Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros misconstrue 14th Amendment and “equal protection of the laws”.

[The Rabbi]

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

There is no basis. Marriage and the way one marries should be an individuals decision....I have no issue with heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, or multiple spouse marriages.

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

You have absolytely no idea what my religious beliefs are or whether they play a part in my opposition to gay marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

Genius....a fucking genius

Yeah. You can't fight that kind of dumb.

Yeah, rightwinger really is super dumb. so is his sockmate, jake snarky.

They're two of the biggest loser twits on this sites. I just blocked Jake because his posts were irredeemably pointless.

 

[Redfish]

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

I got so tired of these erroneous and repetitive arguments, I actually made a topic to address them: Reasons To Be Anti-Gay By The Numbers US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

See #2.

The bottom line on this is that people disagree. When people disagree on a societal issue, the vote and the majority opinion becomes that norm that the entire society must accept.

Forget you 14th amendment talking points because they are invalid. Lets have a national referendum and if a majority of the citizens want gay marriage legalized then put in into the constitution by amendment.

That is the only to end the debate. Let the people speak. And if your side loses STFU.

 

[bodecea]

There is no basis. Marriage and the way one marries should be an individuals decision....I have no issue with heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, or multiple spouse marriages.

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

What if someone thinks the point of government marriage is encouraging children be born in wedlock? We only have so much tax money, why spend a bunch of it having gay marriage?

If that were the case, there would be something, somewhere in the marriage licensing that mentions children. And there would be something, somewhere in our other laws discouraging out-of-wedlock births.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

Genius....a fucking genius

Yeah. You can't fight that kind of dumb.

Yeah, rightwinger really is super dumb. so is his sockmate, jake snarky.

They're two of the biggest loser twits on this sites. I just blocked Jake because his posts were irredeemably pointless.

Usually the excuse used for running away.

 

[g5000]

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

I got so tired of these erroneous and repetitive arguments, I actually made a topic to address them: Reasons To Be Anti-Gay By The Numbers US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

See #2.

The bottom line on this is that people disagree. When people disagree on a societal issue, the vote and the majority opinion becomes that norm that the entire society must accept.

Forget you 14th amendment talking points because they are invalid. Lets have a national referendum and if a majority of the citizens want gay marriage legalized then put in into the constitution by amendment.

That is the only to end the debate. Let the people speak. And if your side loses STFU.

Are you sure you want rights to be decided by popular vote?

Man, are you a foreigner to this country, or what?

 

[The Rabbi]

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

Genius....a fucking genius

Yeah. You can't fight that kind of dumb.

Yeah, rightwinger really is super dumb. so is his sockmate, jake snarky.

They're two of the biggest loser twits on this sites. I just blocked Jake because his posts were irredeemably pointless.

Usually the excuse used for running away.

No. Usuually the excuse is "you're just a right wingnut bigot racist homophobe." Like most of your posts.

 

[The Rabbi]

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

I got so tired of these erroneous and repetitive arguments, I actually made a topic to address them: Reasons To Be Anti-Gay By The Numbers US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

See #2.

The bottom line on this is that people disagree. When people disagree on a societal issue, the vote and the majority opinion becomes that norm that the entire society must accept.

Forget you 14th amendment talking points because they are invalid. Lets have a national referendum and if a majority of the citizens want gay marriage legalized then put in into the constitution by amendment.

That is the only to end the debate. Let the people speak. And if your side loses STFU.

Are you sure you want rights to be decided by popular vote?

Man, are you a foreigner to this country, or what?

What right is being decided by popular vote?
DO you want public policy settled by unelected unaccountable officials? Thats what the Nazis did.

 

[Jarhead]

There is no basis. Marriage and the way one marries should be an individuals decision....I have no issue with heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, or multiple spouse marriages.

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

You have absolytely no idea what my religious beliefs are or whether they play a part in my opposition to gay marriage.

I did not say they did in regard to you.

When I said "you", I was referring to "any individual"....

 

[bodecea]

Genius....a fucking genius

Yeah. You can't fight that kind of dumb.

Yeah, rightwinger really is super dumb. so is his sockmate, jake snarky.

They're two of the biggest loser twits on this sites. I just blocked Jake because his posts were irredeemably pointless.

Usually the excuse used for running away.

No. Usuually the excuse is "you're just a right wingnut bigot racist homophobe." Like most of your posts.

I don't run away from people. I'm made of sterner stuff.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah. You can't fight that kind of dumb.

Yeah, rightwinger really is super dumb. so is his sockmate, jake snarky.

They're two of the biggest loser twits on this sites. I just blocked Jake because his posts were irredeemably pointless.

Usually the excuse used for running away.

No. Usuually the excuse is "you're just a right wingnut bigot racist homophobe." Like most of your posts.

I don't run away from people. I'm made of sterner stuff.

Translation: I'm too stupid to know when I've been beaten.
Yes, that's so.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

I got so tired of these erroneous and repetitive arguments, I actually made a topic to address them: Reasons To Be Anti-Gay By The Numbers US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

See #2.

The bottom line on this is that people disagree. When people disagree on a societal issue, the vote and the majority opinion becomes that norm that the entire society must accept.

Forget you 14th amendment talking points because they are invalid. Lets have a national referendum and if a majority of the citizens want gay marriage legalized then put in into the constitution by amendment.

That is the only to end the debate. Let the people speak. And if your side loses STFU.

Are you sure you want rights to be decided by popular vote?

Man, are you a foreigner to this country, or what?

What right is being decided by popular vote?
DO you want public policy settled by unelected unaccountable officials? Thats what the Nazis did.

You are not aware that we are a Constitutional Republic, are you?

 

[The Rabbi]

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

You have absolytely no idea what my religious beliefs are or whether they play a part in my opposition to gay marriage.

I did not say they did in regard to you.

When I said "you", I was referring to "any individual"....

What individuals base their opposition to gay marriage on their religious beliefs? I dont argue there arent any. I do argue opposiiton is usually done from an other than religious basis.

 

[The Rabbi]

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

I got so tired of these erroneous and repetitive arguments, I actually made a topic to address them: Reasons To Be Anti-Gay By The Numbers US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

See #2.

The bottom line on this is that people disagree. When people disagree on a societal issue, the vote and the majority opinion becomes that norm that the entire society must accept.

Forget you 14th amendment talking points because they are invalid. Lets have a national referendum and if a majority of the citizens want gay marriage legalized then put in into the constitution by amendment.

That is the only to end the debate. Let the people speak. And if your side loses STFU.

Are you sure you want rights to be decided by popular vote?

Man, are you a foreigner to this country, or what?

What right is being decided by popular vote?
DO you want public policy settled by unelected unaccountable officials? Thats what the Nazis did.

You are not aware that we are a Constitutional Republic, are you?

When you understand what that means get back to me.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah, rightwinger really is super dumb. so is his sockmate, jake snarky.

They're two of the biggest loser twits on this sites. I just blocked Jake because his posts were irredeemably pointless.

Usually the excuse used for running away.

No. Usuually the excuse is "you're just a right wingnut bigot racist homophobe." Like most of your posts.

I don't run away from people. I'm made of sterner stuff.

Translation: I'm too stupid to know when I've been beaten.
Yes, that's so.

So..that's the real reason you put people on Ignore. Color me surprised.

 

[Jarhead]

I see this thread has become a bashing session...so I am done. Cyas.

 

[bodecea]

I got so tired of these erroneous and repetitive arguments, I actually made a topic to address them: Reasons To Be Anti-Gay By The Numbers US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

See #2.

The bottom line on this is that people disagree. When people disagree on a societal issue, the vote and the majority opinion becomes that norm that the entire society must accept.

Forget you 14th amendment talking points because they are invalid. Lets have a national referendum and if a majority of the citizens want gay marriage legalized then put in into the constitution by amendment.

That is the only to end the debate. Let the people speak. And if your side loses STFU.

Are you sure you want rights to be decided by popular vote?

Man, are you a foreigner to this country, or what?

What right is being decided by popular vote?
DO you want public policy settled by unelected unaccountable officials? Thats what the Nazis did.

You are not aware that we are a Constitutional Republic, are you?

When you understand what that means get back to me.

Oh, I'm well aware. You, however, seem to be having trouble with it.....when you go on about JUST popular vote on things.

 

[rightwinger]

A constitutional amendment can make anything it wants constitutional or unconstitutional.

thats true, so if you want gay marriage to be legal in the USA, pass a constitutional amendment, get 38 states to ratify it and it will be the law of the land.

But if you can't do that, then each state gets to decide based on the votes of citizens of that state.

States can't decide to have unconstitutional marriage laws. I just proved that with the interracial marriage example.

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

Genius....a fucking genius

no, you are far from a genius. more like a fucking idiot. your opinions are as valuable as a sack of cat shit

Double down

 

[The Rabbi]

They're two of the biggest loser twits on this sites. I just blocked Jake because his posts were irredeemably pointless.

Usually the excuse used for running away.

No. Usuually the excuse is "you're just a right wingnut bigot racist homophobe." Like most of your posts.

I don't run away from people. I'm made of sterner stuff.

Translation: I'm too stupid to know when I've been beaten.
Yes, that's so.

So..that's the real reason you put people on Ignore. Color me surprised.

No I put people on ignore because their posts are consistently content free and when shown to be wrong they deflect to something else. You're almost there, cupcake

 

[g5000]

Are you sure you want rights to be decided by popular vote?

Man, are you a foreigner to this country, or what?

What right is being decided by popular vote?

How many times do we need to say "equal protection of the laws" before you SEE it?

DO you want public policy settled by unelected unaccountable officials? Thats what the Nazis did.

Godwinning the thread? Really?

Did you cry about "public policy settled by unelected unaccountable officials" and Nazis after the Heller decision?