32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[Plasmaball]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

that has nothing to do with this topic.

It has as much to do with this topic as what you said.

You want a referendum on whether to have gay marriage or not. I'd say this is allowing a referendum to take people's rights away.

So let's make it a lot simpler for people to understand. We either have a referendum to take all constitutional protections for rights away, or we keep rights, embrace rights and stop trying to treat people as second class citizens because you have a problem with other people having rights.

How would you vote? Yes or no?

when you understand the issue, maybe we can talk, until then you are just looking foolish.

I don't understand the issue, or I'm saying something that you can't comprehend??? Hmmm.

Seriously, have you read the 14th Amendment at all?

Yes, can you please quote the language from the 14th where the words "gay marriage" appear?

we'll be waiting---------------------------------------and waiting-------------------------------and waiting

irrelevant.

 

[Redfish]

The 14th doesn't extend to sexual behaviors. No matter how much they want the world to suspend judgment and think of them as "a minority race". For they are not. And making this crucial error in premise is going to be the downfall of the gay-cult argument in Court.

I really don't see what "sexual behaviors" has to do with this.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

Is marriage a right or is it a privilege? Either way, gay people are citizens, ans as such the privilege, if it is one and not a right, shall not be abridged.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

liberty definition of liberty in Oxford dictionary American English US

"1) The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views:

1.1) (usually liberties) An instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one:the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties"

So an individual, regardless of sexual orientation, but just merely because they are a citizen of the USA, cannot be deprived of liberty. Now, liberty is basically being able to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others, in essence liberty is human rights, and may also include privileges too.

So, how can the states deny someone their liberty, without due process of the law? The answer is they shouldn't be able to.

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection of the laws means that when they make a law, ALL CITIZENS should be protected equally, or have the same privileges or rights.
Clearly this isn't the case.

I'm not sure which bit of this doesn't cover gay people......

Then by your logic, the privelege of driving may not be denied to the blind.

Priveleges are conditional. Rights are not. Gays have neither the right nor the access to the privelege of marriage because they refuse to abide by its constructs defined by the majority: man/woman husband/wife father/mother. We set up those parameters because we as a majority decided that children do best in that description. Children's rights trump all. So we consider them first, gays, polygamists, incest pairings come second to children's civil rights.

Blind people can take taxis, but they cannot legally qualify to drive. A blind person driving can be predicted to harm other people. Gay people marrying can be predicted to harm children, given their cultural mores on display at a gay pride parade near you.

Sorry.

neat! this doesnt hold up as a legit argument.

Its as legit as yours and wytch's. Are we allowed to have different opinions and beliefs in the Libtardian States of America? Or are our thoughts and beliefs to be dictated by the all-knowing federal government?

THAT is what this is really about.

 

[Redfish]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

that has nothing to do with this topic.

It has as much to do with this topic as what you said.

You want a referendum on whether to have gay marriage or not. I'd say this is allowing a referendum to take people's rights away.

So let's make it a lot simpler for people to understand. We either have a referendum to take all constitutional protections for rights away, or we keep rights, embrace rights and stop trying to treat people as second class citizens because you have a problem with other people having rights.

How would you vote? Yes or no?

when you understand the issue, maybe we can talk, until then you are just looking foolish.

I don't understand the issue, or I'm saying something that you can't comprehend??? Hmmm.

Seriously, have you read the 14th Amendment at all?

Yes, can you please quote the language from the 14th where the words "gay marriage" appear?

we'll be waiting---------------------------------------and waiting-------------------------------and waiting

irrelevant.

yes, you seem to be. You don't even understand the issue here.

 

[Plasmaball]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

that has nothing to do with this topic.

It has as much to do with this topic as what you said.

You want a referendum on whether to have gay marriage or not. I'd say this is allowing a referendum to take people's rights away.

So let's make it a lot simpler for people to understand. We either have a referendum to take all constitutional protections for rights away, or we keep rights, embrace rights and stop trying to treat people as second class citizens because you have a problem with other people having rights.

How would you vote? Yes or no?

when you understand the issue, maybe we can talk, until then you are just looking foolish.

I don't understand the issue, or I'm saying something that you can't comprehend??? Hmmm.

Seriously, have you read the 14th Amendment at all?

Yes, can you please quote the language from the 14th where the words "gay marriage" appear?

we'll be waiting---------------------------------------and waiting-------------------------------and waiting

irrelevant.

yes, you seem to be. You don't even understand the issue here.

sure i do. You will loose, gay marriage will happen in all 50 states and you will die off.

 

[Plasmaball]

The 14th doesn't extend to sexual behaviors. No matter how much they want the world to suspend judgment and think of them as "a minority race". For they are not. And making this crucial error in premise is going to be the downfall of the gay-cult argument in Court.

I really don't see what "sexual behaviors" has to do with this.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

Is marriage a right or is it a privilege? Either way, gay people are citizens, ans as such the privilege, if it is one and not a right, shall not be abridged.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

liberty definition of liberty in Oxford dictionary American English US

"1) The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views:

1.1) (usually liberties) An instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one:the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties"

So an individual, regardless of sexual orientation, but just merely because they are a citizen of the USA, cannot be deprived of liberty. Now, liberty is basically being able to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others, in essence liberty is human rights, and may also include privileges too.

So, how can the states deny someone their liberty, without due process of the law? The answer is they shouldn't be able to.

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection of the laws means that when they make a law, ALL CITIZENS should be protected equally, or have the same privileges or rights.
Clearly this isn't the case.

I'm not sure which bit of this doesn't cover gay people......

Then by your logic, the privelege of driving may not be denied to the blind.

Priveleges are conditional. Rights are not. Gays have neither the right nor the access to the privelege of marriage because they refuse to abide by its constructs defined by the majority: man/woman husband/wife father/mother. We set up those parameters because we as a majority decided that children do best in that description. Children's rights trump all. So we consider them first, gays, polygamists, incest pairings come second to children's civil rights.

Blind people can take taxis, but they cannot legally qualify to drive. A blind person driving can be predicted to harm other people. Gay people marrying can be predicted to harm children, given their cultural mores on display at a gay pride parade near you.

Sorry.

neat! this doesnt hold up as a legit argument.

Its as legit as yours and wytch's. Are we allowed to have different opinions and beliefs in the Libtardian States of America? Or are our thoughts and beliefs to be dictated by the all-knowing federal government?

THAT is what this is really about.

you can have whatever opinion you like little guy, that doesn't make it legit or very good when it comes to actual law.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, can you please quote the language from the 14th where the words "gay marriage" appear?

we'll be waiting---------------------------------------and waiting-------------------------------and waiting

Oh, right, well, can YOU show ME where in the constitution it even mentions marriage? So why not just get rid of marriage then?

What the 14th Amendment DOES say is:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The states cannot bridge the "privileges or immunities" of citizens. Do you understand that not a single privilege has been written in the US constitution? Not one. Marriage isn't there.

What you have to remember is, the 14th Amendment came in and women, say, couldn't vote. But who would say now that women could be denied the vote? It wasn't the only thing, pay for example is another case where the 14th Amendment once didn't matter, women got lower pay, now it's something else, and the states cannot discriminate.

Sometimes things take time, time to change. It's changing now for gay people, and the 14th Amendment is clear on this matter.

In 2003 sodomy was illegal in 13 states. The Supreme Court changed this.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003),

"The petitioners [Lawrence and Garner] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."

And the thing is, that with marriage, it does not involve minors, those who are coerced, or where consent might easily be refused, it does not involve prostitution.
It does the last thing, but then things are changing.

So the reality is, I don't need to show where it says "gay marriage" in the constitution, because there is so much in the constitution that isn't written in the constitution. If you don't know that then it's going to be hard for you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How does one word (marriage) create or take away gay rights? Which rights does a gay marriage convey that a civil union does not? Please give us a list.

The right to LIBERTY!!!!

liberty definition of liberty in Oxford dictionary American English US

"The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views:"

But then again, we could just take marriage away from everyone, how about it? It's fair that way. The govt can't have any say in who claims to be married, they can't give tax benefits, they can't make laws about inheritance within the family, etc etc.

You know Brown v. Board of Education and they said that separate isn't equal....................????????

Well that still stands today.

 

[Seawytch]

your post above proves what I have been saying------------it is all about the word with you. Maybe you don't even realize it

My post proved that it's about the word for you. Gays don't care what it is called, it just has to be the same as what straight couples get. You know this so why to insist on perpetrating a lie?

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, can you please quote the language from the 14th where the words "gay marriage" appear?

we'll be waiting---------------------------------------and waiting-------------------------------and waiting

Quote the part of the 14th where interracial marriage appears.

 

[Seawytch]

How does one word (marriage) create or take away gay rights? Which rights does a gay marriage convey that a civil union does not? Please give us a list.

Marriage Compared to Civil Unions LegalMatch Law Library

Change the name to civil unions for all Americans if you don't want gays to use the word marriage. Until then, well fight for equal access to what is already in p

 

[Skylar]

Priveleges are conditional. Rights are not. Gays have neither the right nor the access to the privelege of marriage because they refuse to abide by its constructs defined by the majority: man/woman husband/wife father/mother.

But there needs to be a rational reason for that construction, else its arbitrary denial of rights. And there's no aspect of the requirements of marriage that gays and lesbians do not meet. The standards you insist they fail aren't standards. They aren't applied to any married couple. Why then would we make them up....and then apply them only to gays for the sole purpose of excluding them from the union?

There is no reason.

We set up those parameters because we as a majority decided that children do best in that description. Children's rights trump all. So we consider them first, gays, polygamists, incest pairings come second to children's civil rights.

Again, no heterosexual couple is required to have children nor to be able to have children in order to marry. Not in any state. You're demanding that we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry based on their failure to meet a standard that no one is held to.

Um, no. That's an equal protection violation. Either the standard you're demanding we apply to gays apply to all married folks, or none of them. As it stands now, its none of them.

If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the fundamental right to marry, you need a good reason. And making up standards that apply to no one isn't a good reason.

 

[Skylar]

It never fails in the 15 years I've perused these threads online, when gays defend their "right" to marriage and especially their "right" to get their hands on little kids, that never, not once in all that time and in thousands of posts, has anyone ever voiced their concern for the welfare of the children in question, for their right not to become victims of predatory animals. What does that tell you?

Its a red herring. As having children isn't a requirement of marriage. Nor is 'getting their hands on little kids' require marriage. Making your assertions doubly irrelevant.

Marriage is a fundamental right. And if you're going to deny it to gays and lesbians, you're going to need a very good reason. And your obsession with pedophilia isn't a good reason.

 

[ShackledNation]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

No more than blacks who wanted to marry whites would have accepted a vote on THEIR civil rights. I don't believe we should get to vote on civil rights...with good reason.

Not the same thing no matter how many times you try it. you can get the equality that you seek, and that I want for you, without the word 'marriage'.

You insist on calling a gay union a marriage because you want society to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Why can't you admit that?

If same-sex marriages are not called marriages, they will not get the federal benefits of marriage. The equality sought can thus not be received.

Even if all benefits could be equal by calling same-sex marriages something else, Why have two separate licenses that confer the exact same benefits? The separate license for same-sex couples would be totally redundant. There would be no reason to do so other than to disparage and discriminate against gay individuals.

 

[Skylar]

Not the same thing no matter how many times you try it. you can get the equality that you seek, and that I want for you, without the word 'marriage'.

You insist on calling a gay union a marriage because you want society to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Why can't you admit that?

If there's no difference, then what is the point? You're trying so hard to maintain the separation of marriage and civil unions. But you've never given us a good reason why to bother. 'Separate but equal' doesn't have a really good track record.

Recognizing the marriage of gays and lesbians is far simpler, doesn't mandate we create a brand new class of unions only for gays, nor mandate that we discriminate against gays for no particular reason. And we've already recognized marriage as a fundament right. Why then deny it to gays?

There's no particular reason.

 

[Skylar]

Even if all benefits could be equal by calling same-sex marriages something else, Why have two separate licenses that confer the exact same benefits? The separate license for same-sex couples would be totally redundant. There would be no reason to do so other than to disparage and discriminate against gay individuals.

Exactly. Why would we bother if the unions are identical? Why create a second class that is identical in every way to the first? What's the point? Why not just recognize the marriages of gays and lesbians as valid?

You've said yourself that gays and lesbians don't want equal rights but social acceptance. Would access to marriage provide them with social acceptance that access to civil unions wouldn't? If so, why?

 

[bodecea]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

that has nothing to do with this topic.

It has as much to do with this topic as what you said.

You want a referendum on whether to have gay marriage or not. I'd say this is allowing a referendum to take people's rights away.

So let's make it a lot simpler for people to understand. We either have a referendum to take all constitutional protections for rights away, or we keep rights, embrace rights and stop trying to treat people as second class citizens because you have a problem with other people having rights.

How would you vote? Yes or no?

when you understand the issue, maybe we can talk, until then you are just looking foolish.

I don't understand the issue, or I'm saying something that you can't comprehend??? Hmmm.

Seriously, have you read the 14th Amendment at all?

Yes, can you please quote the language from the 14th where the words "gay marriage" appear?

we'll be waiting---------------------------------------and waiting-------------------------------and waiting

Right here:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[bodecea]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

that has nothing to do with this topic.

It has as much to do with this topic as what you said.

You want a referendum on whether to have gay marriage or not. I'd say this is allowing a referendum to take people's rights away.

So let's make it a lot simpler for people to understand. We either have a referendum to take all constitutional protections for rights away, or we keep rights, embrace rights and stop trying to treat people as second class citizens because you have a problem with other people having rights.

How would you vote? Yes or no?

when you understand the issue, maybe we can talk, until then you are just looking foolish.

I don't understand the issue, or I'm saying something that you can't comprehend??? Hmmm.

Seriously, have you read the 14th Amendment at all?

respond to my post #332, or STFU.

Well, aren't you Billy Badass.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Its a red herring. As having children isn't a requirement of marriage. Nor is 'getting their hands on little kids' require marriage. Making your assertions doubly irrelevant.

Marriage is a fundamental right. And if you're going to deny it to gays and lesbians, you're going to need a very good reason. And your obsession with pedophilia isn't a good reason.

"Marriage is a fundamental right"

It's just a tag, a continuance of the natural order of procreation and nature. Queers can't procreate, therefore their trying to equate themselves with pairings that do, is sick, it's mental illness. "Marriage" transcends vapid human attempts at definition. We were just discussing barn owl "divorce" at Natgeo awhile back. Barn owls mate for life, as do ravens, crows, jays, coyotes, and a thousand other species of bird and mammal. One male and one female mate for life. It's the natural order of things.

Queers want us to believe that they're the natural order of things. They want to browbeat society into being as mentally ill as they are. Mostly though, they want to get their hands on little kids. That's how sick and dangerous the "queer marriage" agenda is. Queers want the great responsibility of raising and nurturing children? What a sick joke. There's only one reason a queer wants to get a little boy under his roof.

 

[Skylar]

It's just a tag, a continuance of the natural order of procreation and nature. Queers can't procreate, therefore their trying to equate themselves with pairings that do, is sick, it's mental illness.

And which state requires the ability to procreate as a requisite of marriage?

"Marriage" transcends vapid human attempts at definition.

Then you enjoy your transcendental 'defies definition' definition. And we'll stick with the legally recognized one that will likely include all gays and lesbians quite shortly.

Deal?

 

[Seawytch]

"Marriage is a fundamental right"

It's just a tag, a continuance of the natural order of procreation and nature. Queers can't procreate, therefore their trying to equate themselves with pairings that do, is sick, it's mental illness. "Marriage" transcends vapid human attempts at definition. We were just discussing barn owl "divorce" at Natgeo awhile back. Barn owls mate for life, as do ravens, crows, jays, coyotes, and a thousand other species of bird and mammal. One male and one female mate for life. It's the natural order of things.

Queers want us to believe that they're the natural order of things. They want to browbeat society into being as mentally ill as they are. Mostly though, they want to get their hands on little kids. That's how sick and dangerous the "queer marriage" agenda is. Queers want the great responsibility of raising and nurturing children? What a sick joke. There's only one reason a queer wants to get a little boy under his roof.

Animals in same sex pairings do mate for life and homosexuality has been found in over 1,500 species, including humans.

Again, gays want to be and ARE parents for all the same reasons heterosexuals want to be parents. Our kids are at no disadvantage to yours and even do better in some areas...like tolerance.