Louisiana Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

[Redfish]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

All 50 states are going to go this way as it's the only legal and logical conclusion possible.

Two legal-aged adults may enter into any financial contract with one another already. Marriage,, insofar as the law is concerned is merely another financial contract. Game over.

OK, if that is your position, then get ready for bigamy, polygamy, father/son, mother/daughter, sibling, and all other possible forms of human groupings. BECAUSE, as you said, if gay marriage becomes legal on the basis of discrimination then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought forward to prohibit all other forms of marriage since those people will also claim that they are being discriminated against by our marriage laws.

You get what you ask for, just be sure you understand what you are asking for.

Unlike you, I don't involve myself in other people's marriages. If two (or more) people wanna wed and become miserable and loose all interest in having sex together that's their thing.

it is not intruding on others happiness or misery. Its about preserving a sane and moral society. Its also about maintaining sanity in our legal system. Can you imagine how a divorce of a marriage of 5 men and 6 women would play out? How much court time and money would such a fiasco tie up?

this is about much more than allowing two gays to legally hook up. I want gays to be able to have a legal mutual committment agreement. Its when you call it a marriage that all of the unwanted results start to pile up.

Religious objections to gay marriage aren't valid where the law is concerned. For starters, reliigons which might forbid such marriages didn't invent the institution of marriage. So their objections are irrelevant. For another, religion has no support under US law insofar as the law incorporating a specific religion's tenets into laws applicable to everyone - not everyone belongs to the religion with a bug up it's butt about gay marriage.

I said nothing about religion in my post that you quoted. A sane and moral society does not have to be founded on any religion.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

OK, if that is your position, then get ready for bigamy, polygamy, father/son, mother/daughter, sibling, and all other possible forms of human groupings. BECAUSE, as you said, if gay marriage becomes legal on the basis of discrimination then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought forward to prohibit all other forms of marriage since those people will also claim that they are being discriminated against by our marriage laws.

You get what you ask for, just be sure you understand what you are asking for.

If what you say is true...if straight marriage is legal on the basis of discrimination, then there is not possible legal defense that can be brought forward to prohibit all other forms of marriage.

But what he says isn't true. The "slippery slope" hasn't slid in any of the countries with marriage equality.

Israel recognizes polyganous marriages from other countries for immigrants, though they wont do them domestically.

But which came first?

Islam recognizes polygamy but not homosexuality. But yet, american liberals embrace islam and refuse to call it a religion of hate. The liberal mind is genetically defective.

Polygany actually, note the 'n.' Polygany is men may have multiple wives. Polygamy is either may have multiple husbands and/or wives. Afaik no one allows that.

All religions which declare their collection of lies is the only 'true faith' is a religion of hate.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

All 50 states are going to go this way as it's the only legal and logical conclusion possible.

Two legal-aged adults may enter into any financial contract with one another already. Marriage,, insofar as the law is concerned is merely another financial contract. Game over.

OK, if that is your position, then get ready for bigamy, polygamy, father/son, mother/daughter, sibling, and all other possible forms of human groupings. BECAUSE, as you said, if gay marriage becomes legal on the basis of discrimination then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought forward to prohibit all other forms of marriage since those people will also claim that they are being discriminated against by our marriage laws.

You get what you ask for, just be sure you understand what you are asking for.

Unlike you, I don't involve myself in other people's marriages. If two (or more) people wanna wed and become miserable and loose all interest in having sex together that's their thing.

it is not intruding on others happiness or misery. Its about preserving a sane and moral society. Its also about maintaining sanity in our legal system. Can you imagine how a divorce of a marriage of 5 men and 6 women would play out? How much court time and money would such a fiasco tie up?

this is about much more than allowing two gays to legally hook up. I want gays to be able to have a legal mutual committment agreement. Its when you call it a marriage that all of the unwanted results start to pile up.

Religious objections to gay marriage aren't valid where the law is concerned. For starters, reliigons which might forbid such marriages didn't invent the institution of marriage. So their objections are irrelevant. For another, religion has no support under US law insofar as the law incorporating a specific religion's tenets into laws applicable to everyone - not everyone belongs to the religion with a bug up it's butt about gay marriage.

I said nothing about religion in my post that you quoted. A sane and moral society does not have to be founded on any religion.

There's no moral arguement possible without involving religion. Marriage being about love and commitment of two people. Perfectly moral proposition.

 

[Redfish]

If what you say is true...if straight marriage is legal on the basis of discrimination, then there is not possible legal defense that can be brought forward to prohibit all other forms of marriage.

But what he says isn't true. The "slippery slope" hasn't slid in any of the countries with marriage equality.

Israel recognizes polyganous marriages from other countries for immigrants, though they wont do them domestically.

But which came first?

Islam recognizes polygamy but not homosexuality. But yet, american liberals embrace islam and refuse to call it a religion of hate. The liberal mind is genetically defective.

Polygany actually, note the 'n.' Polygany is men may have multiple wives. Polygamy is either may have multiple husbands and/or wives. Afaik no one allows that.

All religions which declare their collection of lies is the only 'true faith' is a religion of hate.

OK, polygany. But in the common vernacular polygamy is used to mean one man, multiple wives.

You are correct that most religions declare that their's is the only true religion and the only way to salvation and eternal life. It is also true that more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause.

Religion is not inherently bad for humanity. Intolerance of differing beliefs is what is bad about religion. But lets face it. the intolerance is about power. For the most part Chrisitianity does teach tolerance and for the most part Islam teaches intolerance. Note the words "for the most part" in both.

 

[Redfish]

OK, if that is your position, then get ready for bigamy, polygamy, father/son, mother/daughter, sibling, and all other possible forms of human groupings. BECAUSE, as you said, if gay marriage becomes legal on the basis of discrimination then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought forward to prohibit all other forms of marriage since those people will also claim that they are being discriminated against by our marriage laws.

You get what you ask for, just be sure you understand what you are asking for.

Unlike you, I don't involve myself in other people's marriages. If two (or more) people wanna wed and become miserable and loose all interest in having sex together that's their thing.

it is not intruding on others happiness or misery. Its about preserving a sane and moral society. Its also about maintaining sanity in our legal system. Can you imagine how a divorce of a marriage of 5 men and 6 women would play out? How much court time and money would such a fiasco tie up?

this is about much more than allowing two gays to legally hook up. I want gays to be able to have a legal mutual committment agreement. Its when you call it a marriage that all of the unwanted results start to pile up.

Religious objections to gay marriage aren't valid where the law is concerned. For starters, reliigons which might forbid such marriages didn't invent the institution of marriage. So their objections are irrelevant. For another, religion has no support under US law insofar as the law incorporating a specific religion's tenets into laws applicable to everyone - not everyone belongs to the religion with a bug up it's butt about gay marriage.

I said nothing about religion in my post that you quoted. A sane and moral society does not have to be founded on any religion.

There's no moral arguement possible without involving religion. Marriage being about love and commitment of two people. Perfectly moral proposition.

are you saying that human morality and sense of right and wrong would not exist without religion?

Any society should decide what it considers moral. A majority of the people of planet earth do not consider a homosexual union as moral. Societal morals should be decided by a majority of the members of the society.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Unlike you, I don't involve myself in other people's marriages. If two (or more) people wanna wed and become miserable and loose all interest in having sex together that's their thing.

it is not intruding on others happiness or misery. Its about preserving a sane and moral society. Its also about maintaining sanity in our legal system. Can you imagine how a divorce of a marriage of 5 men and 6 women would play out? How much court time and money would such a fiasco tie up?

this is about much more than allowing two gays to legally hook up. I want gays to be able to have a legal mutual committment agreement. Its when you call it a marriage that all of the unwanted results start to pile up.

Religious objections to gay marriage aren't valid where the law is concerned. For starters, reliigons which might forbid such marriages didn't invent the institution of marriage. So their objections are irrelevant. For another, religion has no support under US law insofar as the law incorporating a specific religion's tenets into laws applicable to everyone - not everyone belongs to the religion with a bug up it's butt about gay marriage.

I said nothing about religion in my post that you quoted. A sane and moral society does not have to be founded on any religion.

There's no moral arguement possible without involving religion. Marriage being about love and commitment of two people. Perfectly moral proposition.

are you saying that human morality and sense of right and wrong would not exist without religion?

Any society should decide what it considers moral. A majority of the people of planet earth do not consider a homosexual union as moral. Societal morals should be decided by a majority of the members of the society.

Apparently you're not an American, or ignorant of how American law works. American law bends over backwards and stands on its' head to protect MINORITY rights from being trampled by the MAJORITY. Thus the majority's opinion can take a flying leap.

 

[Redfish]

it is not intruding on others happiness or misery. Its about preserving a sane and moral society. Its also about maintaining sanity in our legal system. Can you imagine how a divorce of a marriage of 5 men and 6 women would play out? How much court time and money would such a fiasco tie up?

this is about much more than allowing two gays to legally hook up. I want gays to be able to have a legal mutual committment agreement. Its when you call it a marriage that all of the unwanted results start to pile up.

Religious objections to gay marriage aren't valid where the law is concerned. For starters, reliigons which might forbid such marriages didn't invent the institution of marriage. So their objections are irrelevant. For another, religion has no support under US law insofar as the law incorporating a specific religion's tenets into laws applicable to everyone - not everyone belongs to the religion with a bug up it's butt about gay marriage.

I said nothing about religion in my post that you quoted. A sane and moral society does not have to be founded on any religion.

There's no moral arguement possible without involving religion. Marriage being about love and commitment of two people. Perfectly moral proposition.

are you saying that human morality and sense of right and wrong would not exist without religion?

Any society should decide what it considers moral. A majority of the people of planet earth do not consider a homosexual union as moral. Societal morals should be decided by a majority of the members of the society.

Apparently you're not an American, or ignorant of how American law works. American law bends over backwards and stands on its' head to protect MINORITY rights from being trampled by the MAJORITY. Thus the majority's opinion can take a flying leap.

Yes,thats very true but has nothing to do with this topic. The provisions for minority protections were put into our constitution and our statutes by MAJORITY votes. The majority voted for minority protections and rights. Our society decided by majority vote on how our laws would be structured.

your spin attempt once again----------FAILS

 

[Redfish]

Back to the OP. This decision is being appealed. Its far from over.

 

[dcraelin]

The Loving case is refered to constantly by gay marriage advocates as an appeal to emotion tho they know...or should that it is irrelevant to their case.
Quoting Wikipedia on Loving v Virginia:

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy

“

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

”

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."

Guess what? The courts are concluding that anti gay laws are based solely on animus towards gay people. They are being struck down left and right for just that reason. There is no difference between discrimination based on race and discrimination based on gender.
It was argued for almost 100 years that anti miscegenation laws were not discrimination because it affected blacks and whites equally. They argued (kinda like Kaz is) that blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites and therefore no discrimination occurred.

If Courts are deciding that they are wrong. The word "Discrimination" has taken on a negative tinge. But the law discriminates all the time. The word Marriage discriminates/differentiates within its long accepted meaning. ...The Constant use of the Loving analogy is illegitimate....and seen that way by the majority of blacks in California as the prop 8 case showed.

Religious objections to gay marriage aren't valid where the law is concerned. For starters, reliigons which might forbid such marriages didn't invent the institution of marriage. So their objections are irrelevant. For another, religion has no support under US law insofar as the law incorporating a specific religion's tenets into laws applicable to everyone - not everyone belongs to the religion with a bug up it's butt about gay marriage.

Marriage within the law is really a left over from the church-state of England

Unlike you, I don't involve myself in other people's marriages. If two (or more) people wanna wed and become miserable and loose all interest in having sex together that's their thing.

Its not just about two people is it. It is about society at large, sometimes about children

Apparently you're not an American, or ignorant of how American law works. American law bends over backwards and stands on its' head to protect MINORITY rights from being trampled by the MAJORITY. Thus the majority's opinion can take a flying leap.

THe Constitution is illegitimate if it is not based on the will of WE THE PEOPLE. The judges need to but the hell out. If these cases get decided by 7 justices or perhaps really by one swing vote what a travesty that would be.

 

[Plasmaball]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

All 50 states are going to go this way as it's the only legal and logical conclusion possible.

Two legal-aged adults may enter into any financial contract with one another already. Marriage,, insofar as the law is concerned is merely another financial contract. Game over.

OK, if that is your position, then get ready for bigamy, polygamy, father/son, mother/daughter, sibling, and all other possible forms of human groupings. BECAUSE, as you said, if gay marriage becomes legal on the basis of discrimination then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought forward to prohibit all other forms of marriage since those people will also claim that they are being discriminated against by our marriage laws.

You get what you ask for, just be sure you understand what you are asking for.

who gives a shit....seriously

 

[kaz]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

All 50 states are going to go this way as it's the only legal and logical conclusion possible.

Two legal-aged adults may enter into any financial contract with one another already. Marriage,, insofar as the law is concerned is merely another financial contract. Game over.

OK, if that is your position, then get ready for bigamy, polygamy, father/son, mother/daughter, sibling, and all other possible forms of human groupings. BECAUSE, as you said, if gay marriage becomes legal on the basis of discrimination then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought forward to prohibit all other forms of marriage since those people will also claim that they are being discriminated against by our marriage laws.

You get what you ask for, just be sure you understand what you are asking for.

who gives a shit....seriously

These comments were liberals are such reasonable people who don't concern themselves with hype always cracks me up. You follow it up with that a girl in Albuquerque isn't getting free birth control which means there is no liberty in this country at all, we're like the Stalinist Soviet Union

 

[Plasmaball]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

All 50 states are going to go this way as it's the only legal and logical conclusion possible.

Two legal-aged adults may enter into any financial contract with one another already. Marriage,, insofar as the law is concerned is merely another financial contract. Game over.

OK, if that is your position, then get ready for bigamy, polygamy, father/son, mother/daughter, sibling, and all other possible forms of human groupings. BECAUSE, as you said, if gay marriage becomes legal on the basis of discrimination then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought forward to prohibit all other forms of marriage since those people will also claim that they are being discriminated against by our marriage laws.

You get what you ask for, just be sure you understand what you are asking for.

who gives a shit....seriously

These comments were liberals are such reasonable people who don't concern themselves with hype always cracks me up. You follow it up with that a girl in Albuquerque isn't getting free birth control which means there is no liberty in this country at all, we're like the Stalinist Soviet Union

you are a fucking retard.

 

[kaz]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

All 50 states are going to go this way as it's the only legal and logical conclusion possible.

Two legal-aged adults may enter into any financial contract with one another already. Marriage,, insofar as the law is concerned is merely another financial contract. Game over.

OK, if that is your position, then get ready for bigamy, polygamy, father/son, mother/daughter, sibling, and all other possible forms of human groupings. BECAUSE, as you said, if gay marriage becomes legal on the basis of discrimination then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought forward to prohibit all other forms of marriage since those people will also claim that they are being discriminated against by our marriage laws.

You get what you ask for, just be sure you understand what you are asking for.

who gives a shit....seriously

These comments were liberals are such reasonable people who don't concern themselves with hype always cracks me up. You follow it up with that a girl in Albuquerque isn't getting free birth control which means there is no liberty in this country at all, we're like the Stalinist Soviet Union

you are a fucking retard.

You should read your own posts and those of your cohorts ... and pay attention ... You run around like hysterical school girls, then when you don't care about something it's exactly like this. Who gives a shit...seriously. I agree with you on this, I would just like to remember it the next time you're grabbing your head like your hair is on fire and run around in circles shreaking.

 

[Seawytch]

OK, if that is your position, then get ready for bigamy, polygamy, father/son, mother/daughter, sibling, and all other possible forms of human groupings. BECAUSE, as you said, if gay marriage becomes legal on the basis of discrimination then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought forward to prohibit all other forms of marriage since those people will also claim that they are being discriminated against by our marriage laws.

You get what you ask for, just be sure you understand what you are asking for.

If what you say is true...if straight marriage is legal on the basis of discrimination, then there is not possible legal defense that can be brought forward to prohibit all other forms of marriage.

But what he says isn't true. The "slippery slope" hasn't slid in any of the countries with marriage equality.

Israel recognizes polyganous marriages from other countries for immigrants, though they wont do them domestically.

But which came first?

Islam recognizes polygamy but not homosexuality. But yet, american liberals embrace islam and refuse to call it a religion of hate. The liberal mind is genetically defective.

Ah yes... I destroyed your argument so you deflect to a new one...equally ridiculous.

 

[mudwhistle]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

So you're moving to Louisiana now?

 

[Plasmaball]

All 50 states are going to go this way as it's the only legal and logical conclusion possible.

Two legal-aged adults may enter into any financial contract with one another already. Marriage,, insofar as the law is concerned is merely another financial contract. Game over.

OK, if that is your position, then get ready for bigamy, polygamy, father/son, mother/daughter, sibling, and all other possible forms of human groupings. BECAUSE, as you said, if gay marriage becomes legal on the basis of discrimination then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought forward to prohibit all other forms of marriage since those people will also claim that they are being discriminated against by our marriage laws.

You get what you ask for, just be sure you understand what you are asking for.

who gives a shit....seriously

These comments were liberals are such reasonable people who don't concern themselves with hype always cracks me up. You follow it up with that a girl in Albuquerque isn't getting free birth control which means there is no liberty in this country at all, we're like the Stalinist Soviet Union

you are a fucking retard.

You should read your own posts and those of your cohorts ... and pay attention ... You run around like hysterical school girls, then when you don't care about something it's exactly like this. Who gives a shit...seriously. I agree with you on this, I would just like to remember it the next time you're grabbing your head like your hair is on fire and run around in circles shreaking.

so you have no point...got it

 

[Plasmaball]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

So you're moving to Louisiana now?

no, i dont care for the south

 

[daws101]

if you've ever been to new orleans you'd know why the ban was ridiculous .

 

[mudwhistle]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

So you're moving to Louisiana now?

no, i dont care for the south

Why do you care about their anti-gey laws then?

Why don't you mind your own business?

Mkay?

 

[Plasmaball]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

So you're moving to Louisiana now?

no, i dont care for the south

Why do you care about their anti-gey laws then?

Why don't you mind your own business?

Mkay?

wanting things to be equal means i can