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

[bodecea]

Government marriage is a privilege, not a "right," so it can't be a "civil right." You have the "right" to keep government out of your business, you do not have the "right" to demand anything from government or anyone else.

As for gay marriage, I oppose all government marriage.

The Supreme Court is full of shit. No one has the "right" to demand anything of others. We have the "right" to be left alone as long as we're not infringing on other people's "right" to be left alone.

I like how you've moved seamlessly here form talking about legal rights to natural rights.

No one has a reasonable right by either definition to demand anything of others, including government. Ultimately everything government gives to one person, it took from another.

Wait....what? If I get the legal right to marry, it was taken away from someone else?

You sound like a parent that tells one of their kids that because they love them MORE, the other children are now loved less.

 

[bodecea]

so here's some copy and paste for your reading pleasure - remember they'll be a quiz later . [DRIVEL REMOVED]

It's shocking that the defenders of anti-gay marriage laws don't call Sill and Beanie to testify isn't it?

Indeed. You'd think all that Green Bean posted would be useful to them in court when arguing against Gay Marriage. I wonder why it isn't.

 

[Seawytch]

Free to marry whom you choose, as long as it's a member of the opposite sex?

So........................they're "free" as long as they choose from a pre approved pool that you deem appropriate.

Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

That's because you fundamentally don't understand "freedom." Freedom is the right to be free from government tyranny, it's not the right to demand that government give you what you demand. We are talking about "government" marriage here. Why anyone needs government validation to feel "married" is beyond me. As is that you believe someone isn't free because they can't go bang on government's door and demand shit.

Then, don't have a legal marriage. Why would anyone feel the NEED to keep others from getting a legal marriage if they wish to do so?

Why doesn't he ask his spouse why she felt she NEEDED "government validation"? According to him, she forced him into a civil marriage he didn't want.

 

[kaz]

I like how you've moved seamlessly here form talking about legal rights to natural rights.

No one has a reasonable right by either definition to demand anything of others, including government. Ultimately everything government gives to one person, it took from another.

It's a fair point. But what is government "demanding" from people in this case? I would say this is a case where the people are more than entitled to demand something from the government, that being equal treatment under the law.

Actually, government marriage is not about equal treatment, it's specifically about treating people differently. In fact, if it were about "equal treatment" no one would care. Government should treat all it's citizens equally. Expanding inequality doesn't create equality no matter how you slice it. So no, no one has any "right" to demand unequal treatment from anyone, including government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1000 posts and not a single person has posted legitimate reason to deny legal marriage to same sex couples.

Prove me wrong.

 

[kaz]

You endlessly make references to what the SCOTUS thinks as if they are some sort of great authority proving you correct.

In this, they are. It's not like they only declared marriage a fundamental right once in the1800s. They did it in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They're about to do it again.

Bam! That was my point, they are the authority to you ... when you agree with them. LOL. I never consider them an authority on anything, they have consistently proven they are not worthy of it regardless that they get some rulings correct.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You endlessly make references to what the SCOTUS thinks as if they are some sort of great authority proving you correct.

In this, they are. It's not like they only declared marriage a fundamental right once in the1800s. They did it in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They're about to do it again.

Bam! That was my point, they are the authority to you ... when you agree with them. LOL. I never consider them an authority on anything, they have consistently proven they are not worthy of it regardless that they get some rulings correct.

It's always funny when clowns around here profess to support the Constitution and then turn around and say they want to get rid of the Supreme Court,

as if the Constitution can somehow determine and defend constitutionality on its own,

by some sort of magic I presume.

 

[kaz]

I like how you've moved seamlessly here form talking about legal rights to natural rights.

No one has a reasonable right by either definition to demand anything of others, including government. Ultimately everything government gives to one person, it took from another.

Wait....what? If I get the legal right to marry, it was taken away from someone else?

Strawman

You sound like a parent that tells one of their kids that because they love them MORE, the other children are now loved less.

Strawman. You are 100% backwards. I oppose government marriage because that is what is government favoring one person over another. I say specifically the reverse of this, government should treat ALL it's citizens the same. Eliminate the death tax for everyone, make parenting rights and responsibilities based on parentage and not paper. Make taxes flat. There is nothing government does with marriage that should be denied to anyone. Expanding that inequality doesn't make us more equal.

 

[kaz]

That's because you fundamentally don't understand "freedom." Freedom is the right to be free from government tyranny, it's not the right to demand that government give you what you demand. We are talking about "government" marriage here. Why anyone needs government validation to feel "married" is beyond me. As is that you believe someone isn't free because they can't go bang on government's door and demand shit.

Then, don't have a legal marriage. Why would anyone feel the NEED to keep others from getting a legal marriage if they wish to do so?

Why doesn't he ask his spouse why she felt she NEEDED "government validation"? According to him, she forced him into a civil marriage he didn't want.

Strawman. I told you I was married to have this discussion, I'm not afraid of it. However, I never said how we got married.

If you want to post this as a question rather than a strawman accusation then I would be happy to address it, but I'm not addressing anything that's put in such a bull manner.

 

[Gadawg73]

No one has a reasonable right by either definition to demand anything of others, including government. Ultimately everything government gives to one person, it took from another.

Wait....what? If I get the legal right to marry, it was taken away from someone else?

Strawman

You sound like a parent that tells one of their kids that because they love them MORE, the other children are now loved less.

Strawman. You are 100% backwards. I oppose government marriage because that is what is government favoring one person over another. I say specifically the reverse of this, government should treat ALL it's citizens the same. Eliminate the death tax for everyone, make parenting rights and responsibilities based on parentage and not paper. Make taxes flat. There is nothing government does with marriage that should be denied to anyone. Expanding that inequality doesn't make us more equal.

Well currently government is not treating everyone the same.
That ain't happening now or anytime soon so since government IS NOT getting out of the marriage business you need to address what IS happening now.
And that is gay folks are denied.
Either agin or for, not 'tweeners.
Real easy to dodge the relevant issues of the day with a "well, if frogs flew then they would not have to jump" rhetoric.
Real world is what happens now.

 

[Seawytch]

You endlessly make references to what the SCOTUS thinks as if they are some sort of great authority proving you correct.

In this, they are. It's not like they only declared marriage a fundamental right once in the1800s. They did it in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They're about to do it again.

Bam! That was my point, they are the authority to you ... when you agree with them. LOL. I never consider them an authority on anything, they have consistently proven they are not worthy of it regardless that they get some rulings correct.

They are the "authority" according to the Constitution.

 

[Seawytch]

Then, don't have a legal marriage. Why would anyone feel the NEED to keep others from getting a legal marriage if they wish to do so?

Why doesn't he ask his spouse why she felt she NEEDED "government validation"? According to him, she forced him into a civil marriage he didn't want.

Strawman. I told you I was married to have this discussion, I'm not afraid of it. However, I never said how we got married.



If you want to post this as a question rather than a strawman accusation then I would be happy to address it, but I'm not addressing anything that's put in such a bull manner.

It's not a Strawman. You loathe those seeking civil marriage...the same civil marriage you take advantage of with the excuse "my wife made me do it". Are you as contemptuous of your own as you are of others?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one has a reasonable right by either definition to demand anything of others, including government. Ultimately everything government gives to one person, it took from another.

Wait....what? If I get the legal right to marry, it was taken away from someone else?

Strawman

You sound like a parent that tells one of their kids that because they love them MORE, the other children are now loved less.

Strawman. You are 100% backwards. I oppose government marriage because that is what is government favoring one person over another. I say specifically the reverse of this, government should treat ALL it's citizens the same. Eliminate the death tax for everyone, make parenting rights and responsibilities based on parentage and not paper. Make taxes flat. There is nothing government does with marriage that should be denied to anyone. Expanding that inequality doesn't make us more equal.

You might oppose 'government marriage', but that is irrelevant because government marriage is here, it's legal, and it's not going anywhere.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In this, they are. It's not like they only declared marriage a fundamental right once in the1800s. They did it in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They're about to do it again.

Bam! That was my point, they are the authority to you ... when you agree with them. LOL. I never consider them an authority on anything, they have consistently proven they are not worthy of it regardless that they get some rulings correct.

It's always funny when clowns around here profess to support the Constitution and then turn around and say they want to get rid of the Supreme Court,

as if the Constitution can somehow determine and defend constitutionality on its own,

by some sort of magic I presume.

And as you see, they have no viable alternative to judicial review to determine constitutionality.

 

[bodecea]

Why doesn't he ask his spouse why she felt she NEEDED "government validation"? According to him, she forced him into a civil marriage he didn't want.

Strawman. I told you I was married to have this discussion, I'm not afraid of it. However, I never said how we got married.



If you want to post this as a question rather than a strawman accusation then I would be happy to address it, but I'm not addressing anything that's put in such a bull manner.

It's not a Strawman. You loathe those seeking civil marriage...the same civil marriage you take advantage of with the excuse "my wife made me do it". Are you as contemptuous of your own as you are of others?

Wait....His wife "made him do it"? Really? Where is that gem to be seen? I must read it! I must!

 

[Paperman299]

No one has a reasonable right by either definition to demand anything of others, including government. Ultimately everything government gives to one person, it took from another.

It's a fair point. But what is government "demanding" from people in this case? I would say this is a case where the people are more than entitled to demand something from the government, that being equal treatment under the law.

Actually, government marriage is not about equal treatment, it's specifically about treating people differently. In fact, if it were about "equal treatment" no one would care. Government should treat all it's citizens equally. Expanding inequality doesn't create equality no matter how you slice it. So no, no one has any "right" to demand unequal treatment from anyone, including government.

You may feel legal marriage causes inequality, and hey, I won't even argue with you. But this is a narrower topic. The government has offered to recognize marriages in order to facilitate the legal issues of two people sharing their lives. If they only give this to some people and not others, that is not equal treatment under the law.

 

[GreenBean]

so here's some copy and paste for your reading pleasure - remember they'll be a quiz later . [DRIVEL REMOVED]

It's shocking that the defenders of anti-gay marriage laws don't call Sill and Beanie to testify isn't it?

I turned them down , and stated I wouldn't appear without a subpeona. I am not oppossed to Gay Marriage - I believe I've stated that in the past.

 

[GreenBean]

Yeah, us gays too. That's why we are marrying...because our partners want us to.

This is why I banter with you, you really have no ability to follow any logical flow in a discussion at all, you're a hoot. Your point was about me, it wasn't about straights in general, your statement about "gays" is completely irrelevant to that.

So every decision by the SCOTUS is invalid because of a ruling made in the 1800s?!?

You endlessly make references to what the SCOTUS thinks as if they are some sort of great authority proving you correct. At what point exactly do you feel that their opinion became such a great standard that merely stating one doesn't agree with the SCOTUS make them wrong? Was is 1920? 1950? I just want to be clear here when they stopped being unreliable and became The Standard. Were they The Standard in 2000? Remember how they installed W as President? At what point can we stop questioning their views and just take it as fact?

Um...when it comes to interpretation of our Constitutional RIGHTS, they are....if a case comes before them.

Welcome to the United States.

Remember how they installed W as President?

Even SCOTUS is not infalible - but just think of the alternative
AL GORE

 

[GreenBean]

In this, they are. It's not like they only declared marriage a fundamental right once in the1800s. They did it in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They're about to do it again.

Bam! That was my point, they are the authority to you ... when you agree with them. LOL. I never consider them an authority on anything, they have consistently proven they are not worthy of it regardless that they get some rulings correct.

It's always funny when clowns around here profess to support the Constitution and then turn around and say they want to get rid of the Supreme Court,

as if the Constitution can somehow determine and defend constitutionality on its own,

by some sort of magic I presume.

Two hundred years ago, Tommy boy Jefferson foresaw the potential for the judicial branch to overstep its authority and abuse its powers. As conceived by the Founders, the federal courts were chiefly designed to be a modest check upon the executive and legislative branches of government. And to adjudicate disputes among the states.

The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, acting with noiseless & unalarming advance [is] gaining ground step by step... Let the eye of vigilance never be closed ~Thomas Jefferson~

As Jefferson foresaw, unelected jurists who enjoy lifetime tenure act today not to enforce the Constitution in accord with the Founders' intent, or to adjudicate laws and legislation consistent with lawmakers' intent, but chose to impose on the law interpretations that advance the interests of liberal ideological agendas. And to interfere in matters on the local and state levels that exceed federal courts' authority.

For years, the remedy to federal judicial activism merely has been calls to replace liberal judges. Replacing liberals with more conservative jurists is fine as it goes. But the long term remedy lies in limiting the power of the federal courts; in other words, explicitly returning federal courts to the modest role envisioned by the Founders.

 

[kaz]

Wait....what? If I get the legal right to marry, it was taken away from someone else?

Strawman

You sound like a parent that tells one of their kids that because they love them MORE, the other children are now loved less.

Strawman. You are 100% backwards. I oppose government marriage because that is what is government favoring one person over another. I say specifically the reverse of this, government should treat ALL it's citizens the same. Eliminate the death tax for everyone, make parenting rights and responsibilities based on parentage and not paper. Make taxes flat. There is nothing government does with marriage that should be denied to anyone. Expanding that inequality doesn't make us more equal.

Well currently government is not treating everyone the same.
That ain't happening now or anytime soon so since government IS NOT getting out of the marriage business you need to address what IS happening now.
And that is gay folks are denied.
Either agin or for, not 'tweeners.
Real easy to dodge the relevant issues of the day with a "well, if frogs flew then they would not have to jump" rhetoric.
Real world is what happens now.

And what exactly am I supposed to take from this point?