I find it very disturbing

[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.

Homosexuality is not a civil right. It's a sin.

Whether or not homosexuality is a civil right is not what is being addressed in the USSC ruling in June. But whether gays and lesbians have equal protection under the law in regards to State marriage law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

JEREMIAH SAID:

“There is no sin against interracial marriages. Moses married Zipporah ( a black woman) and I believe the LORD found his wife for him and knew she would be a great blessing to him. Race is of God -created of God - while - homosexuality is not.”

'Sin' is subjective, like religion legally and Constitutionally irrelevant to the issue, having no bearing whatsoever on the merits of laws seeking to deny gay Americans their rights enshrined in the 14th Amendment – and thankfully so.

Indeed, 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations such as churches, who will remain at liberty to discriminate against gay Americans regardless how the Supreme Court rules.

 

[Seawytch]

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

Again please explain the SCOTUS ruling Turner v Safley. (Marriage was declared a fundamental right in Turner v Safley)

Why don't you feel free to educate me, I haven't had time to study for your quiz.

You should make the time if you're going to make blanket statements about the fundamental right to marry.

Turner v Safley, a case in which the SCOTUS once again stated marriage was a fundamental right, had nothing to do with race but with incarcerated persons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

JEREMIAH SAID:

“Homosexuality is not a civil right. It's a sin. To make gay marriage legal would be an abomination before God because America was dedicated to God when George Washington was President. America is already under the judgment of God. Are you looking to speed it up?”

More evidence that we need Establishment Clause jurisprudence as much today as at any point in our Nation's history, to protect citizens from this sort of ignorance and extremism.

JEREMIAH SAID:

“Homosexuality is not a civil right.”

Wrong.

Gay Americans are entitled to Constitutional protections; the protected liberty of choice is immune from attacks by the state (Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas).

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Liminal]

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

Again please explain the SCOTUS ruling Turner v Safley. (Marriage was declared a fundamental right in Turner v Safley)

Why don't you feel free to educate me, I haven't had time to study for your quiz.

You should make the time if you're going to make blanket statements about the fundamental right to marry.

Turner v Safley, a case in which the SCOTUS once again stated marriage was a fundamental right, had nothing to do with race but with incarcerated persons.

Well HOORAY! Quite a victory for fundamental human rights, another special interest group served. Aren't we something special and wonderful, gay people can get married while the poor, indigent, and various ethnic groups, can all just go fuck themselves. The destruction of the middle class, the dismantling of the Forth Amendment, these issues hardly matter in comparison. What a great country we are, we can always congratulate ourselves with progress on pop culture, boutique issues ....just so long as we don't try to change anything that really matters.

 

[Liminal]

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, I'm not. I never mentioned legislation, I said "law". Case law is law. A SCOTUS decision has all of the impact of legislative law. In fact, it can override legislative law. The only thing which can override a SCOTUS decision is either a reversal by SCOTUS or a Constitutional amendment. That is how it is set up in the Constitution.

yes, but the SC cannot make a ruling the is in conflict with existing law or render a decision that is not based on any existing law.

Said another way, the SC cannot issue a ruling on gay marriage unless there is some federal or state law that they declare unconstitutional. If they do that they are not MAKING law, they are simply declaring that some existing law violates the constitution.

I know its a fine line, but we need to keep the SC within its constitutional limits

Sure they can if that existing law is determined to be unConstitutional.

yes, thats exactly what I said. But they cannot MAKE law, they cannot legislate. They cannot make up a law. They cannot judicially rule on societal morals. They cannot dictate to society as to what must be considered right and wrong.

True...some people still believe divorce to be immoral, but it's legal. Some believe inter-faith marriage is wrong, but it's legal.

The SCOTUS can dictate what is considered legal and illegal. And since we are a nation of laws, and since we are talking about legal marriage......that's important.

No, they can't. They can determine what is constitutional, not legal. its not the same thing.

using your arguments then the SC would have to declare polygamy and sibling marriage as legal. What constitutional arguments can you make against them?

The Constitution is law. Deciding is something is or is not Constitutional is entirely legal. It is precisely the same thing.

Personally, I see no Constitutional argument against either.

 

[PratchettFan]

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't. Not even a tiny little bit.

 

[Seawytch]

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

Again please explain the SCOTUS ruling Turner v Safley. (Marriage was declared a fundamental right in Turner v Safley)

Why don't you feel free to educate me, I haven't had time to study for your quiz.

You should make the time if you're going to make blanket statements about the fundamental right to marry.

Turner v Safley, a case in which the SCOTUS once again stated marriage was a fundamental right, had nothing to do with race but with incarcerated persons.

Well HOORAY! Quite a victory for fundamental human rights, another special interest group served. Aren't we something special and wonderful, gay people can get married while the poor, indigent, and various ethnic groups, can all just go fuck themselves. The destruction of the middle class, the dismantling of the Forth Amendment, these issue hardly matter in comparison. What a great country we are, we can always congratulate ourselves with progress on pop culture, boutique issues ....just so long as we don't try to change anything that really matters.

So now that your argument has been rendered ludicrous, you're going for the "end of the world" scenario.

Please, by all means, continue with the ridiculousness.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

That's what many black civil rights supporters said about the women's rights struggle. SSDD

 

[PratchettFan]

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

If marriage is a fundamental right, then so is SSM.

depends on the definition of marriage.

The legal definition of marriage is what matters when we are talking legal, civil marriage.

since the constitution is silent on marriage, then we need a constitutional amendment to define what marriage means and who can participate in it.

why do you fear letting the people decide?

No, we don't., We have an entire system in place to deal with it. We don't need to fiddle with the Constitution every time an issue comes up.

 

[Seawytch]

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

That's what many black civil rights supporters said about the women's rights struggle. SSDD

SBDD. (Same Bigots Different Day)

 

[Liminal]

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

Again please explain the SCOTUS ruling Turner v Safley. (Marriage was declared a fundamental right in Turner v Safley)

Why don't you feel free to educate me, I haven't had time to study for your quiz.

You should make the time if you're going to make blanket statements about the fundamental right to marry.

Turner v Safley, a case in which the SCOTUS once again stated marriage was a fundamental right, had nothing to do with race but with incarcerated persons.

Well HOORAY! Quite a victory for fundamental human rights, another special interest group served. Aren't we something special and wonderful, gay people can get married while the poor, indigent, and various ethnic groups, can all just go fuck themselves. The destruction of the middle class, the dismantling of the Forth Amendment, these issue hardly matter in comparison. What a great country we are, we can always congratulate ourselves with progress on pop culture, boutique issues ....just so long as we don't try to change anything that really matters.

So now that your argument has been rendered ludicrous, you're going for the "end of the world" scenario.

Please, by all means, continue with the ridiculousness.

End of the world? I have no idea what you're talking about, perhaps you could be more explicit.

 

[Seawytch]

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

If marriage is a fundamental right, then so is SSM.

depends on the definition of marriage.

The legal definition of marriage is what matters when we are talking legal, civil marriage.

since the constitution is silent on marriage, then we need a constitutional amendment to define what marriage means and who can participate in it.

why do you fear letting the people decide?

No, we don't., We have an entire system in place to deal with it. We don't need to fiddle with the Constitution every time an issue comes up.

But, but, but...the "system" was NEVER meant to protect "those people"....

 

[Liminal]

Really? What's the compelling argument for not leaving that decision up to state referendums?

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

That's what many black civil rights supporters said about the women's rights struggle. SSDD

And? Feel free to use that history to make a point.

 

[Seawytch]

Again please explain the SCOTUS ruling Turner v Safley. (Marriage was declared a fundamental right in Turner v Safley)

Why don't you feel free to educate me, I haven't had time to study for your quiz.

You should make the time if you're going to make blanket statements about the fundamental right to marry.

Turner v Safley, a case in which the SCOTUS once again stated marriage was a fundamental right, had nothing to do with race but with incarcerated persons.

Well HOORAY! Quite a victory for fundamental human rights, another special interest group served. Aren't we something special and wonderful, gay people can get married while the poor, indigent, and various ethnic groups, can all just go fuck themselves. The destruction of the middle class, the dismantling of the Forth Amendment, these issue hardly matter in comparison. What a great country we are, we can always congratulate ourselves with progress on pop culture, boutique issues ....just so long as we don't try to change anything that really matters.

So now that your argument has been rendered ludicrous, you're going for the "end of the world" scenario.

Please, by all means, continue with the ridiculousness.

End of the world? I have no idea what you're talking about, perhaps you could be more explicit.

Ah, only YOU get to engage in hyperbole. You started ranting about the "destruction of the middle class", etc...because marriage is a fundamental right?

 

[Liminal]

Why don't you feel free to educate me, I haven't had time to study for your quiz.

You should make the time if you're going to make blanket statements about the fundamental right to marry.

Turner v Safley, a case in which the SCOTUS once again stated marriage was a fundamental right, had nothing to do with race but with incarcerated persons.

Well HOORAY! Quite a victory for fundamental human rights, another special interest group served. Aren't we something special and wonderful, gay people can get married while the poor, indigent, and various ethnic groups, can all just go fuck themselves. The destruction of the middle class, the dismantling of the Forth Amendment, these issue hardly matter in comparison. What a great country we are, we can always congratulate ourselves with progress on pop culture, boutique issues ....just so long as we don't try to change anything that really matters.

So now that your argument has been rendered ludicrous, you're going for the "end of the world" scenario.

Please, by all means, continue with the ridiculousness.

End of the world? I have no idea what you're talking about, perhaps you could be more explicit.

Ah, only YOU get to engage in hyperbole. You started ranting about the "destruction of the middle class", etc...because marriage is a fundamental right?

Now you're just lying. Why do you need to conflate? Can't you present an honest argument based on it's own merits?

 

[Seawytch]

You should make the time if you're going to make blanket statements about the fundamental right to marry.

Turner v Safley, a case in which the SCOTUS once again stated marriage was a fundamental right, had nothing to do with race but with incarcerated persons.

Well HOORAY! Quite a victory for fundamental human rights, another special interest group served. Aren't we something special and wonderful, gay people can get married while the poor, indigent, and various ethnic groups, can all just go fuck themselves. The destruction of the middle class, the dismantling of the Forth Amendment, these issue hardly matter in comparison. What a great country we are, we can always congratulate ourselves with progress on pop culture, boutique issues ....just so long as we don't try to change anything that really matters.

So now that your argument has been rendered ludicrous, you're going for the "end of the world" scenario.

Please, by all means, continue with the ridiculousness.

End of the world? I have no idea what you're talking about, perhaps you could be more explicit.

Ah, only YOU get to engage in hyperbole. You started ranting about the "destruction of the middle class", etc...because marriage is a fundamental right?

Now your just lying. Why do you need to conflate? Can't you present an honest argument based on it's own merits?

The "arguments" have been presented. Marriage has been declared a fundamental right (Loving v VA, Zablocki v WI and Turner v Safley). In order to deny that fundamental right, you must be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. Go!!

 

[bodecea]

Do you believe racial segregation and discrimination would have been settled the way it is today if left to the states to decide?
Civil rights aren't granted by a majority they are inherint and self evident in our society.

That's very dramatic sounding, but gay marriage doesn't rise to the same level as racial discrimination. Gay marriage is not a fundamental human rights issue, it's just a matter of style and fashion.

The right to civilly marry is "just a matter of style and fashion"? Seriously?

Pretending that gay marriage compares with the basic human rights that black people have been historically denied, trivializes their struggle.

That's what many black civil rights supporters said about the women's rights struggle. SSDD

And? Feel free to use that history to make a point.

And...my point was made...those who "struggle" don't like to think that some other group might in some way have "struggled" just as much as they did. If you'd been around during the Womens Movement in the late 70s, you'd have heard much of the same rhetoric about how "offensive" it is to compare the Noble Civil Rights movement to the Silly and Frivolous Women's Movement. SSDD.