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

[DriftingSand]

Gays are not being Denied Equal Protection. It is their Choice to Defy their Natural Design and Equipment and it is not Society's Burden that they do so.

"Couples" don't have "Rights" just because you say they do.



peace...

Good points. A man and a willing, female goat doesn't define the true definition of "marriage." If the sycophants of the world continue getting their way then we can expect to see NAMBLA getting special treatment in the coming years. At some point, common sense, good judgment, and our natural sense of morality need to come to the forefront to draw the proverbial "line in the sand."

We're supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. "The People" have spoken in several states by a fair and legal vote. The Federal Government has overstepped its bounds when a single judge overrules millions of legal, voting citizens.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, it's completely "American".



It's one of the things that made the American system unique. We don't live in a Democracy - the will of the mob is not how laws are made here.

That is an oversimplification. The will of the legislatures and the people is held in check via the constitution. However this will should only be held in check based on the explicit breakdown of powers enumerated in the constitution between the federal government, the state governments, and the people. In no place in the document is there a restriction on states being able to define their marriage contracts.

They rule on laws that violate the US Constitution. Denying gays equal protection under the law violates the constitution.

Gay Marriage is not an equal contract to straight marriage, as laws and the constitution both recognize differences between males and females. If you want a gay marriage contract, create one from scratch and have the state legislatures pass it.

 

[mal]

Why should someone be allowed to vote on what rights others are allowed to have?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

Rights are inherent, however what rights the government recognizes is shown in the constitution. If you want something enshrined as a right, you get enough people to support it to pass an amendment. ALL rights started via representative vote, even the ones voted in with the start of the constitution.

If you think a right is something the government is not protecting, you try to get an amendment to get it passed, or you fight (literally) for it. You don't get 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to end run it around the process.

The Gays aren't going to use that path because there is an easier one... Do you think that Abortion would be a "Right" if not for the Despotic Branch?...

Liberals are Literally Killing this Country.



peace...

 

[mal]

That is an oversimplification. The will of the legislatures and the people is held in check via the constitution. However this will should only be held in check based on the explicit breakdown of powers enumerated in the constitution between the federal government, the state governments, and the people. In no place in the document is there a restriction on states being able to define their marriage contracts.

They rule on laws that violate the US Constitution. Denying gays equal protection under the law violates the constitution.

Gay Marriage is not an equal contract to straight marriage, as laws and the constitution both recognize differences between males and females. If you want a gay marriage contract, create one from scratch and have the state legislatures pass it.

And not all "Couples" are Equal in the Eyes of the Gay Lobby... They are asking for Special Rights when they ask that to the Exclusion of all other Relationships that Humans can form that their particular one MUST be Afforded Rights.

What's worse is they are Demanding to be called Equal to something that they Physically, Biologically, Naturally and Factually are NOT.

This isn't even up for Debate.



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

Why should someone be allowed to vote on what rights others are allowed to have?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

Rights are inherent, however what rights the government recognizes is shown in the constitution. If you want something enshrined as a right, you get enough people to support it to pass an amendment. ALL rights started via representative vote, even the ones voted in with the start of the constitution.

If you think a right is something the government is not protecting, you try to get an amendment to get it passed, or you fight (literally) for it. You don't get 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to end run it around the process.

Marriage has already been declared a fundamental right, like interstate travel and procreation. In order to keep a fundamental right from a group of people, you must have a "compelling state reason" to do so.

5-0 since DOMA.

 

[mal]

Good points. A man and a willing, female goat doesn't define the true definition of "marriage." If the sycophants of the world continue getting their way then we can expect to see NAMBLA getting special treatment in the coming years. At some point, common sense, good judgment, and our natural sense of morality need to come to the forefront to draw the proverbial "line in the sand."

We're supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. "The People" have spoken in several states by a fair and legal vote. The Federal Government has overstepped its bounds when a single judge overrules millions of legal, voting citizens.

In Fact, until 1994 when the ILGA was outed as Allied with NAMBLA and removed from the World Conference on Population and Disease, the Gays regularly welcomed and Marched with NAMBLA in their Pride Parades from Coast to Coast.

In one of their Platforms in Chicago in the 70's the Gay's called for an end to Age of Consent Laws.

This is Historical Fact.

They Realized that their Agenda was DOA if they Continued to Ally with the Boy Bottom Touchers so they stopped for the most part after 1994...

There are still PLENTY of Tenured Liberal Deviant Academics who are pushing for the Normalization of Adult/Child Sex...

Again... Fact.



peace...

 

[martybegan]

Why should someone be allowed to vote on what rights others are allowed to have?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

Rights are inherent, however what rights the government recognizes is shown in the constitution. If you want something enshrined as a right, you get enough people to support it to pass an amendment. ALL rights started via representative vote, even the ones voted in with the start of the constitution.

If you think a right is something the government is not protecting, you try to get an amendment to get it passed, or you fight (literally) for it. You don't get 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to end run it around the process.

Marriage has already been declared a fundamental right, like interstate travel and procreation. In order to keep a fundamental right from a group of people, you must have a "compelling state reason" to do so.

5-0 since DOMA.

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.

 

[mal]

Rights are inherent, however what rights the government recognizes is shown in the constitution. If you want something enshrined as a right, you get enough people to support it to pass an amendment. ALL rights started via representative vote, even the ones voted in with the start of the constitution.

If you think a right is something the government is not protecting, you try to get an amendment to get it passed, or you fight (literally) for it. You don't get 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to end run it around the process.

Marriage has already been declared a fundamental right, like interstate travel and procreation. In order to keep a fundamental right from a group of people, you must have a "compelling state reason" to do so.

5-0 since DOMA.

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.

Loving's Conclusion was Crystal...

Marriage is "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

^Man and Man is not that thing... Woman and Woman is not that thing.

I've Advocated for Civil Unions for 2 Decades to Deal with the Obvious Issues that Gay Couples face, but calling that Defiance of our Natural Design "Equal" in Law is not Needed to Accomplish that.



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

Rights are inherent, however what rights the government recognizes is shown in the constitution. If you want something enshrined as a right, you get enough people to support it to pass an amendment. ALL rights started via representative vote, even the ones voted in with the start of the constitution.

If you think a right is something the government is not protecting, you try to get an amendment to get it passed, or you fight (literally) for it. You don't get 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to end run it around the process.

Marriage has already been declared a fundamental right, like interstate travel and procreation. In order to keep a fundamental right from a group of people, you must have a "compelling state reason" to do so.

5-0 since DOMA.

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.

 

[martybegan]

Marriage has already been declared a fundamental right, like interstate travel and procreation. In order to keep a fundamental right from a group of people, you must have a "compelling state reason" to do so.

5-0 since DOMA.

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?

 

[GreenBean]

Marriage has already been declared a fundamental right, like interstate travel and procreation. In order to keep a fundamental right from a group of people, you must have a "compelling state reason" to do so.

5-0 since DOMA.

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.

I hate to admit it SeaHag - but you've finally posted something that makes sense - been a long time coming - but I'm sure you've heard the analogy that if you put a million monkeys at typewriters eventually ....perhaps in a century or so they'll come up with a novel.

Not quite a novel in your case - just a paragraph.

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right

 

[Seawytch]

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, but good luck. Maybe you can marry your strawman?

 

[martybegan]

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, but good luck. Maybe you can marry your strawman?

Its the logical endpoint of your argument. You are negating my drawing of a line at the point of marriage being between ANY man and ANY woman with the standard "equal protection" line, and by making equal protection some sacred relic that cannot be argued against. However YOU draw the line at it being between any one person and any other person, ignoring the equal protection of multiple people being able to marry at once.

So even YOU have a limit on equal protection, however you don't explain YOUR decision on where to place the limit, yet you ignore OTHERS decision on where to place it.

That makes you a perfect example of my view on progressives, all they have is what they WANT, and they will make up any crap to justify said position.

 

[DriftingSand]

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?

... or between a human and a consenting animal or an adult and a child? Watch as the "gay activists" draw a moral line on these issues!!!

 

[rightwinger]

Why should someone be allowed to vote on what rights others are allowed to have?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

Gays aren't being Denied Rights.

There is no such thing as "Two People Rights".

And if there is, YOU don't get to Choose which Deviants are more Equal to what Creates us.

Give that some Thought there Fauxlbert.



peace...

Marriage is a right that has been established by our courts

There is also a right to equal protection from our laws

 

[Darkwind]

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.

 

[martybegan]

Why should someone be allowed to vote on what rights others are allowed to have?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

Gays aren't being Denied Rights.

There is no such thing as "Two People Rights".

And if there is, YOU don't get to Choose which Deviants are more Equal to what Creates us.

Give that some Thought there Fauxlbert.



peace...

Marriage is a right that has been established by our courts

There is also a right to equal protection from our laws

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?

 

[mal]

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...

 

[rightwinger]

Gays aren't being Denied Rights.

There is no such thing as "Two People Rights".

And if there is, YOU don't get to Choose which Deviants are more Equal to what Creates us.

Give that some Thought there Fauxlbert.



peace...

Marriage is a right that has been established by our courts

There is also a right to equal protection from our laws

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?

 

[martybegan]

Marriage is a right that has been established by our courts

There is also a right to equal protection from our laws

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.....