Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Quantum Windbag]

Why did Barry Goldwater call for open service in the military long ago if "it was not illegal for homosexuals to join the military".
We have a friend of the family that was an interpreter in Germany and he was thrown out under DADT for CHATTING WITH A GAY MAN ON LINE, never had met him. No sex involved. He stated "yes, I am gay" and he was booted out.
You people need to quit the BS.
Do you folks believe that only gay folks humping each other in the shower in the barracks were THE ONLY HOMOSEXUALS banned from the military?
I am sure some right wing blog somewhere told you that as your talking points but it is false.
Go with what the law is.

Because, unlike you, he thought the government didn't have any business regulating sexual behavior.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're just a glass half full kinda guy. From where I'm sitting, things look spectacular for marriage equality. Within a couple of years there will be more states falling in line with the Constitution and honoring the 14th Amendment, plus I'm betting Section II of DOMA will be gone and the anti gay states won't matter. This is even if the SCOTUS never hears a case on a state's anti gay marriage law.

Geez, all you have to do is look at the trend in the last for years to know its not looking good for the haters and homophobes.

Ten years ago I would have shrugged and argued to replace the term marriage in federal and state laws with civil unions, and or argued to make the term marriage inclusive of civil unions in the eyes of the law. Now however, after further review, I'm on the side of an amendment, an act of congress extending civil rights laws, or a SCOTUS decision that ensures the right to life and liberty covers the right to marriage for all citizens irregardless of sexual orientation. The bigotry against gays needs to go the way of the bigotry against blacks. Just because the majority can act like a tyrant does not justify the tyrannical acts said majority wields on minority groups.

I used to be a bigot against gays. Then I was one of those that claimed I wasn't and likened to giving them any rights to allowing incest and sex with donkeys.
When I gave all of that nonsense I found that treating them the same and giving them the rights and respect they deserve is so much easier to carry. And made many a new friend along the way.
If a southern bred straight country boy done good like me can come around anyone can.
And that is my mission here. If JUST ONE changes like I did my work has been done.

You used to be an asshole, and you think being an idiot is an improvement.

You are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Most of the lawyers on K Street in D.C. are lobbyists for large corporations and other countries.
Would be hard pressed to find a liberal cause in one out of every fifty clients they represent.

You're seriously arguing that liberal groups don't lobby congress?

Where did I say that?
Most of the lawyers on K Street are lobbyists that lobby for foreign companies, countries and American companies.
If you do not know that, sorry about that but your lack of knowledge of the facts is not my fault.
Liberal groups probably make 1-5% of groups in lobbying power on The Hill.
Money talks and their bull shit walks.
All I do is post the facts and I never said liberal groups don't lobby Congress.
You pulled that one out of your hat. Liberals have little lobbying power on The Hill.
They do their work with the voters that vote themselves paychecks.

Keep telling yourself that.

Do you also believe the moon landing was faked?

 

[Gadawg73]

I know what it means. I still insist that it was never illegal to be a homosexual and join the military.

Has it ever been illegal "to be heterosexual and join the military"?
NO, but the law was as I posted verbatim if one WAS homosexual they COULD NOT JOIN THE ARMED FORCES.
Gave it to you verbatim and you ignore it.
Want me to post it again as it says NOTHING ABOUT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, just HOMOSEXUAL.

You did not post any suck law because it never existed.

Here it is again:

Military LAW was forever in the regulations

It was Regulation 615-360 Section 8

Then it went to as Military LAW:
"HOMOSEXUALITY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH MILITARY SERVICE"
NOTHING ABOUT SEX, if you violated it you were dishonorably dishcarged UNDER MILITATY LAW regulated to the Department of Defense to dictate policy.

Then it went into law as:
INTENT to be homosexual was THE LAW.

10USC654 Public Law103-160

 

[Gadawg73]

Ten years ago I would have shrugged and argued to replace the term marriage in federal and state laws with civil unions, and or argued to make the term marriage inclusive of civil unions in the eyes of the law. Now however, after further review, I'm on the side of an amendment, an act of congress extending civil rights laws, or a SCOTUS decision that ensures the right to life and liberty covers the right to marriage for all citizens irregardless of sexual orientation. The bigotry against gays needs to go the way of the bigotry against blacks. Just because the majority can act like a tyrant does not justify the tyrannical acts said majority wields on minority groups.

I used to be a bigot against gays. Then I was one of those that claimed I wasn't and likened to giving them any rights to allowing incest and sex with donkeys.
When I gave all of that nonsense I found that treating them the same and giving them the rights and respect they deserve is so much easier to carry. And made many a new friend along the way.
If a southern bred straight country boy done good like me can come around anyone can.
And that is my mission here. If JUST ONE changes like I did my work has been done.

You used to be an asshole, and you think being an idiot is an improvement.

You are wrong.

You are an angry old unhappy man.
I pity you.

 

[Gadawg73]

Why did Barry Goldwater call for open service in the military long ago if "it was not illegal for homosexuals to join the military".
We have a friend of the family that was an interpreter in Germany and he was thrown out under DADT for CHATTING WITH A GAY MAN ON LINE, never had met him. No sex involved. He stated "yes, I am gay" and he was booted out.
You people need to quit the BS.
Do you folks believe that only gay folks humping each other in the shower in the barracks were THE ONLY HOMOSEXUALS banned from the military?
I am sure some right wing blog somewhere told you that as your talking points but it is false.
Go with what the law is.

Because, unlike you, he thought the government didn't have any business regulating sexual behavior.

Golfwater despised you religious right clowns.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Simple, let states decide the definition of marriage. Keep the Federal Government out of it.

Sounds good.

Provided the states recognize the equal protection rights of same-sex couples and allow them access to marriage law, however a given state might write that law.

In fact, no state need ever again be bothered by a Federal court provided it obeys the Constitution and its case law.

Now that is indeed simple.

 

[The Rabbi]

Simple, let states decide the definition of marriage. Keep the Federal Government out of it.

Sounds good.

Provided the states recognize the equal protection rights of same-sex couples and allow them access to marriage law, however a given state might write that law.

In fact, no state need ever again be bothered by a Federal court provided it obeys the Constitution and its case law.

Now that is indeed simple.

You mean like the 10th Amendment that delegates to the states powers not granted to the Federal gov't? Among those powers the right to recognize marriages?
Dems are such simps.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Has it ever been illegal "to be heterosexual and join the military"?
NO, but the law was as I posted verbatim if one WAS homosexual they COULD NOT JOIN THE ARMED FORCES.
Gave it to you verbatim and you ignore it.
Want me to post it again as it says NOTHING ABOUT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, just HOMOSEXUAL.

You did not post any suck law because it never existed.

Here it is again:

Military LAW was forever in the regulations

It was Regulation 615-360 Section 8

Then it went to as Military LAW:
"HOMOSEXUALITY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH MILITARY SERVICE"
NOTHING ABOUT SEX, if you violated it you were dishonorably dishcarged UNDER MILITATY LAW regulated to the Department of Defense to dictate policy.

Then it went into law as:
INTENT to be homosexual was THE LAW.

10USC654 Public Law103-160

Thanks for proving me correct.

Let me educate you on why you are a complete idiot.

The section of the US code you cited does not have the force of law, it is a statement of policy.

§654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

(a) Findings.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(b) Policy.—A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

(c) Entry Standards and Documents.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the standards for enlistment and appointment of members of the armed forces reflect the policies set forth in subsection (b).
(2) The documents used to effectuate the enlistment or appointment of a person as a member of the armed forces shall set forth the provisions of subsection (b).
(d) Required Briefings.—The briefings that members of the armed forces receive upon entry into the armed forces and periodically thereafter under section 937 of this title (article 137 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) shall include a detailed explanation of the applicable laws and regulations governing sexual conduct by members of the armed forces, including the policies prescribed under subsection (b).
(e) Rule of Construction.—Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—
(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and
(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.

(f) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) The term “homosexual” means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms “gay” and “lesbian”.
(2) The term “bisexual” means a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual and heterosexual acts.
(3) The term “homosexual act” means—
(A) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and
(B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (A).
(Added Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §571(a)(1), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1670.)

U.S.C. Title 10 - ARMED FORCES

It was never illegal to be gay and join the military. So far all you have done is prove you have a hard time accepting the truth.

Every bit of military law is contained within the UCMJ, I already posted the portion of that to prove that the only thing they cared about criminalizing was sodomy, which is an act that can be done even if you are not gay.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I used to be a bigot against gays. Then I was one of those that claimed I wasn't and likened to giving them any rights to allowing incest and sex with donkeys.
When I gave all of that nonsense I found that treating them the same and giving them the rights and respect they deserve is so much easier to carry. And made many a new friend along the way.
If a southern bred straight country boy done good like me can come around anyone can.
And that is my mission here. If JUST ONE changes like I did my work has been done.

You used to be an asshole, and you think being an idiot is an improvement.

You are wrong.

You are an angry old unhappy man.
I pity you.

You are projecting again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why did Barry Goldwater call for open service in the military long ago if "it was not illegal for homosexuals to join the military".
We have a friend of the family that was an interpreter in Germany and he was thrown out under DADT for CHATTING WITH A GAY MAN ON LINE, never had met him. No sex involved. He stated "yes, I am gay" and he was booted out.
You people need to quit the BS.
Do you folks believe that only gay folks humping each other in the shower in the barracks were THE ONLY HOMOSEXUALS banned from the military?
I am sure some right wing blog somewhere told you that as your talking points but it is false.
Go with what the law is.

Because, unlike you, he thought the government didn't have any business regulating sexual behavior.

Golfwater despised you religious right clowns.

I am not a religious right clown, If I were you might have a chance to out smart me. I doubt it, but you might.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Look, there is something that you need to understand about me (and most likely) most folks of my age. I believe, with all my heart, that we ALL have an inherent RIGHT to happiness. I don't care what your political leanings are, I don't care what color you are, I don't care if you are straight or gay. I don't care if you are a man or a woman. life is short as hell and we ALL have a right to go through it with someone we love.

I have no problem whatsoever with civil unions for gay folks. Never have. What I have a problem is when gays DEMAND that "straight" folks accept their lifestyle and endorse it with "marriage". Again, it is nothing more than a stunt, perpetrated by outlandish behavior that seeks to destroy the institutions like the Church and the nuclear family.

I have no problem with Civil Unions...for heterosexual folks too. I do (and so do the courts) with separate but equal.

Again, no matter what gays do, they will ALWAYS be looked at as "pretenders" looking for validation for a perverse lifestyle that a very small segment of society indulges in. Conservatives, while turning a blind eye to your behavior, will never recognize your "marriages" as valid. They will ALWAYS look at them as "phony".

Get used to it.

You just stated your personal opinion and only yours. You might want to check the polls again and the breakdown. This isn't a partisan issue anymore because the gay kids of conservatives are coming out too.

Pretender at being normal. You are not.

Who wants to be normal? That is BORING!

 

[Gadawg73]

You did not post any suck law because it never existed.

Here it is again:

Military LAW was forever in the regulations

It was Regulation 615-360 Section 8

Then it went to as Military LAW:
"HOMOSEXUALITY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH MILITARY SERVICE"
NOTHING ABOUT SEX, if you violated it you were dishonorably dishcarged UNDER MILITATY LAW regulated to the Department of Defense to dictate policy.

Then it went into law as:
INTENT to be homosexual was THE LAW.

10USC654 Public Law103-160

Thanks for proving me correct.

Let me educate you on why you are a complete idiot.

The section of the US code you cited does not have the force of law, it is a statement of policy.

§654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

(a) Findings.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(b) Policy.—A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

(c) Entry Standards and Documents.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the standards for enlistment and appointment of members of the armed forces reflect the policies set forth in subsection (b).
(2) The documents used to effectuate the enlistment or appointment of a person as a member of the armed forces shall set forth the provisions of subsection (b).
(d) Required Briefings.—The briefings that members of the armed forces receive upon entry into the armed forces and periodically thereafter under section 937 of this title (article 137 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) shall include a detailed explanation of the applicable laws and regulations governing sexual conduct by members of the armed forces, including the policies prescribed under subsection (b).
(e) Rule of Construction.—Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—
(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and
(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.

(f) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) The term “homosexual” means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms “gay” and “lesbian”.
(2) The term “bisexual” means a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual and heterosexual acts.
(3) The term “homosexual act” means—
(A) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and
(B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (A).
(Added Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §571(a)(1), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1670.)

U.S.C. Title 10 - ARMED FORCES

It was never illegal to be gay and join the military. So far all you have done is prove you have a hard time accepting the truth.

Every bit of military law is contained within the UCMJ, I already posted the portion of that to prove that the only thing they cared about criminalizing was sodomy, which is an act that can be done even if you are not gay.

The LAW delegates to how many bureaucrats the power to make how many thousands of rules, regulations and policies?
My state licensing board makes many rules for my license. Those rules ARE NOT IN THE LAW. The statute gives them the authority to MAKE THE RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES. All enforceable by THE LAW.
THE LAW gives the bureaucrats the authority to force the solicitor in any county in Georgia to charge ME WITH A CRIME if I disobey the rules, regulations and policies THE BUREAUCRATS WRITE which most are not in the law.
SAME with the military as THE LAW gives the DOD the power to MAKE AND ENFORCE THE POLICIES.
And the POLICY was NOT to enlist any homosexuals if they WERE HOMOSEXUAL and then it went to dishonorable discharges under the POLICY if they had "an intent to to engage in homosexuality" which was THE POLICY VERBATIM under DADT.
How does your sodomy law apply to recruits?
How is "intent" sodomy and what does intent mean?
Furthermore, there IS NO RIGHT to serve in the military so DOD is allowed by THE LAW to determine who they BELIEVE IS SUITABLE for their purposes by THEIR OWN POLICIES.
Policies, rules and regulations SUPPORTED BY LAW that gives them the authority to make them as they see fit as long as they are NOT SPECIFICALLY IN THE LAW.
You are not very swift.

 

[Seawytch]

I know what it means. I still insist that it was never illegal to be a homosexual and join the military.

You are wrong. A gay person could get kicked out of the military simply for stating they were gay. They needn't to have had sex at all, just the admission of sexual orientation was enough.

It wasn't the "sex act" that would get you kicked out...obvious by the number of straights who got their knob polished or packed some lady fudge while in uniform.

It was "illegal" to "be" gay, not just have sex with a member of the same sex. You could get kicked out without ever having had sex with a member of the same sex.

Getting discharged from the military is not proof of criminal wrong doing. It was never illegal to be gay and be in the military, you can argue all day long, it will not change that basic truth.

The basic truth is you could be discharged if you never had sex and simply stated that you were gay...or had it found out or even rumored in the witch hunt days.

 

[Seawytch]

If they can be offended by Christians, we can be offended by homosexuality, polygamy and incest. It's only fair.

Except "they" aren't offended by Christians. Many of "them" are Christians. "They" are offended by people who use their religion to justify bigotry, but that's all. It's not a blanket condemnation of ALL Christians as you do to ALL gays.

I hate to point out the obvious, but anyone who doesn't follow the teachings of Jesus is not a Christian, even if they believe they are.

And Jesus said what about gays?

 

[Seawytch]

Simple, let states decide the definition of marriage. Keep the Federal Government out of it.

The Federal Government got themselves involved when they passed DOMA. They are in it.

 

[Gadawg73]

I keep hearing the argument "It is not they do not want homosexuals it is they do not want homosexuals that have engaged in homosexual sexual relations"
as if that homosexual is sort of not a homosexual or less of one.
As if heterosexuals that do not engage in heterosexual sex are not really heterosexuals.

 

[Gadawg73]

Because, unlike you, he thought the government didn't have any business regulating sexual behavior.

Golfwater despised you religious right clowns.

I am not a religious right clown, If I were you might have a chance to out smart me. I doubt it, but you might.

OK, I stand corrected on that.
I do not claim to out smart anyone.
Many, many times I have stated that I am far, far, far educated beyond my intelligence.
All I do is post the facts.
But in my life playing sports a long time, working with youth and charities and thousands of people in my work one fact stands out the most:
The world is full of folks that believe they can out smart everyone because they believe they are smart.
But at the end of the day people do not care about how much you know.
They want to know about how much YOU CARE.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Simple, let states decide the definition of marriage. Keep the Federal Government out of it.

Sounds good.

Provided the states recognize the equal protection rights of same-sex couples and allow them access to marriage law, however a given state might write that law.

In fact, no state need ever again be bothered by a Federal court provided it obeys the Constitution and its case law.

Now that is indeed simple.

You mean like the 10th Amendment that delegates to the states powers not granted to the Federal gov't? Among those powers the right to recognize marriages?
Dems are such simps.

Unsurprisingly, this makes no sense.

Nothing in 10th Amendment jurisprudence authorizes the states to violate the due process and equal protection rights of their residents.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sounds good.

Provided the states recognize the equal protection rights of same-sex couples and allow them access to marriage law, however a given state might write that law.

In fact, no state need ever again be bothered by a Federal court provided it obeys the Constitution and its case law.

Now that is indeed simple.

You mean like the 10th Amendment that delegates to the states powers not granted to the Federal gov't? Among those powers the right to recognize marriages?
Dems are such simps.

Unsurprisingly, this makes no sense.

Nothing in 10th Amendment jurisprudence authorizes the states to violate the due process and equal protection rights of their residents.

There is no violation.
But your point is: You are entitled to any opinion, as long as it agrees with mine.
Typical libs. They claim to respect divergent opinions and then are shocked and outraged when they discover there are divergent opinions.