32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[martybegan]

You keep trying to equate race with sexuality, and keep failing with the exception of the old "It affects me, I like it, and thus is should be OK" line of argument.

No, I'm equating discrimination with discrimination. Not my fault if bigots stay the same through the ages..,their target just changes.

But you only care about "discrimination" that affects you, and your vajayjay extra-curricular activities.

 

[Seawytch]

That basically eliminates 90% of health code laws, building codes, and a host of other laws that create regulation. Most of those are based on a CHANCE of societal harm, not proven harm.

it's interesting that only when it comes to government acceptance of how you use your genitalia that you get all "they have to prove the harm to pass the law" and your positions on other things seem to tend to the more progressive "make government force them to do it" mantra.

I'm telling you how it works in regards to civil rights and you want to bring up the completely separate issue of regulations? Non sequitur much?

It's simple, if you want to keep a fundamental right from a group of people, you have to justify it. You can't.

 

[Seawytch]

But you only care about "discrimination" that affects you, and your vajayjay extra-curricular activities.

No, I care about my legal marriage being treated just like yours.

 

[alpine]

"Gay marriage". The the next step for queers is to "adopt" a little boy, to get their hands on a little boy. That's what this insanity is really all about.

Considering the statistics, still safer than the church..

 

[Skylar]

The Court is ruling on these stays because they are consistent with the wording in Windsor 2013; while allowing gay marriages to happen in the interim is inconsistent with Windsor 2013.

The court didn't say that. You did. The court said nothing regarding why it issued the stay.

You're quoting yourself as the Supreme Court again. And that rarely works out for you.

 

[Skylar]

they love judges when they want them to come out in their favor

how about that HOBBY LOBBY ?

losers

I think Hobby Lobby was a fantastic ruling. I really like how it's being used by non-christian groups.

I don't know about fantastic, but it was correct, and yes that idiot was saying all gays are pedophiles. So stupid.

I think eventually what will happen is that SCOTUS will give the right to states.I WISH what would happen is that they would just strike the word marriage from all government documents.

It would make things simpler.

SCOTUS already did that in Windsor when it struck down Section Three of DOMA via the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; i.e., it retroactively accorded the several states the power to define marriage as each sees fit and determined that the federal government must recognize each of the several states' definition in terms of federal laws and programs.

Save of course that the WIndsor court never even addresses the issue of the constitutionality of state gay marriage bans, let alone authorizes them.

If you believe otherwise, by all means quote the decision and show us where it indicates that gay marriage bans are constitutional.

 

[Skylar]

Homosexuals are not merely demanding equal treatment. They are demanding that the sexual practices of their relationship be officially recognized by the state and, consequently, be imposed on others in violation of the latter's inalienable rights of free-association and private property. It doesn't matter what any entity of government stupidly and, by the way, tyrannically declares. Nature defines marriage, not the state. Reality is impervious to the degeneracy of political expedience. The only legitimate state of marriage is heterosexual, and ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty.

They are asking nothing more and nothing less than equal protection under the law: that their unions be recognized as anyone else's would be. Recognizing a gay couple's marriage doesn't impose anything on anyone. It harms no one. Nor is there any particular reason to deny a gay or lesbian couple legal recognition of their union as marriage.

 

[Skylar]

The slippery slope argument they're making has no merit because they're claiming that the slippery slope starts with legalizing gay marriage, where in reality, if you're going to resort to any slippery slope argument, you have to acknowledge that the slippery slope starts when you legally recognize marriage at all.

Yup...blame the SCOTUS for ruling on Loving. The 14th is where your "slippery slope" began. Some guy even "warned" that the potential for interracial marriage existed once the 14th was passed. He was right.

The 14th is where the States were forbidden from violating the constitutional rights of citizens of the United States. And every State citizen is also a citizen of the United States.

Why would we want *any* level of government able to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Considering the statistics, still safer than the church..

And who was molesting all the little boys in church, genius? Queer male priests? Yes, yes I think that was it.

 

[alpine]

Considering the statistics, still safer than the church..

And who was molesting all the little boys in church, genius? Queer male priests? Yes, yes I think that was it.

Hmm, interesting perspective...

Do you any stats? How many homosexual priests there are?

 

[Skylar]

That basically eliminates 90% of health code laws, building codes, and a host of other laws that create regulation. Most of those are based on a CHANCE of societal harm, not proven harm.

it's interesting that only when it comes to government acceptance of how you use your genitalia that you get all "they have to prove the harm to pass the law" and your positions on other things seem to tend to the more progressive "make government force them to do it" mantra.

I'm telling you how it works in regards to civil rights and you want to bring up the completely separate issue of regulations? Non sequitur much?

It's simple, if you want to keep a fundamental right from a group of people, you have to justify it. You can't.

And that's the part that breaks the anti-gay marriage argument rather consistently. There is no rational 'why'. They want to keep a fundamental right from a group of people because they have kept a fundamental right from a group of people.

Also known as 'tradition'.

And that's not good enough.

 

[Plasmaball]

The slippery slope argument they're making has no merit because they're claiming that the slippery slope starts with legalizing gay marriage, where in reality, if you're going to resort to any slippery slope argument, you have to acknowledge that the slippery slope starts when you legally recognize marriage at all.

Yup...blame the SCOTUS for ruling on Loving. The 14th is where your "slippery slope" began. Some guy even "warned" that the potential for interracial marriage existed once the 14th was passed. He was right.

The 14th is where the States were forbidden from violating the constitutional rights of citizens of the United States. And every State citizen is also a citizen of the United States.

Why would we want *any* level of government able to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens?

because they might be muslim...or Mexican, or maybe black..It depends.

 

[Plasmaball]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.

Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.

race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".

the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.

They are not the same thing......but discrimination is still discrimination

Of course marriage in and of itself is an inalienable right of nature, not merely a civil right. Notwithstanding, as a right exercised under the aegis of the government's official recognition, it is a civil right subject to regulation, for a number of reasons, all of which go back to nature: the genetic concerns of marriage between siblings or first cousins, for example, the concerns of parental authority relative to the age of consent and so on. . . .

On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please? That's why the notion that the recognition of homosexual marriage would necessarily lead to the state officially recognizing polygamy is absurd. In terms of the state's official recognition, bigamy is illegal. The government will only officially recognize one marriage at a time, and one who entangles the state in the official recognition of a second marriage while one is still married to another is guilty of a crime.

But what homosexuals want is not legitimate as the very nature of their union is not legitimate from the jump.

Homosexuals are not merely demanding equal treatment. They are demanding that the sexual practices of their relationship be officially recognized by the state and, consequently, be imposed on others in violation of the latter's inalienable rights of free-association and private property. It doesn't matter what any entity of government stupidly and, by the way, tyrannically declares. Nature defines marriage, not the state. Reality is impervious to the degeneracy of political expedience. The only legitimate state of marriage is heterosexual, and ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty.

Many millions in America will neither recognize nor participate in this farce regardless of what a renegade government declares in defiance of nature and in defiance of the inalienable rights accorded by nature. They will not bow down to the collectivistic tyranny of sexual relativism.

You pseudo-intellectuals on this forum can cry foul all you want, but reality is not a relativistic enterprise. We hold these truths to be self-evident stands, and the only legitimate resolutions are for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and/or observe the fact that the people can and will refuse the advances of homofascists who stupidity imagine they are entitled to impose their sexuality or the pagan rituals thereof in either the public or the private arenas of human interaction, particularly in the state schools and in commerce.

But, of course, Lefty is not going to have any of it. His intention is to dominate.

Fine.

Let the civil disobedience begin. Frankly, I have no tolerance for all this pussy-footing around, the hypocrisy of it all, the lies, the pretensions of tolerance and justice and, least of all, for the cowardly talk of politicians and judges who will not defend the principles of limited republican government.

Same sex couples have been entering into de facto marriages for centuries. The idea that a marital relationship between two people of the same sex is some sort of concoction without historical or biological basis is absurd.

That was the point I made here, you nitwit, sans the alleged biological basis: "On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please?"

Notwithstanding, there is no physiological or biological basis for homosexuality. Homosexuality is depraved, deviant, pathological. Just because humans can do something, it's necessarily healthy or moral?! Behold: normative relativism. And what is the essence of any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government? Answer: Tyranny.

Enlightened people know why that's true. Nose-picking hayseeds and sociopaths don't.

Gay marriage is TYRANNY

Thank you Capt Hyperbole

No. I said that any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government (i.e., institutionalized by the government) is tyranny, sociopath, and you're welcome for the heads up, nose-picking hayseed.

Actually, the government dictating which relationships they support is tyranny

So, incest, bigamy, polygamy, beastiality, and kiddie porn should not be classified as illegal relationships by the government? A society without rules is not a society or a civilization.

derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[Plasmaball]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.

But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.

Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?

Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.

So possible allowance by courts of legally allowing incestuous, polygamous same sex marriage is the price we have to pay for gay marriages to be forced on us by the courts?

who the fuck cares...seriously get a fucking life and stop worrying about what other people do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

The courts forced you into a gay marriage?

The bastards!

The slippery slope argument they're making has no merit because they're claiming that the slippery slope starts with legalizing gay marriage, where in reality, if you're going to resort to any slippery slope argument, you have to acknowledge that the slippery slope starts when you legally recognize marriage at all.

its the use of the courts and progressive judges that is the slippery slope. Creating rights out of thin air is the slippery slope.

Equal protection is a right created out of thin air?

It depends what you define as equal.

All rights were created out of thin air if you think about it.

 

[Skylar]

All rights were created out of thin air if you think about it.

Yup. And we made marriage a right. Now we have to apply it equally per our own laws.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.

But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.

Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?

Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.

So possible allowance by courts of legally allowing incestuous, polygamous same sex marriage is the price we have to pay for gay marriages to be forced on us by the courts?

The courts forced you into a gay marriage?

The bastards!

Nice deflection, but no dice.

So then, it seems gay marriage is not being forced on you

Nobody is even requiring that you support gay marriage either....you are free to go on hating gays
You just can't force the government to support your hatred

It's not about hate, and how fucking dare you assume that is my reason for my positions.

And public accommodation laws are forcing people to support gay marriage, OR ELSE.

Yep!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“It's not about hate, and how fucking dare you assume that is my reason for my positions.”


It's about hate, there's no rational basis upon which to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, there's no objective, documented evidence in support of this, and to seek to do so pursues not proper legislative end – you wish only to make gay Americans different from everyone else, and this the states cannot do.


“And public accommodation laws are forcing people to support gay marriage, OR ELSE.”


Ignorant, hyperbolic nonsense.


14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to state and local governments, not private sector entities.


Public accommodations laws are based on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where they represent necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures designed to ensure the integrity of the markets.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The slippery slope argument they're making has no merit because they're claiming that the slippery slope starts with legalizing gay marriage, where in reality, if you're going to resort to any slippery slope argument, you have to acknowledge that the slippery slope starts when you legally recognize marriage at all.

Yup...blame the SCOTUS for ruling on Loving. The 14th is where your "slippery slope" began. Some guy even "warned" that the potential for interracial marriage existed once the 14th was passed. He was right.

You keep trying to equate race with sexuality, and keep failing with the exception of the old "It affects me, I like it, and thus is should be OK" line of argument.

The analogy is that in both cases you have two people who want the same right to marry that heterosexual couples of the same race had, but that was being denied to interracial couples and to same sex couples.

The burden, btw, is for you to show that the government has any compelling interest in denying marriage rights to same sex couples, in other words, some greater good that must be protected that same sex marriage threatens.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.

Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.

they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.

Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.

race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".

the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.

They are not the same thing......but discrimination is still discrimination

Of course marriage in and of itself is an inalienable right of nature, not merely a civil right. Notwithstanding, as a right exercised under the aegis of the government's official recognition, it is a civil right subject to regulation, for a number of reasons, all of which go back to nature: the genetic concerns of marriage between siblings or first cousins, for example, the concerns of parental authority relative to the age of consent and so on. . . .

On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please? That's why the notion that the recognition of homosexual marriage would necessarily lead to the state officially recognizing polygamy is absurd. In terms of the state's official recognition, bigamy is illegal. The government will only officially recognize one marriage at a time, and one who entangles the state in the official recognition of a second marriage while one is still married to another is guilty of a crime.

But what homosexuals want is not legitimate as the very nature of their union is not legitimate from the jump.

Homosexuals are not merely demanding equal treatment. They are demanding that the sexual practices of their relationship be officially recognized by the state and, consequently, be imposed on others in violation of the latter's inalienable rights of free-association and private property. It doesn't matter what any entity of government stupidly and, by the way, tyrannically declares. Nature defines marriage, not the state. Reality is impervious to the degeneracy of political expedience. The only legitimate state of marriage is heterosexual, and ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty.

Many millions in America will neither recognize nor participate in this farce regardless of what a renegade government declares in defiance of nature and in defiance of the inalienable rights accorded by nature. They will not bow down to the collectivistic tyranny of sexual relativism.

You pseudo-intellectuals on this forum can cry foul all you want, but reality is not a relativistic enterprise. We hold these truths to be self-evident stands, and the only legitimate resolutions are for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and/or observe the fact that the people can and will refuse the advances of homofascists who stupidity imagine they are entitled to impose their sexuality or the pagan rituals thereof in either the public or the private arenas of human interaction, particularly in the state schools and in commerce.

But, of course, Lefty is not going to have any of it. His intention is to dominate.

Fine.

Let the civil disobedience begin. Frankly, I have no tolerance for all this pussy-footing around, the hypocrisy of it all, the lies, the pretensions of tolerance and justice and, least of all, for the cowardly talk of politicians and judges who will not defend the principles of limited republican government.

Same sex couples have been entering into de facto marriages for centuries. The idea that a marital relationship between two people of the same sex is some sort of concoction without historical or biological basis is absurd.

That was the point I made here, you nitwit, sans the alleged biological basis: "On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please?"

Notwithstanding, there is no physiological or biological basis for homosexuality. Homosexuality is depraved, deviant, pathological. Just because humans can do something, it's necessarily healthy or moral?! Behold: normative relativism. And what is the essence of any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government? Answer: Tyranny.

Enlightened people know why that's true. Nose-picking hayseeds and sociopaths don't.

Gay marriage is TYRANNY

Thank you Capt Hyperbole

No. I said that any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government (i.e., institutionalized by the government) is tyranny, sociopath, and you're welcome for the heads up, nose-picking hayseed.

Actually, the government dictating which relationships they support is tyranny

So, incest, bigamy, polygamy, beastiality, and kiddie porn should not be classified as illegal relationships by the government? A society without rules is not a society or a civilization.

derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

That's your response to Redfish's uncontestable disputation of this mindless stupidity?

. . . the government dictating which relationships they support is tyranny.​

You leftists are mindless, political sociopaths. License and perversion is not liberty. Normative relativism is not liberty. It's tyranny, depravity, chaos, anarchy, atrocity.

Liberty is predicated on the absolute imperatives of natural law! You may not violate the life, liberty or the property of others, and that includes the rights of nature. These things are absolutely inalienable.

And some of you wonder why I say that the only thing these barbarians will ever understand about the inalienable imperatives of limited republican government is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.

Do you get my point now? Do you see what the sane among us are up against now?