GOP hopefuls remind Iowans they oppose Gay Rights

[bodecea]

Exactly!.....If marriage were a "RIGHT" there would be no reasons for states to deny a marriage license for ANY reason.

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right. But there are reasons the government can deny you the opportunity to say certain things, or when you'll have the opportunity to say them.

I bet you believe that.

As does the government...thus the whole "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" line of arguments.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why would they want to?

if i was old and my husband was dead and my older sister was alone as well, I would want to join in a union with her to manage our finances, be able to visit her in the hospital, make legal decisions together....etc...

basically for the perks and simplification that comes with a legal union of that sort....

Um, why wouldn't you be able to visit your own sister in the hospital? And what financial and legal decisions would you want to make together that you wouldn't be able to?

Funny thing is, hospitals do not check your ID when you visit someone. Lie to them and you can visit anyone.

For those who say you should not have to lie, get over it. I lied to stay with a friend in the ER a while ago. Everybody lies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Government guarantees rights, guaranteeing rights has NOTHING to do with marriage or inventing "marriage rights" that the Constitution (thankfully) doesn't waste one word on.

1) Why doesn't the 10th amendment apply?

2) Since marriage is regulated at the state level, it's a question of states granting rights, not the federal constitution.

Keep trying. SCOTUS disagrees with you.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Well?

Well what?

It's not a civil "RIGHT"

And you can't show that it's written ANYWHERE that it's an absolute civil ''RIGHT"!

Imagine what this country would be like if it were an absolute "Civil Right".

Do you even have a clue as to why it's not an absolute "civil right"?

Ever take a biology course?........Do you know what can happen when family members pro-create?

Now, go out and fight for your "wants".......Good luck, more power to you.

Seriously, you people would get a lot further in your cause, if you stop with the propoganda. Once the word "rights" starts being thrown around, many people start going, "whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute, WHAT?"

Gay Marriage is a Civil Right as long as Hetero Marriage is a Civil Right...it's all about the equality. You don't want gay marriage to be a right? Fine...get rid of Hetero marriage. Then the government cannot be seen to be favoring one law-abiding, tax-paying group over another for no legitimate, legal reason.

Are you willing to give up YOUR right to a civil marriage in order to keep gays from their right to a civil marriage?

I never had a civil "RIGHT" to marry.

Show me where it says that marriage is a civil "RIGHT"?

You can't do it, just admit it.

Not one person up here has been able to produce written word that it is an absolute "RIGHT!"

 

[WorldWatcher]

And DOMA has been ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court more than once.

Edit: Comment removed, QW addressed it in a later post.

By the way, the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that the government has the power to define marriage however they want, and that that power actually trumps the Bill of Rights. If the right to practice a religion does not trump the power of the government to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, the right to get married is not going to cut it.

So explain how Virginia Law concerning marriage was found unconstitutional in the Loving v. Virginia Case.

I mean if States can "define marriage however they want", then that law should have been upheld right?



>>>>

I said government, not states.

States are part of the government, as are city, town, and county governments.

Federal law made bigamy illegal, even though Utah said it was legal.

Polygamy/Bigamy was never legal in any State.

1862 - The Morrill Act is passed and barred plural marriage in the Territories.

1890 - The Mormon Church renounced the practice.

1896 - Utah is admitted and becomes a State in the United States​

Original Constitution from the State of Utah submitted for Statehood

Article III
"No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

By order of the Convention, May 8th, 1895.​

Nope, polygamy/bigamy was never legal in the State of Utah.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Well what?

It's not a civil "RIGHT"

And you can't show that it's written ANYWHERE that it's an absolute civil ''RIGHT"!

Imagine what this country would be like if it were an absolute "Civil Right".

Do you even have a clue as to why it's not an absolute "civil right"?

Ever take a biology course?........Do you know what can happen when family members pro-create?

Now, go out and fight for your "wants".......Good luck, more power to you.

Seriously, you people would get a lot further in your cause, if you stop with the propoganda. Once the word "rights" starts being thrown around, many people start going, "whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute, WHAT?"

Gay Marriage is a Civil Right as long as Hetero Marriage is a Civil Right...it's all about the equality. You don't want gay marriage to be a right? Fine...get rid of Hetero marriage. Then the government cannot be seen to be favoring one law-abiding, tax-paying group over another for no legitimate, legal reason.

Are you willing to give up YOUR right to a civil marriage in order to keep gays from their right to a civil marriage?

I never had a civil "RIGHT" to marry.

Show me where it says that marriage is a civil "RIGHT"?

You can't do it, just admit it.

Not one person up here has been able to produce written word that it is an absolute "RIGHT!"

So they turned you away when you went for a marriage license? Really?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The government cannot deny something it provides to one group of law-abiding tax-paying citizens to another group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens without legal, overriding reasons. Got some?

Funny thing there, you just proved that your argument is bogus. The government has always had the legal power to restrict marriage. If you do not believe me just ask the Mormons who argued that they had a religious duty to marry more than one woman. That makes any relationship outside that definition, by law, illegal, and gives the government the right to deny anything simply because they are not law abiding.

 

[gekaap]

Keep trying. SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Citation needed.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Gay Marriage is a Civil Right as long as Hetero Marriage is a Civil Right...it's all about the equality. You don't want gay marriage to be a right? Fine...get rid of Hetero marriage. Then the government cannot be seen to be favoring one law-abiding, tax-paying group over another for no legitimate, legal reason.

Are you willing to give up YOUR right to a civil marriage in order to keep gays from their right to a civil marriage?

I never had a civil "RIGHT" to marry.

Show me where it says that marriage is a civil "RIGHT"?

You can't do it, just admit it.

Not one person up here has been able to produce written word that it is an absolute "RIGHT!"

So they turned you away when you went for a marriage license? Really?

LMAO!

Noooooooo, we filled out the application and went through the process. If marriage was a "RIGHT", there would be no process.

Christ, get a damn clue......Or produce the words that states that marriage is an absolute "RIGHT".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you figure that? You are opposed to the right of sane, sober taxpaying American citizens to avail themselves of the protection afforded by contract law and you are not opposed to gay rights?

Walk me through your argument please.

Marriage is not a civil right, neither is making a contract of any type. A person can easily support polices that prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians and oppose same sex marriage, Obama does it all the time.

Making a contract is definately a civil right. Are the protections afforded under contract law restricted to a certain class?

How is making a contract a right? Can I force a person who does not want to do business with me to do so simply by throwing down a contract and claiming I have a right to make one?

As for the rest of your question, that is a separate issue, and they are only available to the parties of a contract. I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that makes them a separate class of people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well?

Well what?

It's not a civil "RIGHT"

And you can't show that it's written ANYWHERE that it's an absolute civil ''RIGHT"!

Imagine what this country would be like if it were an absolute "Civil Right".

Do you even have a clue as to why it's not an absolute "civil right"?

Ever take a biology course?........Do you know what can happen when family members pro-create?

Now, go out and fight for your "wants".......Good luck, more power to you.

Seriously, you people would get a lot further in your cause, if you stop with the propoganda. Once the word "rights" starts being thrown around, many people start going, "whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute, WHAT?"

Gay Marriage is a Civil Right as long as Hetero Marriage is a Civil Right...it's all about the equality. You don't want gay marriage to be a right? Fine...get rid of Hetero marriage. Then the government cannot be seen to be favoring one law-abiding, tax-paying group over another for no legitimate, legal reason.

Are you willing to give up YOUR right to a civil marriage in order to keep gays from their right to a civil marriage?

Marriage is not a civil right.

Period.

 

[gekaap]

Noooooooo, we filled out the application and went through the process. If marriage was a "RIGHT", there would be no process.

I guess that voting is not a right, then.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right. But there are reasons the government can deny you the opportunity to say certain things, or when you'll have the opportunity to say them.

I bet you believe that.

As does the government...thus the whole "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" line of arguments.

Funny thing about your fire in the theater example, even though it is often quoted as a reason to restrict free speech, it has never actually been codified. Regardless, content based speech is always, repeat always, unconstitutional. That makes your attempt to defend gekaap look as silly as he is for saying it in the first place.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Edit: Comment removed, QW addressed it in a later post.




So explain how Virginia Law concerning marriage was found unconstitutional in the Loving v. Virginia Case.

I mean if States can "define marriage however they want", then that law should have been upheld right?



>>>>

I said government, not states.

States are part of the government, as are city, town, and county governments.

Federal law made bigamy illegal, even though Utah said it was legal.

Polygamy/Bigamy was never legal in any State.

1862 - The Morrill Act is passed and barred plural marriage in the Territories.

1890 - The Mormon Church renounced the practice.

1896 - Utah is admitted and becomes a State in the United States​

Original Constitution from the State of Utah submitted for Statehood

Article III
"No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

By order of the Convention, May 8th, 1895.​

Nope, polygamy/bigamy was never legal in the State of Utah.


>>>>

Believe it or not, I understand that states are governments. Since the point I was making concerned a federal law that overrode state laws I said the government because I was referring to the federal government.

As for your point about Utah, you should look back a little further in history, Utah was not always a state.

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bodecea]

I bet you believe that.

As does the government...thus the whole "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" line of arguments.

Funny thing about your fire in the theater example, even though it is often quoted as a reason to restrict free speech, it has never actually been codified. Regardless, content based speech is always, repeat always, unconstitutional. That makes your attempt to defend gekaap look as silly as he is for saying it in the first place.

Not codified, but legal-speak for the ability to restrict free speech in special cases...it was coined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a Supreme Court decision Schenck v. United States.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Keep trying. SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Citation needed.

A federal law that defined marriage in all states and territories was ruled Constitutional, making the definition of marriage a federal issue, not a state one.

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As does the government...thus the whole "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" line of arguments.

Funny thing about your fire in the theater example, even though it is often quoted as a reason to restrict free speech, it has never actually been codified. Regardless, content based speech is always, repeat always, unconstitutional. That makes your attempt to defend gekaap look as silly as he is for saying it in the first place.

Not codified, but legal-speak for the ability to restrict free speech in special cases...it was coined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a Supreme Court decision Schenck v. United States.

Yet you still ignore my point.

Gekaap implied that the government can tell what I cannot say. Content based speech restrictions are always unconstitutional.

 

[gekaap]

Funny thing about your fire in the theater example, even though it is often quoted as a reason to restrict free speech, it has never actually been codified. Regardless, content based speech is always, repeat always, unconstitutional. That makes your attempt to defend gekaap look as silly as he is for saying it in the first place.

Can you threaten the President? No, you cannot. Can the government restrict protest activity at a campaign rally to certain "free speech zones"? Yes, it can. Can you lie under oath? No, you cannot. Can you spread falsehoods about a person that tarnish their reputation knowing that what you're saying is false? No, you cannot.

 

[bodecea]

I never had a civil "RIGHT" to marry.

Show me where it says that marriage is a civil "RIGHT"?

You can't do it, just admit it.

Not one person up here has been able to produce written word that it is an absolute "RIGHT!"

So they turned you away when you went for a marriage license? Really?

LMAO!

Noooooooo, we filled out the application and went through the process. If marriage was a "RIGHT", there would be no process.

Christ, get a damn clue......Or produce the words that states that marriage is an absolute "RIGHT".

So you were allowed to go thru the process. Gay people are not allowed to even go thru the process (except for a short period of time a few years ago). So, how come you got to go thru that process and gays are turned away?

 

[Nosmo King]

Marriage is not a civil right, neither is making a contract of any type. A person can easily support polices that prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians and oppose same sex marriage, Obama does it all the time.

Making a contract is definately a civil right. Are the protections afforded under contract law restricted to a certain class?

How is making a contract a right? Can I force a person who does not want to do business with me to do so simply by throwing down a contract and claiming I have a right to make one?

As for the rest of your question, that is a separate issue, and they are only available to the parties of a contract. I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that makes them a separate class of people.

You don't have the right to expect another party to enter into a contract, true.

But the state cannot deny the protections afforded under the system of contract law. If I wanted to form a business with someone other than my exact socio-economic class or age or skin color or any other immutable condition, I have the right to do just that without restriction of the state. As long as I'm over 18 or 21, not a convicted felon and an American citizen, I have the right to ACCESS the protections of contract law.

Except if I'm all those things and also gay.

Then my right to access contract law is restricted.

Same sex marriage IS gay rights.

I'm not a gay man. I have no personal stake in this issue except as an American. The restrictions put upon sober, sane, taxpaying Americans all because of their sexual preference (which itself is not a crime) runs against what I believe this nation stands for: equal justice under the law.