LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[The Rabbi]

I wouldnt bother with Rabbi, He can only defend the right and is typically wrong on every issue on this board.

See he is wrong since people do care. Otherwise we wouldnt of had anti-sodomy laws or state constitutional bans on gay marriage.

Facts are hard for him, so go easy.

STFU.

No one is stopping gays from marrying. They do it every day.

sure in the states that allow it. Dont worry, soon it will be federal and null and void any state ban.
The life will go on and nothing much will happen because of it. Outside of you crying

Gays get married here in TN, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, every single day.
Come back when you have something in that empty pit you call a mind.

 

[Plasmaball]

Only thing twisted is you, having a mental disorder does not render a person incompetent but by the same token we don't rework our whole social order for a mentally disturbed minority.

The equal but separate bull shit doesn't apply here, why, because gays are not prohibited from getting married. Your argument that treating them the same as everyone else isn't good enough, somehow not true equality, that's bullshit.

thankfully SCOTUS says you are wrong.

Actually SCOTUS has left it to the States so far and I think it will stay that way.

Actually SCOTUS said that certain "benefits" were denied to a couple because a woman was married to a woman. Thus creating and unequal stature in the system of "rights".

Furthermore you can not vote to ban "rights" for certain people because you think its icky. It will be struck down everytime. Who strikes those laws down? Judges, because that is their job.

 

[Plasmaball]

STFU.

No one is stopping gays from marrying. They do it every day.

sure in the states that allow it. Dont worry, soon it will be federal and null and void any state ban.
The life will go on and nothing much will happen because of it. Outside of you crying

Gays get married here in TN, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, every single day.
Come back when you have something in that empty pit you call a mind.

neat you dont have an argument. Ill enjoy watching you loose on this issue. You already had 3 states vote to grant samesex marriage. whether it be voting or striking down bad laws, it will happen in all 50 states.

If i where you ( and thankfully i am not ) id go buy a lot of tissues for all that butthurt

 

[OKTexas]

If you pass a law that defines legal marriage as being between one man and one woman, then gay and lesbian couples can't legally get married. That means that they are prohibited from getting married. That is not equality under the law. That is due only to Christians using public laws to enforce their small-minded, outdated religious dogma on secular society in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Religion has nothing to do with it, it's called biology. And your saying they can't marry is bullshit, they have been getting married form the dawn of time, they just have been following the rules and marrying someone who is biologically compatible. That is equality.

no it isnt. the rules? the rules have changed numerous times of the centuries.
You cant even get this right.

Damn you're funny, the rules haven't changed much, man has survived despite you people.

 

[Plasmaball]

Why should they have them? Heterosexual couples should have them because the state has an interest in fostering heterosexual marriages. The state has no interest in fostering homosexual marriages.

They should have them because that's EQUALITY UNDER THE FUCKING LAW.

RuPaul is a gay man dressed up like a woman. Are you aware of this? If you are indeed a fan of RuPaul as you seem to suggest at the end of every single one of your posts, then why do you not want him to have the same rights and privileges as every other American? Are you one of those old white racist fucks who loved Al Jolson but wouldn't ever want to see him in a voting booth?

Do you seriously believe any of the shit that you write?

They already have equality under the law. Big fonts in your post dont change that. Remind me what "right" they supposedly don't have that I do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that married same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits

facts are hard.

 

[The Rabbi]

sure in the states that allow it. Dont worry, soon it will be federal and null and void any state ban.
The life will go on and nothing much will happen because of it. Outside of you crying

Gays get married here in TN, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, every single day.
Come back when you have something in that empty pit you call a mind.

neat you dont have an argument. Ill enjoy watching you loose on this issue. You already had 3 states vote to grant samesex marriage. whether it be voting or striking down bad laws, it will happen in all 50 states.

If i where you ( and thankfully i am not ) id go buy a lot of tissues for all that butthurt

Loose? You appear to be the looser here, twat-boy.

 

[Plasmaball]

Religion has nothing to do with it, it's called biology. And your saying they can't marry is bullshit, they have been getting married form the dawn of time, they just have been following the rules and marrying someone who is biologically compatible. That is equality.

no it isnt. the rules? the rules have changed numerous times of the centuries.
You cant even get this right.

Damn you're funny, the rules haven't changed much, man has survived despite you people.

you could go back a few 100 years and marrying a woman meant you owned her mother as well. Couple more and you owned the land.

The rules have changed plenty. You have a weak argument and nothing else.

 

[Plasmaball]

Gays get married here in TN, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, every single day.
Come back when you have something in that empty pit you call a mind.

neat you dont have an argument. Ill enjoy watching you loose on this issue. You already had 3 states vote to grant samesex marriage. whether it be voting or striking down bad laws, it will happen in all 50 states.

If i where you ( and thankfully i am not ) id go buy a lot of tissues for all that butthurt

Loose? You appear to be the looser here, twat-boy.

more nothing from you. This is where i leave you Rabbit, you once again have run out of things to say that are worth while.

 

[OKTexas]

thankfully SCOTUS says you are wrong.

Actually SCOTUS has left it to the States so far and I think it will stay that way.

Actually SCOTUS said that certain "benefits" were denied to a couple because a woman was married to a woman. Thus creating and unequal stature in the system of "rights".

Furthermore you can not vote to ban "rights" for certain people because you think its icky. It will be struck down everytime. Who strikes those laws down? Judges, because that is their job.

You got a link for that quote? To my knowledge the finding was concerning benefits, not rights.

 

[Plasmaball]

Actually SCOTUS has left it to the States so far and I think it will stay that way.

Actually SCOTUS said that certain "benefits" were denied to a couple because a woman was married to a woman. Thus creating and unequal stature in the system of "rights".

Furthermore you can not vote to ban "rights" for certain people because you think its icky. It will be struck down everytime. Who strikes those laws down? Judges, because that is their job.

You got a link for that quote? To my knowledge the finding was concerning benefits, not rights.

rights-benefits, same deal.
I already posted the article.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

He said the law was motivated by a desire to harm gay and lesbian couples and their families, demeaning the “moral and sexual choices” of such couples and humiliating “tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.”

The constitutional basis for striking down the law was not entirely clear, as it had elements of federalism, equal protection and due process. Justice Kennedy said the law’s basic flaw was in its “deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

and if people like you where not held in check we would see laws such as these popping up.

Exactly 10 years ago, Justice Scalia issued a similar dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime. He predicted that the ruling would lead to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, and he turned out to be right.

 

[OKTexas]

no it isnt. the rules? the rules have changed numerous times of the centuries.
You cant even get this right.

Damn you're funny, the rules haven't changed much, man has survived despite you people.

you could go back a few 100 years and marrying a woman meant you owned her mother as well. Couple more and you owned the land.

The rules have changed plenty. You have a weak argument and nothing else.

Damn you have a gift for dragging all kinds of irrelevant shit in here don't cha?

 

[Plasmaball]

neat! You are stupid, i can prove that

Uh, no you can't. You've spent about a year here trying to do that and face planting every time.

mmmhmm.....get ready then....it will be coming shortly.

i win

 

[Plasmaball]

Damn you're funny, the rules haven't changed much, man has survived despite you people.

you could go back a few 100 years and marrying a woman meant you owned her mother as well. Couple more and you owned the land.

The rules have changed plenty. You have a weak argument and nothing else.

Damn you have a gift for dragging all kinds of irrelevant shit in here don't cha?

You brought up the rules dipshit. you have a problem with opening your mouth and saying stupid shit. Its not my fault you are ignorant.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually SCOTUS said that certain "benefits" were denied to a couple because a woman was married to a woman. Thus creating and unequal stature in the system of "rights".

Furthermore you can not vote to ban "rights" for certain people because you think its icky. It will be struck down everytime. Who strikes those laws down? Judges, because that is their job.

You got a link for that quote? To my knowledge the finding was concerning benefits, not rights.

rights-benefits, same deal.
I already posted the article.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

He said the law was motivated by a desire to harm gay and lesbian couples and their families, demeaning the “moral and sexual choices” of such couples and humiliating “tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.”

The constitutional basis for striking down the law was not entirely clear, as it had elements of federalism, equal protection and due process. Justice Kennedy said the law’s basic flaw was in its “deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

and if people like you where not held in check we would see laws such as these popping up.

Exactly 10 years ago, Justice Scalia issued a similar dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime. He predicted that the ruling would lead to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, and he turned out to be right.

Damn you're stupid, if you were just ignorant I might try to educate you, but you just can't change stupid.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

They want the right to do something the rest of us don't have.
If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing. People will marry their dogs. People will marry their brothers.

Consenting adults.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "consenting adults". I want you to google the phrase "consenting adults". Then I want you to read about the phrase "consenting adults" as it relates to contract law. Then you can come back and tell us why your post was wrong thanks to the phrase "consenting adults" as it relates to contract law.

Now, can we finally stop suggesting that gay marriage will lead to people marrying their dog?

How would a guy marrying his dog be any less biological incompatible than him marrying another guy? So if you're good with one why not both?

You obviously didn't follow my advice. Go back, re-read what I posted, and please try again.

 

[OKTexas]

you could go back a few 100 years and marrying a woman meant you owned her mother as well. Couple more and you owned the land.

The rules have changed plenty. You have a weak argument and nothing else.

Damn you have a gift for dragging all kinds of irrelevant shit in here don't cha?

You brought up the rules dipshit. you have a problem with opening your mouth and saying stupid shit. Its not my fault you are ignorant.

That is so fucking laughable, but you keep bringing up shit that has never applied to this country, it makes you look so freaking smart. Tell me, how ever did you get so fucking cool.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually SCOTUS said that certain "benefits" were denied to a couple because a woman was married to a woman. Thus creating and unequal stature in the system of "rights".

Furthermore you can not vote to ban "rights" for certain people because you think its icky. It will be struck down everytime. Who strikes those laws down? Judges, because that is their job.

You got a link for that quote? To my knowledge the finding was concerning benefits, not rights.

rights-benefits, same deal.
I already posted the article.

Actually you were quite close originally...

DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages
and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose in equality,
not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well
as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA
contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State,
but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities.​

From Windsor v. United States


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Uh, no you can't. You've spent about a year here trying to do that and face planting every time.

mmmhmm.....get ready then....it will be coming shortly.

i win

/fail.

You aren't even clever enough to bother with. You get to share the spotlight with TM and RDean.

 

[Plasmaball]

mmmhmm.....get ready then....it will be coming shortly.

i win

/fail.

You aren't even clever enough to bother with. You get to share the spotlight with TM and RDean.

least i can tell time

 

[JakeStarkey]

And since the nation, particularly the millenials 14 -34, are overwhelmingly in the process of rejecting far right social reactionary Christianity and biblical literalism, there is little worry about the outcome.

However, the social cons have every right to yell "no", just not the right to stop it, or have to personally or institutionally participate in marriage equality.