32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[mdk]

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?

It tells me that you have very clue as to what you're talking about. If you so concenred about predatory anminals

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

Blind people can't drive. Gay people cannot become husband and wife together. Driving and marriage are both priveleges that people have to prove themselves worthy of before they can attain. Don't feel bad Seawytch. In addition to gay marriage being [still] illegal in California, so is polygamy marriage, marriage of minors and marriage of people in an immediate family blood relation.

Like blood family members, just because they love each other, gays cannot use that to automatically qualify to be married to each other.

Marriage has been affirmed as a right 14 times since 1888 by the SC. Marriage isn't a privilege, it is a right. I have would no issue if polygamist and blood related folks were allowed to marry. Children; however, cannot consent to any contract let alone a marriage contract.

 

[Skylar]

Gay marriage poses a clear and present danger to children:

Can you back that claim with anything more than your own bigotry? Show us the evidence that a child is in any greater danger with gay parents than with straight ones. Because there are several studies indicating that the kids turn out just fine.

I don't think you understand what 'clear and present danger' actually means. Much like 'sedition', 'treason', 'coup', 'extinction level event', 'fascism' and 'nuclear meltdown', you seem eager to use terms you really don't understand.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

There is no motivation for queer marriage other than child molestation.

"We're coming to take your children! We're coming to take your children! We're coming to take your children!"

Queer marcher's chant, 2008 Boston "gay pride" parade.

 

[Skylar]

There is no motivation for queer marriage other than child molestation.

"We're coming to take your children! We're coming to take your children! We're coming to take your children!"

Queer marcher's chant, 2008 Boston "gay pride" parade.

Says you. But you don't even know a gay person. Let alone speak for all of them. You speak for yourself.

And your source kinda sucks.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is no motivation for queer marriage other than child molestation.

"We're coming to take your children! We're coming to take your children! We're coming to take your children!"

Queer marcher's chant, 2008 Boston "gay pride" parade.

So a gay person can't molest a child when not married?

 

[Silhouette]

There is no motivation for queer marriage other than child molestation.

"We're coming to take your children! We're coming to take your children! We're coming to take your children!"

Queer marcher's chant, 2008 Boston "gay pride" parade.

Says you. But you don't even know a gay person. Let alone speak for all of them. You speak for yourself.

And your source kinda sucks.

What is telling about individual gay people is how they don't denounce these gay pride parades and the lewd/telling chants and behaviors they promote where they anticipate kids will be in attendance. And they don't denounce the appointment of Harvey Milk as representative of their movement [enshrined that way in law in CA] "across the nation and the world". And they don't denounce the postage stamp recently released of Harvey Milk. Yet they know he "always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems" [page 180 of his biography] and that he took on at least one minor boy, officiating as his father, while simultaneously sodomizing him. That's also in his biography.

No retractions. No denouncing. No apologies. Only defense from every gay person I've ever met of the foregoing atrocities against kids.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no motivation for queer marriage other than child molestation.

"We're coming to take your children! We're coming to take your children! We're coming to take your children!"

Queer marcher's chant, 2008 Boston "gay pride" parade.

So a gay person can't molest a child when not married?

No, but marriage in Utah [and other states that won't adopt unless you are married] affords a gay person undeniable access to bring home adoptable orphans without reason to deny. It's called a legal loophole. And the LGBT cult knows it. Hence all the fuss about "needing to get married" all of a sudden, when civil unions "just won't do anymore"...

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, but marriage in Utah [and other states that won't adopt unless you are married] affords a gay person undeniable access to bring home adoptable orphans without reason to deny. It's called a legal loophole.

You are again false about about the law in Utah, you don't have to be Civilly Married to adopt. Single people (heterosexual or homosexual) can adopt.


>>>>

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, but marriage in Utah [and other states that won't adopt unless you are married] affords a gay person undeniable access to bring home adoptable orphans without reason to deny. It's called a legal loophole. And the LGBT cult knows it. Hence all the fuss about "needing to get married" all of a sudden, when civil unions "just won't do anymore"...

"No"

Well then. How can you make a claim like that when the answer to my question is no?

undeniable access to bring home adoptable orphans. So there's no screening, just "you're married, hey, here's a child"?

A) I doubt that very much.
B) If it were the case the Utah are idiots and don't care about children. So you can hardly say it's about gay marriage
C) Utah can CHANGE THEIR LAW

Also, most gay people wanting to get married don't want to go to Utah.

 

[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.

They should get those benefits. I want them to have those benefits. They do not need to call their union a marriage in order to achieve equal benefits.

I already addressed that point in the post you quoted. You are just repeating yourself, which is not an argument. Let me reiterate.

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I already addressed that point in the post you quoted. You are just repeating yourself, which is not an argument. Let me reiterate.

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.

Sort of like having two toilets, one for blacks and one for whites. What's the point?

Oh, and the Supreme Court said "separate is not equal".

 

[dcraelin]

[QUOTE="Skylar, post: 9784753, member: 49869"]

No your right, the people of California or the nation as a whole should determine the "rights".
The couples that brought the case were hand picked by the lawyers according to books I referred to earlier. It seems the drivers in this case were not couples but the lawyers and their firms.

Kinda. The states can extend more rights than the federal government, and most do. But they can't extend less. The federally recognized rights stand as a baseline below which a given state may not tread.

Charles Beard was one who saw part of the 14th written as a underhanded gift to the powerful corporations at the time....the railroads.

Without the 14th amendment there would be no bill of rights limitations to the States. So I think there may be more to the 14th than a 'gift to the rail roads'.
I'm gonna have to go with the legal authorities on this one in recognizing that the 14th amendment is valid and ratified. As the constitution doesn't articulate how verification of the passage of an amendment is to be done. So the Secretary of State has acted in that role for hundreds of years. And that Secretary recognized that a sufficient number of states ratified the 14th amendment to pass it.

The Convention was sworn to silence......only Madisons notes as I understand it go beyond official record ...they certainly wouldnt have wanted any talk of that getting out.
Damn quotes...gets confusing after a while...anyway....I think its relatively clear

[/quote]The notes are quite extensive. And they make no mention of what you do. And while I agree that if they wanted to deny the people fire arms because of Shay's rebellion, they'd probably want to keep that on the DL.....I don't see any evidence that they wanted to deny people fire arms because of Shay's rebellion.[/QUOTE]
You said "the states can extend more rights than the federal government, and most do"....I doubt that any had less than the federal government even before the 14th.

The author of the book I referenced says the 14th was totally unneeded.....all was covered by the 13th and the 15th....amendments which the southern states gladly accepted.

They "reconsidered" a turned down 14th under coercive threat.

Even so the courts as I understand it didn't interpret the 14th as passing along the bill of rights for many years after the 14th was passed....those closest to it in time didn't think it applied that way. The need for a women's rights amendment also shows should not be read to include gender issues.


most historians I would say agree that Shays was major reason for pushing Constitution............partial evidence they wanted to deny firearms may be within the convoluted writing of the arms amendment itself.

 

[Seawytch]

I already addressed that point in the post you quoted. You are just repeating yourself, which is not an argument. Let me reiterate.

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.

Oh, Fishy has a reason, it's just not a valid one. If there isn't a separate license for heterosexuals, Fishy doesn't feel special anymore.

 

[Redfish]

Hmmmm, I don't see the words "gay marriage" Could you highlight them for us?

Gays do not need the word 'marriage' in order to have equal protection of the laws. Note the word "protection". How would a gay marriage provide more protection than a civil union?

I don't see "interracial marriage" in the 14th Amendment. How did the SCOTUS manage to rule on Loving if marriage isn't in there, Fishy?

You've already been provided the data on how civil unions do not offer the same protections as civil marriage. Now, if you want to change the name of civil marriage to civil unions for all Americans, you would negate that issue. You need to hurry up and get on it though, we almost at the 50% level with gays having equal access to civil marriage.

interracial marriage between a man and a woman IS NOT analogous to gay marriage. No matter how many times you try to make that connection it always fails.

Civil unions between gays SHOULD provide the same protections (your word) as a man/woman marriage. You claim that they don't but you have never provided any proof of that claim. But if you are right then changes must be made to make those protections equal. You don't need the word 'marriage' in order to achieve equality. But as I have said many times, the current gay agenda is not about equality.

Are you now claiming that the Loving decision addressed gay marriage? If so go to your lexus nexus and quote the language from that ruling.

 

[Redfish]

I already addressed that point in the post you quoted. You are just repeating yourself, which is not an argument. Let me reiterate.

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.

Oh, Fishy has a reason, it's just not a valid one. If there isn't a separate license for heterosexuals, Fishy doesn't feel special anymore.

Its really quite simple. heterosexuality is a normal human biological condition. homosexuality is an abnormal human biological condition. Society does not want to punish people because of a genetic abnormality. Society should allow two gays of the same sex to make a legal binding commitment to each other. But such a union is not a marriage any more than a man and two women or a woman and her dog is a marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

No, but marriage in Utah [and other states that won't adopt unless you are married] affords a gay person undeniable access to bring home adoptable orphans without reason to deny. It's called a legal loophole.

You are again false about about the law in Utah, you don't have to be Civilly Married to adopt. Single people (heterosexual or homosexual) can adopt.


>>>>

Here is the code law:

(3) (a) A child may be adopted by:
(i) adults who are legally married to each other in accordance with the laws of this state, including adoption by a stepparent; or
(ii) any single adult, except as provided in Subsection (3)(b).
(b) A child may not be adopted by a person who is cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage under the laws of this state. For purposes of this Subsection (3)(b), "cohabiting" means residing with another person and being involved in a sexual relationship with that person. 78-30-1 mdash Who may adopt -- Adoption of minor -- Adoption of adult. Chapter 30 mdash Adoption Title 78 mdash Judicial Code 2006 Utah Code Utah Code US Codes and Statutes US Law Justia

Ergo, marriage in Utah = adoption for gays "couples".

 

[Redfish]

I already addressed that point in the post you quoted. You are just repeating yourself, which is not an argument. Let me reiterate.

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.

Sort of like having two toilets, one for blacks and one for whites. What's the point?

Oh, and the Supreme Court said "separate is not equal".

we have separate toilets for men and women. Is that a violation of the SCOTUS decision?

Race and sex are NOT the same thing, no matter how many times you fools try to make it so.

 

[rightwinger]

I already addressed that point in the post you quoted. You are just repeating yourself, which is not an argument. Let me reiterate.

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.

Oh, Fishy has a reason, it's just not a valid one. If there isn't a separate license for heterosexuals, Fishy doesn't feel special anymore.

Its really quite simple. heterosexuality is a normal human biological condition. homosexuality is an abnormal human biological condition. Society does not want to punish people because of a genetic abnormality. Society should allow two gays of the same sex to make a legal binding commitment to each other. But such a union is not a marriage any more than a man and two women or a woman and her dog is a marriage.

Just when you start to sound sensible you can't resist the temptation to throw in the bestiality

Haters gotta hate

 

[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?

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.

They should get those benefits. I want them to have those benefits. They do not need to call their union a marriage in order to achieve equal benefits.

I already addressed that point in the post you quoted. You are just repeating yourself, which is not an argument. Let me reiterate.

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.

That is no more discrimination that not allowing a male reporter in the locker room for the women's soccer team.

nothing you said passes a basic logic test.

 

[Redfish]

I already addressed that point in the post you quoted. You are just repeating yourself, which is not an argument. Let me reiterate.

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.

Oh, Fishy has a reason, it's just not a valid one. If there isn't a separate license for heterosexuals, Fishy doesn't feel special anymore.

Its really quite simple. heterosexuality is a normal human biological condition. homosexuality is an abnormal human biological condition. Society does not want to punish people because of a genetic abnormality. Society should allow two gays of the same sex to make a legal binding commitment to each other. But such a union is not a marriage any more than a man and two women or a woman and her dog is a marriage.

Just when you start to sound sensible you can't resist the temptation to throw in the bestiality

Haters gotta hate

Yes, Norton, or jake or whoever you are-------------you libs are full of hate and cannot even find humor in anything. It was a joke, you idiot. grow the fuck up.