High Court Homophobia

[kaz]

I won't get worked up either way but I'd love to see the gays lose just to watch them implode after all the garbage they've been doing. Many states will quickly overturn their judicial decrees and de-legitimize all same sex marriage.

That would be a hoot. I don't give a shit about gay marriage, but the tactics of the left are wrong

 

[kaz]

Raising the polygamy question is bush league. That's something a tv judge would do, and not anything a Supreme Court Justice outta be doing. Limit yoruselves to the issue at hand. Worry about polygamy is that actually comes about. Amateurs.

Gays should be able to marry who they want, it shouldn't be up to government, they don't want man/woman marriage, it's not up to us, it's up to them?

You: exactly

What about polygamists? They don't want man/woman marriage, so isn't it up to them since you say that's the standard?

You: WTF? No, what are you talking about?

So for gays, they can't say they don't want man/woman, they should be able to pick themselves who they marry?

You: exactly

Polygamists?

You: No, don't be ridiculous

Gays: Of course, it's up to them

You are the one being bush league

 

[kaz]

I am a homophobe. They are all icky and got cooties. And AIDS, hepatitis, various STDs . And put their weenies up an other mans....yeah know. I am disgusted with that behavior. I don't have to accept it. Hetrophobia, strap that one on for size, weirdoes.

I'm not a homophobe either, I just hate fags

 

[emilynghiem]

@

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Three of the main scare tactics used to fight marriage equality.

It's not traditional.

Opens the door to plural marriage and even animal marriage.

Loss of religious freedom.

Those are valid points to raise when considering the change of social dynamics and should easily be argued. Abortion wasn't traditional. Interracial marriage did not open the door to bestiality and religious freedom does include the right to have different views.

Abortion was legal in America when the Constitution was being written.

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Three of the main scare tactics used to fight marriage equality.

It's not traditional.

Opens the door to plural marriage and even animal marriage.

Loss of religious freedom.

Those are valid points to raise when considering the change of social dynamics and should easily be argued. Abortion wasn't traditional. Interracial marriage did not open the door to bestiality and religious freedom doesn't include the right to have different views.

None of them are valid points when considering questions of constitutionality.

That is one opinion, hence the forum to bring forth the arguments. It's not homophobia, it's dialogue. The answer is obvious (to me) but things don't change by declaring oneself correct and demonizing those who disagree.

It was a Republican Judge appointed by a Republican President that got the ball rolling, try to remember that.

Phobias are irrational fears. It's irrational to fear legal same sex marriage, therefore it qualifies as a phobia, i.e., homophobia.

NYcarbineer
Not necessarily!
There are gays who oppose pushing marriage in govt. One of the FEW ppl objective enough to AGREE with the idea of having civil unions for EVERYONE and keeping marriage private, ie out of govt, is a Lesbian friend of mine who is so liberal she has no political agenda and is open minded that way.

You do NOT have to be "homophobic or irrational" not to believe in gay marriage!!!

Also NYcarbineer
If Muslims don't believe in eating pork, but follow the tradition that the spirit of Jews arein pigs, and that belief is respected as their cultural religious tradition,
Can't ppl's belief about traditional marriage be respected as their cultural tradition.


There is nothing wrong with expecting freedom to practice gay marriage in ones private church and life; but where it involves public policy then all beliefs should be treated equally. So if ppl cannot agree to.include gay marriage equally then REMOVE all marriage from govt policy and that's still equal.

The problem is from pushing one belief over the other through GOVT which technically violates separation of church and state.

NYcarbineer isnt it irrational
to ask for separation of church and state, and respect for different beliefs, but then push the belief in gay marriage on the public thru govt and denounce as bigoted anyone elses beliefs that are different?

 

[Redfish]

homophobia = fear of homosexuals

Do any of you libs really think that anyone is afraid of homosexuals?

It is not homophobic to look at this from a realistic constitutional viewpoint. But since the constitution is silent on gay marriage the SC must try to rule on the intent of the founders and the subsequent amendments.

The only way to end this is to enact a constitutional amendment saying that marriage may consist of two people (and only two) of opposite or the same sex.

Now, are you on the left ready to put that to a vote and see if 38 states will ratify it? Yes or no.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing.

It was those opposed to legal recognition of same-sex unions that slammed the door on Civil Unions.

For example here is the Constitutional amendment passed herer in Virginia (similar to a lot of states that passed bans at the time):

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Notice that it bans Civil Unions.

Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

That's false. SSCM has passed the last 4 times it was asked on General Election ballots (Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota).


>>>>

 

[MaryL]

I still don't understand why we feel the need to validate homosexuality with anything more than a nod or wink, let alone marriage.

 

[emilynghiem]

Regardless which view anyone takes of marriage, these are still beliefs. Beliefs in traditional marriage, beliefs in gay marriage, beliefs that marriage is a right or it is a private choice. So nobody in federal govt should be in the business of dictating beliefs for its citizens by law. The issue of marriage should remain a free choice, just like religion. And just as free to exercise without regulation by the state, neither being established nor prohibited, but respecting all beliefs equally that remain private choices, and not a matter for govt to decide.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gays believe that if they are able to force recognition of same sex marriage on the state they can force the same on individuals. As many years ago as interracial marriage was imposed such marriages are still not recognized by many individuals.

The law cannot force this kind of social change. If Aunt Sally refuses to invite her nephew and his same sex partner to Thankgiving dinner no law can force her to do so. If Linda's boss turns down an invitation to Linda's wedding to Barbra no law can force him to go. If Jake won't let George and Tom's son over to play there isn't a law to enforce that. Normal people aren't going to refuse to socialize with other normal people even if the support same sex relationships themselves. Tolerance has its limits.