Judge strikes down Pennsylvania law barring gay marriage

[Vigilante]

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.

Why do they have to proclaim they are gay...do blacks have to proclaim they are blacks? Do Jews have to proclaim they are Jews? Why Gays?

 

[Seawytch]

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'.

You danced around the question a lot. I'll make it easier for you. If the CEO of Mozilla (with their tolerant mission statement) made a donation to a racist organization that was opposed to interracial marriage, would you expect public outcry, yes or no?

 

[Seawytch]

"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!

If you don't want your child to learn tolerance in public school, send them to a religious or private one.

 

[Vigilante]

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.

Are you going to tell me that MILITANT Homosexuals, Subversive, Amnesty pushers, abortionists, etc. aren't all joined at the hip? They don't all follow the drum beat of CULTURAL CHANGE?

 

[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!

If you don't want your child to learn tolerance in public school, send them to a religious or private one.

That is NOT tolerance, and tolerance as you call it, is the byword for the subversives CULTURAL CHANGE! YOU send your children to a TOLERANT school, why should I have to?

 

[bodecea]

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!

If you don't want your child to learn tolerance in public school, send them to a religious or private one.

That is NOT tolerance, and tolerance as you call it, is the byword for the subversives CULTURAL CHANGE!

We know you think "tolerance" is a dirty word.

 

[Vigilante]

If you don't want your child to learn tolerance in public school, send them to a religious or private one.

That is NOT tolerance, and tolerance as you call it, is the byword for the subversives CULTURAL CHANGE!

We know you think "tolerance" is a dirty word.

I just told you what it's a byword for! Can you not read or understand that?

 

[bodecea]

That is NOT tolerance, and tolerance as you call it, is the byword for the subversives CULTURAL CHANGE!

We know you think "tolerance" is a dirty word.

I just told you what it's a byword for! Can you not read or understand that?

You are like those at the 1996 RNC Convention in San Diego selling t-shirts that said "Intolerance is a Beautiful Thing".

 

[Vigilante]

We know you think "tolerance" is a dirty word.

I just told you what it's a byword for! Can you not read or understand that?

You are like those at the 1996 RNC Convention in San Diego selling t-shirts that said "Intolerance is a Beautiful Thing".

Since the GAY agenda is so INTOLERANT of any disagreement it should have been sold at the DNC convention!

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Are you going to tell me that MILITANT Homosexuals, Subversive, Amnesty pushers, abortionists, etc. aren't all joined at the hip? They don't all follow the drum beat of CULTURAL CHANGE?

Abortion was legal in this country when it was founded and up until the last 1800s.
But you are right the culture changed.
It changed from a colony that was run by the monarchy of England with the mandate of divine right of the monarchy. Anyone that opposed the crown was considered a sinner and should be condemned. Divine right of the monarchy was given to the Kings of Europe by God and God only was the culture.
The founders changed that culture of religion running government and wrote the Constitution, a document of LAWS that never mentions God, Jesus or any supreme being.
And a few times since the Founders ran religion out of government we have had to deal with the uninformed religious right that want to change the culture back the way it was before this country was founded.
But the rule of law and the Constitution wins every time over theocratic rule.

 

[jillian]

But the rule of law and the Constitution wins every time over theocratic rule.

as it should

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

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!

What does it matter to the state if an ecclesiastical authority creates new canon law concerning who it will marry and who it will not marry? Churches are already free, within their own faith, to not recognize marriages. Let's explore a very large example:

Does the state require the Catholic Church to marry divorcées who have never received a Decree of Invalidity? No! Of course not!

This already exists. There's lots of Catholic (lapsed?) people running around on third and fourth marriages that never once received a Decree of Invalidity.

We already have a system in place that allows one person's faith the freedom to not recognize another person's marriage, as that recognition pertains to their own ecclesiastical authorities and not to secular authorities.

Note: There are limits to this freedom, as this freedom unbounded would limit the freedom of others. Taken to extremes, every person could declare themselves a church and try to claim religious freedom from doing anything they didn't want to do.

 

[Vigilante]

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

Are you going to tell me that MILITANT Homosexuals, Subversive, Amnesty pushers, abortionists, etc. aren't all joined at the hip? They don't all follow the drum beat of CULTURAL CHANGE?

Abortion was legal in this country when it was founded and up until the last 1800s.
But you are right the culture changed.
It changed from a colony that was run by the monarchy of England with the mandate of divine right of the monarchy. Anyone that opposed the crown was considered a sinner and should be condemned. Divine right of the monarchy was given to the Kings of Europe by God and God only was the culture.
The founders changed that culture of religion running government and wrote the Constitution, a document of LAWS that never mentions God, Jesus or any supreme being.
And a few times since the Founders ran religion out of government we have had to deal with the uninformed religious right that want to change the culture back the way it was before this country was founded.
But the rule of law and the Constitution wins every time over theocratic rule.

Following English law, abortion was legal in the American colonies until the time of “quickening” in the fetus, when the baby started to move, usually around the fourth month of pregnancy.

Being I'm an agnostic I see the foaming hatred of an atheist! The Founder were all believes in a creator, they even wrote it into our Declaration of Independence which acknowledges a Creator as the source of the unalienable rights that governments are formed to secure. This acknowledgement was the very foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

No we want to call MURDER of an unborn, just that, and have enacted The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb! This DOES APPLY to the zygote!

But since I've schooled you on some of your BS, want to get back to the topic, instead of diverting?

 

[Politico]

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"?

Ok with? I demand it. they should have to go through the same shit the rest of us do.

 

[JoeB131]

"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!

You can always home school. Or enroll them in a private religious school.

But it isn't like Heather's Two Mommies are bumping clams in that book. Or doing anything graphic.

So your worry is that you children might get the shocking information that there are lesbians raising children?

 

[Gadawg73]

Ok, speaking of culture in America let us do some easy research:
Before the Founders ran the British and their culture off here this country was a colony where religion totally influenced the laws, rules, regulations and culture of the colonies.
Next came the revolution where we ran those Bible thumping know it alls back across the pond and 100,000 more of them fled to Canada and elsewhere.
The new culture after we beat the British was a culture of government where MAN makes the laws and God does not influence the rights of man, THE CONSTITUTION dictates that.
And as a strong Christian I am glad that happened.

 

[Freewill]

Gay marriage explained:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igB0akHTMh0]Gay Marriage explained - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Gadawg73]

I happen to believe that Mommy has 2 mommies and literature like that is probably taught to kids at too early an age but the bottom line to us good ole boys down here in the deep south is that the message is still the same. All through history there have been families where there were 2 mommies. The difference is they do not have to hide it anymore. And kids need to know they are out there and the kids should not be stigmatized because of it.
But I fully understand how bigots have a hard time understanding this. That is why I support teaching their kids what is the right way to treat their fellow man be they gay or straight.
My grandmother was a strong Christian woman, she taught us right.

 

[Gadawg73]

Are you going to tell me that MILITANT Homosexuals, Subversive, Amnesty pushers, abortionists, etc. aren't all joined at the hip? They don't all follow the drum beat of CULTURAL CHANGE?

Abortion was legal in this country when it was founded and up until the last 1800s.
But you are right the culture changed.
It changed from a colony that was run by the monarchy of England with the mandate of divine right of the monarchy. Anyone that opposed the crown was considered a sinner and should be condemned. Divine right of the monarchy was given to the Kings of Europe by God and God only was the culture.
The founders changed that culture of religion running government and wrote the Constitution, a document of LAWS that never mentions God, Jesus or any supreme being.
And a few times since the Founders ran religion out of government we have had to deal with the uninformed religious right that want to change the culture back the way it was before this country was founded.
But the rule of law and the Constitution wins every time over theocratic rule.

Following English law, abortion was legal in the American colonies until the time of “quickening” in the fetus, when the baby started to move, usually around the fourth month of pregnancy.

Being I'm an agnostic I see the foaming hatred of an atheist! The Founder were all believes in a creator, they even wrote it into our Declaration of Independence which acknowledges a Creator as the source of the unalienable rights that governments are formed to secure. This acknowledgement was the very foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

No we want to call MURDER of an unborn, just that, and have enacted The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb! This DOES APPLY to the zygote!

But since I've schooled you on some of your BS, want to get back to the topic, instead of diverting?

I am Christian, my ancestors date to 1680 when the Terhunes arrived. Captain Jacob Terhune fought for our freedom from the British, was a Judge and was a member of the Anglican church, as most were at that time. My ancestors were abolitionists in up state NY and ran underground railroad for runaway slaves through Maine to Canada.
NO one was ever prosecuted for any abortion in colonial times, what you speak of was in the French dominated colonies. And in the south they did what they wanted to.
The topic is religion in government and I oppose it and you support it.
I defend the Constitution as the law here and you hold up your Bible.
They do it your way in Iran and all Muslim countries. Delta is ready when you are.

 

[Seawytch]

I happen to believe that Mommy has 2 mommies and literature like that is probably taught to kids at too early an age but the bottom line to us good ole boys down here in the deep south is that the message is still the same. All through history there have been families where there were 2 mommies. The difference is they do not have to hide it anymore. And kids need to know they are out there and the kids should not be stigmatized because of it.
But I fully understand how bigots have a hard time understanding this. That is why I support teaching their kids what is the right way to treat their fellow man be they gay or straight.
My grandmother was a strong Christian woman, she taught us right.

Heather has Two Mommies is just a children's story. It doesn't "teach" anything. Nobody is "too young" to know that some people have "Mommies and Daddies" and some people have "Two Mommies" or "Two Daddies". Children get it.