Judge strikes down Pennsylvania law barring gay marriage

[Zoom-boing]

Oh, I think he is an honest man which is why he is having difficulty answering the question. He would expect public outcry because he would agree with it. If someone made a publicly racist statement or contributed to a racist campaign, he'd expect some sort of consequences. It is because he agrees with the people who are opposed to marriage equality for gays and lesbians that the public outcry bothers him.

Not if the company specifically claims "We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. " No, they should not have ousted him if he didn't support interracial marriage. That's my point. They (and the left) espouse these same things and yet when someone expresses that they believe marriage is one man/one woman, there is no tolerance. Eich wasn't degenerating homosexuals, wasn't saying/believing in what you posted about interracial marriage (in reference to ssm), isn't "anit-gay" as was spewed all over ... that's my point. He expressed his support in m/w marriage and was vilified for it. At the risk of being repetitive, full acceptance and nothing less is what the left will tolerate. The left has shown this is the drumbeat time and again.

The bolded? That isn't the at all the point of what I've been posting and if that's what you take away from my posts, well ... that's on you.

tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

Pathetic dodge for what you know is true.

Ha, ha! You have no argument because what I posted is the truth. Mozilla specifically claims that it is open to diversity and differing pov's and even encourages it's workers to express such, and I quote " Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard", but when one of them does just that but it goes against Mozzilla's beliefs? They. Oust. Him. Typical leftist hypocricy. That's what this discussion has been about, not some shit that you and others try to project onto people.

You agree that gays are icky so public outcry when someone calls gays icky pisses you off.

Linky link? TIA. Projection isn't going to work on me. Just the fact that you posted this tells me that you haven't understood a single thing I've said.

It's why you won't answer the question posed; Would you expect public outcry if a CEO had donated to a racist organization?

I HAVE answered the question and now here you are, moving the goal post yet again.

My point this entire time is that the left is intolerant of anyone who goes against their meme. Period. The left believes that they are diverse because 'oh hey, look there's a black woman, a middle aged white guy, a midget, and an illegal and they all agree with ssm'. Yet the minute someone else expresses that they believe marriage is one man/one woman, the left publicily vilifies them, even as they claim they are tolerant. Am I talking about people who denegrate/slur/express hatred towards homosexuals? NO. If you hadn't figured THAT out by now, that's because you're not reading what I'm writing. Too bad for you.

Nothing short of full acceptance is the only thing the left will tolerate. You know this is true, which is why you keep trying to change the discussion.

I'm done. Your intolerance is clear, as is the lefts'.

 

[bodecea]

If you want the state to ban same sex marriage, you are demanding the state codify (and publish) the contention that homosexuals and lesbians are second class citizens less deserving than heterosexuals of legal recognition of their committed relationships.

Are you OK with exactly the same rights as a "normal" married couple, IF your coupling would be called a "CIVIL UNION"?

If all civil marriages were to be called "civil unions"...sure. But that boat left already with 19 states making even "civil unions" illegal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you want the state to ban same sex marriage, you are demanding the state codify (and publish) the contention that homosexuals and lesbians are second class citizens less deserving than heterosexuals of legal recognition of their committed relationships.

Are you OK with exactly the same rights as a "normal" married couple, IF your coupling would be called a "CIVIL UNION"?

This doesn’t make any sense.

It would be inane and pointless for states to have ‘two’ marriage ‘laws’ codifying identical provisions, in addition to being un-Constitutional.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into the same marriage contracts as are opposite-sex couples, to seek to relegate same-sex couples to some sort of ‘second class’ marriage is no different than seeking to make them ‘separate but equal,’ which would be just as repugnant to the Founding Document.

Your unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans is not justification to deny them their civil rights.

 

[Vigilante]

If you want the state to ban same sex marriage, you are demanding the state codify (and publish) the contention that homosexuals and lesbians are second class citizens less deserving than heterosexuals of legal recognition of their committed relationships.

Are you OK with exactly the same rights as a "normal" married couple, IF your coupling would be called a "CIVIL UNION"?

If all civil marriages were to be called "civil unions"...sure. But that boat left already with 19 states making even "civil unions" illegal.

Well, do as we do on the PRO LIFE side of the argument, keep fighting, as I have NO PROBLEM with CIVIL UNIONS, my problem is the continued pushing of your lifestyle to our children in school, and in anything connected with the government. Sexuality should be kept at home.

 

[Vigilante]

If you want the state to ban same sex marriage, you are demanding the state codify (and publish) the contention that homosexuals and lesbians are second class citizens less deserving than heterosexuals of legal recognition of their committed relationships.

Are you OK with exactly the same rights as a "normal" married couple, IF your coupling would be called a "CIVIL UNION"?

This doesn’t make any sense.

It would be inane and pointless for states to have ‘two’ marriage ‘laws’ codifying identical provisions, in addition to being un-Constitutional.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into the same marriage contracts as are opposite-sex couples, to seek to relegate same-sex couples to some sort of ‘second class’ marriage is no different than seeking to make them ‘separate but equal,’ which would be just as repugnant to the Founding Document.

Your unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans is not justification to deny them their civil rights.

Of course it makes perfect sense, one is sanctioned by a religious belief, the other by a secular government. Both recognized, both having the same right, only using a different term. Why would a queer couple want a religious marriage...If they do, I'm sure they could find some Druid church, or whatever to perform some sort of RELIGIOUS ceremony...or simply break a keg of wine on the floor for effect!

 

[Peach]

Are you OK with exactly the same rights as a "normal" married couple, IF your coupling would be called a "CIVIL UNION"?

If all civil marriages were to be called "civil unions"...sure. But that boat left already with 19 states making even "civil unions" illegal.

Well, do as we do on the PRO LIFE side of the argument, keep fighting, as I have NO PROBLEM with CIVIL UNIONS, my problem is the continued pushing of your lifestyle to our children in school, and in anything connected with the government. Sexuality should be kept at home.

Then their will be no marriage? One cannot "push" what is a genetic variance, I have been "pushed" I gather, to be tall, but remain 5'1". Gay americans are here, live with it! No one will force any person to attend the marriage ceremonies, receptions, or visit the couples. As my father, who served in THREE wars for the liberties of ALL Americans, said "No skin off my nose, live & let live".

 

[WorldWatcher]

Of course it makes perfect sense, one is sanctioned by a religious belief, the other by a secular government. Both recognized, both having the same right, only using a different term. Why would a queer couple want a religious marriage...

Religious Marriages are performed by religious institutions, Civil Marriage is that which exists under secular law.

If the term "Civil Union" is going to be that obtained to recognize the establishment of spouses and a family relationship where one didn't apply before and is to be applied to different-sex and same-sex couples.

I'm on board with that.

If they do, I'm sure they could find some Druid church, or whatever to perform some sort of RELIGIOUS ceremony...or simply break a keg of wine on the floor for effect!

They don't need to go to a "Druid" church for a religious marriage. There are plenty of Christian Churches were they can get Religiously Married.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Of course it makes perfect sense, one is sanctioned by a religious belief, the other by a secular government. Both recognized, both having the same right, only using a different term. Why would a queer couple want a religious marriage...

Religious Marriages are performed by religious institutions, Civil Marriage is that which exists under secular law.

If the term "Civil Union" is going to be that obtained to recognize the establishment of spouses and a family relationship where one didn't apply before and is to be applied to different-sex and same-sex couples.

I'm on board with that.

If they do, I'm sure they could find some Druid church, or whatever to perform some sort of RELIGIOUS ceremony...or simply break a keg of wine on the floor for effect!

They don't need to go to a "Druid" church for a religious marriage. There are plenty of Christian Churches were they can get Religiously Married.


>>>>

Exactly...we were married in a Christian Church all the way back in 1990...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are you OK with exactly the same rights as a "normal" married couple, IF your coupling would be called a "CIVIL UNION"?

This doesn’t make any sense.

It would be inane and pointless for states to have ‘two’ marriage ‘laws’ codifying identical provisions, in addition to being un-Constitutional.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into the same marriage contracts as are opposite-sex couples, to seek to relegate same-sex couples to some sort of ‘second class’ marriage is no different than seeking to make them ‘separate but equal,’ which would be just as repugnant to the Founding Document.

Your unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans is not justification to deny them their civil rights.

Of course it makes perfect sense, one is sanctioned by a religious belief, the other by a secular government. Both recognized, both having the same right, only using a different term. Why would a queer couple want a religious marriage...If they do, I'm sure they could find some Druid church, or whatever to perform some sort of RELIGIOUS ceremony...or simply break a keg of wine on the floor for effect!

You don’t understand.

The contract law that is marriage is administered by officials authorized to do so by the state, this could be a justice of the peace, a judge, or a member of the clergy so recognized; whomever performs the marriage ceremony – civil servant or member of the clergy – the contracts entered into by the couples are identical, all subject to the same provisions of the state’s marriage (contract) law.

For those married by a member of the clergy, of course, there are likely religious doctrine and dogma which are part of the ceremony having nothing to do with the legal component of marriage law; religious institutions are now and will remain at liberty to refuse to marry same-sex couples, as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to the states and local jurisdictions.

Indeed, as we know, there are religious institutions that in fact perform religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

This is why your ‘proposal’ is inane, pointless, and makes no sense, as religious entities are currently not required to recognize same-sex marriage, nor is anyone seeking to compel them to do so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course it makes perfect sense, one is sanctioned by a religious belief, the other by a secular government. Both recognized, both having the same right, only using a different term. Why would a queer couple want a religious marriage...

Religious Marriages are performed by religious institutions, Civil Marriage is that which exists under secular law.

If the term "Civil Union" is going to be that obtained to recognize the establishment of spouses and a family relationship where one didn't apply before and is to be applied to different-sex and same-sex couples.

I'm on board with that.

If they do, I'm sure they could find some Druid church, or whatever to perform some sort of RELIGIOUS ceremony...or simply break a keg of wine on the floor for effect!

They don't need to go to a "Druid" church for a religious marriage. There are plenty of Christian Churches were they can get Religiously Married.


>>>>

Exactly...we were married in a Christian Church all the way back in 1990...

And the contract law that you and your partner entered into is identical to that of someone married by a judge, identical to that of an opposite-sex couple, where all are equally subject to, and entitled to, the same privileges and immunities afforded married persons in your state.

As far as the law is concerned, there is no such things as ‘civil marriage,’ ‘civil unions,’ or ‘religious marriage.’ It is understood that these terms are often used colloquially to communicate that one was married by a judge or member of the clergy, but for the purpose of same-sex couples seeking their right to access marriage law the focus must be solely on the contract law opposite-sex couples have access to, married either by a member of the clergy or a judge.

 

[Vigilante]

If all civil marriages were to be called "civil unions"...sure. But that boat left already with 19 states making even "civil unions" illegal.

Well, do as we do on the PRO LIFE side of the argument, keep fighting, as I have NO PROBLEM with CIVIL UNIONS, my problem is the continued pushing of your lifestyle to our children in school, and in anything connected with the government. Sexuality should be kept at home.

Then their will be no marriage? One cannot "push" what is a genetic variance, I have been "pushed" I gather, to be tall, but remain 5'1". Gay americans are here, live with it! No one will force any person to attend the marriage ceremonies, receptions, or visit the couples. As my father, who served in THREE wars for the liberties of ALL Americans, said "No skin off my nose, live & let live".

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Replace a few key words, and that seems to be your philosophy!...So sad!

 

[Vigilante]

Of course it makes perfect sense, one is sanctioned by a religious belief, the other by a secular government. Both recognized, both having the same right, only using a different term. Why would a queer couple want a religious marriage...

Religious Marriages are performed by religious institutions, Civil Marriage is that which exists under secular law.

If the term "Civil Union" is going to be that obtained to recognize the establishment of spouses and a family relationship where one didn't apply before and is to be applied to different-sex and same-sex couples.

I'm on board with that.

If they do, I'm sure they could find some Druid church, or whatever to perform some sort of RELIGIOUS ceremony...or simply break a keg of wine on the floor for effect!

They don't need to go to a "Druid" church for a religious marriage. There are plenty of Christian Churches were they can get Religiously Married.


>>>>

Yes, there are. and it is a shame, as that perversion was never taught until fairly recently. Seems the subversive influence has gotten a foothold everywhere. Again, our society takes another HIT!

 

[Vigilante]

Of course it makes perfect sense, one is sanctioned by a religious belief, the other by a secular government. Both recognized, both having the same right, only using a different term. Why would a queer couple want a religious marriage...

Religious Marriages are performed by religious institutions, Civil Marriage is that which exists under secular law.

If the term "Civil Union" is going to be that obtained to recognize the establishment of spouses and a family relationship where one didn't apply before and is to be applied to different-sex and same-sex couples.

I'm on board with that.

If they do, I'm sure they could find some Druid church, or whatever to perform some sort of RELIGIOUS ceremony...or simply break a keg of wine on the floor for effect!

They don't need to go to a "Druid" church for a religious marriage. There are plenty of Christian Churches were they can get Religiously Married.


>>>>

Exactly...we were married in a Christian Church all the way back in 1990...

Yes, the subversive movement has been going on for 6+ decades, so nothing new there!

 

[Vigilante]

This doesn’t make any sense.

It would be inane and pointless for states to have ‘two’ marriage ‘laws’ codifying identical provisions, in addition to being un-Constitutional.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into the same marriage contracts as are opposite-sex couples, to seek to relegate same-sex couples to some sort of ‘second class’ marriage is no different than seeking to make them ‘separate but equal,’ which would be just as repugnant to the Founding Document.

Your unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans is not justification to deny them their civil rights.

Of course it makes perfect sense, one is sanctioned by a religious belief, the other by a secular government. Both recognized, both having the same right, only using a different term. Why would a queer couple want a religious marriage...If they do, I'm sure they could find some Druid church, or whatever to perform some sort of RELIGIOUS ceremony...or simply break a keg of wine on the floor for effect!

You don’t understand.

The contract law that is marriage is administered by officials authorized to do so by the state, this could be a justice of the peace, a judge, or a member of the clergy so recognized; whomever performs the marriage ceremony – civil servant or member of the clergy – the contracts entered into by the couples are identical, all subject to the same provisions of the state’s marriage (contract) law.

For those married by a member of the clergy, of course, there are likely religious doctrine and dogma which are part of the ceremony having nothing to do with the legal component of marriage law; religious institutions are now and will remain at liberty to refuse to marry same-sex couples, as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to the states and local jurisdictions.

Indeed, as we know, there are religious institutions that in fact perform religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

This is why your ‘proposal’ is inane, pointless, and makes no sense, as religious entities are currently not required to recognize same-sex marriage, nor is anyone seeking to compel them to do so.

What 2 marriage laws? I simply stated that each is called by a separate name to differentiate one from the other. Would GAY MARRIAGE instead of Marriage be difficult? It seems the GAY community wants to be differentiated!

 

[WorldWatcher]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Replace a few key words, and that seems to be your philosophy!...So sad!

You mean like "socialist", "Trade Unionist", or "Jews" with "the homosexuals"?


>>>>

 

[Peach]

"Perversion", as you term it, is older than this nation, in fact, as old as human populations. If disapprove of gay Americans marrying, do not do same. Ignore wedding invitations, send no gifts. Bottom line is, gay Americans marrying does not impact you in the least. Being gay is a genetic variance & no one can be TAUGHT to be gay. Ask yourself, would any amount of pressure make me prefer sex with the same gender as I?

 

[Vigilante]

Then their will be no marriage? One cannot "push" what is a genetic variance, I have been "pushed" I gather, to be tall, but remain 5'1". Gay americans are here, live with it! No one will force any person to attend the marriage ceremonies, receptions, or visit the couples. As my father, who served in THREE wars for the liberties of ALL Americans, said "No skin off my nose, live & let live".

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Replace a few key words, and that seems to be your philosophy!...So sad!

You mean like "socialist", "Trade Unionist", or "Jews" with "the homosexuals"?


>>>>

Homosexuals, subversives, abortionist, amnesty pushers, etc.

All to change our culture, traditions, and ethics.

 

[Gadawg73]

Imagine how stupid folk are going to feel 20 years after gay marriage is legal in every state and nothing changed in their marriage and the lives of all Americans.
Pretty much the same as gays serving openly in the military.

 

[Gadawg73]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Replace a few key words, and that seems to be your philosophy!...So sad!

You mean like "socialist", "Trade Unionist", or "Jews" with "the homosexuals"?


>>>>

Homosexuals, subversives, abortionist, amnesty pushers, etc.

All to change our culture, traditions, and ethics.

So being homosexual is unethical?
They are subversives?
Come on man.

 

[Vigilante]

"Perversion", as you term it, is older than this nation, in fact, as old as human populations. If disapprove of gay Americans marrying, do not do same. Ignore wedding invitations, send no gifts. Bottom line is, gay Americans marrying does not impact you in the least. Being gay is a genetic variance & no one can be TAUGHT to be gay. Ask yourself, would any amount of pressure make me prefer sex with the same gender as I?

Why should my children, who I want raised the way I want them, be subjected to this within our public school system?

I could care less if you are gay or not, I do care when the subject is TAUGHT to my children against my wishes... Your RIGHTS have infringed on MY RIGHTS!