Judge strikes down Pennsylvania law barring gay marriage

[Silhouette]

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?

No, because blacks are a race of people and gays are members of a behavioral cult. Compusive or not, they are still behaviors... And that has huge implications for American law if a precedent is set. Because what compulsive behaviors will you be able to regulate in the penal and civil codes if they are deemed "born that way"? Would it not be oppressive then to ban pedophiles from the objects of their affection, given that their orientation is set? Or polygamists? Or incestuous pairs, triads, etc?

Get it now? And why "just" LGBT?...

 

[WorldWatcher]

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?

No, because blacks are a race of people and gays are members of a behavioral cult. Compusive or not, they are still behaviors... And that has huge implications for American law if a precedent is set. Because what compulsive behaviors will you be able to regulate in the penal and civil codes if they are deemed "born that way"? Would it not be oppressive then to ban pedophiles from the objects of their affection, given that their orientation is set? Or polygamists? Or incestuous pairs, triads, etc?

Get it now? And why "just" LGBT?...

Precedence was already set.

#1 Religion is a behavior.

#2 The court found in favor of the Loving's, blacks could still marry blacks and whites could still marry whites. It was the behavior of blacks marrying whites that was illegal and unconstitutional.

#2 Romer v. Evans, Colorado's attempt to target Homosexuals to deny them equal treatment under the law - unconstitutional.

#4 Lawrence v. Texas baring the behavior of sodomy was found unconstitutional.​

>>>>
>>>>

 

[g5000]

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?

No, because blacks are a race of people and gays are members of a behavioral cult. Compusive or not, they are still behaviors... And that has huge implications for American law if a precedent is set. Because what compulsive behaviors will you be able to regulate in the penal and civil codes if they are deemed "born that way"? Would it not be oppressive then to ban pedophiles from the objects of their affection, given that their orientation is set? Or polygamists? Or incestuous pairs, triads, etc?

Get it now? And why "just" LGBT?...

I can provide rational reasons for banning pedophiles from marrying kids. You cannot provide rational reasons for banning two people of the same gender from marrying.

So I guess you STILL don't get it.

 

[Peach]

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?

No, because blacks are a race of people and gays are members of a behavioral cult. Compusive or not, they are still behaviors... And that has huge implications for American law if a precedent is set. Because what compulsive behaviors will you be able to regulate in the penal and civil codes if they are deemed "born that way"? Would it not be oppressive then to ban pedophiles from the objects of their affection, given that their orientation is set? Or polygamists? Or incestuous pairs, triads, etc?

Get it now? And why "just" LGBT?...

Behavioral cult? It is a genetic difference, nothing more.

 

[bodecea]

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?

No, because blacks are a race of people and gays are members of a behavioral cult. Compusive or not, they are still behaviors... And that has huge implications for American law if a precedent is set. Because what compulsive behaviors will you be able to regulate in the penal and civil codes if they are deemed "born that way"? Would it not be oppressive then to ban pedophiles from the objects of their affection, given that their orientation is set? Or polygamists? Or incestuous pairs, triads, etc?

Get it now? And why "just" LGBT?...

Belief in a religion is a behavior too...apparently our Founders thought behaviors were worthy of equal protection as well.

 

[bodecea]

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?

No, because blacks are a race of people and gays are members of a behavioral cult. Compusive or not, they are still behaviors... And that has huge implications for American law if a precedent is set. Because what compulsive behaviors will you be able to regulate in the penal and civil codes if they are deemed "born that way"? Would it not be oppressive then to ban pedophiles from the objects of their affection, given that their orientation is set? Or polygamists? Or incestuous pairs, triads, etc?

Get it now? And why "just" LGBT?...

I can provide rational reasons for banning pedophiles from marrying kids. You cannot provide rational reasons for banning two people of the same gender from marrying.

So I guess you STILL don't get it.

What's scary is he doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between the two.

 

[g5000]

No, because blacks are a race of people and gays are members of a behavioral cult. Compusive or not, they are still behaviors... And that has huge implications for American law if a precedent is set. Because what compulsive behaviors will you be able to regulate in the penal and civil codes if they are deemed "born that way"? Would it not be oppressive then to ban pedophiles from the objects of their affection, given that their orientation is set? Or polygamists? Or incestuous pairs, triads, etc?

Get it now? And why "just" LGBT?...

I can provide rational reasons for banning pedophiles from marrying kids. You cannot provide rational reasons for banning two people of the same gender from marrying.

So I guess you STILL don't get it.

What's scary is he doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between the two.

It never fails. In every topic about gay marriage, the bigots have this pathological compulsion to bring up pedophiles and incest and bestiality. I've never seen a topic where they have not. They have this bizarre obsession with sex and its most deviant variations.

The want to make this about sex, and they fail to see this issue is not about sex.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

There is no God.

So now that we settled that, let's talk about "rights'.

Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".

What you have are privileges the rest of society thinks you should have, even somewhat begrudgingly.

Most people might think abortion as birth control is wrong, but few of them are willing to back up what they say by making women' wards of the state when they get pregnant or shell out the kind of big bucks a real European Style Welfare State would require.

So begrudgingly, most people may not like abortion, but except for the 6% of the population who are religious lunatics, they accept it goes on.

For gay marriage, the reason why society is begrudging allowing it is because there is no compelling logical reason for it.

Most anti-gay arguments are 'God says it's wrong" and "I think it's icky".

These aren't arguments.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

No, because blacks are a race of people and gays are members of a behavioral cult. Compusive or not, they are still behaviors... And that has huge implications for American law if a precedent is set. Because what compulsive behaviors will you be able to regulate in the penal and civil codes if they are deemed "born that way"? Would it not be oppressive then to ban pedophiles from the objects of their affection, given that their orientation is set? Or polygamists? Or incestuous pairs, triads, etc?

Get it now? And why "just" LGBT?...

Okay, so by your same logic, we can declare certain religions as "cults" and ban them, then? I nominate Mormonism.



Yes, it would not be oppressive to ban pedophiles because children can't offer consent. But here's your problem. You whine all day that Harvey Milk had the butt sex with that 16 year old.

But if that was a 16 year old in any of the green states, it wouldn't be an issue.



And if you want to talk about incest. Hmmm. Okay.

The states in green and orange are states where you can marry your first cousin. You can marry your second cousin in almost all states.

So much for the "this will lead to incest". Incest has already crossed the finish line.

Now on to polygamists and triads.

You know, a lot of men are already in triads. One is called "The Wife" and the other is called "The Mistress".

 

[deltex1]

[/quote

Dats wha it bees all abow....yowsa!

 

[Silhouette]

The states in green and orange are states where you can marry your first cousin. You can marry your second cousin in almost all states.

So much for the "this will lead to incest". Incest has already crossed the finish line.

Now on to polygamists and triads.

You know, a lot of men are already in triads. One is called "The Wife" and the other is called "The Mistress".

Sounds wholesome. Can't wait to teach the kids how "healthy" that is..

I think Utah sure has a case. Pretty sure the Supreme Court isn't going to force polygamy on them. So there's one of your snags...

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

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.

Well, there is a test, once widespread.
Lawriter - ORC - 3101.06 Denying license.

No marriage license shall be granted when either of the applicants is under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or controlled substance or is infected with syphilis in a form that is communicable or likely to become communicable.​

So if one has syphilis in Ohio, no go on the nuptials. Nor if one is drunk. Nor if one is drunk and has syphilis.

You're correct, citizens have a right to marry, though there are limits imposed on that right.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

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?

No, marriage can't work like a "privilege" like your driver's license. Your claim suggests the state should institute a Department of Marital Vicissitudes to "register" all marriages, "inspect" all marriages from time to time, and with the authority to "revoke" any marriage.

Sounds kinda silly, don't it?

That marriage is a right is well established in caselaw.

 

[JoeB131]

The states in green and orange are states where you can marry your first cousin. You can marry your second cousin in almost all states.

So much for the "this will lead to incest". Incest has already crossed the finish line.

Now on to polygamists and triads.

You know, a lot of men are already in triads. One is called "The Wife" and the other is called "The Mistress".

Sounds wholesome. Can't wait to teach the kids how "healthy" that is..

I think Utah sure has a case. Pretty sure the Supreme Court isn't going to force polygamy on them. So there's one of your snags...

Meh, I just can't get worked up about Polygamy.

If a guy is that much of a masochist, I say let him do it.

 

[Gadawg73]

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"...

Harvey Milk has been dead how long now?
Your team murdered him.
How does gay marriage equate to the "sexual exploitation of minors"?

 

[Seawytch]

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"...

Harvey Milk has been dead how long now?

Your team murdered him.

How does gay marriage equate to the "sexual exploitation of minors"?

It doesn't...which is why Sil and all the others that equate them should be ignored.

 

[Silhouette]

Harvey Milk has been dead how long now?

Your team murdered him.

How does gay marriage equate to the "sexual exploitation of minors"?

It doesn't...which is why Sil and all the others that equate them should be ignored.

Then why hasn't the LGBT cult dethroned Harvey Milk as their icon, instead of issuing a postage stamp with a rainbow "USA" on it next to his mug shot?

 

[bodecea]

Harvey Milk has been dead how long now?

Your team murdered him.

How does gay marriage equate to the "sexual exploitation of minors"?

It doesn't...which is why Sil and all the others that equate them should be ignored.

Then why hasn't the LGBT cult dethroned Harvey Milk as their icon, instead of issuing a postage stamp with a rainbow "USA" on it next to his mug shot?

You poor baby....a gay man on a postage stamp....the horror! All letters will now turn gay!

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Well, there is a test, once widespread.
Lawriter - ORC - 3101.06 Denying license.

No marriage license shall be granted when either of the applicants is under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or controlled substance or is infected with syphilis in a form that is communicable or likely to become communicable.​

So if one has syphilis in Ohio, no go on the nuptials. Nor if one is drunk. Nor if one is drunk and has syphilis.

You're correct, citizens have a right to marry, though there are limits imposed on that right.

A drunk with syphilis who is gay would also be denied.

 

[Gadawg73]

Harvey Milk has been dead how long now?

Your team murdered him.

How does gay marriage equate to the "sexual exploitation of minors"?

It doesn't...which is why Sil and all the others that equate them should be ignored.

Then why hasn't the LGBT cult dethroned Harvey Milk as their icon, instead of issuing a postage stamp with a rainbow "USA" on it next to his mug shot?

Hey man, let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
I am a 59 year old former football playing, current beer swillin, tobacco chewing, flannel shirt wearing, huntin, fishin. 4 wheelin, jet skiin, beard wearing, gun totin, fiscal conservative supportin, country boy done very good that is a straight heterosexual white male with 3 grown children.
I ain't part of any "LBGT cult" and know the difference between shit and shinola. Played many a downs between the lines against some of the best. Have been shot at, beat up and left for dead.
True defenders of liberty and freedom always seek to protect the rights of those they may despise the most.
And I do not despise gay folk, in fact the ones I know are some of the most hard working, honest and civil people I know.
But if I did hate them I would still be first in line defending their rights.
That is what separates me from those that take their freedom for granted.