Louisiana Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

[kaz]

You forgot the full faith and credit clause?

Very true

Every state should have to accept a legal marriage performed in another state

You never really left the playground, did you big guy?

Full Faith and Credit Clause legal definition of Full Faith and Credit Clause

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

How do they not recognize a marriage performed in another state?

You forgot the full faith and credit clause?

Very true

Every state should have to accept a legal marriage performed in another state

You never really left the playground, did you big guy?

Full Faith and Credit Clause legal definition of Full Faith and Credit Clause

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

How do they not recognize a marriage performed in another state?

I'm not having childrens arguments with you, big guy. Address the point, don't word parse if you want me to participate.

 

[kaz]

What I do know is that you do not want to treat gays equally under the law. That does make you a bigot.

If your fantasy life is improved by believing I'm a guy, more power to ya love.

Yet you can't name one person who has different rights being gay than if they were straight. When you can, get back to me, Steve. So did pretending to be a lesbian on the Internet turn out to be the hoot you thought it would be?

Remember the tip if you want a date, women are actually different than you, it's not just the equipment. Good luck with that.

The right to marry the non familial consenting adult of my choice. Just as Mildred Loving could not marry a black man, I cannot marry a woman of any race. That is discrimination based on gender. Mildred didn't want to marry a black man, I don't want to marry a man at all. I married another woman. Why is it that you don't want my legal, civil marriage treated exactly like yours?

Ooops, you just lost. You just said government can regulate who does and doesn't have access to government marriage. That destroys your own argument which was based on that they don't.

Check and mate, the game goes to Redfish.

 

[rightwinger]

You forgot the full faith and credit clause?

Very true

Every state should have to accept a legal marriage performed in another state

You never really left the playground, did you big guy?

Full Faith and Credit Clause legal definition of Full Faith and Credit Clause

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

How do they not recognize a marriage performed in another state?

You forgot the full faith and credit clause?

Very true

Every state should have to accept a legal marriage performed in another state

You never really left the playground, did you big guy?

Full Faith and Credit Clause legal definition of Full Faith and Credit Clause

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

How do they not recognize a marriage performed in another state?

I'm not having childrens arguments with you, big guy. Address the point, don't word parse if you want me to participate.

I assume this is your surrender on the issue?

I post the actual definition and you run away?

 

[rightwinger]

What I do know is that you do not want to treat gays equally under the law. That does make you a bigot.

If your fantasy life is improved by believing I'm a guy, more power to ya love.

Yet you can't name one person who has different rights being gay than if they were straight. When you can, get back to me, Steve. So did pretending to be a lesbian on the Internet turn out to be the hoot you thought it would be?

Remember the tip if you want a date, women are actually different than you, it's not just the equipment. Good luck with that.

The right to marry the non familial consenting adult of my choice. Just as Mildred Loving could not marry a black man, I cannot marry a woman of any race. That is discrimination based on gender. Mildred didn't want to marry a black man, I don't want to marry a man at all. I married another woman. Why is it that you don't want my legal, civil marriage treated exactly like yours?

Since you are lesbians, what is wrong with marrying your sister?

That would be incest which breaks the law. There is no law against being a lesbian, so marriage would be legal

 

[Redfish]

you misunderstand what I am saying. The government should not be involved in marriage-----------but it is. The govt give tax breaks to married couples. I want those same tax breaks for gay couples. But thats not what this is about. This is about what society accepts as normal human behavior. Allowing gays to call their union a marriage is society saying that homosexuality is a normal human condition, equal in every way to heterosexuality-----------some believe that, the majority do not. Are we to be ruled by minority opinion or majority opinion? Thats what this gay debate is really about.

No, this "gay debate" is really about equality...as has been pointed out to you multiple times. YOU care about the word, we don't therefore the onus is upon YOU to have it changed...for everyone. Civil Unions for ALL, Fishy, not marriage for straights, civil unions for gays. Change the name for everyone.

Once again caught in a lie. Last time it was about the money, now it's about the validation again. So bureaucrats pat you on the back and tell you you're OK, you're as good as anyone else, then you can go off and live your life in joy. The desire for validaton from government is something I cannot remotely fathom.

This is why liberals are lucky and we are cursed you live in this country. In most of the world, you would be so happy to be left alone to live your life. In a large chunk of the world, you could go to jail or die. But in this country, you are obsessed with needing a pat on the back from government and validation from the collective, it's a critical issue to you. You can do whatever you want, live with who you want, have sex with who you want, spend your life with what you want. But government hasn't blessed you. Liberals are weak and pathetic, you'd starve anywhere else. Yet you rule here because we have one man, one vote. And you are one man.

great post, you nailed it. nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Redfish]

What I do know is that you do not want to treat gays equally under the law. That does make you a bigot.

If your fantasy life is improved by believing I'm a guy, more power to ya love.

Yet you can't name one person who has different rights being gay than if they were straight. When you can, get back to me, Steve. So did pretending to be a lesbian on the Internet turn out to be the hoot you thought it would be?

Remember the tip if you want a date, women are actually different than you, it's not just the equipment. Good luck with that.

The right to marry the non familial consenting adult of my choice. Just as Mildred Loving could not marry a black man, I cannot marry a woman of any race. That is discrimination based on gender. Mildred didn't want to marry a black man, I don't want to marry a man at all. I married another woman. Why is it that you don't want my legal, civil marriage treated exactly like yours?

Since you are lesbians, what is wrong with marrying your sister?

That would be incest which breaks the law. There is no law against being a lesbian, so marriage would be legal

female/female sex is not incest. its a sickness but it isn't incest.

If you lefties are really about equality (which you aren't) then you would be pushing for legalization and recognition of all forms of human coupling. Why do you support denying equality for people who want to marry their cousin, brother, sister, parent? Why do you hate these people because of who they love and want to marry?

 

[Seawytch]

What I do know is that you do not want to treat gays equally under the law. That does make you a bigot.

If your fantasy life is improved by believing I'm a guy, more power to ya love.

Yet you can't name one person who has different rights being gay than if they were straight. When you can, get back to me, Steve. So did pretending to be a lesbian on the Internet turn out to be the hoot you thought it would be?

Remember the tip if you want a date, women are actually different than you, it's not just the equipment. Good luck with that.

The right to marry the non familial consenting adult of my choice. Just as Mildred Loving could not marry a black man, I cannot marry a woman of any race. That is discrimination based on gender. Mildred didn't want to marry a black man, I don't want to marry a man at all. I married another woman. Why is it that you don't want my legal, civil marriage treated exactly like yours?

Ooops, you just lost. You just said government can regulate who does and doesn't have access to government marriage. That destroys your own argument which was based on that they don't.

Check and mate, the game goes to Redfish.

I never said they could not. Of course, they have to have a reason to do it. There must be a demonstrated societal harm in allowing it. Go!

 

[Seawytch]

you misunderstand what I am saying. The government should not be involved in marriage-----------but it is. The govt give tax breaks to married couples. I want those same tax breaks for gay couples. But thats not what this is about. This is about what society accepts as normal human behavior. Allowing gays to call their union a marriage is society saying that homosexuality is a normal human condition, equal in every way to heterosexuality-----------some believe that, the majority do not. Are we to be ruled by minority opinion or majority opinion? Thats what this gay debate is really about.

No, this "gay debate" is really about equality...as has been pointed out to you multiple times. YOU care about the word, we don't therefore the onus is upon YOU to have it changed...for everyone. Civil Unions for ALL, Fishy, not marriage for straights, civil unions for gays. Change the name for everyone.

Once again caught in a lie. Last time it was about the money, now it's about the validation again. So bureaucrats pat you on the back and tell you you're OK, you're as good as anyone else, then you can go off and live your life in joy. The desire for validaton from government is something I cannot remotely fathom.

This is why liberals are lucky and we are cursed you live in this country. In most of the world, you would be so happy to be left alone to live your life. In a large chunk of the world, you could go to jail or die. But in this country, you are obsessed with needing a pat on the back from government and validation from the collective, it's a critical issue to you. You can do whatever you want, live with who you want, have sex with who you want, spend your life with what you want. But government hasn't blessed you. Liberals are weak and pathetic, you'd starve anywhere else. Yet you rule here because we have one man, one vote. And you are one man.

I never said marriage was "about" any one thing. Gays get married for exactly the same reasons straights get married, for the same reasons YOU got married, civilly married hypocrite.

I have a civil marriage just like you do. Why don't you want my civil marriage license treated exactly like your civil marriage license?

 

[Seawytch]

What I do know is that you do not want to treat gays equally under the law. That does make you a bigot.

If your fantasy life is improved by believing I'm a guy, more power to ya love.

Yet you can't name one person who has different rights being gay than if they were straight. When you can, get back to me, Steve. So did pretending to be a lesbian on the Internet turn out to be the hoot you thought it would be?

Remember the tip if you want a date, women are actually different than you, it's not just the equipment. Good luck with that.

The right to marry the non familial consenting adult of my choice. Just as Mildred Loving could not marry a black man, I cannot marry a woman of any race. That is discrimination based on gender. Mildred didn't want to marry a black man, I don't want to marry a man at all. I married another woman. Why is it that you don't want my legal, civil marriage treated exactly like yours?

Since you are lesbians, what is wrong with marrying your sister?

Wrong in what sense? A moral one? That's easy. A legal one? Not a damn thing, don't care. If someone wants to try and petition the courts for siblings to marry, they can go for it and I wish them luck.

 

[rightwinger]

What I do know is that you do not want to treat gays equally under the law. That does make you a bigot.

If your fantasy life is improved by believing I'm a guy, more power to ya love.

Yet you can't name one person who has different rights being gay than if they were straight. When you can, get back to me, Steve. So did pretending to be a lesbian on the Internet turn out to be the hoot you thought it would be?

Remember the tip if you want a date, women are actually different than you, it's not just the equipment. Good luck with that.

The right to marry the non familial consenting adult of my choice. Just as Mildred Loving could not marry a black man, I cannot marry a woman of any race. That is discrimination based on gender. Mildred didn't want to marry a black man, I don't want to marry a man at all. I married another woman. Why is it that you don't want my legal, civil marriage treated exactly like yours?

Since you are lesbians, what is wrong with marrying your sister?

That would be incest which breaks the law. There is no law against being a lesbian, so marriage would be legal

female/female sex is not incest. its a sickness but it isn't incest.

If you lefties are really about equality (which you aren't) then you would be pushing for legalization and recognition of all forms of human coupling. Why do you support denying equality for people who want to marry their cousin, brother, sister, parent? Why do you hate these people because of who they love and want to marry?

By definition, sister-sister sex is incest.

If you want incestuous relations to be legal, you need to get the laws changed to make it a legal activity. Once you have done that, THEN you can argue we should recognize sibling marriages

 

[elektra]

What I do know is that you do not want to treat gays equally under the law. That does make you a bigot.

If your fantasy life is improved by believing I'm a guy, more power to ya love.

Yet you can't name one person who has different rights being gay than if they were straight. When you can, get back to me, Steve. So did pretending to be a lesbian on the Internet turn out to be the hoot you thought it would be?

Remember the tip if you want a date, women are actually different than you, it's not just the equipment. Good luck with that.

The right to marry the non familial consenting adult of my choice. Just as Mildred Loving could not marry a black man, I cannot marry a woman of any race. That is discrimination based on gender. Mildred didn't want to marry a black man, I don't want to marry a man at all. I married another woman. Why is it that you don't want my legal, civil marriage treated exactly like yours?

Since you are lesbians, what is wrong with marrying your sister?

That would be incest which breaks the law. There is no law against being a lesbian, so marriage would be legal

Insest requires sex, you stated marriage is about love, so two sisters in love can be married, it's none of your business if they are having sex.

 

[dcraelin]

Its not just republicans, Im one registered Democrat who opposes gay marriage, and I'm sure there are many others. California's vote on prop 8 proves that as the state is largely Democratic in registration. And it is probably one of the most liberal of states.

California has moved on. It now has gay marriage and the world did not come to an end
Gay marriage is now a fact of life. The "social experiment" of gay marrige shows that it does work and society is not negatively affected. The supreme court is going to make that decision next year
Republicans might as well accept it

California is a Democrat state that voted against, but a homosexual judge declared homosexuals come first and dictated against the constitution and the people.

There is no justification in being able to vote on what rights others should be allowed to have
That is why we have judges

We have judges too interpret what the people,WE the PEOPLE, sometimes through their representatives...meant in different situations. They are not meant to legislate.

Judges are there to protect the rights of the minority
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

Judges tend to end up protecting the rights of the powerful minority......They are tools of the wolves...who are, in almost any society, far outnumbered by the sheep.

 

[dcraelin]

Its not just republicans, Im one registered Democrat who opposes gay marriage, and I'm sure there are many others. California's vote on prop 8 proves that as the state is largely Democratic in registration. And it is probably one of the most liberal of states.

California has moved on. It now has gay marriage and the world did not come to an end
Gay marriage is now a fact of life. The "social experiment" of gay marrige shows that it does work and society is not negatively affected. The supreme court is going to make that decision next year
Republicans might as well accept it

California is a Democrat state that voted against, but a homosexual judge declared homosexuals come first and dictated against the constitution and the people.

So a California initiative banning all firearms would be okay with you? How about a California initiative banning evangelical Christians from civil marriage? That be okay with you?

I'm guessing California has a Constitution with a Bill of Rights that pretty much copies the Federal Bill of Rights. Any initiative in California would have to be a Constitutional initiative which I'm also guessing needs an increased signature requirement. Even if such an Initiative were to get on the ballot in California, I doubt it would pass. IF it did it would still be subject to restriction by the Federal Bill of Rights which represents a wider majority opinion.

Whether you like it or not, marriage has been declared a fundamental right...which is why anti gay laws (based solely on animus for gays) are being found unconstitutional.

I dont believe it has been,...in fact I think European courts have rejected that idea. Laws prohibiting "gay-marriage"...which you term "anti-gay" are NOT solely based on animus for gays.

 

[dcraelin]

When are Republicans just going to give up their objections to gay marriage so the country can move on?

Its not just republicans, Im one registered Democrat who opposes gay marriage, and I'm sure there are many others. California's vote on prop 8 proves that as the state is largely Democratic in registration. And it is probably one of the most liberal of states.

California has moved on. It now has gay marriage and the world did not come to an end
Gay marriage is now a fact of life. The "social experiment" of gay marrige shows that it does work and society is not negatively affected. The supreme court is going to make that decision next year
Republicans might as well accept it

Pay attention, you partisan hack. This is not a republican/democrat issue. The people of the left coast state of california voted against gay marriage. A liberal gay judge overruled the will of the people. that is wrong no matter what the issue.

Not only is it wrong but it is dangerous to our system of governance.......it could well negatively affect other issues Gay-marriage advocates are for, but they are so wrapped up in this fight...in their persecution complex that they fail to see the damage fighting this out in the courts may do.

 

[kaz]

What I do know is that you do not want to treat gays equally under the law. That does make you a bigot.

If your fantasy life is improved by believing I'm a guy, more power to ya love.

Yet you can't name one person who has different rights being gay than if they were straight. When you can, get back to me, Steve. So did pretending to be a lesbian on the Internet turn out to be the hoot you thought it would be?

Remember the tip if you want a date, women are actually different than you, it's not just the equipment. Good luck with that.

The right to marry the non familial consenting adult of my choice. Just as Mildred Loving could not marry a black man, I cannot marry a woman of any race. That is discrimination based on gender. Mildred didn't want to marry a black man, I don't want to marry a man at all. I married another woman. Why is it that you don't want my legal, civil marriage treated exactly like yours?

Ooops, you just lost. You just said government can regulate who does and doesn't have access to government marriage. That destroys your own argument which was based on that they don't.

Check and mate, the game goes to Redfish.

I never said they could not. Of course, they have to have a reason to do it. There must be a demonstrated societal harm in allowing it. Go!

They have to have a reason you agree with you mean, else you go to dictators to do it for you.

You still can't name a single person who being straight or gay changes who they can marry. That is why it's a job for the legislature, not the courts.

 

[kaz]

reasons YOU got married, civilly married hypocrite.

I have a civil marriage just like you do. Why don't you want my civil marriage license treated exactly like your civil marriage license?

Strawman

 

[kaz]

That would be incest which breaks the law. There is no law against being a lesbian, so marriage would be legal

Insest requires sex, you stated marriage is about love, so two sisters in love can be married, it's none of your business if they are having sex.

It's completely wrong for conservatives to think "marriage" is about having children. It's actually about sex. That's why liberals are morally superior, they think marriage is about sex where as you think it's about children. But it's not about sex, it's about love, but you have to have sex because marriage without sex isn't marriage, and with it then sisters marrying would be incest. So it's about love, but it's about sex. And it's about the $$$, but it's not about the $$$ it's about validation. Doesn't that clear it up?

RW and Seawytch are rocket scientists, aren't they?

 

[kaz]

Combined with the 14th amendment, I don't see how they can rule otherwise?

There's not much you do see, but that's what happens when your education ends when you fail sixth grade.

Maybe you can do what Seawytch can't. Since you are citing the 14th, name a person who being gay changes who they can and can't marry.

 

[paperview]

kaz said:
"Once again caught in a lie. Last time it was about the money, now it's about the validation again. So bureaucrats pat you on the back and tell you you're OK, you're as good as anyone else, then you can go off and live your life in joy. The desire for validaton from government is something I cannot remotely fathom.

This is why liberals are lucky and we are cursed you live in this country. In most of the world, you would be so happy to be left alone to live your life. In a large chunk of the world, you could go to jail or die. But in this country, you are obsessed with needing a pat on the back from government and validation from the collective, it's a critical issue to you. You can do whatever you want, live with who you want, have sex with who you want, spend your life with what you want. But government hasn't blessed you. Liberals are weak and pathetic, you'd starve anywhere else. Yet you rule here because we have one man, one vote. And you are one man."
==============================

^^ No better way to earn the heart and minds on marriage equality than to let normal American see and hear the words of conservatives like kaz here.

Thank you, kaz. You do our side a great service..

 

[rightwinger]

Combined with the 14th amendment, I don't see how they can rule otherwise?

There's not much you do see, but that's what happens when your education ends when you fail sixth grade.

Maybe you can do what Seawytch can't. Since you are citing the 14th, name a person who being gay changes who they can and can't marry.

Wait for it......


Wait for it.....


Here it comes........


Gays are allowed to marry the opposite sex just like everyone else so they are not discriminated against


This is the part where everyone rolls on the floor laughing