60 Percent Of Americans Soon Will Live In States With Marriage Equality

[Kosh]

Those that want "separation of church and state".

And who says that marriage being a right means you don't want separation of church and state?

It is not a "right".

The Supreme Court and our law says otherwise.

Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation.

Constitutional Topic Marriage - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Now stop with the far left talking points..

This link may help you more:

The Constitution for Kids Kindergarten - 3rd Grade - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

No matter how one wants to spin it, if you want "separation of church and state" (except in the case of "Marriage") then "Marriage" is not a right.

 

[mdk]

If you want a marriage in which the State plays no role....you can have one right now.

If you want a marriage in which the State protects your rights and privileges.....you can have one right now.

Sounds like a win-win for everyone.

"Marriage" is not a right!

SCOTUS disagrees.

14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

Yes a far left blog site that does not support your foundation does not help.

Although this is has been pointed out time and time again.

Look up at any site you want:

Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail.

Search the texts of those rulings for "Fundamental Rights".

Not a "right".

You can post it over and over, but it is not a right!

And you can post over and over again that marriage isn't a right. We have legal precedent on our side and you have hand wringing/teeth gnashing. I wonder which holds more sway in our legal system? lol

 

[Skylar]

Marriage has a long history in the religious world.

So? Language has a long history in the religious world. That doesn't mean that its use in the law constitutes a violation of church and state.

If religion dictates statutory marriage laws......then how are gays and lesbians still legally married when Catholicism doesn't recognize gay marriage as valid.

You can't say.

 

[mdk]

Kosh, you falsely believe is marriage is solely a religious institution. It isn't. You do not have to have a faith or marry in a church for your marriage to be valid legally. Religion doesn't own marriage. I know you would like that to be the case but it simply isn't.

 

[Seawytch]

"Marriage" is not a right!

SCOTUS disagrees.

14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

Yes a far left blog site that does not support your foundation does not help.

Although this is has been pointed out time and time again.

Look up at any site you want:

Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail.

Search the texts of those rulings for "Fundamental Rights".

Not a "right".

You can post it over and over, but it is not a right!

And you can post over and over again that marriage isn't a right. We have legal precedent on our side and you have hand wringing/teeth gnashing. I wonder which holds more sway in our legal system? lol

Ooh ooh, pick me, I know!

Marriage equality rulings - 28+
Hand wringing/teeth gnashing- 0

 

[mdk]

SCOTUS disagrees.

14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

Yes a far left blog site that does not support your foundation does not help.

Although this is has been pointed out time and time again.

Look up at any site you want:

Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail.

Search the texts of those rulings for "Fundamental Rights".

Not a "right".

You can post it over and over, but it is not a right!

And you can post over and over again that marriage isn't a right. We have legal precedent on our side and you have hand wringing/teeth gnashing. I wonder which holds more sway in our legal system? lol

Ooh ooh, pick me, I know!

Marriage equality rulings - 28+
Hand wringing/teeth gnashing- 0

 

[Kosh]

Kosh, you falsely believe is marriage is solely a religious institution. It isn't. You do not have to have a faith or marry in a church for your marriage to be valid legally. Religion doesn't own marriage. I know you would like that to be the case but it simply isn't.

Yes it is and it has been always established as such. Just that government chose to recognize them.

That is why the far left has a hard time understanding this subject especially when they want "{separation of church and state").

Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation.

Constitutional Topic Marriage - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

It is long established that "Marriage" is a product of religion that was defined by religion. In order to have true "separation of church and state" you must get the government out of "Marriage".

It is a word and that word alone that keeps this fight going.

 

[Kosh]

SCOTUS disagrees.

14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

Yes a far left blog site that does not support your foundation does not help.

Although this is has been pointed out time and time again.

Look up at any site you want:

Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail.

Search the texts of those rulings for "Fundamental Rights".

Not a "right".

You can post it over and over, but it is not a right!

And you can post over and over again that marriage isn't a right. We have legal precedent on our side and you have hand wringing/teeth gnashing. I wonder which holds more sway in our legal system? lol

Ooh ooh, pick me, I know!

Marriage equality rulings - 28+
Hand wringing/teeth gnashing- 0

And proving once again the far left does not know the meaning of words other than what their programming tells them, especially on words like "rights" and "equality".

 

[Skylar]

Yes it is and it has been always established as such. Just that government chose to recognize them.

Then why, pray tell, is gay marriage legal in California when say, the Catholics don't recognize gay marriage? If marriage is defined legally by religion, how is this possible?

No, go ahead, I'll wait.


.......


....


..


Nothing, huh? Um, that sound? That's your argument breaking.

[
Marriage has a long history in the religious world.

Language has a long history in the religious world. That doesn't mean the use of language in the law violates the separation of church and state.

Religion is irrelevant to the meaning of marriage under the law. It doesn't matter what the religious believe on the matter. They are wholly irrelevant in the legal definition.

 

[Skylar]

And proving once again the far left does not know the meaning of words other than what their programming tells them, especially on words like "rights" and "equality".

Says you. The courts have recognized that marriage is a right for at least a couple of generations. And the 14th amendment mandating equal protection under the law has been around for about a century and a half. Now why would anyone ignore the amendment and the SCOTUS....and instead believe you citing yourself?

 

[mdk]

Kosh, you falsely believe is marriage is solely a religious institution. It isn't. You do not have to have a faith or marry in a church for your marriage to be valid legally. Religion doesn't own marriage. I know you would like that to be the case but it simply isn't.

Yes it is and it has been always established as such. Just that government chose to recognize them.

That is why the far left has a hard time understanding this subject especially when they want "{separation of church and state").

Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation.

Constitutional Topic Marriage - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

It is long established that "Marriage" is a product of religion that was defined by religion. In order to have true "separation of church and state" you must get the government out of "Marriage".

It is a word and that word alone that keeps this fight going.

Churches have every right to define marriage in the confines of the church itself. They can marry or not marry any one they see fit, as it should be. What they do not get to do is define it legally for the rest of the nation. I am not concerned with their view of marriage because it has no bearing legally. None. Nada. Zip.

You don't have a legal leg to stand on. The courts have sided time and time again aganist your position and there is more in the mail. I have legal precedent on my side and you have bitching and moaning. You've lost this one mate, it's best go out without dignity instead whatever your doing here.

 

[Kosh]

Kosh, you falsely believe is marriage is solely a religious institution. It isn't. You do not have to have a faith or marry in a church for your marriage to be valid legally. Religion doesn't own marriage. I know you would like that to be the case but it simply isn't.

Yes it is and it has been always established as such. Just that government chose to recognize them.

That is why the far left has a hard time understanding this subject especially when they want "{separation of church and state").

Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation.

Constitutional Topic Marriage - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

It is long established that "Marriage" is a product of religion that was defined by religion. In order to have true "separation of church and state" you must get the government out of "Marriage".

It is a word and that word alone that keeps this fight going.

Churches have every right to define marriage in the confines of the church itself. They can marry or not marry any one they see fit, as it should be. What they do not get to do is define it legally for the rest of the nation. I am not concerned with their view of marriage because it has no bearing legally. None. Nada. Zip.

You don't have a legal leg to stand on. The courts have sided time and time again aganist your position and there is more in the mail. I have legal precedent on my side and you have bitching and moaning. You've lost this one mate, it's best go out without dignity instead whatever your doing here.

Marriage is NOT a "right". So you are "Married" your partner no longer want to be, but you still want to be "Married" to them. Did they just violate your civil rights?

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is NOT a "right".

The courts says that marriage is a right. And the 14th protection mandates equal protection in the law. That you disagree with the courts doesn't change the legal recognition of marriage as a right. Or the 14th's mandate for equal protection.

So you are "Married" your partner no longer want to be, but you still want to be "Married" to them. Did they just violate your civil rights?

No, they didn't. As the right to marry isn't the obligation to marry. You seem confused on what a right is. Its the option to do something. The freedom to do something. Not the requirement to do something.

 

[Kosh]

Marriage is NOT a "right".

The courts says that marriage is a right. And the 14th protection mandates equal protection in the law. That you disagree with the courts doesn't change the legal recognition of marriage as a right. Or the 14th's mandate for equal protection.

So you are "Married" your partner no longer want to be, but you still want to be "Married" to them. Did they just violate your civil rights?

No, they didn't. As the right to marry isn't the obligation to marry. You seem confused on what a right is. Its the option to do something. The freedom to do something. Not the requirement to do something.

Well lets us see if we can get answer from this far left drone.

So you are "Married" your partner no longer want to be, but you still want to be "Married" to them. Did they just violate your civil rights?

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is NOT a "right".

The courts says that marriage is a right. And the 14th protection mandates equal protection in the law. That you disagree with the courts doesn't change the legal recognition of marriage as a right. Or the 14th's mandate for equal protection.

So you are "Married" your partner no longer want to be, but you still want to be "Married" to them. Did they just violate your civil rights?

No, they didn't. As the right to marry isn't the obligation to marry. You seem confused on what a right is. Its the option to do something. The freedom to do something. Not the requirement to do something.

Well lets us see if we can get answer from this far left drone.

So you are "Married" your partner no longer want to be, but you still want to be "Married" to them. Did they just violate your civil rights?

Lets see if you'll ignore the same answer to the same question, despite it being at least the 3rd time I've given it to you.

A: No.

As the right to marry isn't the obligation to marry. Rights are the freedom to do something. Not the requirement to do them. You're confusing rights and obligation.

 

[mdk]

Kosh, you falsely believe is marriage is solely a religious institution. It isn't. You do not have to have a faith or marry in a church for your marriage to be valid legally. Religion doesn't own marriage. I know you would like that to be the case but it simply isn't.

Yes it is and it has been always established as such. Just that government chose to recognize them.

That is why the far left has a hard time understanding this subject especially when they want "{separation of church and state").

Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation.

Constitutional Topic Marriage - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

It is long established that "Marriage" is a product of religion that was defined by religion. In order to have true "separation of church and state" you must get the government out of "Marriage".

It is a word and that word alone that keeps this fight going.

Churches have every right to define marriage in the confines of the church itself. They can marry or not marry any one they see fit, as it should be. What they do not get to do is define it legally for the rest of the nation. I am not concerned with their view of marriage because it has no bearing legally. None. Nada. Zip.

You don't have a legal leg to stand on. The courts have sided time and time again aganist your position and there is more in the mail. I have legal precedent on my side and you have bitching and moaning. You've lost this one mate, it's best go out without dignity instead whatever your doing here.

Marriage is NOT a "right". So you are "Married" your partner no longer want to be, but you still want to be "Married" to them. Did they just violate your civil rights?

That may be one of oddest arguements I've ever seen in a debate already riddled with silly arguements from your side. It is quite clear you do not understand how rights work in this nation.

 

[Kosh]

Marriage is NOT a "right".

The courts says that marriage is a right. And the 14th protection mandates equal protection in the law. That you disagree with the courts doesn't change the legal recognition of marriage as a right. Or the 14th's mandate for equal protection.

So you are "Married" your partner no longer want to be, but you still want to be "Married" to them. Did they just violate your civil rights?

No, they didn't. As the right to marry isn't the obligation to marry. You seem confused on what a right is. Its the option to do something. The freedom to do something. Not the requirement to do something.

Well lets us see if we can get answer from this far left drone.

So you are "Married" your partner no longer want to be, but you still want to be "Married" to them. Did they just violate your civil rights?

Lets see if you'll ignore the same answer to the same question, despite it being at least the 3rd time I've given it to you.

A: No.

As the right to marry isn't the obligation to marry. Rights are the freedom to do something. Not the requirement to do them. You're confusing rights and obligation.

And thus negating the whole "Civil Rights" aspect of the gay "Marriage" portion of the far left argument.

So as we see when you see the whole "Civil Rights" term being used for gay "Marriage" is yet another word by the programmed far left response that has no bearing on the subject.

'and thus proving "Marriage" is not a "right".

 

[Kosh]

Kosh, you falsely believe is marriage is solely a religious institution. It isn't. You do not have to have a faith or marry in a church for your marriage to be valid legally. Religion doesn't own marriage. I know you would like that to be the case but it simply isn't.

Yes it is and it has been always established as such. Just that government chose to recognize them.

That is why the far left has a hard time understanding this subject especially when they want "{separation of church and state").

Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation.

Constitutional Topic Marriage - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

It is long established that "Marriage" is a product of religion that was defined by religion. In order to have true "separation of church and state" you must get the government out of "Marriage".

It is a word and that word alone that keeps this fight going.

Churches have every right to define marriage in the confines of the church itself. They can marry or not marry any one they see fit, as it should be. What they do not get to do is define it legally for the rest of the nation. I am not concerned with their view of marriage because it has no bearing legally. None. Nada. Zip.

You don't have a legal leg to stand on. The courts have sided time and time again aganist your position and there is more in the mail. I have legal precedent on my side and you have bitching and moaning. You've lost this one mate, it's best go out without dignity instead whatever your doing here.

Marriage is NOT a "right". So you are "Married" your partner no longer want to be, but you still want to be "Married" to them. Did they just violate your civil rights?

That may be one of oddest arguements I've ever seen in a debate already riddled with silly arguements from your side. It is quite clear you do not understand how rights work in this nation.

Wrong! It is the far left who does not understand what "rights" are in this nation.

But then again I bet you think you own your own home as well.

 

[mdk]

Marriage is NOT a "right".

The courts says that marriage is a right. And the 14th protection mandates equal protection in the law. That you disagree with the courts doesn't change the legal recognition of marriage as a right. Or the 14th's mandate for equal protection.

So you are "Married" your partner no longer want to be, but you still want to be "Married" to them. Did they just violate your civil rights?

No, they didn't. As the right to marry isn't the obligation to marry. You seem confused on what a right is. Its the option to do something. The freedom to do something. Not the requirement to do something.

Well lets us see if we can get answer from this far left drone.

So you are "Married" your partner no longer want to be, but you still want to be "Married" to them. Did they just violate your civil rights?

Lets see if you'll ignore the same answer to the same question, despite it being at least the 3rd time I've given it to you.

A: No.

As the right to marry isn't the obligation to marry. Rights are the freedom to do something. Not the requirement to do them. You're confusing rights and obligation.

I wouldn't bother any more mate. Kosh is being willfully obtuse at this point. Disagree with his incorrect assertions and you'll be labeled as far left or a drone. We are witnessing the death throes of a dying movement and there nothing we can say that will change his mind.

 

[Kosh]

Marriage is NOT a "right".

The courts says that marriage is a right. And the 14th protection mandates equal protection in the law. That you disagree with the courts doesn't change the legal recognition of marriage as a right. Or the 14th's mandate for equal protection.

So you are "Married" your partner no longer want to be, but you still want to be "Married" to them. Did they just violate your civil rights?

No, they didn't. As the right to marry isn't the obligation to marry. You seem confused on what a right is. Its the option to do something. The freedom to do something. Not the requirement to do something.

Well lets us see if we can get answer from this far left drone.

So you are "Married" your partner no longer want to be, but you still want to be "Married" to them. Did they just violate your civil rights?

Lets see if you'll ignore the same answer to the same question, despite it being at least the 3rd time I've given it to you.

A: No.

As the right to marry isn't the obligation to marry. Rights are the freedom to do something. Not the requirement to do them. You're confusing rights and obligation.

I wouldn't bother any more mate. Kosh is being willfully obtuse at this point. Disagree with his incorrect assertions and you'll be labeled as far left or a drone. We are witnessing the death throes of a dying movement and there nothing we can say that will change his mind.

The irony of this post from the far left..

So in other words the far left keywords and scare tactics from using those keywords like "rights", "Civil Rights", etc. are just that, words!