Congratulations, Oklahoma!!

[bodecea]

You are confusing, first you say Christians can still have their beliefs, then you call them dishonest and ridicule their stand. So, gays can also be ridiculed?

I see that you despite your claims, you strongly dislike those that do not accept the gay lifestyle.

Gays are ridiculed all the time. Don't pretend we are not.

I didn't say that, he is claiming the high road then goes down the low road.

Ah, ok then.

 

[bodecea]

Where is "segregation is a clear violation of civil rights" in the Constitution?

I think somebody should remove the Christian non-right to marry.

I think the government should remove the tax benefits of marrying.

What have you done personally to try to make that happen?

 

[Jughead]

Desegregation wasn’t popular in Oklahoma, either.

Not the same issue at all. Segregation was a clear violation of civil rights. Marriage is not listed in the constitution as a fundamental right.

Incorrect.

Marriage is indeed a fundamental right, it’s found here in the Constitution:

434 U.S. 374 | LII / Legal Information Institute

In addition to violating the right to marry, the state laws being struck down are also Equal Protection Clause violations.

Something wrong with the link.

Here's the constitution.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

I'm curious to know where it says anything about marriage being a fundamental right. I can't find any reference?

 

[bodecea]

Not the same issue at all. Segregation was a clear violation of civil rights. Marriage is not listed in the constitution as a fundamental right.

Incorrect.

Marriage is indeed a fundamental right, it’s found here in the Constitution:

434 U.S. 374 | LII / Legal Information Institute

In addition to violating the right to marry, the state laws being struck down are also Equal Protection Clause violations.

Something wrong with the link.

Here's the constitution.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

I'm curious to know where it says anything about marriage being a fundamental right. I can't find any reference?

The Supreme Court, in several cases, have stated that marriage is a fundamental right. The precedent is there.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not the same issue at all. Segregation was a clear violation of civil rights. Marriage is not listed in the constitution as a fundamental right.

Where is "segregation is a clear violation of civil rights" in the Constitution?

Segregation did not exist when the constitution was written, however marriage did.

You’re not making any sense.

Is segregation a civil rights violation or not?

You claimed it was in post #72.

It’s likely you’re not making any sense because your position is untenable.

You oppose segregation because it adversely effects African-Americans; yet you’re unwilling to afford the same civil liberties to gay Americans because you hate them, the same hate that justified segregation over 50 years ago.

 

[Iceman]

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits segregation, public or private. Judges just decided at one point they didn't like it after years of saying it was legal, and presto, it became illegal.

 

[Jughead]

Where is "segregation is a clear violation of civil rights" in the Constitution?

Segregation did not exist when the constitution was written, however marriage did.

Oh? Segregation did not exist? You want to go with that?

Yup. The constitution was adopted in 1787 and went into effect in 1789. Segregation began around 1814, about a half century before the start of the civil war.

 

[bodecea]

Segregation did not exist when the constitution was written, however marriage did.

Oh? Segregation did not exist? You want to go with that?

Yup. The constitution was adopted in 1787 and went into effect in 1789. Segregation began around 1814, about a half century before the start of the civil war.

So, there was no separation of the races before 1814? Prove that, please.

 

[bodecea]

I hope no one here is claiming that for something to be a right, a civil right, the Constitution must mention it.

 

[Papageorgio]

I think somebody should remove the Christian non-right to marry.

I think the government should remove the tax benefits of marrying.

What have you done personally to try to make that happen?

What would you like me to do? Marriage today is a huge farce, people don't stay together and it's just convenient. If you tire of the other, you divorce. Then you have a legal mess.

I won't go to anyone's weddings, I never give wedding gifts. If you are not going to stay with the person for life, then don't get married, don't have kids.

Gays want to get married, good, I won't go to their wedding either. It saves me a lot of wasted weekends.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

California voted against gay marrige, remember? Well we can credit liberals to spend all their energy on this, instead of the economy. This is why that family froze to death. Liberals want social issues done, not economic ones taken care of.

Nonsense.

This has nothing to do with ‘liberals,’ ‘liberals’ aren’t spending their energy on anything.

This has solely to do with private citizens seeking relief from government excess in Federal court pursuant to their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, in this case the state of Oklahoma violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

civil unions were offered a while ago, with the same rights of married MEN AND WOMEN. Liberals are never satisfied.

Separate but equal is just as un-Constitutional as the Oklahoma measure struck down today. It’s not the place of the people to deny citizens their fundamental rights, nor do the people have the authority to ‘offer’ citizens laws designed solely to make them different from everyone else.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into the very same marriage contracts as opposite-sex couples, where marriage is a commitment between two equal partners.

You’re attempting to contrive this as something ‘partisan’ when in fact it is not.

The issue has only to do with the Constitution’s requirement that all persons be afforded equal protection of the law, having nothing to do with ‘liberals.’

 

[Jughead]

Where is "segregation is a clear violation of civil rights" in the Constitution?

Segregation did not exist when the constitution was written, however marriage did.

You’re not making any sense.

Is segregation a civil rights violation or not?

You claimed it was in post #72.

It’s likely you’re not making any sense because your position is untenable.

You oppose segregation because it adversely effects African-Americans; yet you’re unwilling to afford the same civil liberties to gay Americans because you hate them, the same hate that justified segregation over 50 years ago.

Segregation was a civil rights issue, however segregation began around 1814, after the constitution was adopted, thus there is no reference to it in the constitution.
I don't hate gays, I simply cannot endorse same sex marriage as it is in conflict with my faith. I will not renounce my faith in order to acknowledge gay marriage.

You said yourself that it was ok to not acknowledge gay marriage:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...y-marriage-with-a-vegeance-2.html#post8075708

 

[bodecea]

I think the government should remove the tax benefits of marrying.

What have you done personally to try to make that happen?

What would you like me to do? Marriage today is a huge farce, people don't stay together and it's just convenient. If you tire of the other, you divorce. Then you have a legal mess.

I won't go to anyone's weddings, I never give wedding gifts. If you are not going to stay with the person for life, then don't get married, don't have kids.

Gays want to get married, good, I won't go to their wedding either. It saves me a lot of wasted weekends.

so...you don't like it but you do nothing? No petitions started? No congressman written?

 

[Asclepias]

Segregation did not exist when the constitution was written, however marriage did.

You’re not making any sense.

Is segregation a civil rights violation or not?

You claimed it was in post #72.

It’s likely you’re not making any sense because your position is untenable.

You oppose segregation because it adversely effects African-Americans; yet you’re unwilling to afford the same civil liberties to gay Americans because you hate them, the same hate that justified segregation over 50 years ago.

Segregation was a civil rights issue, however segregation began around 1814, after the constitution was adopted, thus there is no reference to it in the constitution.
I don't hate gays, I simply cannot endorse same sex marriage as it is in conflict with my faith. I will not renounce my faith in order to acknowledge gay marriage.

You said yourself that it was ok to not acknowledge gay marriage:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...y-marriage-with-a-vegeance-2.html#post8075708

Segregation was a Black issue. Who does "Civil" identify?

 

[Jughead]

Oh? Segregation did not exist? You want to go with that?

Yup. The constitution was adopted in 1787 and went into effect in 1789. Segregation began around 1814, about a half century before the start of the civil war.

So, there was no separation of the races before 1814? Prove that, please.

Segregation was a dark time in the United State's history. Segregation began around 1814. It ended after the Civil Rights Bill in 1965. Some places still tried to illegally segregate people after that.

When Did Segregation Start and End? - Ask.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Segregation did not exist when the constitution was written, however marriage did.

Oh? Segregation did not exist? You want to go with that?

Yup. The constitution was adopted in 1787 and went into effect in 1789. Segregation began around 1814, about a half century before the start of the civil war.

And?

This is more meaningless nonsense predicated on the fact that your position is completely untenable.

Segregation was struck down as un-Constitutional because it violated the 14th Amendment:

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Brown v. Board of Education | LII / Legal Information Institute

Likewise, laws designed to disallow same-sex couples access to marriage law are also un-Constitutional because they violate the 14th Amendment, such as Utah’s Amendment 3:

Like in the Prop 8 decision, the federal district court judge in Utah based his ruling on the grounds that Amendment 3 denied gays and lesbians in Utah their 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.

Concerning due process, the court found that marriage is a fundamental right, and to deny this fundamental right to the three couples wishing to marry -- based on nothing more than moral disapproval or tradition -- is unconstitutional.

The Utah laws also violate equal protection, even when the court applied the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, called rational basis review. Under this test, the court failed to find any rational connection between the government's interests in procreation or child-raising and the gay marriage ban.

Utah's Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional: Federal Judge - Decided

Consequently, it is on-point, relevant, and appropriate to compare segregation to laws denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights, as both are equally repugnant to the Constitution.

 

[Papageorgio]

What have you done personally to try to make that happen?

What would you like me to do? Marriage today is a huge farce, people don't stay together and it's just convenient. If you tire of the other, you divorce. Then you have a legal mess.

I won't go to anyone's weddings, I never give wedding gifts. If you are not going to stay with the person for life, then don't get married, don't have kids.

Gays want to get married, good, I won't go to their wedding either. It saves me a lot of wasted weekends.

so...you don't like it but you do nothing? No petitions started? No congressman written?

It isn't a big deal to me, get married and be off. Enjoy your life. I think marriage is between God and the couple. If you don't want God and you see divorce as an option, then it should be a civil union. Marriage today is an insult to God.

 

[Jughead]

You’re not making any sense.

Is segregation a civil rights violation or not?

You claimed it was in post #72.

It’s likely you’re not making any sense because your position is untenable.

You oppose segregation because it adversely effects African-Americans; yet you’re unwilling to afford the same civil liberties to gay Americans because you hate them, the same hate that justified segregation over 50 years ago.

Segregation was a civil rights issue, however segregation began around 1814, after the constitution was adopted, thus there is no reference to it in the constitution.
I don't hate gays, I simply cannot endorse same sex marriage as it is in conflict with my faith. I will not renounce my faith in order to acknowledge gay marriage.

You said yourself that it was ok to not acknowledge gay marriage:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...y-marriage-with-a-vegeance-2.html#post8075708

Segregation was a Black issue. Who does "Civil" identify?

You answered it. It was a black issue. The Civil rights movement helped put a stop to segregation.

 

[Noomi]

Congratulations to all those in the state of Oklahoma!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Segregation did not exist when the constitution was written, however marriage did.

You’re not making any sense.

Is segregation a civil rights violation or not?

You claimed it was in post #72.

It’s likely you’re not making any sense because your position is untenable.

You oppose segregation because it adversely effects African-Americans; yet you’re unwilling to afford the same civil liberties to gay Americans because you hate them, the same hate that justified segregation over 50 years ago.

Segregation was a civil rights issue, however segregation began around 1814, after the constitution was adopted, thus there is no reference to it in the constitution.
I don't hate gays, I simply cannot endorse same sex marriage as it is in conflict with my faith. I will not renounce my faith in order to acknowledge gay marriage.

You said yourself that it was ok to not acknowledge gay marriage:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...y-marriage-with-a-vegeance-2.html#post8075708

To seek to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties is a manifestation of hate; you may hide behind your façade of religious dogma if you wish, but it doesn’t change that fact.

And although private entities are not subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, they are also not at liberty to seek to codify their hate and ignorance.

Because measures that deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights fail even a rational basis test, the sole motivation for such measures is animus toward gay Americans.