How many States have Legalized Gay Marriage by a Vote of the People?...

[candycorn]

Indiana Senate Approves Amendment to Ban Same-Sex Marriage - NBC News

"A decade ago, no states allowed same-sex couples to marry. Since then, same-sex marriage has been made legal in 17 states plus the District of Columbia."

^The word in that sentence that leads me to believe that it's few if any is "made"...

I know that Liberal California Voted AGAINST Gay Marriage when Obama ran for President as anti-Gay Marriage in 2008.

A Court overturned the Will of the People there.

Most of the recent one's I've heard about have also been a Federal Judge fronting the Agenda in Spite of the People's views on Deviant Coupling being made Equal to that which Created all of us.

So does anyone have a breakdown of the 17 States and DC and how Gay Marriage became Law?

I know MOST Americans don't agree and if it were put a National Vote Gay Marriage would Fail Miserably... That simply based California's Rejection of it.



peace...

We aren't a democracy mal...


No citizens were required to vote to free the slaves either. No, I am not making a moral equivalence statement with that.

We simply do not have a democracy where we have citizens vote on every issue.

I am aware of that Fact, DD.

And the Courts don't Create "Rights"...

The Constitution must be Altered to Include things it does not.

A Woman's Right to Vote is in the Amendments... Blacks also.

But you see, there has been NOT one "Right" Denied a Gay today.

Marriage is a Right they Share... They just don't get to Redefine the Right.

If they want Gay Marriage "Rights" then the Constitution must be Amended.

The Declaration led to the Constitution.

"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

I Assure you the Founders had NO Intention of making Deviant Coupling Equal to what Creates us.

If the Gays want that, they can Amend the Constitution.

Otherwise 5 Politically Appointed Lawyers are going to make anything and everything a Right.

Then this Republic will be nothing.



peace...

Its incredible that people like you seem to know what the founders intended when it comes to everything...

In the 1700's there were no repeating arms but surely, you people reason, they intended for MK46's to be folded into the 2nd Amendment since it didn't specifically say they were not included...right?

But when it comes to marriage and marriage equality...the founders/framers were silent because (like the MK46) it wasn't a factor at the time. But somehow we can now have a seance and channel what they felt?

Non-sense.

17 and Counting...perfectly legal. You don't get to decide morality...no matter how you try to pass yourself off as an authority.

 

[rightwinger]

So then why is my 50 people marrying each other comment somehow a strawman?

It doesn't go the bestiality/children furniture route
It has all consenting adults involved
They all have a right to marriage according to you, and to marry who they want to

If "equal protection" is in-voidable and cannot be broached, where's the strawman?

What would be the impact on society if 50 people were allowed to marry?
Does government have a vested interest in preventing it?

Personally, I have no problems with plural marriage if it is between consenting adults. 50 adults are legally allowed to form a commune...why not marriage?

So now you are debating about where equal protection applies, and does not, which basically invalidates the premise that equal protection is in-voidable, the premise upon which your position is based.

And by your second line, you validate all the people saying "if we allow gay marriage, other things will follow." I thiought THAT argument was another strawman as well.....

A legal agreement between consenting adults

 

[martybegan]

What would be the impact on society if 50 people were allowed to marry?
Does government have a vested interest in preventing it?

Personally, I have no problems with plural marriage if it is between consenting adults. 50 adults are legally allowed to form a commune...why not marriage?

So now you are debating about where equal protection applies, and does not, which basically invalidates the premise that equal protection is in-voidable, the premise upon which your position is based.

And by your second line, you validate all the people saying "if we allow gay marriage, other things will follow." I thiought THAT argument was another strawman as well.....

A legal agreement between consenting adults

But do people have the right to THAT SPECIFIC agreement?

Why don't they just create their own agreement and submit it to the state for approval?

But since I have brought up a valid point, you have to ignore it, kind of like how Seawytch is ignoring it.

 

[rightwinger]

So now you are debating about where equal protection applies, and does not, which basically invalidates the premise that equal protection is in-voidable, the premise upon which your position is based.

And by your second line, you validate all the people saying "if we allow gay marriage, other things will follow." I thiought THAT argument was another strawman as well.....

A legal agreement between consenting adults

But do people have the right to THAT SPECIFIC agreement?

Why don't they just create their own agreement and submit it to the state for approval?

But since I have brought up a valid point, you have to ignore it, kind of like how Seawytch is ignoring it.

Actually you have brought up a stupid point covering a fringe arrangement that nobody is actually trying to form

It is a petty deflection from the tens of thousands of gays who seek to be married and are being blocked by rightwing hate inspired laws

 

[GreenBean]

Marriage between a man and a woman was declared a fundemental right, because the only discrimination going on in Loving was skin color. Your jump to making that a case for same sex marriage depends on judges who make up law, not interpret law.

Just because your side manages to appoint judges (and even republicans manage to pull this off) that ignore the constitution doesnt make it a "right" no matter how much you say it is.

And now marriage is no longer only between a man and a woman and the case has been made and won.

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. You can't ignore the precedent set because you don't like it. Marriage can't be denied to people of different races, to murderers on death row and divorced people. These are all cases that were decided by the SCOTUS in which they declared marriage a fundamental right.

So a marriage between up to 50 people is now a fundamental right?

No it's a Gang Bang

 

[GreenBean]

We aren't a democracy mal...


No citizens were required to vote to free the slaves either. No, I am not making a moral equivalence statement with that.

We simply do not have a democracy where we have citizens vote on every issue.

I am aware of that Fact, DD.

And the Courts don't Create "Rights"...

The Constitution must be Altered to Include things it does not.

A Woman's Right to Vote is in the Amendments... Blacks also.

But you see, there has been NOT one "Right" Denied a Gay today.

Marriage is a Right they Share... They just don't get to Redefine the Right.

If they want Gay Marriage "Rights" then the Constitution must be Amended.

The Declaration led to the Constitution.

"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

I Assure you the Founders had NO Intention of making Deviant Coupling Equal to what Creates us.

If the Gays want that, they can Amend the Constitution.

Otherwise 5 Politically Appointed Lawyers are going to make anything and everything a Right.

Then this Republic will be nothing.



peace...

Its incredible that people like you seem to know what the founders intended when it comes to everything...

The Founders - Thomas Jefferson - Advocated Castrating "Sodomites" aka Homosexuals I can see some logic here , they have no idea what you're supposed to do with it anyway.

 

[martybegan]

A legal agreement between consenting adults

But do people have the right to THAT SPECIFIC agreement?

Why don't they just create their own agreement and submit it to the state for approval?

But since I have brought up a valid point, you have to ignore it, kind of like how Seawytch is ignoring it.

Actually you have brought up a stupid point covering a fringe arrangement that nobody is actually trying to form

It is a petty deflection from the tens of thousands of gays who seek to be married and are being blocked by rightwing hate inspired laws

Its a perfectly valid point you don't have an answer to, that none of you have answer to. You pin your argument on a strict no deviation interpretation of the Equal protection clause, and yet the same argument can be used to justify marriages between unlimited number of people. This doesn't delve into the bullshit such as horses, and kids and furniture, its a real analysis of your position of the Equal Protection Clause being untouchable, and the consequences of that position.

 

[rightwinger]

But do people have the right to THAT SPECIFIC agreement?

Why don't they just create their own agreement and submit it to the state for approval?

But since I have brought up a valid point, you have to ignore it, kind of like how Seawytch is ignoring it.

Actually you have brought up a stupid point covering a fringe arrangement that nobody is actually trying to form

It is a petty deflection from the tens of thousands of gays who seek to be married and are being blocked by rightwing hate inspired laws

Its a perfectly valid point you don't have an answer to, that none of you have answer to. You pin your argument on a strict no deviation interpretation of the Equal protection clause, and yet the same argument can be used to justify marriages between unlimited number of people. This doesn't delve into the bullshit such as horses, and kids and furniture, its a real analysis of your position of the Equal Protection Clause being untouchable, and the consequences of that position.

Again, you are bitching at the wrong person. It is the rightwing bible thumpers who would go nutz over plural marriage, not me

The issue at hand is gays, of which there are actual significant numbers wanting to get married in spite of rightwing hate laws

 

[martybegan]

Actually you have brought up a stupid point covering a fringe arrangement that nobody is actually trying to form

It is a petty deflection from the tens of thousands of gays who seek to be married and are being blocked by rightwing hate inspired laws

Its a perfectly valid point you don't have an answer to, that none of you have answer to. You pin your argument on a strict no deviation interpretation of the Equal protection clause, and yet the same argument can be used to justify marriages between unlimited number of people. This doesn't delve into the bullshit such as horses, and kids and furniture, its a real analysis of your position of the Equal Protection Clause being untouchable, and the consequences of that position.

Again, you are bitching at the wrong person. It is the rightwing bible thumpers who would go nutz over plural marriage, not me

The issue at hand is gays, of which there are actual significant numbers wanting to get married in spite of rightwing hate laws

The issue at hand is gay marriage supporters are selling it by saying plural marriage is not what we want, we will be happy at gay marriage.

What you are now saying is that position is a lie, like most of your positions.

 

[Seawytch]

But do people have the right to THAT SPECIFIC agreement?



Why don't they just create their own agreement and submit it to the state for approval?



But since I have brought up a valid point, you have to ignore it, kind of like how Seawytch is ignoring it.

Actually you have brought up a stupid point covering a fringe arrangement that nobody is actually trying to form



It is a petty deflection from the tens of thousands of gays who seek to be married and are being blocked by rightwing hate inspired laws

Its a perfectly valid point you don't have an answer to, that none of you have answer to. You pin your argument on a strict no deviation interpretation of the Equal protection clause, and yet the same argument can be used to justify marriages between unlimited number of people. This doesn't delve into the bullshit such as horses, and kids and furniture, its a real analysis of your position of the Equal Protection Clause being untouchable, and the consequences of that position.

And so what if it does? Nothing is stopping polygamists from arguing NOW for equal protection.

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7016

 

[martybegan]

Actually you have brought up a stupid point covering a fringe arrangement that nobody is actually trying to form



It is a petty deflection from the tens of thousands of gays who seek to be married and are being blocked by rightwing hate inspired laws

Its a perfectly valid point you don't have an answer to, that none of you have answer to. You pin your argument on a strict no deviation interpretation of the Equal protection clause, and yet the same argument can be used to justify marriages between unlimited number of people. This doesn't delve into the bullshit such as horses, and kids and furniture, its a real analysis of your position of the Equal Protection Clause being untouchable, and the consequences of that position.

And so what if it does? Nothing is stopping polygamists from arguing NOW for equal protection.

The Polygamy Argument & Same-Sex Marriage | Talking Philosophy

But one of the selling points for gay marriage was that that is ALL YOU WANTED. Are you now saying that you want polyamorous relationships to be considered marriage now?

Was all that talk about the line being drawn at two people regardless of sex nothing but a lie to get what you want????

 

[rightwinger]

Its a perfectly valid point you don't have an answer to, that none of you have answer to. You pin your argument on a strict no deviation interpretation of the Equal protection clause, and yet the same argument can be used to justify marriages between unlimited number of people. This doesn't delve into the bullshit such as horses, and kids and furniture, its a real analysis of your position of the Equal Protection Clause being untouchable, and the consequences of that position.

Again, you are bitching at the wrong person. It is the rightwing bible thumpers who would go nutz over plural marriage, not me

The issue at hand is gays, of which there are actual significant numbers wanting to get married in spite of rightwing hate laws

The issue at hand is gay marriage supporters are selling it by saying plural marriage is not what we want, we will be happy at gay marriage.

What you are now saying is that position is a lie, like most of your positions.

I do not know of any gays asking for plural marriage. That is coming from another group

My position has not changed. I have no problems with either if it is between consenting adults

 

[martybegan]

Again, you are bitching at the wrong person. It is the rightwing bible thumpers who would go nutz over plural marriage, not me

The issue at hand is gays, of which there are actual significant numbers wanting to get married in spite of rightwing hate laws

The issue at hand is gay marriage supporters are selling it by saying plural marriage is not what we want, we will be happy at gay marriage.

What you are now saying is that position is a lie, like most of your positions.

I do not know of any gays asking for plural marriage. That is coming from another group

My position has not changed. I have no problems with either if it is between consenting adults

But what was said that support of gay marriage would not lead to the slippery slope. here it seems you support the slippery slope that gay marriage proponents have been saying is bullshit for about a decade now.

 

[Contumacious]

Reload this Page How many States have Legalized Gay Marriage by a Vote of the People?... ..

We are not -----supposed to be-----a democracy.

In a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC rights are secured by the document NOT popular vote or consensus by the majority .

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Indiana Senate Approves Amendment to Ban Same-Sex Marriage - NBC News

"A decade ago, no states allowed same-sex couples to marry. Since then, same-sex marriage has been made legal in 17 states plus the District of Columbia."

^The word in that sentence that leads me to believe that it's few if any is "made"...

I know that Liberal California Voted AGAINST Gay Marriage when Obama ran for President as anti-Gay Marriage in 2008.

A Court overturned the Will of the People there.

Most of the recent one's I've heard about have also been a Federal Judge fronting the Agenda in Spite of the People's views on Deviant Coupling being made Equal to that which Created all of us.

So does anyone have a breakdown of the 17 States and DC and how Gay Marriage became Law?

I know MOST Americans don't agree and if it were put a National Vote Gay Marriage would Fail Miserably... That simply based California's Rejection of it.



peace...

We aren't a democracy mal...


No citizens were required to vote to free the slaves either. No, I am not making a moral equivalence statement with that.

We simply do not have a democracy where we have citizens vote on every issue.

I am aware of that Fact, DD.

And the Courts don't Create "Rights"...

The Constitution must be Altered to Include things it does not.

A Woman's Right to Vote is in the Amendments... Blacks also.

But you see, there has been NOT one "Right" Denied a Gay today.

Marriage is a Right they Share... They just don't get to Redefine the Right.

If they want Gay Marriage "Rights" then the Constitution must be Amended.

The Declaration led to the Constitution.

"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

I Assure you the Founders had NO Intention of making Deviant Coupling Equal to what Creates us.

If the Gays want that, they can Amend the Constitution.

Otherwise 5 Politically Appointed Lawyers are going to make anything and everything a Right.

Then this Republic will be nothing.



peace...

Same sex marriage doesn't need a constitutional amendment to be a right because marriage is recognized as a right,

and same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage are sufficiently similar to make the issue an equal protection issue.

 

[rightwinger]

The issue at hand is gay marriage supporters are selling it by saying plural marriage is not what we want, we will be happy at gay marriage.

What you are now saying is that position is a lie, like most of your positions.

I do not know of any gays asking for plural marriage. That is coming from another group

My position has not changed. I have no problems with either if it is between consenting adults

But what was said that support of gay marriage would not lead to the slippery slope. here it seems you support the slippery slope that gay marriage proponents have been saying is bullshit for about a decade now.

Gay marrige is not a slippery slope. It leads to one thing.....marriage for gays

If anouther group wants to fight for marriage rights that is their right. Was interracial marriage a slippery slope to gay marriage? If it is, it took 50 years

 

[martybegan]

I do not know of any gays asking for plural marriage. That is coming from another group

My position has not changed. I have no problems with either if it is between consenting adults

But what was said that support of gay marriage would not lead to the slippery slope. here it seems you support the slippery slope that gay marriage proponents have been saying is bullshit for about a decade now.

Gay marrige is not a slippery slope. It leads to one thing.....marriage for gays

If anouther group wants to fight for marriage rights that is their right. Was interracial marriage a slippery slope to gay marriage? If it is, it took 50 years

but the logic you use basically supports no limits on the marriage contract, but that is not what you are selling, i.e. you are lying.

 

[Seawytch]

I do not know of any gays asking for plural marriage. That is coming from another group



My position has not changed. I have no problems with either if it is between consenting adults

But what was said that support of gay marriage would not lead to the slippery slope. here it seems you support the slippery slope that gay marriage proponents have been saying is bullshit for about a decade now.

Gay marrige is not a slippery slope. It leads to one thing.....marriage for gays



If anouther group wants to fight for marriage rights that is their right. Was interracial marriage a slippery slope to gay marriage? If it is, it took 50 years

Damn. That means Julie Andrews is out as a potential sister-wife. Angelina Jolie is still possible. Hell, I'll even take a package deal if she won't leave Brad.

 

[Seawytch]

Its a perfectly valid point you don't have an answer to, that none of you have answer to. You pin your argument on a strict no deviation interpretation of the Equal protection clause, and yet the same argument can be used to justify marriages between unlimited number of people. This doesn't delve into the bullshit such as horses, and kids and furniture, its a real analysis of your position of the Equal Protection Clause being untouchable, and the consequences of that position.

And so what if it does? Nothing is stopping polygamists from arguing NOW for equal protection.



The Polygamy Argument & Same-Sex Marriage | Talking Philosophy

But one of the selling points for gay marriage was that that is ALL YOU WANTED. Are you now saying that you want polyamorous relationships to be considered marriage now?



Was all that talk about the line being drawn at two people regardless of sex nothing but a lie to get what you want????

Did you read the link at all?!?!?!?

 

[rightwinger]

But what was said that support of gay marriage would not lead to the slippery slope. here it seems you support the slippery slope that gay marriage proponents have been saying is bullshit for about a decade now.

Gay marrige is not a slippery slope. It leads to one thing.....marriage for gays

If anouther group wants to fight for marriage rights that is their right. Was interracial marriage a slippery slope to gay marriage? If it is, it took 50 years

but the logic you use basically supports no limits on the marriage contract, but that is not what you are selling, i.e. you are lying.

I'm not lying. I support marriage for gays and don't have a problem with plural marriage. That is one person

It doesn't negate a basic right of gays to marry