How Is It Legal????

[The Rabbi]

No personal religion about it . The word of the one true God says homosexuality is a sin.

So is gluttony. When are we going to stop the fatties from marrying?

Where does it say gluttony is a sin? Can you define gluttony?

 

[WorldWatcher]

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

No one ever said there was a ‘right’ to same-sex marriage.

The issue has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment or the ‘will of the people,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean.

At issue is the 14th Amendment right to equal access to all laws, including marriage laws. Since the state lacks a compelling reason or evidence to exclude same-sex couples from marriage, and such an exclusion is predicated on animus, such a policy is clearly un-Constitutional.

“A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Romer v. Evans

Gays are not a class ofpeople. How do you define "gay"? There is no accepted definition.

That's why homosexual is the proper term, and yes that is defined.

There are men and women. Those are recognizable classes of people. And they all have equal access to marriage.
Fail.

That's why "gay marriage" is the improper term, the correct term is "Same-sex Civil Marriage". No laws in this country bar two homosexual from entering into Civil Marriage, the laws are based on gender which - as you correctly point out - are recognizable classes of people.

You say they have "equal access to marriage" which means you seem to think Civil Marriage laws are based on access being made available and evaluated based on the individual, which is incorrect. On an individual level, if a man can Civilly Marry a woman but a woman cannot Civilly Marry - then the access is not equal. History shows that the evaluation of Civil Marriage laws will ultimately be based on the treatment of the couple and not the individual.

See that exact argument was made during the Loving v. Virginia case in that a colored man had equal access to Civil Marriage because he was allowed to marry colored women, because the individual had access to marriage. That logic was rejected.

And as you said about race and gender are "recognizable classes" of people and all the laws that I know of to discriminate against homosexuals in terms of Civil Marriage are actually written in terms of gender.



>>>>

 

[Dragon]

No personal religion about it . The word of the one true God says homosexuality is a sin.

LOL I love unintentional irony.

(That IS personal religion, dufus.)

 

[Seawytch]

No personal religion about it . The word of the one true God says homosexuality is a sin.

So is gluttony. When are we going to stop the fatties from marrying?

Where does it say gluttony is a sin? Can you define gluttony?

You've never heard of the seven deadly sins? Seriously?

Wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony?

 

[The Rabbi]

So is gluttony. When are we going to stop the fatties from marrying?

Where does it say gluttony is a sin? Can you define gluttony?

You've never heard of the seven deadly sins? Seriously?

Wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony?

I didnt ask that, dumbshit.
I asked where it said that.

 

[Seawytch]

Where does it say gluttony is a sin? Can you define gluttony?

You've never heard of the seven deadly sins? Seriously?

Wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony?

I didnt ask that, dumbshit.
I asked where it said that.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize your google was broken. Allow me...

Proverbs:

Be not among drunkards or among agluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags.

The one who keeps the law is a son with understanding, but a companion of gluttons shames his father.

and put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite.

Deuteronomy

and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’

This has been Bible 101...

 

[The Rabbi]

You've never heard of the seven deadly sins? Seriously?

Wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony?

I didnt ask that, dumbshit.
I asked where it said that.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize your google was broken. Allow me...

Proverbs:

Be not among drunkards or among agluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags.

The one who keeps the law is a son with understanding, but a companion of gluttons shames his father.

and put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite.

Deuteronomy

and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’

This has been Bible 101...

I see no mention that gluttony is a sin. I see it is a bad character trait from the first quote. The second quote you have no idea wtf you are talking about. So we can skip that.
So I ask again, I can show where homosexual acts are sins. Can you show equally where gluttony is a sin?

 

[sfcalifornia]

Actually neither one of those is anywhere close to my argument, or many other good arguments made.
But thanks for trying.

Whatever your argument is, it's getting shot down state by state. The US Federal Government will extend marriage benefits to gays one day and it will happen in your lifetime. And your kids? They'll elect the first gay President.

Gay marriage has lost whenever it has been put to a vote by the people. The Federal gov't cannot order states to recognize it without triggering a massive rebellion. Tennessee has marriage as one man, one man enshrined in the state constitution. We are not letting the Feds tell us what to do. It would be a gross intrusion on states rights.
So basically your argument is, we don't need an argument. All we need is enough bitching and moaning.

Until there is an Amendment banning gay marriage in the Constitution of the United States, it is the results of the vote by the people which are currently being deemed unconstitutional.

It's not that you don't need an argument, it's just that all your arguments haven't had any validity.

 

[The Rabbi]

Whatever your argument is, it's getting shot down state by state. The US Federal Government will extend marriage benefits to gays one day and it will happen in your lifetime. And your kids? They'll elect the first gay President.

Gay marriage has lost whenever it has been put to a vote by the people. The Federal gov't cannot order states to recognize it without triggering a massive rebellion. Tennessee has marriage as one man, one man enshrined in the state constitution. We are not letting the Feds tell us what to do. It would be a gross intrusion on states rights.
So basically your argument is, we don't need an argument. All we need is enough bitching and moaning.

Until there is an Amendment banning gay marriage in the Constitution of the United States, it is the results of the vote by the people which are currently being deemed unconstitutional.

It's not that you don't need an argument, it's just that all your arguments haven't had any validity.

Actually my argument is that the courts cannot overturn a referendum by the people, as they did in CA, without a tremendously good and clear reason, which they don't have.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Gay marriage has lost whenever it has been put to a vote by the people. The Federal gov't cannot order states to recognize it without triggering a massive rebellion. Tennessee has marriage as one man, one man enshrined in the state constitution. We are not letting the Feds tell us what to do. It would be a gross intrusion on states rights.
So basically your argument is, we don't need an argument. All we need is enough bitching and moaning.

Until there is an Amendment banning gay marriage in the Constitution of the United States, it is the results of the vote by the people which are currently being deemed unconstitutional.

It's not that you don't need an argument, it's just that all your arguments haven't had any validity.

Actually my argument is that the courts cannot overturn a referendum by the people, as they did in CA, without a tremendously good and clear reason, which they don't have.

Yes, the courts can overturn a referendum by the people when the vote of the people ends with an unconstitutional result.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No personal religion about it . The word of the one true God says homosexuality is a sin.

And?

What does that have to do with equal access to marriage laws?

Gays are not a class ofpeople. How do you define "gay"? There is no accepted definition.

You obviously didn’t read the cited supporting case law:

Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians.

Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public-accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment.

Homosexuals indeed constitute a specific class of persons, entitled to 14th Amendment equal access, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Actually my argument is that the courts cannot overturn a referendum by the people, as they did in CA, without a tremendously good and clear reason, which they don't have.

Your argument has no merit and exhibits your ignorance of the law.

It’s incumbent upon the state – via legislative action or referendum – to provide a compelling reason and evidence to preempt a given right, not the courts. The courts are merely the neutral venue in which an issue is reviewed.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

No personal religion about it . The word of the one true God says homosexuality is a sin.

Really?

I thought the only "sins" were those laid out in the 7 Noahide Commandments or the 10 Commandments.

Neither of them say "thou shalt not be gay".

Try again.

Then you thought wrong. Read leviticus 20:13. Also Jesus spoke about sexual immorality, which homosexuality is.

 

[AmericanFirst]

No personal religion about it . The word of the one true God says homosexuality is a sin.

And?

What does that have to do with equal access to marriage laws?

Gays are not a class ofpeople. How do you define "gay"? There is no accepted definition.

You obviously didn’t read the cited supporting case law:

Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians.

Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public-accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment.

Homosexuals indeed constitute a specific class of persons, entitled to 14th Amendment equal access, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Actually my argument is that the courts cannot overturn a referendum by the people, as they did in CA, without a tremendously good and clear reason, which they don't have.

Your argument has no merit and exhibits your ignorance of the law.

It’s incumbent upon the state – via legislative action or referendum – to provide a compelling reason and evidence to preempt a given right, not the courts. The courts are merely the neutral venue in which an issue is reviewed.

Supreme court is wrong, gays are not a class of people. Gay is a sexual preference, period. The supreme court fell for the lying scheme of the sinning gays.

 

[sfcalifornia]

No personal religion about it . The word of the one true God says homosexuality is a sin.

Really?

I thought the only "sins" were those laid out in the 7 Noahide Commandments or the 10 Commandments.

Neither of them say "thou shalt not be gay".

Try again.

Then you thought wrong. Read leviticus 20:13. Also Jesus spoke about sexual immorality, which homosexuality is.

Maybe your religion says that but my religion doesn't. So butt out. This isn't about what your religion says.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Supreme court is wrong, gays are not a class of people. Gay is a sexual preference, period. The supreme court fell for the lying scheme of the sinning gays.

According to whom?

You? god?

Otherwise I’m beginning to think you’re a liberal troll – no one can be this stupid.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No personal religion about it . The word of the one true God says homosexuality is a sin.

Really?

I thought the only "sins" were those laid out in the 7 Noahide Commandments or the 10 Commandments.

Neither of them say "thou shalt not be gay".

Try again.

Then you thought wrong. Read leviticus 20:13. Also Jesus spoke about sexual immorality, which homosexuality is.

Here's something interesting for you to read from a theological scholar site.......

* Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
* The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
* Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
* The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
* The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
* The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
* The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
* 'Traditional marriage' in the Bible includes polygamy.
* No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
* Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
* Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
* Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.

Internet Sacred Text Archive Home

 

[Intense]

Really?

I thought the only "sins" were those laid out in the 7 Noahide Commandments or the 10 Commandments.

Neither of them say "thou shalt not be gay".

Try again.

Then you thought wrong. Read leviticus 20:13. Also Jesus spoke about sexual immorality, which homosexuality is.

Here's something interesting for you to read from a theological scholar site.......

* Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
* The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
* Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
* The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
* The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
* The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
* The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
* 'Traditional marriage' in the Bible includes polygamy.
* No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
* Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
* Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
* Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.

Internet Sacred Text Archive Home

Propaganda.

Try Romans Chapter 1.

David and Jonathon Were Friends closer than Brothers, to imply further is arguable, speculative, and non-conclusive. Good try though.

Just a thought, when you are trying to accomplish something that has Never been the Norm, and you are trying to win over support, sugar works better than vinegar. We are not Idiots. Misinformation tends to do more harm than good, when exposed. I'd personally support Civil Unions, as an equivalent to Marriage, giving you Equal footing, legally. My only problem is with you using the word Marriage, which to Me means One Man, One Woman. I view the use of it that way, a corruption of the meaning. Pick Any Other word you want, have a National Contest, make one up.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didnt ask that, dumbshit.
I asked where it said that.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize your google was broken. Allow me...

Proverbs:

Be not among drunkards or among agluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags.

The one who keeps the law is a son with understanding, but a companion of gluttons shames his father.

and put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite.

Deuteronomy

and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’

This has been Bible 101...

I see no mention that gluttony is a sin. I see it is a bad character trait from the first quote. The second quote you have no idea wtf you are talking about. So we can skip that.
So I ask again, I can show where homosexual acts are sins. Can you show equally where gluttony is a sin?

Seabytch has left the building.

 

[The Rabbi]

No personal religion about it . The word of the one true God says homosexuality is a sin.

And?

What does that have to do with equal access to marriage laws?

Gays are not a class ofpeople. How do you define "gay"? There is no accepted definition.

You obviously didn’t read the cited supporting case law:

Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians.

Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public-accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment.

Homosexuals indeed constitute a specific class of persons, entitled to 14th Amendment equal access, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Actually my argument is that the courts cannot overturn a referendum by the people, as they did in CA, without a tremendously good and clear reason, which they don't have.

Your argument has no merit and exhibits your ignorance of the law.

It’s incumbent upon the state – via legislative action or referendum – to provide a compelling reason and evidence to preempt a given right, not the courts. The courts are merely the neutral venue in which an issue is reviewed.

There is no given right for two same sex people to marry. That seems to be what you're missing here.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Supreme court is wrong, gays are not a class of people. Gay is a sexual preference, period.

The supreme court fell for the lying scheme of the sinning gays.[/QUOTE]

Until you can find support for your position that is not religiously based, do not expect the rest of us to adopt it.