Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They are not the same thing......but discrimination is still discrimination
Who cares?They are not the same thing......but discrimination is still discrimination
Interesting. So it's wrong for me to discriminate against lunatics in this country who want to see every queer in America swinging from the nearest crane boom? I mean we should respect their "rights", rights? Errr...I mean right? Well OK. I'll apologize to every mosque in America for tromping all over their "rights".
I think Hobby Lobby was a fantastic ruling. I really like how it's being used by non-christian groups.they love judges when they want them to come out in their favor
how about that HOBBY LOBBY ?
losers
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.
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
"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.
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. As long as the states' laws do not infringe on civil liberties. Those are determined by federal and SCOTUS review.
Does anyone doubt that gay marriage will be allowed?
My guess is 6-3
13 year Olds marrying. ...Okie dokie...hey look good luck with whatever this is you are trying to do. I don't talk to you because you dishonest and don't face reality when it comes to gay marriage...
So hey good luck..
As to my "dishonesty" [ironic, coming from you]... From Page 18 of the Windsor Opinion:
Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State. United States v. Windsor
SCOTUS bringing up this paragraph is their way of saying "just because gay marriage is legal in one state does not mandate it must be allowed in all 50".
The definitions and practices of various marriages are a State issue only. The federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws as per the 10th Amendment, but at the same time is obliged to honor every marriage from every State as per the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution is a restriction meant for the federal government, it was not meant to be a weapon used against the People. Its a shame that as a Nation we've forgotten what freedom really is.
ISIS doesn't stand a chance against our debauchery.
You mean legal marriage as decided by the discreet community of each separate state, right? You realize of course that there is no Constitutional provision for covering "gay marriage" as a right? And no precedent where behaviors [just some but not others] are afforded "constitutional protection". You realize that LGBT are a loose collection of just some deviant sexual behaviors. I hope you're not mistaking them for race?
I have no idea what you're accusing me of.
I'm simply speaking from an old fashioned (Constitutional) point of view. The federal government has provisions for married couples in their tax code. According to the Constitution, they have to recognize marriage, be it a homosexual marriage or a heterosexual marriage. The 14th Amendment demands equal treatment in such a matter.
HOWEVER, the federal government (the Judicial Branch included) has no right to tell States that they cannot dictate what constitutes a legal marriage, as per the 10th Amendment.
Your fervent reply leads me to believe we both agree that gay marriage is just that - gay. I don't support gay marriage and I never will. I will most certainly support the Constitution as it is plainly written, though.
Well hey, history's most infamous queer, Adolph Hitler, was "married" way before the war, wasn't he? To Rudolph Hess, in Landesberg prison, whom their fellow Nazi inmates dubbed "Mrs. Hitler" or "Frau Hitler". Hitler and his 300,000 SA officer corps of militant queers. Lots of them were "married"...to one another. Or wait a minute, what am I talking about? They were Germany's most debauched legion of pederasts. They were "married" to little boys, a never ending stream of whom were dragged in and out of Berlin's SA barracks complex. It got so disgusting that hundreds of complaints were filed with Berlin's police by civilian witnesses. But I don't want to get present company sexually aroused with all this queer "marriage" history. You can read about it yourself in any of Peter Padfield's three biographies of Heinrich Himmler, especially the 1991 edition:
Amazon.com peter padfield himmler
What country?And the right for all Americans to be treated equally under the law is clearly stated in the 14th Amendment. Check mate.
My brother is a constitutional lawyer. We always have a good laugh when we talk about queers and their aping of the word "rights". But maybe you can show me the particular section of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that singles out queers and their "right" to queer "marriage"? I'm waiting.
You asked me a question: "Is that the debauchery you're referring to, Loving v Virginia?"
I said no, it was not what I was referring to.
There's really no point in asking a question if you're going to argue with the answer.
This is a thread about gay marriage and I applaud you for reciting the Loving case without injecting race into the issue. Please continue to keep the two separate. Now, since it has been mentioned, a little background:
I have my own opinions on the matter; namely, that X skin color can't marry Y skin color because they are different shades is a retarded thing to do. When a man and a woman love each other (as things were meant to be - a man and a woman), there is no legal standing to deny them what comes perfectly natural as a human being (love).
Gay people on the other hand, are not born gay (there is no factual evidence to the contrary either, only theories). If anyone can ever prove to me that people are in fact born gay (beyond a shadow of a doubt), I am willing to make changes to my opinions. But until then, gay marriage is nothing more than a manufactured thing and per the 10th and 14th Amendments, the States have every right to define it as they see fit and the federal government has every obligation to support every State's decision, be it for or against gay marriage.
You probably won't find very many Conservatives who view gay marriage this way,
And yet it was argued in miscegenation cases that going outside your race was a choice and that because people could marry within their race, that it was not discriminatory. Discrimination based on race is no different than discrimination based on gender.
Are you born with an attraction to people of another race or is a choice and what does that matter in a free country? Religion most definitely is a choice and yet if a state were to pass a law saying that Muslims could not civilly marry, you would expect the SCOTUS to get involved would you not?
I did not choose my attractions to women, but I do choose to act upon them. I have the same right to marry the consenting adult same sex partner of my choice that Lovings had in legally marrying their partner of choice.
I don't care what the arguments were. It was an attempt by one side to keep marriages restricted between races and it was wrong. People are born different colors. If a man of X shade wants to marry a woman of Y shade, there's no legal means to restrict that.
Manufactured things like gay marriage are all based on choosing to live an alternative lifestyle. I'm not on board with that, and I've stated several times in this thread already that I support the States who do choose to legalize gay marriage.
There's not much here to argue with me over, and certainly nothing to change my mind (short of proving that homosexuals are born that way). The Constitution can be (and should be) followed in a manner that benefits both the opposition and support of these manufactured marriages.
As California proved though, people will vote to ban it even in the most liberal of places, so its no wonder people are trying to use the lower courts to force acceptance of this alternative lifestyle. They don't want to abide by the Constitution, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
The definitions and practices of various marriages are a State issue only. The federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws as per the 10th Amendment, but at the same time is obliged to honor every marriage from every State as per the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution is a restriction meant for the federal government, it was not meant to be a weapon used against the People. Its a shame that as a Nation we've forgotten what freedom really is.
ISIS doesn't stand a chance against our debauchery.HOWEVER, the federal government (the Judicial Branch included) has no right to tell States that they cannot dictate what constitutes a legal marriage, as per the 10th Amendment.
Your fervent reply leads me to believe we both agree that gay marriage is just that - gay. I don't support gay marriage and I never will. I will most certainly support the Constitution as it is plainly written, though.The definitions and practices of various marriages are a State issue only. The federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws as per the 10th Amendment, but at the same time is obliged to honor every marriage from every State as per the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution is a restriction meant for the federal government, it was not meant to be a weapon used against the People. Its a shame that as a Nation we've forgotten what freedom really is.
ISIS doesn't stand a chance against our debauchery.HOWEVER, the federal government (the Judicial Branch included) has no right to tell States that they cannot dictate what constitutes a legal marriage, as per the 10th Amendment.
Your fervent reply leads me to believe we both agree that gay marriage is just that - gay. I don't support gay marriage and I never will. I will most certainly support the Constitution as it is plainly written, though.If your intentions are to have an actual debate, please stop throwing the goalposts all over the room.
If you want to just call me a dirty icky bigot, please just get it over with and move on.
I'm not shifting any goal posts, I'm following your logic. You said that gay rights are not civil rights because YOU believe being gay is a choice. Religion is a choice so is THAT choice deserving of civil rights or not? Would you find it acceptable for the state of TN to prohibit all Muslims from civilly marrying each other?
You are a bigot yes, but dirty and icky I have no knowledge of.
OK, time for you to move on. Its a shame you can't be more civil, I think we could've had some better conversations.
Actually, snarkiness aside, Seawytch's point if perfectly valid.
You made it clear that in your opinion two things exist:
1. The Federal Constitution ONLY applies to the Federal government,
2. That the Federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws to the states.
Under your logic then States could ban (at least through a State Constitution Amendment): interracial Civil Marriage, Interfaith Civil Marriages, they could even ban Civil Marriage to Muslims only. Why? Because the incorporation of the 14th does not exist, therefore the 1st Amendment applies only to Congress and the Federal government because the 14th Amendment does not make the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. The only "rights" then held by the people in terms of State action are those contained in the States Constitution and if the people of a State amend their Constitution they can do anything they like.
Kind of like Alabama which banned the CHOICE of people of different races getting Civilly Married. (Language which the electorate finally removed in 2000 via a new amendment vote, the sad part being that (IIRC) 40% of the vote was to retain the discriminatory language.) Each race could get Civilly Married, just not to each other.
The logic of your position is that the Federal government had no power to prevent such discrimination.
>>>>
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.
Some adults are concerned with the wellbeing of children who aren't themselves. The trait is called "altruism". In fact many adults spend their entire lives looking after the wellbeing of children when others refuse to."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.
You're probably too old to be adopted, is that what your bitterness is all about?
Some adults are concerned with the wellbeing of children who aren't themselves. The trait is called "altruism". In fact many adults spend their entire lives looking after the wellbeing of children when others refuse to."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.
You're probably too old to be adopted, is that what your bitterness is all about?
I recently got a reply from a gay activist here that "children have no rights" in the debate on gay marriage. I've heard this retort before. Their logic is "if gay marriage doesn't hurt other adults, why does anyone care if it happens?".
The problem is that marriage affects children more than any other person. And this poster's reply smacks stunningly similar to others I've seen coming from the LGBT cult that "children don't matter". That's what you call a "red flag" moment.
