Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[RKMBrown]

Strawman bull shit. We don't have to get our rights from anyone, ya fool. Our rights are ours to be enjoyed, period. Why do you feel like you have the power to give and take rights? Who made you god?

Was the constitution ratified by majority vote? yes or no

were the amendments to the constitution ratified by majority vote? yes or no

Do supreme court decisions come down by majority vote? yes or no

Like it or not, our constitutional rights were established and are maintained by majority votes.

I do not understand why you want a system where the minority opinion prevails, can you explain?

Was the constitution ratified by majority vote? yes or no - Your question is meaningless. You appear to think you can form questions about actors without nouns. You appear to think you can use broad meaningless phrases like majority vote without clarifying your question. You may know what you mean by your question but you can't expect everyone to be able to read your mind.

were the amendments to the constitution ratified by majority vote? yes or no Your question is meaningless.

Do supreme court decisions come down by majority vote? yes or no Your question is meaningless.

Like it or not, our constitutional rights were established and are maintained by majority votes. No they were not.

I do not understand why you want a system where the minority opinion prevails, can you explain? Yes I can, and I already have numerous times.

So rather than admit that you are wrong you claim that my questions are too complex for you to respond to.

But since you like minority rule, I suggest north korea or Iran as places that you might like.

No dumb ass. I'm saying your questions are fucking stupid. First question... "Was the constitution ratified by majority vote?" what vote? what majority? What do you think majority vote meant at the time of the ratification. What the fuck do you mean by majority vote? Your fucking question is fucking meaningless. Yes it was ratified by the groups that were required to ratify it. No the SCOTUS DID NOT VOTE ON IT NOR DID THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE STATES THAT JOINED UP.

Are you from Iran? or Korea?

its not really very complicated, but I guess your left wing bias blocks rational thinking.

If you don't know how our constitution was ratified then you are not qualified to participate in this discussion because you are posting from ignorance.

go do some study and then come back when you can make sense.

rofl I know how it was ratified... AND YOU'RE QUESTION IS RETARDED.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The BEHAVIOR of interracial marriage was banned.

The issue in Loving is RACE: Race is NOT BEHAVIOR... Loving merely stated that Race could not be considered, PERIOD in the issuing of Marriage Licenses.

If you want to discuss the BEHAVIOR... LOVING codified that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman, as those were the irrepressible terms that were considered in Loving... with NOT A WORD of dissent from the natural stated that such represents.

 

[Skylar]

Look folks, we just disagree on this. No one's mind will be changed by continuing the rhetoric.

MODS---------please close this thread.

Your agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with the law or the outcome of any court case. The USSC's does.

"Agreeing to disagree" with the Supreme Court rulings isn't a meeting of equals.

 

[Skylar]

The BEHAVIOR of interracial marriage was banned.

The issue in Loving is RACE: Race is NOT BEHAVIOR...

Loving was about interracial marriage. And interracial marriage is a behavior.

 

[Redfish]

Was the constitution ratified by majority vote? yes or no

were the amendments to the constitution ratified by majority vote? yes or no

Do supreme court decisions come down by majority vote? yes or no

Like it or not, our constitutional rights were established and are maintained by majority votes.

I do not understand why you want a system where the minority opinion prevails, can you explain?

Was the constitution ratified by majority vote? yes or no - Your question is meaningless. You appear to think you can form questions about actors without nouns. You appear to think you can use broad meaningless phrases like majority vote without clarifying your question. You may know what you mean by your question but you can't expect everyone to be able to read your mind.

were the amendments to the constitution ratified by majority vote? yes or no Your question is meaningless.

Do supreme court decisions come down by majority vote? yes or no Your question is meaningless.

Like it or not, our constitutional rights were established and are maintained by majority votes. No they were not.

I do not understand why you want a system where the minority opinion prevails, can you explain? Yes I can, and I already have numerous times.

So rather than admit that you are wrong you claim that my questions are too complex for you to respond to.

But since you like minority rule, I suggest north korea or Iran as places that you might like.

No dumb ass. I'm saying your questions are fucking stupid. First question... "Was the constitution ratified by majority vote?" what vote? what majority? What do you think majority vote meant at the time of the ratification. What the fuck do you mean by majority vote? Your fucking question is fucking meaningless. Yes it was ratified by the groups that were required to ratify it. No the SCOTUS DID NOT VOTE ON IT NOR DID THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE STATES THAT JOINED UP.

Are you from Iran? or Korea?

its not really very complicated, but I guess your left wing bias blocks rational thinking.

If you don't know how our constitution was ratified then you are not qualified to participate in this discussion because you are posting from ignorance.

go do some study and then come back when you can make sense.

rofl I know how it was ratified... AND YOU'RE QUESTION IS RETARDED.

then tell us, was the constitution ratified by a majority vote in each state? yes or no.

 

[Redfish]

The BEHAVIOR of interracial marriage was banned.

The issue in Loving is RACE: Race is NOT BEHAVIOR...

Loving was about interracial marriage. And interracial marriage is a behavior.

interracial marriage partners (man and woman) BEHAVE like same race men and women. ]

there is no analogy to a gay marriage in Loving.

 

[Seawytch]

Was the constitution ratified by majority vote? yes or no

were the amendments to the constitution ratified by majority vote? yes or no

Do supreme court decisions come down by majority vote? yes or no

Like it or not, our constitutional rights were established and are maintained by majority votes.

I do not understand why you want a system where the minority opinion prevails, can you explain?

So when the Supreme Court issues it's ruling next week striking down SSCM's, that will be by a vote.

Using your logic, that won't be a "minority opinion" that prevails, it will be a majority opinion voted on by the SCOTUS.


>>>>

it will be a majority vote of the SC, yes, that is correct. But the citizens of the country will have been denied their right to express their opinions. So, in effect, we will have a minority of 9 people deciding something that affects 330,000,000 people.

Why do you on the left fear a vote of society as a whole on issues like this?

Again- I refer back to Loving v. Virginia.

Everything you posted applies to Loving v. Virginia.

Why do you on the Right fear allowing the courts to protect an individuals Constitutional rights?

There's nothing in Loving that is relevant to BEHAVIOR...

Marriage is behavior.

Interracial relationships are a behavior.

 

[Skylar]

The BEHAVIOR of interracial marriage was banned.

The issue in Loving is RACE: Race is NOT BEHAVIOR...

Loving was about interracial marriage. And interracial marriage is a behavior.

interracial marriage partners (man and woman) BEHAVE like same race men and women.

That wasn't the basis of the ruling. Marriage being a fundamental civil right was.

there is no analogy to a gay marriage in Loving.

Sure there is. As marriage is still a fundamental civil right. If you're going to deny that civil right to same sex couples, you'll need a very good reason, a legitimate legislative end and a valid state interest.

And opponents of same sex marriage have none of these.

 

[Syriusly]

But since you like minority rule, I suggest north korea or Iran as places that you might like.

What minority rule?

Every State that has public accommodation laws has passed such laws based on a majority vote of that States legislature - that is majority rule.

Every SSCM can that has won in the court has been appealed to a Circuit Court and a panel of judges - that is majority rule.

Next week when the SCOTUS issues it's ruling on SSCM bans, that will be a vote of the SCOTUS and the majority of the votes will decide the case - that is majority rule.


>>>>

approval of SSM is a minority view within society as a whole. and within the entire population of planet earth.

But rather than risk offending anyone, we will sanction the minority view. We all know that is what will happen.

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia........and how the aftermath of Loving v. Virginia.

OMG, give it a rest. Loving is about one man and one woman, that case has nothing to do with gay marriage.

I can see why my pointing out that Loving v. Virginia was a minority view, and that the courts sanctioned a minority point of view- and that upsets your entire laughable 'thesis' regarding majority opinions.

Every time you whine again about the 'majority' and the courts- I will point out again Loving v. Virginia- since Loving v. Virginia was after all the courts upholding the Constitutional rights of individuals, despite the opinion of the majority.

 

[Syriusly]

Look folks, we just disagree on this. No one's mind will be changed by continuing the rhetoric.

MODS---------please close this thread.

Yes Mods- please close this thread- because otherwise Redfish will continue to post on Gay Marriage- a topic he both said was not worthy of posting about and that he was going to stop posting about.

Please Mods- you have to close this thread to help Redfish stop what he cannot stop himself from doing.

Help Redfish stop being Redfish.

 

[RKMBrown]

Was the constitution ratified by majority vote? yes or no - Your question is meaningless. You appear to think you can form questions about actors without nouns. You appear to think you can use broad meaningless phrases like majority vote without clarifying your question. You may know what you mean by your question but you can't expect everyone to be able to read your mind.

were the amendments to the constitution ratified by majority vote? yes or no Your question is meaningless.

Do supreme court decisions come down by majority vote? yes or no Your question is meaningless.

Like it or not, our constitutional rights were established and are maintained by majority votes. No they were not.

I do not understand why you want a system where the minority opinion prevails, can you explain? Yes I can, and I already have numerous times.

So rather than admit that you are wrong you claim that my questions are too complex for you to respond to.

But since you like minority rule, I suggest north korea or Iran as places that you might like.

No dumb ass. I'm saying your questions are fucking stupid. First question... "Was the constitution ratified by majority vote?" what vote? what majority? What do you think majority vote meant at the time of the ratification. What the fuck do you mean by majority vote? Your fucking question is fucking meaningless. Yes it was ratified by the groups that were required to ratify it. No the SCOTUS DID NOT VOTE ON IT NOR DID THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE STATES THAT JOINED UP.

Are you from Iran? or Korea?

its not really very complicated, but I guess your left wing bias blocks rational thinking.

If you don't know how our constitution was ratified then you are not qualified to participate in this discussion because you are posting from ignorance.

go do some study and then come back when you can make sense.

rofl I know how it was ratified... AND YOU'RE QUESTION IS RETARDED.

then tell us, was the constitution ratified by a majority vote in each state? yes or no.

Your question still makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. You have not said what the hell you mean by majority vote. Do you mean by the majority of elected representatives? Do you mean by the majority of people of the state? Do you mean by majority of citizens of the state? Do you mean by 51% majority? Do you mean by 2/3 majority? Your question still makes absolutely NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. You have this concept in your head for what you want to ask that you can't translate to a proper question. We can't read your mind. Please learn to write with some level of clarity.

 

[Syriusly]

So when the Supreme Court issues it's ruling next week striking down SSCM's, that will be by a vote.

Using your logic, that won't be a "minority opinion" that prevails, it will be a majority opinion voted on by the SCOTUS.


>>>>

it will be a majority vote of the SC, yes, that is correct. But the citizens of the country will have been denied their right to express their opinions. So, in effect, we will have a minority of 9 people deciding something that affects 330,000,000 people.

Why do you on the left fear a vote of society as a whole on issues like this?

Again- I refer back to Loving v. Virginia.

Everything you posted applies to Loving v. Virginia.

Why do you on the Right fear allowing the courts to protect an individuals Constitutional rights?

There's nothing in Loving that is relevant to BEHAVIOR...

Marriage is behavior.

marriage is a contract between one man and one woman. How they behave is up to them.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals in 37 States, the District of Columbia and about a dozen other countries in the world.

And marriage is also a behavior.

 

[Syriusly]

So rather than admit that you are wrong you claim that my questions are too complex for you to respond to.

But since you like minority rule, I suggest north korea or Iran as places that you might like.

No dumb ass. I'm saying your questions are fucking stupid. First question... "Was the constitution ratified by majority vote?" what vote? what majority? What do you think majority vote meant at the time of the ratification. What the fuck do you mean by majority vote? Your fucking question is fucking meaningless. Yes it was ratified by the groups that were required to ratify it. No the SCOTUS DID NOT VOTE ON IT NOR DID THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE STATES THAT JOINED UP.

Are you from Iran? or Korea?

its not really very complicated, but I guess your left wing bias blocks rational thinking.

If you don't know how our constitution was ratified then you are not qualified to participate in this discussion because you are posting from ignorance.

go do some study and then come back when you can make sense.

rofl I know how it was ratified... AND YOU'RE QUESTION IS RETARDED.

then tell us, was the constitution ratified by a majority vote in each state? yes or no.

Your question still makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. You have not said what the hell you mean by majority vote. Do you mean by the majority of elected representatives? Do you mean by the majority of people of the state? Do you mean by majority of citizens of the state? Do you mean by 51% majority? Do you mean by 2/3 majority? Your question still makes absolutely NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. You have this concept in your head for what you want to ask that you can't translate to a proper question. We can't read your mind. Please learn to write with some level of clarity.

Redfish defines 'majority' as whatever is convenient for his narrative.

He wants marriage to be up to the majority in States- except of course when Loving v. Virginia is pointed out.

Then he switches gears and wants to talk about how Loving was about race....and doesn't want to talk about what the majority wanted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The BEHAVIOR of interracial marriage was banned.

The issue in Loving is RACE: Race is NOT BEHAVIOR...

Loving was about interracial marriage. And interracial marriage is a behavior.

No Interracial Marriage is NOT behavior. Interracial marriage is a given condition within an essential, long standing institution wherein one man and one woman join as one legal entity.

Prior to the Loving decision, governing bodies were legally capable of rejecting licenses from individuals of distinct races.

Loving determined that such decisions represented judgment set within irrational prejudices, thus failed the fundamental purpose of government which is the service of justice.

For your argument to have merit, the court would have needed to declare that the government has no vested interests in marriage, as marriage bears no liability against the interests, or the principles that sustain the people it represents.

Deviant behavior, by definition rejects the standards, rules and laws that govern human behavior, licensing deviant behavior thus strips government of the means to govern... thus precluding any potential for government to reasonably declare the licensing of deviancy, as being anything remotely within the scope of sound governance, the principles that define America or the interests of the people of the United States.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The BEHAVIOR of interracial marriage was banned.

The issue in Loving is RACE: Race is NOT BEHAVIOR...

Loving was about interracial marriage. And interracial marriage is a behavior.

interracial marriage partners (man and woman) BEHAVE like same race men and women. ]

there is no analogy to a gay marriage in Loving.

The BEHAVIOR of marrying a person of a different race was regulated by the State, that was overturned by Loving.


>>>>

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is a contract between two individuals in 37 States...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The BEHAVIOR of interracial marriage was banned.

The issue in Loving is RACE: Race is NOT BEHAVIOR...

Loving was about interracial marriage. And interracial marriage is a behavior.

interracial marriage partners (man and woman) BEHAVE like same race men and women. ]

there is no analogy to a gay marriage in Loving.

The BEHAVIOR of marrying a person of a different race was regulated by the State, that was overturned by Loving.

Marriage is an institution, wherein One Man joins with One Woman.

Loving determined that such decisions represented judgment set within irrational prejudices, thus failed the fundamental purpose of government which is the service of justice.

For your argument to have merit, the court would have needed to declare that the government has no vested interests in marriage, as marriage bears no liability against interests, or the people it represents.

Deviant behavior, by definition rejects the standards, rules and laws that govern human behavior, licensing deviant behavior thus strips government of the means to govern... thus precluding any potential for government to reasonably declare the licensing of deviancy, as being anything remotely within the scope of sound governance, the principles that define America or the interests of the people of the United States.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No Interracial Marriage is NOT behavior.

Sure it is.


As a white male I can choose to marry a white female (if she will accept).

As a white male I can choose to marry a asian female (if she will accept).

As a white male I can choose to marry a black female (if she will accept).



For it not to be a behavior then you would need to point out where science has discovered an "interracial gene" showing that someone has a biological condition which make them attracted to members of a different race.

Link?

>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is a contract between two individuals in 37 States...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals in 37 States, the District of Columbia and about a dozen other countries in the world.

And marriage is also a behavior.

 

[Skylar]

The BEHAVIOR of interracial marriage was banned.

The issue in Loving is RACE: Race is NOT BEHAVIOR...

Loving was about interracial marriage. And interracial marriage is a behavior.

No Interracial Marriage is NOT behavior. Interracial behavior is a given condition within long standing institution, wherein one man and one woman join as one legal entity.

Interracial marriage is a behavior. Where two people of different races marry. Virginia law prohibited it and had since the early 1700s. Richard and Mildred Loving were arrested for violating this prohibition by engaging in this banned behavior.

Prior to the Loving decision, governing bodies were legally capable of rejecting licenses from individuals of distinct races.

The interracial marriage ban was a criminal statute. It included potential prison time for offenders. Virginia failed to recognize the licenses of marriages performed in other states for interracial couples. And criminalized the behavior of interracial marriage.

Both the lack of recognition and the criminalization were unconstitutional, as marriage is a fundamental civil right.

Loving determined that such decisions represented judgment set within irrational prejudices, thus failed the fundamental purpose of government which is the service of justice.

The Loving decision never even mentions 'irrational prejudices'. The basis of their ruling was the Equal Protection Clause and marriage being a fundamental right.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're literally making up your own version of the Loving decision, while ignoring the bases of the actual one. No thank you.

For your argument to have merit, the court would have needed to declare that the government has no vested interests in marriage, as marriage bears no liability against interests, or the people it represents.

For my argument to have merit, marriage would have to be a fundamental right. And gays would have to be protected under the Equal Protection clause.

Both of which the court has already found to be true.

Remember, I'm citing the actual ruling. You're citing your imaginary version of it, citing a basis that the court never used. And your imagination has no relevance to any legal standard. As your imagination is objectively meaningless.

In terms of the law, the binding legal precedent is objectively meaningful.