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.
Cept the ghey is not a protected class.
In some states they are...
The comment was regarding the 14th
and the Federal government.
Ghey is not protected Federally.
If you haven't seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show, I suggest you do. It's a show about a bisexual transvestite who seeks to undo a marriage between two innocent heterosexuals and how he completely corrupts their value system by sexual seduction and repetitive chanting and singsong. Eventually he does "liberate" the two newleyweds and the movie ends with them completely inducted as anything-goes sluts. But not before in a sideline premise, this bisexual transvestite "Dr. Frankenfurter" creates a youthful boy-toy as his child/son/sodomy toy. The frankenstein-boy's name is "Rocky". Hence "The Rocky Horror Picture Show".
And I just showed you that isn't 100% true and some LGBT have successfully sued under Federal Law.
Given that only 3% of the population is Homosexual, and that 97% of the population is not..."The far right reactionaries..."
You see folks, now this is what goes on here, where as there is certain groups that want to get the government out of the business of what it once recognized, and then upheld as being a decent institution in which we like to call the "Institution of Marriage" in this nation, and they want it changed because this instititution represents the traditional uniting or the joining up together of what has always been known as marriage between a man and a woman, and rightfully so. The two were always joined together in Holy matramony, and then they are to raise a family as a result of this marriage being between a man and a woman, in which will give the kids a stable enviroment that brings normalcy and a proper balance to it all for which the kids can easily relate to as such in their lives.Yes, it has.I believe the States should have the right to determine what laws they should be allowed to follow.
However, I disagree with your notion that government should be allowed to enter anyone's bedroom and dictate, under penalty of law, what a person can or cannot do in their homes. This is not a Conservative stance and smacks of tyranny.
Either you are for limited government, or you are not.
How does not expanding the governments power to regulate same sex relationships allow the government to dictate what a person can do in their homes? By not recognizing same sex relationships as marriage, has the government prevented them from doing anything they want sexually?
However, there is a much simpler solution. Simply do away with government recognized marriage all together. Civil contracts can do everything that current marriage law does, without the emotional blackmail and governmental oppression.
Marriage is essentially a Religious Institution. People can get married in church, and if they can find a church to marry the same sex, more power to them.
However, religious marriage would not be recognized by the government for anyone. Only civil contracts.
I don't really need any government to tell Me I am married, so I could care less what others, the government, or even God thinks about it.
False argument because the legislature cannot deny civil rights.
I am making the same argument for single people that gay-marriage advocates make on their side. If mine is a false argument then theirs is also.
Because Section II of the 14th Amendment addressed, specifically, the right to vote.
If I understand you right, the 14th addressed the right to vote in context of race, then that testifies to the overall intent of the amendment also.
You don't understand it at all, period.
The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.
Define "lawful marriages". The Court did. They said Windsor was made lawful by New York's consensus.The decision says nothing about whether States can say "No", the Windsor decision only addresses States that have said "Yes".
As the court noted in the ruling:
"This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages."
>>>>
Your Honor, please accept into the record as Defense Exhibit 13B43n18 a copy of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."
You don't understand it at all, period.
The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.
Define "lawful marriages". The Court did. They said Windsor was made lawful by New York's consensus.The decision says nothing about whether States can say "No", the Windsor decision only addresses States that have said "Yes".
As the court noted in the ruling:
"This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages."
>>>>
Oops.
I am making the same argument for single people that gay-marriage advocates make on their side. If mine is a false argument then theirs is also.
If I understand you right, the 14th addressed the right to vote in context of race, then that testifies to the overall intent of the amendment also.
You don't understand it at all, period.
The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.
I am making the same argument for single people that gay-marriage advocates make on their side. If mine is a false argument then theirs is also.
Define "lawful marriages". The Court did. They said Windsor was made lawful by New York's consensus.
Oops.
All Windsor said, as the court noted, that decision applies only to Civil Marriges where the state said "Yes", this couple is Civilly Married and therefore it is unconstitutional for the Federal government not to recognize that Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple.
>>>>
Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY
Page 14 of Opinion:
New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons. After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood....
...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States...
...Page 17:
..“[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562,575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594 (1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States”. Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations...
...Page 18:
...The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280U. S. 379, 383–384(1930). 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)....
...The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition...
...Page 19:
...In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus
You don't understand it at all, period.
The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.
Really? Anyone can marry anyone? I'm pretty sure the Court isn't going to interpret the 14th that way when it comes to marriage.
A driver's license is a privelege; a privelege that blind people don't qualify for. Pretty sure the Court isn't going to stand up to a state and tell them the blind now have to be able to drive.
Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone you say? It harms a word, "marriage". Just like transsexualism harms the words "male" and "female". And what's with that Harvey Milk guy sodomizing orphaned street teens on drugs, and then having that "sexuality" celebrated as iconic of gay and lesbian values?
Wouldn't that be a contradiction to child welfare and adoption by gays and lesbians? I'd sure think so. I wonder what an adoption agency would say to a prospective set of parents who freely adored and promoted Jerry Sandusky's "open sexuality"? Pretty sure they'd be turned down. One of the things marriage does is opens up participants to equality in adopting kids. Belonging to a social culture [not race] that upholds and promotes Harvey Milk as iconic of their values is harmful to orphaned children who then can be accessed by them via married-status. Unless the LGBT community would be happy with 2nd class marriage-adoptive priveleges?
Define "lawful marriages". The Court did. They said Windsor was made lawful by New York's consensus.
Oops.
All Windsor said, as the court noted, that decision applies only to Civil Marriges where the state said "Yes", this couple is Civilly Married and therefore it is unconstitutional for the Federal government not to recognize that Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple.
>>>>
I understand that you are hopeful that this is so. However, instead of putting words in the Court's mouth, I will quote them directly:
Sorry, I think the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court understands the ruling a little better then a nameless internet poster. From the same link:
"But while I disagree with the result to which the majoritys analysis
leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its
analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and
the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether
the States, in the exercise of their historic and essential authority
to define the marital relation, ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage."
Windsor does not answer the question about State that say "No", it only addressed recognition by the Federal government pertaining to States that said "Yes". An answer as to whether States can discriminate in the realm of Civil Marriage based on gender (actual language) to exclude same-sex couples (intent) will be another case.
>>>>
This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.
Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?
Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?
Why is marriage a conservative concept??
Sorry, I think the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court understands the ruling a little better then a nameless internet poster. From the same link:
"But while I disagree with the result to which the majoritys analysis
leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its
analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and
the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether
the States, in the exercise of their historic and essential authority
to define the marital relation, ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage."
Windsor does not answer the question about State that say "No", it only addressed recognition by the Federal government pertaining to States that said "Yes". An answer as to whether States can discriminate in the realm of Civil Marriage based on gender (actual language) to exclude same-sex couples (intent) will be another case.
>>>>
You can hang onto your little bouy of dissent in a churning sea of "State's unquestioned authority...since the founding of our nation" as wave after wave of that reiteration hits you upon reading the majority Opinion on DOMA. But eventually you are going to have to face the facts, large, looming and persistent as they are...
