Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[kaz]

Here is what Kaz is saying: Waaaah I hate marriage so I want to make sure gays can't marry-

of course I am married and I want my benefits of marriage but I want to make sure to deny Gays marriage

1) I said marriage is not equal to government marriage, they have nothing to do with each other. One is a union of a man and a woman, at least with the intent being for life. Government marriage is a faux legal contract which gives some citizens perks over others. I say a faux contract because a real contract is negotiated between citizens

2) I did not say to deny gays government marriage, I said you should get it through the Constitutional legislative process instead of the criminals courts.

They can't get it through Legislation. Because, at their core, reasonable people sense the danger that is normalizing DEVIANCY; which is to say the perverse reasoning that justifies unhealthy sexual behavior as something other than what it is... a disembodied obsession with sex, acquired through the obsessive desensitization to normal sexual behavior. A 'trained' response, which separates the being from a healthy sexual apatite... a twist on sexual gluttony.

Take any deviancy and you'll find an obsession....

What part of the people don't get a vote on the rights of others are you still not getting?

Just to be clear, so the rich and corporations not paying their "fair share" of taxes doesn't infringe on anyone's rights?

 

[RKMBrown]

Here is what Kaz is saying: Waaaah I hate marriage so I want to make sure gays can't marry-

of course I am married and I want my benefits of marriage but I want to make sure to deny Gays marriage

1) I said marriage is not equal to government marriage, they have nothing to do with each other. One is a union of a man and a woman, at least with the intent being for life. Government marriage is a faux legal contract which gives some citizens perks over others. I say a faux contract because a real contract is negotiated between citizens

2) I did not say to deny gays government marriage, I said you should get it through the Constitutional legislative process instead of the criminals courts.

They can't get it through Legislation. Because, at their core, reasonable people sense the danger that is normalizing DEVIANCY; which is to say the perverse reasoning that justifies unhealthy sexual behavior as something other than what it is... a disembodied obsession with sex, acquired through the obsessive desensitization to normal sexual behavior. A 'trained' response, which separates the being from a healthy sexual apatite... a twist on sexual gluttony.

Take any deviancy and you'll find an obsession....

What part of the people don't get a vote on the rights of others are you still not getting?

Just to be clear, so the rich and corporations not paying their "fair share" of taxes doesn't infringe on anyone's rights?

Other than democrat congressmen who don't pay their taxes... who are these rich people and corporations that don't pay their taxes?

 

[kaz]

Now to what responsibilities are you adhering here, in claiming what right?

The right is to be treated equally by the state. Since the treatment of gays is unequal, the courts are tossing said laws. Your rights aren't up for a vote of the people, and neither are theirs.

Name one, name a person that being gay changes who they can marry

Imagine a law that said only married people could own houses or raise children? Since unmarried couples and singles would then be treated unequally the court would be perfectly justified to toss said laws. Same thing in this case, unequal is invalid here, in most cases.

Now you're really into lala land. So it's OK to say there are tax breaks only married people can get. It's not OK to say only married people can own a house. That's a ridiculous distinction, either they are both Constitutional or neither is. You just walked into the point I keep making. All marriage is discrimination, government should treat all it's citizens the same. And there are better solutions that could be applied to all for every problem that government marriage supposedly solves

 

[kaz]

Demanding anything from others has only been done in the context of public free speeches. You don't like what the gays are demanding in public, you don't have to listen to them. Thus what you said is the equivalent of "Liberty is not the right to" make public demands. Making public demands is the cornerstone of free speech. Thus, what you said is the equivalent of the right to free speech is not liberty. You are arguing that free speech, if done by gays, should be prohibited

Demanding things from others is "the equivalent of" making public demands? That's just stupid. You are as mentally retarded as any leftist

 

[kaz]

You cannot "tak(e) away" that which you never had. You need to learn the English language and stop arguing like a government loving leftist

WHO NEVER HAD LIBERTY? What drugs are you on?

Back to the playground for you, huh?

I'll type slower since you can't keep up. We never had gay government marriage, which is what you were talking about. You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage. I mean duh.

The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

 

[Syriusly]

Actually- they are both banned and not recognized.

From Georgia
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

Nope, that was passed in 1996, after the courts were creating legislation, it was in response to the courts. The courts were not in response to that statute. Sorry, whiffed on that one

You seem even more indifferent to the facts than usual this morning.

Here was your claim:
Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.

And my response pointed out- that homosexual marriages are indeed banned

From Georgia
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

And again, that was a legislative response to the courts, not a judicial response to legislation

I guess that is as close as you can come to admitting that your claim:

Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.

Was flat out wrong

You're a terrible word parser, you suck at it

Maybe- but I am not the one continuing to post crap claims like you did when you said:

Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.

Stop making crap claims- and you won't have to worry about how I parse words.

 

[kaz]

Gay marriage isn't in the Constitution, the courts have no say

Gay marriage isn't in the Constitution, marriage isn't either as a matter of fact, but Equality before the Law is, which isn't up for a vote of the people and why you're fucked.

Yes, and gays are treated equally, so you're fucked to a critical mind

You can go on, and on, and on but your dog doesn't hunt

You learn that from your neighbors in Green Acres, Eddie?

Guns, religion, equality, the courts step in on laws passed about all three. That's how it works here, which screws you completely and I'm very happy about that.

Yes, being black changed who you could marry for every black, being gay changed who you could marry for no gay, they are equal. Got it, Daniel Webster

Your idea of equal rights is you get to tie people down you don't like and piss on them while you tell them they don't have any rights.

Nothing I said is anything like that, go suck cock

 

[Syriusly]

The courts say you have no clue when it comes to the law

Bam, really? That's so cool. Can you point me to that ruling? I'd love to read that

Feel free to read all of the Supreme Courts rulings regarding marriage.

You might want to start with Zablocki.

Yes, I'm familiary with that legislation from the bench.

LOL....if you were familiar- you would know its not legislation- but a reversal of legislation.

 

[kaz]

Here is what Kaz is saying: Waaaah I hate marriage so I want to make sure gays can't marry-

of course I am married and I want my benefits of marriage but I want to make sure to deny Gays marriage

1) I said marriage is not equal to government marriage, they have nothing to do with each other. One is a union of a man and a woman, at least with the intent being for life. Government marriage is a faux legal contract which gives some citizens perks over others. I say a faux contract because a real contract is negotiated between citizens

2) I did not say to deny gays government marriage, I said you should get it through the Constitutional legislative process instead of the criminals courts.

They can't get it through Legislation. Because, at their core, reasonable people sense the danger that is normalizing DEVIANCY; which is to say the perverse reasoning that justifies unhealthy sexual behavior as something other than what it is... a disembodied obsession with sex, acquired through the obsessive desensitization to normal sexual behavior. A 'trained' response, which separates the being from a healthy sexual apatite... a twist on sexual gluttony.

Take any deviancy and you'll find an obsession....

What part of the people don't get a vote on the rights of others are you still not getting?

Just to be clear, so the rich and corporations not paying their "fair share" of taxes doesn't infringe on anyone's rights?

Other than democrat congressmen who don't pay their taxes... who are these rich people and corporations that don't pay their taxes?

Swish, you completely whiffed on the discussion.

 

[auditor0007]

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

It must be since you are discussing it.

 

[kaz]

Nope, that was passed in 1996, after the courts were creating legislation, it was in response to the courts. The courts were not in response to that statute. Sorry, whiffed on that one

You seem even more indifferent to the facts than usual this morning.

Here was your claim:
Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.

And my response pointed out- that homosexual marriages are indeed banned

From Georgia
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

And again, that was a legislative response to the courts, not a judicial response to legislation

I guess that is as close as you can come to admitting that your claim:

Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.

Was flat out wrong

You're a terrible word parser, you suck at it

Maybe- but I am not the one continuing to post crap claims like you did when you said:

Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.

Stop making crap claims- and you won't have to worry about how I parse words.

Again, that was a legislative response to the courts, not a judicial response to legislation. Try to keep up, sparky, you're lagging way behind the discussion

 

[Syriusly]

Here is what Kaz is saying: Waaaah I hate marriage so I want to make sure gays can't marry-

of course I am married and I want my benefits of marriage but I want to make sure to deny Gays marriage

1) I said marriage is not equal to government marriage, they have nothing to do with each other. One is a union of a man and a woman, at least with the intent being for life. Government marriage is a faux legal contract which gives some citizens perks over others. I say a faux contract because a real contract is negotiated between citizens

2) I did not say to deny gays government marriage, I said you should get it through the Constitutional legislative process instead of the criminals courts.

They can't get it through Legislation. Because, at their core, reasonable people sense the danger that is normalizing DEVIANCY; which is to say the perverse reasoning that justifies unhealthy sexual behavior as something other than what it is... a disembodied obsession with sex, acquired through the obsessive desensitization to normal sexual behavior. A 'trained' response, which separates the being from a healthy sexual apatite... a twist on sexual gluttony.

Take any deviancy and you'll find an obsession....

What part of the people don't get a vote on the rights of others are you still not getting?

There are no "rights" involved in the discussion. You have the right to be left alone, not to demand validation and free shit

Well you are really going to be sad when the Supreme Court issues its decisions- since what the Supreme Court is deciding is whether or not the rights of same gender couples are being violated or not.

 

[kaz]

The courts say you have no clue when it comes to the law

Bam, really? That's so cool. Can you point me to that ruling? I'd love to read that

Feel free to read all of the Supreme Courts rulings regarding marriage.

You might want to start with Zablocki.

Yes, I'm familiary with that legislation from the bench.

LOL....if you were familiar- you would know its not legislation- but a reversal of legislation.

The courts can only reverse legislation when it's based on the Constitution. When the legislature rolls back legislation because they want to, that's legislation. When the courts roll back legislation when they want to, that is also legislation. Gays are treated exactly like straights, the courts added that gays have more rights now than straights, that is legislation no matter how you slice it

 

[Syriusly]

WHO NEVER HAD LIBERTY? What drugs are you on?

Back to the playground for you, huh?

I'll type slower since you can't keep up. We never had gay government marriage, which is what you were talking about. You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage. I mean duh.

The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.

Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

What a whiney liar.

the 'rest of us'- meaning you and people like you- have no problem going to the courts to ask them to protect your constitutional rights- whether its regarding gun ownership, or political contributions or prayer in school or anything else- people from both the right and left go to court asking the courts to overturn legislation that they feel is unconstitutional.

You know this- you just lie and whine about it.

 

[Syriusly]

The courts say you have no clue when it comes to the law

Bam, really? That's so cool. Can you point me to that ruling? I'd love to read that

Feel free to read all of the Supreme Courts rulings regarding marriage.

You might want to start with Zablocki.

Yes, I'm familiary with that legislation from the bench.

LOL....if you were familiar- you would know its not legislation- but a reversal of legislation.

The courts can only reverse legislation when it's based on the Constitution.t

And that is the basis of the reversals.

 

[kaz]

Here is what Kaz is saying: Waaaah I hate marriage so I want to make sure gays can't marry-

of course I am married and I want my benefits of marriage but I want to make sure to deny Gays marriage

1) I said marriage is not equal to government marriage, they have nothing to do with each other. One is a union of a man and a woman, at least with the intent being for life. Government marriage is a faux legal contract which gives some citizens perks over others. I say a faux contract because a real contract is negotiated between citizens

2) I did not say to deny gays government marriage, I said you should get it through the Constitutional legislative process instead of the criminals courts.

They can't get it through Legislation. Because, at their core, reasonable people sense the danger that is normalizing DEVIANCY; which is to say the perverse reasoning that justifies unhealthy sexual behavior as something other than what it is... a disembodied obsession with sex, acquired through the obsessive desensitization to normal sexual behavior. A 'trained' response, which separates the being from a healthy sexual apatite... a twist on sexual gluttony.

Take any deviancy and you'll find an obsession....

What part of the people don't get a vote on the rights of others are you still not getting?

There are no "rights" involved in the discussion. You have the right to be left alone, not to demand validation and free shit

Well you are really going to be sad when the Supreme Court issues its decisions- since what the Supreme Court is deciding is whether or not the rights of same gender couples are being violated or not.

No, I'm expecting them to rule for the butt fuckers. So there is no way for me to be "sad." I would be very surprised if they follow the law and rule against the gay disease. It's a disease you know, the CDC says so

 

[kaz]

What a whiney liar.

the 'rest of us'- meaning you and people like you- have no problem going to the courts to ask them to protect your constitutional rights- whether its regarding gun ownership, or political contributions or prayer in school or anything else- people from both the right and left go to court asking the courts to overturn legislation that they feel is unconstitutional.

You know this- you just lie and whine about it.

I'm sorry I made you cry, guy. Here's a hanky. Take deep breaths and try to calm down. Maybe you should play in the yard a while until you calm down

 

[Syriusly]

The courts say you have no clue when it comes to the law

Bam, really? That's so cool. Can you point me to that ruling? I'd love to read that

Feel free to read all of the Supreme Courts rulings regarding marriage.

You might want to start with Zablocki.

Yes, I'm familiary with that legislation from the bench.

LOL....if you were familiar- you would know its not legislation- but a reversal of legislation.

. Gays are treated exactly like straights, the courts added that gays have more rights now than straights, that is legislation no matter how you slice it

LOL....what a whiney liar you are.

Now that homosexuals can marry the person that they want regardless of gender- you think that they have 'more rights' now. But of course straights can marry the person that they want regardless of gender also.

To you- treating homosexuals equally with straights = giving gays more rights.

What a whiner.

 

[danielpalos]

WHO NEVER HAD LIBERTY? What drugs are you on?

Back to the playground for you, huh?

I'll type slower since you can't keep up. We never had gay government marriage, which is what you were talking about. You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage. I mean duh.

The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

 

[kaz]

Bam, really? That's so cool. Can you point me to that ruling? I'd love to read that

Feel free to read all of the Supreme Courts rulings regarding marriage.

You might want to start with Zablocki.

Yes, I'm familiary with that legislation from the bench.

LOL....if you were familiar- you would know its not legislation- but a reversal of legislation.

The courts can only reverse legislation when it's based on the Constitution.t

And that is the basis of the reversals.

I answered that in the quote