is possible. Probably about as likely as a mid 80s lesbian naval aviator, but possible.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




I don't disagree with the ruling about Public Accommodation as it obviously complies with the laws that were written by the legislature and such laws have been upheld both at the State and Federal level as it within a State power to regulate commerce within that State.


With that said Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as applied to private business.  Just because a law is "legal" doesn't mean it should exist.



>>>>


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Your question is more detailed than can be answered by yes or no only. But you have an angle and that's why you asked it that way.
People who should be allowed to marry are those who could possibly conceive or who would provide the ideal circumstances for raising children. That, of course, being a man and a woman.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

If a business can advertise privately, then I don't think public accommodation laws should apply.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Well, that's an opinion, I guess.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



On a state level I would agree, states DO have the right to do so. but the CRA of 1965 is a FEDERAL law and as such, blatantly violates the 14th Amendment.

Now, I actually believe that if the law simply made ANY discrimination illegal, then it would be a constitutional law, but that isn't what the law did; instead it carves out certain criteria that can't be discriminated. 

But, I see we disagree on this, and that's okay.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 6, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




The Muslim cab driver case had nothing to do with Federal law.  It was based on State law and decided by State Courts.


>>>>


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I keep hearing the media say that it extends to 11 states but I dont see why, I would think that would still depend on state by state cases,... but whatever,even if it does, I still see it as weaseling out of a definitive ruling.  .....As I understand Marshall, if the court doesn't take every case presented, it undermines its moral authority to judge the Constitutionality of the law.  

Also why do you care about 30 states being a majority????....your basing your validation on the decision of what 4 people?


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



ahh  judgemental is the PC correct word for these decisions ?


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2014)

So what would happen if the states just refused to follow the lower courts decisions? 

The people in this country better wake up to this judical  actitivism taking away the rights of  the states you live in


----------



## AceRothstein (Oct 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Bigreb is a mop boy for the private booths at an adult bookstore.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...


This doesn't make any sense.

The cases under review concerned 14th Amendment jurisprudence, not Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizing public accommodations laws.

Your disdain for the civil rights of gay Americans only exposes your ignorance and stupidity.


----------



## sameech (Oct 6, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> > I live in Virginia.  Our local Clerk of Court office says that it won't issue any marriage licenses for same sex couples until it receives clarification of the law/direction from Richmond requiring them to do so since the current statutes do not authorize it.  This Dillon Rule stuff will have to be sorted out.
> ...



Courts don't demand clarifications of laws.  The Clerk need clarification of the procedures.  As it turns out, the Attorney General's Office and the State Supreme Court had already worked to have the necessary changes to required paperwork in anticipation of the possible outcome.  Those forms just had to be distributed.  The State Supreme Court electronically distributed the new licensing form today and expects to have the remaining forms available tomorrow so that weddings can take place.  It wasn't like they could just scratch through "Bride" and replace it with "Other Groom" on their existing forms because MSNBC says so.  

And no the SCOTUS did not "roll back" the law because same sex couples could not marry prior to the amendment having been passed.  The SCOTUS did not decide the case at all.  It is still unsettled law in 20 states.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Private businesses function as a part of their local markets, where their actions effect all other interrelated markets. Allowing private businesses to refuse to accommodate patrons because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation would be disruptive to both the local market and those other interrelated markets, hence the validity of public accommodations laws as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Public accommodations laws are therefore necessary, proper, and Constitutional, not merely 'legal,' where advocacy for their repeal is unwarranted.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


I see your Adams, and raise you a Jefferson:
"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution."


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


You have your own country!  Wow, I'm impressed!  I've never actually talked to royalty before.  What's it called?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I've got mixed feelings abou this.  The Court again punted the football, but they are running out of places to punt it to.
> ...


Yeah...you know it's easy to spew stupid homophobic bullshit when you're anonymous.  I *hope* you are stupid enough to make that opinion known out in the real world where you will actually have to suffer the consequences of your stupidity.


----------



## hipeter924 (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Whats funny too is that he thinks he can tell who is gay and who is not. Some people who dated girls and appeared straight back in my school days turned out to be gay, and I have met a few in the closet gays who are straight and macho in appearance but actually gay in private.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 7, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> So what would happen if the states just refused to follow the lower courts decisions?
> 
> The people in this country better wake up to this judical  actitivism taking away the rights of  the states you live in


I don't get it The supreme court decided not to hear any cases regrading faggots rights to marriage because it's viewed as a states issue, but it is the federal appointed judges ruled states cannot make this decision. When the lower FEDERAL courts overturn thew will of the people of each state it made it a federal issue. Didn't the supreme court say let the states decide?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


I'm not anonymous  you fucking idiot govco knows where I am. You can bet your last fucking dollar I will never hire a faggot to work for me.  I'd shut my business down before I would.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Is your friend raising his children? If not, you've selfishly denied those kids the natural right to be raised by their father. Shame on your conservative ass!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 7, 2014)

hipeter924 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Firing would also be an option if that ever happen. But when I hire people I do background check I talk with their neighbors family members References are required before being hired.


----------



## Politico (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Not sure why this happened. By taking the cases they could have set precedent for the entire country, now the rulings vary by which circuit the original cases were held in.


It is clear why it happened. They are a bunch of pussies motivated by politics rather than the law.


----------



## Qball (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> > This is just a gross misuse of the separation of powers doctrine and blatantly ignoring the people's will. Seriously ask yourself: how much acceptance will gays have if gay marriage is just going to be rammed through by shenanigans like this? Let the Circuit Courts strike down duly passed constitutional amendments and state laws, and then the SCOTUS just lets those lower court rulings stand because it's easier than doing it themselves. And why is it okay to pick-and-choose when we're going to acknowledge the majority? When a poll says a majority supports gay marriage, it's hailed as the gospel. But when the majority actually votes and doesn't approve of it, it's okay to just get that overturned on principle. Somebody name me one other supposed "civil right" that has been enacted through judges essentially legislating from the bench.
> ...



True, but you have to toe a fine line between determining constitutionality and legislating from the bench. It's an easier remedy to have a judge strike down a law than it is for the governing body to coalesce around one issue, which is why gay marriage advocates like the legal remedies option.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I've got mixed feelings abou this.  The Court again punted the football, but they are running out of places to punt it to.
> ...



Make sure you tell them that when you don't hire them. 

Or better yet, when you find out that your employee is gay, make sure you let him know that's why you're firing him.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



and your assessment doesn't even take into consideration what happens to the parties discriminated against in a homogeneous market where "anti's" control the supply of goods and services.

they want to go back to an era where you could humiliate someone and prevent them from eating in your restaurant, purchasing your goods, staying at your inn if some bigot disapproves of your religion/color/sexual orientation


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



ultimately, they forget that the founders were the politicians of their day. they did not all agree about all things. but they set up a government that allowed for people to disagree about things like religion and made sure government would  stay out of their religion and they'd keep their religion out of our government.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

Qball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > One, this is an issue about law, not culture.
> ...



You should try actually looking at the polls and the poll questions. Look at the actual question. It's not "should gays be left alone to be gay". The question is, in essence; "should marriage for gays be legal just like marriage for straights"


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



You mean they have to adopt kids, use IVF or artificial insemination just like millions of straight couples? No shit. Does that change the FACT that gays do have children that are legally and emotionally "theirs"? No, it does not, but keep talking and looking more moronic, please.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 7, 2014)

Just face, they beat you down. They couldn't pass it by the people in the states so they used black robes activism to step on you

what a country eh?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> again, this is something to think about without all you hysterical loons jumping in with your dramatics
> 
> ---------------
> Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.
> ...



Stephanie, when a 40 year old man marries his 15 year old 1st cousin in Alabama where it's legal to do both, is their marriage valid in all 50 states, even those states that prohibit 1st cousin and underage marriage?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

bigreb in his hatred because he knows he is a low info thinker spawns foulness because he can't compete here in thoughts.

States make the rules on marriage unless they violate the Constitution.  That is why the federal courts and told the bigrebs "no, you can't discriminate against other citizens."


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 7, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Just face, they beat you down. They couldn't pass it by the people in the states so they used black robes activism to step on you
> 
> what a country eh?


 
Just accept the fact that gay marriage will soon be the law of the land

Long overdue, don't you think?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Just face, they beat you down. They couldn't pass it by the people in the states so they used black robes activism to step on you
> 
> what a country eh?



Stephanie, which states approved interracial marriage by popular vote and which states had it "forced" on them by "activist judges"?


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > again, this is something to think about without all you hysterical loons jumping in with your dramatics
> ...



I don't care. go marry two or three people at once. It pretty much means nothing anymore thanks all of you


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> found this on another site I posted on earlier:
> Supreme Court declines to hear same-sex marriage cases making it legal in five new states Hot Air
> 
> 
> ...



And Civil Unions would be just dandy...if they applied to everyone. Trying to set up civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays would be separate but equal. I'm not sure if you're aware, but that was ruled unconstitutional. 

I'd also like to point out that many of the anti gay marriage laws passed by bigots in their states also prohibit civil unions.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Majority has nothing to do with civil rights, Stephanie.

Step along.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > found this on another site I posted on earlier:
> ...



Seperate but equal is not unconstitutional in all cases. It's often used when gender is concerned.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Just face, they beat you down. They couldn't pass it by the people in the states so they used black robes activism to step on you
> ...


 
Bad analogy

Stephanie doesn't support interracial marriage either


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

I have nothing against gay marriage going forward via the state legislatures changing the laws for the marriage contracts, If put to a vote I would vote for it. What I oppose is using judicial fiat via activist judges, and the subsequent use of PA laws to crush people of faith.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


 
Why don't you explain pottys to us?


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Bullshit.  Men and women have gotten together since time immemorial *without ever producing children*.  There have been numerous cultures that have tolerated homosexual relations.  The suggestion that the purpose of marriage is "only for procreation" is anything other than a new argument meant to impugn the idea of same sex marriage is as disingenuous as it is idiotic.


What culture tolerated homosexual relationships and where are those marriages. You clearly couldn't understand my point about male/female dynamics and why that union has been the only one tolerated by any civilized society. You're the one trying to alter history and reality, not me. 


> Again, this is just plain stupid, and shows a complete lack of understanding of what has happened.  lemme help you out with this.  The Supreme court didn't leave the ruling of the *State Courts* in place; they left the previous ruling of the *Federal Circuit Courts* in place.  In other words, this wasn't a State Issue; it was a Federal Issue, and the Supreme Court decided that it had already been decided.  Furthermore, this action not only makes the marriage ban in these seven states invalid, it also makes the marriage bans *in the other eleven states in their jusrisdiction illegal.*  "Homosexual marriage" *is* being seen as "the same"; 30 states out of 50.  Sorry pal, your archaic, bigoted view is simply going the way of all bigotry - it is losing.


You're the bigot here, not me. You can't tolerate a differing view, like most of you assholes. There would be no state issue if you were right, it would be like a state legalizing slavery, it can't happen. There's nothing in the Constitution that defines what each state must define marriage as. Fail.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...


Yet we consider slavery and the rape of slave women a perversion and immorality and they all made sure the right to own slaves and do with them as property was protected.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).



Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage. 

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



The idea was to prevent the government from imposing a religion on PEOPLE, not other people practicing their religion and harming no one.

Having to go to another baker is not harm.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> You get that the Supreme Court's move today not only has the effect of striking down the gay marriage ban in each of these cases, but also made the bans in *the other eleven states in their jurisdiction* invalid, as well.  It sounds a whole lot like the Supreme Court just recognized the federal circuit courts' decision that gay marriage *is* a right.  This just increased the number of states that recognize marriage equality from a paltry 19 minority to an impressive 30 majority of the nation.


Wrong.

Supreme Court declines to review same-sex marriage cases allowing unions in 5 states - The Washington Post
“It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here,” Scalia wrote.

Instead, “the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition,” Scalia wrote, and such suits are a “second . . . shoe to be dropped later.”


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> ...


What the heck are you inferring there, little reb?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).
> ...



That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 7, 2014)

The goals of the homosexuals/progressives/commies

Tear this country apart one step at a time. you all should be real proud


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

hipeter924 said:


> Same-sex marriage should be legal in every state by the end of the decade, but for now there will be a lot of court battles and appeals. There are sure to be hold out states.


Just like there were hold out states with civil rights in the 60s and 70s.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



So you can't find where in the Amendment it specifically mentions race as it pertains to equal protection. Imagine that! 

I love that you're still beating the "activist judge" meme. How many ruling have there been now? How many have gone the anti gay way? But still you want to try for the "activist judge" storyline. 

Hmmmm...19 rulings one way...none the other. Riiiggghhhhttt...."activism".


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Yes, activism. We have lost contact with the constitution in favor of placating a vocal minority and their backers.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Funny...sounds more like the old "sour grapes" story to me. 

Our "backers" are the majority or haven't you seen the polls?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 I think, if anything we are closer to the original intent of the Constitution to provide equal protection of the laws


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Where is that codified in our Constitution?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
If they wanted to restrict the scope, they could have

These were intelligent men back then, they knew the meaning of the words they wrote


----------



## paperview (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Bush v Gore.  That was a pretty wicked stretch of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



And yet, if that was the only intent, race would have been mentioned specifically wouldn't it? Loving was not the only marriage case that cited the 14th...and that one wasn't about race.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Yet we consider slavery and the rape of slave women a perversion and immorality and they all made sure the right to own slaves and do with them as property was protected.


It was contentious from the beginning, read John Adams as one example. But trying to piggyback your pet cause on top of slavery or women's suffrage is stupid. Anyone can claim anything using that tactic. But we are talking about folks that can't figure out that tab A goes into slot B.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



well for sure the millions of people being stepped on by you has no reason for sour grapes. what do you care about them. You're all strutting around beating your chest like hairy apes


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Yet we consider slavery and the rape of slave women a perversion and immorality and they all made sure the right to own slaves and do with them as property was protected.
> ...



So the 35% of straight people that engage in anal sex get their marriage licenses revoke? 

We're not "piggybacking" anything. We're challenging anti gay rulings on our merits. Not our fault that the precedent for marriage being a *fundamental right *was set before we got here.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> again, this is something to think about without all you hysterical loons jumping in with your dramatics
> 
> ---------------
> Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.
> ...


So...you can't think for yourself....only can regurgitate the same thing over and over.....color me surprised.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Strongly disagree. Removal of this issue from the state legislatures, where it has always been decided basically shits on the constitution.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I've got mixed feelings abou this.  The Court again punted the football, but they are running out of places to punt it to.
> ...


You think....    You got gaydar then?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 7, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
How, specifically, does gay marriage "step on " you?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You assume that same sex and opposite sex marriage are the equal, they are not, no matter how much you wish it to be.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
State legislations do not have the authority to violate the Constitution. We saw that during the civil rights era


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

The far right here sounds like the far right in all centuries: screwed up and out of the mainstream.


----------



## AceRothstein (Oct 7, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Who is being stepped on?  How does gays having the ability to marry affect you personally?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 7, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Just face, they beat you down. They couldn't pass it by the people in the states so they used black robes activism to step on you
> 
> what a country eh?


 This is ignorant and ridiculous.

The people have no authority to deny citizens their civil rights. The courts are reaffirming that fact.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

paperview said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It was one 7 of 9 Justices agreed on. 



> However, seven of the justices agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties



Bush v. Gore is a terrible decision to reference for anything. It was based on a time dependent situation that would result in 1/2 the country hating it, and 1/2 the country accepting it no matter which way it went.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 7, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Just face, they beat you down. They couldn't pass it by the people in the states so they used black robes activism to step on you
> ...



civil rights to frikken marry someone. You are the ignorant one. I doubt anyone care's who you call ignorant anymore you do it in every post


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Marriage equality steps on no one.

Marriage equality hurts neither Marty nor Stephanie.


----------



## Qball (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



That doesn't refute what I said. They say they support it because they don't want to look like homophobic busybodies who care way too much about other people's private lives.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

They aren't and they don't.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I see you agree

Next time just hit the check mark

Easy peazy


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


I have a friend who is in her late 60s, a widow, who has just gotten engaged.  She's not allowed to marry in your world then?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> So what would happen if the states just refused to follow the lower courts decisions?
> 
> The people in this country better wake up to this judical  actitivism taking away the rights of  the states you live in


How has Nullification worked out in the past?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

The far right might think it has the right to tell the rest of us how to live but is learning that it can't make it happen anymore.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Your bigoted opinion of gays is irrelevant. The only reason they are unequal at this point is because of Section 2 of the Unconstitutional DOMA. That will fall soon enough. 

Tell me, precisely, why you believe my civil marriage license, issued by my state, should be treated differently than yours?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 
You still haven't explained that potty thing


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



why do you need to pretend someone is agreeing with you when they're clearly kicking your butt?

are you ten or something?


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The far right might think it has the right to tell the rest of us how to live but is learning that it can't make it happen anymore.



which is why they aren't anything but one huge temper tantrum.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



it was both. and one can't exist without the other.

the whole point is that your extremist religious views are what they are.  I don't really care what they are. but no religion was ever supposed to be given preferential treatment.

so do us a favor and don't interfere what is acceptable in others' belief systems.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Okay.  so you realize that you have just discounted every sterile - whether naturally, through accident, or surgery - and infertile *heterosexual* couple in the country, right?  Well done, Sir.  Well done.  Your side tried this argument - it resulted in ridicule.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Did your state ratify it via legislative action, or judicial fiat?

And facts can't be bigoted.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I've also made mention of the fact that women were denied the vote and blacks were 3/5 of a person. hence my not idolizing a bunch of politicians who were of their time.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> If a business can advertise privately, then I don't think public accommodation laws should apply.



but they do apply.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> So what would happen if the states just refused to follow the lower courts decisions?
> 
> The people in this country better wake up to this judical  actitivism taking away the rights of  the states you live in



well, i'd say its a pretty good bet that if your state went rogue like idiots think it should, your little social security nest egg would probably dry up.

oops.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government. 

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



you prefer bigot? ok.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Blacks were not persons at all, they were property

The 3/5ths only applied to apportioning representatives that would keep them as property


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > If a business can advertise privately, then I don't think public accommodation laws should apply.
> ...



They only apply because evidently they are the best way to crush those who disagree with you, i.e. BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE PEASANT!


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Then, let us hope that some gay person comes to be hired and you make it very very clear you will not hire them because they are gay.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


I'm not gay you POS pansy.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Marriage equality steps on no one.
> 
> Marriage equality hurts neither Marty nor Stephanie.
> 
> View attachment 32622



My owning a firearm harms no one, but progressives seem to ignore the 2nd amendment to make it harder for me to get one. 

and that text is actually IN the constitution, and you assholes bastardize it every chance you get.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



fist. take a deep breath. frankly, i'm unsure as to why you give a flying that two adult people who love each other can get married. i'm not sure why it makes you turn into a venom spewing extremist. I've not always found you to be this angry.

what process? the court has ALWAYS put the kibosh on unconstitutional actions by bigots. well, when it gets things right. 

and, frankly, my gay friends have as much right to have their relationships recognized by the state as you do.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> With that said Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as applied to private business.  Just because a law is "legal" doesn't mean it should exist.>>>>


The problem is, WW, unless you are talking about an appointment only business where one does not allow the public access, there is no such thing as a "private business".  That's the point.  If you have a truly private business - one in which you have no access to the public, and potential customers can only avail themselves of your services by referral and appointment, then public accommodation laws *don't* apply to you.  The only time you become subject to the *public* accommodation laws is when you are open to the *public*.  See how that "public" thing is kind of important to the concept?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> If a business can advertise privately, then I don't think public accommodation laws should apply.


They don't.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



I think the problem is you are confused about who belongs in this country


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Again, if it is via the state legislature changing the marriage contract, I have no issue with it. I would probably vote for it. 

My issue is with courts making up rights, because the same courts can make shit up to take them away. My other issue is with PA laws that force people to either compromise their religious beliefs, or abandon their preferred way of making a living. PA laws were meant to cover essentials, like lodging, transportation, and basic necessity purchasing, they were not meant to protect the feelings of a couple that has to call another baker/photographer for their wedding. 

And what really gets my goat is the same people who are OK with making crap up in the constitution are A-OK with ignoring another part of it when it suits them. 

The fact you have to accuse of me of some non existent bigotry is sad.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Facts can't be, but you saying that marriage between gays and marriage between heterosexuals isn't equal IS bigoted. In half the states now it is equal. Can you explain why you believe that my civil marriage license should be treated differently than yours?


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > So what would happen if the states just refused to follow the lower courts decisions?
> ...



neo-confederate insurrectionists are funny.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



federal law trumps state law. and, if I've mischaracterized you, i'm sorry. I can only go by what I see. and, to be fair, most states' rights extremists are only states rights extremists because they're still pissed off about brown v board of ed, outlawing segregation and theocracy.... none of which is permissible anywhere but in the extremes of the right.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

and martybegan the states rights battle was lost at the end of the civil war. perhaps its time to get over it.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I know. but I was making a particular point.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



You mean not at all?


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



oh... are you one of those people who thinks marriage is about what deity you worship? lol


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


It includes the other 11 states, because all of those states fall within the circuit's jurisdiction, and those states are, therefore, subject to abide by those courts' rulings.  That makes the bans in those states invalid. Well, those four people just dramatically changed the landscape of the marriage Equality fight, so, yeah.  The fact is, contrary to your rant about "the law of the land", the lower courts already *declared* "gay marriage", as you put it, a right.  By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court tacitly agreed with their findings.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Federal law trumps state law, but federal laws should only concern themselves with what the constitution gives them. We have sadly moved far away from that, with the feds getting into crap that they have no right interfering with. States rights may be a catch all for everything you detest about the right, but that does not make all federalists the same. For example NY State is in violation of the 2nd amendment with a lot of their gun control laws (i.e may issue instead of shall issue CCW) and here the federal courts SHOULD step in and fix it.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> and martybegan the states rights battle was lost at the end of the civil war. perhaps its time to get over it.



States rights are secession are two separate things. To Equate the two is ridiculous. The 10th amendment is still in effect, last I looked.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


And they know they are wrong.. thus why NY keeps backing off before punishing anyone with their unconstitutional laws.  They know as soon as they actually enforce it ... the law will go before the courts and they will be thrown out.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Again, if it was passed by your state legislature, it should be legally equal. If it was created via judicial fiat, it is tainted by the use of courts to create something out of thin air. 

The two forms of marriage are not the same thing. It's not bigoted to point it out, its realistic.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > So what would happen if the states just refused to follow the lower courts decisions?
> ...


No.  It said "let the previous rulings stand".  That's the part you don't get.  The Supreme Court essentially said, "While this is a Federal issue, the issue has already been correctly ruled upon, and we see no reason to revisit the question,"


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


I would very much like to have people practice their religion and harm no one....but when they try to codify their religion into law, making law that discriminates against others....that IS harm.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



NYC's onerous concealed carry laws have existed for two decades now. I'm not confident in the courts to fix it, because they haven't yet.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


It's not the same thing.  But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



The only harm codified by law is harming the religious people, not you.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Has anyone been prosecuted yet?


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?"  Or any other human right for that matter?  Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It's not, but we all know the intent of it. Interpretation is of course needed, but the 14th is being used so far outside it's intent that it can basically be used to make anything unconstitutional if you get a sympathetic court.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Really? NYC prosecutes people carrying handguns all the time, but that's not the point. The point is unless I prove to a NYPD bureaucrat my "need" for A CCW permit, I get denied automatically.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So what word do you prefer to use when judging people ? Do you base it on moral principals or are they all passé ?


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure why this happened. By taking the cases they could have set precedent for the entire country, now the rulings vary by which circuit the original cases were held in.
> ...


Agreed.  I think what they want to do, is wait till there is a more conservative bench that reflects the will of the people.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


What do you think the intent was in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th.  Did I miss something?  They seemed like very very very broad statements, giving the states the right to take your life, liberty, and property with due process.. and the people will receive equal justice.. this means you can't discriminate against people because you don't like their sexual orientation, or skin color, or religion.  Or maybe justice means something different to you?


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




Marriage is fundamental part of life.  Life, liberty, and property are protected by the Constitution.  Try again.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It means all things being equal, you cannot change the intent of a law between one party and the other. Race does not make one person different from another when it comes to law, or even reality. A marriage between two people changes depending on the sex of the people involved, its just reality. If we want to make them equal as per certain laws, the constitution leaves that to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



So the liberty to sell to whoever you want is protected? the right to deny your property to certain people for their wedding is protected? 
I recall you being against that in the past. Oh wait, its only freedoms YOU like that are protected, got it.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> You're the bigot here, not me. You can't tolerate a differing view, like most of you assholes. There would be no state issue if you were right, it would be like a state legalizing slavery, it can't happen. There's nothing in the Constitution that defines what each state must define marriage as. Fail.


Wellll...except the states *did*, until the Federal government said you don't get to.  You might remember from your high school history classes that we fought a little war over that.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



No, your bigotry is not "just reality," it's your personal viewpoint.  The same type of viewpoint that was used to justify bigotry against blacks.  The 10th amendment was modified by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.  You're not paying attn.  You're justifying your bigotry.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > With that said Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as applied to private business.  Just because a law is "legal" doesn't mean it should exist.>>>>
> ...




By "private business" I mean one owned and operated by non-government entities.  It refers to ownership not whether they are open to the public or not.


>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Yes, you can sell to whomever you want.  Yes, you can deny your property to certain people for their wedding, that is also protected.

No, I'm not against discriminatory private sales.   You are confusing PUBLIC accommodation for PRIVATE sales.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > You're the bigot here, not me. You can't tolerate a differing view, like most of you assholes. There would be no state issue if you were right, it would be like a state legalizing slavery, it can't happen. There's nothing in the Constitution that defines what each state must define marriage as. Fail.
> ...


Well the war wasn't just about that...  it was more about federal power, control, and acquisition of  the south.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


No.  That's *not* why slavery and rape are illegal.  The purpose of Law is to protect me from you.  Morality doesn't enter into the equation.  The morality of slavery, and rape is irrelevant.  The issue at question is that, in both of those cases, you are infringing on the rights of other; in the case of slavery the right of individual liberty, in the case of rape the right of ownership of one's body, as well as the right of, again, individual liberty.

This is the problem with you moralists.  You stopped passing laws to protect me from you, and began advocating the passage of laws to protect me *from myself*.  Well, guess what?  That's not your job.  You don't have the authority to "decide" what's "best for me".  I am not 4-years-old, and you are not my parent.  Every time one of these morality laws gets passed, its enforcement requires that the individual liberties of the very people it is directed at are abridged.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > You get that the Supreme Court's move today not only has the effect of striking down the gay marriage ban in each of these cases, but also made the bans in *the other eleven states in their jurisdiction* invalid, as well.  It sounds a whole lot like the Supreme Court just recognized the federal circuit courts' decision that gay marriage *is* a right.  This just increased the number of states that recognize marriage equality from a paltry 19 minority to an impressive 30 majority of the nation.
> ...


Well, *of course*, Scalia said that.  He is the most activist Right-Wing judge on the court.  However, *The Court*, fortunately, does not rule on the views of one man.  Regardless of that that *one man* thinks, the feeling of *The Court* was that this issue did not need revisiting.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Translation:"I know I'm right!  Quit trying to confuse me with the facts!!!"


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Actually I'm justifying others bigotry. And I guess we are going to go the ThoughtCrime route now, because that's where all this is leading to. 

The bigotry against blacks we got rid of was systemic governmental bigotry, which was illegal under the words AND intent of the 14th amendment.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Actually, it doesn't.  In fact this is *the constitutional purpose of the federal courts*.  When states enact laws that transcend their constitutional authority, it is the responsibility of the federal Courts to put the breaks on.  Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional.

I don't like the Citizen's United ruling.  However, the Court has determined it is constitutional.  Since they are the ones that have spent their lives studying the law, and not me, I have to accept their judgement.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



What facts are you referencing? The Reconstruction amendments were created to protect the freedmen from local laws. Its a fact. It was not intended to be a foot in the door for things like gay marriage.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


They are in respect to the rights, and privileges afforded to married couples; or, ought to be, anyway.  That's kind of the point.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Why do you have to accept it? 

The purpose of the courts has nothing to do with the current misuse of them to further political agendas that are by the constitution, the territory of the people via their state legislatures.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Thought crime?

The words and intent of the 14th amendment applied to everyone not just blacks.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



No, the courts are confusing public accommodation with private transactions. You hide behind the "private sale" mantra, but the definition of a private sale that has been made basically precludes any real form of business to fall under it.  Its a cop out, nothing more.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



No one is forcing you to marry a person of your own sex.

Marty, your bad old ways are over.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage equality steps on no one.
> ...



Show an analogy that shows light on the subject instead of the denseness that rules your logic.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



This another one of your "reality" statements?   Nearly every single church in this country discriminates ... I'm not sure your reality is based on anything real.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Marty, we know your opinion, but your opinion is not law.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


WE have a system where every state is guaranteed a Republican form of Government....that means the people SHOULD have the last say except where the Federal government has its area of power.  Marshall said our case law is made BY CASES, it seems to me UNTIL each state has had a case brought to the courts, no matter the circut's "jurisdiction" the state law should prevail.  

Why didnt the higher court.....in it's infinite wisdom....simply decide the matter then?...what made them put it off?    *Cause they are weasels*....trying to get an outcome they know doesnt really mesh with the constitution, but that they feel is good..


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

The Right to Refuse Service Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance Odor or Attitude legalzoom.com


> In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.
> 
> Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.



You see marty... the issue is not whether you have liberties or whether your patrons have liberties, because you both have liberties.  The question is who's being harmed in cases when two liberties cross each other.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


You keep making reference to something that does not exist.  States do not have "rights".  No where in the Constitution does it confer onto states "rights".  States have "powers", *individuals* have "right".  This issue was resolved over 100 years ago.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

States have no rights.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> States have no rights.


That would depend on what you mean by state, and/or states rights.  Sometimes people say states rights to refer to rights that are regulated at the State level vs. regulated at the Federal level.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Again, how, *exactly*, does allowing gay people to marry hurt *you*.  You keep trouting out this rhetorical general claim.  But, every time you are cahllenged to provide details, you just pretend the question wasn't asked...


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


I think he's saying... it's not himself that he's defending it's the rights of the bigots to choose whether gays can get married in their own state that he's defending.  

I was at that stage myself a couple years back.   The stage between being a bigot against gay marriage and thinking well it's ok for others to be bigots if that's how they want to live.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Except that it was in the state statutes.  This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal  people.  Then *you* ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction.  The right was always expressed.  It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law.  That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Again, the opinion of *one man*, who was in the minority dissent, fortunately does not get to dictate how the law works.  The fact is the rulings of the lower circuit courts affect the laws of all of the states in their jurisdiction.  That's the way the system was set up.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


N o it isn't.  "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose".  You're right to property ends at *my* right to property, and pursuit of happyness.  You keep trying to suggest that your rights exist independently of anyone elses.  Sorry, that is just not how it works.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

MisterBeale said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


I would submit that the conservative judges want to wait until there is a more conservative court that represents the will of their *ideology*.  Since Marriage equality has a majority support, it would seem that the will of the "people" is to put this silly restriction to bed.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



One man? Marshall?, in the minority?....Marshall was usually among the majority of the court I believe......

Marriage isnt one law.....it is usually a bunch of laws, slightly different  in every state, I would think.  Thus UNTIL a definitive ruling covering all aspects of marriage....from tax breaks to divorce law, comes form the Supreme Court....I dont see how circuit "jurisdiction" means anything except for direct cases brought before them.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Unless you are, again, going back to that silly "marriage is only for procreation" argument.  How?  How, *exactly* is the marriage, commitment, love, and desire for companionship "different" based on the gender of the two people involved?  You keep making that claim, but you don't offer any details, or evidence to support it.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Except that it doesn't.  The Courts have already ruled on this, and Public accommodation laws were determined to be constitutional.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It was only expressed if one accepted YOUR definition.The definition is now being backed up by more liberal judges.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Welllll...actually it was about slavery.

_“A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to *slavery*. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half *slave*, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that *slavery* is in the course of ultimate extinction.” — Excerpt from South Carolina’s Letter of Secession; Adopted December 24th, 1860_

_“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of *slavery* – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, *none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun*. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at *slavery* is a blow at commerce and civilization.” — Excerpt from Mississippi’s Letter of Secession; c. January 9th 1861_

_“And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the *slaveholding* States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States” — Excerpt from Alabama’s Letter of Secession; February 4th, 1861_​I could go on, if you like.  There was letter, after letter, after speech, after speech making it abundantly clear that the "State Right" issue in question was clearly the State's right to own other people.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 7, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...




The Supreme Court already issued a ruling in United States v. Windsor that the Federal government has to recognize same-sex Civil Marriages the same (from a Federal perspective) as those fo different-sex couples.  So for tax fileings, inheritance, etc. - there is no difference.  So that's taken care of.

From a State perspective, the Circuit Courts set precedence within the States where they have jurisdiction.  For example the 4th Circuit Court's case was from Virginia, however that court also establishes precedence for Maryland (irrelevant as they already had SSCM), West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.  State within that Jurisdiction will have to treat same-sex couples (that are legally married) the same as different-sex couples (that are legally married).

So from a federal perspective they will be treated the same for tax and other purposes.  Within the states they will be treated the same as different-sex couples from a State government perspective.  Any "variations" that exist from one State to another are internal to that State and within that state they are treated the same.


>>>>


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Again, you resort to all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Some person's happiness and livlihood are more valuable than others, and oh gee! the government gets to decide who is more deserving of it. 

Making a couple find another baker is not a fist in the face, its a minor inconvenience that is not to the point of trumping someone else's right to their own religious and moral values.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



do you think the founders were kidding when they said "equal protection under the law"?

so you're wrong.

p.s. until scalia and the wingers, justices laughed at the idea of the 2nd amendment imparting a private right of gun ownership. I suppose they were wrong for more than 200 years, huh?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



its based on the fact that men and women are different, and that the marriage contract has always been between opposite sex people, and in western civilization, only between two of those people.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Um, equal protection was added via amendment in the 1860's, the founders were long dead at that point, makes it hard for them to say anything about it.

And for centuries courts didn't have to rule on private ownership of a gun being a right because it was accepted by all as the status quo. Every house in the countryside had a rifle and a shotgun at least, usually displayed somewhere easy to get to.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




I've never claimed that Public Accommodation laws were unconstitutional, clearly they are as one of the enumerated powers of government is to regulate commerce.

I've said I don't believe their is the same need for them as there was 3-generations ago.



>>>>


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



But we are forcing people to bake cakes for them, which is worse.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


But not in the decision to not hear these cases.

Really?  You don't see how that works?  So when a Federal Court rules in a case brought by, say South Carolina, that the state does not have the authority to execute a 5-year-old for a crime, you can't see how that might affect the pending actions of *North* Carolina (they're in the same circuit), and *their* plans to execute a 5-or a 6-year-old? You really don't think that *federal* court's ruling might have an effect on a *state* in its jurisdiction?  Really???  Do you understand the concept of jurisdiction?


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 7, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


It would seem to me that the courts have to rule on those provisions for each state.....they cannot just say.......all aspects of marriage in each state have to be the same for gay marriage.  Did they examine each states provisions?....no they did not.    If they dont do that...then I see, as Marshall did, that their whole legitimacy to rule on the Constitutional aspect of law to be invalid. Especially when you see that each state is guaranteed a Republican form of government.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


WRONG!  It was expressed because the law *did not make any distinctions!*  It was you guys who decided that it needed to, because you didn't like the effect of the protections being offered.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



WRONG!  The "intent" was never even discussed, until suddenly those "icky, icky faggots are making off with *our marriages!!!"*  How dare they!  Then you went, and changed the law, and *claimed* that was the intent.  Well, guess what?  You have no evidence to support that claim, and the courts apparently disagree with you.  Sucks to be you.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I see that jurisdiction being set up to facilitate the work of the courts.....but since each state is guaranteed a republican form of government they are a jurisdiction of their own until the Supreme court speaks......and even then the SC should address the individual aspects of marriage in each state.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Yes.  We're forcing business that accommodate the public to serve the public.  How hideous!!! (yes...that is sarcasm...)


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



No, they don't.  That's why they have *multi-state jurisdiction*.  Their rulings apply to *all of the states in their circuit*.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


So...the two genders are unequal under the law?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Well, your "seeing it" that way doesn't make it how the jurisdictions work.  At least, it never has in the past.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


You have to PROVE THAT in a court of law.....just like someone would have to PROVE in a court of law that the Founders' intent with the 2nd amendment was that only militia had the right to bear arms.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


yup...and marriage was *supposed* to mean "between a man and a woman", even though it never said that until you guys shat yourselves over the "faggoes" getting married.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Did they examine each state's provisions?..........I bet they did not...thus they shouldn't be able to just dictate downward.....especially in this kind of case where the state law is in possible conflict with federal law.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

One, if you offer services to the public, then you offer them to everyone, period.

Two, states don't have rights.

Three, federal law trumps state law.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Oct 7, 2014)

The beautiful thing about this is that nobody in the GOP has come out and said ANYTHING about this!  Only Ted Cruz and he's a psychopath.  So what does that tell us?  That opposing gay marriage is no longer an important platform for the republican party. 

THAT is what I call progress


----------



## Dana7360 (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





Then don't get involved in a homosexual relationship. It's as simple as that.

However you don't have the right to tell anyone else how to live their lives. 

You can choose for you but no one else. Everyone else gets to choose for themselves.

Freedom. It works.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> One, if you offer services to the public, then you offer them to everyone, period.
> 
> Two, states don't have rights.
> 
> ...



One - That simply isn't true, I can legally discriminate except based on certain criteria

Two - Simply untrue , of course states have rights. In this context a power IS a right. They have the right to certain powers.

Three - That is true, when the federal law complies with constitutional authority. If it doesn't then the federal law is invalid and does not supersede a state law. We see federal laws challenged on that basis all the time.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

And that is why, average bear, you are not an expert on these matters.

Don't marry someone of your own sex would be my advice.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > and martybegan the states rights battle was lost at the end of the civil war. perhaps its time to get over it.
> ...



in case you don't recall, secession was the result of a temper tantrum about states rights


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> And that is why, average bear, you are not an expert on these matters.
> 
> Don't marry someone of your own sex would be my advice.




Jake, I was eminently correct on all three points, AND I also am pro gay marriage.I don't think it's any of the government's business who marries who


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > One, if you offer services to the public, then you offer them to everyone, period.
> ...



Federal Law IS the constitutional authority. you're conflating issues. state law can grant greater rights than the federal government. it can never grant fewer rights. I hope that helps.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And that is why, average bear, you are not an expert on these matters.
> ...



no. you were not correct, eminently or otherwise


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



AND if YOU'LL recall Lincoln would have surrendered to the south's demand to keep slavery legal in order to preserve the union, meaning he would have acknowledged states' rights.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



interesting.... 

irrelevant, however. though i'd love to see some credible proof of that.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



That was the wording they used, but again, people who call for the constitution to be held to as written are not secessionists, which is the link you are trying (and failing) to make.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> One, if you offer services to the public, then you offer them to everyone, period.
> 
> Two, states don't have rights.
> 
> ...



So much dumb in one post.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



It never had to say that because everyone knew and accepted that it was between a man and a woman. The Mormons initially contested the restrictions on plural marriage, which I'm sure led to a rash of clarifying marriage laws to make sure that point was made.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Yet the 14th amendment is not elusively to the issue of slavery is it?  The southern states did not secede for just one reason.  The number of slavers in the south did not exceed the number of slavers in the north, nor did the south invent slavery, nor did whites invent slavery, nor did the majority of slaves come from the south, nor is slavery limited to the kind with whips and chains.  Signing a contract of indentured servitude is not much different, if at all, to income tax.

FYI... taking quotes out of context from a document does not prove that the single quote is proof of the purpose of the entire document.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Thats not a response to the point I just made.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Use of governmental compulsion for something as stupid as this IS hideous, unless of course you are a jackbooted twatwaddle.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And that is why, average bear, you are not an expert on these matters.
> ...



Glad you are, but that does not make your points any more correct.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Lincoln was not surrendering to the South's demands for slavery, because he supported it in the Old South because it was part of the Constitution.

He was demanding the South respect constitutional, electoral process.

The Old South did not so Lincoln executed the Old South.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Entirely and completely incorrect, as usual

The COTUS itself IS a form of federal law, but that does not mean than ALL federal laws rise to that lofty level. Or are you seriously suggesting that Congress can pass any law they like and the states just have to deal with it? 

States can CERTAINLY afford fewer rights than the federal government. One quick and easy example is Voter ID laws, no federal law can over ride those laws, because states regulate voting, not the feds, so even if the feds DID pass a law sayng NO VOTER ID laws, that law would be patently unconstitutional.

So shove your sanctimonious " I hope that helped" comments right up your ass.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lincoln was not surrendering to the South's demands for slavery, because he supported it in the Old South because it was part of the Constitution.
> 
> He was demanding the South respect constitutional, electoral process.
> 
> The Old South did not so Lincoln executed the Old South.


 
Ignore him

He is just trying to deflect the thread


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Uh yes,I was, please do the world a favor and stop telling people you're a lawyer. People except actual legal advice when they think they are speaking to a lawyer.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lincoln was not surrendering to the South's demands for slavery, because he supported it in the Old South because it was part of the Constitution.
> 
> He was demanding the South respect constitutional, electoral process.
> 
> The Old South did not so Lincoln executed the Old South.



Of course, but he DID say he would give up the fight for slavery if it would result in the reunification of the nation. Yes, or no?


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And that is why, average bear, you are not an expert on these matters.
> ...


The issue, sir, is what does the phrase "state rights" mean.  You define it as something that does not exist, others define it as something that does exist.  

What is generally meant by the term states rights... is individual rights that are regulated by the states, not the federal government.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



It is certainly an opinion.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


I don't think they could, pretty sure there was a male and female requirement on the marriage license form from the start in all states.  Thus the confusion over which partner would put their name in the husband field and which the wife field.  I don't think anyone really cared until we started handing out marriage protections. 

If they wanted to get married and have it legal from a financial perspective, they would just set up a trust, or other type of legal arrangement.  As far as getting married, yes plenty of American gays have been married in the past. Getting the license in a State has been the sticky part.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



but that isn't what the 2nd amendment was for. and you're not planning on feeding your family with a rifle and shotgun. 

they also didn't have concealed weapons, did they?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.




Prior to the last few decades you could be arrested and thrown in jail for being a same-sex couple (i.e. in a homosexual relationship).



>>>>


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



actually, child, congress CAN pass any law it wants as can the state legislatures, as you've seen by the pathetic unconstitutional efforts to violate gay rights, voting rights and reproductive rights.

it is then up to the courts, ultimately the high court, to decide if the law stands or falls. 

again, I hope that helps since you seem not to have a basic understanding of how constitutional review works.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



that's pretty meaningless. slavery used to be legal. would you use that as a defense of slavery in this day and age. what is appropriate under the law changes. that is why we talk about the constitution being a living document. I know that offends the right, but it's the truth. what equal protection means can change.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



may I ask what changed your mind?


----------



## Dana7360 (Oct 7, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Just face, they beat you down. They couldn't pass it by the people in the states so they used black robes activism to step on you
> ...




It's also not true.

My state had the chance to vote on marriage equality in 2012. The measure passed by a very good margin. I voted with the majority. 

Homosexuals have legally been getting married in my state since 2012. No court made that happen. The people did with their vote.

So yes, it can get passed the people when the issue is presented on the ballot.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



So basically all those laws were passed to reinforce a previous precedent, the limiting of a marriage contract from the States to opposite sex couple.s


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



its only living by being amended via the amendment process. What we are doing now is taking "interpretation" and turning it into a cheap hooker version of the amendment process. So the whims of the few become imposed on the many.


----------



## Dana7360 (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...





Civil rights and equal protection under the law isn't whipping some right out of thin air.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Hard to explain...

In a sentence:  Personal introspection, observation, and understanding of the needs and desires of others as a reflection of my own personal needs and desires.  In short, I put my feet in their shoes.

I think of myself as a champion of the weak and a defender of liberty justice and the American way of life.  How can I do that and let people get away with bullying gays, I asked myself...  That's when I chose to switch to libertarian politics.  Seems really clear to me now... I don't have an excuse for my racial bigotry or homophobic bigotry when I was younger.  Call it peer pressure and ingrained social behavior if you like.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Yes.  The same way jim crow laws were written to enforce previous precedent.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



The great majority of Americans have had to make that migration, RKM, like you, like me.  I am grateful that I have had the opportunities over the decades to realize my errors and have the opportunity to grow in grace and light on these matters.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Actually, it didn't.  As I stated, the *only* time that the question of how marriage "ought" to be defined was when you guys got all skeezed out over the idea of gay people getting married.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Actually what is hideous is that the government should be *forced* to intervene in bigoted assholes refusing to allow people to exercise their right of free commerce!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

The fact is that the cultural and social bigots of left and right will no longer rule the nation.

Only a matter of time before they are rooted out state and city and county governments.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Yes, it is.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



So forcing someone to provide a service to you they don't want to is free commerce?????

Sounds more like slavery to me.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


So, you want proof that people were getting married during an age when *even admitting to being gay was a crime*?!?!  I suppose that kind of does make your point - *when they was originally conceived,* the statutes of marriage probably were assumed to be between only men, and women, since even admitting that you were involved in a relationship with a man could land you in jail.  That is the beauty of our legal system, and our Constitutions, whether they be Federal, or State - they are imminently fluid.  When the sodomy laws all began to fall apart, and it was no longer considered inappropriate, let alone illegal (well...for everyone except the religious zealots) to be gay, it was only a matter of time before they started taking advantage of the marital rights afforded to loving committed couples.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



And the 14th amendment should have stopped them, but they were allowed to perpetuate via a sympathetic court that chose to ignore part of the constitution. Ignoring and creating out of thin air concepts found or not found in the document are two sides of the same dark coin, and it doesn't matter if the results are favored by you, its still wrong.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


So being denied the right to purchase a service is free commerce?

Sounds like discrimination to me.  But of course bigoted fucktards like being able to discriminate.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



The point I was trying to make concerns posters here getting all in a snit about states making laws to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples, acting as if the original precedent was never there, and that these laws were passed "all of a sudden for no reason."

The Constitution is being treated far more fluidly then it ever was designed to be. It is being changed, not interpreted via the courts. It should be though the amendment process, not the opinions of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



As long as it isn't the government doing it (and maybe certain industries, like travel, lodging, and basic needs, I haven't made my mind up about that yet) discrimination should be either accepted as a price of liberty, or fought by individuals, not the government.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And neither have you

Excuse me for a moment while I visit the MENS room.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 7, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> this thread shows a lot from the homosexuals in this country. They force themselves on the people then turn around and HATE on Christians and everyone else who doesn't agree with this.
> 
> you're more disgusting than the people you hate on


wow! really? seems like another group has been forcing themselves on others for a couple of thousand years,telling everyone "if you don't believe what I do you'll go to hell" and hate everyone who thinks differently..
and their name is missionaries


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Oh no!  There was a reason:  You people were shitting yourselves that these damned faggots were acting like normal people!  How DARE they!!!! 



martybegan said:


> The Constitution is being treated far more fluidly then it ever was designed to be. It is being changed, not interpreted via the courts. It should be though the amendment process, not the opinions of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.


Wellll...that's not entirely true.  If a state makes changes to its constitution, even if it was done so in accordance with its own amendment process (which, for the record, many of these *weren't*), and that change is in conflict with the *Federal* Constitution, then guess which one takes precedent.  So, the Federal Courts were still within their purview to hand down the rulings they did.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


of course they can...dumbass


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Uh huh.  Cuz that worked out so well for the blacks, before the Government stepped in, and said, "Enough is enough!"


----------



## daws101 (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


bullshit! the next 20 will be easy.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


 bogus excuse in 4....3...2..1


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



And have for centuries. 

Of course same sex coupling has not / cannot / and will never create a child

Glad I could be of service here

Carry on


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


You are confused.  It's not even close to being over in the first 31 states.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



And it was invoked in SCOTUS cases that had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the right to marry. (Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)


----------



## daws101 (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...


bullshit!


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You do realize that when separate restrooms are challenged, they lose in court right?

http://bangordailynews.com/2014/01/...ansgender-girl-in-orono-school-bathroom-case/


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



My brother and his wife's coupling will never produce a child, ever. Gonna revoke their license?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Let's get that news on the front page and see how society accepts it!!!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


making the beast with two backs slap and tickle, whatever you wish to call it not the measure of having kids


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Why can't they. 

Now be specific.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I'm sure the above has some sort of meaning. 

But then again, maybe not


----------



## daws101 (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


nope I'm as sure about that as I Am that you're a ashole.
also the number of states joke stopped being funny right after obama said...it.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Changing your story now? 

You just pointed out exactly why restroom get to be separate...nobody has challenged them on a wide scale. 

Still wanna fall back on your bullshit "some separate but equal is okay" meme or you gonna go for the utterly silly "when gays fuck they can't get pregnant" ridiculousness?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


neither can my wife and I!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Of course the marriage equality fight is not over.

But the heavy lifting is over.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Changing what story?

I've taken out roughly a dozen commercial building permits this year, each and every one demanded that the space have both men's and women's restrooms. 

And talk about silly, you are the silliest of silly world. Of course (as I've pointed out hundreds of times you silly goose), gays of opposite sex can reproduce. 

Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever

Did I mention that you are a big ol silly goose?

How veryyyyyy exciting.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

My wife and I cannot have children: she is barren.  My first wife and I had children.

Yet any who think I am any less married to this wife than the first wife are simply full of nonsense.  Their arguments are not credible.  Their hatred is noted by the younger generations, who will not support candidates that agree with Pop.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


it means the ability to make kids is a distinction without a difference.
admit it or not  the idea that a breeding couple is "better" than a non breeding one is a form of bigotry.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

_Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever_

Which means nothing in the marriage equality discussion, ever


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Why not? Is it for the same reason same sex couplings can't and never will. Or are you in a same sex relationship which makes asking the question a moot point?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> _Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever_
> 
> Which means nothing in the marriage equality discussion, ever



So then there's no reason to keep incest illegal. 

Afterall, procreation has nothing to do with marriage. 

Hmmmmmm, nope don't like it, but can't think of a reason not to allow it if makin babies ain't a part of it


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Or simply pointing out a marked difference.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > _Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever_
> ...



Slippery slope fallacy.  Is this the best you got?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> My wife and I cannot have children: she is barren.  My first wife and I had children.
> 
> Yet any who think I am any less married to this wife than the first wife are simply full of nonsense.  Their arguments are not credible.  Their hatred is noted by the younger generations, who will not support candidates that agree with Pop.



Baron? Reproductive disability?

Is this true of same sex couplings? They're disabled?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Nah, your bigotry is obvious, and you are pouting like a nine year old mean child who now realizes he is not going to get his way.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



No slippery slope from me. Tis your argument


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > My wife and I cannot have children: she is barren.  My first wife and I had children.
> ...



Now you are shifting goal posts again.  Your point is meaningless.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


sorry to disappoint you pop but I'm not gay.
we don't have kids because not everyone needs or wants to have kids.
don't get me wrong, my wife and i love kids, as long as they are someone elses  
besides leukemia and chemotherapy killed my swimmers.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I'll bet you get a shiver up yo leg every time you get to falsly accuse others

Yippie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Fun watching Pop run in a circle in a huge bowl: can't stop, can't get out.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Now you are accusing others of what you are doing.  Keep pouting, mean child.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Not to make lite of your situation Dawes, best of luck with it, I know it's tough!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Pops gotta go, time for Jakeys nap anywho

He's getting snippy


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



How was I shitting myself If I support changing marriage laws by state legislative action, and have said repeatedly on this board I would support a law doing that, and oppose a law saying marriage is between one man and one woman?

Again, the federal constitution is mum on marriage contracts, thus defining them falls to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


a markedly meaningless difference.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Government stepped in AFTER it was the one who was enforcing said discrimination for oh, 7 or 8 decades.

It was government reigning in other government, which is entirely proper under the reconstruction amendments.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


10th and 14th.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Only if you consider gay and opposite sex marriage equal.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


The heteros provide children the mother and father that is necessary for ideal child raising. That makes the difference as far as contrived conception of family creation. Homos intentionally deprive a kid not only of its true parents but of the opportunity to be raised by a mom and dad. That is probably too progressive and current for you to understand as you are a rigidly conservative lefty stuck in the 1960's.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


She could still adopt as the couple would provide a mom and dad. But you go ahead and keep using the anecdotal and anomalous to justify your biases. It's the lefty way.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Your misapprehension is not shared. You either missed, failed to understand or willfully disregarded the part about kids needing a man and a woman as parents.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


No, they can't. Homos cannot procreate together. Where did you get that idea?
And why did you call me dumbass? I didn't call you any name. I called her that in response to her initiating the name calling.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> _Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever_
> 
> Which means nothing in the marriage equality discussion, ever


It means everything. The life altering circumstance brought about by child rearing are cause for the gov protections of legal marriage. Where procreation or child rearing is not an issue marriage is moot.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


But as long as the possibilty exists the marriage is a legit thing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

No, rosh.  You are merely a chew toy for our amusement


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


But its not mum on equal treatment under the law.  You know, that whole 14th amendment thing?  You don't get to deny all of the rights and privileges of marriage to a whole class of committed couples just because you don't like how they live their lives.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


And I keep asking, other than the gender of the participants, how are they not? And please avoid the whole "they can't make babies" silliness.  After all, that is also true of many heterosexual couples, so that isn't a difference between the two.  So, I'll wait for your reply...


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



You are confusing equal protection for equal value.  Equal protection under the law does not mean "if you deserve to be represented as an equal."  What you are talking about is a subjective opinion as to whether gays marriages would have the same function and/or value to society.  But that's not what equal "protection" means.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


That's crap.  There has been only one study that came to this finding, and if that study is to be your guide, then you also need to lobby to abolish all divorce, as well as to require all unwed mothers to have their children removed, and placed in "traditional" homes, as this study made no distinction between homosexual couples, single mothers, and single fathers.  Are you prepared to lobby for those changes as well?

No study that made *direct comparison between homosexual couples, and heterosexual couples* have found any major deficiencies among children raised by homosexual couples.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


I didn't miss that at all.  It is simply not true, and no matter how many times you keep telling the same lie, it isn't going to magically turn it into truth.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


They are talking about subjective personal opinions.  It's like asking someone to prove the god father 2 is a better movie that jaws 2.  Everyone knows it is based on subjective viewpoints.  Thus, the anti-gay stuff is boiling down to likes and dislikes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Rosh and Pop and Marty will keep telling lies because they have not the truth.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > _Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever_
> ...


Maybe in your marriage.  But not in mine.  There are 20k laws regarding marriage.  It's not all about procreation.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



What a load of horse shit, Godfather 2 is without question the better movie.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Prove it.  But more to the point, is it ok to ban Jaws 2 cause we don't like it as much as G2?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You know damn well I agree with you on gay marriage. Why anyone would care what someone calls their relationship is beyond me.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > _Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever_
> ...


No it's not. *None* of the rights and privileges have anything to do with child rearing.  They are all about recognizing, and protecting people who are committed to spending their lives together.  Procreation has nothing to do with it.  The fact is there are many many things that homosexual couples are not allowed to do, simply because repressive bigots keep wanting to dismiss them because they don't happen to like their lifestyle.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, rosh.  You are merely a chew toy for our amusement


And you speak for whom? Are they aware of that?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Your putting in separate bathrooms does not change what I said or the facts as they are today. The fact is that when challenged, separate bathrooms cannot be forced. Also a fact, separate bathrooms have not been challenged all the way to the SCOTUS. 

The additional fact that couples who cannot or do not procreate are allowed to marry renders your "arguments" as worthy of ridicule.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No, rosh.  You are merely a chew toy for our amusement
> ...


I am...and I agree with Jake.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Of course you can produce a study that supports your claim that children *need* a mother and father?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 7, 2014)

Most of Republican presidential hopefuls don't want to touch this issue.

The exception is Ted Cruz, who is calling for a constitutional amendment. Which has zero chance of ever passing, but he's just tossing meat to the base. He's also criticizing the Supreme Court for "judicial activism", which is a peculiar accusation, given that the Supreme Court's only action was not to take any action.

Ted Cruz to Introduce Constitutional Amendment Defending Traditional Marriage

I hope Cruz goes through with his plans to introduce the amendment, as it would put the rest of the GOP in an uncomfortable spot.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


You are an out of touch, neocon lefty. Move forward with us true progressives and see what the prevalence of unstructured families has done to this society in the past forty years. This is a recent phenomenon. You need to progress and move forward to be truly aware. Don't rely on backwards, stodgy left wing propaganda.
Kids are best suited with their two actual parents or a facsimile thereof. Not one of either or two of either. One of each.


Czernobog said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


You are an out of touch, neocon lefty. Move forward with us true progressives and see what the prevalence of unstructured families has done to this society in the past forty years. This is a recent phenomenon. You need to progress and move forward to be truly aware. Don't rely on backwards, stodgy left wing propaganda.
Kids are best suited with their two actual parents or a facsimile thereof. Not one of either or two of either. One of each.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Yes actually we can. Gay men can donate sperm to gay women and gay women can carry children for gay men. I speak from first hand experience on both counts.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Most of Republican presidential hopefuls don't want to touch this issue.
> 
> The exception is Ted Cruz, who is calling for a constitutional amendment. Which has zero chance of ever passing, but he's just tossing meat to the base. He's also criticizing the Supreme Court for "judicial activism", which is a peculiar accusation, given that the Supreme Court's only action was not to take any action.
> 
> ...


Is Ted Cruz aware that the two characters in "Green Eggs & Ham" were ghey?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



And how are the not? (Other than the unconstitutional DOMA Section 2)


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> My wife and I cannot have children: she is barren.  My first wife and I had children.
> 
> Yet any who think I am any less married to this wife than the first wife are simply full of nonsense.  Their arguments are not credible.  Their hatred is noted by the younger generations, who will not support candidates that agree with Pop.



Why would anyone think your less married?

Odd


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Support your claim with actual studies. "Just because I said so" is not a peer reviewed study in a reputable journal.

Did you know that your "but, but, but the children" bullshit got laughed out of court.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Most of Republican presidential hopefuls don't want to touch this issue.
> ...



Grey?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What exactly am I accusing others of

Links pleas


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


You're full of lefty conditioning, aren't you? I don't care if homos want to figuratively marry or do whatever they want to do -- in _*private*_. That's real tolerance, not bigotry. Using the gov to force others to acquiesce to and grant privileges, including the counterproductive and potentially harmful privilege of adoption, in the name of that personal behavior choice, is extremely _*intolerant*_ and _*bigoted*_. You have the shoe planted squarely on the wrong foot.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Only if population is meaningless I guess


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


So the two of you are everyone? That's pretty arrogant.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

bodecea said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Most of Republican presidential hopefuls don't want to touch this issue.
> ...



He doesn't realize the irony of reading "Green Eggs and Ham" while trying to stop the ACA implementation...of course he'd miss that the characters were ghey.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



No wonder they make light of reproduction


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

We speak in agreement with the Court, the majority of America, and for the right of marriage equality.

No one on the side of marriage equality is making "light of reproduction."  That is fantasy.

No, Rosh, you don't get "just once more."  Your opinions is not fact.  That's over.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



We can already adopt and have children. God you people are really stupid in your bigotry.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Is ghey part of the LGBTQLMNOP's?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I live it. Everyday. Look at every predominantly black locale in this country and you'll see what a majority of unstructured families does. And it's not poverty. Where I live the median household income is $20k higher than the national. He schools are failing and the crime rate is the highest. 
Granting adoption to homos adds to that problem. Move forward.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Please explain how explaining that same sex coupling, like masturbating, cannot make babies is bigotry?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

I lived in the South for decades.

Poverty affects all races, and no race are better parents than the others in rural poverty.  That is my finding from living there every day for thirty years.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



And Pop's 11 year old like mean pouting continues.

Tough to be him.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



All you had to say was "no" you have no study and can produce only anal facts...as in those pulled out of your ass.

See, because there ARE studies that show that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and that children need parents, not parents of the opposite gender.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Stopping there isn't. When you say we shouldn't be able to legally marry because of that is where it becomes bigotry...but you knew that.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


I just gave you the elements of study. Empirical data. You act like the Black Knight after he had his limbs severed.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Sorry but your anecdotal story is not evidence. The actual facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours. All studies show that children do best with two parents, period. The gender of the two parents has to effect on outcomes.


----------



## Plasmaball (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


your point is irrelevant.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Am I also bigoted when I said that lawyers shouldn't be able to legally perform brain surgery?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

Plasmaball said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Only if population is irreverent, or maybe you believe incestuous marriage should be legal

Personally I find it repulsive, but you guys keep destroying my arguments against it. 

Do proceed


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I'm thinking Jake and I ain't seein eye to eye. 

So very sad


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop continues to pout because he can't make people do what he wants them to do.

tough and sad for Pop


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop continues to pout because he can't make people do what he wants them to do.
> 
> tough and sad for Pop



You go girl!


----------



## Plasmaball (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


i dont care about incest...seeing how people get married all the time and dont have kids, your point is irrelevant.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

Plasmaball said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Appears you don't. 

I do

But whateva


----------



## Plasmaball (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


then dont sleep with a a relative.....this has no basis on the ruling.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Of course the marriage equality fight is not over.
> 
> But the heavy lifting is over.


It's all over except for the fat lady singing


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > _Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever_
> ...


You are welcome to try to make incest legal

But it will have no bearing on gay marriage


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Those studies are full of shit, common sense tells you that kids having a balance of both a male and female role model will obviously give the child a better perspective.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

Plasmaball said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Except the same arguments work for incest. 

Sorry dude, you just can't use it once and say

Look, how cool is that, then say the argument can't be used elsewhere

Unless of course you don't mind being considered a........


Wait for it........

Wait for it.....,..,

A BIGOT


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You come up with the successful argument and want ME to finish your dirty work?

How very convenient for you


----------



## BorisTheAnimal (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> wonderful news for special rights for perverts


fixed for accuracy


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Oct 7, 2014)

It has now come to the point, that we all must conclude that stopping gay marriage is now a lost cause.
Personally I will never recognize two persons of the same sex as being married. They simply do not meet the criteria of the definition of marriage.

But let's face it, in this sewer society of today, the train has left the station and it's not going to be stopped.

It's best now to focus on issues like illegal immigration.


----------



## Plasmaball (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


im not calling you a bigot now am i? I am saying your points are irrelevant. 
get off your cross. your arguments have been done before by MAL hundreds of times, and everytime he was wrong. all you do is move the goal posts, deflect or just ignore in order to keep on going on a subject thats over.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

The far rights beliefs simply don't count.

Believe them if you wish, but if you share them with your children, 90% are going to sorrowfully shake their heads, and say, "I love you anyway."


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The far rights beliefs simply don't count.
> 
> Believe them if you wish, but if you share them with your children, 90% are going to sorrowfully shake their heads, and say, "I love you anyway."



^^^ displaying symptoms of Midol resistant PMS^^^


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Oct 7, 2014)

DigitalDrifter said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



You can't pick and choose which scientific studies are valid just because you don't agree with their results.  You have to pick and choose which scientific studies are valid based on their methods and the fitness of the data.  If these studies are done properly, are rigorous, and the methodology is sound you can't just invalidate or ignore them in one big sweep without analyzing them simply because the results don't fit with your beliefs.  That is simply bias.  Recognize bias and minimize it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...


When I said prove it, I was referring to Godfather 2 being a better movie than Jaws 2.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Interesting. I wonder if the odds of gay children increase with gay fathers and mothers.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Oct 7, 2014)

Coloradomtnman said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Yes I can, studies that show two people of the same sex as parents is just as good as two of the opposite sex, goes against common sense.
 As children age, they benefit from gaining the perspective of both sexes. Out in the real world they will be learning, playing, working with both sexes. It only makes sense that being raised by both gives them that balance that is needed in life.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 7, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...


Bitch what in the fuck makes you think I would?
Abnormal people need to be locked away for the safety of humanity.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



no. it's living by how words are defined. "due process" has no meaning without case law. Unreasonable search and seizure has no meaning without case law. what defines those terms are changing mores.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

DigitalDrifter said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > DigitalDrifter said:
> ...



and yet studies do not show any difference in parenting success based on whether the parents are same or opposite gender. studies do show that being wanted and nurtured benefit children.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Nope...just an idiot for coming up with unrelated analogies. 

It would be more like giving licenses to practice law only to straight lawyers.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The far right might think it has the right to tell the rest of us how to live but is learning that it can't make it happen anymore.
> ...


yep the queens screamed and yelled until a god damn judge let them have their cookie and cream


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Insane people like you that believe gays are a danger to humanity should seek professional help for sure.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



equal protection isn't "whip[ed] out of thin air". marriage is a fundamental right. (see Loving v Virginia). The government needs a damn good reason for restricting the right. bigotry isn't a good enough reason. if not for the court, anti-myscegenation laws would still be legal and people like you would be whining that the change had to come from the legislature and not the court.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



ok bubbalah. no problem.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


Insanity is thinking abnormal is a good thing you freak.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



A judge? There were like a score of rulings for equality. How many against?

Anyone? Anyone? Bheuler?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 7, 2014)

Freaks everyone  of them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


there is no god damn constitution right that allows queens to lock up and suck dick as husband and bitch


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 7, 2014)

DigitalDrifter said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Right...dozens of studies and position statements from EVERY major medical, child welfare and psychological organization are "full of shit" because ya'll need to feel like "the man".


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



hush, child: take these pills, drink the warm milk, or you get to wear the funny jacket with the ties on the back.  hush, child.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

novasteve said:


> Now incest an polygamy in those states have to legal otherwise the "marriage equality" people are bigots and lying.



idiot


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



thank you for your response. i appreciate and respect your journey. kudos


----------



## AceRothstein (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Locking up a nut like you would be a good start.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 7, 2014)

AceRothstein said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


Insanity you fucking little freak is thinking being abnormal is a good thing


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


That why you hate gays so much?  You were forced to suck it in the pen?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Freak I would take up your sick habits  nor have I been in the pen maybe you have.
Fucking freak.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


YOU'RE A POS COWARD


----------



## initforme (Oct 7, 2014)

As a heterosexual married white man with 4 kids, please describe how this issue deserves my attention.  How is it a threat to me?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> > Now incest an polygamy in those states have to legal otherwise the "marriage equality" people are bigots and lying.
> ...



Don't be so damn tough on yourself!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

initforme said:


> As a heterosexual married white man with 4 kids, please describe how this issue deserves my attention.  How is it a threat to me?



Then why you a postin?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Sillywytch just don't get it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> I have nothing against gay marriage going forward via the state legislatures changing the laws for the marriage contracts, If put to a vote I would vote for it. What I oppose is using judicial fiat via activist judges, and the subsequent use of PA laws to crush people of faith.



so are you going to allow your ability to own a gun be contingent on a popular vote of your city or state?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 7, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> The goals of the homosexuals/progressives/commies
> 
> Tear this country apart one step at a time. you all should be real proud



If you homophobes and bible thumpers can't deal, that's your problem, isn't it?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> > Now incest an polygamy in those states have to legal otherwise the "marriage equality" people are bigots and lying.
> ...


Indeed!

The far right are showing their perversions.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



please let us know when you have something to say that is above the level of a pre-schooler


----------



## Dana7360 (Oct 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...






The constitution isn't thin air.

You can say it is all day long but just saying it doesn't make it true or reality. 

You're just showing me that you're another conservative who hates our constitution and what America stands for.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Oct 7, 2014)

DigitalDrifter said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > DigitalDrifter said:
> ...



Common sense does not definitively equal accurate and truthful information.  We all have biases.  That you idisregard science when it doesn't agree with your beliefs is bias.  We would all do well to minimize bias.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 7, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Awwww...poor baby...how's getting ready for NC gay marriage working for you?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Don't discuss empirical data, far righties, because you look silly dressed in confirmation bias.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 7, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Why?  Because you say so?  Sorry.  Declarations without actual evidence is simply rheteoric, and it takes more than rhetoric to sway people of reason.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Some of these deniers of marriage equality of illusions of logical sufficiency when posting here.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 7, 2014)

initforme said:


> As a heterosexual married white man with 4 kids, please describe how this issue deserves my attention.  How is it a threat to me?


Because you have four children growing up in a country becoming increasingly perverted


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Because.......

You have a hard time keeping up aye?

Next time I'll type slower then

Happy to oblige


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 7, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Marriage still means between a man and a woman.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Yeppers, and always will


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Not any more.  Tough that for the deniers.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Not any more.  Tough that for the deniers.



Reality sucks aye?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2014)

Only for you, Pop.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Only for you, Pop.



You make me yawn!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 7, 2014)

jillian said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...


Every failing jurisdiction in the country suffers from significant depletion of structured families.


jillian said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...


This is what is so disturbing about today's democrat party and left wingers. The proof is directly in front of them but if it is inconvenient to their agendas the agendas overrule. 
Contriving homo-led families contributes to unstructured families and depleted
family structure is at the core of social demise. A post -1960's development. But democrats can't progress past the 1960's.
2+2 really does equal four. Except when lefties don't feel like it.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


To the Highlighted part:  *That* is the bigotry.  Do you know what "potentially harmful" means?  It means "I don't have any actual evidence that gay couples adopting kids is harmful, but I think they're icky, and they give me the wiggens, so I don't like the idea of them around kids."


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Actually, "I live it", assuming you're not lying, is what is called "*anecdotal* evidence", and is completely useless, and unreliable for anything other than one's own personal opinions.  Thank you for playing.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Well, as of now that is no longer the case in 35 out of 50 states.  So, apparently it won't "always"...


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 8, 2014)

People who care will just have to learn how to protect themselves, their families and their own children.  Learn different ways of conducting your businesses.  Choose friends more wisely.  Pay more attention to your children's friends.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 8, 2014)

“This is what is so disturbing about today's democrat party and left wingers. The proof is directly in front of them but if it is inconvenient to their agendas the agendas overrule. 
Contriving homo-led families contributes to unstructured families and depleted
family structure is at the core of social demise. A post -1960's development. But democrats can't progress past the 1960's.
2+2 really does equal four. Except when lefties don't feel like it.”


This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and hateful.

There is no 'evidence' that families with same-sex parents 'deplete family structure' or contribute to 'social demise,' the notion is inane demagoguery, hyperbolic nonsense, and fails as a slippery slope fallacy. In fact, all the evidence presented at trial indicates that families with same-sex parents are happy, stable, and well-adjusted.

And terms such as 'homo-led' indicate nothing more than bigotry and hate, confirming the fact that the 14th Amendment is needed as much today as any time since its ratification, to protect citizens from those who would seek to codify their bigotry and hate.

What's disturbing is that this issue sheds a very bright light on the authoritarianism common to most on the right, social conservatives in particular.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> People who care will just have to learn how to *protect themselves, their families and their own children*.  Learn different ways of conducting your businesses.  Choose friends more wisely.  Pay more attention to your children's friends.


I know you're not going to actually answer this.  After all, none of you right-wing hacks ever do, but here it goes.

What, *precisely*, do you have to protect yourself, your family, and your children from?  What threat, exactly, does marriage equality present to you, and your family?

You morons keep spewing that stupid rhetoric, but whenever you're asked for clarification, you all just shut the fuck up, and pretend the question was never asked.


----------



## jillian (Oct 8, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > As a heterosexual married white man with 4 kids, please describe how this issue deserves my attention.  How is it a threat to me?
> ...



what is perverse is a group of bigots thinking they should be able to divest others of their human rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

jillian said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > initforme said:
> ...


So when are you going to push for incest as a legal right? I guess that isn't a perversion to you either.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I live in Kannapolis North Carolina come gets some freak


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

initforme said:


> As a heterosexual married white man with 4 kids, please describe how this issue deserves my attention.  How is it a threat to me?


When a nation loses it's morality it slowly starts to lose it's freedom. That's fucking why.


----------



## jillian (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



i'm sorry, i don't entertain false analogies which are intended to make people feel better about their own bigotry.

have a good day, reb


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Well hell you want to talk false analogies let's talk 14th amendment being to protect queen bitches so they can marry

God damn right I am a bigot when it comes to perversions


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 8, 2014)

the homosexual brigade knew they would never get this passed "by the people.  so they cheer when these mostly "men" in black robes steps over and on the people in the states and their rights.

awful people. now beating their chest like they actually won something by doing things, THE RIGHT WAY


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 8, 2014)

Once again, Staph, you 'Conservatives' get your ass kicked because you are attempting to legislate private matters between two consenting adults. Now if you people just believed in freedom, you wouldn't be making asses of yourselves daily.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 8, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > As a heterosexual married white man with 4 kids, please describe how this issue deserves my attention.  How is it a threat to me?
> ...



Really? I see that perversion as people that believe in freedom only as an abstraction. Like you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > As a heterosexual married white man with 4 kids, please describe how this issue deserves my attention.  How is it a threat to me?
> ...


 Oh my, whine and snivel because you do not get to dictate to others what they can do in private.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Wow...North Carolina...cool. I hear they will be a marriage equality state soon like uber gay California.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> the homosexual brigade knew they would never get this passed "by the people.  so they cheer when these mostly "men" in black robes steps over and on the people in the states and their rights.
> 
> awful people. now beating their chest like they actually won something by doing things, THE RIGHT WAY



So you believe the SCOTUS was wrong to rule on Loving v Virginia? "We the People" were vehemently opposed to interracial marriage in 1967 when Loving v Virginia was ruled on. Are you mad about these "mostly men in black robes" really, really, *really* going against what the people wanted in 1967? Fewer than 20% supported interracial marriage when those "judicial activists" overturned anti miscegenation laws. 







Fast forward to now Steph...






Civil Rights aren't a popularity contest...but if they were...


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

jillian said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > initforme said:
> ...



All humans can marry, could even before this ruling (or lack there of) with the exception of multi partner marriage and incestuous couples. 

But you got us on the road to "fixing" that too. 

You must be so damn proud!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Sounds like a bigot, walks like a bigot, you must be a bigot

Ammirite?


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 8, 2014)

saw this just now off another site:

_The purpose of the political maneuvers on homosexual marriage were not about Tom and Dick living in wedded bliss ... it was about putting the final nail in the coffin of the traditional family model. Destroying the family has worked wonders for the federal government workers unions (i.e., Progressive Democrats) by decimating black families and setting up vote farms in urban areas where the vote livestock are herded from unionized government schools to federally funded abortion clinics to welfare offices. They want to extend the destruction of traditional principles as much as possible because no matter how bad things get for taxpayers, the government unions benefit. _


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 8, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> saw this just now off another site:
> 
> _The purpose of the political maneuvers on homosexual marriage were not about Tom and Dick living in wedded bliss ... it was about putting the final nail in the coffin of the traditional family model. Destroying the family has worked wonders for the federal government workers unions (i.e., Progressive Democrats) by decimating black families and setting up vote farms in urban areas where the vote livestock are herded from unionized government schools to federally funded abortion clinics to welfare offices. They want to extend the destruction of traditional principles as much as possible because no matter how bad things get for taxpayers, the government unions benefit. _



I think the prison industrial complex has done more damage to "the black family" than a couple of gay dudes getting married. 

Maybe instead of infantilizing black voters, you guys need to just stop coming up with ways to piss them off.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



All humans could marry before Loving too Pops...guess that didn't need "fixing" either? 

Sure, I could have married a guy...but I didn't want to just like Mildred Loving didn't want to marry a black man. I wanted to, and did, legally marry another woman. Can you explain why my civil marriage should be treated differently than yours? Remember, you get to marry someone of the same sex now if you want to.


----------



## jillian (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



so you think G-d made 10% of his children improperly?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 8, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> saw this just now off another site:
> 
> _The purpose of the political maneuvers on homosexual marriage were not about Tom and Dick living in wedded bliss ... it was about putting the final nail in the coffin of the traditional family model. Destroying the family has worked wonders for the federal government workers unions (i.e., Progressive Democrats) by decimating black families and setting up vote farms in urban areas where the vote livestock are herded from unionized government schools to federally funded abortion clinics to welfare offices. They want to extend the destruction of traditional principles as much as possible because no matter how bad things get for taxpayers, the government unions benefit. _


 
Good post

It shows you hate gays, hate unions, hate blacks, hate the poor, hate abortion. You hit all the rightwing talking points in just a few sentences

Such a good rightwing bot there Steph


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 
Very good point

Looks like Pops options have increased. He should be happy


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



More like 1-4%.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> saw this just now off another site:
> 
> _The purpose of the political maneuvers on homosexual marriage were not about Tom and Dick living in wedded bliss ... it was about putting the final nail in the coffin of the traditional family model. Destroying the family has worked wonders for the federal government workers unions (i.e., Progressive Democrats) by decimating black families and setting up vote farms in urban areas where the vote livestock are herded from unionized government schools to federally funded abortion clinics to welfare offices. They want to extend the destruction of traditional principles as much as possible because no matter how bad things get for taxpayers, the government unions benefit. _



Plagiarism now too Steph? Is there no end to your indiscretions? 

How, exactly, does my family and my civil marriage "destroy" anyone else's? Be specific.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Does the percentage make a difference in whether or not a minority is entitled to equal treatment under the law?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



No, but bad numbers are still bad numbers, like when JoeDouche keeps using the 43 times number in Kellerman, and people use the 20% of women have been sexually assaulted on campuses.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > saw this just now off another site:
> ...



that's all you have? whining over plagiarism. figures


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Here we go again

Males were denied the right to marry females

Males plus females procreate, or hadn't you heard

Males plus males masturbate

Now your argument, just made, indicates you favor incestuous marriage and plural marriage

Now, are you standing by that sillywytch?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



They were not denied equal protection to begin with


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “This is what is so disturbing about today's democrat party and left wingers. The proof is directly in front of them but if it is inconvenient to their agendas the agendas overrule.
> Contriving homo-led families contributes to unstructured families and depleted
> family structure is at the core of social demise. A post -1960's development. But democrats can't progress past the 1960's.
> 2+2 really does equal four. Except when lefties don't feel like it.”
> ...



Nonsense... a few leaders of the left switched on the gay issue what.. two years ago?  Funny how the authoritarianism of the left supposedly disappeared ... oh wait it didn't, did it.  They are still running around drumming up laws to take liberty away.  Getting one issue right, FINALLY, does not mean the right is authoritarian and left libertarian.  All it means is that the gay bashing religious right authoritarians have clung to the republican party and republicans that used to be for liberty have been silenced by the current leadership on this one issue.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Since you can't count gays by looking, there are no "good" numbers. Your numbers aren't any "gooder" than Jillian's. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/o...american-men-are-gay.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



But I am not using my numbers to make a point.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > “This is what is so disturbing about today's democrat party and left wingers. The proof is directly in front of them but if it is inconvenient to their agendas the agendas overrule.
> ...



They didn't switch, they just stopped lying on that one issue. 

From their base the only ones they could piss off are socially conservative blacks, and they believe that that voting block will never switch over to another party.


----------



## jillian (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



not according to credible sources. but even if we use your numbers, are you saying G-d does things that are not planned?


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > People who care will just have to learn how to *protect themselves, their families and their own children*.  Learn different ways of conducting your businesses.  Choose friends more wisely.  Pay more attention to your children's friends.
> ...


First I don't feel this way... but having grown up with parents like Katz... I can easily explain.

What they are talking about is they don't want their children and grandchildren's minds being corrupted by gay talk, gay walk, gay acts, gay people, gay children, gayness, ...  They want their children to brought up in an environment washed of all gayness.   They see a gay guy on the TV and they get angry that the networks have to put a gay person on every TV show.  They hear about a gay marriage and they cringe thinking that couple might move in next door and ruin the neighborhood.


----------



## jillian (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



why do the numbers offend you? because they're distorted and downplayed by rightwingers?


----------



## jillian (Oct 8, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> People who care will just have to learn how to protect themselves, their families and their own children.  Learn different ways of conducting your businesses.  Choose friends more wisely.  Pay more attention to your children's friends.



protect them from what, you blithering idiot? i'm pretty sure you're not good looking enough for gay guys anyway.


----------



## jillian (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


in other words, they're bigots


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Politicians can't change reality no matter how hard they try.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> They hear about a gay marriage and they cringe thinking that couple might move in next door and ruin the neighborhood.



Well that's dumb...having gays in the neighborhood usually raises the property value


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Or they see that the same argument can be successfully used to make incest and plural marriage legal. 

Guess that's ok these days right?


----------



## jillian (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



to clarify, most scientists believe it exists I the same proportion as any recessive trait. it is probably something akin to a predisposition which ends up actually occurring in some and not in others.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> saw this just now off another site:
> 
> _The purpose of the political maneuvers on homosexual marriage were not about Tom and Dick living in wedded bliss ... it was about putting the final nail in the coffin of the traditional family model. Destroying the family has worked wonders for the federal government workers unions (i.e., Progressive Democrats) by decimating black families and setting up vote farms in urban areas where the vote livestock are herded from unionized government schools to federally funded abortion clinics to welfare offices. They want to extend the destruction of traditional principles as much as possible because no matter how bad things get for taxpayers, the government unions benefit. _


ROFL authoritarians are funny.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



No, it was an aside to the question I asked which you ignored to focus on the inconsequential plagiarism. I'll ask it again. *How, exactly, does my family and my civil marriage "destroy" anyone else's? Be specific.*


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


^ retard thinks being gay is the same as wanting to have sex with your parents and siblings. 

But as for plural marriage... what's wrong with that?  It's in the bible no?


----------



## jillian (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



shhhhh..... adults are talking, child


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Change the premise. How does your incestuous family effect mine?

Fun little game you folks started aye?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

jillian said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Then go to your room and let us finish.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Incest is banned for very good reasons, dumb ass.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Actually in a homosexual incestuous relationship, one of the big reasons goes away.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Where did I state that? Link?

Sorry tardboy, you make the argument, and run from it. 

Typical

No conviction?


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


One, of yes. But not all.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Not anymore, procreation had no place in marriage, remember

You folks crack me up. Create an argument, then called on it.......

RUN


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 8, 2014)

Gotta love those men and women in  black robes. don't forget they BE THE LAW OF THE LAND

SNIP:
New York Appeals Court To Weigh Giving Legal Rights To Chimps… 
Or as the left calls them, undocumented primates.


ALL of it here:

New York Appeals Court To Weigh Giving Legal Rights To Chimps Weasel Zippers


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You said "same argument."  You do know what "same" means, yes? 

FYI, dumb ass.  Me standing here replying is not running away, ya dumb ass.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



But not addressing the argument IS


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No one ever said "procreation had no place in marriage." Your are making shit up.  Why don't you start talking out your mouth instead of your ass.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I addressed your argument, dumb ass.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Rosh and Pop think their opinions are facts.

bigrebnc is a bully coward.

No wonder America wants nothing to do with their types.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Rosh and Pop think their opinions are facts.
> 
> bigrebnc is a bully coward.
> 
> No wonder America wants nothing to do with their types.



Now that's funny!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



In your own mind only


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It's part of the argument

I know, a bit to deep for someone who agrees that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else. That is the LGBTQLMNOP argument. But but wait........


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Yup, Pop makes up crap as he goes.  He can't argue so he tries to sting with a blunt instrument: he is a fool tool.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, Pop makes up crap as he goes.  He can't argue so he tries to sting with a blunt instrument: he is a fool tool.



^^^funnier still!


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 8, 2014)

Just think how Pops world has changed since he was born

He can now marry someone of another race if he chooses
He can now marry someone of the same sex if he wants to

His options in choosing a partner have more than doubled!


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It's part of the argument that lost, dumb ass.  It was not part of the argument that won.  The pro liberty folks are not arguing that procreation has no place in marriage.  They are arguing that marriage does not require procreation between the partners.  Do you understand the difference?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Just think how Pops world has changed since he was born
> 
> He can now marry someone of another race if he chooses
> He can now marry someone of the same sex if he wants to
> ...



Wrong, I can't, I'm already married. 

But you bring up a good point RW, using your arguments, maybe soon I'll have the option of adding a few more wives. 

Way to address the problem in a way RK Jillian and SillyWytch refused to


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You finally get it !

Good on you

So the argument applies to incestuous marriage. 

Knew you'd come around


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Just think how Pops world has changed since he was born
> ...


 
Gotta keep your options open Pops

Just think....you can now marry a "negro" if you want to.
If you finally acknowledge your sexual urges and fall in love with another man, you can divorce your wife and marry him


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And soon a sister, and because I want to be politically correct, a brother. 

What a world you created aye?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



I don't have an incestuous family. None of my family tree branched into Alabama, thanks. 

I will answer the question, however. An incestuous family does not effect mine as long as they are prohibited from procreating...which is the case in some states. When they do procreate, however, they often give birth to children with severe defects that they are not equipped to deal with and the children end up wards of the state for some gay couple to foster and raise.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Gotta love those men and women in  black robes. don't forget they BE THE LAW OF THE LAND
> 
> SNIP:
> New York Appeals Court To Weigh Giving Legal Rights To Chimps…
> ...



Why haven't you answered my question? How does my family and my legal civil marriage destroy anyone else's as you claimed earlier?


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 8, 2014)

This is the RESULTS coming at you over all this: You all should be very afraid

SNIP:
*Commission says Christian business owners should leave religion at home*



By  Todd Starnes
Published October 07, 2014
FoxNews.com






 (Courtesy Hands on Originals)
The Human Rights Commission in Lexington, Kentucky has a chilling message for Christian business owners who refuse service to LGBT organizations: leave your religion at home.
“It would be safe to do so, yes,” Executive Director Raymond Sexton told me. “Or in this case you can find yourself two years down the road and you’re still involved in a legal battle because you did not do so.”

On Tuesday, a Lexington Human Rights Commission hearing examiner issued a recommended ruling that the owner of a T-shirt company violated a local ordinance against sexual-orientation discrimination. You can read the ruling by clicking here. 

Take just a moment and let that sink in – a Christian business owner is being ordered to attend diversity training – because of his religious beliefs. That’s a pretty frightening concept and a mighty dangerous precedent.
“It was a landmark decision,” Sexton said. “This is a very important ruling for us.”
The examiner concluded that Blaine Adamson of Hands On Originals broke the law in 2012 by declining to print shirts promoting the Lexington Pride Festival. The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization subsequently filed a complaint.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases, represented Adamson, a devout Christian.
“No one should be forced by the government or by another citizen to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said ADF attorney Jim Campbell. “Blaine declined to the request to print the shirts not because of any characteristic of the people who asked for them, but because of the message that the shirts would communicate.”
ADF also pointed out that Hands On Originals has a history of doing business with the LGBT community as well has hiring LGBT workers.

ALL of it here:
Commission says Christian business owners should leave religion at home Fox News


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 
If that is want you want.....You have the same rights as gays had to use our political system to fight for your right to marry your sister

I wish you luck


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Prohibit? Doesn't seem fair cuz marriage ain't about procreating, or did you forget that?

Alabama?

Kinda a bigoted statement. 

Shame on ya SillyWytch


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

62% of the country will soon be able to civil marry someone of the opposite or same sex if they want to. We are less than 40% away from full equality. (As if you can't tell by the lost flailing of the anti gay crowd).


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta love those men and women in  black robes. don't forget they BE THE LAW OF THE LAND
> ...



I don't care if you marry your dog. I'm talking about the legalities of all this and what it is going to bring DOWN on the rest of us in this country. I know you don't give a crap about anyone else. so don't ask me again


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



There ya go again, create the argument and expect someone to do the dirty work for you. 

As always, no courage of your own conviction. 

Do you believe your own argument or not?

It's really that simple


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The argument applies to one of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage, but it does not apply to ALL of the reasons used to justify blocking incestuous marriage.  I thought I made that clear.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> 62% of the country will soon be able to civil marry someone of the opposite or same sex if they want to. We are less than 40% away from full equality. (As if you can't tell by the lost flailing of the anti gay crowd).



You already had full equality. And no, you are not (yet) free to marry your mother. 

But you are on track to fix that


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Two sisters can't procreate. 

Try again


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Procreation was only one potential aspect of marriage, and both sisters can procreate, try again.


----------



## Rotagilla (Oct 8, 2014)

When the courts refuse to hear (thereby abdicating their responsibility)  cases that millions and millions of americans want rulings on, they have become de facto legislators without having to amend the constitution....

Now, the only way their rulings can be UNDONE is through a constitutional convention to add amendments.

...and politicians know and count on the fact that most americans are either too distracted, too busy or too ignorant to be able to complete that process.

....so the left uses activist judges to ram their agendas through without having to bother with allowing people to vote or even bother with the normal legislative process...

It's effective, really...devious, dishonest, cunning, and mendacious...but effective.

Some major "corrections" are coming, though. It's inevitable.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Not with each other (yet)


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 
You are creating the incest argument by inferring there is some slippery slope

If you believe that slope to allowing incestuous marriages, go ahead and fight to make incest legal. Then fight to allow incestuous marriages. That is what gays had to do. Their slope obviously wasn't so slippery


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



No they can't. Are you warped?

They would require a male

A third party

Oh, I get it , your argument for plural marriage. 

I'm against plural marriage, obviously your not


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No, a slippery slope requires a slope to begin with. 

It's your argument , not mine, and in your mind (again not mine) it makes complete sense. 

Live with it, your forcing us to


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Good ol egg splicing. 

I wouldn't invest in it, the liability is sooooooo huge.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 8, 2014)

Thought this was worth a posting a link to......refutes the constant illegitimate link gay marriage promoters make to Loving v Virginia case.

7 Reasons Why the Current Marriage Debate Is Nothing Like the Debate on Interracial Marriage


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You keep assuming that to procreate one must have a married partner inseminate you.  That's not true.  All you need is to have sex with someone of the other sex, or become artificially inseminated.  As proof, I point you to the millions of single women that have babies every year.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 8, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Thought this was worth a posting a link to......refutes the constant illegitimate link gay marriage promoters make to Loving v Virginia case.
> 
> 7 Reasons Why the Current Marriage Debate Is Nothing Like the Debate on Interracial Marriage


 
I can't believe I bothered to read that

Totally irrelevant


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 
Total dodge Pops

It is your argument that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriages and plural marriages. If it is that easy, why hasn't it happened so far?  Make incest and polygamy legal first and then you can argue about marriage


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Oh, I made no such assumption, I seem to be one of only a few that know how babies are actually made. The discussion was about marriage. You do realize that, right, and about married couples procreating within that marriage. 

No same sex couplings have ever created a child. EVER. 

That makes opposite sex coupling unique. 

Every man, woman and child had come from those couplings. NOT A SINGLE CHILD HAD EVER BEEN PRODUCED FROM SAME SEX MASTURBATION.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Claiming a dodge while dodging is so unbecoming.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Thought this was worth a posting a link to......refutes the constant illegitimate link gay marriage promoters make to Loving v Virginia case.
> ...



I can't believe you can read


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, Pop makes up crap as he goes.  He can't argue so *he tries to sting *with a blunt instrument: he is a fool tool.
> ...



Yup, the proof is there.  So foolish.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Sayeth the village idiot


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



. . . as Pop addresses himself in the mirror.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


Oh!  I know that.  I just want one of these idiots to admit it out loud.  I want them to admit that they are so ignorant, uneducated, stupid, and paranoid that they actually believe that homosexual is communicable, like an STD, or something.

I want one of these gay-hating bigotted dumbasses to have to actually move beyond their bumper-sticker rhetoric, and explain for the world to see how absolutely  mind-numbingly stupid they actually are.

It does not surprise me, however, that when challenged to actually clarify their rhetoric with something of substance, they simply tuck their cowardly little tails between their legs, run away, and hide, ignoring the question, hoping the big mean progressive will just go away so that they can come back another day, and spew their same ignorant bullshit as if it actually means something.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Stealing lines now aye?

Brilliant!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



AND, I want to see a single same sex coupling create a child. 

Oh, how silly of me to point out the unique difference between demographic groups

Sorry bout dat


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


No his children are create improperly not every human is his Child those who are gay are not his.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> the homosexual brigade knew they would never get this passed "by the people.  so they cheer when these mostly "men" in black robes steps over and on the people in the states and their rights.
> 
> awful people. now beating their chest like they actually won something by doing things, THE RIGHT WAY


I guess the queens are going to support incest next.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



How can we learn to cure if there are none to cure?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > the homosexual brigade knew they would never get this passed "by the people.  so they cheer when these mostly "men" in black robes steps over and on the people in the states and their rights.
> ...



It appears so


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop continues to stumble and bumble, the village tool and fool.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop continues to stumble and bumble, the village tool and fool.



Again stealing lines?

How verrrryyyy exciting for you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

You are entertaining us, Pop.  Keep it up. 

Pop is one of those folks who have delusions of adequacy.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are entertaining us, Pop.  Keep it up.



Another stolen line.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


And what does that have to do with the meaningless "...protect themselves, their families and their own children." from Katzanddogz post?  It would seem that you're just trying to change the subject so that none of you have to admit that this is just meaningless, empty rhetoric.  And to do it you're back to "if you can't procreate, you don't count" bullshit.  I'm sure all of the sterile, and infertile heterosexual couples out there will be happy to know you think so little of them.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

dilloduck said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


actually *reality* changes reality.  When same sex marriage is accepted in all 50 states, guess what that means?  That marriage is no longer between just a man and a woman, no matter how much you wish it were.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



What do you have against the reproductively disabled and Roe V Wade?

Are you thinking that same sex couples are disabled?

Masturbating by a same sex couple can't create life, just sticky sheets


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



I hate always having to finish your sentences.

And between siblings, parents and children and plural partners. 

Good job dood!


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



It is when it comes to most churches, synagogues, temples, etc. 

But I'm sure, much as with the 2nd amendment and the 10th amendment, when you progressives get around to it you won't let a small thing like the 1st amendment stop you from forcing people to accept your views on morality, or become pariahs and outcasts.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Here's a reality check for you pops.  I was always on board with incestuous marriage.  What is your problem with it, *exactly*?  Why do you give so much as a single flying fuck who anyone else marries?  How does that affect you in even the tiniest little bit?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


Yup.  As long as all parties involved are consenting adults, I don't give so much as a single flying fuck who is marrying whom.  What I don't understand is why you care so much about the behavior of people you have never met.  Is your life really so boring, and empty that you feel the need to stick your nose into everyone elses?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



So what your saying is society has no right to interfere in ANYTHING, except of course forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding. 

That's consistency for ya.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Oct 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> You are creating the incest argument by inferring there is some slippery slope



 But wouldn't it make a certain degree of sense that when people go on and on about having something crammed down their throats that it is only a short step from that to their offering up their slippery slope?

Their imagery is awfully telltale, isn't it?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You are entertaining us, Pop.  Keep it up.
> ...



So you keep telling us. 

You are a broken record with same parrot message because have nothing else.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



^^^ children do what children do^^^^


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Another admission by your side that you don't give a crap about what this leads too as long as you get state sanctioned leg humping. 

Again, good job dood


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I have nothing against the "reproductively disabled".  HYou're the one that keeps making the entire "proper" purpose of marriage procreation.  Who said anything about being disabled.  You also just dismissed anyone who has ever had a hysterectomy, or vasectomy.

Well done dood.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve *me* depriving *you* of your rights.  That is correct.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



How ironic.  Yes, you do.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I don't.  I don't give two shits what people I have never met do with each other.  They have no affect on my whatsoever.  You still haven't explained why you do.  Why do you feel that you have a right meddle in the private decisions of complete strangers whom you have never met, and will never meet?  Seems to be kind of intrusive, if you ask me.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



You have a very limited idea of my argument, but why try to convince someone who supports incestuous marriage. And don't try to run from it, you said you don't give a crap who sleeps with who. 

You are dismissed czeesehead


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



This leads to nothing more than  you and your ilk having to respect others' rights as they do yours.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop, who supports incestuous marriage?  You?  The Egyptians?  For heaven's sake, grow up.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Everyone has the same right as I do. Keep up will ya


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Why would I run from the perfectly reasonable position that what complete strangers whom I have never met do in their private lives has absolutely zero effect on me?  You are the fanatical bigot who feels like you have the right to dictate what every single person in the country should be allowed to do, and not do in accordance with your own private moral views.  Guess which one of us is the irrational one, braintrust.

You are dismissed.  Thank you for playing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You are the one being pulled along against your will.

No one is interfering with your marriage rights.

You will not interfere with others' marriage rights.

This is hard for you to understand, but there it is.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


The constitution guarantees me the right to do business with any public business.  And the Public accommodation laws already settled this matter.

It's not my problem that you are too stupid to understand how public accommodation works.

You are dismissed.  Thank you for playing.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop, who supports incestuous marriage.  You?  The Egyptians?  For heaven's sake, grow up.



Post 929. Czeesehead did. I oppose it cuze we would have a society that all looked and acted like you. 

If I may, that means inbreed.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Where does the constitution say that? If the constitution forced businesses to do business with everyone, then I could walk up to a Mazarati dealer with a nickel and force them to give me a car. Or stores couldn't deny alcohol to minors, or prescription drugs to people without a prescription. 

PA laws may say that, but except for cases on necessity their morality, never mind their constitutionality are seriously in doubt. 

And congrats, you've ducked out of the convo first, you lose.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop, who supports incestuous marriage.  You?  The Egyptians?  For heaven's sake, grow up.
> ...



You prove my point.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop, who supports incestuous marriage.  You?  The Egyptians?  For heaven's sake, grow up.


I do.  Wellll...that's actually probably a bit overly simplistic.  I mean I don't really support incestuous marriage *for myself*.  I personally find it a little icky.

However, so long as we are talking about consenting adults, what I do support is every individual deciding for themselves who they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

If that is incestuous, okay.  I don't give a shit.  It doesn't affect me.
If that is two women, okay.  I don't give a shit.  It doesn't affect me.
If that's two men, okay.  I don't give a shit.  It doesn't affect me.

If that's a man and a woman, okay.  I don't give a shit.  It doesn't affect me.
If that's a man, and as many women as he can get to agree to marry him, okay.  I don't give a shit.  It doesn't affect me.  Good luck with that, though.  I have a hard enough time keeping *one* woman  happy; I couldn't imagine an entire harem of women...
If that's one woman, and as many men as she can get to marry her, okay.  I don't give a shit.  It doesn't affect me.  Again, not sure how successful one person can be at keeping multiple partners satisfied, but, hey!  That's not my problem.
The point is, as long as I'm not being *forced* to participate in any of these marriages, I don't give two shits what other *consenting adults* do.

You'll notice I keep including the "consenting adults" part.  That's because I know the fanatics.  Once they realize they can't make me gross out over the idea of other people engaging in incest, they invariably move on to the pedophilia thing.  That's why it's important to note, right up front, that there is a difference when one of the participant is a child, and not able to consent.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


No, it doesn't, and you know it.  The proscription against discrimination has nothing to do with the process of commerce.  It has to do with you not being allowed to be a bigot.  Try smarter.

An d I didn't duck out of shit.  I'm dismissing *you* for being too stupid to be capable of intelligent debate.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

When a country loses it's moral foundation it slowly begins to loose it's freedoms because it's lost it's moral compass


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> When a country loses it's moral foundation it slowly begins to loose it's freedoms because it's lost it's moral compass


I couldn't agree more.  Which is why the Christian zealots doing everything in their power to turn our great *secular* democracy into a theocracy disturbs me so...


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop, who supports incestuous marriage.  You?  The Egyptians?  For heaven's sake, grow up.
> ...



BRAVO

Waiter, a bottle of anarchy for the table!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop, who supports incestuous marriage.  You?  The Egyptians?  For heaven's sake, grow up.
> ...


You call incest ICKY? I call it more obama supporters no wonder you would support it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > When a country loses it's moral foundation it slowly begins to loose it's freedoms because it's lost it's moral compass
> ...


You really want to go there?
You had to pick on Christians knowing Muslims would push for a secular democracy
There is nothing moral about gay marriage it's two abnormal perverted people trying to force it's belief on the country.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


As a matter of fact I do.  You see that is the really cool thing about actually thinking, and making choices.  I can support *your right to make a choice* with my dying breath, while still recognizing that your choice is one that I, personally, would never make.

Thinking is cool!!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


OK what is your position on gun control?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Except they aren't.  I don't see anyone on this thread claiming allegiance to Allah shitting themselves over the idea of Gay Marriage.  You're all *Christian* zealots.

Picture that...

However, for the record, I would be just as opposed if *Muslims* were running around openly trying to pervert our government into a theocracy of their flavor, too, if that makes you feel any better about your zealotry.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Start your own thread on gun control, friend, and let him respond to it there.

If you insist here, then you are trolling the thread and you know what happens when you do that.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


National background checks on all sales, and a ban on *future sales* of automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds, and limiting clips to 10 rounds. (I'm flexible on that clip size).

Now, notice I said *future sales*.  I do not, and have never, rounding up guns.  Look you spent your hard-earned money for your weapons, and they were perfectly legal when you bought them.  It would be unreasonable for someone to come along and say, "Hey!  You gotta give that up,"

This of course, is dependent on the de-militarization of our police forces.  If we are not willing to do that, trust me when I say that I have an entirely different view on gun control.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Start your own thread on gun control, friend, and let him respond to it there.
> 
> If you insist here, then you are trolling the thread and you know what happens when you do that.


Oh, no.  I get his reason for asking.  He just wants to know if my support of people making their own choices is universal.  *For individuals* it is.  It is corporations where I start to support government oversight.  They can claim it all they want, corporations are *not* people.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I'm a consenting adult, and I consent to buy any firearm I can afford but you want to selective restrict my rights from them.
You are a fucking hypocrite


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Only to those who are violent criminals, and nutcakes.  You think that criminals, and nutcakes should have free, and  unfettered, access to firearms?  Really?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



So be specific and tell us what horrible calamities are going to befall you because gays can legally marry. Give some details, Drama Queen.


----------



## Plasmaball (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


you are still going on about this....Doing exactly what i said you would do.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Holy non-sequitur, Batman!!!  Where the Hell did you get that from, Pop?  I'm pretty sure that no one equates individual liberty with anarchy...


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > 62% of the country will soon be able to civil marry someone of the opposite or same sex if they want to. We are less than 40% away from full equality. (As if you can't tell by the lost flailing of the anti gay crowd).
> ...



Sure I did because I live in an equality state. Now I can live in 11 more and still be legally married. 

If you truly believe that the state can provide no societal harm in allowing close familial marriages, then your problem isn't with gays wanting to be treated equally under the law, you have a problem with the law.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Where, on the planet, are incestuous relationships legal? Do those places recognize equality for gays? No place where polygamy is legal and practiced are same sex relationships also legal and in practice. There is no slippery slope.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

Plasmaball said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It's called flailing. They lost, you have to expect it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


First you say you understand the difference between being married and having sex and/or using artificial insemination to get pregnant.  Then you prove that you don't understand the difference.  Or at least that you are incapable of being honest.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You said this
*a ban on future sales of automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds, and limiting clips to 10 rounds. (I'm flexible on that clip size).*
Only those that violent criminals use?
Most criminals when using firearms choose hand guns
You are really stupid at this thing everybody has a right game


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law.  You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



So you refer to the commerce clause, then in your next reply dismiss it? Try to be consistent. 

and where in the constitution is it prohibited for a person to be a bigot?

Talk about a lack of intelligence......


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


No that means you probably have early onset of Alzheimers.  Life liberty etc. are in the 14th amendment.  Equal protection clause is in the 14th amendment.  Commerce clause is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

Thus.. public accommodation laws are legal per the commerce clause if federal, and per the 14th if state.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> and where in the constitution is it prohibited for a person to be a bigot?



Actually, I misspoke there.  You are allowed to *be* a bigot.  You are just not allowed to *act on that bigotry*.  Sorry, I wasn't clear enough there.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Who said you can't be a bigot?


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > and where in the constitution is it prohibited for a person to be a bigot?
> ...


To be more specific you can act on that bigotry, you just can't refuse public accommodation for certain types of bigotry.  IOW if you partake in regulated public commerce, you have to adhere to federal and state regulations around said regulated public commerce.

For example, you can't urinate in someone's food, or refuse someone food because they are black.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


So, if it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, you can ignore it?  Cool!  that means I never have to pay taxes again.

And here I spent my whole life stupidly thinking that US citizens were subject *all laws* that were Constitutionally sound, not just to the actual words within  the Constitution.  Thanks for that information.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It's called warning. We lose you can't stop incest and plural marriage


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Please simpleton, the argument is not that pregnancy can occur, the argument is that in the demographic group you are siding with, that pregnancy had never occurred without an outside third party, making opposite sex couples quite unique when compared to same sex couplings. 

Ramble on rambling man


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No dumb ass.. that is your stupid ass argument.  Who gives a flying eff if a guy can't get pregnant?  What the hell does that have to do with with marriage?  Who gives a shit if the woman can't get pregnant from her mate?  What the hell does that have to do with marriage?


----------



## Plasmaball (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


who cares.....


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You go!

Who cares if a mother/daughter  couple can't get pregnant, what does that have do do with marriage?

Guess you put me in my place aye pardner?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


I'm afraid that Stephanie is the victim of gay marriage.  Draw what conclusions you wish from that.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Incest is a different issue than marriage.  And, no you put yourself in your place.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > and where in the constitution is it prohibited for a person to be a bigot?
> ...


You are a hypocrite


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


No it is not you are also a hypocrite.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


I know.  It's so much easier to just engage in ad hominems than it is to have to actually think, isn't it?

You are dismissed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You are a fucking piece of shit hypocrite it has nothing to do with protecting rights with you
It the protection of a god damn progressive agenda that you defend
Son of a bitch hypocrite.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Nothing else was needed.  Ad hominems are the last attempt of the desperate when they are too stupid to formulate actual intelligent replies.

You really should go relax, and change you panties that you soiled.

Or you can continue to rant, and I'll just ignore you.

So, does anyone who is not stupid have anything they would like to add?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You are a hypocrite stop whining when it's pointed out to you.
Class is over


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Well, duh!  That's what I told you.  Class is over.  You're too stupid to make an actual argument, so you resort to grying to attack your opponent.  You can go back to the kiddie table now.  We're done with you.  and repeating the same stupid useless attack over and over doesn't make you sound any less stupid.  so you might as well just stop and slither on away to lick your wounds.

I know...I know..
Like the little child you are, you just *have* to have the last word, even though you have run out of things to say that aren't stupid, so...
"But...but...but...*hypocrite!!!"*
In 3...
2...
1...


----------



## daws101 (Oct 8, 2014)

what the repubs wish they could be doing ....


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Well, I've always said that if gay marriage has any affect on your marriage, one or both of you is gay.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 8, 2014)

funny how all the states rights nonsense being touted here only comes up when we have a black president and gay people are finally getting some equal treatment.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Funny, it used soiled panties

You can't make this chit up

When talking in the defense of the LGBTQLMNOPs one should avoid such descriptions, cuz it is your sides men that probably actually wear them


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

daws101 said:


> funny how all the states rights nonsense being touted here only comes up when we have a black president and gay people are finally getting some equal treatment.



Gay people had the same right to marry as straight people did.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You said that?

Why you are a comic genius!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Agree, they only love their argument when it works for them. When it works for other groups they disagree with, they can no longer defend it.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > funny how all the states rights nonsense being touted here only comes up when we have a black president and gay people are finally getting some equal treatment.
> ...



Just like folks did under anti miscegenation laws...they just couldn't marry who they wanted to.

Guess what Pop? You can marry someone of the same sex too. Totally equal.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

daws101 said:


> funny how all the states rights nonsense being touted here only comes up when we have a black president and gay people are finally getting some equal treatment.


I also think it's funny that the only "right" that these guys seem to think should be absolute, and unfettered, is the one guaranteed by the second amendment.

Marriage?  We should get to mandate who deserves access to this right.

Voting?  Well of course "common sense" restrictions are necessary.

But guns?  Hey, motherfucker!  Any restriction on this is a violation of my gawd-given rights, you hypocritical fuckwads!  Leave my goddamned guns alone!!!!!

The funniest part is that they don't see the irony of calling someone a "hypocrite" over this...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Here stupid maybe you missed this read it slowly
You are a fucking piece of shit hypocrite it has nothing to do with protecting rights with you
It the protection of a god damn progressive agenda that you defend
Son of a bitch hypocrite.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



And soon we'll all be able to marry our parents!

You go gurl

Victory is within reach of the LGBTQLMNOPS!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > funny how all the states rights nonsense being touted here only comes up when we have a black president and gay people are finally getting some equal treatment.
> ...



I don't think anyone supports giving prisoners guns

And.......


----------



## daws101 (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > funny how all the states rights nonsense being touted here only comes up when we have a black president and gay people are finally getting some equal treatment.
> ...


false pop


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No, true


----------



## daws101 (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


...if they married a straight person . which defeats the purpose..


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Absolutely brillant! 

You have the same right as anyone else to marry the person you love.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Sexual orientation had nothing to do with it. All males could marry any female. 

There are but two genders. Making combining them into a single unit a unique and highly productive entity. 

The opposite, sorry to say, is not true. 

Our demographic, male plus female, are responsible for each and every child ever to walk this planet!

How awesome is that!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Do you love your parents?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



and right on cue, just like the whiny litttle bitch that I called him.  He can't stand not having the last word, and has nothing intelligent to actually add, so he just keeps stomping his feet, and screaming "hypocrite" as if that means anything.

Wait for it.  Since I replied he's gonna have to do it again.  This is kind of fun...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Idunno...the minute I suggested that one of your idiot compatriots started screaming "HYPOCRITE!!!!" because I dared to suggest that some common sense gun control is not unreasonable.  But, hey, you know...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Immaterial questions, Pops, but a nice try.  You can marry anyone you want, Pops, if you are single.  How fortunate you are to live in this day and age.

And, yes, bigreb, of all the whinies on this Board, is second only to Yurt.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You are not for defending peoples rights your only goal is to defend an agenda 
It's quite clear with your position of anti gun.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


My position isn't anti-gun; it's anti-crime.  There's a difference.  I'm actually *pro*-gun.  Been thinking about getting one, myself.  And welcome back to grown-up conversation.  I'm so proud of you!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Immaterial questions, Pops, but a nice try.  You can marry anyone you want, Pops, if you are single.  How fortunate you are to live in this day and age.
> 
> And, yes, bigreb, of all the whinies on this Board, is second only to Yurt.



But I can't marry anyone I want. 

You understand that don't you?

Or are you just stupid?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Most anti gunners make that claim  but they always show their true colors  fucking hypocrite.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


And we're back to stupid.

Like I said, idiots like you think Government should tell everyone what to do, right up until it comes to you guns.  *That* is inviolate.  And you don't even recognise the irony of your stupid "hypocrite" cry.

So, explain to me sparky, what about my position makes me "anti-gun", *exactly*.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


What do you mean your back to stupid you never left that position it follows you every where. Only a dumb ass would support obama.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Immaterial questions, Pops, but a nice try.  You can marry anyone you want, Pops, if you are single.  How fortunate you are to live in this day and age.
> ...



That's you, my friend: stupid.  You can marry any persona you want as long as they agree.  Of course, you get to  be married to only one person at a time.  The law is very clear about that.  But if you are pro polygamy, start to work to change the law.

You are such a clown.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

bigreb remains a clueless clown.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Yeah...that was *you* that is back to stupid.  You know...personal attacks, and idiocy instead of actually discussing the topic at hand.

You, of course, will feel the need to reply with some moronic insult, since you are too childish to simply walk away when you have nothing, and absolutely "must" have the last word.  I'm sure you'll understand when I just laugh at your next bit of brainless drivel, and choose to be the adult, and not respond again.

Do let us know when you would like to return to actual adult conversation.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


What I said to you wasn't a personal attack it was the truth you fucking little hypocrite 
All you want to protect is the liberal agenda 
Fuck anyone else who have rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2014)

bigreb continues to whine about gun rights


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

Since you seem to have a hard time understanding the concept:



bigrebnc1775 said:


> What I said to you wasn't a personal attack it was the truth you fucking little hypocrite


*is* a personal attack, and an ad hominem.  The purpose of an ad hominem is to distract from a debate by forcing your opponent to defend themselves, rather than their argument.
For the record, this is an example of another type of distraction:



bigrebnc1775 said:


> All you want to protect is the liberal agenda
> Fuck anyone else who have rights.


It's called a non-sequitur.  Non-sequiturs are characterized by declaritive statements that allow no room for debate, and are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Now that you have been educated on the error of you debating style, would you like to try again?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Since you seem to have a hard time understanding the concept:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Truth is your enemy dumb ass.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Since you seem to have a hard time understanding the concept:
> ...


And you have reached your quota for dumbfuckery for the day.  Feel free to respond, I will just laugh, and be the adult in the room, and not respond.

Lemme know when  you would like to go back to having an actual discussion, like an adult, instead of just stomping your feet, and calling me names like a 4-year-old.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You make the mess and expect me to clean it up?

No thanks


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No I have a long way to go to catch up to you being an obama supporter. DUMB FUCK.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> 
> First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.
> 
> ...



It makes no difference.  Marriage is between a man and a woman - it is God who unites a man and a woman in matrimony.  God doesn't do same sex marriages and therefore the marriage is not a marriage. I could care less what any earthly court has to say.  God makes the rules on marriage.  Not man.  God will have the last word on this one. You can be sure of it.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

Jeremiah said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> ...


Yeah...God has nothing to do with it.  You're not talking about marriage.  You're talking about a wedding ritual - and even then, only according to a particular religion.  I'll leave the religious trappings of ritual to you guys.  I'm only really interested in the *civil contract* of marriage, and all of the rights, and privileges that come with that contract.  And, thanks to the federal courts, in 34 out of 50 states, *that* is no longer required to be gender specific.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Speaking of dumbfuckery, did you know that one , and only one demographic group is relied on to populate the planet?

True story


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 8, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Speaking of dumbfuckery, did you know that the planet is pretty well populated?

True story.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> You finally get it !
> 
> Good on you
> 
> ...



Oh, noes, it's the slippery slope argument. 

two thing about the guys trying to do the Incest argument. 

A lot of states ALREADY allow marriages between first cousins.  which is like , ewwww.  

No one is really arguing for repealing the laws against sex for closer relatives. You'd have to strike down THOSE laws before you get anywhere near making incestuous relationship legal. 

Hey, maybe instead of saying that polygamy and incest and bestiality are j ust around the corner, maybe you homophobes should come up with a better argument against homosexuality on its own merit.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 9, 2014)

Jeremiah said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> ...


 
If God does not want to recognize the marriage, he doesn't have to

But he can't force his views on the people of this country


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



You can thank us later if you wish


----------



## bodecea (Oct 9, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Since you seem to have a hard time understanding the concept:
> ...


Again, you fail at debating.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > You finally get it !
> ...


They can't...that's why they always switch to "polygamy and incest and bestiality".


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.



Funny , make the argument that incest should be legal, then



Runnnnnnnnnn


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)




----------



## bodecea (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.
> ...


Again...can't stick with gay marriage and why it shouldn't be legal.  Instead you have to go off-topic.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.


It's right up there with their continued visual descriptions of gay sex.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.
> ...



That would be the far right's responsibility then.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.
> ...



You mean masturbation?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



What does the law have to do with a private contract between to people to provide a wedding cake? And why does a gay person's life/liberty and such trump a religious persons life/liberty and such?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Again, the definition of public accommodation has been stretched to meaningless. The whole "go private" argument is moot when you make everything a public accommodation. 

By this use of the commerce clause and the 14th amendment you basically open up the government to regulate ANYTHING it wants, to punish ANYONE it wants, and to fuck over EVERYONE.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



the constitution gives the government the ability to raise revenue. The Income Tax amendment lets them use an income tax. 

Those ARE in the constitution, unlike forcing a baker to bake a cake.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Nothing, if you privately advertise by world of mouth or whatever, as long as you don't hold yourself out publicly as a baker of wedding cakes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




To be libertarian voice in the wilderness is a lonely position, yes.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 9, 2014)

So what do we do with the remaining 20 states that do not acknowledge gay marriages?

What happens when a gay family enters one of those states and has a medical emergency where their marital relationship is not acknowledged?

What happens when gay married soldiers are stationed in those states and receive unequal benefits and treatment from that state?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> So what do we do with the remaining 20 states that do not acknowledge gay marriages?
> 
> What happens when a gay family enters one of those states and has a medical emergency where their marital relationship is not acknowledged?
> 
> What happens when gay married soldiers are stationed in those states and receive unequal benefits and treatment from that state?



That's how the advocates of marriage equality will chip away at those laws.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 9, 2014)

I guess Justice Kennedy granted stays against gay marriage in Idaho and Nevada yesterday and I just heard about it now in the media...

He took back the stay in Nevada because the officials there had not asked for it, though I believe they have now asked for it.  Which I think shows that differences within states in the same court circuit should be considered.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


There you go, you are now 100% correct in your description of the commerce clause and 14th amendment.  Although you left out the payroll tax, and popular vote for the senate parts, that put the finishing nails on the coffin.

Yes the commerce, 14th, taxing clauses, and senate popular vote amendments pretty much ended our republic and turned us into a democracy where the tyranny of the majority rules, rightly or wrongly, justly or without justice, for better or for worse.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


That is correct.  Elections have consequences at the federal and state levels. See SCOTUS decision on ACA.  Our government, state and local, can regulate ALL commerce, and can tax us for pretty much anything but voting.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



So in a snit over the ACA you feel everyone else should be fucked over...
Great.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I see you've thought about it some.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



See my last response. So this is all a grudge match.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So what do we do with the remaining 20 states that do not acknowledge gay marriages?
> ...


 
I don't see how we can continue in a situation where your marital status changes as you move between states


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


For what?  Man was fucking and procreating long before any stupid theology tried to take credit for a biological process.  And guess what?  During all of that time, there was a cross-section of every society *that was homosexual*.  And, shockingly enough, it never once destroyed man, or prevented man from procreating, and proliferating.  Somehow, I don't think it will today, either.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


No, I don't feel anyone should be treated thus.  You've miss-understood me from the start I suppose.

My point here, was that the 14th and 16th amendments to the constitution ended the republic.  And then the 17th Amendment removed the power of the states to resist majority rule.

This power that we gave our government can be used for good, such as for giving blacks and women, jews, gays, etc. equal voting rights and the right to commerce in the public square without discrimination from bigotry.  And it can also be used to take away your life, liberty, and property based on the whim of the majority.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I remember the days when people went to Nevada to get quickie divorces then went back home....they were recognized.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.
> ...


Who's running?  I said feel froggy.
Jake is just pointing out that the argument that legalizing marriage equality necessitates legalizing incest as well seems to be consistently coming from the Far Right.  This consistent trend _would _seem to suggest that there is some interest in seeing this agenda realized...


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


It won't.  There are too many statues that allow a married couple from another state the right to live as a married couple in a state where they would not have been allowed to get married.  For example, age restrictions.

I don't think they will be forced to hand out marriage licenses, but they will be bound by the license handed out in another state.

It's more like when I was 19 I could only drink in some states not all states... but States that make it illegal can't put me in jail for drinking in a state where it is legal.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Ah. 

What i see is a mis-use of said amendments, but I understand your point that if they weren't passed we wouldn't be having these problems. 

It goes to my point of the courts being legislators instead of adjudicators.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


That question would seem to suggest you don't know the meaning of the word masturbation.  I'm curious...you have had sex at least once in your life, right?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


No it's not.  It has always meant the same thing:  Private clubs, and businesses are those which do no business with the public, are not advertised to the public, and are not open to the public.  They are available by invitation, and referral only.  When you run your business in that manner you have 100% control of who you do, and do not do business with, and no one thinks twice about it.  However, the minute you open your doors to the *public* you are operating a *public* accommodation.  See how that word *public* pays an important part in how *public* accommodations are defined?


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


But the courts didn't pass the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments, the people did.  The wording of these amendments is BRUTALLY CLEAR.  If the courts say the 14th equal protection clause does not apply to particular situations, like the gay marriage issue, then that is legislating.  The equal protection clause does not say more or less protection based on the whims of the majority.  Thus, applying the equal protection clause to gays is not legislating it's going by the CLEAR meaning of the clause.

That said, yes if these amendments were not already passed then our government would not have said powers and we would be fighting these issues out state by state, till support for an amendment came around.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


But, in accordance with your logic, *taxes* are not *specifically* mentioned in the Constitution, so they are obviously not constitutional.  See how patently stupid that sounds?  Equal treatment under the law is, which is why the public accommodation laws are also constitutional.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> I guess Justice Kennedy granted stays against gay marriage in Idaho and Nevada yesterday and I just heard about it now in the media...
> 
> He took back the stay in Nevada because the officials there had not asked for it, though I believe they have now asked for it.  Which I think shows that differences within states in the same court circuit should be considered.


Actually, he revised that, and only granted the stay in Idaho.  This would seem to suggest that there  might be something in the Idaho case that caught the court's attention that wasn't present in the other cases.  It'll be interesting to see where this goes...


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Correct


----------



## daws101 (Oct 9, 2014)

several days in and zero destruction of society


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Has anyone been harmed by marriage equality since the ruling?


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Has anyone been harmed by marriage equality since the ruling?


Several religious authoritarians saw their blood pressure go through the roof.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Has anyone been harmed by marriage equality since the ruling?


none nobody.
there may be some self inflicted wounds  by the homophobes but they don't count.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Many times lad. Simulating it with a mouth, rectum, or humping a pillow is masturbation. 

Lesson over


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Well, then you learned the wrong lesson, son.  Masturbation is *self-gratification*.  In other words, it does not involve the body parts of another person.

Lesson over.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



You, of course have heard of mutual masturbation

Here's a clue, cuz you're kinda slooowwwwww

When that dog is humping your leg , you're not guilty of beastiality.  The dog ain't having sex with you , he's using you to MASTURBATE

Get laid once (with the opposite sex) 

You might understand


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop is still lost in his own universe

And he wants to rule the normal universe

meh


----------



## daws101 (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop is still lost in his own universe
> 
> And he wants to rule the normal universe
> 
> meh


too much tequila will do that....


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)




----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop is still lost in his own universe
> 
> And he wants to rule the normal universe
> 
> meh



^^^ hairy palms wrote ^^^


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop is still lost in his own universe
> ...



No such thing!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)




----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Thanks for the images, Vigi.

I have sent several like them to the charter schools for use by the instructors in history, if they wish to use them.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Thanks for the images, Vigi.
> 
> I have sent several like them to the charter schools for use by the instructors in history, if they wish to use them.



Your welcome, but really all you had to do was click on the THUMB UP icon to get the message across! 

Perhaps this one also?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

The Pew Research Center reported 18 months ago that "Approval of same-sex marriage among young adults is at an all-time high, according to new findings from the Pew Research Center.

The poll found 70 percent of adults born in 1981 or later, often referred to as millennials, support marriage equality. That's up from 64 percent in 2012, and an increase from 51 percent since the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009. Slightly more, 74 percent of millennials, say they believe gay and lesbian individuals should be accepted by society, while 22 percent disagree."

The millennials which includes 16 to 33 year olds probably are in favor by at least 75% now if not higher.

Either the GOP climbs on board, or the party will continue as a minority party nationally, and in the federal congress beginning in January 2017.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Per Research Center reported 18 months ago that "Approval of same-sex marriage among young adults is at an all-time high, according to new findings from the Pew Research Center.
> 
> The poll found 70 percent of adults born in 1981 or later, often referred to as millennials, support marriage equality. That's up from 64 percent in 2012, and an increase from 51 percent since the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009. Slightly more, 74 percent of millennials, say they believe gay and lesbian individuals should be accepted by society, while 22 percent disagree."
> 
> ...



Per research?

They polled them in their parents basements?

Interesting


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Per Research Center reported 18 months ago that "Approval of same-sex marriage among young adults is at an all-time high, according to new findings from the Pew Research Center.
> 
> The poll found 70 percent of adults born in 1981 or later, often referred to as millennials, support marriage equality. That's up from 64 percent in 2012, and an increase from 51 percent since the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009. Slightly more, 74 percent of millennials, say they believe gay and lesbian individuals should be accepted by society, while 22 percent disagree."
> 
> ...



Perhaps the Bible needs to be a TEACHING TOOL for morality, ethics and principles as it was once used for. NOT to preach, but to convey a principle that has been established for multiple centuries.

The young today, are taught that SELF is MORE IMPORTANT than the whole. With only 3 or so % of the country being queer, it seems that THEY are driving the agenda for the other 97%!


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Per Research Center reported 18 months ago that "Approval of same-sex marriage among young adults is at an all-time high, according to new findings from the Pew Research Center.
> 
> The poll found 70 percent of adults born in 1981 or later, often referred to as millennials, support marriage equality. That's up from 64 percent in 2012, and an increase from 51 percent since the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009. Slightly more, 74 percent of millennials, say they believe gay and lesbian individuals should be accepted by society, while 22 percent disagree."
> 
> ...


 
Once again, the GOP is showing itself to be the party of the dinosaurs on social issues. Young voters are stamping their party affiliation and ask.....Is that the party I want to belong to?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)




----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> View attachment 32714



Apparently millennials are but a minor factor in voting as per the liberal CBS poll...

Few millennials will definitely vote this November poll finds - CBS News


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Your source gives 39% projected turn out, for definite and probable millennial voters.  Compared to the image below and that millennials are more likely to vote than social cons, I think the GOP should pay very close attention. In 2016 all 40 million plus of them will be eligible to vote as a block for the first time.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your source gives 39% projected turn out, for definite and probable millennial voters.  Compared to the image below and that millennials are more likely to vote than social cons, I think the GOP should pay very close attention. In 2016 all 40 million plus of them will be eligible to vote as a block for the first time.
> 
> View attachment 32715



You have the mistaken belief that they all vote the same... NEWS FLASH, they don't, they are NOT like blacks when it comes to that respect since there is NO RACIAL, or ETHNIC issue that causes them to vote as a block. You keep thinking that your liberalism is a winning strategy, when we know that the country is majority conservative.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Yes. which still involves *self-gratification*.  You just happen to be gratifying yourself, with someone else there.  It is still you diddling yourself, and has nothing to do with sexual caontact with another person.

Since *you* seem to be a bit slow, look up masturbation, coitus, and sodomy, and you will see the differences between the three.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


it all so makes you think you're bullet proof


----------



## daws101 (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Per Research Center reported 18 months ago that "Approval of same-sex marriage among young adults is at an all-time high, according to new findings from the Pew Research Center.
> ...


wtf! the bible is the last book any sane person would use to teach morality...but then again you're probably an a la carte christian and never read it.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Per Research Center reported 18 months ago that "Approval of same-sex marriage among young adults is at an all-time high, according to new findings from the Pew Research Center.
> ...


I'm confused.  Isn't the whole ideology of Libertarianism that the self *is* more important than the whole?  I thought the whole premise of Libertarianism is that "society" is nothing more than a social construct comprised of a mass of *individuals.*  has the ideology of libertarianism changed, or are you not a libertarian?


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Now, I must admit it's been over 50 years since I even held a Bible, but memory brings back several moral plays therein that taught lessons rather than preached about GOD! I do suggest you look up AGNOSIC because your 2 digit IQ seems to have never come across that word before!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Only S are complete libertarians! And NO I am certainly not a libertarian but do follow some of their ideology.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


lol! GOLLY FOR an agnostic you sure get defensive about god.
btw I was an agnostic for many decades ,then I realized it was riding the fence.
for every morality tale in the bible there's a matching one that's immoral
the fact is morality is a personal choice.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your source gives 39% projected turn out, for definite and probable millennial voters.  Compared to the image below and that millennials are more likely to vote than social cons, I think the GOP should pay very close attention. In 2016 all 40 million plus of them will be eligible to vote as a block for the first time.
> ...



You are unable to get beyond confirmation bias.

A group just short of majority identify or lean blue, the next group is centrist or independent, and way, way in the back the group is about 1 in 4 red.  In other words, generally they transcend race and religion.

Either the GOP reaches out to women, millennials, and minorities, or it will be clobbered in 2016.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Sigh.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Nice DNC talking points you keep spouting, Flakey...Unfortunately only your other subversives will back up your screwed value system and zombie like devotion to those notions!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Critical thinking ability transcends Vigilante Talking Points any day of the week, buddy. 

We have purged your types from position and policy making posts in the several precincts on our side of town.

The semi reforms of primary elections have severely weakened the far right's ability to determine candidates without voter input.

If it takes emasculating your group  politically, V, to win elections nationally, we will continue to do so.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


false! if "they" did that would make the republicans!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Critical thinking ability transcends Vigilante Talking Points any day of the week, buddy.
> 
> We have purged your types from position and policy making posts in the several precincts on our side of town.
> 
> ...



Now, even I must admit Flakey that you socialist and subversives have lied, cheated, and stolen into the positions of power your fellow pond scum hold, and that a decent proportion of supposed Republicans have even started to believe your bullshit about war on women, amnesty, and other social issues. That's why many, such as myself, are willing to let YOU SCUMBAGS hold the reigns of power, in order to free ourselves of MODERATE RINO'S, who the base will refuse to vote for, and watch our country FAIL. It seems the only thing that will bring back traditional values and culture as our fathers saw and fought for will be to have the scum of America actually turn us into a AFRICAN THIRD WORLD.

WE shall be like the Phoenix rising from the ashes! You can bet on that, but YOU, and I will NOT BE HERE to see it!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Apparently not the part that promotes individual liberty.  You know, whenever Progressives talk about "the greater good", or " the needs of the many...", or "societal gains", they get told what commies they are.  Yet here you are promoting the hive (whole) over the individual.  And, you're doing it over the concept of marriage equality.

Tell me, how does two guys getting married do harm, *exactly*, to "the whole".  And please don't give me any crap about damage to the "moral structure", cuz guess what? Morality is a matter of the individual, not "the whole".  So what actual demonstrable harm does gay marriage do to your "whole"?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Critical thinking ability transcends Vigilante Talking Points any day of the week, buddy.
> ...



You are reactionary and subversive, yes, who is failing in resisting our retaking of the Republican Party.

Yes, a growing number of Republicans realize you guys on the far right do not love America with your war on women, Hispanics, and other minorities.

We, in our growing strength, say to you and your ilk, "Go.  In the name of God, go, little phoenix." 

And take your eggs with you or we will scramble them for breakfast.

The country will not fail but grow only stronger with you gone.

You shall not rise.

You will be forgotten, only a footnote in a dusty cd and dvd collection somewhere that no one visits.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



When states continually vote down queer right agenda's and the courts nullify that vote, what do you call it?.... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What a bunch of horse shit! When we do go, and YOU, a supposed moderate RINO never win another election, what shall you do? You simply believe CHANGING your positions will win votes away from a SUBVERSIVE party that has ALREADY DONE what you purpose?... If you believe that, you truly belong in an asylum


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


The center elects presidents, not the far right, and the center thinks the far right is full of crap.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



 Your problem is that you actually believe the shit that you post. YOUR KIND is why I keep referring to the 2 digit IQ's! You, son, are simply brainwashed by the propaganda you read and hear! Too much television! Perhaps when you grow up, but I honestly doubt it!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Do you really think I give a rats butt how you, them or anyone gets off?

Life, get one

Only one type, between opposing sexes, makes babies. 

And as a point of reference, that form, performed by that certain demographic is all that is required for our species to exist. 

How freaking awesome is that!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



You have described your confirmation bias in projecting on me, a common failing of the far right and far left true believers.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Which has nothing to do with marriage equality, which hurts no one.  The demographics of Massachusetts contradict any idea that procreation is harmed by marriage equality.

You simply don't like same sex marriage.

Sux to be you.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



More bullshit from the deranged! You would have made Jim Jones proud!


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Do you not understand the distinction between civil and religious marriage? If you don't want us to get civilly married, change it to Civil Unions for everyone.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Yes, make it civil unions.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Why?....You don't recognize that there IS a difference between these? Let's call an apple an orange!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


I call it the court reminding people that they don't get to deny people their constitutional rights by referendum.  See, that' the thing about the Constitution - it kinda trumps popular vote.


Vigilante said:


> .... 2 guys can do whatever they like under a CIVIL UNION but a marriage that has been almost exclusively the domain of the religious and calls for a man and a woman to join, is a corruption of the very definition, which is, or at least until the obomanation disregarded the Constitution, covered under it! Words have meaning!


First of all, we already established that "separate but equal" doctrine is not constitutional.  Second of all, marriage has *never* been the domain of "the religious".  Guess what you call the license that you have to get to have a church wedding.  A *marriage* license.  guess what you call the license you have to get to be married by a Justice of the Peace.  a *marriage *license.  that's right.  It has always been called the exact same thing, whether it was a religious ceremony, or simply a civil ceremony.  To suggest that the religious ceremony was any different than the civil one is complete bullshit.

I have to say that I find it particularly interesting that a man who claims to not be religious to be taking the position of defending religion.  something tells me that someone is not nearly as "agnostic" as they would like everyone to believe.  For an agnostic, your reasoning sounds an awfully lot like the ramblings of the religious zealots.  Talking about queers, and the bible.  Speaking of "morals" as if there is one set that is more "appropriate for everyone" rather than aknowledging that everyone's moral code is deeply personal, and therefore a matter of individual determination.

But, hey.  You can call yourself whatever you'd like.  Your attitudes, and positions will define who you are, not your words.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


As your friend Vigilante pointed out, *WORDS HAVE MEANING*.  So, if you insist on perverting the meanings of words in order to add emotional impact to your silly arguments, you can expect to have your idiocy pointed out to you.

As far as your stupid procreation argument goes, in case you missed it, your guys already tried that in court, several times, *and got laughed out of the court rooms by the judges*!  It was, and remains, a stupid argument that holds no validity whatsoever.

So you can keep screaming, "*BUT GAYS CAN'T MAKE BABIES!!!!*" as many times as you like.  It still won't make you sound any less stupid.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Yes, having EXACTLY the same rights, but because of different SEX'S involved is a DEFINING way of DESCRIBING the circumstances! Please, no one is going to fight what queers do today, it's simply making a distinction between apples and oranges! I presume you are also for boys and girls going to the same bathroom!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Except, in the eyes of the law, there isn't.  A marriage is a marriage is a marriage.  It doesn't matter if it was achieved through A religious ceremony, a Justice of the Peace, or the Fake Elvis down at Billy Bob's Marriage Emporium in Vegas.  They are all marriages, and they are all recognised by the government as valid.

(Note for clarity: I just made up Billy Bob's Marriage Emporium as an example.  I don't really know if that particular venue exists, only that it represents a typical type of venue that does exist in Vegas.)


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Marriage is the same regardless of how the contract is executed – by a member of the clergy or justice of the peace. Marriage as religious dogma has nothing to do with the issue of recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to state governments and the marriage contract laws they enact.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Okay.  that is just word salad gibberish.  Would you like to try that again in actual English?



Vigilante said:


> I presume you are also for boys and girls going to the same bathroom!



As a matter of fact, I could give two shits.  Recent studies indicate that it doesn't really have any effect on development, and that *grown-ups* get wig out over it more than kids they insist are being "irreparably damaged" do.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Wrong, and the court is wrong for NOT following the definition of marriage! A man and a woman, anything else is NOT a marriage, if anything it LEGAL and affords all the same benefits BUT it is a civil union!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Yes, same guys studied and said pedophilia was a life style!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You have equal rights shyster, the definition is different, to delineate who is involved....


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Now you see, you insist that words have meanings, and bitch about courts not following the "definition" of marriage.  Yet, according to Miriam Webster, they did:

_a _ _(1)_ *:*  the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law _(2)_ *:* *the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage*.

So, unless your objection is borne out of a *religious* perception, I don't really see your problem.  Because, as has been clearly demonstrated, it certainly can't be about a lack of understanding the definition - after all that is pretty clear.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


So, now you have to just make shit up to try and win your argument?

You are dismissed.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



See, changing the definition.... You can do it in Wikipedia also!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Why? Did you lose argument, and can't stand it?


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > I presume you are also for boys and girls going to the same bathroom!
> ...


It's pretty clear that you are sexually amoral. If it's OK for children then it should OK for adults. Your type seeks to blend genders because you can't fathom what it means and you blame others for your inability to grasp the significance.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


it's not ..it just is ...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


You right wing nutters really have a problem following from point "a" to point "b", don't you?  You're the second one who seems to think that dismissing you after kicking your proverbial ass so badly that you had to resort to dishonesty somehow equates to capitulation.

Well, lemme help you out.

I refuse to debate liars, and since you just pulled shit out of your ass to discredit the findings of a study you don't like, that makes you a liar.
So you are dismissed.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


If *what* is okay for kids?  Using the potty?  Why, yes.  Yes I do approve of kids going potty.  don't you?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Gays can have babies

You slow or what ?

Same sex's masturbating together never will

Gosh, what a huge difference


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> If *what* is okay for kids?  Using the potty?  Why, yes.  Yes I do approve of kids going potty.  don't you?


Typical.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



The marriage of a man to a woman has a far different dynamic than man to a man or a woman to a woman.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Hmmm, interesting. Dopey, but interesting


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



A to B is not the problem

A to 12 is

Go on


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

The rightwing deniers continue to stumble, bumble, and fumble.

Sux to be them.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


He met "influential" members of the community and *was befriended by Walter Heady, the head of the local chapter of the John Birch Society.<101> He used the members of his "church" to organize local voting drives for Richard Nixon's election, and worked closely with the republican party.*<102> He was even appointed chairman of the county grand jury.<103>
Jim Jones was a Republican - Democratic Underground


Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...





Pop23 said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


no not really...the day to day STUFF is exactly the same.....


----------



## daws101 (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


dopey meaning it's beyond you pay grade.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


really? L is the 12th  letter in the alphabet...


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



OK, so we know you have no debate skill, cry like the little baby you are, and have yourgay friends agree with you! Nothing new for the gay, subversive, INTOLERENT left!







And I'm not even a Christian, so you can take your tearful, and hateful Bible thumper remarks, and stick them where the sun doesn't shine!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The rightwing deniers continue to stumble, bumble, and fumble.
> 
> Sux to be them.



Still can't spell SUCKS.... don't you think you should grow up if you want to play with the adults?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2014)

bodecea said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, maybe instead of saying that polygamy and incest and bestiality are j ust around the corner, maybe you homophobes should come up with a better argument against homosexuality on its own merit.
> ...



And Necrophilia.  Let's not forget necrophilia.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



What about Philadelphia?

Love dat cream cheese!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Dopey, like.......

Short and slow witted I suppose


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



As in

Drumroll please......

LGBTQLMNOP


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Oh brother......

Funny you can't even admit the difference


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



And two gay men use birth control pills for???????

Appetizers?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


So?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


You really are this stupid, aren't you?  Merriam-Webster has been an authoritative source on the English Language since 1828.  Hell, even in the multiple definitions of marriage in the original 1828 version of the dictionary, it *includes a non-gender specific version:*

MAR'RIAGE, n. [L. mas, maris. ] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. *Marriage is a contract*.

Like I said, it isn't the pro-marriage equality people that have been perverting the definition of marriage; it is the religious zealots like yourself.  And don't bother insisting you're an agnostic; your actions, and positions prove otherwise.  You can *call* yourself whatever you'd like.  I can *call* myself Pope.  That don't make it so.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 9, 2014)

One advantage of gay marriage is suppose Pop23 decided to turn gay one day. That is how it works with gays.......they are walking around, straight as can be and......BOOM they catch the ghey

Now in this case Pop could dump his wife and marry the man of his dreams. Seems fair doesn't it?  Gay marriage is an option open to all Americans


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Who's a religious zealot?

Is it biology?

Biology, YOU BIGOT YOU


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The guy who keeps proving that he doesn't know the definition of masturbation calling *me* slow is the height of irony.  Sodomy is *not* masturbation.  You can keep calling it that all you like, it doesn't make you sound any less stupid.  Masturbation is the practice of self-gratification. Sodomy is the practice of anal sex.  They are two different things, no matter how badly you would like to make them synonymous.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> One advantage of gay marriage is suppose Pop23 decided to turn gay one day. That is how it works with gays.......they are walking around, straight as can be and......BOOM they catch the ghey
> 
> Now in this case Pop could dump his wife and marry the man of his dreams. Seems fair doesn't it?  Gay marriage is an option open to all Americans



The women of world would be heartbroken

I just couldn't do it to em


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



An airline pilots work is a far different dynamic than someone who delivers pizzas, so why can't pizza delivery people fly planes full of passengers?

Hmmmmm


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Did you see all the blacks he


Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



I call you a fucking idiot! Would it make your little sensitivities feel better if we call one TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE and the other FAGERAL MARRIAGE? You know we must differentiate each from the other for clarity!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Biology has nothing to do with the civil contract of marriage.  What the fuck are you babbling about?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Masturbating in an anus is no different then masturbating on a pillow. 

But hey, I don't do either, so what do I know aye ?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



And a pizza delivery contract is no different then an airline pilots contract

Where's that cuckoo icon at?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


No one is making the Christians do anything, Vigi.  No one really cares if you think it is normal.  You simply can discriminate in public affairs, such as marriage or public accomodation.  I am Christian, you are agnostic.  So you are making no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Well, *one* of us is a fucking idiot.  Why does it offend your sensibilities so to call it marriage?  Does your marriage somehow become less sacred?  Is your marriage somehow less important?  is your marriage affected in any way whatsoever?  No?  Then why does it offend you so?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



They are, after all, completely different


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The rightwing deniers continue to stumble, bumble, and fumble.
> ...



That leaves you and Pop out for sure.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Yes, we can see one of you is an idiot, but why draw attention to yourself in such an ugly light?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop has a set of definitions all his own.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



I know people can discriminate, glad you understand that, we discriminate with all our decisions! What is a Christina? I make plenty of sense, you just have a different opinion.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...




Okay.  I'll grant you your delusion.  You're not a religious zealot.  You're just a homophobic Christian apologist.  Good to know.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> [I call you a fucking idiot! Would it make your little sensitivities feel better if we call one TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE and the other FAGERAL MARRIAGE? You know we must differentiate each from the other for clarity!



Makes no difference.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



I don't hate queers, I'm not Christian, and I didn't apologize.... seems you just had a hat trick of stupidity!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



You don't get your own definition.  Look up discrimination, please.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Yeah, you did apologize, which is a good thing, Vigi.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > [I call you a fucking idiot! Would it make your little sensitivities feel better if we call one TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE and the other FAGERAL MARRIAGE? You know we must differentiate each from the other for clarity!
> ...



Of course it does, would you want matching pairs of Victoria Secret underwear if you were a man and a woman for your anniversary?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Apparently nothing, since you don't kn ow the difference between a sexual act that requires two people  - sodomy - and a sexual act that is solitary - masturbation.  But, hey.  At least we're making progress,. and you are admitting that you are a clueless idiot.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently.... sounds right to me!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Being called an idiot by the guy that doesn't even understand the English language?  Not really all that bothersome to me.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yeah, you did apologize, which is a good thing, Vigi.



Where is the word apology?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigi is Pop's sock, so understand that sanity is a blended reality for "them".


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Hey, stupid.  You should look up what a classic apology is, what apologist means, and what a phobia is.  I never accused you of hating gays - just having an irrational fear of them.  And, i notice you skipped right over my ;post where i asked you to actually explain your position.  I wonder why that is.  could it be because you know full well that you have no rational explanation for your position?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 9, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > One advantage of gay marriage is suppose Pop23 decided to turn gay one day. That is how it works with gays.......they are walking around, straight as can be and......BOOM they catch the ghey
> ...


You never know Pop.....the urge could hit you


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Since you seemed to have missed it in your rants, Vigilante I'll ask again:

Why does it offend your sensibilities so to call the union of two gay people marriage? Does your marriage somehow become less sacred? Is your marriage somehow less important? Is your marriage affected in any way whatsoever? No? Then why does it offend you so?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Since you seemed to have missed it in your rants, Vigilante I'll ask again:
> 
> Why does it offend your sensibilities so to call the union of two gay people marriage? Does your marriage somehow become less sacred? Is your marriage somehow less important? Is your marriage affected in any way whatsoever? No? Then why does it offend you so?


Because he's a conservative.

And like most conservatives he's frightened by change, diversity, and expressions of individual liberty.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



I'm arguing with someone who believes anal sex and leg humping is on par with heterosexual intercourse, AND I'm the idiot?

Seriously?

Your delusions are running your life

I won't let them intrude in mine


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Why make me a part of your delusion?

Oh, I get it! 

Rightwinger, you ain't my type!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vigi is Pop's sock, so understand that sanity is a blended reality for "them".



And Jakes Obama's leg humper. 

There, top that lil fella


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 9, 2014)

Nothing to sock hop, top.  Though both of you could be Yurt's socks.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nothing to sock hop, top.  Though both of you could be Yurt's socks.



Is everyone a sock? Just those that disagree with you? Or is it men who dig women?

Maybe all of the above?

Come on columbo, fill in the blanks


----------



## hipeter924 (Oct 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vigi is Pop's sock, so understand that sanity is a blended reality for "them".


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Since you seemed to have missed it in your rants, Vigilante I'll ask again:
> 
> Why does it offend your sensibilities so to call the union of two gay people marriage? Does your marriage somehow become less sacred? Is your marriage somehow less important? Is your marriage affected in any way whatsoever? No? Then why does it offend you so?



Because it is not marriage, but I know what you're really digging for, you want me to state that you're immoral and perverse, and all sorts of other things so you can bash the Bible! But, I don't care if you bash the Bible, and I don't care if you are immoral, and perverse, you fucking another guy and having it a legal civil union, is DIFFERENT than me fucking a woman and having a legal marriage! Simple biology is the difference!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 9, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Since you seemed to have missed it in your rants, Vigilante I'll ask again:
> ...


"Simple biology" is the difference?  Would you care to explain that?


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> "Simple biology" is the difference?  Would you care to explain that?


LOL. That's the problem in a nutshell. You missed the whole birds and bees talk and skipped high school biology.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

The denial crowd misses the USS Marriage Equality.

Too bad.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Since you seemed to have missed it in your rants, Vigilante I'll ask again:
> ...



Sorry, but "biology" isn't a valid reason to treat me differently under the law...in fact, it's blatantly discriminatory.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Marriage is the union of two people, square and fair.  Get over it.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Do you call a woman, a man, and vice versa?..... There is a difference, but I don't suck cock, so I DO know the difference!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The denial crowd misses the USS Marriage Equality.
> 
> Too bad.



Yes, I suppose YOU miss slavery also! Both were and are bad for a cohesive country!


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


What part of homosexual in homosexual marriage is confusing you?


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



How is having the EXACT rights but calling one a Civil Union and the other a marriage treating you differently.... You also bothered by being call a queer, when that is the dictionary definition of what you are?


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



It's not marriage, it's a UNION! And describes who you are JOINED with.... for clarity if for nothing else!


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Why do you think I give a shit what you want to call marriage? You can call marriage a union, a grouping, a coupling, or partnership, or any other thing for all I care.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Then if you don't give a shit, get out of this fucking discussion


----------



## bodecea (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So...you feel the same about oral sex, eh?  Just the missionary position for reproductive reasons only is valid to you?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 
You just don't understand homosexuality. It is not something you are born with. There is no GAY gene. Homosexuality is something you decide to be. There is nothing saying that at some time in your life you may decide you love a man and want to spend the rest of your life with him

In that case, you can now marry him

See Pop.....gay marriage helps even you


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Since you seemed to have missed it in your rants, Vigilante I'll ask again:
> ...



Like being able to bake a cake for who you want to?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Because civil marriage for straights, civil unions for gays isn't exactly the same. Did the same water come out of both of these fountains?







Why yes it did and yet separate water fountains are unconstitutional just as setting up Civil Unions for gays and Civil Marriage for straights would be. What would not be unconstitutional is Civil Unions for all non familial consenting adult couples or Civil Marriage for all non familial consenting adult couples. 

I have a legal, civil marriage license issued by my state. There is no valid reason to treat my legal civil marriage license any differently than yours is treated...except for discrimination based on animus.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


So you want heterosexual unions and homosexual unions and ban the use of the word marriage?  Why do you want to be the "word" police, what emotional relationship do you have with the sequence of letters m a r r i a g e?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



That would have worked ten years ago, but the hetero fascists said, "no" so you don't get to do that now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Marty, go bake all the gay cakes you want.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


When did you decide to be heterosexual?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Are men and women to be treated differently under the law?  I thought we were past those days.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 
You just don't understand the science. Everybody is born the same. You walk along, straight as can be, when BOOM...the ghey hits ya


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



No  I have oral sex with the same gender that YOU have oral sex with!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



And since black and whites have EXACTLY the same rights, we should call blacks, white, and vice versa..... are they different?


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



No, marriage is for different sex joining Civil Union is for same sex! Is this above your pay level?


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Where would this have worked 10 years ago... please link me up as I've never heard the militant queers agree to that! I may be mistaken, teach me!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




Of course not, but do you DIFFERENTIATE between males and females?


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Have they found that elusive GAY GENE yet, or is it a cognitive choice to be gay? Consciously or unconsciously?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Ah...so you ARE Pop's sock.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

When did you, Vigi, decide to be hetero, if you are.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Yup, plenty of literature exists for LGBT willing to accept civil unions and freaks like you saying no, so, "Nope, no diverting the flow of the discussion for you."


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



And you ARE Flakey's sock!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> When did you, Vigi, decide to be hetero, if you are.



Probably the same time you did, if you are straight! Flakey


----------



## martybegan (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Marty, go bake all the gay cakes you want.



No real retort I see.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Please post THREE articles about it!


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 
There is no Gay gene.......The Ghey hits you like the Ebola virus


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

We have learned that LGBT orientation is fixed, not chosen; that hetero fascists opposed civil unions until just recently, and many still do; and that Marty wants to bake cakes for gays.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > "Simple biology" is the difference?  Would you care to explain that?
> ...


Oh no.  I know what he means.  However, I have learned from long experience that when it comes to you right-wing hacks, one is required to make you spell out your position clearly, and unequivocally, because otherwise, you  spend all your time weasling with vague non-committal phrases.

For instance, I know he is talking about procreation, but I want him to plainly say that, so that when I slam him on it, he can't insist that that he "never said that".


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


And what, exactly, does the sex of the participants have to do with a civil contract?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Why?  Why is it so important to you that same sex couples not be allowed to use the word marriage?  Why does that idea offend you so?


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Why can't a man and a woman enter a civil union?  Are you discriminating against heterosexuals?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Oh, my

Are we going to list out all kinds?

Just do this

List all kinds that the demographic groups can do, then place beside the list an * beside the types that can get one one the two participants pregnant. 

You will note that same sex coupling will have ZERO * 's

Did this really need to be explained to adults?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Wrong weirdo, do not speak for me K?

And no , I am still not interested in you


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



When did you decide to breath?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Immaterial argument.  Marriage is not about procreation first and foremost; natural and artificial insemination is about procreating, with or without marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Goodby separate showers and bathrooms. 

Gays want it that way, so be it


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Pop, finally, admits sexuality is hardwired.

No need to respond him further.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 
Homosexuality is a choice right?

Nothing stopping you from someday making that choice


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Well, then oral sex must not be masturbation.  After all, there was a case just a few years ago of a guy being sued for child support, and all the chick had done was give him head...


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Immaterial argument.  Marriage is not about procreation first and foremost; natural and artificial insemination is about procreating, with or without marriage.



Only same sex couplings require a turkey baster though.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Was she known as big mouth in high school? That birth musta been a sight to see

Any other fairy tales?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Quit hitting on me dammit!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Immaterial argument.  *Marriage is not about procreation first and foremost*;
> ...



Your silly response seems to suggest that you keep missing the first, most important part of Jake's argument.  So, I thought I would help you out, and make it stand out for you...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop has failed for many, many pages.

I am going to ignore him from now on in this thread unless he posts something of worth and interest.

He has not for a very long time.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You really should make sure that you are aware of what is going on in the real world, before making snarky comments that just make you sound like an unfinformed dickwad:

*Oral Sex Leads To Child Support*


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop has failed for many, many pages.
> 
> I am going to ignore him from now on in this thread unless he posts something of worth and interest.
> 
> He has not for a very long time.



Now if you can ignore yourself you'll feel much better, cuz, you ain't very good at this v


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



That crazy sperm plus egg thing again

Gosh, only possible with a male and a female. 

Lol


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Says nutjobs that can't create children within their unions. 

Too bad, so sad

Again showing the incredibly different dynamics between the two demographic groups

I would never ignore Jake, would be like ignoring a cute lil puppy. Nope, can't do it. 

Jake, here's a biscuit 

Good boy


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


You do get that your whole argument hinges on your own incorrect definition of marriage, right?  I even showed you that "man and woman" is not, and never has been a requirement for the contract, or the definition.  That addition is a purely religious one, while the institution of marriage is a *secular, civil* one.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Actually so says 7 different Federal Circuit courts.  Sorry, they trump you.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Completely missing the point that your "masturbation" resulted in a pregnancy, but okay.  My, you do keep changing the goalposts in order to keep your ignorance alive, don't you?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



How many jet pilot licenses were issue prior to the invention of jet aircraft?

Hmmmm, guess there was no need as no one would have ever


Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



I pity you, I really do

A man can masturbate and spread that goo al over his boyfriend all freaking day and end up with a goo stained boyfriend. He can do that 24/7/365 and end up the same every day

A man can apply the same to a women and the risk of what??

PREGNANCY

but children that must get their own way discount that as not changing the dynamics of the different demographic groups. 

So sad for you.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Today


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


The question becomes of course, "who invented marriage".  Now, since the *social practice* of taking a spouse existed long before formal theology, I would submit that it was always a civil, secular invention.  Which means that any qualifications for "legitimacy" that any religion added to the contract is only valid for the *followers of that religion*.  Guess what?  No one is demanding that any religious organization "recognize" the marriages of these couples; only that government, an d businesses do.


Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And there you go, returning to the same, stupid, "If you can't produce offspring, your marriage is less valid" argument.  Why?  Why do you hate sterile, and infertile people.  You can insist that your argument doesn't include them all you want, but the fact is, it does.  That's why it's a stupid argument.

You really should find a different argument, because every time you use this one, it just makes you sound stupid, and hateful.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No.  Actually, I don't recall a single court, *ever*, that supported the argument that procreation was the reason for marriage.  Some *Religions* have; but I don't know of a court that has.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Link to where I said sterile male/female couples can't marry. 

I find it distasteful to discriminate based on disability or age. 

Are you making the argument that gay couplings never produce children because of a disability?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



We already know that you favor incest, but tell me sumthin cowboy?

If procreation is not part of legal marriage, then why deny the right for a father/daughter marriage. 

Waiting your response that no doubt will require increased and colorful bolded fonts.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


you admit that in public?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Link to where I said sterile male/female couples can't marry.
> 
> I find it distasteful to discriminate based on disability or age.
> 
> Are you making the argument that gay couplings never produce children because of a disability?


The fact that you insist that procreation is a requirement for a "legitimate" marriage says that for you, whether you *intended for it to, or not*.  This is why one should always be careful, when making an argument, that that argument doesn't have consequences that were unintended.

Now, if you want to keep making the "marriage requires procreation" argument, you go right ahead.  But, every time you do, I'm gonna be right there to remind you that you just dismissed thousands of sterile heterosexuals right along with your hateful argument against homosexuals.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


because in the day to day stuff there is none..
do gays collect the mail differently? or cook differently ?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I hate to, but yes, I admit you are short and slow witted. 

Damn, that hurt


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You're asking the wrong guy that, Sparky.  I already said that I think doing so is wrong, and discriminatory.

Moving on...


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



So, I ask again

A gay man takes birth control pills for?????


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



^^fails to answer cuz it doesn't support his argument?^^

Movin on


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


why would you need a pillow or an anus to spank the sausage? 
when an imagination and a hand do just fine


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Ah, you have no valid response to my question I see.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



TMI


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Gay men use condoms. Is this breaking news to you? Get out more.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


got evidence for gay men taking birth control ? or are you just making shit up?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


masturbation :there are those who do and those who lie about it ....


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Actually fails to answer because it isn't my position.  I don't think we *should* deny father/daughter marriages, if both are consenting adults.  So why would you ask me why I think they should?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You don't wish to prohibit any "non procreating" adults with the exception of gay couples. That makes you, hands down, a bigot. Wear it proudly.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


there is the little problem of genetic defects.
but hey adam and eve did it and so did noah .
if it's in the bible it's gotta be ok .right?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


they can....


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


you know this how?
theres an extremely high probability  everybody here has  shared a shower and a toilet seat with a gay person...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Not in the US has a court made procreation the sole primary reason for marriage.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


you're wrong pop! I'm very tall and slow witted...  lets try to stick with the facts!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Actually, that research is outdated.  However, even if it weren't, it still would not be a valid reason to disallow incestuous marriage. Incestuous procreation?  Maybe.  But marriage? Not even a little bit.  Marriage has nothing to do with procreation, remember?  Two separate issues.  It's kinda like why parents of Downs Syndrome kids are given the option to have their adult children sterilized.  That way, they can marriage without threat of passing on the condition.

And, yes, again, that has been an actual thing, in the real world, Pop.  Please safe me the time of having to go look it up, and do a little homework on your own.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Yeah...one would think that people concerned with unisex showers, and bathrooms would be more worried about *heterosexual* "fun and games" than they would homosexual shenanigans.  After all, why would getting to see girls' girly parts be a big deal for the guys that have no interest in girls' girly parts?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Not in the US has a court made procreation the sole primary reason for marriage.


Yeah...I probably over-reached when I said "No court, ever..."  After all, back in the middle ages the courts were over-run by the Church.  So, I'm sure that if one looked hard enough, one could probably find a ruling back then that fit the criteria.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



And? Is there a point?

I hear soldiers use condoms to cover the barrels of their guns, where they protecting their guns form giving birth to pistols?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Oh, I get it, avoiding the obvious.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Is being a bigot describing the difference between an apple and a freight train?

How exciting this must be for you!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



WHAT? PROCREATION IS NOT A PART OF MARRIAGE. 

BIGOT!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


nope.. nothing to avoid ..you are insinuating with no proof what so ever, that if gender neutral bathrooms and showers are opened  it will be a hide the sausage fest..


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


 what came first procreation or marriage ..?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Not in the US has a court made procreation the sole primary reason for marriage.



See incest laws


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Irrelevant.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...





Boo hoo!  If you don't want to serve the public, the ones who pay for the roads that lead to your bakery, police protection, and the fire department, you're not fit to run a business in this country.  Get over it, or move!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


hardly, it's the basis for this debate.

*History of marriage: 13 surprising facts*




By Tia Ghose

Published June 27, 2013
Facebook245 Twitter59 Email Print





Moonstruck partners pledging eternal love may be the current definition of marriage, but this starry-eyed picture has relatively modern origins.

Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it.


"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," (Penguin Books, 2006). "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."

But as family plots of land gave way to market economies and Kings ceded power to democracies, the notion of marriage transformed. Now, most Americans see marriage as a bond between equals that's all about love and companionship. [I Don't: 5 Myths About Marriage]

That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage and Wednesday's (June 26) Supreme Court rulings, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissed a case concerning Proposition 8.

From polygamy to same-sex marriage, here are 13 milestones in the history of marriage.

*1. Arranged alliances*

Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.

*2. Family ties*

Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.

*3. Polygamy preferred*

Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages. [Life's Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy]

*4. Babies optional*

In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.

"The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.

*5. Monogamy established*

Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries, Coontz said.

"There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say 'I can take a second wife,'" Coontz said.

The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century.

*6. Monogamy lite*

Still, monogamous marriage was very different from the modern conception of mutual fidelity. Though marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the 19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs, Coontz said. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would be illegitimate, with no claim to the man's inheritance.

"Men's promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy but tolerance basically enabling of informal promiscuity," Coontz said.

Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and censure.

*7. State or church?*

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

*8. Civil marriage*

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.

*9. Love matches*

By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.

*10. Market economics*

Around the world, family-arranged alliances have gradually given way to love matches, and a transition from an agricultural to a market economy plays a big role in that transition, Coontz said.

Parents historically controlled access to inheritance of agricultural land. But with the spread of a market economy, "it's less important for people to have permission of their parents to wait to give them an inheritance or to work on their parents' land," Coontz said. "So it's more possible for young people to say, 'heck, I'm going to marry who I want.'"

Modern markets also allow women to play a greater economic role, which lead to their greater independence. And the expansion of democracy, with its emphasis on liberty and individual choice, may also have stacked the deck for love matches.

*11. Different spheres*

Still, marriage wasn't about equality until about 50 years ago. At that time, women and men had unique rights and responsibilities within marriage. For instance, in the United States, marital rape was legal in many states until the 1970s, and women often could not open credit cards in their own names, Coontz said. Women were entitled to support from their husbands, but didn't have the right to decide on the distribution of community property. And if a wife was injured or killed, a man could sue the responsible party for depriving him of "services around the home," whereas women didn't have the same option, Coontz said.

*12. Partnership of equals*

By about 50 years ago, the notion that men and women had identical obligations within marriage began to take root. Instead of being about unique, gender-based roles, most partners conceived of their unions in terms of flexible divisions of labor, companionship, and mutual sexual attraction.

*13. Gay marriage gains ground*

Changes in straight marriage paved the way for gay marriage. Once marriage was not legally based on complementary, gender-based roles, gay marriage seemed like a logical next step.

"One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in acceptance of same sex marriage is because heterosexuals have completely changed their notion of what marriage is between a man and a woman," Coontz said. "We now believe it is based on love, mutual sexual attraction, equality and a flexible division of labor."

_Copyright 2013 __LiveScience__, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. _


----------



## bodecea (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




So...you have no problem with couples unable to reproduce getting married.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 10, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


I guess with the elimination of #1 in Western Culture, that was the Slippery Slope.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

bodecea said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


the horror !


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Been addressed , and not too many posts back. 

If you can't keep up you might want to hire some help


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

daws101 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Oh the fun of it all

Now let's deal with the here and now


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Yes, it has.  It was pointed out that your argument failed, and you just ran away to make the same argument with other people on the thread, as if it were still a valid argument.

Your silly procreation argument still invalidates the marriages of sterile heterosexual couples, whether you intended it to, or not.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Bigot

What do you have against the disabled?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


we are it's you who who's having a hard time in the present.
too bad too !


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

I'm takin off from this thread for awhile

While I'm gone can you all decide whether procreation is or isn't a part of the marriage discussion?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



That's why I posted links to ancient times?

Oh wait, that was you

Never mind then

Good lord


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I don't.  I think *everyone* should be able to marry whomever they wish, because marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

The real question is why do *you* hate sterile people?  I mean, you keep insisting that you don't, yet you keep making the same argument that invalidates their marriages.  So?

Why do you hate sterile people Pop?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Hats off to the 'dumb shit patrol,' guys.  Keeping the haters of marriage equal in their places (on their knees with their butts in the air) to remind them of their true role in life is a thankless job.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> I'm takin off from this thread for awhile
> 
> While I'm gone can you all decide whether procreation is or isn't a part of the marriage discussion?





It wasn't part of the discussion when my Granny got remarried.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 10, 2014)

jillian said:


> wonderful news for individual rights


Funny how you get all warm and fuzzy when court decisions go your way but stick your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALALALLICAN'THEARYOULALALALA!!!" when they don't.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 10, 2014)

jillian said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS
> ...


Unless a state wants to violate the 2nd amendment - eh?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



They still have to purchase them. Isn't that one of your sillier reasons gays can't marry, because they don't have to purchase birth control? They do...just not to prevent pregnancy. (Just like millions of straight couples you don't want to prevent from civil marriage, bigot)


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Nope. You are a bigot for only wanting to keep civil marriage from gay couples who cannot procreate with each other.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Only the gay ones. (Marking him as a bigot)


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 10, 2014)

jillian said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure why this happened. By taking the cases they could have set precedent for the entire country, now the rulings vary by which circuit the original cases were held in.
> ...


And you wonder why we openly scoff at your claim of being a lawyer.
Cert denied is in no way an affirmation of a decision.by the court.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Only the gay ones. (Marking him as a bigot)


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Let me type real slow cuz you same sex marriage types are kinda slooooowwwwwww

If procreation was not a reason for marriage........

I'll hold up a bit here so you can catch up on your reading..........

Why is it that fathers are prohibited (I know that's a big word.....take your time) from marrying their own daughters?

Did you make it this far?

Use your phonic skills, it's ok


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

We will continue to observe the far right reactionary mutants' wannabe ends excuse any efforts, right on to propaganda and bizarre absurd hops to explain their conclusions.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Silly Wytch, gays could always marry


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Silly Wytch, gay couples could always marry. Lesbian + gay man


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I love watching you squirm


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Why?  Why is it so important to you that same sex couples not be allowed to use the word marriage?  Why does that idea offend you so?





RKMBrown said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Because Marriage HISTORICALLY and TRADITIONALLY has always been a man and a woman. Why do you intolerant queers have to change that, now that you are completely EQUAL in the eyes of the law?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm takin off from this thread for awhile
> ...



I know right. Was granny allowed to marry you ?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> We will continue to observe the far right reactionary mutants' wannabe ends excuse any efforts, right on to propaganda and bizarre absurd hops to explain their conclusions.



Where is that cuckoo icon at?


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > We will continue to observe the far right reactionary mutants' wannabe ends excuse any efforts, right on to propaganda and bizarre absurd hops to explain their conclusions.
> ...



I just knew Flakey was a secret queer! He's out of his closet now!


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Incest is against the law.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 10, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Incest is against the law.


Not for adults.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Why?  Why is it so important to you that same sex couples not be allowed to use the word marriage?  Why does that idea offend you so?
> ...


ROFL you're the one refusing to tolerate gays and you are calling me "intolerant."  Yeah I'm intolerant of your intolerance... ROFL


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Why? Procreation?

Thanks for the assist

Always appreciated


----------



## AceRothstein (Oct 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Incest is against the law.
> ...


Looks like someone has been researching incest laws.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



.... You perverts have gotten 99% of what your demands were, and yet you queers STILL want more, the simple meaning of marriage to be denied to you scum, is more than you can stand! ..... You TERRORISTS now sound exactly like ISIS!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

You are mindlessly chipmunk chattering, Vigi. 

Whine all you want.  Won't change anything.


----------



## Iceweasel (Oct 10, 2014)

AceRothstein said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


Really, you're that fucking stupid? The state is going to arrest a 40yo woman and her dad?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Let me type real slow cuz you same sex marriage types are kinda slooooowwwwwww
> 
> If procreation was not a reason for marriage........
> 
> ...



And I'll type this really slowly for you...incest is illegal. Get it declared not illegal and you will begin to have an argument.

As has been stated repeatedly, no one is prohibited from civilly marrying due to an inability or unwillingness to procreate. YOU only wish to deny one group, gays, access to civil marriage based on YOUR perception of procreation. That makes you an anti gay bigot.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Incest is against the law.
> ...



Wrong

Laws vary by state, but generally, a person commits incest if he marries or engages in sexual intercourse with a person he knows to be, either legitimately or illegitimately:


1.  His ancestor or descendant by blood or adoption; or 
2.  His brother or sister of the whole or half-blood or by adoption; or 
3.  His stepchild or stepparent, while the marriage creating the relationship exists; or 
4.  His aunt, uncle, nephew or niece of the whole or half-blood.

In some states incest also includes copulation or cohabitation between first cousins, but the majority of jurisdictions permit marriage between such cousins. Incest is a crime in all states, even if consensual by both parties. However, it is often related to sexual abuse since usually the younger person is a victim of the predatory sexual activities of an older relative. Statutes generally do not require the perpetrator to be a certain number of years older than the victim.
Source(s):
definitions.uslegal.com


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You continue to mindlessly chatter.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



The state is likely within the law to do so. See post above


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Incest is against the law.
> ...




It is in Virginia, other state laws may be more or less restrictive.  In Virginia incest is a felony.  That is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Virginia Revised Statutes, § 18.2-366.

B. Any person who commits adultery or fornication with his daughter or granddaughter, or with her son or grandson, or her father or his mother, shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits adultery or fornication with his or her child or grandchild, and such child or grandchild is at least thirteen years of age but less than eighteen years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes a step-child, and grandchild includes a step-grandchild.​
LIS Code of Virginia 18.2-366
LIS Code of Virginia 18.2-10


>>>>


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are mindlessly chipmunk chattering, Vigi.
> 
> Whine all you want.  Won't change anything.



It's not supposed to, you moron! Just as your incoherent rants do nothing!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Don't like it, don't reply to my posts. I know that's beyond your ability to resist!


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...





What's your point? Just because there are laws against incestuous relationships/marriage, doesn't mean everyone else must procreate in order to get married.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Incest is against the law.
> ...




Only in 2 or 3 states is it not against the law.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...





They certainly can, unless you're in the 2 or 3 states that allows it. What if that 40 year old woman is mentally disabled? Wouldn't you want the father to get arrested?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Let me type real slow cuz you same sex marriage types are kinda slooooowwwwwww
> 
> If procreation was not a reason for marriage........
> 
> ...


I'm gonna do this real slow for you, Pop, since you seem to be having trouble comprehending simple English.

I
Agree
With
You.

Incest should not be illegal, and using the outdated, and scientifically unsound "birth defect" argument for keeping it illegal is just as wrong, and stupid as your using the procreation argument for gay marriage.

Now.  If I have used any words that are simply too big, and hard for you to understand - that means to make sense of - you just let me know, and I'll try to dumb it down more for you.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


I'm straight dumb ass.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Why?  Why is it so important to you that same sex couples not be allowed to use the word marriage?  Why does that idea offend you so?
> ...


You do get that an argument to tradition is, by definition, a logical fallacy, right?  So, what you're basically admitting is that you have no actual logical, rational reason for opposing this, and your entire position is built on emotion.

Okay.  Thanks for admitting that.  You are dismissed.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



No dumbass, making up shit as you go just makes people laugh at you!....We ALL laugh at your fail!

Now, YOU are dismissed!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Yes.  You know what 99% equality is? *IN*equality.  People are only equal when they are 100% equal.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> [ You perverts...


This was my favorite part of this.  Vigilante gets all pissy about calling him a religious zealot, or a religious apologist, yet he constantly keeps doing shit like this. As if calling a person a "pervert", which means a person who has been perverted, lead astray morally, is not making a religious, moralistic judgement of another person.

Now, don't get me wrong.  He can believe that, *in his private life*, all he wants.  However, when his personal opinions translate into attempts to force everyone else to behave in accordance to those beliefs, he can insist that he is not judgmental, or a religious zealot all he likes.

The words he choses, prove him to be a liar when he claims that.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Sorry, YOU don't get 100% when the Constitution gives RELIGION the right to reject you legally... Unfortunately we have courts that are filled with queers as judges and MAKE their own law, and a POSER president that now (but didn't in 2007!) goes along with your agenda. THAT is one reason why people fight your perversion. YOU don't get to tell others they must BAKE YOU A CAKE, or for that matter, when the president of a corporation DONATES to pro Christian, anti queer marriage groups, by boycotting their chicken sandwich's....you saw how successful you were and how many DECENT PEOPLE flocked to that store to protest you perverts!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



You arguments will splatter as you mindlessly chatter.  

You are now for only grins and chuckles.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true.
source
Thus endeth the lesson.  You are dismissed.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > [ You perverts...
> ...



Isn't it a shame that this is one agnostic that stands with his brothers and sisters of FAITH, over your perversion.... I see you never reject the word perversion in all the times I posted it.... Thanks for the confirmation of what you and yours are!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Flakey just can't keep up, but every 5-10 posts throws some shit on the fire!.... YOU are part of my entertainment tonight!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Your perversion has been recorded in history since before the GREEK culture, and has been rejected by humanity for centuries! Read a little history, when you can get your husband to withdraw!


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Yeah cause defending a company from being screwed over by a gay group is the same as screwing gays over.  

Are you mentally handicapped?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


100% equality is not a question of what religions do.  It is a question of what secular society does.  You *do* have to bake cakes for anyone who comes into your bakery *that you have opened to the public*.  The courts even said as much.  You can scream, spit, stomp your feet, and throw as many temper tantrums as you like.  It doesn't change the fact that you do not get to run a public business, and engage in bigotry in your business practices.

You really do need to understand that you do not get to impose your personal moral judgements on other people through the law.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


You can say it as many ways as you like, an appeal to "Well it's always been this way" is an irrational, illogical emotional argument.

Okay.  Since you have lost the ability to debate logically, you are dismissed.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Why YES, it is....You seem not to understand that, but your mental handicap is hereby noted!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Sorry, if it was just a secular society the Constitution would NOT have mentioned religious freedom so prominently, and NOTHING about your perversion!


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



No, it's not. That's what YOU would like to believe. OK, I'm dismissed and you lost the debate!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Well, since the level of your debate has reduced to:







 I'mrightI'mrightI'mright!!! I am1  I am!  I am!!  so, there!


Then yeah, you are dismissed, and if declaring yourself the winner helps you sleep tonight, you do that sweetpea.

Now...back to the kiddie table with you...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Of course I don't.  Why would I?  That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.  Don't mistake my tolerance your opinion as admission to the accuracy of your opinion.  And you can keep clinging to your agnosticism like a security blanket all you like.  A closet Christian is still a Christian.  I don't know why you don't just come out of the closet.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



So you admit you can't take what you try to dish.  No one is surprised.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Vigi is not Westboro but a real Christian he is not.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

"Sorry, YOU don't get 100% when the Constitution gives RELIGION the right to reject you legally... " privately, but I agree that religion cannot reject anyone publicly in terms of law. Tuff that.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 10, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Sorry, YOU don't get 100% when the Constitution gives RELIGION the right to reject you legally...


Churches are doing this?  There are churches that are refusing to let homosexuals attend their services?  Really?   Other than Westboro, can you point to a few of them.  Cuz, I must have missed this...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2014)

Sure, some misguided denominations that call themselves Christian do not allow homosexuals to attend and belong to their organizations.  Perfectly constitutional, perfectly despicable.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

Damn, I just hate to give you guys this CURRENT information about what the PEOPLE think of your same sex marriage (well, not really! ) but perhaps you queers might get some new ideas on where you stand...

Insistent media messages claim surging and overwhelming public support for redefinition of marriage but recent numbers from major surveys and the Census Bureau tell a very different story.

In late September, a Pew Center poll found less than half of respondents – 49% to be exact – saying that they “favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally” – a sharp five point _drop_ since February. Without the biased wording of the question, gay marriage might have received even weaker public backing: if a survey asks you if you want to “allow” other people to do something they say they ardently desire, you’d have to be deeply committed to traditional matrimony to say no. Had Pew asked “Do you want your government to redefine marriage so that male-male and female-female couples are treated identically to traditional marriages?” the response to sweeping change could have been still less favorable.

That’s particularly obvious in light of another surprising result in the poll: a full 50% of respondents agreed with the statement that “homosexual behavior is a sin,” including 77% of black Protestants and a crushing 82% of white Evangelicals. Moreover, the overall percentage of those viewing homosexuality as “sinful” has been soaring, not declining: it’s up from 45% in May of 2013. Considering the demographics in the 31 states that have so far resisted the nationwide push for gay marriage, it’s tough to imagine that these electorates, with their heavy concentration of Evangelicals and blacks, will endorse government sponsorship of same sex couples at any time in the near future.

Supporters of gay marriage consider such resistance irrelevant and cite the “tidal wave” of same sex couples who have already legalized their unions in the nineteen states that have changed their laws to back what sloganeers call “marriage equality.” In fact, the Census Bureau recently agreed to begin counting same sex unions as official marriages in their new figures of married vs. single people, and many experts predicted that these freshly minted gay couples would give the institution of matrimony a visible boost. Alas, the incidence of homosexual wedlock remains so rare that the overall percentage of adults who are married continued to decline –to 50.3%, an all time low --according the 2013 American Community Survey. At the same time, “same-sex cohabiting partners made up an even smaller share of 2013 households than in 2012.”

The official government figures suggest that 252,000 households were headed by same-sex married couples in 2013 –*less than one-half of one percent of the overall figure of 56,000,000 marriages counted by the Census Bureau*. Despite the fact that a majority of the US population and an overwhelming majority of the gay population now live in states that authorize same sex marriage, the numbers suggest that well below 4% of gay adults are currently married. That compares to slightly more than 50% of straight adults – an indication that the nation remains a long way from “marriage equality.” The heavily-hyped gay marriage tidal wave remains in actuality little more than a trickle.

One more aspect of the Pew Center survey similarly suggests that the march toward same sex marriage may not prove as inexorable as its boosters suppose. The pollsters posed the question: “At the present time, do you think religion as a whole is increasing its influence on American life or losing its influence?” Some 72% believed they saw declining influence for religious faith, but by an astonishing margin of 4 to 1 they identified this trend as a “bad thing” rather than “a good thing.” In other words, the American public sees religion with a diminished role in our national culture but they overwhelmingly prefer to see its old power restored or enhanced.

As recently as November, 2001, the figures on religious influence amounted to a virtual mirror image of their status today: in the aftermath of 9/11 and the “turn toward God” that many observers discerned,  Americans saw faith increasing its impact rather than reducing it by a lopsided edge of 78-12%. That advantage quickly evaporated along with the popularity of the Bush administration, while the relentless push toward gay marriage fed the growing perception that traditional faith had lost its clout. The same way that a few big events in the early years of the new century, and shifting political trends since that time caused radical reverses in attitudes toward religion’s role, it’s hardly inconceivable that public impressions could change again.

A few victories for supporters of traditional marriage, in court rooms or at the ballot box, could well convey the idea of resurgent religiosity. A clear majority of church-going Americans, after-all, currently affiliate with denominations that passionately oppose redefining marriage: Catholics, white and black Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews. The great bulk of such believers tell pollsters they want a more vigorous role in public debates for their churches, synagogues and mosques. Just under half of all Americans already oppose gay marriage, 50% consider homosexuality sinful and close to 80% think it’s a bad thing for religion to lose its influence. With those figures in mind, it’s wildly premature to herald the movement to redefine matrimony as a sweeping and unstoppable force, and to write off all resistance as a futile gesture.

New Figures Show Gay Marriage Tidal Wave Is Only a Trickle Truth Revolt


----------



## Noomi (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> 
> First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.
> 
> ...



 Excellent news.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 10, 2014)

Noomi said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> ...



Yes, that will have BIG PERCUSSIONS in Australia!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Ohhhhh, anyone else aye

Quite an argument


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



100% has already been achieved


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

We have 100% because we don't permit the Vigis and the Pops from deciding how or what is the 100%%

There is no "surge" against SCOTUS and marriage equality: that is all hot air puffery.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 11, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Not quite, but we're getting there. When my civil marriage license is treated exactly like yours in all 50 states, we'll be even closer.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 11, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




You may not like it, but in most states incest is illegal, and there is no law that states two people must procreate in order to get married.

If you are unhappy with our laws, get your ass out there and try to change them.

My suggestion to you, is get over yourself. The fact is, gay marriage will soon be legal in every state. We're half way there.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> We have 100% because we don't permit the Vigis and the Pops from deciding how or what is the 100%%
> 
> There is no "surge" against SCOTUS and marriage equality: that is all hot air puffery.



Always the 

*What the 'gay marriage' debate is really about *

WND ^

Exclusive: Matt Barber warns, 'The courts are tossing around spiritual nitroglycerin' It’s called Pandora’s Box. And the Supreme Court just opened it. Did you actually think the debate over “gay marriage” was about marriage? Have you really come to believe that this cultural kerfuffle has anything to do with “civil rights” or “equality”? Have you bought into the popular premise that this is a legitimate discussion on federalism – that it’s a reasonable disagreement over whether the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause requires that newfangled “gay marriage,” something rooted in same-sex sodomy, a deviant and disease-prone behavior our Constitution’s framers...


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> We have 100% because we don't permit the Vigis and the Pops from deciding how or what is the 100%%
> 
> There is no "surge" against SCOTUS and marriage equality: that is all hot air puffery.



So now we must allow incest? It is the only way to reach your magical goal


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



So procreation matters when we discuss THEM, but not when we discuss YOU.

Ok, got it

Now what's this equality you were speaking of?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sure, some misguided denominations that call themselves Christian do not allow homosexuals to attend and belong to their organizations.  Perfectly constitutional, perfectly despicable.



And if anyone knows despicable it's our pal jakey


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me type real slow cuz you same sex marriage types are kinda slooooowwwwwww
> ...



Procreation matters only when certain folks want to wed, but not when YOU want to wed?

Tell me again how you define bigot?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Gays always could marry ya silly goose.


----------



## Youch (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> 
> First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.
> 
> ...



No, you dangerous dolt.  Regardless of your opinion on gay marriages, what the those unelected black robes just did was diminish the vote, voice and rights of the people of those states, and thus further eroded the liberty of our citizenry within our republic as it was formed. 

Your summation of "religious fanatics" is dumb on the surface, shows your narrow and intolerant bias, and completely misses the larger point. 

But you are definitely NOT alone.  Thus, we're doomed.


----------



## Youch (Oct 11, 2014)

jillian said:


> wonderful news for individual rights



Dangerous Dolt,

Individual rights were just diminished.  A small handful of unelected black robes, far removed from your best interests, just over-rided the will of the people in those states.  Millions of people.  And you rejoice?  How ignorant!!!!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Not quite.  About 15 more states, and we will be one step closer.  Then it will be time to make it illegal to fire, or refuse to hire, someone based solely on their gender, or sexuality.  *Then* 100% equality will have been achieved.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 11, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...





No, I don't think you do get it.  We're not talking about me in particular.

Personally, I don't care who marries who, as long as they are over 18 and of sound mind. And if people want to marry their dogs, I think that dog should have a college degree.    I don't give two shits.  It doesn't concern me.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > We have 100% because we don't permit the Vigis and the Pops from deciding how or what is the 100%%
> ...


Uh...no?  Those of us who want same sex marriage equality don't, as a rule, give two shits about incest.  You are the one who keeps bringing that up.  I have said repeatedly that if it matters that much to you, you should lobby in behalf of that.  You will get my support.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 11, 2014)

Youch said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...





How were your rights just diminished?  Why is it any of your business who marries who?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Well. that is your thinking, anyway.  "Procreation only matters when it is about *them* not *us*"  That's why you keep insisting that procreation is the very reason for marriage, while with the next breath insisting that your argument has nothing to do with sterile heterosexual couples.  Your argument is either stupid, or hypocritical.  I'll let you decide which.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...





I'm gonna go with both, stupid and hypocritical.  There is no law stopping my Granny from getting married, or me, and I've had my tubes tied.  Hell, I had them tied in a double knot.  LOL!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So, just so we understand.  You are fully aware that gays are going to have *homosexual relationships*.  That's kind of the definition of what "being gay" is.

In light of that, you are insisting that "gays could always marry".  One can only presume that you mean by that, that gays can marry* the opposite sex.  *Now, since, by definition, homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex, and, lets be honest, people do not live in celibacy, it is an equally reasonable assumption that these homosexuals that you have forced into loveless marriages are now going to have serial affairs in order to satisfy their sexual needs.

And this seems like a perfectly reasonable situation to you?  My, you do have a strange definition of the "sanctity of marriage"...

And you arrogant fuckers call *gays* the perverts!!!


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 11, 2014)

Youch said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> ...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

Youch said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI.  So that means two things.
> ...


No you dangerous dolt.  What those unelected black robes just did *was their job*.  You know, *interpret the Constitution*?  In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional.  You see, no one took away your right to vote.  You got that, and you voted.  *After that*, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.

That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses.  Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional.  So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people" so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.

And my summation of religious zealots is right on.  I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith.  I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.

But, you're right.  You *are* doomed.  You were doomed from the beginning.  People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way *you tell them they should* lost before you even began to fight.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You fucking hypocrite


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...


Hey, dumbass.  Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch.  So, guess what?  In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower *Federal Court* rulings stand, the judicial system did its job.  Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say.  You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married.  That was your right, and you got your vote.  Now, the *Courts* have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional.  Guess what?  They weren't.  No one took your rights away; you exercised them.  It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey!  You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair!  It's not fair!  It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better.  In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You are not talking logically if the higher courts ruled that it is a state issue how can it be one when a federally appointed judge made the ruling? The higher courts should have ruled it's a state issue and let stand what the people had voted on you dumb ass queen.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


You really are an idiot, aren't you?  These weren't *state courts* whose rulings were upheld, you dumbass.  They were *Federal District Courts*.  And those courts not only ruled that this *wasn't* a "State's Power" issue, but that the states overstepped their authority by allowing the bans.  You idiots that keep saying that, because it was the "lower court rulings" that the Supreme Court let stand means that the Supreme Court recognized that this was a "State Issue" have obviously not been paying attention, or are completely clueless as to the authority behind *Federal District Courts*.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




OMG, you're stupid.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

You are the reason, bigrebnc1775 that I am so often tempted to agree that people should have to take a test in order to be allowed to vote.  It is not your positions - I think they're idiotic, but you're entitled to your opinions - that cause me concern.  It is because you prove yourself to be completely clueless about how our legal, and political system works!

When people are this stupid about politics, they have no business being able to vote, because all they do is vote in accordance with the propaganda they hear, and they just manage to further fuck up the system!

Please go, and learn a little bit about how our system of government, and law works before you cast another vote!  PLEASE!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No you just have a problem comprehending common sense. Something I notice you lack. dumb ass. But you are after all a dumb ass obama supporter I guess when you registered to vote you lost any common sense you had.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> You are the reson, bigrebnc1775 that I am so often tempted to agree that people should have to take a test in order to be allowed to vote.  It is not your positions - I think they're idiotic, but you're entitled to your opinions - it is because you prove yourself to be completely clueless about how our legal, and political system works!
> 
> When people are this stupid about politics, they have no business being able to vote, because all they do is vote in accordance with the propaganda they hear, and they just manage to further fuck up the system!
> 
> Please go, and learn a little bit about how our system of government, and law works before you cast another vote!  PLEASE!


Dude you dumb ass 2012 and obama's win is the only reason people need to take a test to vote.
You would be in trouble like the democratic party.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > You are the reson, bigrebnc1775 that I am so often tempted to agree that people should have to take a test in order to be allowed to vote.  It is not your positions - I think they're idiotic, but you're entitled to your opinions - it is because you prove yourself to be completely clueless about how our legal, and political system works!
> ...


Yeah...well, I may have voted for Obama - *twice*.  But, at least I know how our system of government, and politics actually works; which is obviously more than you can say, if you don't know the difference between a *State* District Court, and a *Federal* District Court.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Federal judge is not a state judge dumb ass


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


and you are a stupid son of a bitch anything you say is irrelevant.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > You are the reson, bigrebnc1775 that I am so often tempted to agree that people should have to take a test in order to be allowed to vote.  It is not your positions - I think they're idiotic, but you're entitled to your opinions - it is because you prove yourself to be completely clueless about how our legal, and political system works!
> ...





Your willingness to humiliate yourself is impressive.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system.  I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

The lower courts are federal judges


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Stop it dumb ass you voted for obama you are an ignorant bastard.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Then, knowing this, and knowing that it was the decision of *federal* judges that the Supreme Court let stand, why would make such a blatently stupid assertion like "...the higher courts ruled that it is a state issue..." when they obviously did not?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The lower courts are federal judges


I refer to my previous question...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


I patently disagree.  What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts *doing their job*.  Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United.  However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is.  Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant.  Guess what?  *My* interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The lower courts are federal judges
> ...


LOWER COURTS MADE UP OF FEDERALLY APPOINTED JUDGES OVER TURNING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF A STATE IS NOT LETTING THE PEOPLE HAVE IT'S SAY, AND ALSO GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WITH THE HIGHER COURTS. DUMB ASS


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Gay marriage is not protected by the constitution if it was the higher court would have ruled that but they sent it back to the lower federally appointed judges judicial activism at it's best.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


THAT WASN'T WHAT YOU SAID.

I asked about your *specific claim* that the courts ruled that this was a state issue.  Why would you make that claim, knowing full well that that is a false claim?

As to your claim here.  Answer a simple question:  Is there any limit on the "will of the people"?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Fuck off I told you exact how it is.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Equal protection...

You know what?  Fuck this!  If you are going to spew your bullshit is a thread, at least take time to read the thread, first.  This stupidity has already been dealt with - *three fucking times*.

So, all you get is, you're wrong.  if you would like to know *why* you're wrong, go back and read the thread, and pay attention to the last three people who tried to make this argument, and what happened to their attempts.

I am so done answering the same stupid arguments over, and over, just because people are too stupid to read through a thread they are posting to, to see that, "Oh!  this argument already failed.  Lemme try something different,"


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Really?

Okay.  Well, since "Fuck you" is not really a reply that allows for an intelligible response, you are dismissed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The 14th amendment does not apply to queen marriage if it did the supreme court would have ruled shut the fuck up and sit down you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I told you that you have a problem with comprehension
I said FUCK OFF


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


The Supreme Court didn't *have* to rule, you dumb fuck!  The Lower Federal Courts already made that ruling!  So, the Supreme Court saw no reason to revisit a case that had already been adjudicated properly!

And, in  case you are too stupid to understand what that means;m it means that since the lower courts already decided that same sex marriage *is an issue of equal protection under the 14th amendment,* and the Supreme Court decided *not* to overturn that ruling, it has been decided that this *is* a matter of the 14th amendment, whether your dumb ass likes it, or not.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


"Fuck you" and "Fuck off" are pretty much the same thing, and neither really allows for further intelligent discussion.

You are dismissed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said: ↑


“You are not talking logically if the higher courts ruled that it is a state issue how can it be one when a federally appointed judge made the ruling? The higher courts should have ruled it's a state issue and let stand what the people had voted on you dumb ass queen.”


Yet another example of the hate and ignorance common to those hostile to the civil liberties of gay Americans, hate and ignorance offensive to the Constitution.

The people have neither the right nor authority to decide who will or will not have his Constitutional rights.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Oct 11, 2014)

Anathema said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Low or no morals, eh?  Who arbitrates morality in your world?  Who has the final judgment?  What law forces you to associate with anyone else?  What rights have actually been eroded?  Are you forced to hang with colored boys due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  Did those darkies muck up your world?.
> ...



I admit I seldom deal with bank tellers, but the last time I did (last week), there were three working...two men and a woman.  I ended up at the woman's window...which was good, because she was extremely attractive. 



> I lost out on a very nice career opportunity because it would have meant dealing with a female supervisor in an Engineering Department. Now imagine being a business owner trying to hire personnel or deal with customers if you have actual morals.



You're a grade A weirdo, boy...but everyone knew that.  Maybe time for a career change: I suspect few women drive garbage trucks or pump septic tanks.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Oct 11, 2014)

jillian said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



He's quite intelligent...but also batshit insane and evil on the level of Stalin.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 11, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Procreation, by law, only matters in some states among married couples with close familial ties...they are prohibited from doing it. 

This simple fact destroys your ludicrous "argument" regarding procreation and civil marriage. 

A bigot is someone who wishes to deny equal rights to a minority group. That describes you to a "T". 

*Pops*: Gays can't get married because they cannot procreate with each other
*Everyone Else*: What about sterile or childless by choice couples, they don't procreate and you don't wish to deny them civil marriage?
*Pops*: They aren't gay.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 11, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yes, we do disagree with the courts ruling on Citizens United...what does that have to do with marriage equality rulings (which, by the way, did not come from the SCOTUS, but dozens of lower and Federal District courts)

Tell us, precisely, what "damage" Loving v Virginia did to our "whole system". Be specific.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Yes.  You know what 99% equality is? *IN*equality.  People are only equal when they are 100% equal.


You know that, since the state can never force, say, the Roman Cathollic Church to marry same-sex couples, you shall not see 100% equity -- right?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.  You know what 99% equality is? *IN*equality.  People are only equal when they are 100% equal.
> ...


You know that forcing religious organizations to do something has nothing to do with *civil equality*, right?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I think you missed the point, which wasn't so much a point but a question of your understanding.
Strauight couples can be married in the RCC.
Sane-sex couple cannot because the RCC will not marry them. 
Thus, inequality.
Since the state cannot force the RCC to marry same-sex couple, you shall not see 100% equallity.
You recognize ths, correct?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Actually the point is that you are creating a red herring by misrepresenting what equality is concerned with.

You recognize this correct?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.  You know what 99% equality is? *IN*equality.  People are only equal when they are 100% equal.
> ...


Fallacy of inverse false comparison.

No one is preventing anyone from becoming RC.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

M14 is misrepresenting private association as being the equivalent of public association in civil liberties.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 11, 2014)

Please remember the rules about copying and pasting an article.


Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
You cannot paste the entire article, only a portion.



> *What the 'gay marriage' debate is really about!*
> 
> It’s called Pandora’s Box.
> 
> ...


----------



## jillian (Oct 11, 2014)

Youch said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > wonderful news for individual rights
> ...



I live when ignorant rightwingnut bigots think they are insulting me. Cracks me up.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 11, 2014)

jillian said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



We can't insult someone like you.... you need a BRAIN to become insulted!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Loving vs VA is not the same if it was the supreme court would have ruled on it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said: ↑
> 
> 
> “You are not talking logically if the higher courts ruled that it is a state issue how can it be one when a federally appointed judge made the ruling? The higher courts should have ruled it's a state issue and let stand what the people had voted on you dumb ass queen.”
> ...


Talk about ignorance? YOU'VE BEEN HERE HOW LONG 3 YEARS? AND STILL DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Care to explain what you mean by that?  Surely you're not suggesting that the ruling in _Loving v Virginia_ is invalidated because the Supreme Court saw no reason to hear the state's appeal.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


So, your answer to my question must be "no".


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yes, you are correct.  The RCC performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or not as the case were, has nothing to do with equality.  You are conflating private association with the public associations of civil liberties.

You understand that, right?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Except that I am not.   The RCC, invested with the power of the state to marry people, is an actor of the state.
Thus, inequality.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




Since when can't gays marry?

Are you insane?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



The answer is, "I, M14, deliberately committed a fallacy by false comparison, and I won't admit it.  Yes, the RCC comparison in inaccurate, and I enjoy defying you."  That is what our friend M14 is about.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Except they're not.  They are a private Christian organization which is under no obligation to follow public accommodation rules.  They are not, nor have they ever been, considered agents for the state.  In fact, the first amendment *prohibits* the State from recognizing them as agents of the State.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Dear Czernobog: If people do not agree with the state authorities having to accommodate same sex couples within marriage,
do you agree with the idea of removing marriage from the state altogether and just keeping it a private ceremony for churches?

Do you believe in making the state involvement purely neutral in writing estate and custody contracts, as with civil unions,
for people of any and all beliefs, and keep marriage out of the state to prevent from forcing a policy on people not everyone believes in.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion

Are gays disabled?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Since when can't gays marry?
> 
> Are you insane?


Since you want to pretend the madness of your claim was not already noted, and keep repeating the stupidity, I thought I would repeat myself for your eification:

You are fully aware that gays are going to have *homosexual relationships*, yes?  That's kind of the definition of what "being gay" is.

In light of that, you are insisting that "gays could always marry". One can only presume that you mean by that, that gays can marry* the opposite sex. *Now, since, by definition, homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex, and, lets be honest, people do not live in celibacy, it is an equally reasonable assumption that these homosexuals that you have forced into loveless marriages are now going to have serial affairs in order to satisfy their sexual needs.

And this seems like a perfectly reasonable situation to you? My, you do have a strange definition of the "sanctity of marriage"...

And you arrogant fuckers call *gays* the perverts!!!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Not at all. This is just a small sample of all of the laws, policies, and procedures of individual industries that have privileges, rights, and responsibilities of marriage:

*Tax Benefits*

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
*Estate Planning Benefits*

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
*Government Benefits*

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.
*Employment Benefits*

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
*Medical Benefits*

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
*Death Benefits*

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
*Family Benefits*

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
*Housing Benefits*

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
*Consumer Benefits*

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
*Other Legal Benefits and Protections*

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
You cannot possibly be suggesting that it would be easier, and "more equitable" to force all of those laws, and policies, and more, to be changed, then it would be to simply acknowledge same sex marriages.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Oh, wait.  I misunderstood your question, I believe.  Sure, so long as the *only recognized legal document* is a "certificate of civil union", and the "marriage certificate" is rendered to the same realm as the certificate of baptism - in other words, having no legal standing whatsoever -  *for everyone, regardless of the gender of the participants*, sure.

Somehow I don't see the Christians being willing to do that.  Do you?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And I say again, that you are the one who keeps doing this by making procreation an issue.  Either that, or you are simply making a different bigoted argument.  Either procreation is an issue for *anyone* who is unable to procreate, or you are trying to discriminate against homosexuals.  Which is it?


----------



## jillian (Oct 11, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



Stop projecting you psychotic freak


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Loving v Virgina AGAIN,... ad-nauseum,......... Iv talked that to death..... youve seen my arguments already............you cant learn, and are too wrapped up in your own issue to see the reality.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Because dumb fuck there is no such thing as a constitution protected right to gay marriage. If it was the supreme court would have ruled on it. DUMB ASS.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...





Czernobog said:


> Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
> Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
> *Estate Planning Benefits*
> 
> ...


\
Each of these areas should be examined if the SC wants to legalize gay "marriage".....

There should be NO discrimination against singles regarding tax law for example, if they are going to make this a "right".


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No they aren't dumb ass

*Fuck you*: It's an expression to show your discontent with someone (that you're talking to).
*Fuck off*: It means "go away."
Now fuck you and fuck off.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Your foolish arguments have been competently rebutted.

You are unable to learn, so sit down and be quiet, please.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



A majority of your fellow citizens and the courts disagree with you.

Tuff that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

bigreb is talking to himself in the mirror but won't take his own advice.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Well, the Courts disagree with you, under the 14th amendment's right to equal protection under the law.  So, you can keep stomping your feet, and screaming it's not fair, all you like.  However, while you're standing around acting like a dumb ass, the gays will just keep right on going to the courts, getting marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do.

Guess who wins.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The Supreme court said nothing on the subject other than it was a state issue.
But it can't be a state issue as long as the federal court justice ruled on it.
You are dismissed dumb ass.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


No they shouldn't.  Because a single spouse is a single spouse.  That is the point.  Same-sex marriage does not fundamentally change how any of those laws are applied.  Hell, I should even go so far as to say that, should someone come forward demanding it, incestuous marriage would be easier to legalize, as it still would not fundamentally alter the meanings of the terms of any of those laws, and policies.

Polygamy, on the other hand, *would* fundamentally change those laws, and policies, as it would add a whole extra person to the social contract.  This would have to be dealt with.  So, sorry, your argument simply doesn't stand.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Why then does the state regognize marriages performed by clergy of the RCC?
Answer:  the state specifically vests them with the power to do so.   Thus, actors of the state.
And so...  you shall not see 100% equality, because the state cannot force the RCC to solemnize same-sex marriages.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2014)

The state cannot violate a church's right to marry whom it will and turn away those that it won't, because it is a matter of private association.

Such that is a false comparison to right of civil liberties that everyone else has.

To help you again: the issue is about who can get married, not which institution marries or not marries people.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Really?  Please cite that claim.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


No it doesn't.  The state vests *anyone* with an ordination with the power to perform marriage.  You can get your ordination online, in five minutes, and you can marry, and bury.  Wanna try again?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


There's no need for me to try again as noithing said here negates my point.
You seek 100% equality.    You shall not see it for the reason noted above.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Except that the reason you state is wrong.  As much as you would like to create this red herring, it simply does not exist.  Churches are not agents of the state.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Why do I have to site something that is so god damn obvious? Did the supreme court make a ruling?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


No.  The Federal Circuit Court did.  Which the Supreme Court so no reason to reverse.  So, the last ruling that the court system made was that this is *not* a state issue.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


And the Supreme court said nothing it has to pass the supreme court  for it to be considered constitutional or not. Not a lower court not a court of appeals the SUPREME COURT.
Dumb ass


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...





Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



A single SPOUSE, what in the hell are you talking about.............and I said nothing about polygamy......tho I believe even some gay-marriage advocates are admitting that their approach would legalize that aspect. A prominent gay-marriage advocate aided the lawsuit of a polygamist. 

If you believe everyone should be treated equally then there should not be different tax laws based on a persons marital status alone.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


No, it doesn't.  You really are completely clueless about how our judicial system works, aren't you.  the only reason that the Supreme Court feels the need to get involved in a case is if they feel one of the lower federal courts was wrong.  Guess what?  They didn't in this case.

But, like I said, you keep throwing your temper tantrums, calling everyone dumbass, and insisting on how wrong it is for the fags to be able to get married.  In the meantime,. the homosexuals will just keep ignoring you, going to the court houses, getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the Federal Courts told them they had every right to do.

Guess who wins.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 11, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Dumb ass
The Supreme Court on Monday turned away seven same-sex marriage cases in five states, refusing for now to take up the basic question of whether same-sex couples have a right to marriage.

Supreme Court turns away same-sex marriage cases - CBS News


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Sorry.  I got comfuzzled.  I'm basically having three different debates on this over two different threads, and got my arguments confused.

As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault.  You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct?  Those are the *benefits* of marriage.  The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Which caused what to happen in regards to the rulings that had already been handed down in those cases by the lower Federal Courts?
Dumb ass

From your own article:

While the decision is a setback for the gay rights movement's goal of achieving marriage equality nationwide, *it does allow the lower court rulings in those five states to stand* -- all in favor of marriage equality. That means same-sex couples in Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia will be able to get married.

*The decision also leaves in place rulings from the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth Circuits, meaning same-sex marriage will soon be allowed in West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.*

Once same-sex marriage is allowed in those states, it will be legal in 30 states and the District of Columbia.​In other words, the ruling finds that it is *not* a state issue, and will affect states that were not part of the seven cases that the Supreme Court passed on.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 11, 2014)

[QUOTE="Czernobog, post: 9954837, member: 51730"]





dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...





dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Sorry.  I got comfuzzled.  I'm basically having three different debates on this over two different threads, and got my arguments confused.

As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault.  You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct?  Those are the *benefits* of marriage.  The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.[/QUOTE]
Its those benefits that supposedly started this quest on the part of gay-marriage advocates.....I dont see how you can separate the benefits from the "right".  If all you want is the ability to associate with whom you want....gay people already have that. (that is also part of what separates these cases from Loving V Virginia).  

The approach, equal protection, I think logically requires that single people be treated no differently than married people when it comes to tax law. Something I agree with and should be the case now regardless.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 11, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Its those benefits that supposedly started this quest on the part of gay-marriage advocates.....I dont see how you can separate the benefits from the "right".  If all you want is the ability to associate with whom you want....gay people already have that. (that is also part of what separates these cases from Loving V Virginia).
> 
> The approach, equal protection, I think logically requires that single people be treated no differently than married people when it comes to tax law. Something I agree with and should be the case now regardless.


Not really.  The theory, not entirely inaccurate, is that being married, and starting a family, carries with it added financial burdens.  It is for this reason that couples filing as married get the tax benefits they get - to offset these costs.  It is the same reason for the "Child Tax Credits".  By your logic, there should be no "Child Tax Credit"; that should just be another credit that everyone gets.  Otherwise we're "discriminating" against people without kids.

And here's the thing.  Tax breaks are not rights; there is no guarantee that everyone gets the same benefits.  However, everyone should have the same right to the *opportunities* that make those benefits possible.  Hence, the drive for Same-Sex Marriage Equality.


----------



## Youch (Oct 12, 2014)

jillian said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Yet, you ignore the point made. Ignore the facts.  Hence, dangerous dolt.


----------



## Youch (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



You state that the Judicial Branch is to interpret the Constitution, yet provide no evidence that they did that.  What they did, actually, violated the Constitution, given that marriage is not a delineated power of the federal government, and given that marriage is wholly a state purview within the Constitution.   My previous point still stands.  Refute it with facts, not emotion, if you can.  You cannot, of course.

Another obvious point of your ignorance is in your last paragraph.  You really think the Supreme Court supported individual freedom when they, in essence, decided not to support the millions of people who voted in their respective states regarding gay marriage? You claim people like to make decisions for themselves, yet support the Supreme Court that did just the opposite?  How dumb.  You contradict yourself......perhaps you don't understand how?  Let me know if this needs further clarification.


----------



## Youch (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



You've obviously never read or understood the constitution.  Or that more than guys in the black robes.  I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Its those benefits that supposedly started this quest on the part of gay-marriage advocates.....I dont see how you can separate the benefits from the "right".  If all you want is the ability to associate with whom you want....gay people already have that. (that is also part of what separates these cases from Loving V Virginia).
> ...


Well I think your destroying the whole grounds for gay-marriage lawsuits if you think tax breaks are not rights.......that as I understand it is a key part of their argument. .......I was talking about single people without children, they should not be disadvantaged by not recieving tax breaks that married people get solely for being married. 

Also...part of their argument is that 'they are born that way"....well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Yes, Loving again. Loving was decided by the SCOTUS against the will of the people. According to you, rulings like that "damage our whole system". 

How?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



So you also disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning airplanes, right? 

Are you trying to argue that people who cannot procreate with each other naturally should not have children? You're going to cause an orphanage crisis with stupid rules like that. 

Go ahead and end the tax breaks, we're still going to want civil marriage. Tax breaks are only one of over a thousand rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage. We've been marrying for decades...we've only just started getting the tax breaks a couple years ago. We'll survive.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yes, that is what the SCOTUS did...they chickened out which leaves the lower court rulings as LAW. 

Now, if the 4th or 6th circuit rules contrary to the dozens and dozens or rulings that have come down until now, the SCOTUS will have a reason to take up the question. 

Tell me...do you think that the SCOTUS, after allowing 11 more states to marry gay people, will suddenly render those hundreds and thousands of civil marriages null and void? Really?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The state specifically vests their clergy with the power to act as its agent.
This, necessarily, makes said clergy an agent of the state.
It is impossible to soundly argue argue otherwise.
You seek 100% equality.    You shall not see it for the reason noted above


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault.  You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct?  Those are the *benefits* of marriage.  The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.


No such right exists.
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because state law created it. 
Nothng requires a state to do so, and so, upon repealing the relevant laws, marriage as a legal institution would cease to exist.
Thus, marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state, not a right inherent to the people.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

Youch said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​
So, yeah.  it *is* the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.

...moving on...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


If that is the entirety of your understanding of the issue of marriage equality, it is no wonder you don't understand the difference between a 'benefit", and a "right".  Have a good day...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The supreme court did not rule ob gay marriage because it is not a protected right.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault.  You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct?  Those are the *benefits* of marriage.  The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.
> ...


Except that according to _Loving v Virginia_ marriage is a right.  I kn ow, I know.  You're sick of hearing about _Loving v Virginia_.  Tell you what.  You stop making nonsensical statements like "marriage isn't a right", and I'll quit bringing up the court case that proves your statement false.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...


Still wrong.  The *Supreme* Court did not rule on the marriage equality question, because the duly appointed Federal *District* courts already did, and the Supreme Court saw no reason to set those rulings aside.  You constantly misstating what happened isn't going to magically make what happened not have happened.

Here's a thought, bigrebnc1775, why don't you try holding your breath, until all of the 19 states that have had their marriage bans overturned agree to not give homosexuals marriage licenses.  That should work just about as well as your continued insistence that "Gay marriage isn't a right, because I SAY SO!!!"


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Hi Czernoborg: Thanks for replying with intelligent reasons and explanations to my messages and others here which I hope do not tax your patience. These discussions are critical to hash out all the issues involved. I applaud encourage and thank you!

1. For convenience or expedience:
if this was used as legal rationale, then atheists who sue over crosses on public property
would be dismissed due to the EXCESS cost of damaging historic memorials
when it would be easier just to accommodate the crosses that have both historic and religious meanings.

Unfortunately religious freedom is what it is.
So if the atheist can be protected from a cross that "offends" or "excludes" their beliefs
(and does NOT believe in funding or supporting a cross with public tax dollars)
where this costs more to sue and to remove than just leaving the cross alone.
Surely we can respect the right of people not to support gay marriage against their beliefs.

AGAIN I am NOT advocating to BAN or exclude gay marriage
but to keep the laws neutral where they NEITHER prohibit nor establish beliefs either way.

2. All the above can be changed to be for civil unions and contracts.

3. It's not up to me but to the people in each state.

SURE, if they agree it is cheaper to allow gay marriage
then the people of that state can decide, either way.

Not up to me or to the govt to decide.

The people need to agree since religiously held beliefs are involved on both sides.

Either they agree to remove it from the state and revise all laws to be neutral
and refer to civil contracts and unions only independent of gender.

Or leave the laws as is and just open the door for this to
be applied or interpreted equally for any couple.

My point is the govt cannot be abused to force a decision on
the people without full public consent.

Because of religious freedom that the state cannot force
people to change and be under policies against their religious beliefs.

Both beliefs for and against gay marriage are equally valid.
the state has no right to judge this, thinking it's the same as
race when it isn't. The homosexuality and marriage issues
involve spiritual issues and beliefs the state has no jurisdiction over
except with the public's consent. We used to consent to marriage
laws under the state for convenience, but if that is not the case
anymore and people do not agree, then we have to change it
one way or the other, depending on what people in each state agree to do.

Not my place, I just believe in respecting all beliefs
equally and asking all people and states to support neutral policies for that reason.

Thanks again CZ for articulating
your reasons and replies so clearly,
which I hope compels others there to rise above the usual
rhetoric back and forth that fails to address the root issues.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Religious freedom is also a natural right 
but the govt cannot dictate how that is exercised either.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


He doesn't deserve such kindness  nor does any liberal turd.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> He doesn't deserve such kindness  nor does any liberal turd.



Maybe his replies to me have been respectful and deserve respect
because I extend the same. Maybe if we all tried harder to address each other
with equal respect, people would decide we deserve the same as we give to them.

Shall we try it?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


First, there's a difference between "cost" and "expedience". Let me put it this way.  We have two different options for implementing a new public policy.  Option one requires that one rule be changed by striking out a single clause.  Option two requires that not only must the rule in question be changed, but 478 other rules, affecting 1,578 different departments,  must also be changed, and the department heads of all of those different departments must now be informed of the new rules, and training must be provided for all of the employees of all of those departments.  Now, since both options will result in the same end, which option would seem the most logical one to take to you?  Your analogy of the religious icons on public land is actually a false analogy as those are not cases involving two different options resulting in, more or less, the same end.  Hence those court cases are actually necessary.



emilynghiem said:


> 2. All the above can be changed to be for civil unions and contracts.


There are actually several problems with this suggestion.  The first is the time, energy, and effort required to make all of those changes.  There is also the matter of the fact that many of those benefits are benefits provided by *private industries*.  The government has no authority to *demand* that private industries change their policies to include social contract they do not wish to include.  Now it could be argued that this would mean  that these private industries could choose to not acknowledge "gay" marriage.  However. in order to do this, would require them to change their policies to define in a way that the courts have already ruled, in 19 different cases, is unconstitutional, and  discriminatory.  Finally, the idea of the "civil union" runs afoul of the "separate but equal" restrictions that have already been determined are not constitutional.  This final problem could of course be dealt with by simply removing marriage from the civil law altogether, and make civil unions the practice of the land for everyone.   Good luck getting the Christians to agree to that.



emilynghiem said:


> 3. It's not up to me but to the people in each state.
> 
> SURE, if they agree it is cheaper to allow gay marriage
> then the people of that state can decide, either way.
> ...


Actually, that's not true.  The Supreme Court decided in 1967 under _Loving v Virginia_ that marriage to the person of one's own choosing is, in fact, a right of every citizen protected under the 14th amendment.  It is on this precedent that many of these same-sex marriage bans are falling.



emilynghiem said:


> Because of religious freedom that the state cannot force
> people to change and be under policies against their religious beliefs.
> 
> Both beliefs for and against gay marriage are equally valid.
> ...



You're making the same mistake that many on the right are making.  you are conflating the *civil contract* of marriage with the *religious ritual of a wedding*.

You see, a marriage is a marriage whether the wedding ceremony is performed by the local parish preacher, the justice of the peace, or the Fake Elvis down at "Billy Bob's Wedding Emporium" on the Strip in Vegas.  In the eyes of the law, those are all marriages.  To have a marriage doesn't require a religious ceremony.  It only requires a license, and someone recognized in your state as having the authority to officiate - and you can get this online in 5 minutes; no religious beliefs necessary.



emilynghiem said:


> Thanks again CZ for articulating
> your reasons and replies so clearly,
> which I hope compels others there to rise above the usual
> rhetoric back and forth that fails to address the root issues.


No problem.  I actually don't mind having this discussion with grown ups.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > He doesn't deserve such kindness  nor does any liberal turd.
> ...


That dog was shot a few years back. You can play nice with the snakes I will not.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


The right of marriage has not been a "state issue' since 1967 under _Loving v Virginia_, and you repeating over, and over that it is a state issue doesn't magically make it so.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


THE RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE DUMB ASS 
It is not a constitutional protected right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said: ↑

“Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.”

Nonsense.

State's don't have the authority to deny citizens their civil liberties. Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, where the states are subordinate to that, as the Federal Constitution protects the rights of American citizens regardless their state of residence, making citizens' civil liberties immune to attacks by the states.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE DUMBASS
Adding a word to marriage doesn't suddenly change the definition of marriage.  
Marriage has been ruled a constitutionally protected right since 1967.
The DUMBASSES that refuse to understand this have lost that argument 19 times.

So, like I said, you can keep screaming this like a little kid all you like.  And while you do all those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do, whether you like it, or not.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said: ↑

“THE RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE DUMB ASS 
It is not a constitutional protected right.”

There is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage (contract) law written by the states and administered by state courts, marriage law that accommodates two equal partners entering into a commitment recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which is in the Constitution.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

Youch said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


The Constitution only exists in the context of its case law, case law you've obviously never read or understood.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The Constitution existed long before their were any case laws dumb ass it came first.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said: ↑
> 
> “THE RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE DUMB ASS
> It is not a constitutional protected right.”
> ...


There is no constitutional protected right to gay marriage. If their was one the Supreme court would have ruled so. instead they said nothing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE BUT THEIR IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said: ↑
> 
> “Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.”
> 
> ...


Idiot if what you say had any truth the supreme court would have ruled on it. Shut the fuck up and learn something.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Like i said, you can keep screaming that in all caps if it makes you feel better.  However, the Federal courts said differently - *in 19 different cases* - and those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing exactly what it is those federal courts have said they have every right to do.  Your being butt-hurt about it isn't gonna change that.

You can feel free to go back to the kiddie table, and lick your wounds, now.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Wasn't scearming just not going to retype what I posted, You are wrong and have been proven wrong Since the supreme court said nothing on the issue of gay marriage it's not a constitutionally protected right. THE END.


----------



## Plasmaball (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


doesnt understand what SCOTUS did, and thus fails at life...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No it's you toy boy that doesn't understand go back to playing with your transformer dolls.


----------



## Plasmaball (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

Plasmaball said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


Normal dumb ass libtard response.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


What are you going to do when this time next year same-sex marriage is recognized in every state, *by decree of the federal district courts*, and the Supreme court chooses not to hear one single case on the issue?  Will you still insist that there is no "gay marriage", even as the homosexuals in every single state are getting married?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Except that the legal institution of marriage exists only because the state created it.
What happens to the "right" of marriage when the state repeals its laws that created it?  It goes away.
Thus, it cannot be a right as a right cannot be taken away by the repeal of legislation.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said: ↑
> ...


Okay.  Let's try this one more time.
Simple yes, or no question:  Is it your contention that no question of constitutional legitimacy can ever be decided *except* by direct ruling from the Supreme court, and *only* by the Supreme court?


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> There are actually several problems with this suggestion.  The first is the time, energy, and effort required to make all of those changes.  There is also the matter of the fact that many of those benefits are benefits provided by *private industries*.  The government has no authority to *demand* that private industries change their policies to include social contract they do not wish to include.  Now it could be argued that this would mean  that these private industries could choose to not acknowledge "gay" marriage.  However. in order to do this, would require them to change their policies to define in a way that the courts have already ruled, in 19 different cases, is unconstitutional, and  discriminatory.  Finally, the idea of the "civil union" runs afoul of the "separate but equal" restrictions that have already been determined are not constitutional.  This final problem could of course be dealt with by simply removing marriage from the civil law altogether, and make civil unions the practice of the land for everyone.   Good luck getting the Christians to agree to that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi Czernobog and Thanks again for your points
which I find essential if we are going to address all levels of this issue.

You are addressing the vital legal points
while I am also adding the reality of dealing with people's religious beliefs.
I understand that people will never agree to govt forcing them to change their beliefs.
But with the points you bring up, they have a choice of how much it will cost
to either accommodate their beliefs one way or another.

So you are right, the opposition should be informed of these costs and logistics involved
in order to make an educated choice in what direction to go.

The same way they cannot be expected to abandon their beliefs
neither can they expect the people including Christians in support of gay marriage to abandon theirs.

So either the policies must be separated, or they agree to accommodate.
Which way is it going to be?

If you give people this choice, and THEY decide they'd rather accommodate gay marriage
that is DIFFERENT from telling them their beliefs are wrong or need to be overridden by other people's beliefs.

I believe your approach will be more effective
rather than insulting people for their beliefs and threatening to
exclude one side or the other.

Why not just present the options and offer to the people
of each state to take on these costs and logistics if they
really really want to keep gay marriage out of the state.
Leave that choice to the people instead of assuming it for them, which causes resentment and rejection.

Fine, here's the to-do list....

NOTE: In the case of atheist lawsuits to remove crosses from public property,
in one case where preservationists raised money to buy the land and transfer it to private ownership to ersolve
the conflict, the lawyers for the atheist blocked that transaction claiming the state was still enabling the religious group.
But I disagreed: I believe it is proper to give the option to transfer a contested policy out of govt hands into private parties
if that will preserve religious freedom, prevent imposition on the public, and promote taking responsibility for one's own beliefs.

so if people really do not want to institutionalize gay marriage through the state,
then all contracts and laws should be reverted to neutral language.

I'm glad to see you spell this out,
and I believe this should be presented for  all those lobbyists per state
to start working out plans to pay for all this if they really want to defend and exercise their religious freedom.

Thanks CZ


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 12, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



As a religious ceremony and spiritual partnership, that part remains with the people.

For the civil contracts, yes, that is through the state; where I suggest to neutralize
the language where it is neither banning nor establishing gay marriage so neither side feels excluded,
forced to go against their beliefs, or otherwise discriminated against by creed.

Can neither be prohibited nor imposed on people by the state.
Only if people Consent to a policy can it be implemented where religious beliefs are involved
so there is no infraction or unequal discrimination going on.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 12, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Okay.  I propose putting that theory to the test.  I want a state to attempt to pass a law which refuses to recognise marriage of any type.  Let's see how well that works out for that state.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Hi Czernobog: With the courts, judicial ruling, Supreme Court
we have never resolved the issue of political beliefs: what if a religious belief crosses over into beliefs about govt
and laws themselves, such as the right to health care through the govt or the right of marriage through the govt.

All conflicts over crosses, prayers in schools, etc. have continued to be protested even after
rulings or laws were passed because peole do not agree to have their beliefs excluded, on either side.

This has never been resolved, but we keep making the same mistake of assuming
that these issues are like any other matter of law that can be decided by the state/govt.

No, they cannot. People do not agree to give up their religious equality due to a onesided ruling
or majority rule in Courts or Congress. We just haven't addressed this.

The Constitution and Amendments address "religious freedom" and "discrimination by creed"
but we have never established what do we do when we cannot separate a religious beliefs
from a govt policy, becuase the belief involves the govt role in whether or not it can decide a policy.

th eprolife and prochoice issue was one of the first to bring this out.
the two sides will always have clashing beliefs, so we need to write laws
better that do not impose either way on one beleif or the other.

We have never agreed to a process to handle political beliefs.

CZ you are highly intelligent, precise in articulating points,
and intellectual honest which I find vital if we are going to address this issue.

I see it is very hard foryou to understand this other mentality of
people on the far right who cannot separate church from state,
but see prolife as not a choice but a natural right of the child,
and see the gay marriage issue as not natural but a lifestyle and not to be incorporated into the state.

You can separate these in your mind because you do not have these beleifs.
Can you understand some people's beliefs cannot separate them.
And it is not fair to impose a separation if that is not natural or inherent
or even possible in their minds.

If this is the case with some people, why can't that be accommodated equally.

Why do these beliefs have to be overridden.
Why can't these people be offered the choice to do all the work to revise the laws.

As long as they taek responsibility for their beliefs, let them have religious freedom
not to be under a policy they don't believe in.

This isn't just about marriage or gay marriage.

With the health care, and "natural rights" vs. "health care is a right through govt"
people will not budge on their beliefs either.

So maybe it will come to the point that these people
should WELL separate their beliefs by party and fund their
own policies separately.

Let the liberal/Democrat party be used to fund manage and endorse
gay marriages and health care through singlepayer insurance
that is mandated for all their members who choose to pay into it under those terms.

Let the Republican/Tea party be used to manage free market
health care through church nonprofit and business programs through schools
and manage their members by voluntary participation and enterprise that way
without mandating things they believe are not govt jurisdiction.

if people cannot change or separate their beliefs from govt
at least let them separate from each other and practice independently.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 12, 2014)

^ tl;dr


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Agreed. Even if it works by reverse psychology, it will give people free choice to decide how to settle this
instead of the govt or party politics deciding or imposing on people against their will.

Either agree to open up marriage to all,
or neutralize all language regarding civil unions and contracts,
and keep the personal beliefs out of the state altogether.

Let's be civilized about this. If people have separate beliefs
then separate by party or churches to preserve equal freedom and protection
to exercise as each believes without imposing one way for all the state that one side doesn't believe in.

We need to do the same with health care policies also,
since a similar 'right to health care' is not agreed upon either as a belief.

Again it may be reverse psychology, but people must be offered
the choice to fund their own policies and quit imposing that through
the state as the only choice against the will and beliefs of others.

People do not believe the same, and shouldn't be excluded because of that.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


The right to marry exists within the context of the fundamental right to privacy and substantive due process guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:

'[R]ecent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's 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." Id., at 486.

[...]

_t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions []relating to marriage[.]'

FindLaw Cases and Codes
_
And as we've seen in the Marriage Cases, the courts have correctly and consistently applied this jurisprudence to same-sex couples where the states have manifested an “unjustified government interference” by seeking to disallow gay Americans to enter into marriage contracts.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 12, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> ^ tl;dr



Not to worry Dot Com, it would go over your head anyway.
This is very deep and not something that can be resolved by slamming people for their beliefs.

The msg is for CZ who is capable of analyzing all the points
and work this out better than I can. Thank God someone can!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I'm not worried about next year. When the shit drops faggots will be fair game in this part of the country.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 12, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> '[R]ecent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's 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." Id., at 486.
> 
> ...



Dear C_Clayton_Jones

And yet this substantive due process
does not apply to people of other parties who believe in free choice of paying and managing health care
without being forced to go through insurance or federal mandates.

When one party pushes for the "right to marriage" or "right to health care"
as their political BELIEFS, this is justified as establishing through the govt as law.

But [fill in the blank] forbid if
people of OTHER beliefs push for
* right to life
* natural rights
and try to defend that. Suddenly there should be "separation of church and state"
to keep these beliefs out of govt.

But when liberals have beliefs, those are OKAY to establish through Courts and Congress as a nationalized belief.

Maybe if we address and change this paradigm,
we could address the issues of marriage, health care, etc. per se.

If we keep ignoring the bias going on, people will fight that
and we can't focus on the issues.

Same with abortion, gun rights, etc. that keep getting into political fights
over ideology and pushing biases or beliefs through govt.

Hey I have an idea.

Let's agree to make laws that reflect and represent/include/protect beliefs Equally.

let's agree to stop bullying back and forth by political force and majority rule to exclude the other beliefs.

And maybe we can stop fighting long enough to work out
solutions that neither impose or deny one side or the other.

How about that, actually respecting equal due process, representation
and protection of the laws for all beliefs, without discrimination by creed.

What a concept, sounds like it might even be Constitutional, you think?


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> You're making the same mistake that many on the right are making.  you are conflating the *civil contract* of marriage with the *religious ritual of a wedding*.
> 
> You see, a marriage is a marriage whether the wedding ceremony is performed by the local parish preacher, the justice of the peace, or the Fake Elvis down at "Billy Bob's Wedding Emporium" on the Strip in Vegas.  In the eyes of the law, those are all marriages.  To have a marriage doesn't require a religious ceremony.  It only requires a license, and someone recognized in your state as having the authority to officiate - and you can get this online in 5 minutes; no religious beliefs necessary.



Dear Czernobog: Like you I am able to separate the civil from the religious marriage.
Unlike you, I recognize that some people cannot separate this because of their beliefs.
Similar to how some people cannot separate the right to health care from govt,
even though these same people argue that Other People should separate religious beliefs from govt.
When it comes to THEIR beliefs about right to health care or right to marriage,
they CANNOT separate this but see this as the natural inherent default to go through govt.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

So if the liberal prorights to health care/marriage cannot separate this from govt,
it is only fair to recognize the equal rights of others to their beliefs they cannot separate from govt.

I am just trying to be fair by including and recognizing this lack of separation exists.
I am trying to accommodate the beliefs equally.

Just because I can separate them, doesn't mean I should exclude people who cannot.

So I strongly urge that we use our party system to separate the people with these
beliefs, and allow them full freedom to fund and implement the beliefs of their choice
through their own parties and use that instead of going through govt where they cannot agree.

they can manage and govern themselves by party and have their own policies
without imposing denying interfering excluding or otherwise discriminating against each other!

this is just my suggestion to give them a chance to separate
and take full responsibility for funding their own beliefs where they cannot agree.

if they decide it is better to put up with the other groups' beliefs
that's fine, at least they have a fully informed chocie.

if people cannot by conscience compromise their beliefs
those members should have a choice of separate funding and policies,
similar to letting churches fund their own denominations
and not establishing one national church for the whole state or country
by majority rule or judicial ruling.

political beliefs are just as sensitive and unchangeable
as religious beliefs, and as these battles show,
are not working to impose one policy that leaves out the dissenting objectors
of opposing beliefs. both groups have equal rights to exercise their beliefs
without discrimination by creed.

CZ you seem level headed and can see the fallacy on all side.
i hope you can see what is going on with political beliefs
and can suggest a better solution. 

we can't keep fighting this same battle over
abortion, gay marriage, health care etc.
why can't we agree that political beliefs
need to be handled differently from other
policies we vote on and use the regular systems for.

these political beliefs inherently involve religiously held beliefs,
on both sides, that cannot be changed; don't you agree
that this isn't working because people cannot help or change their beliefs
and refuse to do so by force of law and govt. this isn't working, so what can we do?


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I'm not worried about next year. When the shit drops faggots will be fair game in this part of the country.



Dear bigrebnc1775: don't worry, look at the good side.
Because of the uphill battles that gay advocates have had to fight,
the idea of inclusion is what will save this country when it is applied equally to all sides.

Solutions will come from working together out of pure legal necessity
to prevent one side's beliefs or another's from exclusion or discrimination.

So the gay marriage issue, and also fights over health care and reparative therapy,
will also lead to greater longterm solutions sooner, that may not have had public visibility
and pressure to address and resolve.

We need to have these discussions anyway. Stashing conflicts in the back of the closet has never solved anything.
The first step is to clean out our closets, bring it all out in the open.
More good will come from it, that will help all people to protect minorities of all beliefs, including yours and mine!
take heart and take courage, bigrebnc, the best is yet to come.
the true solutions will satisfy your interests and beliefs equally as everyone else's beliefs.
and this is what our Constitutional laws were supposed to strive for anyway: equal justice and protection of the laws.
no one should feel excluded or we are not done yet and need to keep petitioning to redress grievances
until we reach a consensus on laws. thanks!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2014)

bigreb does not believe in inclusion, only open season.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 12, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigreb does not believe in inclusion, only open season.



So how can we "include" people of such beliefs?
Isn't the best way to teach inclusion to practice it, for all people equally, regardless of their beliefs.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigreb does not believe in inclusion, only open season.
> ...


You let a dog in your bed you'll get fleas, You mess with snakes you'll get bit, you don't drop your principles so perverted abnormal people can feel good about themselves


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Hmmm and some people would say that about you, because of your views,
and I would say that generalization is overreaching and doesn't apply here.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


I have my principles I don't drop them I stand by what I say they can't say that about themselves


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 12, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Not asking you to drop your principles,
but just don't make gross generalizations about others that ruin your credibility.
When you stick to just the principles, there is no need to attack persons or groups that
your principles should not be based on doing. I trust that your principles stand on their own
without resorting to negative tactics, so why resort to that which merely discredits your points by distracting from them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 12, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


When you throw your principles away you throw yourself away you fall for anything and supporting faggots and what they do is wrong and is not good for America.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Yes I do disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning planes.
I think states, or private placement groups,  should be allowed to decide not to place orphans or foster kids with gay couples without it being illegal. I doubt very much if it would cause an orphanage crisis. 
Im glad we can probably agree not to hand out tax favors based solely on marriage status. 
the Loving case was decided upon the greater popular national will expressed in the 13,15th and the surface,common sense intent of the 14th amendments.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...





Czernobog said:


> The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​
> So, yeah.  it *is* the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.
> ...moving on...



Nothing you quoted from the Constitution above gives citizens the right to sue their own state. Also The above was I believe modified by amendments. At least the 11th and maybe more.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 12, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I think your playing a semantic game.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



It can be found here in the Constitution: 

FindLaw Cases and Codes


----------



## Youch (Oct 13, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



You can move on all you like.  If constitutionality is your measuring stick, you just lost the argument.  Marriage is not a prescribed federal, constitutional institution, and thus falls to the states, which the SCOTUS just obstructed.  This is basic stuff.  That you fail to understand it just places you in the "dangerous to my family" category.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 13, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Case laws are not the Constitution
The Constitution came before any Case laws dumb ass.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 13, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Of course the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, that's why we don't hear you and others on the right complaining about _Heller _and_ Citizens United. _


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 13, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Private placement groups do not have to place children with anyone they don't want. If, however, you take money from the Federal government or from a state with non discrimination laws that include gays and lesbians you don't get to discriminate against gays. 

You said: 





> .well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?



That would leave out all infertile couples...you know, the ones that adopt children the most. Gays are not born with an inability to have children within their relationship. We're born gay, not infertile. (I've had five)

What Amendment was specifically cited in the Loving decision?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 13, 2014)

Youch said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



Please do, using your "states rights" argument...explain Loving v Virgina, Zablacki v Redhail and Turney v Safley.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

No semantic game here.

Since the state is not supreme, it can be sued by those who have standing.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 13, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Part of that "case law" is ex parte Young......a little piece of  favoritism to big railroad corporations passed by a crooked federal court & it has been misusing as precedent for years


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Regarding private placement groups, thats not what I've read regarding the Catholic church in Massachusetts for example. 
There is differentiation between Infertile couples and gay-couples.....I doubt if most infertile couples were born that way...even if so tho, other aspects of their gender remain so that they mimic normal fertile couples. 
Yes, I realize you can still be fertile and be gay, which I think maybe points away from the "born-that-way" idea but ...I think if you accept your gayness as being innate perhaps u should accept that you shouldn't raise children.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


I think you misunderstand my position, Emily.  the fact is from my perspective it is irrelevant whether homosexual is genetic, or a lifestyle choice.  Either way, it is a behavior that is private, and personal, and has no business being regulated in any way.  The abortion question is one of conflating words to mean things that they simply do not mean.  But, I'm not gonna get into the pro-choice vs anti-choice, here, because that is an entirely different argument, an d would fill an entire thread all by itself.

So, let's just stick to homosexuality, and marriage, shall we?  I actually like your idea, except there is one small problem with the statement of your understanding of the positions:

Let the liberal/Democrat party be used to fund manage and endorse
gay marriages and health care through singlepayer insurance
*that is mandated for all their members who choose to pay into it under those terms.*​To the bold:  You get that under "Single Payer" there would be no need for mandating, or "members paying into" anything, right?  The whole point of single-payer is that healthcare is all government-funded.  Now, it would mean raising taxes on the top 1%, and corporations.  Well...boo-fucking-hoo.  I am sick to death corporatists whining about how put out corporations, and CEOs are.

Let the Republican/Tea party be used to manage free market
health care through church nonprofit and business programs through schools
and manage their members by voluntary participation and enterprise that way
without mandating things *they believe are not govt jurisdiction.*​To the bold:  You see, this is the real problem between progressives, and so-called "Social Conservatives".  We have fundamental, antithetical opinions on what "government jurisdiction" is.  Thus, in order for this to work, you would need to spell out, *exactly,* what you think those are.  For instance, on that abortion issue.  I think that every Republican should be forced on the record, clearly, what his opinion is on abortion, and abortion clinic closing legislation If they had to do that, I think you would be surprised how many votes they lost from what they previously *thought* were "conservative women".​


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 13, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Regarding private placement groups, thats not what I've read regarding the Catholic church in Massachusetts for example.




*Massachusetts: Private Domestic Adoption Agencies*
Catholic Charities of Somerville
270 Washington Street
Somerville, MA 02143
Phone: (617) 625-1920

Catholic Charities of Worcester
10 Hammond Street
Worcester, MA 01610
Phone: (508) 798-0191

Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Inc.
PO Box M South Station
1600 Bay Street
Fall River, MA 02724
Phone: (508) 674-4681

Adopting.com - Adoption Agencies and Attorneys



Catholic Social Services is committed to improving the quality of life for those in need by providing comprehensive social and human services including basic and emergency needs, homelessness, immigration issues, housing and residential services, disabilites, adoption, mental health counseling, elder health services, neighborhood rehabilitation, foreclosure help, and much more. (A Service of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, United States of America)



Catholic Social Services - Southeastern MA s leading Multi-service human services provider



*Catholic Charities, Diocese of Worcester (MA) Adoption Agency and Foster Care : Domestic Adoption Services*
http://adoption-agencies-foster-car...96/Catholic-Charities-Diocese-of-Worcester-MA


****************************************

I don't know what you have been "reading" but Catholic Charity adoption is still active in Massachusetts.

Now what you may have read about is that Catholic Charities of Boston decided to suspend operations because they were not going to able to operate under a *government* contract.  When they found they would loose $1,000,000 in taxpayer dollars they decided to suspend operations.

So that money went to other organizations.



>>>>


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I think you missed my point.  Due to the Full Faith and Credit clause of article IV in the Constitution, and all of the different benefits provided to married couples - not just from the government, but from private industries as well - I'm pretty sure the Federal Government would show M14 just how wrong he is about his assumption that a state can simply choose to "abolish" marriage in their state...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


What?  That sounded very much like a threat against the homosexual community.  Would you care to clarify?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...





Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Incest is icky

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do. 

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with. 

Think a change of definition will change that?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> 
> And yet this substantive due process
> does not apply to people of other parties who believe in free choice of paying and managing health care
> without being forced to go through insurance or federal mandates.


Yes it did.  The question of the "Individual Mandate" *specifically* made it's way through the courts to the Supreme court.  You are confusing due process with agreeing with the court's decision after you had your day in court.



emilynghiem said:


> When one party pushes for the "right to marriage" or "right to health care"
> as their political BELIEFS, this is justified as establishing through the govt as law.
> 
> But [fill in the blank] forbid if
> ...


I*sigh*  I swore I wasn't going to get into this, but, okay.  Here is the problem, Emily.  It is a matter of definition.  I could go through all seven of the process individually, but suffice to say that defending "right to life" is nothing more than misleading rhetoric.  A fetus does not meet the criteria for being an independent life.  it is a mass of *living cells*, but it is not, itself, a life.  This is why "pro-life" is a misnomer, and why advocating for banning all abortions on the grounds of "right to life" is erroneous.  In the case of a pregnant women there is only *one* life in question - the woman's.  The fetus is nothing more than a *potential* life.  I'm sorry, I am going to be more concerned over the natural rights of the *actual* life, than I am the *potential* life.

And, again, you can, and did have your right to defend these positions in court. You seem to be confusing being allowed to have your day in court with winning your argument.  They are not the same thing.



emilynghiem said:


> But when liberals have beliefs, those are OKAY to establish through Courts and Congress as a nationalized belief.
> 
> Maybe if we address and change this paradigm,
> we could address the issues of marriage, health care, etc. per se.
> ...


Once again there is no bias going on.  You have had your chance to bring every one of your issues before the courts, just like progressives have.  The "bias" is that none of your positions was supported in the Constitution, so your side lost its argument every time.  hat's not a problem with our political system; that is a problem with one side - who shall remain nameless - constantly choosing to support concepts that are antithetical to the Constitution.



emilynghiem said:


> Hey I have an idea.
> 
> Let's agree to make laws that reflect and represent/include/protect beliefs Equally.
> 
> ...


Again, you can "make" any laws you want - as the marriage bans prove.  However, once you are done making those laws, the Judicial Branch gets to do its job, and adjudicate whether those laws are Constitutional, or not.  You seem to be suggesting that the "will of the people" has supreme authority", without restriction.  Guess what?  It doesn't.  The authority of the "people" ends at the Constitution.  The people do not get to enact laws that contradict the rights innumerated in the Constitution, regardless of how much some would like to.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> No semantic game here.
> 
> Since the state is not supreme, it can be sued by those who have standing.



Dear JakeStarkey
Though I agree in principle there is still some recourse, in practice this reliance on suing
runs into at least three problems that make it unequal:
1. the cost of legal expense/defense and the chance the corrections sought
won't go through, or will get so tied up timewise or resourcewise that it defeats any purpose gained,
puts an unfair burden on the person petitioning to restore rights or justice
2. if the rights petitioned for are INalienable rights,
then having to sue the state to restore these rights
means they weren't inalienable, so this is contradictory and in abridging the
belief that the rights were inalienable becomes an irreparable act of damage
(similar to how murder and rape cases can seek restitution after the fact,
but can never fully restore the original state of never having been raped or murdered)
3. during the process of suing or appealing or petitioning,
in the interim the party whose rights were infringed upon is NOT EQUAL
with the party who is enjoying the privilege of having their side represented by law or govt.
One side already has the govt representing their beliefs or interests,
the other has to go through this long expensive process, not guaranteed as above,
to try to restore the protection and representation of their interests in teh matter.

So in effect, as long as the govt takes one side over the other, if there is an error
and it takes a legal process to correct it for the other side to have equal justice and protection of the laws,
that isn't equal.

This is why I urge mediation, conflict resolution and consensus
especially in cases where religiously held beliefs or political creeds are involved
where both sides should ideally be protected by govt and not impose one set of beliefs on the other.

For the reasons above, it becomes legally necessary
Never to infringe in the first place, because of the cost, time and lack of guarantee
that any such error or unfair bias/ruling can be corrected. This can be prevented
by making consensus the standard. And although that seems hard or may seem impossible,
if it is not possible to form a consensus, then CERTAINLY the state should not be in charge
of making such a religious-based decision of picking one side's beliefs over the other.
The inability to form a consensus should serve as a telltale warning or sign of an error in judgment.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
.  You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when  it is pointed out that *sterile* opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.

Why do you hate sterile people?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 13, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


If you follow littlereb's postings over the years, he thinks he's some tough hombre with his keyboard threats.   But he's just a scared little boy afraid of the big bad world.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Why do you keep bringing up procreation in marriage threads?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

Consensus is that marriage equality is acceptable to majority of Americans, certainly to a super majority of millennials.

The issue is about marriage equality, not the philosophical nature of 'inalienable rights.'

You are correct that private suits often are placed under untenable costs


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Because, as lame as that argument is, Pop has nothing else.

He is whining to whine is all.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Dear C_Clayton_Jones
> ...



Hi CZ sorry I cannot answer all this right now due to work schedule.
I will go back and reply so thanks for all your posts and detailed responses.

in short
1. if one recognizes that political beliefs need to be handled by consensus to prevent infringements or discrimination by creed by onesided rulings while the other side dissents,
then this process does not protect both beliefs equally. Only consensus decisions at each step of the way would not impose an unfair bias toward one side's beliefs over the other and discriminate by creed.

If people AGREED to use majority rule to decide their creed, that is one thing.
But here people did not. they are still dissenting and will never agree to give up their creed
their beliefs in natural rights not taken away by govt , when they committed no crime and had
no due process.

Inthe case of health care mandates, the citizens losing the right to pay for helath care in other ways besides insurance were never proven to be criminal to have any criminal intent of not paying for health care,
yet are now taxed and fined unless they pay for health insurance under mandates that restrict their choices!

so this is against the spirit of the law and just was not established or proven in courts.
just like SLAVERY used to be legal and the courts had no authority except to return Property back to their lawful owners.

Just because it took a lot more than court rulings to end SLAVERY
did not mean that during that time, slaves "had due process" when the rulings came out
in favor of slave owners to have their property returned.

the law and court system isn't perfect.

2. NO, there IS a check on the people's authority:
There must be consensus on law where there are religious beliefs involved so nobodyis infringed upon
more or less than someone else, and any such laws reflect the CONSENT o f thosepeople.

So if there are any unresolved dissension or objections,
the conflict resolution and consensus building process catches those and compels them to be redressed.

Especially those who believe in enforcing Constitutional laws will use those as the standard that such agreements must abide by. consensus would ensure that any conflicts that threaten the consent or beliefs/interests of one partyor another would be rsolved first before passing and enforcing a law. Same with writing legal contracts that have to be rviewed first, and make sure people agree to what they are signing if you want it to be enforceable. The more people agree in spirit before they write and finalize a contract, the greater chance of sticking to that agreement and enforcing it instead of fighting over it later because something was missed. Why would anyone tryto enforce a contract knowing it has some huge flaw in it causing the other to protest and refuse the contract? clearly something is wrong if one side is protestng. Where is our common sense?

Gotta go sorry later!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

Religious opinion may never trump secular law in our constitutional legal system.

There is a wall between secular and religious, there is a wall between private and public.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...





Lots of straight couples can't or don't want to have children. I don't see your point....or maybe you just thought you had one???


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



I don't hate sterile people

Are you claiming same sex coupling don't procreate due to sterility?

Crazy dood, absolutely crazy


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Your not too bright, or in denial


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Hi CZ sorry I cannot answer all this right now due to work schedule.
> I will go back and reply so thanks for all your posts and detailed responses.
> 
> in short
> ...


You get that the responsibility of the l branch is not to represent the desires of the "the people", but the integrity of the Constitution, right?  The "need" the court *isn't *by consensus.  That's the point of the formation of the Judicial Branch was the recognition that sometimes even the majority of citizens can "get it wrong".  So, as a way to balance that to prevent discrimination by "rule of the mob" the Judicial Branch was designed to weigh laws against the constitution, and make sure they were in accordance.  If you feel that the rulings have been unduly "one-sided", perhaps you should consider the possibility that the problem is not with the courts, but with the laws that you keep trying to enact.  Just a thought...



emilynghiem said:


> In the case of health care mandates, the citizens losing the right to pay for health care in other ways besides insurance were never proven to be criminal to have any criminal intent of not paying for health care,
> yet are now taxed and fined unless they pay for health insurance under mandates that restrict their choices!


You get that the individual mandate as not about "intent", right?  No one *criminalized *not having insurance.  This was about off-setting the cost of medical treatment due to treating the uninsured.  The intent of ininsured to defraud the healthcare system is immaterial.  Whether intended or not, treating the uninsured was costing billions.



emilynghiem said:


> so this is against the spirit of the law and just was not established or proven in courts.
> just like SLAVERY used to be legal and the courts had no authority except to return Property back to their lawful owners.
> 
> Just because it took a lot more than court rulings to end SLAVERY
> ...


Actually slaves *didn't* "due process", because slaves had no standing as they were property, not people.  A horse cannot sue its owner.  That was kind of the point of the debates leading up to the Civil War - the personhood of slaves.



emilynghiem said:


> 2. NO, there IS a check on the people's authority:
> There must be consensus on law where there are religious beliefs involved so nobodyis infringed upon
> more or less than someone else, and any such laws reflect the CONSENT o f thosepeople.
> 
> ...


You are committing a couple errors here.  First, that consensus is always based on understanding of the Constitution.  It isn't.  I would submit that beyond the preamble, most Americans would have hard time even listing the seven articles of the Constitution without looking it up, let alone expressing a reasoned grasp of the concepts within those articles.  And we haven't even gotten to the 27 amendments of the Constitution, and how each of them affects the concepts they are related to in the in body.  So, to suggest that popular referendums are based on rational desire to protect the rights enumerated within the Constitution is naive, and badly overestimates the education, knowledge, and understanding of "the people".

Second you assume that everyone reads all of the contents of every measure that comes before them for public referendum.  Hell, our *legislators*, whose only job is to pass legislation, don't even do that.  What on Earth would make you think that average citizens, who are very busy living the lives - working, taking care of family, etc. - would take the time to do so?

And they aren't expected to.  You are still missing the fact that the check on popular referendum isn't the political system itself - it is the *Judicial Branch* of the government.  You see public referendum still part of the *legislative* process.  And the Judicial Branch was designed to be the check on the legislative process.  It's job is to ensure that any laws passed - whether by legislation, or by referendum - are, in fact, constitutional.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




What business is it of yours? If they want children, they can adopt.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I'm saying that either procreation matters, or it doesn't.  You don't get to pick and choose who procreation matters for, just because you happen to not like the behavior of one group.  That is called discrimination.

Anyway you want to cut it, dood, you are a bigot.

That's your right.  I just want you to be honest about it.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




So sad. but gay people will eventually be allowed to marry in every state.  You can continue to post bigoted threads, but I don't see you doing anything to change it.

Honestly, I don't know why you're so worried about something that's none of your business to begin with.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 is a busybody is all.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



So can opposite sex fertile couples, but same sex coupling cannot make a baby

Hmmmmmm, yep, huge difference, would you not agree?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 is a busybody is all.



Don't forget, your ignoring me


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Not to an intelligence person, no.

I am ignoring the legal arguments, because you have none.

I am amused, however, by the types of your posts I just answered.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Why do we make a daughter/father marriage illegal if procreation does not matter?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What does "coupling" and procreation have to do with the topic of marriage?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I don't give a shit who wants to procreate, who doesn't, or who can't or won't. When it becomes the law that we must procreate, in order to marry, you let me know.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> You get that the responsibility of the l branch is not to represent the desires of the "the people", but the integrity of the Constitution, right?  The "need" the court *isn't *by consensus.  That's the point of the formation of the Judicial Branch was the recognition that sometimes even the majority of citizens can "get it wrong".  So, as a way to balance that to prevent discrimination by "rule of the mob" the Judicial Branch was designed to weigh laws against the constitution, and make sure they were in accordance.  If you feel that the rulings have been unduly "one-sided", perhaps you should consider the possibility that the problem is not with the courts, but with the laws that you keep trying to enact.  Just a thought...



1. a. Yes I agree that the conflicts over unchangeable political beliefs
mean something is wrong with the law in that case and also
b. Something is missing from the Constitution
if we are not handling political beliefs with equal protection of the laws as a creed
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, but allowing the govt to take one side and impose it on the other
in cases of unresolved conflict. Something IS inherently wrong with that
and DOES require either a public agreement to interpret the First and Fourteenth Amendments
to recognize and respect political creeds, OR a Constitutional convention or Amendment if needed.

Something has to change because this system is not solving this problem as is, and it keeps coming up,
in different forms and issues, where the common factor I find is political beliefs that are not equally accommodated.



			
				CZ"[/QUOTE]
Actually slaves [B]didn't[/B] "due process" said:
			
		

> You are committing a couple errors here.  First, that consensus is always based on understanding of the Constitution.  It isn't.  I would submit that beyond the preamble, most Americans would have hard time even listing the seven articles of the Constitution without looking it up, let alone expressing a reasoned grasp of the concepts within those articles.  And we haven't even gotten to the 27 amendments of the Constitution, and how each of them affects the concepts they are related to in the in body.  So, to suggest that popular referendums are based on rational desire to protect the rights enumerated within the Constitution is naive, and badly overestimates the education, knowledge, and understanding of "the people".
> 
> Second you assume that everyone reads all of the contents of every measure that comes before them for public referendum.  Hell, our *legislators*, whose only job is to pass legislation, don't even do that.  What on Earth would make you think that average citizens, who are very busy living the lives - working, taking care of family, etc. - would take the time to do so?
> 
> And they aren't expected to.  You are still missing the fact that the check on popular referendum isn't the political system itself - it is the *Judicial Branch* of the government.  You see public referendum still part of the *legislative* process.  And the Judicial Branch was designed to be the check on the legislative process.  It's job is to ensure that any laws passed - whether by legislation, or by referendum - are, in fact, constitutional.



1. Doesn't it start with the people writing good laws and contracts first?
If we did this right, wouldn't we impose less burden on the judicial and leave that open to handle
real issues of govt that people cannot better resolve ourselves directly in private? 
See Code of Ethics for govt service: ethics-commission.net

How can we avoid passing bad or burdensome laws to begin with
which then burden the legal and judicial system with reviewing and handling lawsuits after the fact?

by the code of ethics we should employ the most efficient means of getting tasks accomplished.

Wouldn't it cost less to mediate and resolve conflicts in advance, not wait until afterwards to sue?

Citizens don't need to be educated on every jot and tittle of the laws,
but just know the basic Bill of Rights plus 14th Amendment
and the Code of Ethics and their local police and city/county ordinances and process,
and they can participate equally. Most grievances or process of law should fall
within those basic guidelines i find to be the MINIMUM required of citizens to be legally responsible.

otherwise we backlog our system with crimes, abuses and lawsuits from violations
because people either don't know the laws and obligations or the cost of the process.
We would save more time, resources and damages/debts to the public
by mediating to resolve conflicts and prevent infringements including criminal and civil violations of laws.

By educating citizenry on the standards of law and what the process are and how much they cost.

2. Also note that the system of using the legal/judicial system to check against abuses
has been skewed by corporate interests and legal resources/connections being unequal.

Corporations or even private citizens who can afford legal resources
can buy their way out of accountability. Even lawyers have known this
and have been fighting their own system in an uphill battle where justice is for sale
financially and politically. This is well known the legal and judicial system is run by politics and money.

We cannot depend on that "after the fact" to resolve conflicts or restore/correct anything gone wrong.

The only way to guarantee equal protections is to work toward PREVENTION of violations
in the first place. if we PREVENT the infraction or conflict from imposing on one party's interests unequally
then those interests can be protected equally as the opponents interests.

There is no guarantee of correcting and restoring justice after the infraction occurs,
so the system is not equal. 

this has long been a problem. Look at rape victims who get put on trial along with their offenders.
This is still considered the best justice system in the world,
but it doesn't prevent crime or abuses by relying on this "after the fact."

True protection of rights is going to come from
teaching people what the laws are, how to enforce standards consistently
and how to redress grievances and resolve conflicts directly to try to
curb, correct and prevent violations in advance and reduce damages after the fact.

We cannot keep expecting our judicial system to clean up afterwards.
Look at our courts backlogged, our prisons and our immigration system
for people waiting on due process.

We need to stop the backlog of unnecessary conflicts jamming up the system
so it can be reserved for the cases of public security and safety that govt is supposed to handle. 

The civil conflicts need to be prevented and managed
by conflict resolution or we'll always have this backlog and people
getting away with injustice because it takes so long to address and doesn't act as a 
guaranteed correction much less a deterrent.

Basing decisions and lawful conduct on "consent of the governed"
would act as an immediate check with immediate consequences
where both parties that agree to this standard get it protected for them,
instead of gambling on majority rule or court ruling where it is not guaranteed.

Agreeing to go by consensus would ensure that between those parties.

*and yes I agree that consensus is based on Constitutional standards,
(and I also throw in the Constitutional ethics under the
Code of Ethics for Government service); I would base the standards
of laws on that and urge that all citizens be equally knowledgeable and
trained in this process in order to enforce their equal rights under law.*

How can we be "equally protected under law"
if citizens don't even know how the laws and govt
work, and what the standards are for due process?

No wonder we are unequal and people can be taken advantage of politically
to depend on politicians in parties and govt to make decisions for them!

There is no shortcut to teaching people the laws in order to be equal under them.
Even to delegate authority to other people to govern, they would need to have basic knowledge
in order to check their own govt and hold lawyers, judges, leaders and other party/govt officials accountable.

I don't see a shortcut to that, because as soon as people depend on someone else,
they are not equal in power. They must at least be given the choice and access
to help to be legally and politically equal in power with equal voice in decisions
"in addition" to the choice to delegate or hire out this authority to another party to represent their interests.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



And the blind should be granted drivers licenses.  

Okey dokey then.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...





Huh, whaaaa?


----------



## Desperado (Oct 13, 2014)

*Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases*
A very simple way of the Supreme Court saying they want no part of this decision and are shamelessly avoiding their responsibility to make a decision.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

Fallacy of false comparison, Pop, try again.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


See?  You hate the sterile.  Not only are you making a distinction between homosexuals, and straight people, but, with this very post, you are pointing out "fertile" couples.  Why do you hate the infertile?  Why do you hate people who have had hysterectomies?  Why do you hate people who have had vasectomies?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Because we are a nation of moralistic busybodies.  I thought we already established this...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

The evangelical busy bodies of the far right think they have a moral right to make others live according to the very small minority standard.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

1. 





Czernobog said:


> I*sigh*  I swore I wasn't going to get into this, but, okay.  Here is the problem, Emily.  It is a matter of definition.  I could go through all seven of the process individually, but suffice to say that defending "right to life" is nothing more than misleading rhetoric.  A fetus does not meet the criteria for being an independent life.  it is a mass of *living cells*, but it is not, itself, a life.  This is why "pro-life" is a misnomer, and why advocating for banning all abortions on the grounds of "right to life" is erroneous.  In the case of a pregnant women there is only *one* life in question - the woman's.  The fetus is nothing more than a *potential* life.  I'm sorry, I am going to be more concerned over the natural rights of the *actual* life, than I am the *potential* life.
> 
> And, again, you can, and did have your right to defend these positions in court. You seem to be confusing being allowed to have your day in court with winning your argument.  They are not the same thing.



Yes, by your secular beliefs you are perfectly in line to set the legal definition on person as you did.
And equally for those with religious beliefs, they have the right to DEFEND their beliefs (as backed 
scientifically that the DNA is UNIQUE upon conception if they choose to draw the line there).

I agree that such religious beliefs CANNOT BE IMPOSED through govt,
but likewise neither can the secular beliefs be imposed.

Where I find prolife people agree is on prevention.
Even without being forced by laws, the prolife believe in abstention, adoption, etc. to prevent abortion.
So this shows that preventing abortion can be achieved by FREE CHOICE and does not depend on bans by laws.

None of the prolife people depend on bans on laws to prevent abortion, but are opposed by free choice.
So that is the argument I make for prochoice, and it is hard to argue with because all the prolife people do so by free choice.
I point to their movement as PROOF that abortion can be stopped by education and free choice as they practice themselves.

Arguing about their beliefs will go in circles because that will not change and govt cannot force them to change their beliefs.
Working on prevention respect both prochoice and prolife equally, and does not discriminate by creed.
So that approach is more constitutionally inclusive and agreeable and able to be enforced across the lines.

I respect your views equally as those who believe otherwise,
which I include as protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

If people choose to hear  your reasoning and follow it, that's great,
but it is equal to people choosing to hear their beliefs and choosing to follow it or not;
it cannot be endorsed by govt but must remain a free choice since religious beliefs are involved.

When people agree to back down on their religious beliefs, I will back down from defending their equal religious defense.
As long as they believe those things, this has to be worked out by consensus where they choose to change their approach.



CZ"[/QUOTE]
Once again there is no bias going on.  You have had your chance to bring every one of your issues before the courts said:


> Again, you can "make" any laws you want - as the marriage bans prove.  However, once you are done making those laws, the Judicial Branch gets to do its job, and adjudicate whether those laws are Constitutional, or not.  You seem to be suggesting that the "will of the people" has supreme authority", without restriction.  Guess what?  It doesn't.  The authority of the "people" ends at the Constitution.  The people do not get to enact laws that contradict the rights innumerated in the Constitution, regardless of how much some would like to.



Not according my understanding of the Code of Ethics for govt service:
1. people should NOT put partisan agenda before the Constitution (I consider this a violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments by counting political beliefs as a creed)
2. passing laws first then fighting to correct after is NOT the most efficient use of tax dollars and public resources
3. ex: the marriage bans were already unconstitutional and should not have been passed which wasted time and resources

So you can use this system to check overreaching and abuse of govt *in advance*
that doesn't meet Constitutional muster or Constitutional ethics.

Conflict resolution would catch and correct most errors in advance that can be corrected or prevented.

Also, someone recommended a Con amendment that before Congress passes any new laws especially
creating a new authority or system, that a vote must be taken if this is Constitutional or not.

I think that is a good idea.

Not only would it show if there is a consensus or not,
but allow people to show they are opposing it on Constitutional grounds (and I would require them to correct
the fault and not just block for the sake of objecting) and not opposed to the health care or content of the bill.

Ex:
I am not opposed to gay  marriage but oppose the imposition of it using laws and language
that excludes other people's beliefs and is not secularly neutral enough to prevent religious issues or conflicts.

I am not opposed to health care reforms and believe in free choice, so if people want single payer
systems they should have a way to set that up for those who agree;
but I oppose imposing a system that denies and punishes equal choices of others to fund
and manage health care systems of their beliefs as well.

So this might help stop the fights over the content
and focus on the Constitutionality of how laws are written or how they can be corrected or separated
to allow equal beliefs to be protected from discrimination or imposition on each other.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The evangelical busy bodies of the far right think they have a moral right to make others live according to the very small minority standard.



Ahem isn't this also said of the left by the right,
ie gay marriage, health care mandates, etc that reflect a leftwing bias toward THOSE political beliefs.

Or do you only count ONE side as having beliefs
and the other side doesn't because it is secular?

Like theists are prohibited from imposing their beliefs as a recognized religion
but Atheists are protected because that is secular and not considered a religion.

Are we really going to argue about this?


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
> .  You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when  it is pointed out that *sterile* opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.
> 
> Why do you hate sterile people?



What about the argument that the partnership between male and female
complementary genders is necessary for social development of children.

And the issue is that not all people recognize the same sex partners
as "male/female" spiritual complements (some cases do consider themselves male/female in roles)

CZ if you are going to argue that legally a person's definition should not be changed
to something on a spiritual level in the case of a baby/fetus/right to life,
can you understand that some people cannot change definition of marriage
to recognize same sex couples on a spiritual level?

Some people cannot think that way, it goes against their inherent beliefs.
It may not make logical or legal sense to you and me,
but neither does our inclusion of same sex couples make sense to them.

Can we really expect to use govt to force a change
when it is religiously embedded as part of their beliefs?

NOTE this cannot be compared with race,
because some people are healed of unwanted attractions who change orientation
but I have never heard of someone changing spiritually to another race after going through healing transformation.

orientation is on a spiritual level
but race is physically born and cannot be exactly compared


----------



## HenryBHough (Oct 13, 2014)

How many of your tax dollars are going toward government research into equality of fertility?  That means allowing male/male or female/female couplings to produce offspring.  The agenda already calls for inter-species fertility research when the #1 priority above is "mission accomplished".


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 13, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding private placement groups, thats not what I've read regarding the Catholic church in Massachusetts for example.
> ...


all that verbiage and you really didnt clear anything up.
For the ones still running, can they deny adoption to gay couples?.....for the one that closed did it do so in regard to gay marriage?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 13, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



From my understanding, yes they function and assist with private adoptions.




dcraelin said:


> for the one that closed did it do so in regard to gay marriage?



Nope didn't have to do with same-sex marriage.  It had to do with the fact that Catholic Charities received tax payer dollars under contract to function as a governmental entity.  When informed they would have to accept homosexuals applicants to continue under contract, they decided not to take the contract.  Which was of course was their right to do.

They also choose though that without close the agency instead of functioning as a purely private entity.


>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The evangelical busy bodies of the far right think they have a moral right to make others live according to the very small minority standard.
> ...



You don't get it, do  you?  State and church are separated, period.  Ethics and values, atheist and theist, inform the basis for individual philosophies of government, yes, which can triumph only by the vote or by the court.

No one has any moral obligation to build consensus with those who are wrong in law.

ACA is legal.  Marriage equality is legal.  No one has any obligation to carve out a "but corner" for those who disagree.  That is not how our political system works.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> I think you misunderstand my position, Emily.  the fact is from my perspective it is irrelevant whether homosexual is genetic, or a lifestyle choice.  Either way, it is a behavior that is private, and personal, and has no business being regulated in any way.  The abortion question is one of conflating words to mean things that they simply do not mean.  But, I'm not gonna get into the pro-choice vs anti-choice, here, because that is an entirely different argument, an d would fill an entire thread all by itself.
> 
> So, let's just stick to homosexuality, and marriage, shall we?



Thanks CZ I agree to keep this private and out of govt.
And am even willing to offer the option of writing the state laws to be truly neutral
so that marriage and all the differences and conflicts stay in private hands and decisions and out of courts and legislatures,
except where people AGREE on the language and laws. 

if it can be resolved without pushing it that far, that's fine,
but the people in each state have to agree. If any ONE person or group claims
their religious freedom or equal rights is abridged, to me, that is unconstitutional 
and whatever is wrong with that law needs to be corrected before it is considered public.



			
				CZ said:
			
		

> I actually like your idea, except there is one small problem with the statement of your understanding of the positions:
> 
> Let the liberal/Democrat party be used to fund manage and endorse
> gay marriages and health care through singlepayer insurance
> *that is mandated for all their members who choose to pay into it under those terms.*​To the bold:  You get that under "Single Payer" there would be no need for mandating, or "members paying into" anything, right?  The whole point of single-payer is that healthcare is all government-funded.  Now, it would mean raising taxes on the top 1%, and corporations.  Well...boo-fucking-hoo.  I am sick to death corporatists whining about how put out corporations, and CEOs are.​




And CZ the problem with public funding is not everyone agrees on public policies of what to fudn with health care:
* stem cell research
* abortion
* birth control
* euthanasia
etc.

You made it clear your beliefs about when does life begin clash with other citizens equally protected
under law who cannot be made to fund things against their beliefs or it runs into Constitutional violations and conflicts

So this is why it will not work without a consensus.
So why not separate by party so people can form a  consensus.

As for Singlepayer, why not restrict the network and membership to just those people who agree
to that system. The Democrat party has levels of representation and democratic process on all levels
from local to state and national. Why not use that system to fund their own health care networks,
prove it works first, before selling the idea to others voluntarily participating and choosing to fund it.




			
				CZ said:
			
		

> Let the Republican/Tea party be used to manage free market
> health care through church nonprofit and business programs through schools
> and manage their members by voluntary participation and enterprise that way
> without mandating things *they believe are not govt jurisdiction.*​To the bold:  You see, this is the real problem between progressives, and so-called "Social Conservatives".  We have fundamental, antithetical opinions on what "government jurisdiction" is.  Thus, in order for this to work, you would need to spell out, *exactly,* what you think those are.  For instance, on that abortion issue.  I think that every Republican should be forced on the record, clearly, what his opinion is on abortion, and abortion clinic closing legislation If they had to do that, I think you would be surprised how many votes they lost from what they previously *thought* were "conservative women".



Yes i agree we need to come out and resolve this on each issue separately.
and not lump them together in a political war for one party over another.
hash out each issue and agree on solutions and limits on what we support govt to do or not.

I find more Republicans will respect the prochoice position as part of Constitutional freedom
provided this is not abused to promote abortion but more work is done to prevent abortion,
and for prolife people that means 100% prevention.

I agree to seek to enforce that standard of 100% prevention by free choice in order to keep it a legal chioce
and not rely on bans or other regulations that people do not agree with.

If we make the commitment to prevent abortion, that is the real goal.

if we work out each issue in full, we can reduce or prevent deadlocks over legislation that is missing the points.

I think this is VERY necessary to agree what is and what is not agreed upon by the public to be govt role and policy.

The decriminalization of marijuana,
the immigration policies depend on agreeing where to draw lines
and how to prevent infractions without overreaching.

other issues would benefit from recognizing we don't all "draw the lines in the same places,"
so we need to agree where do we focus to solve and prevent problems.

Thanks CZ
if they legalize cloning I'd like to clone you Dante and others
to have a citizens review and go through all these laws people argue over
and hash out where the lines are being crossed and how to untangle them.

We need this process x 1000!
Seriously thanks for your help to go through and sort this out, appreciate it!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

" It had to do with the fact that *Catholic Charities received tax payer dollars* under contract to function as a governmental entity. When informed they would have to accept homosexuals applicants to continue under contract, they decided not to take the contract. Which was of course was their right to do."

That is why the LDS Social Services got out of the adoption business.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

Emily, I admire you patience and your willingness to look for a conclusion that has a "consensus" that can be accepted by almost all citizens.

Our political system, however, creates winners and losers: always has, always will.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 13, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


In other words...  you do not have an effective response to the argument that marriage as a legal iinstitutiion is a privilege created by the state, not a right.
So noted.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Emily, I admire you patience and your willingness to look for a conclusion that has a "consensus" that can be accepted by almost all citizens.
> 
> Our political system, however, creates winners and losers: always has, always will.



Like wise our class system has always created slavery.

But there are systems in place, such as microlendingl/business training
and building coops and schools that have wiped out poverty and trafficking one region at a time.

Likewise there are Many Many programs of conflict resolution, restorative justice and restitution/healing
that have saved relations from being lost to one side dominating the other and costing them more.

The only thing missing is taking the local solutions, which can be proven to work on a small scale,
and showing how this can be replicated to cover more cases collectively on the large scale.

In fact, this process is already happening.
For each case above, where one person or community breaks free from poverty and slavery,
this allows others to gain support to grow in that direction so it builds and multiplies.

JS even if we always have inequality, always have two year olds and teenagers
who are not equal to adults and senior mentors,
we can have a school type system set up to accommodate all levels and stages
of social and political development. So each person in each class can move up.

They don't have to waste resources fighting in conflict.
those same resources can be invested in a sustainable system
of growing independent citizenry and communities
just like microlending and fair trade coops have done in poorer countries than our own.

Thanks and I hope your efforts multiply as well as part of this progress!


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


 
Hey M14 Shooter 
can we agree to address both issues
1. both the civil marriage institutions and process through govt
2. the spiritual beliefs about marriage and partnerships that is part of religious freedom
and not mandated or regulated by govt

Can we agree to respect #2 as inherent as part of human nature, where people cannot expect to use govt to
change or impose on people's private beliefs,
and then try to address how to deal with laws under #1 
so it doesn't impose on #2 for any side or beliefs but all are respected equally without infringement one way or another


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 13, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Not sure how any of this relates to the point in question.
Do you know what that point is?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

A fallacy of false comparison of marriage equality "our class system has always created slavery."

A fallacy of false comparison of marriage equality "microlendingl/business training
and building coops and schools . . .".

that have wiped out poverty and trafficking one region at a time.

"Many programs of conflict resolution, restorative justice and restitution/healing" is done first and foremost in our political elections, within the shelter of the Constitution.

We are discussing marriage equality, not age inequality, school systems, or moving up socially.

There are not going to be a disintegration into multiple societies and communities with different laws and semi-autonomy.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



I'll say it again, sterile or not, they belong a part of the opposite gender coupling demographic. 

Are you trying to claim that same sex couples cannot procreate because they are sterile?

Truth is, the two groups are not even close to being equal. Not my word, but biology made it so. 

Keep squirming. It's cute


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> A fallacy of false comparison of marriage equality "our class system has always created slavery."
> 
> A fallacy of false comparison of marriage equality "microlendingl/business training
> and building coops and schools . . .".
> ...



So Jake votes in favor of giving the blind drivers licenses.

Got it


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

Above is an example of the disintegration of Pop into mental masturbation, which feels good for him but leads only to sterility of the same argument over and over and over, all of which leads to the his type of comment immediately above.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The disintegration of Pop into mental masturbation, which feels good for him but leads only to sterility of the same argument over and over and over.



^^^^Jakeoffs ignoring me, but comments about me a lot. 

Strange


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > A fallacy of false comparison of marriage equality "our class system has always created slavery."
> ...




Driving is a privilege.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> You don't get it, do  you?  *State and church are separated, period.*  Ethics and values, atheist and theist, inform the basis for individual philosophies of government, yes, which can triumph only by the vote or by the court.
> 
> No one has any moral obligation to build consensus with those who are wrong in law.
> 
> *ACA is legal.  Marriage equality is legal.[/b[  No one has any obligation to carve out a "but corner" for those who disagree.  That is not how our political system works.*


*

These two sections in bold contradict each other.

1. ACA crosses over "separation of church and state"
where health care involves spiritual and religious beliefs.
Just because you do not recognize these beliefs equally:
a. right to health care through govt as a belief
b. right to free market health care as a choice by natural rights and freedoms that
govt cannot deprive without first proving that someone committed a crime
Doesn't mean these beliefs don't exist.
They are both CREEDS
And the Fourteenth Amendment protects against discrimination by CREED
but the ACA establishes no penalty for people who believe in paying under federal mandates
and penalizes those who believe in paying for health care through other means by free choice.

This can be passed as law and still discriminate by CREED.
Gay marriage BANS passed as law and still discriminate by CREED.
Slavery was protected by law and still discriminated,
and was only enforced because people BELIEVED in that institution.
The people who felt this was against their BELIEFS
were in the meantime having their equal freedom violated.

Just because a law is passed or courts rule in favor
doesn't mean that decision is perfectly lawful.

2. for marriage equality
as long as marriage is through the govt
then both beliefs about marriage should be equally accommodated to represent the public
which involves spiritual and religions beliefs

So the same reason the bans are not constitutional
neither is the establishment of gay marriage through the state
constitutional unless all citizens agree since religious beliefs are involved.

otherwise this violates separation of church and state
by favoring and establishing one view over th e other and discriminating by CREED

3. correction: this is how our govt DOES "NOT" WORK

this isn't working if one or both sides is either
risking or getting their beliefs violated by imposing the other beliefs through govt.

that is not equal protection of the law
but is discriminating by creed, by the govt favoring one side in a religious dispute.

so it is not constitutional, not unless all citizens under that
law agree since religious beliefs are involved.

Sorry I think the problem boils down to:
I recognize political beliefs as protected creeds
but others like you do not and feel it is within
govt jurisdiction to decide FOR people
while I hold it is unconstitutional, as it would be for religious beliefs.

I treat secular, political, personal and religious beliefs
equally as beliefs or creeds
so that I do not discriminate unfairly against someone
just because their beliefs are not part of a recognized group.

The Constitution does not just protect religious freedom
for only recognized religions or too many people would be left out.

To be fair and inclusive of all people equally under state jurisdiction,
it makes sense to me to interpret beliefs/creeds openly to
mean anyone's inherent beliefs, values or interests
so that person is protected equally by law regardless of label or creed.

I happen to find that interpretation is more consistent
and more respectful/inclusive of people regardless of views,
where I believe govt should be neutral and objective that way
in order to live up to Constitutional standards of law, equality and ethics.

If other people want to follow a lower standard, I cannot impose mine on them.
But likewise I request that they don't impose their lower standards on 
me that violate my belief in equal protection of the laws for all people
based on consent of the governed. Where people don't consent,
I ask to resolve conflicts until they do agree it is settled, 
to make sure no one's beliefs or interests are excluded violated or discriminated against. 

If everyone did that, we'd have a saner more effective govt.*


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



That's the best you have?

LMAO


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It's a license


----------



## bodecea (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...





Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What does coupling and procreation have to do with a legal marriage debate?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...





One that you must pass.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Ask those that made incestuous marriage illegal. k?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Demonstrating ability


----------



## bodecea (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


How, pray tell do you get that from this discussion? 

A blind person does not meet the criteria for getting a license....seeing road signs, seeing traffic, being able to look both ways before pulling out of a cross street, etc.

What criteria to legal marriage does a gay person/couple not meet?


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> 1. "Many programs of conflict resolution, restorative justice and restitution/healing" is done first and foremost in our political elections, within the shelter of the Constitution.
> 
> 2. We are discussing marriage equality, not age inequality, school systems, or moving up socially.
> 
> 3. There are not going to be a disintegration into multiple societies and communities with different laws and semi-autonomy.



Sure, I would like to see TRUE conflict resolution done through parties BEFORE elections and voting on laws.
I agree this would keep it orderly, especially where there are collective disagreements split by party.

Trouble is, we aren't fully resolving issues.
But I agree with you, using the party system organized around elections, yes that is where I would focus!

2. You said that we would always have these problems.
And I was trying to say that setting up a school system (for training people
in managing self-govt and conflict resolution locally)
would address these problems as they arise so we don't keep falling into the same conflicts.

3. No, the point is the opposite.
it is to organize sustainable structures locally so there is order.

Just like we have multiple states under one union.
or multiple cities or counties under one state.

localizing and teaching self-govt is the opposite of disintegration.
it is teaching how to integrate more fully without losing individual rights and representation.
it is about maximizing both the benefits of local govt and benefits of centralized federal govt
by not getting in conflict over their roles and jurisdiction but using each level effectively.

since systems, interests and populations will change over time,
to make this sustainable that is why I would tie in
govt and financial/legal training with schools
to educate and adapt to each community and generation.

Whatever problems or conflicts arise,  this is studied and resolved
by the local community first, and sharing with other communities
if the problem is systemic or greater than one group can solve on its own.

if you catch conflicts or issues early, the more effectively this can be addressed.
we still keep the federal state and party structures, but use them all in harmony
to maximize our resources. and quit wasting on conflict trying to one up each other by domination.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


If laws against incestuous marriage bother you, you should start a campaign....don't you think?  As for marriage....what does coupling and procreation have to do with a legal marriage debate?  

(a hint on your "incestuous marriage" schtick....incest is illegal with or with out marriage....is being gay illegal with or without marriage?


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
Hi Carla_Danger
Can you find the posts between M14 Shooter and Czernobog?
I asked can we distinguish between
* the civil marriage and process that is through the state/govt
* the spiritual beliefs and religious customs of marriage
that are the personal freedom of each person (inherent by human nature, not given by govt)
and not for the state/govt to mandate or regulate

if you keep focusing on the civil marriage through the govt,
as long as that is public policy then all the public has the right to be represented equally.
so if people do not agree on their personal beliefs, those do not belong in the hands of govt to decide.

people are equal on the level of religious beliefs
but this must remain either out of govt policy
or people must agree how to write the laws
to include all people's beliefs.

it is only fair, if beliefs in same sex marriage are included
so should beliefs that do not support this. so the laws
should be neutral or where people agree on them and don't impose on each other's beliefs.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Your silly argument has nothing to do with marriage.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



My question on this:
if it is NOT okay to use marriage to promote homosexual couples or parents as socially accepted as a norm
why is it OKAY to use marriage to promote heterosexual coupling and procreation

shouldn't govt stick to the secular civil contracts
and avoid  being in the business of establishing ANY such social beliefs 
that are personal and up to people not govt to endorse?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> [My question on this:
> if it is NOT okay to use marriage to promote homosexual couples or parents as socially accepted as a norm
> why is it OKAY to use marriage to promote heterosexual coupling and procreation
> 
> ...



As far as religion is concerned about marriage, it is no place in the public forum in making law.

I agree that civil unions can be registered as such rather than marriage, which be used equally by theists and atheists in calling their unions such.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > 1. "Many programs of conflict resolution, restorative justice and restitution/healing" is done first and foremost in our political elections, within the shelter of the Constitution.
> ...



Conflict resolution in our society is done by voting in the public forum.

Trouble is, we aren't fully resolving issues.
But I agree with you, using the party system organized around elections, yes that is where I would focus!

You example of a school system in terms of conflict resolution is already in effect in its organization and by laws to resolve issues.

Marriage as it is constituted does under the law promote stability in our society.

We have localizing in our republican forms of governments.

I suspect training in all field will continue to the reason for schools and universities.

We are not going to undermine the federal system with a return to state and local primacy in laws wherein the conflict with SCOTUS interpretation of such.

If our republican form of government reaches consensus resolution at the community and state level, good.

Where it does not, we have the federal court, legislative, and executive systems..


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Hi Jake glad you have so much faith in the system as is.
I have faith in where the system is going but not where it is stuck right now.

Do you even acknowledge the inequality with the justice system?

* unequal if not missing access to legal resources so that minorities are jamming the prisons
in a masked genocide killing poor families and communities by incarcerating their parents and preventing them from work
* people like my own friend Barbara who died before seeing justice
from her property taken by playing games with guardianship and estates through probate courts
(in her case, she was deprived of legal rights to petition by unilaterally declaring her
a vexatious litigants based on "mental assessment' that was never done by any professional doctor using any legal protocol
Because Barbara, like other victims of legal, elderly and disabled abuse, never had adequate defense,
she got railroaded and robbed by family members who did have political connections with judges on their side
* conflicts of interest with bar associations, lawyers and judges and campaign contributions.

You are either really trusting in the higher justice to deliver karma beyond what can be proven
by due process in courts,
or you do not count these cases of legal and judicial abuses and "justice delayed"
as "justice denied"

I am considered VERY naive and idealistic in my faith that conflicts can still be resolved
and I INCLUDE all these nasty conflicts of interest that have no place in any system we can call ethical!

Are you looking at the same information I see,
and still saying that we "have conflict resolution and it is working.

Really?

Are you not counting the people in prison right now,
forced into plea bargains because of lack of legal knowledge, defense and resources?

Do those people's rights and lives just "not count"
in whatever equation you are using to say this = equals justice?

Are they just "expendable losses" so this fault in the system is "just how it is."

Really?
So who is to decide what is "equal protection"
and what cases count as just too bad?

I don't see this as equal, Jake.
You may be content with the piece of the pie you are getting,
but to me an injustice to anyone means something needs to be fixed.

What I wish, Jake, is that everyone had your same peace of mind
BEFORE competing to cheat someone out of their pie,
so nobody would steal or defraud others, but would be as content as you are,
seeing all things as exactly as they should be and not fighting unnecessarily.

But NOT being this complacent AFTER wrongs are committed,
assuming everything must be okay as long as it doesn't affect us directly!
As long as other people are suffering in conflict,
somehow that must be their fault?

Jake do you really think the system is adequate,
when people are writing books exposing the generational genocide
and "New Jim Crowe" system run by the prisons and criminal courts?

Whatever reality you live in, you must be blessed
for none of this to affect you. the people I know
working to change the criminal justice system,
for either inmates, convicts, crime victims or survivors
have their hands full trying to address all the problems
that needed to be corrected years ago and still aren't fixed.

The level of conflict resolution I believe in with Restorative Justice
would address not only govt but also the therapy, counseling,
treatment, healing, cure and prevention of crime -- both by individuals
and govt abuses and corporate conflicts of interest.

*so until you see all crime and abuses corrected or prevented,
NO, Jake,
the system is NOT good enough to protect equal rights
and security for all people, if there are still abuses,
crimes, and corruption going on that could be
earlier discovered, corrected or prevented.*

You may be content to let this keep happening to
"other people"  (and to let govt address it "after the fact")
but to me, equal protection of the laws
means preventing crime or abuse from happening in 
the first place, whenever and wherever that can be helped.

I'm not sure how you view this sector of the population.
Do you see them as bringing on their own problems?

Why does it not concern you that miscarriage of the law,
disproportionately or wrongfully punishing the wrong person,
be corrected by conflict resolution, instead of letting preventable
errors keep rolling through until the system corrects itself?

Do you really have that much faith the system already works?
Or do you have no faith that raising the standards
on conflict resolution would have any effect, so it would be the same?

Can you please explain why you
think the legal system is fine the way it is?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > You get that the responsibility of the Judicial branch is not to represent the desires of the "the people", but the integrity of the Constitution, right?  The "need" the court *isn't *by consensus.  That's the point of the formation of the Judicial Branch was the recognition that sometimes even the majority of citizens can "get it wrong".  So, as a way to balance that to prevent discrimination by "rule of the mob" the Judicial Branch was designed to weigh laws against the constitution, and make sure they were in accordance.  If you feel that the rulings have been unduly "one-sided", perhaps you should consider the possibility that the problem is not with the courts, but with the laws that you keep trying to enact.  Just a thought...
> ...


Uh...okay...I'm not even sure what you mean here.  The Court is pretty consistent in its position that the 14th applies to anyone, and everyone.



emilynghiem said:


> CZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're right.  A political ideology *isn't* a religious "belief". You get that a political "belief' is based on the understanding of *the law*, and not a matter of "faith", right?  That's the whole point of the judicial system - to adjudicate whose understanding of the Law is accurate.  I'm sorry if you feel your understanding is not being validated enough by the courts.  However, I would, again, submit that this has more to do with the positions you choose to take, than some alleged slight on the part of the courts.



emilynghiem said:


> And equal beliefs in "natural rights under limited govt"
> and "keeping marriage outside the govt and private only"
> would be EQUALLY protected if recognized as a valid belief or creed.
> 
> ...


Sorry, Emily, but your claim to believe in "...limited government" would carry a whole lot more weight with me, if you weren't defending the ideology that wants to require government mandated vaginal probes, and sonograms on its female citizens.

As to your believe that government should stay out of marriage, sorry that ship has already sailed.  And it wasn't something that happened with same-sex marriage, or even with _Loving v Virginia_.  Government being involved in marriage is a practice, and policy that goes all the way back to the middle ages.  Government has a vested interest in marriage.  that is simply how it is.  The only way to remove that vested interest is to also remove from the government any interest in property, and taxes.  Good luck with *that*...



emilynghiem said:


> Both sides would benefit.
> CZ do  you think this could be recognized by teaching to interpret the First and Fourteenth Amendment
> to apply to political beliefs? Or are there some people so literalist that they need Congress to pass
> a written Amendment and/or judges in court to rule on it.


No, I don't agree.  Look, saying that everyone has a right to their views is not equivalent to saying that they do not have to accept consequences for those views.  And, sometimes, that consequences is being told, "You're an idiot".  You have every right to believe that grass is green, because every morning the "Little Green Grass Fairy" comes out, and paints each blade with her little paint brush.  I, as a man of science, am perfectly within my rights, when you try to force public policy to reflect that belief, to tell you that you are a fucking moron.  I am not required to give your opinions, whether religious, or ideological, equal weight of every other opinion, regardless of the factual precision, or lack thereof, of the opinion, all in the name of ideological tolerance.



emilynghiem said:


> How was slavery changed, did it wait on a Congressional law or Court ruling first?
> Or was it forced by war and executive order first, and then the Amendment 13 followed after
> (and 14th Amendments and Civil Rights acts after that).
> 
> ...


I suggest we follow the example set by Thomas Jefferson, and recognize that there is a "wall of separation" between the two, and that while the courts, and congress cannot dictate that people be forced into a particular religious belief, the religious also do not get to dictate that we *govern* according to a particular set of religious moral beliefs.



emilynghiem said:


> CZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And, yet, we get laws, like these marriage bans, that conflict with the Constitution.  So, it would seem that you may be advocating a nice ideal, but the reality may never reach that ideal.



emilynghiem said:


> Citizens don't need to be educated on every jot and tittle of the laws,
> but just know the basic Bill of Rights plus 14th Amendment
> and the Code of Ethics and their local police and city/county ordinances and process,
> and they can participate equally. Most grievances or process of law should fall
> ...


But, that's just it.  The citizenry obviously *isn't* educated (and, if some of the comments from the right are any indication, aren't *interested* in being educated) on the 14th amendment, and subsequent case law, or they wouldn't keep trying to pass laws that deprive people of their equal protections.



emilynghiem said:


> 2. Also note that the system of using the legal/judicial system to check against abuses
> has been skewed by corporate interests and legal resources/connections being unequal.
> 
> Corporations or even private citizens who can afford legal resources
> ...


Okay.  Now you're talking about an entirely different issue.  You do understand that criminal law, and constitutional law are two very different things, right?  As this is a discussion of the constitutionality of marriage bans, I am going to choose to not comment on criminal law, and the accountability of criminals based on fame, money, or lack thereof.  That is a completely different issue.



emilynghiem said:


> True protection of rights is going to come from
> teaching people what the laws are, how to enforce standards consistently
> and how to redress grievances and resolve conflicts directly to try to
> curb, correct and prevent violations in advance and reduce damages after the fact.


I don't disagree.  However, you can't "force' people to become better educated.  So, as long as people continue to allow their feelings, and religious
leanings inform their ideas of what should, and should not make for legitimate law, we are going to need the Courts to continue to step in, and remind them that they simply do not get to do what they are trying to do.



emilynghiem said:


> We cannot keep expecting our judicial system to clean up afterwards.
> Look at our courts backlogged, our prisons and our immigration system
> for people waiting on due process.


I patently disagree.  Not only *can* we expect the courts to do this, but we *should* expect the courts to do this.  that is what they are there for.



emilynghiem said:


> We need to stop the backlog of unnecessary conflicts jamming up the system
> so it can be reserved for the cases of public security and safety that govt is supposed to handle.


Ahhh...but you see the question is "What is unnecessary"?



emilynghiem said:


> The civil conflicts need to be prevented and managed
> by conflict resolution or we'll always have this backlog and people
> getting away with injustice because it takes so long to address and doesn't act as a
> guaranteed correction much less a deterrent.
> ...


You still have things backwards.  You seem to have this really naive veiw of the "governed" that demands that anything they do, so long a s it is done by majority vote *must* be the right thing, simply by virtue of the fact that it was done by majority vote.

I'm reminded of the Nixon interview with David Frost that I watched as a kid, when Frost asked what should be done when the President does something illegal, and my jaw just dropped, when Nixon replied, "If the President does it, it can't be illegal".  he actually believed that no matter what he did, it was made legally legitimate, by the mere virtue of the fact that it was the President of the united States doing it.

Now, you seem to be suggesting something very similar about the "consensus of the governed".  Any law passed, *must* be a Constitutionally legitimate law, by virtue of the fact that the majority passed it.  That is simply not true.  Even the founding fathers didn't trust the "tyranny of the majority"; this is why they created the electoral college for electing a President.



emilynghiem said:


> *and yes I agree that consensus is based on Constitutional standards,
> (and I also throw in the Constitutional ethics under the
> Code of Ethics for Government service); I would base the standards
> of laws on that and urge that all citizens be equally knowledgeable and
> ...


Again, I don't disagree with your sentiment here, but there is simply no way to force people to learn what they do not wish to learn.  So, unless you are suggeting that no one who does not demonstrate this basic understanding of government, and civics should be allowed to vote (and good luck with *that* as it, in itself, runs afoul of the 14th amendment), then the only viable solution is the one we have:  Allow people to pass whatever laws they want, and then count on the courts to determine the constitutionality of those laws.  Does that mean that we're (any of us, at any given time) going to disagree with a courts ruling?  Sure.  But, in order to have those rulings respected that we *do* agree with, then we have no choice but to respect those rulings with which we do *not* agree.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

Emily, you make assumptions on things I never said and never intimated.  I do think the system is having to work its way through the morass that extremists have caused because they don’t believe in a social compact that my generation in almost its entirety believed in implicitly..

We have real problems in this country, and some of it is as exactly as you describe.  The only way for the system to work the way  you want it to work is if all Americans want change for the better and do it from the top down. 

Of course the justice system is unequal, and will remain so as elites are allowed to corrupt it, through money and lobbying. I am fully aware of the injustices perpetuated in the name of family, community, and religion.  The Barbaras of the world will only be saved by those who want to save the Barbaras.  Most of them would not know such a change if it bit them in the nose.

Only our legislatures and courts can reform the ills you see only if our citizens come to realization that too many people are being hurt by elitist groups.  Small government cannot do it from bottom up.

I have my “piece of the pie” because I worked for it and stole from no one, so I am not burdened with false guilt.

I wish you well with Restoration Justice, but do not confuse that with movements such as ACA or marriage equality.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Emily, you make assumptions on things I never said and never intimated.  I do think the system is having to work its way through the morass that extremists have caused because they don’t believe in a social compact that my generation in almost its entirety believed in implicitly..
> 
> We have real problems in this country, and some of it is as exactly as you describe.  The only way for the system to work the way  you want it to work is if all Americans want change for the better and do it from the top down.
> 
> ...



1. OK I misunderstood and thought you were saying the current legal and democratic system
is "adequate with conflict resolution," when I saw it as obstructing and deny justice and due process.

2. i am saying that the conflict resolution approach would have PREVENTED
the deadlocks over ACA and gay marriage by working out the objections in advance of passing laws.

So I agree that the ACA and marriage equality movements are NOT using the Consensus model
for resolving conflicts to arrive at agreed laws and contracts.

And that is what I am saying is WRONG and MISSING.

The current legal and legislative system is allowing and REWARDING
bullying tactics that obstruct the true democratic process of redressing grievances and reaching agreements on policies.

You can say it is the people abusing the system,
and I AGREE that the same system CAN be used to mediate and form consensus.

But as long as govt and people keep endorsing and enforcing one sided decisions as law
this is legalizing political bullying, fraud and discrimination, so no, I don't agree that it is "okay" to keep
using the system this way and to "teach that's just the way it is."

Even if bullying happens in schools, we can't turn a blind eye but have to intervene and teach that it is wrong.
So when are we going to get serious about cracking down on political bullying and say it is wrong to deny the equal right of consent by others by coercion until they comply? How can adults do one thing but expect to teach kids another?

So you are right, the laws I contest do NOT respect equal consent of the governed.
So that is what I am saying is wrong with how we are using the system. Thanks JS!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



O I C

Gays could always marry


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

No, in a major evolving nation state with technology and software that are evoling every 18 months a limited government from bottom to top system can't work because it will create too many different players.

Our republication government of elected president and representatives and senators with a federal judicial system is by far the best system to work this out.

Once again, representation for resolution at state and federal levels in a federal system.

Your proposal would cause the system to spin apart from too many players with power.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


uh, no, they don't.  At least not as a matter of law.  That's kind of the point of the "separation clause".



emilynghiem said:


> I agree that such religious beliefs CANNOT BE IMPOSED through govt,
> but likewise neither can the secular beliefs be imposed.


You're quite right, which is why no one is avocating *mandated* abortions.  Telling you that you do not get to decide for other women what they can, and cannot do is not imposing anything *on you*.



emilynghiem said:


> Where I find prolife people agree is on prevention.
> Even without being forced by laws, the prolife believe in abstention, adoption, etc. to prevent abortion.
> So this shows that preventing abortion can be achieved by FREE CHOICE and does not depend on bans by laws.


You may be advocating *choice* (sort of), but you are certainly not supporting *liberty*.  Your position says, "You are free to make any choice you want to...so long as *we* approve of that choice,"  Guess what?  Liberty to choose, means that you also have to be okay with people making choices that you, personally, may not agree with.  That's what makes it liberty.



emilynghiem said:


> None of the prolife people depend on bans on laws to prevent abortion, but are opposed by free choice.
> So that is the argument I make for prochoice, and it is hard to argue with because all the prolife people do so by free choice.
> I point to their movement as PROOF that abortion can be stopped by education and free choice as they practice themselves.


And bully for you.  guess what?  If you don't want to have an abortion don't have one.  However, you don't get to make that choice for *other people*.



emilynghiem said:


> Arguing about their beliefs will go in circles because that will not change and govt cannot force them to change their beliefs.
> Working on prevention respect both prochoice and prolife equally, and does not discriminate by creed.
> So that approach is more constitutionally inclusive and agreeable and able to be enforced across the lines.


Well, except I notice that there was one choice that you, rather pointedly, neglected to mention - contraception.  I would also submit that "adoption" is not really a viable alternative to abortion.  The fact is some women do not want to be *pregnant*. It's not about not wanting to be a mother, it is about not wanting to be *pregnant*.  And, that is a perfectly valid position.  Abortion is not necessary because of a lack of education.  Abortion is necessary because people have a right to do what they wish with their own bodies, *without judgement from others*.



emilynghiem said:


> I respect your views equally as those who believe otherwise,
> which I include as protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.


I respect your beliefs.  What I do not respect is you, or anyone else, attempting to force others to behave in accordance with your beliefs.



emilynghiem said:


> If people choose to hear  your reasoning and follow it, that's great,
> but it is equal to people choosing to hear their beliefs and choosing to follow it or not;
> it cannot be endorsed by govt but must remain a free choice since religious beliefs are involved.


Precisely the point of our position - everyone must have the right to make that decision on their own.  Which is why we oppose all of these efforts to criminalize abortion.



emilynghiem said:


> When people agree to back down on their religious beliefs, I will back down from defending their equal religious defense.
> As long as they believe those things, this has to be worked out by consensus where they choose to change their approach.


Again, you are conflating attacking a person's religious beliefs, with attacking a person's attempt to *legislate everyone's behavior based on those beliefs*.  Those are two different things.  And, no, it is *not* something that gets to be decided by consensus.  I don't care if 99% of this country is in agreement on a religious moral position.  The first amendment guarantees us 1% that the religiouss of this country do not get to dictate that we live in accordance with their religious beliefs.



emilynghiem said:


> CZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, if that is the case and you feel you have a valid argument to present, then I encourage you to suit to the court, and let your case be heard.



emilynghiem said:


> I would contend that my views of ISONOMY are even MORE constitutional inclusive and fair
> than the given system. Unlike politicians and lawyers and judges, I respect the consent of
> all sides equally, and try to include them in a solution that satisfies and protects them equally.
> 
> ...


That's just it.  Your claim would seem to suggest that you do not have quite the understanding of the Constitution that you think it does.  It is not the Judicial system's job to protect your beliefs.  It is not the Judicial System's job to protect *my* beliefs.  It the the Judicial system's job to protect the integrity of the Constitution, no more, no less.  If in doing so, your beliefs are not justified, I would submit that the fault lies not with the judicial system, but with your attempt to legislate your beliefs.



emilynghiem said:


> Until this standard is followed, my rights get overrun constantly.
> I want the right to separate the health care policies by party so I can equally protect
> beliefs on both sides without conflict, yet don't have this choice while both sides are fighting to dominate.


You get that is not how our government is set up, right?  We don't have a "Democrat" government, and a "Republican" government.  We have one government, with two political parties.



emilynghiem said:


> So I start by forming a consensus among the people and try to work through the parties to reach an
> agreement on a broader public scale. this respects my beliefs in consent of the governed.
> I have to practice what I preach in order to enforce it. I cannot violate my own beliefs by bullying
> by coercion majority rule or political dominance in the media,  parties, courts etc. which violates my belief in consent.


Well, you are certainly free to try to get a majority of people to see things as you do.  Good luck with that.



emilynghiem said:


> CZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL!!!  You are joking, right?  You would be absolutely right - *if* anyone in our political system actually followed this "Code of Ethics" you keep referring back to.  Now, let's try a little reason, and logic, shall we?  *If* that code e actually being employed, do you think these marriage bans would have been passed , in the first place?  Now, I'm all for a little fantasizing about how things "ought to be", but, at the end of the day, we have to deal with reality, as it is.  So, I'll tell you what.  As soon as you get every lawmaker, and politician to agree to govern according to this code of ethics of yours, I'll be happy to join you in your little experiment.  Until then, I will continue to trust the judicial system designed by the Constitution to stop the laws that are unconstitutional from being implemented.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
> ...


And no one is asking them to.  Marriage is a* social contract, *that is guaranteed to everyone regardless of race, gender, or sexuality.  All of the religious objections are irrelevant, as those religious concepts *only matter to the religious bodies to whom they apply*.  No one is asking any religion to change that.



emilynghiem said:


> Some people cannot think that way, it goes against their inherent beliefs.
> It may not make logical or legal sense to you and me,
> but neither does our inclusion of same sex couples make sense to them.


Then those people should absolutely not marry someone of the same sex.  no one is suggesting forcing them to; only that they don't get to stand in the way of the people who *don't* feel that way.



emilynghiem said:


> Can we really expect to use govt to force a change
> when it is religiously embedded as part of their beliefs?


No, we can't.  And we don't.  Lemme put it this way.  How does John, and Steve down the road getting married affect *your personal religious views* even one iota.  Does that suddenly force you to abandon *your* position?  Does it suddenly make *your* deity invalid?  Is *your faith* tied to *those two gentlemen* partaking in a simple civil marriage ceremony?  Because, frankly, if it is, then the problem is your faith, not their marriage.  If it isn't, then why should you give a shit?



emilynghiem said:


> NOTE this cannot be compared with race,
> because some people are healed of unwanted attractions who change orientation
> but I have never heard of someone changing spiritually to another race after going through healing transformation.


No they're not.  Gay conversion therapy has been repeatedly debunked, and proven to be nothing more than snake oil.  Not only does it not work, but it has been demonstrated to actually *cause* emotional, and psychological damage.  Sorry.  This argument that "the gay can be cured" is just another lie sold by religious zealots.



emilynghiem said:


> orientation is on a spiritual level
> but race is physically born and cannot be exactly compared


No it's not.  See above.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > I think you misunderstand my position, Emily.  the fact is from my perspective it is irrelevant whether homosexual is genetic, or a lifestyle choice.  Either way, it is a behavior that is private, and personal, and has no business being regulated in any way.  The abortion question is one of conflating words to mean things that they simply do not mean.  But, I'm not gonna get into the pro-choice vs anti-choice, here, because that is an entirely different argument, an d would fill an entire thread all by itself.
> ...



Guess what sweetheart?  That is the down-side of taxes.  My taxes go to pay for a lot of shit that I don't personally agree with.  However, I understand that I don't get to personally pick and choose how my tax dollars get spent, like selecting off a menu.  That's just reality.  



emilynghiem said:


> So this is why it will not work without a consensus.
> So why not separate by party so people can form a  consensus.


We don't need to separate to form a "consensus".  A "consensus" is a majority.  We did that.  Just because you happened to not be in that majority, doesn't mean that you get to pack up your toys, and leave.  If you don't like the way our government is run, then by all means, leave.  Find a country with a better government.  But you don't get to fuck with ours.  Ours works just fine as it is.  I'm kinda with Churchill on this: Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.



emilynghiem said:


> As for Singlepayer, why not restrict the network and membership to just those people who agree
> to that system. The Democrat party has levels of representation and democratic process on all levels
> from local to state and national. Why not use that system to fund their own health care networks,
> prove it works first, before selling the idea to others voluntarily participating and choosing to fund it.


You get that you are basically advocating dissolving the United States, and dividing us into two nations, right? You don't get to do that.  sorry, the Constitution doesn't have an "out clause".  The Southern States tried this once - it didn't work out so well for them.




emilynghiem said:


> CZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





emilynghiem said:


> Yes i agree we need to come out and resolve this on each issue separately.
> and not lump them together in a political war for one party over another.
> hash out each issue and agree on solutions and limits on what we support govt to do or not.
> 
> ...


Yeah...I dealt with your restrictive idea of "choice" in another post.  I don't see any reason to deconstruct it, again.



emilynghiem said:


> If we make the commitment to prevent abortion, that is the real goal.
> 
> if we work out each issue in full, we can reduce or prevent deadlocks over legislation that is missing the points.
> 
> I think this is VERY necessary to agree what is and what is not agreed upon by the public to be govt role and policy.


You see.  It's not my job to *prevent* abortion.  The fact is that I couldn't give so much as a single flying fuck what a woman does, or does not do with that mass of cells in her womb.  It's her body, and she can damned well do what she wants.  You see, you seem to have this idea that, if we all just thought about it, we would all agree that abortions should be prevented at all costs.  Why?  The only reason for... No.  You know what?  I'm gonna actually make *you* answer that; I'm not gonna do it for you.  However, I will give you this little hint.  If you start with anything resembling "baby", "life", "child" or any of that bullshit, you will have lost me, already, because a fetus is none of those things.  So.  Go ahead.  Tell me why I should care about preventing abortions?



emilynghiem said:


> The decriminalization of marijuana,
> the immigration policies depend on agreeing where to draw lines
> and how to prevent infractions without overreaching.
> 
> ...


But my point is, when it comes to the law, we *should*.  The Law is about protecting *me* from *you*.  That *is* the line; and, whenever we cross that line, we invariably do so at the cost of individual freedom.



emilynghiem said:


> Thanks CZ
> if they legalize cloning I'd like to clone you Dante and others
> to have a citizens review and go through all these laws people argue over
> and hash out where the lines are being crossed and how to untangle them.
> ...


No problem...


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


No.  In other words, I think you're full of shit, and I think you *know* you're full of shit.  Missouri floated the idea of doing just this.  Do you remember?  They were so pissed off that they had to accept gay marriages, that they just said, "Fuck it!  We just won't recognize *any* marriages, then!"  The few Republican  extremists who suggested that were politely told, even by their own party, to "Sit down, and shut the fuck up,"

But, hey!  If you think that is a viable way to get around this icky Gay Marriage thing, by all means, you try that.

Lemme know how it works out for ya.

And you lemme know how long it takes for you to run up against that Full Faith and Credit clause.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 13, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Well, you're getting there.  Now all you have to do is finish the thought:  "Yes.  I'm a bigot who hates homosexuals, and am going to look for any excuse I can to justify discriminating against them".

C'mon.  I know its hard, but you can do it...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2014)

It's OK for folks to say, "I hate homos and will oppose marriage equality to the day I die."  And we can say, "It's your right to do so even if you are wrong, and we have the right to stick our fingers in our ears and wiggle them at you, cross our eyes, and stick out our tongues."  Then we can ignore each other.


----------



## Youch (Oct 14, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Um, states rights is the fundamental basis of our Constitution.  Does that need to be explained? 

Let's focus the issue here, as many drive-by posters fail to take into proper context previous discussions.

If you are asking me to justify activists courts, I cannot do so constitutionally.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 14, 2014)

Youch said:


> Um, states rights is the fundamental basis of our Constitution.  Does that need to be explained?
> 
> Let's focus the issue here, as many drive-by posters fail to take into proper context previous discussions.
> 
> If you are asking me to justify activists courts, I cannot do so constitutionally.


Okay.  Explain something to me, like I'm a five year old.There have, to date, been 19 same-sex marriage ban cases brought to the Federal District Courts.  Since you are so absolutely certain that the question of marriage validation is solely the purview of the States, is it your contention that the attorneys for the States have, in every case, been complete morons, with no understanding of constitutional law?

If not, then how do you explain that, not in one case, has that argument been raised?  Why has not one case been argued that the Federal Courts had no jurisdiction in the question of marriage?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 14, 2014)

Youch said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



Well, at least you are consistent. Most of the other anti gay bigots say those three cases were not judicial activism and only same sex marriage rulings are. Kudos for consistency.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 14, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



I happen to know a few infertile couples that were born that way, but still you only want to keep gays from adopting children. That's pretty bigoted, there fella. 

As to the Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, I do believe Worldwatcher has already debunked that bovine feces. Look to the facts next time, not the anti gay spin from anti gay sites. 

You need to accept the fact that gays *are *raising children. I've got a 12 and 14 year old and have given birth to three more children for a gay male couple. Guess what? Our kids are doing fine. In fact, all the reputable studies show that our children are at no disadvantage to children raised by heterosexuals. There is no difference in outcomes between straight and gay parents.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 14, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



That'll be a long wait...but the fact that procreation is actually prohibited for some couples when they marry destroys all of Pop's silly little "arguments" about procreation and civil marriage.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 14, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


I've posted elsewhere links to how studies fail the public....a whole book has been written on the subject called "wrong"[title?]. I think especially on this kind of subject studies out of college campuses are biased,...in your direction. Regardless this isnt an issue that the courts should determine. I am sure you do the best you can with your children. I generally have less of a problem with lesbians raising children than with gay men.  But I think the best environment for children is a heterosexual couple.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 14, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Not always....but in many states we can now.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 14, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> I've posted elsewhere links to how studies fail the public....a whole book has been written on the subject called "wrong"[title?]. I think especially on this kind of subject studies out of college campuses are biased,...in your direction. Regardless this isnt an issue that the courts should determine. I am sure you do the best you can with your children. I generally have less of a problem with lesbians raising children than with gay men.  But I think the best environment for children is a heterosexual couple.


This has got to be the most uneducated, biased response to any argument I have ever heard.  What you basically said was, "I don't care what any study demonstrates, I know what I know, and you cannot distract me with facts,"

Unfortunately, you are one of those people who will never change.  You will die a bigot (and you can claim you are no one all you like, it won't change what you are), because no amount of evidence will ever convince you that your emotional, visceral reaction to homosexuality informs you inaccurate view of the ability of homosexuals to raise children.


----------



## jillian (Oct 14, 2014)

Youch said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



there was no point made that required response. trying to teach bigots the error of their ways is like trying to teach a pig to talk.... it doesn't work and it annoys the pig


----------



## BullKurtz (Oct 14, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Unfortunately, you are one of those people who will never change.  You will die a bigot (and you can claim you are no one all you like, it won't change what you are), because no amount of evidence will ever convince you that your emotional, visceral reaction to homosexuality informs you inaccurate view of the ability of homosexuals to raise children.



You homosexuals have already wreaked havoc on the US with your AIDS and Hep C.....thankfully most who died were the queers themselves, but enough damage was done for the filthy practice to have seen the laws against it ENFORCED instead of ignored.  BTW it's easy for perverts to cry "bigotry" when confronted with their disgusting behavior....I'm also an EBOLA BIGOT by any sane definition.  And we're not fooled by the attacks on Christianity...it's all coming from queer atheists who deny they have offended God and are DOOMED...they are the true "bigots".


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 14, 2014)

BullKurtzUSMC said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, you are one of those people who will never change.  You will die a bigot (and you can claim you are no one all you like, it won't change what you are), because no amount of evidence will ever convince you that your emotional, visceral reaction to homosexuality informs you inaccurate view of the ability of homosexuals to raise children.
> ...




Now that is a new one for the bigots...gay people are like Ebola? Geez you people are nucking futs.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 14, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Your opinion runs contrary to facts...which is why you are losing in Federal Courts AND the court of public opinion.


----------



## BullKurtz (Oct 14, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Now that is a new one for the bigots...gay people are like Ebola? Geez you people are nucking futs.



Geez....you "people" can't seem to get over calling normals "bigots"...limited vocabulary or afraid not to follow the sore butt crowd?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 14, 2014)

BullKurtzUSMC said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Now that is a new one for the bigots...gay people are like Ebola? Geez you people are nucking futs.
> ...



No, we call bigots bigots. If the shoe fits...


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 14, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > I've posted elsewhere links to how studies fail the public....a whole book has been written on the subject called "wrong"[title?]. I think especially on this kind of subject studies out of college campuses are biased,...in your direction. Regardless this isnt an issue that the courts should determine. I am sure you do the best you can with your children. I generally have less of a problem with lesbians raising children than with gay men.  But I think the best environment for children is a heterosexual couple.
> ...


It is too bad you feel that way.........the reflexive habit of those on your side of the argument to call people bigots is despicable.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 14, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


It has certainly not been demonstrated that I am losing in the court of public opinion...but that is the court that should decide this or we end up undermining the American system that has made us great.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 14, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Your opinion runs contrary to facts...which is why you are losing in Federal Courts AND the court of public opinion.
> ...



*2000*
California pass Prop 22 as Statutory Law with a margin of victory of approximately 22%.

*A Decade Ago:*
States were passing bans on SSCM (Same-sex Civil Marriage) with, IIRC, margins of victory of 23-76%.

*2008/2009*
California passed Prop 8 (2008) with 52.5% voting Yea and 47.5% voting No.  That means a change of only 2.5% was needed to change the outcome.  Maine passed Question 1 (2009) with 52.5% voting Yea and 47.5% voting No.  That means a change of only 2.5% was needed to change the outcome.  

*2012*
Four States had Marriage Equality on the General Election ballot, Marriage Equality won in all for States (Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota).  The margins had shifted the other way to measure passing by about 2.5%.  NOTE 1: Maine repealed it's own law only 3 years later.  NOTE: Minnesota's measure was a ban on SSCM, which was defeated.


************************************

Polling Report -->>  Civil Rights

Not only is SSCM winning at the ballot box, but national poll after national poll show a consistent shift toward marriage equality.




OK, what do you have based on recent data, not 10-year old data?



>>>>


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 14, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Bigot - a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp. on religion, politics,or race.  Considering your intolerant insistence on your opinion of homosexuals in spite of studies to the contrary, with which part of of that description do you take issue?


----------



## Youch (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




Exactly.  But if you could teach a pig to talk, I bet she would understand how millions of citizens just lost their voice, vote and rights, something completely un-American and against our Constitution, our law. 

But I can see how you would fail to find that something worthy of a response, as it would require understanding of the law and of the previous posts made in this thread on the subject.

For everyone else. do you see how emotion is a dangerous thing?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 15, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Sorry, but if the shoe fits, wear it proudly or are you ashamed of your bigotry?


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 15, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Well then you should not be afraid of a vote instead of using the courts. .....I think that the public would surely be more than happy to go along with civil unions with most aspects of marriage.  Tho I also think, and hope, that under closer examination in a public vote they would reject a gay marriage right based approach.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Bigot - a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp. on religion, politics,or race.  Considering your intolerant insistence on your opinion of homosexuals in spite of studies to the contrary, with which part of of that description do you take issue?


Where's your "tolerance" of me and my views asshole? Where's your consideration of the book and studies questioning the bias of numerous studies?


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 15, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


If the shoe dont fit....you must acquit.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 15, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Ah, but I do believe it does  fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 15, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


I dont believe it does. I think it just points to a concerned citizen wanting the best for his country. 

But if it makes you feel better to call me names thats on you.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 15, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Yeah, those folks opposed to interracial marriage thought they were wanting what was best for the country too. They didn't think they were bigots either.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Bigot - a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp. on religion, politics,or race.  Considering your intolerant insistence on your opinion of homosexuals in spite of studies to the contrary, with which part of of that description do you take issue?
> ...


You can *have* whatever views you want.  No one is telling you you don't get to *be* a bigot; only that you don't get to force everyone else to behave according to your bigoted views.



dcraelin said:


> Where's your consideration of the book and studies questioning the bias of numerous studies?



You mean, the book whose name you can't even remember, let alone whether you are citing it accurately?  You mean That book?  I think the fact that you can't even cite the source says everything about how much consideration your "source" deserves.

Tell you what.  when you can actually give us an actual source, I'll be happy to go see what it has to say.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 15, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Bigot - a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp. on religion, politics,or race.  Considering your intolerant insistence on your opinion of homosexuals in spite of studies to the contrary, with which part of of that description do you take issue?
> ...



You're asking a leftist to think? They're operating on pure emotion. Notice all the name calling directed at you? A thinking person dismantles an opponent's argument, a leftist calls you names.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Oct 15, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> BullKurtzUSMC said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Yeah...Kurtz seems to have gone off the deep end.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Finishing another sentence for you


.......is like teaching fools which gender to have sex with.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Homosexuality is not a race


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop is not sentient.


----------



## BullKurtz (Oct 15, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Ah, but I do believe it does  fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.



And independent judiciary was never meant to be an activist judiciary......for the last time, VOTES WERE CAST, your argument was defeated.   It didn't mean you were to be rounded up and shot.  All it meant was that you would not be allowed to pervert the concept of marriage.   Yet enough judges believed they had superiority over the ballot ie the will of the people.    You can't say you respect the Constitution and allow this just because you're hot for sodomy.    Call us bigots and we'll call you queers....who really cares...nobody is neutral on this anymore.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 15, 2014)

BullKurtzUSMC said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, but I do believe it does  fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.
> ...



So you don't care if something passed by voters is unconstitutional? If California was to, say, prohibit handguns via referendum, you wouldn't expect it to be challenged and found unconstitutional even though it was passed by a majority of Californians? 

Wow...you're gonna call me queer? Gosh, I don't think I've ever heard that before. It'll hurt so much.  

You can call me anything you want. You can think anything you want about me...what you won't be able to do anymore is discriminate against me based on your animus towards gay people.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Women are not a race either.  Yet civil rights laws pertain to gender.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 15, 2014)

And to age, young and old.

And, Bull, the voters, either democratically or by republican representation, cannot vote away civil rights except by the Amendment process, which, by Article III, the SCOTUS is not bound.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 15, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Don't you have some female gamers to harass?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> And to age, young and old.
> 
> And, Bull, the voters, either democratically or by republican representation, cannot vote away civil rights except by the Amendment process, which, by Article III, the SCOTUS is not bound.


I bet we've got some here who would support an amendment to repeal the 14th.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 15, 2014)

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And to age, young and old.
> ...



Right here. When "Independent" women marry the government and vote to use force to extract wealth from me and direct it to them so that they can be independent women who don't need men then they're misusing the power of their vote in a way that the Founders never intended. The nation wasn't set up as a frigging commune where people share their income with others via government redistribution.

If women can't vote responsibly then they shouldn't vote. Sad for the women who do vote responsibly though.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 15, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Ive linked the book before, but here it is again.
Wrong Why experts keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them Scientists finance wizards doctors relationship gurus celebrity CEOs ... consultants health officials and more David H. Freedman 9780316087919 Amazon.com Books

Just read a story today in Discover magazine how when a number of cancer cell lines for scientific study were found to be misidentified,the scientist who propagated them sent out 69 letters to other scientists to cease using them, only 2 replied.  10,000 citations a YEAR are using studies made from these faulty cell lines.  Now this is in an area of study that is very fact orientated. Studies about how well kids do in gay-marriages I think by nature are less objective.


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 15, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Well some leftists..............I consider myself a leftist..........but you are right in that the gay-marriage advocates are pushing this idea less on law and logic than on emotion.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



And all women can marry. 

Your slipping


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


They can't marry each other in all states... not yet,... but they will soon... you lost.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 15, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


So, the 14th amendment only guarantees equal protection for *races*?  I'm sure that all of the women who have sought the 14th amendment protection on several issues will be thrilled to hear that; as will the disabled, and non-Christian religious,.  That is a very interesting, if somewhat limited, view of "equal protection" you have there, pal.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 16, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Okay.  So, no study ever can be trusted is your contention?  That's convenient, as that means that you can then ignore any empirical data that doesn't happen to fit with your personal world views.

Yeah...I think we're done...


----------



## ShackledNation (Oct 16, 2014)

BullKurtzUSMC said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, but I do believe it does  fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.
> ...


The rights granted by the population are not subject to popular vote. You can not vote away free speech. You cannot vote away free press. You can not vote away the right to own a gun. You cannot vote away the right to a fair trial. You cannot vote away equal protection of the law and due process.

An independent jury is as much a check on the voters as it is on the government. The constitution trumps any popular vote.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 16, 2014)

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And to age, young and old.
> ...


Of course some would so vote such an amendment.

They would lose.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 16, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


His idea of equal protection is that it protects his right to screw people over.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...


Interesting.   As if you want government to dictate which gender we are "allowed" to have sex with.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 16, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You want to dictate that all women can only marry men.  As if you were afraid that given a choice, women wouldn't choose men?


----------



## jillian (Oct 16, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I think he can't help himself from bonking men unless the government says he can't.

now watch them tell us they want "small government"... unless of course it's imposing their butt backward "morality" on others.


----------



## TrueMan (Oct 16, 2014)

Gay marriage is in fact a threat. A threat to our morality and our society. We can't legalize same-sex marriage, we shouldn't !!! The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist--namely, the union of a man and a woman.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 16, 2014)

jillian said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Ironically, many years ago, I was listening to a radio interview with the President of the CWA (Concerned Women of America)....she clearly stated that if Gay Marriage was legalized (this was about the time of Prop 22 here in CA) that there would be nothing to stop droves of women from divorcing their husbands to marry other women.   I was, like, WTF!   Does she really fear that the only think keeping women straight is keeping gay marriage illegal?????


----------



## bodecea (Oct 16, 2014)

TrueMan said:


> Gay marriage is in fact a threat. A threat to our morality and our society. We can't legalize same-sex marriage, we shouldn't !!! The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist--namely, the union of a man and a woman.


Sorry, my friend, but my wife and I are already legally married.


----------



## jillian (Oct 16, 2014)

TrueMan said:


> Gay marriage is in fact a threat. A threat to our morality and our society. We can't legalize same-sex marriage, we shouldn't !!! The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist--namely, the union of a man and a woman.



your morality is your own business. and if you think discrimination and bigotry are the only things protecting you, then your "morality" has far greater problems than not abiding by the constitutional requirement of equal protection can ever face.

out of curiousity, did you whine the same way in the 70's when the court made you wingers stop trying to outlaw inter-racial marriage?

the arguments were the same then.... and people like you are still trying to interfere with things that are better left to your churches (though I doubt jesus would approve).


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 16, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Ive linked the book before, but here it is again.
> ...



NO my main contention is that this issue is better left up to voters.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 16, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Civil rights are not subject to majority vote...thank goodness.

(Fewer than 20% approved of interracial marriage in 1967)


----------



## bodecea (Oct 16, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


So, you think we should be able to vote on civil rights?


----------



## dcraelin (Oct 16, 2014)

bodecea said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > NO my main contention is that this issue is better left up to voters.
> ...



In short, Yes.  Of course the founding generation voted already to give us the Bill of Rights, and every state has its own bill of rights voted on by the founders of those states, and I would not do away with those.


----------



## Youch (Oct 17, 2014)

jillian said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You're losing credibility with each post.  Please reverse the trend.


----------

