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.
Do you support Colorado's legalization of marijuana?
Yes I do, however that has nothing to do with this.
You heard me correctly, it has nothing to do with this.
No, that marijuana is prohibited by federal statute does not make the issue have anything to do with this. They are entirely different circumstances. They are entirely different legal scenarios. Colorado is a case of state statute has removed a barrier that still exists in federal statute. That is entirely different than a state enforcing a law that has been found unconstitutional by the federal judiciary.
There will be no further discussion on this matter. If you cannot understand all this, then you a fucking idiot unworthy of my time.
I see, a coward that runs when confronted with the truth. If you can't understand that, you're not worthy of the time as cowards deserve the same fate as traitors.
FAIL
No comparison
-Geaux
Who is comparing anything?
I am just stating the facts:
Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.
Alabama- always fighting the good fight
In this case, indeed they are
-Geaux
I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before
Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.
Alabama- always fighting the good fight
Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement. Again, no comparison
-Geaux
I keep pointing out the facts- the facts which you want to ignore.
I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before
Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.
Alabama- always fighting the good fight
Yeah, and Boston Massachusetts thought they were fighting the good fight when long after schools in Alabama were desegregated Boston was still fighting to prevent it there, Beating black children , spitting on them and throwing bricks through the school bus windows screaming GO HOME NI%$#R.....Do you support Colorado's legalization of marijuana?
Yes I do, however that has nothing to do with this.
You heard me correctly, it has nothing to do with this.
No, that marijuana is prohibited by federal statute does not make the issue have anything to do with this. They are entirely different circumstances. They are entirely different legal scenarios. Colorado is a case of state statute has removed a barrier that still exists in federal statute. That is entirely different than a state enforcing a law that has been found unconstitutional by the federal judiciary.
There will be no further discussion on this matter. If you cannot understand all this, then you a fucking idiot unworthy of my time.
I see, a coward that runs when confronted with the truth. If you can't understand that, you're not worthy of the time as cowards deserve the same fate as traitors.
FAIL
No comparison
-Geaux
Who is comparing anything?
I am just stating the facts:
Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.
Alabama- always fighting the good fight
In this case, indeed they are
-Geaux
I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before
Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.
Alabama- always fighting the good fight
Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement. Again, no comparison
-Geaux
I keep pointing out the facts- the facts which you want to ignore.
I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before
Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.
Alabama- always fighting the good fight
Interesting that you complained about that other person for language then your last words were to call him/her a POS. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?Run along and support your faggot loving agenda somewhere else freak.It's easy to tell you're hateful, ignorant, and wrong.I've never said either way about brother/sister. .
Okay I will restate it- you said you would support a mixed race marriage as long as one is male and one is female.
Would you support a brother sister marriage where one is male and one is female?
From a personal standpoint, no. However, the argument from you same sex supporters isn't from a personal standpoint. The ones of you that argue marriage should be allowed for two consenting adults based on the concept of equality are the same ones, when asked about a brother/sister marriage, to deny the concept of equality you claim exists. It's easy to tell you aren't about equality but about a faggot agenda. If you're not willing to apply the concept of equality you says exists to other types of marriages involving consenting adults, it makes you a hypocrite.
Comparing same-sex couples to siblings fails as both a false comparison fallacy and a slippery slope fallacy – so your 'argument' is dead from the outset.
Same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, they can enter into marriage contracts because the law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners who are not related.
Siblings are not eligible to enter into marriage contracts because the law isn't written to accommodate such a union; indeed, no law exists to accommodate such a union.
Consequently, there's no 'hypocrisy' on the part of those who advocate for gay Americans being afforded equal protection of the law, as required by the 14th Amendment.
Anyone who uses the term 'f*ggot' is no different from the racists who call blacks n*ggers or Jews k*kes or the misanthropes who call women c*nts.
Run along and join up with your bigot pals you pathetic POS.
That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.Wrong, Tweedle-dumbass. Read the 15th Amendment. No wonder you suck at this.
LOL- you are right- I was wrong.
Shouldn't have had that second glass of red wine.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
What I should have said is that the Constitution does not prohibit legal discrimination based upon race.
What the Constitution- specifically the 14th Amendment- says- 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.
That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet may marry while still in prison.
And that says nothing about race. And the 15th Amendment is only in regards to voting- not really an issue when it comes to marriage law.
Oh, so illegal alien criminals aka... felon fags, need not apply for marriage?
-Geaux
Funny you should mention felons, bigot. There was actually a Supreme Court case about marriage and the incarcerated. The case was Turner v Safley and it was one of the cases where the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. A right you cannot deny a convicted murderer on death row.
A right you cannot deny non familial consenting adult gay and lesbian couples.
Sure they can....if they're not US citizens
-Geaux
I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.
The true definition of marriage as found as early as 1755 in Johnson's dictionary of the English language, is that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, NOT a man and a man or a woman and a woman. You simply wish to pervert it to meet your desires. Sodomite is the correct word for those who wish to hijack the word marriage because in order to consummate a marriage the must engauge in sexual entercourse, which requires for them the act of sodomy. It is not my intent to offend you by using the proper terminology, but one must call a dog, a dog, not a cat in order to use the proper terminology. Such proper use of words by proper definition should not offend your tender sensibilities.Yes a sodomite is anyone who practices sodomy, however a marriage is consummated through sexual relations, and here is where sodomy is exclusive between same sex couples making them sodomites without recourse otherwize. I hate that the proper definition is offensive to you, it is not meant as a slur, it is only meant to use the proper definition as "Gay" does not actually mean sodomite outside of fiction. There is no such word as homosexual as in .Perhaps this is the point in which we should return to the basics of the contention.Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.
You are absolutely correct- the Constitution protects the rights of both the minority and the majority.
And the judiciary is the branch that resolves whether the law is Constitutional or not.
The question is not that of equal rights, as the Sodomite .
You keep using that word.
View attachment 37489
'Sodomite' means anyone who has anal sex.
So it would apply to heterosexuals who have anal sex and those homosexuals who have anal sex.
It would not apply to heterosexuals who do not have anal sex and would not apply to homosexuals who do not have anal sex.
Are you saying that heterosexuals who have anal sex cannot get married and lesbian couples can?
Sodomite: someone who engages in anal sex- regardless of who they engage in anal sex with.
Homosexual: someone who is attracted to the same gender.
Marriage- a joining of a man or a woman, or a joining a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Those are all the proper definitions.
Not your made up fantasy definitions.
If you want to refer to the marriage of two people of the same gender- then the proper term would be some variation of 'homosexual' or 'gay' or 'same gender' marriage.
Your insistance of using the term 'sodomite' as your own personal definition means nothing.
And I will point out the correct term by mocking your misuse of 'sodomite' each time you do it in the future.
That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.LOL- you are right- I was wrong.
Shouldn't have had that second glass of red wine.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
What I should have said is that the Constitution does not prohibit legal discrimination based upon race.
What the Constitution- specifically the 14th Amendment- says- 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.
That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet may marry while still in prison.
And that says nothing about race. And the 15th Amendment is only in regards to voting- not really an issue when it comes to marriage law.
Oh, so illegal alien criminals aka... felon fags, need not apply for marriage?
-Geaux
Funny you should mention felons, bigot. There was actually a Supreme Court case about marriage and the incarcerated. The case was Turner v Safley and it was one of the cases where the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. A right you cannot deny a convicted murderer on death row.
A right you cannot deny non familial consenting adult gay and lesbian couples.
Sure they can....if they're not US citizens
-Geaux
I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.
Also....Yes a sodomite is anyone who practices sodomy, however a marriage is consummated through sexual relations, and here is where sodomy is exclusive between same sex couples making them sodomites without recourse otherwize. I hate that the proper definition is offensive to you, it is not meant as a slur, it is only meant to use the proper definition as "Gay" does not actually mean sodomite outside of fiction. There is no such word as homosexual as in .Perhaps this is the point in which we should return to the basics of the contention.Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.
You are absolutely correct- the Constitution protects the rights of both the minority and the majority.
And the judiciary is the branch that resolves whether the law is Constitutional or not.
The question is not that of equal rights, as the Sodomite .
You keep using that word.
View attachment 37489
'Sodomite' means anyone who has anal sex.
So it would apply to heterosexuals who have anal sex and those homosexuals who have anal sex.
It would not apply to heterosexuals who do not have anal sex and would not apply to homosexuals who do not have anal sex.
Are you saying that heterosexuals who have anal sex cannot get married and lesbian couples can?
Sodomite: someone who engages in anal sex- regardless of who they engage in anal sex with.
Homosexual: someone who is attracted to the same gender.
Marriage- a joining of a man or a woman, or a joining a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Those are all the proper definitions.
Not your made up fantasy definitions.
If you want to refer to the marriage of two people of the same gender- then the proper term would be some variation of 'homosexual' or 'gay' or 'same gender' marriage.
Your insistance of using the term 'sodomite' as your own personal definition means nothing.
And I will point out the correct term by mocking your misuse of 'sodomite' each time you do it in the future.
LOL- you are right- I was wrong.
Shouldn't have had that second glass of red wine.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
What I should have said is that the Constitution does not prohibit legal discrimination based upon race.
What the Constitution- specifically the 14th Amendment- says- 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.
And that says nothing about race. And the 15th Amendment is only in regards to voting- not really an issue when it comes to marriage law.
Oh, so illegal alien criminals aka... felon fags, need not apply for marriage?
-Geaux
Funny you should mention felons, bigot. There was actually a Supreme Court case about marriage and the incarcerated. The case was Turner v Safley and it was one of the cases where the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. A right you cannot deny a convicted murderer on death row.
A right you cannot deny non familial consenting adult gay and lesbian couples.
Sure they can....if they're not US citizens
-Geaux
I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.
read the above and you will find this
citizens of the United States;
So the 14th does not apply
-Geaux
Marriage is a right between a man and a woman, as that is the true definition of a marriage. The issue is not changing the definition of marriage to mean what some minority wishes, by claiming discrimination. The issue is the right to contract, as in a civil union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and that contract be recognised by law.That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.Oh, so illegal alien criminals aka... felon fags, need not apply for marriage?
-Geaux
Funny you should mention felons, bigot. There was actually a Supreme Court case about marriage and the incarcerated. The case was Turner v Safley and it was one of the cases where the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. A right you cannot deny a convicted murderer on death row.
A right you cannot deny non familial consenting adult gay and lesbian couples.
Sure they can....if they're not US citizens
-Geaux
I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.
Indeed. One might even say that the right to marry is, seemingly, an even greater right than voting or possessing firearms.
Marriage is a right despite what the anti gay bigots say.
Marriage is a right between a man and a woman, as that is the true definition of a marriage. The issue is not changing the definition of marriage to mean what some minority wishes, by claiming discrimination. The issue is the right to contract, as in a civil union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and that contract be recognised by law.That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.Funny you should mention felons, bigot. There was actually a Supreme Court case about marriage and the incarcerated. The case was Turner v Safley and it was one of the cases where the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. A right you cannot deny a convicted murderer on death row.
A right you cannot deny non familial consenting adult gay and lesbian couples.
Sure they can....if they're not US citizens
-Geaux
I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.
Indeed. One might even say that the right to marry is, seemingly, an even greater right than voting or possessing firearms.
Marriage is a right despite what the anti gay bigots say.
I am not against civil unions, and all people reserve the right to contract, that such as a civil union.....Marriage is a right between a man and a woman, as that is the true definition of a marriage. The issue is not changing the definition of marriage to mean what some minority wishes, by claiming discrimination. The issue is the right to contract, as in a civil union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and that contract be recognised by law.That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.Sure they can....if they're not US citizens
-Geaux
I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.
Indeed. One might even say that the right to marry is, seemingly, an even greater right than voting or possessing firearms.
Marriage is a right despite what the anti gay bigots say.
Except courts are finding that it is also a right between a man and a man and a woman in a woman. The definition of marriage itself has not changed, just who can enter into it. Voting was not changed when blacks and women could do it. Gays have been marrying each other in Vermont and Massachusetts for over a decade. No harm has befallen those states or society as a whole.
You cannot demonstrate a societal harm in allowing gays to marry someone of the same gender. This is why you anti gay bigots are losing.
I am not against civil unions, and all people reserve the right to contract, that such as a civil union.....Marriage is a right between a man and a woman, as that is the true definition of a marriage. The issue is not changing the definition of marriage to mean what some minority wishes, by claiming discrimination. The issue is the right to contract, as in a civil union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and that contract be recognised by law.That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.
Indeed. One might even say that the right to marry is, seemingly, an even greater right than voting or possessing firearms.
Marriage is a right despite what the anti gay bigots say.
Except courts are finding that it is also a right between a man and a man and a woman in a woman. The definition of marriage itself has not changed, just who can enter into it. Voting was not changed when blacks and women could do it. Gays have been marrying each other in Vermont and Massachusetts for over a decade. No harm has befallen those states or society as a whole.
You cannot demonstrate a societal harm in allowing gays to marry someone of the same gender. This is why you anti gay bigots are losing.
Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.
Therefore, I have no problem with civil unions: What I do have a problem with, is a minority forcing the set legal definition of a marriage to fit that which they wish, by claiming that somehow the definition is discriminatory, and using the court system to facilitate this lie. A civil union falls within that unlimited right to contract, and is enforceable. That is the fight that should be occurring, NOT the forced change of the definition of a word under false pretence. I am NOT anti gay, I enjoy seeing people happy, but then gay simply means happy and has nothing to do with a man desiring another man, or a woman desiring another woman. You see, you are already accepting a fictional definition of the word "Gay".
Sarcasm doesn't help your position. The definition of a marriage is simply defined as "A contract between a man and a woman. Race, nor color have anything to do with it, however the sex of the individuals does. Stick to the fight for equality in the right to contract a civil union.I am not against civil unions, and all people reserve the right to contract, that such as a civil union.....Marriage is a right between a man and a woman, as that is the true definition of a marriage. The issue is not changing the definition of marriage to mean what some minority wishes, by claiming discrimination. The issue is the right to contract, as in a civil union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and that contract be recognised by law.That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.
Indeed. One might even say that the right to marry is, seemingly, an even greater right than voting or possessing firearms.
Marriage is a right despite what the anti gay bigots say.
Except courts are finding that it is also a right between a man and a man and a woman in a woman. The definition of marriage itself has not changed, just who can enter into it. Voting was not changed when blacks and women could do it. Gays have been marrying each other in Vermont and Massachusetts for over a decade. No harm has befallen those states or society as a whole.
You cannot demonstrate a societal harm in allowing gays to marry someone of the same gender. This is why you anti gay bigots are losing.
Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.
Therefore, I have no problem with civil unions: What I do have a problem with, is a minority forcing the set legal definition of a marriage to fit that which they wish, by claiming that somehow the definition is discriminatory, and using the court system to facilitate this lie. A civil union falls within that unlimited right to contract, and is enforceable. That is the fight that should be occurring, NOT the forced change of the definition of a word under false pretence. I am NOT anti gay, I enjoy seeing people happy, but then gay simply means happy and has nothing to do with a man desiring another man, or a woman desiring another woman. You see, you are already accepting a fictional definition of the word "Gay".
Hell yeah, that's right! The definition of marriage is one white man and one white woman. That's the definition, nobody can change it! If you think it's discrimination then go back to Africa you damn monkey people!
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
And in more than 30 states, Canada and multiple countries in Europe- it is also the joining of one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.
Progress is a lovely thing.
Boy lovers everywhere are thanking you for their soon to come day in court. Their perversion will receive the same protection as yours.
I am sure you believe that 'boy lovers' are thanking the Lovings for being the first to open the door to your slippery slope to 'boy love'.
By your logic, your perversion- a mixed race marriage- was the start of the slippery slope to hell.
Wrong. LVV was about race, which the Constitution addresses. No, you perverts are the first to make lifestyle choice and sexual deviancy a protected status. They will definitely be benefiting from your perversion, not from LVV.
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not specify race. Marriage equality cases will not be decided by the 15th Amendment.
Sarcasm doesn't help your position. The definition of a marriage is simply defined as "A contract between a man and a woman.
Race, nor color have anything to do with it
Stick to the fight for equality in the right to contract a civil union.
That is interesting considering a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote or posses a firearm even after he is released from prison, yet while in prison may marry.Oh, so illegal alien criminals aka... felon fags, need not apply for marriage?
-Geaux
Funny you should mention felons, bigot. There was actually a Supreme Court case about marriage and the incarcerated. The case was Turner v Safley and it was one of the cases where the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right. A right you cannot deny a convicted murderer on death row.
A right you cannot deny non familial consenting adult gay and lesbian couples.
Sure they can....if they're not US citizens
-Geaux
I doubt even that would hold true. A prison trying to prevent a non citizen that is incarcerated from marrying would find itself afoul of the law I'm sure.
Indeed. One might even say that the right to marry is, seemingly, an even greater right than voting or possessing firearms.
Marriage is a right despite what the anti gay bigots say.
Sarcasm doesn't help your position. The definition of a marriage is simply defined as "A contract between a man and a woman.
That's your definition.
Race, nor color have anything to do with it
You can send your letter of thanks to the United States Supreme Court. Before they ruled that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the constitution race did indeed have something to do with it.
Stick to the fight for equality in the right to contract a civil union.
Because "separate but equal" has always been so equal....
I didn't know rights were put in a hierarchy like that. Considering that the "right to marry" isn't in the Constitution, but is based on other SC decisions, I would say it's far INFERIOR to rights expressly stated in the Constitution.
Thank you for admitting that the "right to marry" is based on a Supreme Court opinion, not the Constitution. We could start a movement of awareness across this country, you and I.
Thank you for admitting that the "right to marry" is based on a Supreme Court opinion, not the Constitution. We could start a movement of awareness across this country, you and I.
By that reasoning, the individual's right to bear arms is based on a Supreme Court opinion (Heller).
Which you take to mean we can make up any rights we want, even to the point that states have no rights and "civil rights" whatever we may claim that to be, reign supreme even over the right of states to determine their own laws. I highly doubt that's what the ratifiers had in mind.I didn't know rights were put in a hierarchy like that. Considering that the "right to marry" isn't in the Constitution, but is based on other SC decisions, I would say it's far INFERIOR to rights expressly stated in the Constitution.
Except that the constitution clearly states that the enumeration of rights does not deny the people of rights not enumerated, which they've always held. Ultimately, I think very few people understand the concept of rights.
