Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[The Rabbi]

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

He understands it. He just hates it.

Shall we honor the founders' belief that women shouldn't have the right to vote?

Did things get better or worse after they got that right?

WTF? lol

Your surrender is acknowledged.

 

[Seawytch]

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

He understands it. He just hates it.

Shall we honor the founders' belief that women shouldn't have the right to vote?

Did things get better or worse after they got that right?

WTF? lol

Come on NYC, it's not much of a stretch for anti gay bigots to also be racist and misogynist now is it?

 

[Seawytch]

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Strawman argument/

In other words, Rabbi can't explain how two gay people getting married threatens anyone.

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

You're joking, rght? THe constutional amendments etc that define marriage as between one man and one woman are exactly the issue. Those are exactly the measures that gay activists judges have been striking down. States have the Constitutional authority to decide who is eligible to marry, just as they do who is eligible to get a drivers license or who is eligible to get a gun carry permit. No one has made the argument that states are denying rights to people with misdemeanors when they deny them carry permits. The state is empowered to set criteria. Same with marriage licenses.

The problem with your theory:

Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safley.

No where is a marriage license treated like a gun permit. I'm not saying they shouldn't be and it would be a great thread, I suggest you start it, but they are not treated the same so your argument is moot.

What the SCOTUS is going to find unconstitutional without a doubt is the rest of DOMA that interferes with FF&C as it applies to marriage licenses.

If you and I each get a gun permit in the same state, it's treated the same. Our marriage licenses, however, are not treated the same. Mine is treated differently because I'm married to someone of the same gender. Wanna bet how the SCOTUS is going to rule when it comes to this issue? I say after June my marriage license will be valid in all 50 states.

 

[Seawytch]

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Yes, Grown adults should stay out of others bedrooms. But that is not the case when you have two homosexual men or women who adopt orphaned children and teach them homosexuality.

Homosexuals are demanding government intervention, it is that simple.

No- its just that your viewpoint is simple and wrong.

Two homosexual men or two homosexual women who step up and adopt children abandoned by the children's natural parents are teaching them how to be good people- not how to be homosexuals.

You apparently would prefer that those children not be adopted, but remain abandoned and without families, to ultimately be abandoned by the system as the age out of the system.
.

You lost your argument, you just made it personal and about your beliefs.

You are describing the children as abandoned, why would you bring your personal feelings into this discussion while attempting to portray all orphaned children as abandoned. The simple answer is that facts do not support your feelings on this topic.

Yes, when you describe children in Orphanages as abandoned, and reiterate that theme throughout your post, it simply shows you have zero understanding of what happens in people's lives.

You should excuse your assumptions and emotions from this discussion, it does not help your argument at all.

Since gays have been adopting kids for decades and having their own, you don't actually have an argument. The simple fact is our children are fine and if you're really that worried about gays adopting your kids, you'd make alternate arrangements.

 

[Seawytch]

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

What it means to be an American is that your rights as a citizen are paramount, not subject to the capricious whims of the ignorant and hateful, nor the inane notion of 'majority rule,' where you don't forfeit your civil rights merely as a consequence of your state of residence, where in fact the states have no authority to 'decide.'

Thats why you oppose the Obama Administration killing Americans in Yemen, spying on Americans here, and using IRS data to suppress political opponents?
There isnt an unrestricted right to marriage.

Nobody said unrestricted. See, in order to deny marriage to gays and lesbians you have to have a rational basis. Gays are icky doesn't cut it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

States have the Constitutional authority to decide who is eligible to marry, just as they do who is eligible to get a drivers license or who is eligible to get a gun carry permit.

Can you identify any states that accept or reject Drivers Licenses based on the gender of the person to which the license was issued?

Can you identify any states that accept or reject Gun Permits based on the gender of the person to which the license was issued?



>>>>

 

[Geaux4it]

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

He understands it. He just hates it.

Shall we honor the founders' belief that women shouldn't have the right to vote?

Did things get better or worse after they got that right?

WTF? lol

Kind of the same with all the black crime. If my ancestors knew it was going to turn out this bad, they would of picked the cotton themselves.

Just sayin

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

He understands it. He just hates it.

Shall we honor the founders' belief that women shouldn't have the right to vote?

Did things get better or worse after they got that right?

WTF? lol

Kind of the same with all the black crime. If my ancestors knew it was going to turn out this bad, they would of picked the cotton themselves.

Just sayin

-Geaux

See NYcarbineer...racist and misogynist.

 

[kaz]

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would require her to grasp the concept of heterosexual marriage where you can put your partner's interest before your own and do something you don't want because it's more important to your partner. She isn't capable of putting someone else's needs before her own. She sees a relationship as a negotiation and compromise, and if something is important to her she demands her way and if she doesn't get it shows them the door.

Heterosexual marriage is an entirely different thing. Sure, we compromise sometimes. But when something is that much more important to my partner, I do it her way. She does the same for me. If you're with the right person, that is a far better system than splitting everything down the middle. That is beyond her comprehension, and she keeps telling us that. She got the government validation she craves, but she is just playing the part of a "spouse." She doesn't comprehend what it means.

 

[elektra]

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Yes, Grown adults should stay out of others bedrooms. But that is not the case when you have two homosexual men or women who adopt orphaned children and teach them homosexuality.

Homosexuals are demanding government intervention, it is that simple.

No- its just that your viewpoint is simple and wrong.

Two homosexual men or two homosexual women who step up and adopt children abandoned by the children's natural parents are teaching them how to be good people- not how to be homosexuals.

You apparently would prefer that those children not be adopted, but remain abandoned and without families, to ultimately be abandoned by the system as the age out of the system.
.

You lost your argument, you just made it personal and about your beliefs.

You are describing the children as abandoned, why would you bring your personal feelings into this discussion while attempting to portray all orphaned children as abandoned. The simple answer is that facts do not support your feelings on this topic.

Yes, when you describe children in Orphanages as abandoned, and reiterate that theme throughout your post, it simply shows you have zero understanding of what happens in people's lives.

You should excuse your assumptions and emotions from this discussion, it does not help your argument at all.

Since gays have been adopting kids for decades and having their own, you don't actually have an argument. The simple fact is our children are fine and if you're really that worried about gays adopting your kids, you'd make alternate arrangements.

I

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Yes, Grown adults should stay out of others bedrooms. But that is not the case when you have two homosexual men or women who adopt orphaned children and teach them homosexuality.

Homosexuals are demanding government intervention, it is that simple.

No- its just that your viewpoint is simple and wrong.

Two homosexual men or two homosexual women who step up and adopt children abandoned by the children's natural parents are teaching them how to be good people- not how to be homosexuals.

You apparently would prefer that those children not be adopted, but remain abandoned and without families, to ultimately be abandoned by the system as the age out of the system.
.

You lost your argument, you just made it personal and about your beliefs.

You are describing the children as abandoned, why would you bring your personal feelings into this discussion while attempting to portray all orphaned children as abandoned. The simple answer is that facts do not support your feelings on this topic.

Yes, when you describe children in Orphanages as abandoned, and reiterate that theme throughout your post, it simply shows you have zero understanding of what happens in people's lives.

You should excuse your assumptions and emotions from this discussion, it does not help your argument at all.

Since gays have been adopting kids for decades and having their own, you don't actually have an argument. The simple fact is our children are fine and if you're really that worried about gays adopting your kids, you'd make alternate arrangements.

Yes, homosexual men have been adopting 4 year old boys, for years as you say, teaching them the homosexual lifestyle. I call that abuse.

 

[kaz]

Of course they have. Dont be silly.

Please give us the name of one of those laws.

Ignoring legislatures and enacting government gay marriage

Not how it worked. What happened was that laws violating the U.S. Constitution were passed by state legislators and by referendum. Those who felt they were harmed by these laws are within their rights to redress their grievances through the courts.

And courts are agreeing that laws prohibiting gays from marrying each other violate their equal protection under existing laws.

Argument 2
What actually happened was that legislatures passed laws consistent with their state constitutions, often amended by large majorities of voters. The fags couldnt sell their snake oil to the public so after a few electoral beatings they shopped for gay judges who would gin up a non existent equal protection rationale to impose gay marriage on populations that consistently rejected it. Until the Circuit Court ruling that stopped that nonsense in some states.

The f*gs couldn't...
The n*ggers couldn't....
The c*nts couldn't....
The k*kes couldn't....

Argument #3
Its the fault of 'gay judges'

LOL, still don't know what quotes mean...

 

[kaz]

I'm saying exactly what I said. That the constitutional amendments and statutory restrictions that declared marriage marriage was only one man and one woman were almost universally created after Hawaiian civil union recognition. And such were explicit attempts to prevent gays from entering into the union of marriage.

Prop 8 being in 2008 wasn't some random coincidence. Gays being excluded from marriage wasn't some mysterious unintended consequence. It was the purpose of the amendment.

I didn't say you didn't mean what you said, I said you were playing word games with what I said. I talked about the people who created marriage, they were not thinking about gay marriage at all. Wasn't in their mind. Never occurred to them government would recognize that as marriage. I agreed gay sodomy laws were directed at gays.

You came back with that wasn't true and you started with Hawaii in 1991. So, you either think government marriage did not exist before 1991 or you are playing word games. You tell me...

BTW, I got a government marriage in 1988, so I'm pretty sure government marriage was pre-1991...

People may have not been thinking about the possibility of homosexuals marrying when marriage was legally created in California, but people were specifically excluding the possibility of homosexuals marrying when they passed laws against same gender marriage:


On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict scrutiny and same-sex couples' access to marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The court found that two statutes barring same-sex marriage in California, one enacted in 1977 by the legislature and the other in 2000 by state voters (Proposition 22), were unconstitutional. The decision was the first in the United States to establish sexual orientation as asuspect classification.[2] On June 4, 2008, the court denied a request for rehearing and a request to put a hold on the ruling, affirming that the decision would take effect as scheduled.[3] The writ of mandate directing the state government to comply with the ruling and grant same-sex marriages was issued by the Superior Court of California on June 19, 2008.[4]

And then my fellow citizen's changed our Constitution specifically to ensure that homosexuals could not legally marry.

Californians passed 2 laws, and one Amendment from 1977 on to prevent homosexuals from marrying- those laws were directed specifically at homosexuals.

From 1991 to 2008, you're headed the wrong direction...

Oh we have already arrived at the right destination.

People in love are getting married.

Equivocation

 

[kaz]

No, it's when they don't follow the law but make law

Well there's nothing to bitch about in this thread since judges haven't been making law when it come to gays and lesbians being able to civilly marry each other.

Of course they have. Dont be silly.

Please give us the name of one of those laws.

Ignoring legislatures and enacting government gay marriage

I missed that law- which state has a law named "ignoring legislatures and enacting government gay marriage"?

So Republicans can ban abortion as long as they don't name the law that? LOL, you get dumber by the minute.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would require her to grasp the concept of heterosexual marriage where you can put your partner's interest before your own and do something you don't want because it's more important to your partner. She isn't capable of putting someone else's needs before her own. She sees a relationship as a negotiation and compromise, and if something is important to her she demands her way and if she doesn't get it shows them the door.

Heterosexual marriage is an entirely different thing. Sure, we compromise sometimes. But when something is that much more important to my partner, I do it her way. She does the same for me. If you're with the right person, that is a far better system than splitting everything down the middle. That is beyond her comprehension, and she keeps telling us that. She got the government validation she craves, but she is just playing the part of a "spouse." She doesn't comprehend what it means.

Nothing I said was untrue. You hate civil marriage, but your wife makes you do it. You're a very reluctant hypocrite.

 

[Seawytch]

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Yes, Grown adults should stay out of others bedrooms. But that is not the case when you have two homosexual men or women who adopt orphaned children and teach them homosexuality.

Homosexuals are demanding government intervention, it is that simple.

No- its just that your viewpoint is simple and wrong.

Two homosexual men or two homosexual women who step up and adopt children abandoned by the children's natural parents are teaching them how to be good people- not how to be homosexuals.

You apparently would prefer that those children not be adopted, but remain abandoned and without families, to ultimately be abandoned by the system as the age out of the system.
.

You lost your argument, you just made it personal and about your beliefs.

You are describing the children as abandoned, why would you bring your personal feelings into this discussion while attempting to portray all orphaned children as abandoned. The simple answer is that facts do not support your feelings on this topic.

Yes, when you describe children in Orphanages as abandoned, and reiterate that theme throughout your post, it simply shows you have zero understanding of what happens in people's lives.

You should excuse your assumptions and emotions from this discussion, it does not help your argument at all.

Since gays have been adopting kids for decades and having their own, you don't actually have an argument. The simple fact is our children are fine and if you're really that worried about gays adopting your kids, you'd make alternate arrangements.

I

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Yes, Grown adults should stay out of others bedrooms. But that is not the case when you have two homosexual men or women who adopt orphaned children and teach them homosexuality.

Homosexuals are demanding government intervention, it is that simple.

No- its just that your viewpoint is simple and wrong.

Two homosexual men or two homosexual women who step up and adopt children abandoned by the children's natural parents are teaching them how to be good people- not how to be homosexuals.

You apparently would prefer that those children not be adopted, but remain abandoned and without families, to ultimately be abandoned by the system as the age out of the system.
.

You lost your argument, you just made it personal and about your beliefs.

You are describing the children as abandoned, why would you bring your personal feelings into this discussion while attempting to portray all orphaned children as abandoned. The simple answer is that facts do not support your feelings on this topic.

Yes, when you describe children in Orphanages as abandoned, and reiterate that theme throughout your post, it simply shows you have zero understanding of what happens in people's lives.

You should excuse your assumptions and emotions from this discussion, it does not help your argument at all.

Since gays have been adopting kids for decades and having their own, you don't actually have an argument. The simple fact is our children are fine and if you're really that worried about gays adopting your kids, you'd make alternate arrangements.

Yes, homosexual men have been adopting 4 year old boys, for years as you say, teaching them the homosexual lifestyle. I call that abuse.

You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't make it true.

 

[kaz]

I didn't say you didn't mean what you said, I said you were playing word games with what I said. I talked about the people who created marriage, they were not thinking about gay marriage at all. Wasn't in their mind. Never occurred to them government would recognize that as marriage. I agreed gay sodomy laws were directed at gays.

You came back with that wasn't true and you started with Hawaii in 1991. So, you either think government marriage did not exist before 1991 or you are playing word games. You tell me...

BTW, I got a government marriage in 1988, so I'm pretty sure government marriage was pre-1991...

Oh my, the guy who opposes government marriage is enjoying HIS government marriage.

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would have to be untrue.

I agree, it is basically true except for your butt hurt telling me how I feel. Don't go into psychology, you suck at it. As I keep telling you I'm not a hypocrite, I'm following my values because my values are that if something is more important to my spouse I do it her way. That is as you continually tell us beyond your capability. You get your way or you compromise or you show them the door. Doing it their way isn't part of your world.

 

[kaz]

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would require her to grasp the concept of heterosexual marriage where you can put your partner's interest before your own and do something you don't want because it's more important to your partner. She isn't capable of putting someone else's needs before her own. She sees a relationship as a negotiation and compromise, and if something is important to her she demands her way and if she doesn't get it shows them the door.

Heterosexual marriage is an entirely different thing. Sure, we compromise sometimes. But when something is that much more important to my partner, I do it her way. She does the same for me. If you're with the right person, that is a far better system than splitting everything down the middle. That is beyond her comprehension, and she keeps telling us that. She got the government validation she craves, but she is just playing the part of a "spouse." She doesn't comprehend what it means.

Nothing I said was untrue. You hate civil marriage, but your wife makes you do it. You're a very reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman, the only "hate" in this is coming from you.

 

[kaz]

Oh my, the guy who opposes government marriage is enjoying HIS government marriage.

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would have to be untrue.

Defamation, perhaps.

I'm going with self centered, she can't see past what she wants. Which is of course why she is a liberal.

 

[kaz]

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would have to be untrue.

Defamation, perhaps.

Nope, but keep flailing.

Translation: Nailed it.

Sure Rabbi, you "nailed it". I'll wait for the subpoena. Why not ask the reluctant hypocrite himself?

Strawman, I'm not reluctant. I'm glad it makes my spouse happy. When you grasp that, maybe you can move past government marriage just being collective validation and start to get the real thing. Gays are not all like you BTW. My VP of sales for my business is gay. She has worked for me about three years. She has been in a serious committed relationship for about one. She and her partner very much do things for each other's interest. Isn't it interesting? You have the paper, she doesn't want it, but I consider her far more married than you are.

 

[kaz]

No, it's when they don't follow the law but make law

Well there's nothing to bitch about in this thread since judges haven't been making law when it come to gays and lesbians being able to civilly marry each other.

Of course they have. Dont be silly.

Please give us the name of one of those laws.

Ignoring legislatures and enacting government gay marriage

Those legislatures or the People, simply don't retain the Power to deny and disparage those privileges and immunities to the citizens in the several States, without changing our Constitution, to allow it.

Which amendment does the SCOTUS have the power to make life fair when the legislature doesn't? I can't find that one?