I find it very disturbing

[thereisnospoon]

Legal contracts are one of the roles government must play in a society. Marriage is and, since the beginning of civilization, always has been a legal contract.

You're right that marraige is a civil contract but, if between consenting adults and harms no one, government should have no say in who Redfish or anyone else, marries.

Yes Luddly Neddite so keep the personal terms of Marriage out of govt,
similar to how Atheists sue to remove references to God from public institutions.
If not all people agree on what these words mean without invoking conflicting BELIEFS,
then remove them by "separation of church and state." be consistent or else it's religious discrimination

I believe that is what people are trying to do. You are free to consider your marriage in any way you like, under any terms you like. The government should not be deciding that for you.

Yes PratchettFan I agree with you that is the goal.
The problem in making that goal is this insistence
on demonizing and excluding people who believe in traditional marriage only,
and failing to recognize this belief equally as a valid protected belief,
which cannot be forced to change by govt nor discriminated against.

Until all people's beliefs about marriage are treated and included equally,
the laws are not written to represent all, and they turn into fights for majority rule or court rulings to decide.

No, I DON'T agree that govt should decide these, and that's my whole point!

If people work together to write the laws by consensus, there wouldn't be these fights.
Something is going wrong with the democratic process, where the sides turn against each other
instead of including them all equally.

Maybe the Greens need to facilitate the legislative writing and reforms on these laws,
some group with experience fielding objections and arriving at a consensus decision on how to write a resolution
that includes everyone in the process. The only failure of that system is allowing people to object without requiring
a correction to the objection to resolve it. Just require that people agree to *correct* any source or cause of objection
to how a law is written and applied, if they want to participate in the process, and a consensus can be reached.

No one is demonizing anyone for having a traditional marriage. Not a soul. The only demonizing going on is people who insist only their idea of marriage should be allowed. No one is saying you have to marry a woman or I have to marry a man.

All that is being sought is equality. That is not an attack on marriage. It is a reasonable and rightful goal.

No..Those wishing gay marriage are seeking to be "more equal"....

 

[dblack]

Yep. That's exactly what's going on. And some of us are asking, "Should government have the power to do that?".

Why do you hate the Constitution? We are a nation of laws - and civilized people promote change by voting.

That doesn't answer the question.

Well, sparky, who do you think SHOULD have the power to do that - if not the government?

No one should have the power to do it by force. No one should be "dragged kicking and screaming" in the name of progress.

So, should we all just wonder around in a random manner doing whatever we please? Seriously, why do you hate the Constitution so much?

Still dodging? If you think that government should have the power to drag people, kicking and screaming, toward new values they don't agree with, well... that's pretty fucked up.

 

[Lakhota]

Why do you hate the Constitution? We are a nation of laws - and civilized people promote change by voting.

That doesn't answer the question.

Well, sparky, who do you think SHOULD have the power to do that - if not the government?

No one should have the power to do it by force. No one should be "dragged kicking and screaming" in the name of progress.

So, should we all just wonder around in a random manner doing whatever we please? Seriously, why do you hate the Constitution so much?

Still dodging? If you think that government should have the power to drag people, kicking and screaming, toward new values they don't agree with, well... that's pretty fucked up.

Well, sparky, that's why we vote - in a democracy.

 

[BluesLegend]

If you really want to piss off the gays, just ignore them and their constant drama queen attention craving rants that's what I do. For all I care they can marry 10 wives, or husbands, I guess it doesn't really matter. They can go form a gay commune and live in grass huts I don't care one iota. I pay more attention to organizing my sock drawer.

 

[dblack]

That doesn't answer the question.

Well, sparky, who do you think SHOULD have the power to do that - if not the government?

No one should have the power to do it by force. No one should be "dragged kicking and screaming" in the name of progress.

So, should we all just wonder around in a random manner doing whatever we please? Seriously, why do you hate the Constitution so much?

Still dodging? If you think that government should have the power to drag people, kicking and screaming, toward new values they don't agree with, well... that's pretty fucked up.

Well, sparky, that's why we vote - in a democracy.

I realize that's how you see it.

I guess it really all stems from the lack of understanding of the basic concept of individual rights, particularly 'inalienable' rights. Those of you who can't grasp that tend to see government primarily as a tool to force your will on others, rather than a means of protecting our rights. It's a shame you can't see what you're throwing away.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, sparky, who do you think SHOULD have the power to do that - if not the government?

No one should have the power to do it by force. No one should be "dragged kicking and screaming" in the name of progress.

So, should we all just wonder around in a random manner doing whatever we please? Seriously, why do you hate the Constitution so much?

Still dodging? If you think that government should have the power to drag people, kicking and screaming, toward new values they don't agree with, well... that's pretty fucked up.

Well, sparky, that's why we vote - in a democracy.

I realize that's how you see it.

I guess it really all stems from the lack of understanding of the basic concept of individual rights, particularly 'inalienable' rights. Those of you who can't grasp that tend to see government primarily as a tool to force your will on others, rather than a means of protecting our rights. It's a shame you can't see what you're throwing away.

Well, sparky, just do whatever you wish - until the law gets you. Have fun....

 

[dblack]

No one should have the power to do it by force. No one should be "dragged kicking and screaming" in the name of progress.

So, should we all just wonder around in a random manner doing whatever we please? Seriously, why do you hate the Constitution so much?

Still dodging? If you think that government should have the power to drag people, kicking and screaming, toward new values they don't agree with, well... that's pretty fucked up.

Well, sparky, that's why we vote - in a democracy.

I realize that's how you see it.

I guess it really all stems from the lack of understanding of the basic concept of individual rights, particularly 'inalienable' rights. Those of you who can't grasp that tend to see government primarily as a tool to force your will on others, rather than a means of protecting our rights. It's a shame you can't see what you're throwing away.

Well, sparky, just do whatever you wish - until the law gets you. Have fun....

You won't defend you twisted views, will you?

 

[Lakhota]

So, should we all just wonder around in a random manner doing whatever we please? Seriously, why do you hate the Constitution so much?

Still dodging? If you think that government should have the power to drag people, kicking and screaming, toward new values they don't agree with, well... that's pretty fucked up.

Well, sparky, that's why we vote - in a democracy.

I realize that's how you see it.

I guess it really all stems from the lack of understanding of the basic concept of individual rights, particularly 'inalienable' rights. Those of you who can't grasp that tend to see government primarily as a tool to force your will on others, rather than a means of protecting our rights. It's a shame you can't see what you're throwing away.

Well, sparky, just do whatever you wish - until the law gets you. Have fun....

You won't defend you twisted views, will you?

I defend the rights of others to love whomever they wish and have the same benefits of traditional marriage. Homosexuality is nothing new. It's been with us throughout human history. I'm straight as an arrow and I cringe when I see two men holding hands and/or kissing, but I defend their right to be whom they are. Their rights don't take a damn thing away from me - or you.

 

[dblack]

Still dodging? If you think that government should have the power to drag people, kicking and screaming, toward new values they don't agree with, well... that's pretty fucked up.

Well, sparky, that's why we vote - in a democracy.

I realize that's how you see it.

I guess it really all stems from the lack of understanding of the basic concept of individual rights, particularly 'inalienable' rights. Those of you who can't grasp that tend to see government primarily as a tool to force your will on others, rather than a means of protecting our rights. It's a shame you can't see what you're throwing away.

Well, sparky, just do whatever you wish - until the law gets you. Have fun....

You won't defend you twisted views, will you?

I defend the rights of others to love whomever they wish and have the same benefits of traditional marriage. Homosexuality is nothing new. It's been with us throughout human history. I'm straight as an arrow and I cringe when I see two men holding hands and/or kissing, but I defend their right to be whom they are. Their rights don't take a damn thing away from me - or you.

Me too. I totally agree. But that has nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Carla_Danger]

People are evolving and the issue is being resolved. Bigots and homophobes are kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the 21st century.

Yep. That's exactly what's going on. And some of us are asking, "Should government have the power to do that?".

Why do you hate the Constitution? We are a nation of laws - and civilized people promote change by voting.

That doesn't answer the question.

Well, sparky, who do you think SHOULD have the power to do that - if not the government?

No one should have the power to do it by force. No one should be "dragged kicking and screaming" in the name of progress.

You should go back to your cave.

 

[Agit8r]

Well, we live in a republic (ish) and part of that is the judiciary.

 

[Skylar]

It's not the mere action of refusing service to someone that is illegal. It's the opinions of the person making that decision that makes it illegal.

It has to do with their actions. You can believe whatever you'd like. When as a business serving the public you deny services to say, women, but offer those services to men.....you violate PA laws in many states.

Its the action of discrimination that results in the breach. Not the motivation. If you deny services to gays because you believe its God's will....or you 'fucking hate faggots', it doesn't matter. Its a violation of PA laws in either case, as PA laws regulate actions.

Not the excuses for actions.

Indeed they do. But no one's rights are being violated when they are refused service.

Its the laws that are violated when they are refused service. As the State with its authority to regulate intrastate commerce has mandated a minimum code of conduct for those who wish to engage in commerce in that State. And treating your customers fairly and equally is one of those requirements.

Violate it, and you'll be fined in accordance with the law.

Laws dictating who we must serve or hire, and for what reasons, however, do violate fundamental the fundamental freedoms of a conscience and association.

You're free to associate with who you will and believe what you will in your personal life. If you choose to engage in business, you're held to certain standards of conduct while doing business.

Public business is, by definition, public. And business is, by definition, commerce. You can't claim private rights to association when engaged in public activity. Especially when that activity is commerce, the regulation of which falls clearly within the power of the State.

 

[ninja007]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

its not a civil rights issue.

 

[Skylar]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

its not a civil rights issue.

Says you. Virtually every federal court to hear cases on gay marriage bans has overturned them on the basis that they violate constitutional rights. In every instance, the USSC has preserved such rulings, denying stays or requests for cert.

Every. Single. Time.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. Read Kennedy's comments about the effect on children marriage is denied their same sex parents. Pay special attention to the words 'immediate legal harm'.

Then check who wrote the Romer v. Evans case where the rights of gays and lesbians were protected under the 14th amendment. Then check who wrote the Lawerence v. Texas ruling where the rights of gays were protected. Then check who wrote the Windsor v. US ruling, where key provisions of DOMA were overturned as violating civil rights.

And then, after you've done all that...... try and tell me with a straight face that the court doesn't recognize this as a civil rights issue.

 

[ninja007]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

its not a civil rights issue.

Says you. Virtually every federal court to hear cases on gay marriage bans has overturned them on the basis that they violate constitutional rights. In every instance, the USSC has preserved such rulings, denying stays or requests for cert.

Every. Single. Time.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. And then try and tell me that the court doesn't recognize this as a civil rights issue.

lets put abortion up for a vote.

 

[Skylar]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

its not a civil rights issue.

Says you. Virtually every federal court to hear cases on gay marriage bans has overturned them on the basis that they violate constitutional rights. In every instance, the USSC has preserved such rulings, denying stays or requests for cert.

Every. Single. Time.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. And then try and tell me that the court doesn't recognize this as a civil rights issue.

lets put abortion up for a vote.

Are your rights up for a vote? Can the majority strip away any of your constitutional rights with a 50% plus 1 vote?

 

[ninja007]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

its not a civil rights issue.

Says you. Virtually every federal court to hear cases on gay marriage bans has overturned them on the basis that they violate constitutional rights. In every instance, the USSC has preserved such rulings, denying stays or requests for cert.

Every. Single. Time.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. And then try and tell me that the court doesn't recognize this as a civil rights issue.

lets put abortion up for a vote.

Are your rights up for a vote? Can the majority strip away any of your constitutional rights with a 50% plus 1 vote?

what rights are gays looking for? They can get married if they wish. It comes down to money. Why can't they be honest about it?

 

[Skylar]

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

its not a civil rights issue.

Says you. Virtually every federal court to hear cases on gay marriage bans has overturned them on the basis that they violate constitutional rights. In every instance, the USSC has preserved such rulings, denying stays or requests for cert.

Every. Single. Time.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. And then try and tell me that the court doesn't recognize this as a civil rights issue.

lets put abortion up for a vote.

Are your rights up for a vote? Can the majority strip away any of your constitutional rights with a 50% plus 1 vote?

what rights are gays looking for? They can get married if they wish. It comes down to money. Why can't they be honest about it?

The right to marry. As was demonstrated so elegantly in Loving v. Virginia when interracial marriage bans were overturned, the restrictions themselves have to meet constitutional muster. They have to have a very good reason, serve a compelling state interest and a valid legislative end.

Gay marriage bans fail all three. Which is why their record of failure in federal court is very close to perfect.

 

[dblack]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

its not a civil rights issue.

Says you. Virtually every federal court to hear cases on gay marriage bans has overturned them on the basis that they violate constitutional rights. In every instance, the USSC has preserved such rulings, denying stays or requests for cert.

Every. Single. Time.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. And then try and tell me that the court doesn't recognize this as a civil rights issue.

lets put abortion up for a vote.

Are your rights up for a vote? Can the majority strip away any of your constitutional rights with a 50% plus 1 vote?

You seem to be advocating for that power.

 

[dblack]

its not a civil rights issue.

Says you. Virtually every federal court to hear cases on gay marriage bans has overturned them on the basis that they violate constitutional rights. In every instance, the USSC has preserved such rulings, denying stays or requests for cert.

Every. Single. Time.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. And then try and tell me that the court doesn't recognize this as a civil rights issue.

lets put abortion up for a vote.

Are your rights up for a vote? Can the majority strip away any of your constitutional rights with a 50% plus 1 vote?

what rights are gays looking for? They can get married if they wish. It comes down to money. Why can't they be honest about it?

The right to marry. As was demonstrated so elegantly in Loving v. Virginia when interracial marriage bans were overturned, the restrictions themselves have to meet constitutional muster. They have to have a very good reason, serve a compelling state interest and a valid legislative end.

Gay marriage bans fail all three. Which is why their record of failure in federal court is very close to perfect.

Couldn't agree more. It's the anti-discrimination nonsense that turns civil rights upside-down.