Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[kaz]

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

Tell us that story again how you're really not an anti gay bigot?

Find Jesus, sinner. You are commuting the worst sin of all, worse than murder. You can still be saved, but you have to start now, you have a lot of work to do.

Civil marriage has been declared a fundamental right...but you knew that.

These statements are what blow the crap out of your credibility. I "knew" that the courts declared is that. So of course now I'm supposed to give a shit what the courts did. I'm just laughing at you right now, you're a vacuous idiot that I am supposed to care what they said as if you believe I would. And we both know, sweet heart, that doesn't work in reverse. The courts are a sledge hammer when they agree with you and toilet paper when they don't. If you want to debate intelligent people, you need to cut crap like this

You also know that in order to deny a fundamental right, you've got to be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. It's not judicial tyranny because the bigots can't come up with one.

Begging the question

Let's see...I stated fact and you want to address the fantasy world Kaz lives in. Okay, laugh away.

The courts are there for the people to redress their grievances. The precedent is there, you can't deny it. It's not suddenly "judicial tyranny" because the gays are using the system the way it was intended.

Begging the question

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gays don't deserve to marry men.

This doesn't make any sense.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

 

[danielpalos]

Gays don't deserve to marry men.

some guys may have very high standards and complain they can't find any good helpmeets in the wo-men's pool.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.

 

[Redfish]

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?

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.

you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.

 

[Redfish]

243 pages. I guess gay marriage is the most important issue facing the USA today

would a thread on the national debt, government waste, ISIS, racial unrest, or poverty continue for 243 pages?

Sorry, folks, this amazes me.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.

you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

 

[Syriusly]

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

Tell us that story again how you're really not an anti gay bigot?

Find Jesus, sinner. You are commuting the worst sin of all, worse than murder. You can still be saved, but you have to start now, you have a lot of work to do.

Civil marriage has been declared a fundamental right...but you knew that.

These statements are what blow the crap out of your credibility. I "knew" that the courts declared is that. So of course now I'm supposed to give a shit what the courts did. I'm just laughing at you right now, you're a vacuous idiot that I am supposed to care what they said as if you believe I would. And we both know, sweet heart, that doesn't work in reverse. The courts are a sledge hammer when they agree with you and toilet paper when they don't. If you want to debate intelligent people, you need to cut crap like this
n

Yeah- one more example of Kaz declaring he knows better than everyone else- laughably talking about 'arguing' with intelligible people while he ignores anything he doesn't agree with, and proclaiming that what he agrees with his right.

All that your statement does is demonstrate once again that you have no credibility.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.

you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage- yet marriage is a constitutional right.

You know this- because the court decisions have been pointed out to you again and again- but you choose to pretend they don't exist(or like Kaz pretend that the courts don't matter).

The decision before the Supreme Court right now is whether or not that constitutional right applies to gay couples just as it applies to straight couples.

 

[Redfish]

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?

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.

you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

I didn't say it was criminal. I just asked you for the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" appear.

Provide that and then we can go on.

 

[Syriusly]

243 pages. I guess gay marriage is the most important issue facing the USA today

would a thread on the national debt, government waste, ISIS, racial unrest, or poverty continue for 243 pages?

Sorry, folks, this amazes me.

What amazes me is after you declaring that there are more important issues to argue about- and that you were done posting in 'gay threads' you are still- 243 pages later- still arguing against gay marriage.

Clearly it is the most important issue to you.

 

[Redfish]

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?

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.

you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage- yet marriage is a constitutional right.

You know this- because the court decisions have been pointed out to you again and again- but you choose to pretend they don't exist(or like Kaz pretend that the courts don't matter).

The decision before the Supreme Court right now is whether or not that constitutional right applies to gay couples just as it applies to straight couples.

What you are relying on is an "interpretation" of the constitution by a few left wing judges with an agenda.

If you really want this settled, you need a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states saying that marriage consists of two unrelated people who are above the age of majority. Get that and its over.

Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?

 

[danielpalos]

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.

you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

I didn't say it was criminal. I just asked you for the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" appear.

Provide that and then we can go on.

Rights and powers not expressly delegated are reserved to the States or the People.

 

[Redfish]

243 pages. I guess gay marriage is the most important issue facing the USA today

would a thread on the national debt, government waste, ISIS, racial unrest, or poverty continue for 243 pages?

Sorry, folks, this amazes me.

What amazes me is after you declaring that there are more important issues to argue about- and that you were done posting in 'gay threads' you are still- 243 pages later- still arguing against gay marriage.

Clearly it is the most important issue to you.

to me no, but I do have strong feelings and beliefs on the subject. I admit to going along with the debate. Got anything of substance to contribute?

 

[Redfish]

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.

you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

I didn't say it was criminal. I just asked you for the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" appear.

Provide that and then we can go on.

Rights and powers not expressly delegated are reserved to the States or the People.

exactly, so let the people of each state vote on it. you just verified that its not a federal issue, thanks for finally admitting that.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.

you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage- yet marriage is a constitutional right.

You know this- because the court decisions have been pointed out to you again and again- but you choose to pretend they don't exist(or like Kaz pretend that the courts don't matter).

The decision before the Supreme Court right now is whether or not that constitutional right applies to gay couples just as it applies to straight couples.

Sort of... it's more to the negative. Which is, they are deciding whether a state can ban gay marriage. That does not mean they will rule that the state must provide gay marriage licenses. But it may mean that the states have to recognize gay marriage licenses from another state. At least that's what I thought was going on.

 

[Syriusly]

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.

you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage- yet marriage is a constitutional right.

You know this- because the court decisions have been pointed out to you again and again- but you choose to pretend they don't exist(or like Kaz pretend that the courts don't matter).

The decision before the Supreme Court right now is whether or not that constitutional right applies to gay couples just as it applies to straight couples.

Sort of... it's more to the negative. Which is, they are deciding whether a state can ban gay marriage. That does not mean they will rule that the state must provide gay marriage licenses. But it may mean that the states have to recognize gay marriage licenses from another state. At least that's what I thought was going on.

Technically you are correct- here are the questions the Supreme Court was deciding.

• Does the Constitution require all states to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

• If not, does the Constitution require states to recognize the marriage rights of same-sex couples who are already married?

 

[Syriusly]

243 pages. I guess gay marriage is the most important issue facing the USA today

would a thread on the national debt, government waste, ISIS, racial unrest, or poverty continue for 243 pages?

Sorry, folks, this amazes me.

What amazes me is after you declaring that there are more important issues to argue about- and that you were done posting in 'gay threads' you are still- 243 pages later- still arguing against gay marriage.

Clearly it is the most important issue to you.

Got anything of substance to contribute?

I am providing as much or more substance as you are.

The difference is, I didn't start this thread whining about how we should stop talking about it- or saying that I would stop talking about it.


That would be you.

 

[Syriusly]

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.

you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage- yet marriage is a constitutional right.

You know this- because the court decisions have been pointed out to you again and again- but you choose to pretend they don't exist(or like Kaz pretend that the courts don't matter).

The decision before the Supreme Court right now is whether or not that constitutional right applies to gay couples just as it applies to straight couples.

What you are relying on is an "interpretation" of the constitution by a few left wing judges with an agenda.

If you really want this settled, you need a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states saying that marriage consists of two unrelated people who are above the age of majority. Get that and its over.

Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?

LOL.....I love how wingnuts like you always call judges that disagree with you 'left wing judges with agenda's'...while applauding when you agree with them.

The issue is before the Supreme Court- just as marriage rights have been before the Supreme Court at least 3 other times.

And just like in Zablocki- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so fathers who owe child support can still enjoy their constitutional right to marry. And just like in Loving- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so that a mixed race couple can enjoy their constitutional right to marry.

The courts are here to protect all of our constitutional rights- not just the ones you approve of, for people you approve of.

 

[RKMBrown]

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.

you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage- yet marriage is a constitutional right.

You know this- because the court decisions have been pointed out to you again and again- but you choose to pretend they don't exist(or like Kaz pretend that the courts don't matter).

The decision before the Supreme Court right now is whether or not that constitutional right applies to gay couples just as it applies to straight couples.

Sort of... it's more to the negative. Which is, they are deciding whether a state can ban gay marriage. That does not mean they will rule that the state must provide gay marriage licenses. But it may mean that the states have to recognize gay marriage licenses from another state. At least that's what I thought was going on.

Technically you are correct- here are the questions the Supreme Court was deciding.

• Does the Constitution require all states to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

• If not, does the Constitution require states to recognize the marriage rights of same-sex couples who are already married?

Require to recognize.. hmm I would say no to that explicit statement. I would think it's a more a matter of equal protection. IOW if they have a law providing certain marriage rights to heterosexual couples already married from another state, country, province, ship, etc... then they would have to extend that law to cover all of the married consenting adults living in their state.

I don't think the court can force the state to change the marriage license form in a particular state. But I do think they can throw out laws that do not provide equal protection under the law.