Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Seawytch]

actually the burden of proof should be on you. It is a testament to the backwardness of the modern federal court system that some judges may think your right on that.

The gay-marriage movement is not about equal rights under the law or they would be demanding that no tax breaks result from relationship status.

So does every American have to demonstrate their societal worth before they get equal protection or just the gays?

Like I said the gay-marriage movement is not about equal protection or "societal worth"

No, it's about equal protection. Feel free to join this guy in his fight to ban all civil marriages. As long as it applies to everybody, best of luck!

 

[dcraelin]

So does every American have to demonstrate their societal worth before they get equal protection or just the gays?

Like I said the gay-marriage movement is not about equal protection or "societal worth"

No, it's about equal protection. Feel free to join this guy in his fight to ban all civil marriages. As long as it applies to everybody, best of luck!

It is demonstratively NOT about equal protection under the law as I have pointed out.

This guy in your link has the right idea if we are going to say the law cant differentiate based on relationship status. I see the author couldn't help but drag in an unrelated racial issue tho...that is pathetic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So far we have seen several primary arguments to defend Amendment 3

One is that somehow homosexuality creates "cults" that will be empowered by marriage in order to adopt orphans. The same argument applies to heterosexual marriage and ignores that LGBT can adopt children in many states.

Another is based on Natural Law, and the gibberish of that argument requires no rebuttal.

Yet another is based on Jacksonian democratic majorities, which falls in that such cannot deprive citizens of their liberties.

Still another is that SCOTUS gave states the authority to regulate marriage, which falls on the fact that states cannot deprive citizens of their civil liberties.

I counsel all to study the legal 'pedigrees' if you wish of the SCOTUS justices to determine which philosophy of law they will use in applying the Constitution to the question of Amendment 3.

 

[dcraelin]

The idea that rights are inherit is admirable. And people may believe anything they want, but those beliefs vary. How to mesh them into society's rules is the problem. The fairest, safest way to do that is thru Democracy/Republicanism, "Jacksonian Democracy", I guess.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg

 

[Iceweasel]

No, it's about equal protection. Feel free to join this guy in his fight to ban all civil marriages. As long as it applies to everybody, best of luck!

The individual, gay, straight or otherwise, already has equal protection. You are attempting to apply it to relationships. Relationships are not guaranteed. Society decided what marriage should be but now we are told majorities no longer have the right to define legal relationships. Bi-sexuals have rights too, why not apply your logic to them and let them marry a male and female. Why should they have to pick one due to your value system. If you would deny them you are incredibly hypocritical.

I think we are too confused by propaganda these days and the hypocrisy of the law so blatant, it's time for the state to get out of the marriage business. No more automatic legal relationship, only what you contractually agree to with whomever or whatever you want.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.

Again, notice the ever present Relativist qualifiers: Legal and legally.

Never 'moral' or 'morally'

But let's address the query: "...you must be able to identify a societal harm..."

Golly, let's see: What harm could possibly come from pretending that what is incontrovertibly ABNORMAL is Normal?

Does anyone reading this believe that societal delusion could result in societal harm? I mean it works SO WELL FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, what could possibly go wrong when ya sread it out over 300 million individuals.

Suffice it to say that even the homosexuals that marry hetero-females feel like their punched in the gut, when they find that their progeny is gay. Just as they feel when they learn that their child has down-syndrome, or any other debilitating disease.

Need another clue? "Homophobe". Who uses this? Homosexuals use it as a means to cow their opposition, by projecting upon others, that which THEY KNOW: HURTS THEM. Which is that which identifies them as DEVIANTS!

Yet, there they are, demanding that YOU ACCEPT THEM AS THAT WHICH THEY KNOW IS FALSE, THEMSELVES!

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, it's about equal protection. Feel free to join this guy in his fight to ban all civil marriages. As long as it applies to everybody, best of luck!

The individual, gay, straight or otherwise, already has equal protection. You are attempting to apply it to relationships. Relationships are not guaranteed. Society decided what marriage should be but now we are told majorities no longer have the right to define legal relationships. Bi-sexuals have rights too, why not apply your logic to them and let them marry a male and female. Why should they have to pick one due to your value system. If you would deny them you are incredibly hypocritical.

I think we are too confused by propaganda these days and the hypocrisy of the law so blatant, it's time for the state to get out of the marriage business. No more automatic legal relationship, only what you contractually agree to with whomever or whatever you want.

If the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality has taught us anything, it is that Slippery Slopes: ARE SLIPPERY! (Go figure, right?)

And I totally agree on the gov/marriage thing.

I would never have asked the State for a marriage license if my girl hadn't demanded it. The Church service is all I needed. Witnessed by our families and closest of friends, it says everything O needed to say. And if te state came out today and said marriage was 'ILLEGAL', it wouldn't change my life on iota.

I do not ask anyone for permission to exercise my rights. I didn't get them from the state, so why would I ask them for permission to exercise them?

The Advocacy for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality has nothing to do with rights, or equality, it has to do with the acquisition of POWER as a means toward advancing INEQUALITY.

For the uninitiated, the Ideological Left rests upon Relativism.

Relativism rejects objectivity.

Objectivity is ESSENTIAL to the concepts: Truth, trust, morality and justice.

As a result, the Ideological Left see 'justice, morality, trust and truth' as that which is determined by those WITH THE POWER. OKA: Truth, trust, morality and Justice are relative to who has the power to define them.

Sound familiar? ("I have a pen and I have a phone".)

 

[JakeStarkey]

And Where_'s natural law theory falls on its own inconsistency. The hatred above expressed by him exposes that the end game is coming shortly for his hate group.

What is morally abnormal is the refusal by some Americans to allow others to live their private lives as they wish.

 

[GreenBean]

I'm about as Anti-Gay as you can possibly get - THe Gay Agenda people like to call me a "homophobe" Gays are disgusting degenerates -BUT as much as I don't like to admit it, they are Grown People entitled to the same rights and obligations as normal people - and IMO the Government has no business interfering in their perverted little lives.

They shouldn't have to fight for their right to form Marriages - it should be an unalienable right - even for perverts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Green Bean, you are a Great American, even in your hate and free speech and understanding the Constitution protects all.

I salute you.

 

[Silhouette]

Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.

Easy:

1. Federal and state laws protecting children that mandate a person must err on the side of caution when that person even just suspects harm coming to a child or children. And those laws having a punitive clause where failure to do so can result in prosecution.

2. Gays and lesbians [same sex couples] lining up in unison to elevate Harvey Milk's sexual-political "achievements" as a matter of law, and now a new US Postage stamp as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world".

3. That Harvey Milk's "sexual-political achievements" were to bugger orphaned street teens on drugs, vulnerable and incapable of consent. And his officiating to at least one of those boys as "a father figure"; a boy who later killed himself on Milk's birthday.

4. The fact that once married, LGBTers will elevate, legally, to the top-tier of screened people to adopt orphaned children.

5. The fact that even when gays are reminded of Harvey Milk's sex crimes against orphaned teens, the church of LGBT line up to defend and not denounce him.

6. The law in California passed on the urgings/beliefs of a gay politician there, as this church expands its flock, that requires young children in public schools to celebrate Harvey Milk for his sexuality. [see #3 & #5].

7. The law in California on the urgings/beliefs of a gay politician there, as this church expands its flock, that prohibit teens and other minors under 18 from seeking therapy on their own even to help change their sexual orientation from gay to straight, even if that child knows or suspects it was imprinted on them from molestation from a same-sexed perp. While other laws, statutes and customs there not only don't prohibit the reverse in children [urging "coming out" gay or being "bi curious"] and dozens of entities that exist to "help children transition" from straight to gay. [not a church? yeah, right]/

8. First amendment rights particularly in Utah where the christian faith teaches that an entire culture [Sodom] and its inhabitants were wiped off the map because of homosexual behavior taking over an entire region as a culture. [See Jude 1 & Romans 1, also the Koran for muslims Poets 26.] And that not just the homosexuals but also their enablers or apologists being sent to the Pit of Fire forever.


As long as the church of LGBT requires children to celebrate Harvey Milk's sexual-political "achievements" those adults must not be allowed access anywhere near adoptable orphans.

You DO realize what will happen the moment they get the legal toe in the door of marriage, right? If any adoption agency DARES to screen them at that point as not savory to adopt, that adoption agency will be sued into next year and the US Supreme Court will be faced once again with a decision to examine the LGBT CULTure more closely, this time, and make that final determination to shelve children's protection in favor of an ideology that worships the Harvey Milk sexual ideal, which is, sex with orphaned teens who are preferably, according to Milk's bio, addled on drugs and incapable of mentally resisting his sexual advances.

I'll leave you, Seawytch, to contemplate once again the quote from Harvey Milk's bio by his gay friend/journalist Randy Shilts,

"Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems". [page 180 The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk]

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Like I said the gay-marriage movement is not about equal protection or "societal worth"

No, it's about equal protection. Feel free to join this guy in his fight to ban all civil marriages. As long as it applies to everybody, best of luck!

It is demonstratively NOT about equal protection under the law as I have pointed out.

This guy in your link has the right idea if we are going to say the law cant differentiate based on relationship status. I see the author couldn't help but drag in an unrelated racial issue tho...that is pathetic.

Oh it's MUCH worse than THAT.

Follow the 'reasoning' that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is pushing and the laws against murder, assault, slander, arson unfairly discriminate against the psychopath, and the poor sociopaths can NEVER get a 'fair deal'.

in truth, the ONLY thing we're debating here is the distinction between those who have a means to reason soundly, thus who know the difference between what is sustainable policy and what is not and the ignorant, foolish and stupid, who are clueless about everything except pop-culture and who's got the best dope.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Law cannot punish LGBT without doing the same to the heterosexual community if the argument is that children are at risk of adult predators.

Sil's 'Harvey Milk' rant becomes increasingly incoherent.

Sil and Where_ rants above make it abundantly clear they both are becoming increasingly unstable psychologically and deteriorating mentally.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.

Easy:

Apparently not.

You failed to cite any objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

Which is understandable, given the fact no such evidence exists.

 

[Seawytch]

Like I said the gay-marriage movement is not about equal protection or "societal worth"

No, it's about equal protection. Feel free to join this guy in his fight to ban all civil marriages. As long as it applies to everybody, best of luck!

It is demonstratively NOT about equal protection under the law as I have pointed out.

This guy in your link has the right idea if we are going to say the law cant differentiate based on relationship status. I see the author couldn't help but drag in an unrelated racial issue tho...that is pathetic.

Yes, it demonstratively is. Gays want to be treated equally under the law, period. Feel free to change those laws if you like...fill the pool so the black kids can't swim, but we still want to be treated equally.

 

[Seawytch]

No, it's about equal protection. Feel free to join this guy in his fight to ban all civil marriages. As long as it applies to everybody, best of luck!

The individual, gay, straight or otherwise, already has equal protection. You are attempting to apply it to relationships. Relationships are not guaranteed. Society decided what marriage should be but now we are told majorities no longer have the right to define legal relationships. Bi-sexuals have rights too, why not apply your logic to them and let them marry a male and female. Why should they have to pick one due to your value system. If you would deny them you are incredibly hypocritical.

I think we are too confused by propaganda these days and the hypocrisy of the law so blatant, it's time for the state to get out of the marriage business. No more automatic legal relationship, only what you contractually agree to with whomever or whatever you want.

Marriage is a fundamental right. Look it up.

 

[Iceweasel]

And Where_'s natural law theory falls on its own inconsistency. The hatred above expressed by him exposes that the end game is coming shortly for his hate group.

What is morally abnormal is the refusal by some Americans to allow others to live their private lives as they wish.

Hate? And we were discussing gay marriage, not outlawing gay behavior. Simmer down.

 

[Iceweasel]

Marriage is a fundamental right. Look it up.

Look it up where? It isn't in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independance. Oh, you mean Google.

Yes, it demonstratively is. Gays want to be treated equally under the law, period. Feel free to change those laws if you like...fill the pool so the black kids can't swim, but we still want to be treated equally.

Gay individuals are treated the same. Hit a gay man, it's the same penalty. Marriage isn't a person. It's a legal union and unions are not guaranteed, sorry. Like I asked earlier, where would you draw the line and why?

 

[Seawytch]

Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.

Again, notice the ever present Relativist qualifiers: Legal and legally.

Never 'moral' or 'morally'

But let's address the query: "...you must be able to identify a societal harm..."

Golly, let's see: What harm could possibly come from pretending that what is incontrovertibly ABNORMAL is Normal?

Does anyone reading this believe that societal delusion could result in societal harm? I mean it works SO WELL FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, what could possibly go wrong when ya sread it out over 300 million individuals.

Suffice it to say that even the homosexuals that marry hetero-females feel like their punched in the gut, when they find that their progeny is gay. Just as they feel when they learn that their child has down-syndrome, or any other debilitating disease.

Need another clue? "Homophobe". Who uses this? Homosexuals use it as a means to cow their opposition, by projecting upon others, that which THEY KNOW: HURTS THEM. Which is that which identifies them as DEVIANTS!

Yet, there they are, demanding that YOU ACCEPT THEM AS THAT WHICH THEY KNOW IS FALSE, THEMSELVES!

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<

I hope you argue in court.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where_ is merely from a flawed natural law position.

He can't give you case law. It doesn't exist.