Jimmy Carter: "Leave Gay Marriage To States To Decide" (Right On Jimmy!)

[martybegan]

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

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

I've been trying to point that out...he keeps ducking and dodging that point.

My CCW permit is treated the same in ALL states but my marriage license is not. I don't usually carry my gun with me when I travel to other states, but I do bring my spouse. I wonder how Marty would like be married in some states, not married in others.

Reciprocity - 19 states recognize the CA CCW license (AL, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NC, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI). Other states' CCW licenses are not recognized by CA.

That doesn't change what I said. My CCW is not treated differently than anyone else's, my marriage license is.

Your CCW is ignored by NY, which is the issue in and of itself. NY ignores it because it gets to decide (in their view) who may get a CCW. This is patently unconstitutional, but allowed because of a pliable judiciary and asshat progressive politicians.

Your personal bugaboo is irrelevant to the discussion. A CCW license issued in Alabama is ignored in NY too...they are treated the same.

Still not getting it.

 

[martybegan]

its two different (actually 3) types of relationships. You can get legal equality all you want, its still different biologically and socially, and there is nothing short of mental exercises that can change that.

And I don't care what your opinion is. It doesn't change the legality.

I think you do care about other's opinions, or at least punishing people who refuse to accept your lifestyle vs. tolerating it.

Nobody forces yo

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Thats pretty clear fucking cut.

If I am denied a CCW solely because the NYPD does not want me to have one, that is infringement.

You seem to leave off all that militia stuff for some reason. The right to bear arms is far from absolute. Even in Heller

Because commas mean things. The States maintain the right to form militias, or to allow localities to do the same. This relies on the PEOPLE being able to keep and bear arms, which is a separate right. The first depends on the second, but the second is independent of the first.

I think I am tired of you trying to derail this thread into another 2nd amendment rant

This is a thread about gay marriage, why don't you derail it with another whine about "But what about the cakes?"

They are all related, and the only reason you are getting butthurt over them is they poke holes in your consistency of your argument and the bases of your argument.

Actually, they are tiresome attempts to derail a thread from a more important issue

Nope, if you are going on all about "rights" then a right is a right.

 

[Seawytch]

I've been trying to point that out...he keeps ducking and dodging that point.

My CCW permit is treated the same in ALL states but my marriage license is not. I don't usually carry my gun with me when I travel to other states, but I do bring my spouse. I wonder how Marty would like be married in some states, not married in others.

Reciprocity - 19 states recognize the CA CCW license (AL, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NC, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI). Other states' CCW licenses are not recognized by CA.

That doesn't change what I said. My CCW is not treated differently than anyone else's, my marriage license is.

Your CCW is ignored by NY, which is the issue in and of itself. NY ignores it because it gets to decide (in their view) who may get a CCW. This is patently unconstitutional, but allowed because of a pliable judiciary and asshat progressive politicians.

Your personal bugaboo is irrelevant to the discussion. A CCW license issued in Alabama is ignored in NY too...they are treated the same.

Still not getting it.

Yes, I realize that you're not getting it. But that's because you think gays aren't as good as you are and don't deserve what you have. We all get that.

 

[martybegan]

Reciprocity - 19 states recognize the CA CCW license (AL, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NC, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI). Other states' CCW licenses are not recognized by CA.

That doesn't change what I said. My CCW is not treated differently than anyone else's, my marriage license is.

Your CCW is ignored by NY, which is the issue in and of itself. NY ignores it because it gets to decide (in their view) who may get a CCW. This is patently unconstitutional, but allowed because of a pliable judiciary and asshat progressive politicians.

Your personal bugaboo is irrelevant to the discussion. A CCW license issued in Alabama is ignored in NY too...they are treated the same.

Still not getting it.

Yes, I realize that you're not getting it. But that's because you think gays aren't as good as you are and don't deserve what you have. We all get that.

Not at all, its just they are not "special" enough to warrant creating stuff in the constitution and ignoring the States right to legislate items such as how they allow a marriage contract to be created.

Maybe the answer is to allow states to define HOW they give a marriage contract, but enforce full faith and credit to ones from out of state regardless of what they consist of.

 

[Seawytch]

That doesn't change what I said. My CCW is not treated differently than anyone else's, my marriage license is.

Your CCW is ignored by NY, which is the issue in and of itself. NY ignores it because it gets to decide (in their view) who may get a CCW. This is patently unconstitutional, but allowed because of a pliable judiciary and asshat progressive politicians.

Your personal bugaboo is irrelevant to the discussion. A CCW license issued in Alabama is ignored in NY too...they are treated the same.

Still not getting it.

Yes, I realize that you're not getting it. But that's because you think gays aren't as good as you are and don't deserve what you have. We all get that.

Not at all, its just they are not "special" enough to warrant creating stuff in the constitution and ignoring the States right to legislate items such as how they allow a marriage contract to be created.

Maybe the answer is to allow states to define HOW they give a marriage contract, but enforce full faith and credit to ones from out of state regardless of what they consist of.

That's what I said at the beginning of the thread. I will say again...get rid of the remainder of the unconstitutional DOMA, giving FF&C to all marriage licenses, not just the straight ones. If your state doesn't want to marry gays, fine, but they should have to recognize those legal marriages just like other states have to recognize the pederast incest marriages of Alabama.

 

[Redfish]

Your CCW is ignored by NY, which is the issue in and of itself. NY ignores it because it gets to decide (in their view) who may get a CCW. This is patently unconstitutional, but allowed because of a pliable judiciary and asshat progressive politicians.

Your personal bugaboo is irrelevant to the discussion. A CCW license issued in Alabama is ignored in NY too...they are treated the same.

Still not getting it.

Yes, I realize that you're not getting it. But that's because you think gays aren't as good as you are and don't deserve what you have. We all get that.

Not at all, its just they are not "special" enough to warrant creating stuff in the constitution and ignoring the States right to legislate items such as how they allow a marriage contract to be created.

Maybe the answer is to allow states to define HOW they give a marriage contract, but enforce full faith and credit to ones from out of state regardless of what they consist of.

That's what I said at the beginning of the thread. I will say again...get rid of the remainder of the unconstitutional DOMA, giving FF&C to all marriage licenses, not just the straight ones. If your state doesn't want to marry gays, fine, but they should have to recognize those legal marriages just like other states have to recognize the pederast incest marriages of Alabama.[/QUOTE]


Bigot

 

[Seawytch]

Your personal bugaboo is irrelevant to the discussion. A CCW license issued in Alabama is ignored in NY too...they are treated the same.

Still not getting it.

Yes, I realize that you're not getting it. But that's because you think gays aren't as good as you are and don't deserve what you have. We all get that.

Not at all, its just they are not "special" enough to warrant creating stuff in the constitution and ignoring the States right to legislate items such as how they allow a marriage contract to be created.

Maybe the answer is to allow states to define HOW they give a marriage contract, but enforce full faith and credit to ones from out of state regardless of what they consist of.

That's what I said at the beginning of the thread. I will say again...get rid of the remainder of the unconstitutional DOMA, giving FF&C to all marriage licenses, not just the straight ones. If your state doesn't want to marry gays, fine, but they should have to recognize those legal marriages just like other states have to recognize the pederast incest marriages of Alabama.[/QUOTE]


Bigot

How adorable Fishy...projection. I would be a bigot if I was trying to prevent their marriages or prevent them from being recognized. I'd be a bigot if I said they should have civil marriages while I get just plain old marriage. That would be bigoted.

 

[Redfish]

Still not getting it.

Yes, I realize that you're not getting it. But that's because you think gays aren't as good as you are and don't deserve what you have. We all get that.

Not at all, its just they are not "special" enough to warrant creating stuff in the constitution and ignoring the States right to legislate items such as how they allow a marriage contract to be created.

Maybe the answer is to allow states to define HOW they give a marriage contract, but enforce full faith and credit to ones from out of state regardless of what they consist of.

That's what I said at the beginning of the thread. I will say again...get rid of the remainder of the unconstitutional DOMA, giving FF&C to all marriage licenses, not just the straight ones. If your state doesn't want to marry gays, fine, but they should have to recognize those legal marriages just like other states have to recognize the pederast incest marriages of Alabama.[/QUOTE]


Bigot

How adorable Fishy...projection. I would be a bigot if I was trying to prevent their marriages or prevent them from being recognized. I'd be a bigot if I said they should have civil marriages while I get just plain old marriage. That would be bigoted.

Nope, the word fits you. You are bigoted against everyone and anyone who disagrees with your gay agenda. You tolerate no other opinions or beliefs, its your way or no way. YOU are the bigot---------and all over a word. Tell me, how does calling your gay union a marriage change the minds and beliefs of the majority of humanity who believe that homosexuality is an abnormal human condition?

You are what Rand and Orwell wrote about. You want thought control by the central government

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, I realize that you're not getting it. But that's because you think gays aren't as good as you are and don't deserve what you have. We all get that.

Not at all, its just they are not "special" enough to warrant creating stuff in the constitution and ignoring the States right to legislate items such as how they allow a marriage contract to be created.

Maybe the answer is to allow states to define HOW they give a marriage contract, but enforce full faith and credit to ones from out of state regardless of what they consist of.

That's what I said at the beginning of the thread. I will say again...get rid of the remainder of the unconstitutional DOMA, giving FF&C to all marriage licenses, not just the straight ones. If your state doesn't want to marry gays, fine, but they should have to recognize those legal marriages just like other states have to recognize the pederast incest marriages of Alabama.[/QUOTE]


Bigot

How adorable Fishy...projection. I would be a bigot if I was trying to prevent their marriages or prevent them from being recognized. I'd be a bigot if I said they should have civil marriages while I get just plain old marriage. That would be bigoted.

Nope, the word fits you. You are bigoted against everyone and anyone who disagrees with your gay agenda. You tolerate no other opinions or beliefs, its your way or no way. YOU are the bigot---------and all over a word. Tell me, how does calling your gay union a marriage change the minds and beliefs of the majority of humanity who believe that homosexuality is an abnormal human condition?

You are what Rand and Orwell wrote about. You want thought control by the central government

You obviously have no understanding of the word. I am intolerant of intolerance, but bigoted, hardly. I don't want to see anyone denied their rights, you do though.

You also appear to be very ignorant of what the "majority" believes. Check the polls Rip Van Winkle.

 

[Silhouette]

Jimmy Carter is wrong and the big government RWs are wrong.

Government does not belong in our private lives any more than religion does.

You got it completely backwards. Your private lives don't belong in the public arena any more than your religion does. They most certainly don't belong disenfranchising the votes of tens of millions of people.

You admit that "your private lives" is what this is all about. Not a state of being, but what you DO in private. This would be the first time in US history where an incomplete group of behaviors thoroughly repugnant to the majority dictated to the majority. In the interest of equality, what set of behaviors equally repugnant could we arbitrarily deny? And why? Because the majority disagrees with them?

Nice to see the democrats beat the sleeping GOP strategists to the punch. Now if the GOP exploits one of the largest hidden vote reserves in the country, it will look like at least one prominent democrat agrees. It has watered down that impact.

The solution would be to put people like Pelosi on the spot. But neither she nor any of the other high officers of the cult will consent to an interview at the 11th hour. Time to dig out the old footage. Or just keep listening to Carl Rove... God this feels like 2012 all over again.

 

[rightwinger]

Jimmy Carter is wrong and the big government RWs are wrong.

Government does not belong in our private lives any more than religion does.

You got it completely backwards. Your private lives don't belong in the public arena any more than your religion does. They most certainly don't belong disenfranchising the votes of tens of millions of people.

You admit that "your private lives" is what this is all about. Not a state of being, but what you DO in private. This would be the first time in US history where an incomplete group of behaviors thoroughly repugnant to the majority dictated to the majority. In the interest of equality, what set of behaviors equally repugnant could we arbitrarily deny? And why? Because the majority disagrees with them?

Nice to see the democrats beat the sleeping GOP strategists to the punch. Now if the GOP exploits one of the largest hidden vote reserves in the country, it will look like at least one prominent democrat agrees. It has watered down that impact.

The solution would be to put people like Pelosi on the spot. But neither she nor any of the other high officers of the cult will consent to an interview at the 11th hour. Time to dig out the old footage. Or just keep listening to Carl Rove... God this feels like 2012 all over again.

I remember a time when a black man and a white woman holding hands was repugnant to a large percentage of Americans. They even used to lynch a black man for doing it
Doesn't mean our government should enforce it just because you find it to be "yucky"

 

[Redfish]

Not at all, its just they are not "special" enough to warrant creating stuff in the constitution and ignoring the States right to legislate items such as how they allow a marriage contract to be created.

Maybe the answer is to allow states to define HOW they give a marriage contract, but enforce full faith and credit to ones from out of state regardless of what they consist of.

That's what I said at the beginning of the thread. I will say again...get rid of the remainder of the unconstitutional DOMA, giving FF&C to all marriage licenses, not just the straight ones. If your state doesn't want to marry gays, fine, but they should have to recognize those legal marriages just like other states have to recognize the pederast incest marriages of Alabama.[/QUOTE]


Bigot

How adorable Fishy...projection. I would be a bigot if I was trying to prevent their marriages or prevent them from being recognized. I'd be a bigot if I said they should have civil marriages while I get just plain old marriage. That would be bigoted.

Nope, the word fits you. You are bigoted against everyone and anyone who disagrees with your gay agenda. You tolerate no other opinions or beliefs, its your way or no way. YOU are the bigot---------and all over a word. Tell me, how does calling your gay union a marriage change the minds and beliefs of the majority of humanity who believe that homosexuality is an abnormal human condition?

You are what Rand and Orwell wrote about. You want thought control by the central government

You obviously have no understanding of the word. I am intolerant of intolerance, but bigoted, hardly. I don't want to see anyone denied their rights, you do though.

You also appear to be very ignorant of what the "majority" believes. Check the polls Rip Van Winkle.

I said the "majority of humanity" not the 1200 people in some poll. Intolerance of differing viewpoints is being bigoted. You are intolerant of any viewpoint but yours. You want the government to dictate how people think and what they believe and then punish those who dare to stray from the govt dictated beliefs.

I am tolerant of the gay lifestyle, I don't give a crap what you and your girlfriend do in private or what you call your relationship in private. I want the two of you to have every right that a man/woman married couple have. But what you have is not a marriage any more than Homer, Louise, Jane, and Fido have a marriage. They are all committed to each other and love each other, but they are not married.

 

[Silhouette]

I remember a time when a black man and a white woman holding hands was repugnant to a large percentage of Americans. They even used to lynch a black man for doing it
Doesn't mean our government should enforce it just because you find it to be "yucky"

Yes, but because they were a man and a woman, their right to marry was protected. Their marrying did not violate the core principle of marriage which is the physical union of a man and woman for the benefit of any children, natural or adopted, that grow in that envirnoment.

In other words, their behaviors did not violate marriage so to exclude them was arbitrary. LGBT behaviors do violate man/woman marriage. They aren't about race.

 

[Redfish]

Jimmy Carter is wrong and the big government RWs are wrong.

Government does not belong in our private lives any more than religion does.

You got it completely backwards. Your private lives don't belong in the public arena any more than your religion does. They most certainly don't belong disenfranchising the votes of tens of millions of people.

You admit that "your private lives" is what this is all about. Not a state of being, but what you DO in private. This would be the first time in US history where an incomplete group of behaviors thoroughly repugnant to the majority dictated to the majority. In the interest of equality, what set of behaviors equally repugnant could we arbitrarily deny? And why? Because the majority disagrees with them?

Nice to see the democrats beat the sleeping GOP strategists to the punch. Now if the GOP exploits one of the largest hidden vote reserves in the country, it will look like at least one prominent democrat agrees. It has watered down that impact.

The solution would be to put people like Pelosi on the spot. But neither she nor any of the other high officers of the cult will consent to an interview at the 11th hour. Time to dig out the old footage. Or just keep listening to Carl Rove... God this feels like 2012 all over again.

I remember a time when a black man and a white woman holding hands was repugnant to a large percentage of Americans. They even used to lynch a black man for doing it
Doesn't mean our government should enforce it just because you find it to be "yucky"

race and sexual orientation are two different things. continuing to try to make them analogous makes you and wytchey look like fools.

Let me ask you, is it OK for someone to think that racial mixing is wrong? Are people allowed to hold that belief? Racial mixing is found repugnant by members of all races. It is not discrimination or bias, its just what they believe.

Do you want the government dictating what you are allowed to believe? Before you answer, remember, someday soon conservatives may control the governement, do you want them dictating what you are allowed to believe?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Leave states alone! Leave them alone!"

 

[rightwinger]

Jimmy Carter is wrong and the big government RWs are wrong.

Government does not belong in our private lives any more than religion does.

You got it completely backwards. Your private lives don't belong in the public arena any more than your religion does. They most certainly don't belong disenfranchising the votes of tens of millions of people.

You admit that "your private lives" is what this is all about. Not a state of being, but what you DO in private. This would be the first time in US history where an incomplete group of behaviors thoroughly repugnant to the majority dictated to the majority. In the interest of equality, what set of behaviors equally repugnant could we arbitrarily deny? And why? Because the majority disagrees with them?

Nice to see the democrats beat the sleeping GOP strategists to the punch. Now if the GOP exploits one of the largest hidden vote reserves in the country, it will look like at least one prominent democrat agrees. It has watered down that impact.

The solution would be to put people like Pelosi on the spot. But neither she nor any of the other high officers of the cult will consent to an interview at the 11th hour. Time to dig out the old footage. Or just keep listening to Carl Rove... God this feels like 2012 all over again.

I remember a time when a black man and a white woman holding hands was repugnant to a large percentage of Americans. They even used to lynch a black man for doing it
Doesn't mean our government should enforce it just because you find it to be "yucky"

race and sexual orientation are two different things. continuing to try to make them analogous makes you and wytchey look like fools.

Let me ask you, is it OK for someone to think that racial mixing is wrong? Are people allowed to hold that belief? Racial mixing is found repugnant by members of all races. It is not discrimination or bias, its just what they believe.

Do you want the government dictating what you are allowed to believe? Before you answer, remember, someday soon conservatives may control the governement, do you want them dictating what you are allowed to believe?

They are still relationships that you find to be "yucky" and expect the government to stop

It is perfectly acceptable for you to find race mixing to be unacceptable. If you do, that should be a consideration in YOUR choice of spouse. What is unacceptable is for you to force the government to accept your bigotry and force it on others

 

[Redfish]

Jimmy Carter is wrong and the big government RWs are wrong.

Government does not belong in our private lives any more than religion does.

You got it completely backwards. Your private lives don't belong in the public arena any more than your religion does. They most certainly don't belong disenfranchising the votes of tens of millions of people.

You admit that "your private lives" is what this is all about. Not a state of being, but what you DO in private. This would be the first time in US history where an incomplete group of behaviors thoroughly repugnant to the majority dictated to the majority. In the interest of equality, what set of behaviors equally repugnant could we arbitrarily deny? And why? Because the majority disagrees with them?

Nice to see the democrats beat the sleeping GOP strategists to the punch. Now if the GOP exploits one of the largest hidden vote reserves in the country, it will look like at least one prominent democrat agrees. It has watered down that impact.

The solution would be to put people like Pelosi on the spot. But neither she nor any of the other high officers of the cult will consent to an interview at the 11th hour. Time to dig out the old footage. Or just keep listening to Carl Rove... God this feels like 2012 all over again.

I remember a time when a black man and a white woman holding hands was repugnant to a large percentage of Americans. They even used to lynch a black man for doing it
Doesn't mean our government should enforce it just because you find it to be "yucky"

race and sexual orientation are two different things. continuing to try to make them analogous makes you and wytchey look like fools.

Let me ask you, is it OK for someone to think that racial mixing is wrong? Are people allowed to hold that belief? Racial mixing is found repugnant by members of all races. It is not discrimination or bias, its just what they believe.

Do you want the government dictating what you are allowed to believe? Before you answer, remember, someday soon conservatives may control the governement, do you want them dictating what you are allowed to believe?

They are still relationships that you find to be "yucky" and expect the government to stop

It is perfectly acceptable for you to find race mixing to be unacceptable. If you do, that should be a consideration in YOUR choice of spouse. What is unacceptable is for you to force the government to accept your bigotry and force it on others

Damn, but you are thick headed. I don't find race mixing unacceptable, but many others do. You want to punish them for those thoughts because like all liberals, you know what everyone else must think and believe. YOU are the intolerant one in this debate.

The bigotry in the gay agenda is coming from the gays and gay supporters. YOU want the government to mandate how the rest of the citizens feel about it. That is the very definition of bigotry.

BTW, when to you put on your Jake Snarkey hat? Is it at noon?

 

[kaz]

Jimmy Carter is wrong and the big government RWs are wrong.

Government does not belong in our private lives any more than religion does.

You mean except for telling us what wages we can work for, what health care we can buy, that we have to buy health care, what benefits our employers have to offer us, who can represent us in court, who can treat us for illness, who can cut our hair and fingernails and toenails, who can decorate our house, who can wire our house, how much cash we can deposit in our bank without government checking it out and they can waive our Constitutional rights to collect taxes.

But other than that ... government does not belong in our private lives." LOL. Right.

 

[Redfish]

Jimmy Carter is wrong and the big government RWs are wrong.

Government does not belong in our private lives any more than religion does.

You mean except for telling us what wages we can work for, what health care we can buy, that we have to buy health care, who can represent us in court, who can treat us for illness, who can cut our hair and our toenails, who can decorate our house, who can wire our house, how much cash we can deposit in our bank without government checking it out and they can waive our Constitutional rights in collecting taxes.

But other than that ... government does not belong in our private lives." LOL. Right.

well said and right on

 

[rightwinger]

Jimmy Carter is wrong and the big government RWs are wrong.

Government does not belong in our private lives any more than religion does.

You got it completely backwards. Your private lives don't belong in the public arena any more than your religion does. They most certainly don't belong disenfranchising the votes of tens of millions of people.

You admit that "your private lives" is what this is all about. Not a state of being, but what you DO in private. This would be the first time in US history where an incomplete group of behaviors thoroughly repugnant to the majority dictated to the majority. In the interest of equality, what set of behaviors equally repugnant could we arbitrarily deny? And why? Because the majority disagrees with them?

Nice to see the democrats beat the sleeping GOP strategists to the punch. Now if the GOP exploits one of the largest hidden vote reserves in the country, it will look like at least one prominent democrat agrees. It has watered down that impact.

The solution would be to put people like Pelosi on the spot. But neither she nor any of the other high officers of the cult will consent to an interview at the 11th hour. Time to dig out the old footage. Or just keep listening to Carl Rove... God this feels like 2012 all over again.

I remember a time when a black man and a white woman holding hands was repugnant to a large percentage of Americans. They even used to lynch a black man for doing it
Doesn't mean our government should enforce it just because you find it to be "yucky"

race and sexual orientation are two different things. continuing to try to make them analogous makes you and wytchey look like fools.

Let me ask you, is it OK for someone to think that racial mixing is wrong? Are people allowed to hold that belief? Racial mixing is found repugnant by members of all races. It is not discrimination or bias, its just what they believe.

Do you want the government dictating what you are allowed to believe? Before you answer, remember, someday soon conservatives may control the governement, do you want them dictating what you are allowed to believe?

They are still relationships that you find to be "yucky" and expect the government to stop

It is perfectly acceptable for you to find race mixing to be unacceptable. If you do, that should be a consideration in YOUR choice of spouse. What is unacceptable is for you to force the government to accept your bigotry and force it on others

Damn, but you are thick headed. I don't find race mixing unacceptable, but many others do. You want to punish them for those thoughts because like all liberals, you know what everyone else must think and believe. YOU are the intolerant one in this debate.

The bigotry in the gay agenda is coming from the gays and gay supporters. YOU want the government to mandate how the rest of the citizens feel about it. That is the very definition of bigotry.

BTW, when to you put on your Jake Snarkey hat? Is it at noon?

Nobody is forcing them to race mix or marry someone of the same sex......that is their choice

We are stopping them from denying that choice to others