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.
This isn't slavery, this isn't gays being forced into ghettos, this isn't gays being forced to ride in the back of the bus.
and the primary reason marriage isn't now inclusive to gay couples, is due to bigotry and intolerance. We're not talking about some simple issue of morality here. This isn't slavery, this isn't gays being forced into ghettos, this isn't gays being forced to ride in the back of the bus.
This isn't slavery, this isn't gays being forced into ghettos, this isn't gays being forced to ride in the back of the bus.
This is gays being denied equal protection of the law. Just because your intolerance manifests itself with a different mask, that simple straightforward fact does not change.
and the primary reason marriage isn't now inclusive to gay couples, is due to bigotry and intolerance. We're not talking about some simple issue of morality here. This isn't slavery, this isn't gays being forced into ghettos, this isn't gays being forced to ride in the back of the bus.
Your last two sentences contradict your first (which ends with the bolded part
This isn't slavery, this isn't gays being forced into ghettos, this isn't gays being forced to ride in the back of the bus.
This is gays being denied equal protection of the law. Just because your intolerance manifests itself with a different mask, that simple straightforward fact does not change.
How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?
Ehhhh.. wrong answer.. I do not want government to define marriage... I want individuals with the freedom to accept this couple or that couple as married or whatever all on their own... and only have government recognize family units for the purposes of taxation, legal contracts, legal power of attorney, inheritance, etc...
If a gay wants to go to this church or that institution or whatever else and wants to be deemed as marriage in whatever person's eyes.. so be it... but you do not force others to give up their freedom to see you differently because of your choice....
Again.. this whole movement is about forced recognition and acceptance... plain and simple....
Whether I recognize your union or Joe Schmoe accepts it or Jane Doe hates it or whatever should have nothing to do with law or government
What BS Dave.
"do not want force others to give up their freedom to see you differently because of your choice"
Gay marriage does that? Forces you to see someone differently because of their choice to marry?
That is beyond absurd. How does that force you to do a damn thing Dave.
Allowing gay marriage will force you to see someone else differently? LOL
Even if it did Dave, what harm is that and how was it forced on you and HOW THE HELL WOULD YOU KNOW ANYWAY?
Do you hang out at the Probate Court and record all marriages?
You would not even know that gays were getting married Dave. How is that any of your damn business anyway?
It becomes someone else's business when laws demand that everyone recognize that marriage as legal. Take that away, and 95% of all objections disappear also.
This is gays being denied equal protection of the law. Just because your intolerance manifests itself with a different mask, that simple straightforward fact does not change.
How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?
Marriage for some people is protected by the law. It is not protected for gay people, simply because they are gay.
Are you really unaware of this?
Ehhhh.. wrong answer.. I do not want government to define marriage...
I want individuals with the freedom to accept this couple or that couple as married or whatever all on their own... and only have government recognize family units for the purposes of taxation, legal contracts, legal power of attorney, inheritance, etc...
Homosexuals still have "the right" to get married to each other by any church willing to perform the marriage. This "ban" doesn't change that in the slightest.
I don't believe that is true. In most states, if not all, you need a marriage license to get married, which is another encroachment of government that needs to be gotten rid of. We shouldn't need government permission to be married.
No it's not you crazy radical.
Just stop and think for a moment what are the modern implications of a marriage.
Think immigration. Think fraud.
What would happen if anyone could marry anyone with no government oversite?
How would immigration process all those "new citizens?"
That's just ONE aspect.
Snap out of your radical, make-believe, non-realistic, nonsensical, libertarian bubble!!
If the law is defined as man and woman, exactly how gays not included?
I'll say two things:
1. This ruling is yet another example of right-wing "lies" and "fear-mongering" come to pass. The reason many people opposed to gay marriage also oppose civil unions is because they figured it wouldn't be seen as a compromise, it would be used to push the gay marriage agenda. Bullshit, they argued. Well, the narrow ruling argued that very premise. They said it was unconstitutional for a state to allow civil unions but withhold the title "marriage", and of course gay marriage supporters rejoice. But as I've said before, it's not fear-mongering if it's also the truth, and it's not a lie just because it hasn't happened yet.
2. The primary thing everyone needs to understand is that we don't define marriage as the union of a man and woman just because of hatred of gay people. There's nothing wrong with having a debate over gay marriage, and both sides making their case, and occasionally one side winning and one side losing. But it's wrong to just conclude, without any evidence, that the primary motivation for not wanting to alter marriage, and the primary reason marriage isn't now inclusive to gay couples, is due to bigotry and intolerance.
We're not talking about some simple issue of morality here. This isn't slavery, this isn't gays being forced into ghettos, this isn't gays being forced to ride in the back of the bus.
Ehhhh.. wrong answer.. I do not want government to define marriage...
Too late. It already does. It has for a very, very long time.
I want individuals with the freedom to accept this couple or that couple as married or whatever all on their own... and only have government recognize family units for the purposes of taxation, legal contracts, legal power of attorney, inheritance, etc...
And that is all gays want! Equality under the law!
How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?
Ehhhh.. wrong answer.. I do not want government to define marriage...
Too late. It already does. It has for a very, very long time.
I want individuals with the freedom to accept this couple or that couple as married or whatever all on their own... and only have government recognize family units for the purposes of taxation, legal contracts, legal power of attorney, inheritance, etc...
And that is all gays want! Equality under the law!
g, Dave strikes me as no bigot or gay hater. Far from it.
He is one that will have a different opinion down the road. Give him time.
I think the stupidity of your logic is summed up here:
If the law is defined as man and woman, exactly how gays not included?
How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?
None of the Civil Marriage laws are written in terms of sexual orientation, the discrimination is written in terms of gender.
>>>>
How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?
Marriage for some people is protected by the law. It is not protected for gay people, simply because they are gay.
Are you really unaware of this?
Marriage for some people "protected" by the law? Say what? That's not what equal protection means, nor is it actually true. Equal protection 1) refers to laws that exist, 2) does not pertain to civil laws like the legal definition of marriage, and 3) essentially has nothing to do with protecting you from anything.
If the law is defined as man and woman, exactly how gays not included? If you try and receive a marriage license, is there a questionnaire in which they inquire about your sexual orientation? The law doesn't have to "protect" gay people on the basis of their choosing. It can still include them (in this case, because they still qualify as men and women).
How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?
None of the Civil Marriage laws are written in terms of sexual orientation, the discrimination is written in terms of gender.
>>>>
That's very good. I never thought of it that way before.
It is kind of like sodomy laws in that respect. Sexual orientation is not specified, but you know who it is aimed at.
