Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, it's not mine it is your slippery slope fallacy. Properly recognizing that the 14th Amendment applies to gay couples has nothing to do with more than couples. Civil Marriage does not legally apply to more than two. Never has. Two people, that's it.

Then answer the question posted earlier and quit trying to run from them. Laws change. You argue that exact point, then run when challenged on them.

Is the third party in the throuple being discriminated against?

What compelling state interest is there in denying polygamists access to legally recognized marriage?

JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL

In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional. In his 91-page opinion in Brown v. Buhman, on Dec. 13, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups struck down Utah’s law making polygamy a crime. In so doing, he may have opened Pandora’s Box.

Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional

An opinion piece from Breitbart, you’ve got to be kidding.

The ignorance and hate exhibited by you and others on the partisan right is truly remarkable, as the polygamy ruling has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, where raising the issue of ‘polygamy’ in the context of marriage is ignorant demagoguery.

Moreover, marriage and polygamy are two completely unrelated issues, as marriage law does not recognize polygamy. Unlike same-sex couples who are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, three or more persons seeking ‘marriage’ may not ‘marry,’ as marriage contract law does not accommodate such a configuration.

Last, in his ruling the judge left intact Utah’s prohibition of bigamy, which does address the issue of marriage law, allowing only two equal partners to enter into a marriage contract – same- or opposite-sex.

The polygamy ruling, become familiar with the facts for a change:

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78

 

[Redfish]

Then answer the question posted earlier and quit trying to run from them. Laws change. You argue that exact point, then run when challenged on them.

Is the third party in the throuple being discriminated against?

What compelling state interest is there in denying polygamists access to legally recognized marriage?

JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL

In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional. In his 91-page opinion in Brown v. Buhman, on Dec. 13, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups struck down Utah’s law making polygamy a crime. In so doing, he may have opened Pandora’s Box.

Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional

An opinion piece from Breitbart, you’ve got to be kidding.

The ignorance and hate exhibited by you and others on the partisan right is truly remarkable, as the polygamy ruling has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, where raising the issue of ‘polygamy’ in the context of marriage is ignorant demagoguery.

Moreover, marriage and polygamy are two completely unrelated issues, as marriage law does not recognize polygamy. Unlike same-sex couples who are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, three or more persons seeking ‘marriage’ may not ‘marry,’ as marriage contract law does not accommodate such a configuration.

Last, in his ruling the judge left intact Utah’s prohibition of bigamy, which does address the issue of marriage law, allowing only two equal partners to enter into a marriage contract – same- or opposite-sex.

The polygamy ruling, become familiar with the facts for a change:

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78

It has everything to do with it, are you a complete moron? Read the words:
JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Most all the folks I know that are anti gay this and that are really just ashamed and embarrassed of the gay folk they have in their own families.
Sad. People will not even accept as equals their own kin.

Here's what you don't get. being anti gay marriage is not equivalent to be anti gay or anti gay rights.

I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. Some are in relationships, some are not. One couple got "married" in DC and they think its a sham just like the rest of us.

Only zealots like wytch think this is a big deal

Actually people who believe in Equality Before the Law think it's a big deal. Some of them can be rather zealous.

If no gay couple every wanted to marry I would still change the law. It's the right thing to do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Most all the folks I know that are anti gay this and that are really just ashamed and embarrassed of the gay folk they have in their own families.
Sad. People will not even accept as equals their own kin.

being anti gay marriage is not equivalent to be anti gay or anti gay rights.

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law where two equal partners may enter into a marriage contract – same- or opposite-sex.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law that they are eligible to participate in violates gay Americans’ 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.

Consequently, those who seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are indeed violating gay Americans’ civil rights, and are in fact anti-gay.

Gay Americans are entitled to their comprehensive civil rights, not just the rights some are comfortable with.

Indeed, recognizing the rights of a minority that many are uncomfortable with is a fundamental tenet of our free and just society.

 

[Redfish]

Most all the folks I know that are anti gay this and that are really just ashamed and embarrassed of the gay folk they have in their own families.
Sad. People will not even accept as equals their own kin.

being anti gay marriage is not equivalent to be anti gay or anti gay rights.

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law where two equal partners may enter into a marriage contract – same- or opposite-sex.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law that they are eligible to participate in violates gay Americans’ 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.

Consequently, those who seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are indeed violating gay Americans’ civil rights, and are in fact anti-gay.

Gay Americans are entitled to their comprehensive civil rights, not just the rights some are comfortable with.

Indeed, recognizing the rights of a minority that many are uncomfortable with is a fundamental tenet of our free and just society.

totally completely wrong. But if thats what you believe, go right ahead. I am tired of trying to have a reasonable factual debate with someone who has the IQ of a slug.

 

[KevinWestern]

Most all the folks I know that are anti gay this and that are really just ashamed and embarrassed of the gay folk they have in their own families.
Sad. People will not even accept as equals their own kin.

Here's what you don't get. being anti gay marriage is not equivalent to be anti gay or anti gay rights.

I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. Some are in relationships, some are not. One couple got "married" in DC and they think its a sham just like the rest of us.

Only zealots like wytch think this is a big deal

If it's a sham though, then why do you care if gays get married, lol?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Quick question for all of you anti gay marriage types.

If a couple who lives around 4 houses down the street (on your same block), decides to get married, even though they are gay, is that REALLY going to affect how your marriage to your wife (who you decided on because you are a definite heterosexual) works?

If it does, it's only because you think about being gay yourself (either man or woman), and are interested in seeing what a same sex relationship would be like.

If not................you're secure in your own relationship, as well as your own sexuality, and don't really care what others do, because they're not you, they are themselves and have the right as humans to express themselves as they see fit.

Sorry..................but being gay, or being homosexual is not a sin. I challenge anyone who reads the Bible to tell me where there is one of the 7 Noahide Commandments or something in the 10 Commandments handed down that says you shall not be gay.

The only place it really shows up is in the book of Leviticus, which was a manual for the priests of the Jewish people, and in the book of Paul, who tried to bring those same rules to everyone.

BTW...............there are ZERO PASSAGES in the Bible that do anything to denounce lesbian sex.

 

[KNB]

Most all the folks I know that are anti gay this and that are really just ashamed and embarrassed of the gay folk they have in their own families.
Sad. People will not even accept as equals their own kin.

Here's what you don't get. being anti gay marriage is not equivalent to be anti gay or anti gay rights.

I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. Some are in relationships, some are not. One couple got "married" in DC and they think its a sham just like the rest of us.

Only zealots like wytch think this is a big deal

If it's a sham though, then why do you care if gays get married, lol?

These are the same idiots who say, "Marijuana isn't a big deal so why do you want to legalize it?" while voting to approve spending billions of dollars every year on prosecuting people for something that isn't a big deal. It makes sense in their minds and that's why the American right wing is so dangerous.

 

[Seawytch]

Most all the folks I know that are anti gay this and that are really just ashamed and embarrassed of the gay folk they have in their own families.
Sad. People will not even accept as equals their own kin.

Here's what you don't get. being anti gay marriage is not equivalent to be anti gay or anti gay rights.

I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. Some are in relationships, some are not. One couple got "married" in DC and they think its a sham just like the rest of us.

Only zealots like wytch think this is a big deal

It doesn't matter what crutch you use to justify bigotry, it's still bigotry.

No, all us gays getting married think it's a big deal...and America supports us.

It's the anti-gay folks that are the zealots now. Turnaround is fair play.

 

[Seawytch]

JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL



Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional

An opinion piece from Breitbart, you’ve got to be kidding.

The ignorance and hate exhibited by you and others on the partisan right is truly remarkable, as the polygamy ruling has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, where raising the issue of ‘polygamy’ in the context of marriage is ignorant demagoguery.

Moreover, marriage and polygamy are two completely unrelated issues, as marriage law does not recognize polygamy. Unlike same-sex couples who are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, three or more persons seeking ‘marriage’ may not ‘marry,’ as marriage contract law does not accommodate such a configuration.

Last, in his ruling the judge left intact Utah’s prohibition of bigamy, which does address the issue of marriage law, allowing only two equal partners to enter into a marriage contract – same- or opposite-sex.

The polygamy ruling, become familiar with the facts for a change:

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78

It has everything to do with it, are you a complete moron? Read the words:
JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Oh? What case was cited? You do realize Lawrence v Texas isn't about gay marriage, right?

 

[Redfish]

Quick question for all of you anti gay marriage types.

If a couple who lives around 4 houses down the street (on your same block), decides to get married, even though they are gay, is that REALLY going to affect how your marriage to your wife (who you decided on because you are a definite heterosexual) works?

If it does, it's only because you think about being gay yourself (either man or woman), and are interested in seeing what a same sex relationship would be like.

If not................you're secure in your own relationship, as well as your own sexuality, and don't really care what others do, because they're not you, they are themselves and have the right as humans to express themselves as they see fit.

Sorry..................but being gay, or being homosexual is not a sin. I challenge anyone who reads the Bible to tell me where there is one of the 7 Noahide Commandments or something in the 10 Commandments handed down that says you shall not be gay.

The only place it really shows up is in the book of Leviticus, which was a manual for the priests of the Jewish people, and in the book of Paul, who tried to bring those same rules to everyone.

BTW...............there are ZERO PASSAGES in the Bible that do anything to denounce lesbian sex.

As has been said already many times,

1. there is no objection to two same sex people making a legal committment to each other
2. there is no objection to two same sex people having the same rights as a man and woman who are married
3. being oppossed to gay marriage is not being oppossed to gays
4. marriage is the legal joining of one man and one woman--------not two men or two women, or one man and three women, or two men and six women, or a brother and sister, or a mother and daughter or father and son.
5. If a gay union is called a marriage then there is no legal defense that can be brought to porhibit all other forms of "marriage".
6. The laws should provide for a civil union between two people of the same sex and that union should have all the rights, priviledges, and tax benefits of a man/woman marriage----that kind of law would prevent the other forms of multiple joining and would give gays exactly what they SAY they want.
7. the current gay agenda is not about equality or rights-------its about government mandated societal acceptance of what most people consider abnormal. Its big brother telling us what we MUST believe.
8. homosexuality is not a normal human condition. Whether it is genetic or environmental is subject to debate, but biology does not lie, anatomy is as it is for a reason. The human anas was not designed for intercourse. The human vagina was designed for intercourse.
9. ultimately society as a whole should decide how we deal with this, not one or two judges who have a personal agenda.
10. The liberal state of california voted against gay marriage twice, only to have the will of the people overturned by activist judges.

I am done with this topic. If your mind is made up one way or the other, fine. I don't care but I do know what I believe and what human biology should tell all of us.

 

[Seawytch]

Fishy wants to keep marriage "special" just for straights. Too late Fishy, it's a done deal. You don't have that special right all to yourself.

Now, it's a little late, but if you want to change the name of ALL civil marriages to civil unions, I'll even donate to your PAC. Get to work!

 

[Clement]

Discrimination is bad no matter what form it takes, haters are running out of groups that are socially acceptable to kick around and boy are they pissed, they might actually have to come to terms with their xenophobia.

Well, that socially acceptable group today to kick around is the white male.

Poor down trodden white men, so socially disadvantaged and persecuted. How will they ever get the same consideration as other people? It just breaks my heart that they are so trampled and excluded from............... what are they excluded from again?

It sure as hell isn't from picking up the tab...

 

[KNB]

So all of this is just about semantics?

se·man·tics
səˈmantiks/
noun
noun: semantics; noun: logical semantics; noun: lexical semantics

1.
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning

This is all about the "meaning" of marriage? Because the legal agreement between two people approved by the State has to "mean" what you say it means? Every marriage should be called a "civil union" so that there isn't any argument one way or another. Everyone has civil unions, not heterosexual or gay marriages. Since it's all about semantics.

Or is it that right-wing Christian Conservatives simply insist that "redefining" marriage will destroy the space-time continuum, or whatever. Right-wing terrorist Teabagger Republicans need to understand that "marriage" is not being redefined because gay people can legally get married. Know why? Because there isn't a law against gay marriage. There never has been in American history. It was legal for gay people to get married in the 1800s just like it is today. That's the only argument that gay people need. As a society, we outlawed murder, rape, theft, slavery, and insider trading, but no one ever thought to outlaw gay or lesbian marriages.

"Oops." - Rick Perry, Republican

 

[Clement]

Nope...we've always been able to drink out of the same fountains...if we stayed closeted.

Aren't those saying "Civil Unions are good enough for queers" wanting to give us our very own fountain?

As for Civil Unions?... No.

A Black Man and a White Woman can Reflect Marriage.

Man/Man and Woman/Woman are NOT Equal to Man/Woman regardless of Race.

Same Sex Coupling NEVER Reflects Marriage.

If it does, then so does a Mother a Daughter Caring for the Child's Child together.

Individuals have Rights. When two people come together they are no longer Individual and have to be Judged as the Couple.

And Gays are not Equal to their Natural Design when they Choose to Defy it.

Be angry at Nature and it's Design, but it is a Fact.



peace...

I don't know why the erratic use of upper case but you don't have the right to judge anyone. If you don't like people marrying others of the same sex, then don't do it.

Its that simple.

Until its your own marriage, its none of your business.

...unless you are a baker who doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for them...then it's your business.

 

[Seawytch]

As for Civil Unions?... No.

A Black Man and a White Woman can Reflect Marriage.

Man/Man and Woman/Woman are NOT Equal to Man/Woman regardless of Race.

Same Sex Coupling NEVER Reflects Marriage.

If it does, then so does a Mother a Daughter Caring for the Child's Child together.

Individuals have Rights. When two people come together they are no longer Individual and have to be Judged as the Couple.

And Gays are not Equal to their Natural Design when they Choose to Defy it.

Be angry at Nature and it's Design, but it is a Fact.



peace...

I don't know why the erratic use of upper case but you don't have the right to judge anyone. If you don't like people marrying others of the same sex, then don't do it.

Its that simple.

Until its your own marriage, its none of your business.

...unless you are a baker who doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for them...then it's your business.

No, then it's about Public Accommodation laws which has nothing to do with civil marriage laws. If you don't want to do business with "the gheys", don't open your business in a locality with PA laws that protect them.

 

[GreenBean]

An opinion piece from Breitbart, you’ve got to be kidding.

The ignorance and hate exhibited by you and others on the partisan right is truly remarkable, as the polygamy ruling has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, where raising the issue of ‘polygamy’ in the context of marriage is ignorant demagoguery.

Moreover, marriage and polygamy are two completely unrelated issues, as marriage law does not recognize polygamy. Unlike same-sex couples who are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, three or more persons seeking ‘marriage’ may not ‘marry,’ as marriage contract law does not accommodate such a configuration.

Last, in his ruling the judge left intact Utah’s prohibition of bigamy, which does address the issue of marriage law, allowing only two equal partners to enter into a marriage contract – same- or opposite-sex.

The polygamy ruling, become familiar with the facts for a change:

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78

It has everything to do with it, are you a complete moron? Read the words:
JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Oh? What case was cited? You do realize Lawrence v Texas isn't about gay marriage, right?

As is generally the case SeaHAg , you are wrong again [And again and again and again ...]

In Lawrence vs. Texas the Court ruled against the Texas sodomy law and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in other other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal.

. Kennedy said that the Constitution protects "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, [and] child rearing" and that homosexuals "may seek autonomy for these purposes."

Lawrence v. Texas - 539 U.S. 558 (2003) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Get a clue ! actually ...no wait a sec .... don't get a clue , you're very entertaining just the way you are.

 

[Pop23]

Quick question for all of you anti gay marriage types.

If a couple who lives around 4 houses down the street (on your same block), decides to get married, even though they are gay, is that REALLY going to affect how your marriage to your wife (who you decided on because you are a definite heterosexual) works?

If it does, it's only because you think about being gay yourself (either man or woman), and are interested in seeing what a same sex relationship would be like.

If not................you're secure in your own relationship, as well as your own sexuality, and don't really care what others do, because they're not you, they are themselves and have the right as humans to express themselves as they see fit.

Sorry..................but being gay, or being homosexual is not a sin. I challenge anyone who reads the Bible to tell me where there is one of the 7 Noahide Commandments or something in the 10 Commandments handed down that says you shall not be gay.

The only place it really shows up is in the book of Leviticus, which was a manual for the priests of the Jewish people, and in the book of Paul, who tried to bring those same rules to everyone.

BTW...............there are ZERO PASSAGES in the Bible that do anything to denounce lesbian sex.

As has been said already many times,

1. there is no objection to two same sex people making a legal committment to each other
2. there is no objection to two same sex people having the same rights as a man and woman who are married
3. being oppossed to gay marriage is not being oppossed to gays
4. marriage is the legal joining of one man and one woman--------not two men or two women, or one man and three women, or two men and six women, or a brother and sister, or a mother and daughter or father and son.
5. If a gay union is called a marriage then there is no legal defense that can be brought to porhibit all other forms of "marriage".
6. The laws should provide for a civil union between two people of the same sex and that union should have all the rights, priviledges, and tax benefits of a man/woman marriage----that kind of law would prevent the other forms of multiple joining and would give gays exactly what they SAY they want.
7. the current gay agenda is not about equality or rights-------its about government mandated societal acceptance of what most people consider abnormal. Its big brother telling us what we MUST believe.
8. homosexuality is not a normal human condition. Whether it is genetic or environmental is subject to debate, but biology does not lie, anatomy is as it is for a reason. The human anas was not designed for intercourse. The human vagina was designed for intercourse.
9. ultimately society as a whole should decide how we deal with this, not one or two judges who have a personal agenda.
10. The liberal state of california voted against gay marriage twice, only to have the will of the people overturned by activist judges.

I am done with this topic. If your mind is made up one way or the other, fine. I don't care but I do know what I believe and what human biology should tell all of us.

The idea that two men living together or two women living together is anything close to the same as a man living with a women is nonsense. The dynamic of the relationships are as different as night and day. To say they must be treated the same simply because they both have two individuals is silly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL



Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional

An opinion piece from Breitbart, you’ve got to be kidding.

The ignorance and hate exhibited by you and others on the partisan right is truly remarkable, as the polygamy ruling has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, where raising the issue of ‘polygamy’ in the context of marriage is ignorant demagoguery.

Moreover, marriage and polygamy are two completely unrelated issues, as marriage law does not recognize polygamy. Unlike same-sex couples who are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, three or more persons seeking ‘marriage’ may not ‘marry,’ as marriage contract law does not accommodate such a configuration.

Last, in his ruling the judge left intact Utah’s prohibition of bigamy, which does address the issue of marriage law, allowing only two equal partners to enter into a marriage contract – same- or opposite-sex.

The polygamy ruling, become familiar with the facts for a change:

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78

It has everything to do with it, are you a complete moron? Read the words:
JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Obviously you did not bother to read the cited ruling and instead elected to remain ignorant.

A spun Breitbart headline from a rightwing opinion piece doesn’t constitute the ruling.

 

[Plasmaball]

Most all the folks I know that are anti gay this and that are really just ashamed and embarrassed of the gay folk they have in their own families.
Sad. People will not even accept as equals their own kin.

Here's what you don't get. being anti gay marriage is not equivalent to be anti gay or anti gay rights.

I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. Some are in relationships, some are not. One couple got "married" in DC and they think its a sham just like the rest of us.

Only zealots like wytch think this is a big deal

No you dont.