Judge strikes down Pennsylvania law barring gay marriage

[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.

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.

My point is that when kids are young they are taught to read first and that is hard enough as it is without attaching other facts in with it.
I have no problem with it but why not wait until they understand what is going on?
Why not the 3 Little Pigs and such?
Plenty of time later to let them know the makeup of the families in their communities.

 

[Freewill]

Fundamentally the whole Gay marriage discussion comes down to the liberals belief in God. Abortion is the same.

Why? Because the liberals speak of "rights" which are not spelled out anywhere in our founding documents. Where did the founders say we derive our rights? Well from the DOI: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So if abortion or Gay marriage is a "right" then where did this "right" derive?

If the argument is that they derived from God then my point is proven.

If the argument is that they are defined by man then what man gets to decide those rights? If man gets to decide then man can decide that Gay marriage or abortion is not a right. Which has been the popular decision when left to the people in the form of referendum or state legislatures.

But apparently rights are not something for the majority to determine or even the represented majority to determine.

 

[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.

My point is that when kids are young they are taught to read first and that is hard enough as it is without attaching other facts in with it.
I have no problem with it but why not wait until they understand what is going on?
Why not the 3 Little Pigs and such?
Plenty of time later to let them know the makeup of the families in their communities.

My kids went to Kindergarten and preschool. Was that too young for the other kids to learn that they had two Moms? That's the youngest any kid not raised in a gay household is going to be read this book. Even at that age, "some people like boys and some people like girls" isn't going to confuse them.

 

[Seawytch]

Fundamentally the whole Gay marriage discussion comes down to the liberals belief in God. Abortion is the same.

Why? Because the liberals speak of "rights" which are not spelled out anywhere in our founding documents. Where did the founders say we derive our rights? Well from the DOI: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So if abortion or Gay marriage is a "right" then where did this "right" derive?

If the argument is that they derived from God then my point is proven.

If the argument is that they are defined by man then what man gets to decide those rights? If man gets to decide then man can decide that Gay marriage or abortion is not a right. Which has been the popular decision when left to the people in the form of referendum or state legislatures.

But apparently rights are not something for the majority to determine or even the represented majority to determine.

Sorry, but god wasn't invited to this conversation and has nothing to do with civil marriage.

 

[jillian]

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.

My point is that when kids are young they are taught to read first and that is hard enough as it is without attaching other facts in with it.
I have no problem with it but why not wait until they understand what is going on?
Why not the 3 Little Pigs and such?
Plenty of time later to let them know the makeup of the families in their communities.

I thought handing my kid Rainbow Fish to read was a heck of a lot worse than heather has too mommy's.

 

[Freewill]

Fundamentally the whole Gay marriage discussion comes down to the liberals belief in God. Abortion is the same.

Why? Because the liberals speak of "rights" which are not spelled out anywhere in our founding documents. Where did the founders say we derive our rights? Well from the DOI: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So if abortion or Gay marriage is a "right" then where did this "right" derive?

If the argument is that they derived from God then my point is proven.

If the argument is that they are defined by man then what man gets to decide those rights? If man gets to decide then man can decide that Gay marriage or abortion is not a right. Which has been the popular decision when left to the people in the form of referendum or state legislatures.

But apparently rights are not something for the majority to determine or even the represented majority to determine.

Sorry, but god wasn't invited to this conversation and has nothing to do with civil marriage.

Ok, then, we the people should then get to decide, right? Or is the only decision allowed is what YOU think?

 

[Seawytch]

I think Bambi, with the the brutal slaying of Bambi's mother, is more traumatic to a kid than finding out that some families have two moms or two dads.

 

[Seawytch]

Fundamentally the whole Gay marriage discussion comes down to the liberals belief in God. Abortion is the same.

Why? Because the liberals speak of "rights" which are not spelled out anywhere in our founding documents. Where did the founders say we derive our rights? Well from the DOI: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So if abortion or Gay marriage is a "right" then where did this "right" derive?

If the argument is that they derived from God then my point is proven.

If the argument is that they are defined by man then what man gets to decide those rights? If man gets to decide then man can decide that Gay marriage or abortion is not a right. Which has been the popular decision when left to the people in the form of referendum or state legislatures.

But apparently rights are not something for the majority to determine or even the represented majority to determine.

Sorry, but god wasn't invited to this conversation and has nothing to do with civil marriage.

Ok, then, we the people should then get to decide, right? Or is the only decision allowed is what YOU think?

People should get to decide what, if they want to marry someone of the same sex? Yes, people should get to decide that and their marriages should be treated equally under the law. Churches will always get to decide if they want to perform a ceremony for a couple.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

My point is that when kids are young they are taught to read first and that is hard enough as it is without attaching other facts in with it.
I have no problem with it but why not wait until they understand what is going on?
Why not the 3 Little Pigs and such?
Plenty of time later to let them know the makeup of the families in their communities.

My kids went to Kindergarten and preschool. Was that too young for the other kids to learn that they had two Moms? That's the youngest any kid not raised in a gay household is going to be read this book. Even at that age, "some people like boys and some people like girls" isn't going to confuse them.

I am A OK with that. The problem is that young kids some of the time are hearing their parents opinion on this.
And throwing in a competing fact, well to me the only true fact, only confuses them more.
Not saying that is right, but that is a fact.
I have no problem with you raising kids and commend you for doing so.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ok, then, we the people should then get to decide, right? Or is the only decision allowed is what YOU think?

We did decide, we incorporated the fundamental concept that ALL citizens should enjoy the equal protections of the law and that discriminatory laws should not be enacted that target citizens for unequal treatment for capricious and invidious reasons.

Now if "we the people" want to change that fundamental concept of American jurisprudence, we can do that. Simply pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitutoin that reads: "Homposexuals are not included in the before mentioned equal protections and due process provisions."



Get 2/3rd's of both houses of Congress to agree and than 3/4's of the states and that should do it.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

We did decide, we incorporated the fundamental concept that ALL citizens should enjoy the equal protections of the law and that discriminatory laws should not be enacted that target citizens for unequal treatment for capricious and invidious reasons.

Now if "we the people" want to change that fundamental concept of American jurisprudence, we can do that. Simply pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitutoin that reads: "Homposexuals are not included in the before mentioned equal protections and due process provisions."



Get 2/3rd's of both houses of Congress to agree and than 3/4's of the states and that should do it.



>>>>

Marriage isnt a right, it's a privelege; like driving. Blind people cannot drive. Should they use the 14th to sue in the US Supreme Court for the "right" to drive?

Men cannot use women's shower rooms and vice versa; it's an exclusive privelege. Using those rooms is not a "right". Should they use the 14th to sue in the US Supreme Court for the "right" to use opposite gender bathrooms?

Polygamists, incest and minor people who want to marry can't access that privelege. Will they use any potential US Supreme Court decision to sue for the "right" to marry?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We did decide, we incorporated the fundamental concept that ALL citizens should enjoy the equal protections of the law and that discriminatory laws should not be enacted that target citizens for unequal treatment for capricious and invidious reasons.

Now if "we the people" want to change that fundamental concept of American jurisprudence, we can do that. Simply pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitutoin that reads: "Homposexuals are not included in the before mentioned equal protections and due process provisions."



Get 2/3rd's of both houses of Congress to agree and than 3/4's of the states and that should do it.



>>>>

Marriage isnt a right, it's a privelege; like driving. Blind people cannot drive. Should they use the 14th to sue in the US Supreme Court for the "right" to drive?

Men cannot use women's shower rooms and vice versa; it's an exclusive privelege. Using those rooms is not a "right". Should they use the 14th to sue in the US Supreme Court for the "right" to use opposite gender bathrooms?

Polygamists, incest and minor people who want to marry can't access that privelege. Will they use any potential US Supreme Court decision to sue for the "right" to marry?

Equal before the Law isn't a privilege.

 

[WorldWatcher]

We did decide, we incorporated the fundamental concept that ALL citizens should enjoy the equal protections of the law and that discriminatory laws should not be enacted that target citizens for unequal treatment for capricious and invidious reasons.

Now if "we the people" want to change that fundamental concept of American jurisprudence, we can do that. Simply pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitutoin that reads: "Homposexuals are not included in the before mentioned equal protections and due process provisions."



Get 2/3rd's of both houses of Congress to agree and than 3/4's of the states and that should do it.



>>>>

Marriage isnt a right, it's a privelege; like driving. Blind people cannot drive. Should they use the 14th to sue in the US Supreme Court for the "right" to drive?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.​

Whether you consider it a "right" or a privilege is pretty irrelevant. States can't capriciously or invidiously deny privileges either. Your opinion not withstanding, the SCOTUS has referred to Civil Marraige as a right multiple times including: Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin, Turner v Safley, and about a dozen other cases.


Actually blind people can drive, they just have to do it in their own vehcile on private property. The Drivers License is for operation of a motor-vehicle on public roads. If challenged the State would have to provide a compelling government interest in preventing blind people from operating a multi-ton vehicle on public roads. Which presenting a clear and present danger to other motorists and pedestrians is.

There is no compelling governent interest though in treating like situated couples differently. In this case like situated couples includes law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, consenting, adults in different-sex couples and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, consenting, adults in same-sex couples.

Men cannot use women's shower rooms and vice versa; it's an exclusive privelege. Using those rooms is not a "right". Should they use the 14th to sue in the US Supreme Court for the "right" to use opposite gender bathrooms?

They could try but they'd loose. The law has general applicability, not the case in marriage where some are allowed and some are denied.

Polygamists, incest and minor people who want to marry can't access that privelege. Will they use any potential US Supreme Court decision to sue for the "right" to marry?

Each would have to present their case and in each case the government would have to provide a compelling government reason. Pretty easy in the case of polygamy and incest.

You might want to check your fact on "minors", minors can already marry in many states - for example in New Hampshire a girl as young as 13 can get Civilly Married and then travel to any other state and it's valid.

Courtney Stodden was 16 when she married Doug Hutchison. Hutchison was 51 at the time.



>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

We did decide, we incorporated the fundamental concept that ALL citizens should enjoy the equal protections of the law and that discriminatory laws should not be enacted that target citizens for unequal treatment for capricious and invidious reasons.

Now if "we the people" want to change that fundamental concept of American jurisprudence, we can do that. Simply pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitutoin that reads: "Homposexuals are not included in the before mentioned equal protections and due process provisions."



Get 2/3rd's of both houses of Congress to agree and than 3/4's of the states and that should do it.



>>>>

Marriage isnt a right, it's a privelege; like driving. Blind people cannot drive. Should they use the 14th to sue in the US Supreme Court for the "right" to drive?

Men cannot use women's shower rooms and vice versa; it's an exclusive privelege. Using those rooms is not a "right". Should they use the 14th to sue in the US Supreme Court for the "right" to use opposite gender bathrooms?

Polygamists, incest and minor people who want to marry can't access that privelege. Will they use any potential US Supreme Court decision to sue for the "right" to marry?

LOL, no one has to take a test to get married.
Your analogies are not valid.
Murderers and rapists are allowed to marry.
Citizens have a right to marry, there is no test.

 

[NLT]

 

[Silhouette]

As soon as activist judges and the Lavender gestapo take their jackboots off the necks of sovereign voters, christians, citizens and business people in the respective states, we'll get right on that.

Until then, get used to it.. Oh, and as a plus, you might want to dethrone that pedophile Harvey Milk that the LGBT cult is all about worshipping the sexuality of. People tend to get chatty about a topic when it involves the sexual exploitation of minors...and gaining access to orphaned minors via a new definition of "marriage"...

 

[g5000]

We did decide, we incorporated the fundamental concept that ALL citizens should enjoy the equal protections of the law and that discriminatory laws should not be enacted that target citizens for unequal treatment for capricious and invidious reasons.

Now if "we the people" want to change that fundamental concept of American jurisprudence, we can do that. Simply pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitutoin that reads: "Homposexuals are not included in the before mentioned equal protections and due process provisions."



Get 2/3rd's of both houses of Congress to agree and than 3/4's of the states and that should do it.



>>>>

Marriage isnt a right, it's a privelege; like driving. Blind people cannot drive. Should they use the 14th to sue in the US Supreme Court for the "right" to drive?

Men cannot use women's shower rooms and vice versa; it's an exclusive privelege. Using those rooms is not a "right". Should they use the 14th to sue in the US Supreme Court for the "right" to use opposite gender bathrooms?

Polygamists, incest and minor people who want to marry can't access that privelege. Will they use any potential US Supreme Court decision to sue for the "right" to marry?

Zoooooom! That's the sound of the point going right over your head.

Banning gays from the equal protections of the marriage laws would be like banning blacks from getting drivers licenses.

Get it now?

If we banned blacks from getting drivers licenses, there would always be some clueless dipshit like you saying, "Drivers licenses are not a right!" or other ignorant dipshits like you demanding, "Show me in the Constitution where drivers licenses are a right!"

Equal protection of the laws. Grow a few brain cells so you can grasp what that means.

 

[g5000]

There are state and federal laws which protect marriage.

This isn't that hard to figure out when you really want to, people.

 

[bodecea]

As soon as activist judges and the Lavender gestapo take their jackboots off the necks of sovereign voters, christians, citizens and business people in the respective states, we'll get right on that.

Until then, get used to it.. Oh, and as a plus, you might want to dethrone that pedophile Harvey Milk that the LGBT cult is all about worshipping the sexuality of. People tend to get chatty about a topic when it involves the sexual exploitation of minors...and gaining access to orphaned minors via a new definition of "marriage"...

Again...when you cannot even tell the difference between pedophilia and statutory rape...why would anyone here take your posts seriously?

 

[Peach]

Ok, then, we the people should then get to decide, right? Or is the only decision allowed is what YOU think?

We did decide, we incorporated the fundamental concept that ALL citizens should enjoy the equal protections of the law and that discriminatory laws should not be enacted that target citizens for unequal treatment for capricious and invidious reasons.

Now if "we the people" want to change that fundamental concept of American jurisprudence, we can do that. Simply pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitutoin that reads: "Homposexuals are not included in the before mentioned equal protections and due process provisions."



Get 2/3rd's of both houses of Congress to agree and than 3/4's of the states and that should do it.



>>>>

That would be the end of the Constitution.