Is Anyone Else Getting Tired Of The Queer Agenda???

[Syriusly]

But they will argue that Loving was a good ruling and Obergefell a bad one. Because? Well....duh, gay.

You wish sweetie. The federal government has no authority over marriage. It's just that simple. It's for each state to decide.

So you're willing to admit here on this message board that the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v Virginia was a bad ruling? Pretty please?

Nice straw man. It's not "good" or "bad". It's unconstitutional. The federal government has zero authority over marriage. How hard is this for you to understand?

Right...Case law going back to the 60s, but i'ts unconstitutional 'cause Puppy says so.

You just admitted it! "Case Law" is not the Constitution.

Not Case law- the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

 

[Syriusly]

But they will argue that Loving was a good ruling and Obergefell a bad one. Because? Well....duh, gay.

You wish sweetie. The federal government has no authority over marriage. It's just that simple. It's for each state to decide.

So you're willing to admit here on this message board that the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v Virginia was a bad ruling? Pretty please?

Nice straw man. It's not "good" or "bad". It's unconstitutional. The federal government has zero authority over marriage. How hard is this for you to understand?

How hard it is to understand that you are as wrong as those who claim that the Income Tax is unconstitutional?

The Federal Government has authority over any state law that is unconstitutional.

And has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now for being unconstitutional.

And the result in each case was that people were able to legally marry that the State's tried to prevent from marrying.

The Federal government clearly has that authority- and excercised that authority for over 50 years now.

 

[Syriusly]

Nonsensical. Completely and totally nonsensical. Gay people could vote. Gay people could march. Gay people could carry firearms. Not one of their rights was ever violated.

But this ruling was a major violation of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This ruling was no more a violation of the 10th Amendment than was Loving v. Virginia. You are about 50 years late to be so outraged.

Your desperate desire for something to not be true doesn't make it so. The ruling was an egregious violation of the 10th Amendment. You know it. I know it. Every single member of the Supreme Court knows it. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers. This could not be more obvious.

The voices in your head saying it was a violation doesn't make it a violation.

The 14th Amendment- which is the basis of Loving and Obergefel requires States to follow the U.S. Constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry.

No, you aren't. At all. Two guys filing a joint tax return just like every other married couple harms you in no way at all. A man being able to visit his spouse in the ICU harms you in no way at all.

You're full of shit.

I've been legally married since 2008...I hope that pains him every day.

Yeah...we know wytchy. You're selfish. You'd rather see the entire U.S. collapse.

Because of course- allowing gays to marry is going to make the 'entire U.S. collapse'........

What idiotic crap.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q

"lawless" nation? If I go out and rob a bank tomorrow and get caught, I will suffer the consequences of breaking the law.

Well there is some liberal "logic" at its finest. Just because we still hold a bank robber accountable, then we have not become a lawless nation. Even if we allow rape. Murder. Assault. ?

Well I can't help you with your twisted 'Conservative logic' which appears to have an entirely different definition of 'lawless' than the rest of the world.

The law is being enforced in the United States.
Lawless does not mean "what triot is pissed off about.

In other words....you irrational position has been exposed and you can't dispute it so you'll just change the subject and resort to personal attacks? Got it!

LOL- what you got was your idiotic claim that the United States is now 'lawless' shown to be false.

Just because you are butt hurt doesn't make the United States now a lawless state.

 

[Syriusly]

[
I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry. The entire county is harmed by it. How sad that you need something so simple and basic explained to you.

Being butt hurt because you disagree with a court decision is not 'horribly harmed'.

How sad you project your own issues onto the 'entire country'.

The fact is that there is no evidence of any harm to the 'entire country' by gay couples being treated legally the same as my wife and I are.

 

[Syriusly]

[
I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry. .

Sounds tough. You should get some therapy to help you get over your psychosis about this.

No - what I should get is constitutional government restored. That's all we need to fix America. Therapy is for irrational liberals who are born men and think they are women.

And by 'constitutional government restored' you mean a government you personally approve of. With you the sole arbiter of what is 'constitutional' and what is not.

 

[P@triot]

The 14th Amendment- which is the basis of Loving and Obergefel requires States to follow the U.S. Constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Exactly junior. Thank you for proving that you're 14th Amendment approach is comical and nonsensical. You just looked up amendments and tried to make one apply. You failed miserably. Homosexuals were never "deprived of life, liberty, proper, or due process of law or equal protection of laws". Homosexuals were allowed to vote. Allowed to worship. Allowed to speak. Allowed to carry firearms. And any gay man could marry any woman he wanted, as well as any gay woman could marry any man she wanted.

The 10th Amendment was egregiously violated when the federal government overstepped their authority and made decisions about marriage when marriage is not one of their 18 enumerated powers.

 

[Syriusly]

If you want to marry 18 wives- you can however go to court and try to make that argument. Unfortunately it won't work to argue that you should be allowed to marry 18 women because you are Muslim, because Islam only allows up to 5 wives.

So you admit you are a bigot and that you discriminate people. Who are you to tell me that I cannot have 18 wives? Hypocrite.

No- I admit you lie about what I say. I admit you are a liar.

Here is what I said-

]If you want to marry 18 wives- you can however go to court and try to make that argument. Unfortunately it won't work to argue that you should be allowed to marry 18 women because you are Muslim, because Islam only allows up to 5 wives

If you believe you have the right to have 18 wives- I support your constitutional right to challenge state marriage laws that prevent you from your dream of marrying 18 wives.

 

[francoHFW]

OP

Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network which is an offshoot of the LGBT and they are going around to schools...even grade schools preaching the wonders of being a queer......look it up.

well that's a creepy sex cult is what that is.

George Soros funded...

Link to that bs? The dupes are totally brainwashed on Soros...At any rate, it's still legal to discriminate against gays in many states, and that has to end.

The dupes are racists/bigots in so many cases, our greatest pals. Trump/Palin 2016!

 

[francoHFW]

The 14th Amendment- which is the basis of Loving and Obergefel requires States to follow the U.S. Constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Exactly junior. Thank you for proving that you're 14th Amendment approach is comical and nonsensical. You just looked up amendments and tried to make one apply. You failed miserably. Homosexuals were never "deprived of life, liberty, proper, or due process of law or equal protection of laws". Homosexuals were allowed to vote. Allowed to worship. Allowed to speak. Allowed to carry firearms. And any gay man could marry any woman he wanted, as well as any gay woman could marry any man she wanted.

The 10th Amendment was egregiously violated when the federal government overstepped their authority and made decisions about marriage when marriage is not one of their 18 enumerated powers.

IT'S STILL LEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAYS IN HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT IN MANY STATES, DUPE. (ooops for capitals)

 

[francoHFW]

Did You Know It's Legal In Most States To Discriminate Against LGBT ...
www.npr.org/.../activists-urge-states-to-protect-the-civil-rights-of-lgbt-people
NPR
Apr 28, 2015 - But it's also legal in most states to discriminate against lesbian, gay, ... LGBT — people in the areas of employment, housing and public ...
Non-Discrimination Laws: State by State Information - Map | American ...
https://www.aclu.org/.../non-discrimination-laws-state-...
American Civil Liberties Union
Click any highlighted state to learn more ... State-wide employment non-discrimination law covers sexual orientation and gender identity; State-wide employment ...
Maps of State Laws & Policies - Human Rights Campaign
www.hrc.org/state_maps
Human Rights Campaign
HRC launched interactive maps of state laws and policies. ... state stands and to learn more about how these laws and policies affect LGBT people nationwide.

 

[P@triot]

[
I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry. The entire county is harmed by it. How sad that you need something so simple and basic explained to you.

Being butt hurt because you disagree with a court decision is not 'horribly harmed'. How sad you project your own issues onto the 'entire country'. The fact is that there is no evidence of any harm to the 'entire country' by gay couples being treated legally the same as my wife and I are.

I've posted the facts. You're trying to avoid them like the plague because you want to keep your gay marriage. Here they are again for all to see:

1.) I'm harmed by the fact that the Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. I'm harmed by the fact that liberals have turned this into a lawless nation.

2.) I'm harmed by the fact that gay marriage has redefined marriage. And in turn, has opened Pandora's Box. There was no discrimination before. Marriage was between one man and one woman. That's simply what it was. But by illegally and unconstitutionally permitting gay marriage, we now may not prevent any form of marriage. Which means a muslim man can now legally marry 18 women (if we don't permit it - that is the purest form of discrimination as the Supreme Court illegally redefined marriage). So now you have to pay high insurance premiums for your company to cover 18 wives with health insurance. Is that fair to you? And oh yeah genius - the ICU must allow all 18 wives in to see that muslim husband. Do you have any idea how disruptive that is to an ICU? That's why they limit visitors genius. And get this - what happens when 9 of those wives say to pull the plug and the other 9 say to keep that muslim husband on life support? Then what genius? Who gets to decide? Some fucking court?!?!

3.) I'm harmed by the fact that liberals are so astoundingly ignorant and stupid, that they think every action occurs in a vacuum. They never once stop to think about what effect their idealistic desires will have on society - like now making us all pay for 18 wives of a muslim or have to decide what to do when 9 of those wives want to pull the plug while the other 9 want to keep him on life support.

I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry. The entire county is harmed by it. How sad that you need something so simple and basic explained to you.

 

[Syriusly]

The 14th Amendment- which is the basis of Loving and Obergefel requires States to follow the U.S. Constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Exactly junior. Thank you for proving that you're 14th Amendment approach is comical and nonsensical. You just looked up amendments and tried to make one apply. You failed miserably. Homosexuals were never "deprived of life, liberty, proper, or due process of law or equal protection of laws". Homosexuals were allowed to vote. Allowed to worship. Allowed to speak. Allowed to carry firearms. And any gay man could marry any woman he wanted, as well as any gay woman could marry any man she wanted..

Sorry sonny. You misinterpreting the 14th Amendment is just your personal problem. I am agreeing with the Supreme Court- you are agreeing with- you. The 14th Amendment spells out 'Liberty'- and your argument failed in Loving v. Virginia as it failed in Obergefel

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"


In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

The Court in Obergefell refers to these decisions:

Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967) , which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” The Court reaffirmed that holding in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 384 (1978) , which held the right to marry was burdened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on child support from marrying. The Court again applied this principle in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987) , which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry. Over time and in other contexts, the Court has reiterated that the right to marry is fundamental under the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 116 (1996) ; Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632–640 (1974); Griswold, supra, at 486; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942) ; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923) .

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them.

 

[P@triot]

[
I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry. .

Sounds tough. You should get some therapy to help you get over your psychosis about this.

No - what I should get is constitutional government restored. That's all we need to fix America. Therapy is for irrational liberals who are born men and think they are women.

And by 'constitutional government restored' you mean a government you personally approve of. With you the sole arbiter of what is 'constitutional' and what is not.

No - the U.S. Constitution is the sole arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. It's written in black and white and couldn't be any more clear. The federal government is explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers and marriage is not one of them. End of story.

 

[Syriusly]

[
As for marriage, no state in the union forbade marriage. If you and your other found a religion that would marry you, then you got married under that religion and no state would stop you. The issue isn't as much about restriction than it is about forced acceptance.

The only marriage in question is legal marriage.

You know- the type of marriage you want to deny gay couples and are peeved that you can't.

Under admiralty law (which we are under) marriage is simply the merging of two corporate entities with the state being a third party to it thus subjecting this "union" to the acts, statutes and codes of the Universal Commercial Code.

LOL 'admiralty law'?

No- 'we' are not under admiralty law except if 'we' are on the water

Admiralty law or maritime law is a distinct body of law that governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities that operate vessels on the oceans. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, marine salvaging, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.

 

[Syriusly]

[
I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry. .

Sounds tough. You should get some therapy to help you get over your psychosis about this.

No - what I should get is constitutional government restored. That's all we need to fix America. Therapy is for irrational liberals who are born men and think they are women.

And by 'constitutional government restored' you mean a government you personally approve of. With you the sole arbiter of what is 'constitutional' and what is not.

No - the U.S. Constitution is the sole arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. It's written in black and white and couldn't be any more clear. The federal government is explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers and marriage is not one of them. End of story.

The Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not. That is who the Constitution gives the power to decide.

It is why a State cannot pass a law outlawing gun ownership.

The 14th Amendment requires States to follow the Constitution.

End of Story.

 

[Syriusly]

[
I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry. The entire county is harmed by it. How sad that you need something so simple and basic explained to you.

Being butt hurt because you disagree with a court decision is not 'horribly harmed'. How sad you project your own issues onto the 'entire country'. The fact is that there is no evidence of any harm to the 'entire country' by gay couples being treated legally the same as my wife and I are.

I've posted the facts. You're trying to avoid them like the plague because you want to keep your gay marriage. Here they are again for all to see:

1.) I'm harmed by the fact that the Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. I'm harmed by the fact that liberals have turned this into a lawless nation..

That is not a 'fact'- that is merely your butt hurt opinion.

1. You have established no harm done to you
2. You have not established that the U.S. Constitution was violated
3. You have already been shown that the United States is not a lawless nation- so now you are either just whining or delusional.

 

[P@triot]

The Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not. That is who the Constitution gives the power to decide.

Bwahahahahahahah!

Please show me where in the U.S. Constitution where it grants the Supreme Court the power to decide what the Constitution itself says? You are really desperate. Just making up nonsense.

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not. That is who the Constitution gives the power to decide.

Bwahahahahahahah!

Please show me where in the U.S. Constitution where it grants the Supreme Court the power to decide what the Constitution itself says? You are really desperate. Just making up nonsense.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.