homosexual marriage

[Dana7360]

Public accommodation laws have nothing to do with this case. This magistrate is refusing to do his job and should either resign or be fired. Gays are allowed to legally marry in his state and he cannot refuse to do his job because of personal feelings.

There's no such thing as "Gay Marriage". And homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else... none of which provide that they're empowered to force someone else to accept their perversion of human sexuality.

If you knew what right were, from where they come and what sustains them... you'd know that.

Mind your ignorance, it'll spare ya this sort of humiliation in the future.

Wether you believe in gay marriage or not is irrelevant to the law. In a small way I agree with you though, there isn't gay marriage or straight marriage just marriage. You're under no obligation to accept anything. Gays are getting married and it doesn't seem to me you are being forced to accept anything.

You are of the belief that rights are bestowed upon us by God. You are free to believe that as well. I disagree with that notion. I believe our rights originate from the people themselves, not God. It is us, the people that sustain our rights. Not the government, not God, but the people.

The only folks that are being humiliated concerning this issue is you and your allies. You're not only losing on this issue in the court of public opinion, your losing in the courthouse as well. I am sure you'll get over it, for time heals all wounds.

Homosexuals are not getting married. They're being joined into a legal institution which provides them with the legal provisions and privilege common to such, which is in no way dissimilar to incorporation.

That they need to refer to it as 'Marriage' merely demonstrates the depravity common to the fraudulence of their would-be movement. They crave the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, while being simultaneously ignorant that the legitimacy rests in the standards of marriage which axiomatically exclude them and the other entities which are otherwise incapable of marriage.

BZZZT Wrong!

You don't get to redefine marriage to suit yourself.

Marriage between 2 consenting adults is now legal in 31 states. Those marriages are equal in all respects under the law and in the eyes of the individuals involved and their loved ones.

Marriage, as with the mammal and the human within that group, and the biological imperative common to each, are defined by nature. If you lack the means to understand that, THAT is your problem. That you lack the objectivity to recognize that, forcing you to demand that others lean down to accept your limited perspective, is also your problem... both are likely beyond your means to overcome, thus limiting your viability.

I only WISH i had the means to help you, but I fear, I do not.

Best of luck tho'... .

Marriage is a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the government.

The only reason why you want to deny homosexual people the marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex.

There are only 3 criteria for a legal contract. They are:

1. The people must be 18 years of age or older.
2. The people must be of sound mind.
2. The people can't sign that contract under duress.

That's it. There's no requirement to be a certain sex. In fact, we have very specific laws that make it illegal to deny someone a legal contract based on their sex. We also have a constitution amendment that requires that our government treat everyone equally under the law.

So either you hate our constitution and laws or you just are uninformed of our laws. I find it very hard to believe that you don't know our laws so I'm going to go with the fact that you hate our constitution and laws.

Why not move to a country that doesn't respect personal freedom and equality that outlaws homosexuals being married. Iran is one of them. Russia is another. I'm sure you would be much happier in one of those nations. There are flights to those nations daily. If you hate our laws and constitution so much take one of those flights and don't return.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When you convince Merriam-Webster to change their dictionary definition you can get back to us.

Until then all you have is homophobic bigotry and fearmongering.

Merriam Webster is dead, along with his innate understanding of human communication. What remains is a shell of his work, which is largely compromised by those, not dissimilar from yourself, who adhere to the addled and aforementioned 'foreign ideas, hostile to the sound construct of human communication'.

You're reasoning is fatally flawed. Specifically built upon the construct known as Argumentum ad Verecundiam, or 'the appeal to misleading authority'.

Your use of the "Webster's" reference was to find the fabricated concept posted in an authoritative reference, so that the fabricated concept could be used to further advance the deception that it was created to produce.

Homo-phobia is a fabrication, designed to impart a politically correct deception.

It seeks to convey that which is NOT fact, as 'fact'; that those who oppose homosexuality, do so because they FEAR in THEMSELVES that THEY are homosexual... and they seek to avoid the judgment which THEY bring against others; FURTHER holding that the mores, taboos and such precluding the acceptance of sexual abnormality exists ONLY because of the popular majority of the resistance to them, and that such standards are purely set upon the whimsy of paternal societal myths, which can be eroded and collapsed through turning the impetus of shame upon the bearers of said myth... and that such a tactic will bring peace and harmony among 'the peoples' and that no counter productive results will be realized as a result of the deception.

Which sadly is all fallacious drivel, and as is nearly always the case, it is of the throughly baseless variety and, what's more it amounts to little more than that which is common to the reasoning of petulant children.

Sexual abnormality is abnormal, not because 'people say it is'. Sexual abnormality is abnormal because it deviates from the sexual normality established by the biological design of the species.

It's taboo, because for countless eons, individuals, cultures and societies experienced the product of having accepted such, and we can rest assured, by virtue of the taboo... that what they experienced, required the surviving group to BAN IT!

Just like every other taboo... .

All you and the cult of Left-think is doing, is subjecting OUR culture to the same chaos, calamity and catastrophe that the long ago cultures experienced and ... something tells me, THAT AIN'T GOOD!

But it's enough for me to know that "If it's based upon a LIE... if gonna HURT!"

 

[heirtothewind]

At one time, many bible-belt states prohibited interracial marriage until SCOTUS invalidated these bigoted laws in 1967 [Loving v Virginia]. The sky did not fall, the US did not turn communist, the world did not stop spinning. Now homosexual couples have the same rights; and those rights do not impair the rights of anyone else. So just get over it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

When you convince Merriam-Webster to change their dictionary definition you can get back to us.

Until then all you have is homophobic bigotry and fearmongering.

Merriam Webster is dead, along with his innate understanding of human communication. What remains is a shell of his work, which is largely compromised by those, not dissimilar from yourself, who adhere to the addled and aforementioned 'foreign ideas, hostile to the sound construct of human communication'.

You're reasoning is fatally flawed. Specifically built upon the construct known as Argumentum ad Verecundiam, or 'the appeal to misleading authority'.

Your use of the "Webster's" reference was to find the fabricated concept posted in an authoritative reference, so that the fabricated concept could be used to further advance the deception that it was created to produce.

Homo-phobia is a fabrication, designed to impart a politically correct deception.

It seeks to convey that which is NOT fact, as 'fact'; that those who oppose homosexuality, do so because they FEAR in THEMSELVES that THEY are homosexual... and they seek to avoid the judgment which THEY bring against others; FURTHER holding that the mores, taboos and such precluding the acceptance of sexual abnormality exists ONLY because of the popular majority of the resistance to them, and that such standards are purely set upon the whimsy of paternal societal myths, which can be eroded and collapsed through turning the impetus of shame upon the bearers of said myth... and that such a tactic will bring peace and harmony among 'the peoples' and that no counter productive results will be realized as a result of the deception.

Which sadly is all fallacious drivel, and as is nearly always the case, it is of the throughly baseless variety and, what's more it amounts to little more than that which is common to the reasoning of petulant children.

Sexual abnormality is abnormal, not because 'people say it is'. Sexual abnormality is abnormal because it deviates from the sexual normality established by the biological design of the species.

It's taboo, because for countless eons, individuals, cultures and societies experienced the product of having accepted such, and we can rest assured, by virtue of the taboo... that what they experienced, required the surviving group to BAN IT!

Just like every other taboo... .

All you and the cult of Left-think is doing, is subjecting OUR culture to the same chaos, calamity and catastrophe that the long ago cultures experienced and ... something tells me, THAT AIN'T GOOD!

But it's enough for me to know that "If it's based upon a LIE... if gonna HURT!"

Your deflection to Webster was hilarious.

Too bad that Collins and the OED all have similar definitions.

Definition of ldquo homophobic rdquo Collins English Dictionary

homophobia definition of homophobia in Oxford dictionary American English US

So are you going to pretend that every single dictionary is wrong and that a religious bigot like you is the only authoritative source of term homophobic?

Your little song and dance act with accompanying spittle and hellfire makes for an amusing diversion on a Sunday.

But it is just an act and it has zero connection with reality where normal people carry on their daily lives in a sane and rational manner.

You should seek professional help, stat!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the government.

The only reason why you want to deny homosexual people the marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex.

There are only 3 criteria for a legal contract. They are:

1. The people must be 18 years of age or older.
2. The people must be of sound mind.
2. The people can't sign that contract under duress.

That's it. There's no requirement to be a certain sex. In fact, we have very specific laws that make it illegal to deny someone a legal contract based on their sex. We also have a constitution amendment that requires that our government treat everyone equally under the law.

So either you hate our constitution and laws or you just are uninformed of our laws. I find it very hard to believe that you don't know our laws so I'm going to go with the fact that you hate our constitution and laws.

Why not move to a country that doesn't respect personal freedom and equality that outlaws homosexuals being married. Iran is one of them. Russia is another. I'm sure you would be much happier in one of those nations. There are flights to those nations daily. If you hate our laws and constitution so much take one of those flights and don't return.

There IS a requirement for a certain gender for marriage... as marriage is the joining of one male and one female... (I can see that this is not easy for you, so try to think of it as 'innies and outies'.)

You're speaking of the laws of incorporation, which I've argued for two decades now, is the appropriate legal remedy for individuals seeking to join together as a means to form one entity for the purposes of enjoying the legal benefits of such unions.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality has long since rejected that resolution and they've done so NOT because it is not the perfect solution, where the objective is to gain legal equity of the privileges afforded to other groups, for which they are poorly suited for membership... therefore we can rest assured that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is NOT solely interested in financial equality, but are instead seeking the LEGITIMACY intrinsic to marriage, to which they will never BE privileged, because they're unqualified for marriage and where marriage becomes defined by their membership, the legitimacy they crave from such, qill evaporate into the ether, and it will be as if it never existed.

Legitimacy comes from truth. The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality rests upon unbridled: DECEIT.

See how that works?

 

[Dana7360]

Wether you believe in gay marriage or not is irrelevant to the law. In a small way I agree with you though, there isn't gay marriage or straight marriage just marriage. You're under no obligation to accept anything. Gays are getting married and it doesn't seem to me you are being forced to accept anything.

You are of the belief that rights are bestowed upon us by God. You are free to believe that as well. I disagree with that notion. I believe our rights originate from the people themselves, not God. It is us, the people that sustain our rights. Not the government, not God, but the people.

The only folks that are being humiliated concerning this issue is you and your allies. You're not only losing on this issue in the court of public opinion, your losing in the courthouse as well. I am sure you'll get over it, for time heals all wounds.

So the people give us our rights?

That notion has always tickled me.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that "The People", get up tomorrow morning and decide that you and your kind; whatever that is, are sub-human vermin. They go to work stripping you of your means to produce, they drive up to your home and move you out and themselves in... they tell you that you're to be at the train station by time and date certain... or else. Leaving your fate unenviable, but just as certain.

Does that circumstance remove you from the rights which 'das folks' formerly felt you possessed?

If not, why not? (Yes... you're argument is now throughly refuted... as if you remain consistent, you prove you never had any rights, only the privilege common to the whimsy of 'the peoples'... if you fall from your argument and claim that the people removing your rights to produce and enjoy the fruits of your labor, for whatever reason they advance, you concede that you never had any rights... . I hope that helps, despite knowing that it will not, due to your inability to reason objectively, thus leaving you subject to adherence to foreign ideas hostile to American principle, OKA: A Leftists.)

.
.
.

Homosexuals are not getting married. They're being joined into a legal institution which provides them with the legal provisions and privilege common to such, which is in no way dissimilar to incorporation.

That they need to refer to it as 'Marriage' merely demonstrates the depravity common to the fraudulence of their would-be movement. They crave the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, while being simultaneously ignorant that the legitimacy rests in the standards of marriage which axiomatically exclude them and the other entities which are otherwise incapable of marriage.

I didn't read all of your rant. I couldn't get past the ridiculous statements in the first paragraph.

The constitution gives us our rights and forbids the government or anyone from taking those rights away from anyone.

That constitution was written by people. Not any god and not any government. The people who won a revolution and gained our freedom wrote that document. It's what our nation and our laws are based on.

If someone wrote a law that discriminates against one person or one segment of the population, as with the anti gay marriage laws that were passed, the people have a recourse. It's called the court system and our constitution.

Every case was based on the question, is that law constitutional? Every single court in this nation found that anti gay marriage laws are clearly unconstitutional.

So the question isn't whether they're of the right sex. The question is, is it constitutional.

Pay attention sparky, all courts that the cases went before the courts found that those anti gay marriage laws were unconstitutional, illegal and violated the rights of homosexual people.

So if someone wants to write a law against a person or segment of the population, all the discriminated person needs to do is go to court and it's going to be ruled unconstitutional. It's illegal and unconstitutional to discriminate against a person or segment of our population.

The fact that every court ruled against anti gay marriage laws is a HUGE red flag that it's unconstitutional and illegal. It also shows that while someone can write a law discriminating against people, it will NEVER stand legal scrutiny.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your deflection to Webster was hilarious. ...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted. (You're doing the very best you can scamp. And I want you to know that I see that.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

At one time, many bible-belt states prohibited interracial marriage until SCOTUS invalidated these bigoted laws in 1967 [Loving v Virginia]. The sky did not fall, the US did not turn communist, the world did not stop spinning. Now homosexual couples have the same rights; and those rights do not impair the rights of anyone else. So just get over it.

So... You're arguing that because a law that forbid inter-racial marriage did not bring catastrophe, that laws which forbid the marriage of people of the same gender, will, by virtue of your precedent, also not bring catastrophe?

LOL! Oh that's BRILLIANT!

Hey Kids... The Law says that one individual can't take the life of another without a sound moral (Legal) justification... John killed Melissa because she wouldn't shut up and "THE SKY DIDN'T FALL!"

So according to the above member... You're morally free to murder anyone that annoys you sufficiently to make the effort reasonable.

(See how easy this is? They're IDIOTS... and yes, that helps... but the good news is that one can't BE a Leftist and NOT BE A IDIOT!)

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your deflection to Webster was hilarious. ...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted. (You're doing the very best you can scamp. And I want you to know that I see that.)

They should put your picture next to the term Pathetic in every dictionary since that has to be the most pathetic response to getting your butt thrashed in this forum I have seen to date.

 

[Derideo_Te]

At one time, many bible-belt states prohibited interracial marriage until SCOTUS invalidated these bigoted laws in 1967 [Loving v Virginia]. The sky did not fall, the US did not turn communist, the world did not stop spinning. Now homosexual couples have the same rights; and those rights do not impair the rights of anyone else. So just get over it.

So... You're arguing that because a law that forbid inter-racial marriage did not bring catastrophe, that laws which forbid the marriage of people of the same gender, will, by virtue of your precedent, also not bring catastrophe?

LOL! Oh that's BRILLIANT!

Hey Kids... The Law says that one individual can't take the life of another without a sound moral (Legal) justification... John killed Melissa because she wouldn't shut up and "THE SKY DIDN'T FALL!"

So according to the above member... You're morally free to murder anyone that annoys you sufficiently to make the effort reasonable.

(See how easy this is? They're IDIOTS... and yes, that helps... but the good news is that one can't BE a Leftist and NOT BE A IDIOT!)

Do you have to work hard at being this obtuse or does it just come naturally to you?

 

[bodecea]

At one time, many bible-belt states prohibited interracial marriage until SCOTUS invalidated these bigoted laws in 1967 [Loving v Virginia]. The sky did not fall, the US did not turn communist, the world did not stop spinning. Now homosexual couples have the same rights; and those rights do not impair the rights of anyone else. So just get over it.

So... You're arguing that because a law that forbid inter-racial marriage did not bring catastrophe, that laws which forbid the marriage of people of the same gender, will, by virtue of your precedent, also not bring catastrophe?

LOL! Oh that's BRILLIANT!

Hey Kids... The Law says that one individual can't take the life of another without a sound moral (Legal) justification... John killed Melissa because she wouldn't shut up and "THE SKY DIDN'T FALL!"

So according to the above member... You're morally free to murder anyone that annoys you sufficiently to make the effort reasonable.

(See how easy this is? They're IDIOTS... and yes, that helps... but the good news is that one can't BE a Leftist and NOT BE A IDIOT!)

And yet...that murder is illegal. Gay marriage is not.

 

[Dana7360]

If a church is providing a wedding service privately, then it would be a violation of the separation of church and state to demand they marry a gay couple.

If a magistrate is operating as a representative of the state, however, he or she should be required to follow the law of the land.

This seems an easy enough distinction to make to me.

Didn't work for the religious cake maker for whom didn't work for the state now did it ?

Easy you say, umm I don't think so. It should have been easy in the religious cake makers case, but the feds have fallen off of their rockers literally these days.

No you're wrong and lying when you try to claim that a bakery is a church.

Guess what? A bakery isn't a church.

For that person to legally do business in the community they must have obtained a business license. In that license they agree to serve the public. There are no exceptions. It's just a statement that they will serve the public.

If they're going to do business in the community they must follow the laws. Just like every other business in the community. The laws require that they don't discriminate anyone for any reason.

Can you comprehend that sparky? Or are you too obtuse to grasp that?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I didn't read all of your rant. I couldn't get past the ridiculous statements in the first paragraph.

Yes, it's soundly reasoned, thus beyond your intellectual means.

Allow me to demonstrate...

The constitution gives us our rights and forbids the government or anyone from taking those rights away from anyone.

The Constitution does NOT give ANYONE a right to ANYTHING. The Constitution recognizes rights which are inherent in the human being, endowed to the individual by God and which are inseparable from the individual, THUS the basis on which the framers of the Constitution established limitations upon Federal power, from making law which would directly stand to usurp the: MEANS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO EXERCISE THOSE RIGHTS.

That constitution was written by people.

Oh now THAT is quite profound. You truly have a gift... .

It's what our nation and our laws are based on.

False... the nation's foundation is the Charter of Principles, which once declared separated our people from it's former government; founding a new, distinct and independent nation.

Isn't it delightful how you people have SUCH a tough time understanding genesis ...

If someone wrote a law that discriminates against one person or one segment of the population, as with the anti gay marriage laws that were passed, the people have a recourse. It's called the court system and our constitution.

Nature discriminated against homosexuals through the design of the species. So ... as sad as it is, the precedent was set there. Take it up with nature.

What is even MORE sad... for you that is, is that Marriage is the joining of one male and one female... and THAT is the standard that defines: MARRIAGE and its intrinsic legitimacy. Remove that standard and you remove the legitimacy. Ooops! Didn't see that comin'?

There is no discrimination against homosexuals: Jack the Dike can marry, Jackie the fairy... NO WHERE IN THE US IS THERE A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS MARRYING ANYONE. Except where someone shows up to marry outside the natural, thus soundly reasoned standards of marriage, requiring the two distinct genders and no more than two individuals.

Ya see scamp... I can't marry my bestest good buddy so that he can get on my health insurance... and this without regard to my loving him EVER SO MUCH! I'd give my life for him... yet I still can't marry him, because... he's a guy and I'm a guy.

Even if Florida Law said I could, the would-be 'legal-union' would NOT be marriage... we'd just be room-mates with a contract.

See how that works? You're pretending that the laws of nature can be changed because you want them to and I'm simply pointing out how foolish you are for 'believing' that.

Every case was based on the question, is that law constitutional? Every single court in this nation found that anti gay marriage laws are clearly unconstitutional.

ROFLMNAO! You're not all there are ya Scamp?

So the question isn't whether they're of the right sex.

Gender... And yes, each is of the 'right gender'. And each can be married to any person of the other gender that they can talk into it. But they can't be married to one another because MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MALE HUMAN BEING AND ONE FEMALE HUMAN BEING.

This is REALLY SIMPLE STUFF... yet it appears to be WELL BEYOND YOUR MEANS.

Pay attention sparky, all courts that the cases went before the courts found that those anti gay marriage laws were unconstitutional, illegal and violated the rights of homosexual people.

All five courts? Golly... Follow this: All Legislatures where the question was debated 'decided against normalizing sexual abnormality... and unlike the court, the legislators were elected by the people of those states... and the issue was PUBLICLY DEBATED... for YEARS! And by MASSIVE MAJORITIES, THE PEOPLE OF THOSE STATES VOTED TO NOT CULTURALLY NORMALIZE THAT WHICH WAS BIOLOGICALLY ABNORMAL.

So if someone wants to write a law against a person or segment of the population, all the discriminated person needs to do is go to court and it's going to be ruled unconstitutional. It's illegal and unconstitutional to discriminate against a person or segment of our population.

Except... 'If someone wants to write a law...', they must write a bill, send it to the committee which marks it up for debate, then IF the bill gets past THAT it goes to the floor for DEBATE by the entire body of the house of representatives, where if a majority of the members of the house agrees with the bill it is voted on and sent to the senate... where the process begins anew. And IF it passes the senate, then it goes to a committee which checks the bill against the measures for which that committee was designed, making sure that it doesn't conflict with other laws etc... THEN it goes to the EXECUTIVE TO BE SIGNED INTO OBJECTIVE LAW.

This in contrast to the judicial process to which you're referring, where A JUDGE RULES BY HIS OWN SUBJECTIVE OPINION... .

See how that works? Key words: Edict, Rule, Subjective, Opinion.

The fact that every court ruled against anti gay marriage laws is a HUGE red flag ...

Yes... and red is always a sign of bloody things to come. Which is why the communists chose it.


And here we are at the end of your rant. And still ... Marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

At one time, many bible-belt states prohibited interracial marriage until SCOTUS invalidated these bigoted laws in 1967 [Loving v Virginia]. The sky did not fall, the US did not turn communist, the world did not stop spinning. Now homosexual couples have the same rights; and those rights do not impair the rights of anyone else. So just get over it.

So... You're arguing that because a law that forbid inter-racial marriage did not bring catastrophe, that laws which forbid the marriage of people of the same gender, will, by virtue of your precedent, also not bring catastrophe?

LOL! Oh that's BRILLIANT!

Hey Kids... The Law says that one individual can't take the life of another without a sound moral (Legal) justification... John killed Melissa because she wouldn't shut up and "THE SKY DIDN'T FALL!"

So according to the above member... You're morally free to murder anyone that annoys you sufficiently to make the effort reasonable.

(See how easy this is? They're IDIOTS... and yes, that helps... but the good news is that one can't BE a Leftist and NOT BE A IDIOT!)

And yet...that murder is illegal. Gay marriage is not.

Murder is illegal, because murder is the unjustified taking of a human life; thus murder is immoral. And Marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man.

 

[Dana7360]

Folks, do you SEE how easy this is?

You're string into the face of EVIL! And "Old Testament Evil" at THAT.

Which is "VERY BAD!" to be sure, but evil is a LIE... it's only tool is DECEPTION. Peel away the facade and the TRUTH is right there, every single time... and this, without exception.

All it takes is knowing that its evil and you can know evil by its fruits. Abnormality is NOT normality... therefore, where one is telling you that abnormal, deviant, perversion is normal... you can rest assured that you're looking at evil. Now... go forth and PEEL AWAY!

It's FUN! Once you get the hang of it, you'll enjoy it and the rewards are SPECTACULAR!

Now you're violating the first amendment.

I'm not christian. Nor am I jewish. So the old testament and new one don't apply to me or anyone who isn't of those faiths. Guess what? There are millions of people in America who aren't christian or jewish or muslim. We have the same rights to follow our faith as you do.

Even people who are christian or jewish are free to choose whether they want to follow that bible or not.

You don't have any right to force your beliefs on anyone. I don't have to live as you demand I live. I am free to make my own choices on how to live my life. I'm also free to make my own choice on what religion I want to follow.

You're perfectly free to follow any religion you want. You're not free to force those beliefs or religion on anyone else.

The constitution gives me that right and prevents you or anyone else from forcing your beliefs on me or our nation.

When it comes down to it in a court of law, your bible means NOTHING. What means everything is the constitution. Your bible means ZERO in the eyes of our laws and constitution. So stop trying to force your bible on our nation.

Why can't you be happy that you're free to live your life as you choose? Why do you believe you have the right to tell everyone else how to live their lives and what to believe?

If you want to live in a christian theocracy move to Vatican City.

 

[Czernobog]

Refusing to defend a case because the outcome is clear is at their prosecutorial discretion. My AG did the same exact thing. Why waste the resources and taxpayers dollars on a losing cause?

Because it is their damn duty as a public servant...lawyers defend losing cases all the time........All AGs that pulled that stunt........including the US AG should have been fired and disbarred.

Be that as it may, these AGs decided that these cases couldn't not be won and used their prosecutorial discretion to not defend them anymore. The law was still in effect but the AG decided defending it was foolish.

NO what they decided is they didnt agree with the law.........regardless, either way they shouldv'e had the integrity to step down.

So, you wanted them spending tax money defending the undefendable?

It wasn't "undefendable". Until an issue such as this makes it all the way to the supreme court it is unresolved...........
What it was, was him putting his personal opinion ahead of his duty.............
What the magistrate in the OP did was no different.

So, what happens when all 10 district courts find the marriage ban unconstitutional, and same-sex marriage is allowed in all 50 states without the Supreme Court having to say a single word on the issue? Will you still insist that it is "unresolved"?

 

[Czernobog]

At one time, many bible-belt states prohibited interracial marriage until SCOTUS invalidated these bigoted laws in 1967 [Loving v Virginia]. The sky did not fall, the US did not turn communist, the world did not stop spinning. Now homosexual couples have the same rights; and those rights do not impair the rights of anyone else. So just get over it.

So... You're arguing that because a law that forbid inter-racial marriage did not bring catastrophe, that laws which forbid the marriage of people of the same gender, will, by virtue of your precedent, also not bring catastrophe?

LOL! Oh that's BRILLIANT!

Hey Kids... The Law says that one individual can't take the life of another without a sound moral (Legal) justification... John killed Melissa because she wouldn't shut up and "THE SKY DIDN'T FALL!"

So according to the above member... You're morally free to murder anyone that annoys you sufficiently to make the effort reasonable.

(See how easy this is? They're IDIOTS... and yes, that helps... but the good news is that one can't BE a Leftist and NOT BE A IDIOT!)

And yet...that murder is illegal. Gay marriage is not.

Murder is illegal, because murder is the unjustified taking of a human life; thus murder is immoral. And Marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man.

No it's not. Murder is illegal because it deprives another of their right to life. Morality has nothing to do with it. It is about protecting me from you. No moral justification needed.

 

[Dana7360]

Marriage is a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the government.

The only reason why you want to deny homosexual people the marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex.

There are only 3 criteria for a legal contract. They are:

1. The people must be 18 years of age or older.
2. The people must be of sound mind.
2. The people can't sign that contract under duress.

That's it. There's no requirement to be a certain sex. In fact, we have very specific laws that make it illegal to deny someone a legal contract based on their sex. We also have a constitution amendment that requires that our government treat everyone equally under the law.

So either you hate our constitution and laws or you just are uninformed of our laws. I find it very hard to believe that you don't know our laws so I'm going to go with the fact that you hate our constitution and laws.

Why not move to a country that doesn't respect personal freedom and equality that outlaws homosexuals being married. Iran is one of them. Russia is another. I'm sure you would be much happier in one of those nations. There are flights to those nations daily. If you hate our laws and constitution so much take one of those flights and don't return.

There IS a requirement for a certain gender for marriage... as marriage is the joining of one male and one female... (I can see that this is not easy for you, so try to think of it as 'innies and outies'.)

You're speaking of the laws of incorporation, which I've argued for two decades now, is the appropriate legal remedy for individuals seeking to join together as a means to form one entity for the purposes of enjoying the legal benefits of such unions.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality has long since rejected that resolution and they've done so NOT because it is not the perfect solution, where the objective is to gain legal equity of the privileges afforded to other groups, for which they are poorly suited for membership... therefore we can rest assured that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is NOT solely interested in financial equality, but are instead seeking the LEGITIMACY intrinsic to marriage, to which they will never BE privileged, because they're unqualified for marriage and where marriage becomes defined by their membership, the legitimacy they crave from such, qill evaporate into the ether, and it will be as if it never existed.

Legitimacy comes from truth. The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality rests upon unbridled: DECEIT.

See how that works?

Your posts are so stupid I can't get through a whole one without being totally disgusted at your stupidity and ignorance.

No. That's not only the criteria for corporate laws and contracts. It's the criteria for ALL contracts. I had to take business law and contract law for my degree in accounting. I know what the law for contracts are.

Obviously you don't.

Which isn't my problem. Your other problem is that you have no legal or constitutional leg to stand on. Guess what? The constitution is what we base all our laws on. The only question before the court is if it's constitutional. Guess what? Every single court it went to found that anti gay marriage laws are unconstitutional. It's settled law of the nation.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. You do have to accept it.

You can whine about it all you want but it won't get you anywhere. It will only show that you're unAmerican and hate our constitution.

 

[bodecea]

At one time, many bible-belt states prohibited interracial marriage until SCOTUS invalidated these bigoted laws in 1967 [Loving v Virginia]. The sky did not fall, the US did not turn communist, the world did not stop spinning. Now homosexual couples have the same rights; and those rights do not impair the rights of anyone else. So just get over it.

So... You're arguing that because a law that forbid inter-racial marriage did not bring catastrophe, that laws which forbid the marriage of people of the same gender, will, by virtue of your precedent, also not bring catastrophe?

LOL! Oh that's BRILLIANT!

Hey Kids... The Law says that one individual can't take the life of another without a sound moral (Legal) justification... John killed Melissa because she wouldn't shut up and "THE SKY DIDN'T FALL!"

So according to the above member... You're morally free to murder anyone that annoys you sufficiently to make the effort reasonable.

(See how easy this is? They're IDIOTS... and yes, that helps... but the good news is that one can't BE a Leftist and NOT BE A IDIOT!)

And yet...that murder is illegal. Gay marriage is not.

Murder is illegal, because murder is the unjustified taking of a human life; thus murder is immoral. And Marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man.

Why do you think murder is illegal and immoral?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Folks, do you SEE how easy this is?

You're string into the face of EVIL! And "Old Testament Evil" at THAT.

Which is "VERY BAD!" to be sure, but evil is a LIE... it's only tool is DECEPTION. Peel away the facade and the TRUTH is right there, every single time... and this, without exception.

All it takes is knowing that its evil and you can know evil by its fruits. Abnormality is NOT normality... therefore, where one is telling you that abnormal, deviant, perversion is normal... you can rest assured that you're looking at evil. Now... go forth and PEEL AWAY!

It's FUN! Once you get the hang of it, you'll enjoy it and the rewards are SPECTACULAR!

Now you're violating the first amendment.

Am I?

Let's test that...

"
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Hmm... let's see. (zuh zuh zmm...) HUH! Looky there. I'm not congress, so I wasn't likely to be making law which either established religion or prohibited the free exercise of religion. Although... I was exercising my God-given and Constitutionally protected right to freely practice my religion and to peaceably assemble ... .

So... in keeping with the certainty... where a Leftist speaks, they advance DECEIT! It's CRAZY consistent, isn't it?

I'm not christian. Nor am I jewish. So the old testament and new one don't apply to me or anyone who isn't of those faiths. Guess what? There are millions of people in America who aren't christian or jewish or muslim. We have the same rights to follow our faith as you do.

Yep... and you've no right to attempt to use the law to prohibit me from exercising my rights, yet, as recently as your last breath, you attempted to do just THAT! LOL!

Now explain how your existence on this planet is NOT a clear and present threat to my means to exercise my rights... . And try to understand how your ignorance and mouthy nature are pushing you ever toward your own destruction. (Pretty cool huh...?)

Even people who are christian or jewish are free to choose whether they want to follow that bible or not.

If you can catch your breath... try to figure out what how that's relevant to anything.

You don't have any right to force your beliefs on anyone.

So you feel that publicly stating an irrefutable fact, is an act of forcing my beliefs on someone else?


Can you show your math on that? I'd like to know how YOU FEEL that works...

You're perfectly free to follow any religion you want.

That's mighty white of ya...

The constitution gives me that right and prevents you or anyone else from forcing your beliefs on me or our nation.

You've still the need to show how stating incontestable fact, is forcing 'beliefs'.

When it comes down to it in a court of law, your bible means NOTHING.

And this is not a court of law and you're the only one that's made mention of the bible, beyond my pointing out that the intrinsic deception inherent in the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality is identical in terms of treachery, to the EVIL that is reported in the Old Testament.

So... do you have any sense of what in the hell it is you're trying to say here?