Louisiana Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

[Seawytch]

lets settle this. Lets have a national referendum on the november ballot. Let the voters decide-------------OK?

we settle everything else by voting, why not this?

Let's settle the gun debate the same way! Great idea! If your state votes to ban firearms...suck it up sunshine!

Works for me. Let the people speak. Thats what this country is all about-----------freedom, democracy, one vote per citizen, majority vote wins. Lets do it. Lets put all of these issues up to a vote of the people.

Right...screw our representative republic that was set up by the founders...Fishy wants to vote on civil rights!

 

[rightwinger]

A fundamental right for a man and a woman of different races to marry. It has nothing to do with gays.

Look up the other two cases. They weren't about interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment has to do with all Americans.

The 14th amendment was presented to the people that passed it as being about race, not gender as the need to have another amendment to allow women the right to vote some years later proves.

Besides that the 14th was the only amendment which had to be "reconsidered" under coercive threat. That includes the other slavery amendments the 13th and 15th.

That does not change what I said. The 14th Amendment, regardless of who it was originally written for or about has to do with all Americans, not just Americans of color.

The reason the 14th didn't give women the right to vote was because of the specific language in Section 2 having to do with voting.

If they wanted to restrict the 14th amendment to just blacks they could have. They specifically opened it up to all people

Gay marriage was not discussed or considered or thought about when the 14th was drafted. You guys are totally out of context trying to make it about gay marriage. It was about equal treatment for all races. nothing more.

The 14th is about equal application of the laws to ALL people

If they meant to exclude gays from that requirement, they could have

 

[Redfish]

the judges once again ruled against the will of the people.

"February poll of 635 Louisiana residents found that only 28 percent of those surveyed felt gay marriage should be legal (though 54 percent thought civil unions should be allowed for gay couples)."

it happened in california and now in louisiana.

when will we stop activist judges from making law from the bench?

only 635 ? what snake handler or holy roller baptist church was that poll taken at?
it would have been much different i new orleans.
funny how they're activist judges when they disagree with the fringe right agenda and saints when they do.
isn't there something in the constitution about insuring domestic tranquility, general welfare and the blessing of liberty ?

most polls consist of 500-1000 people. This one is as valid as any of them. Personally I thinks all polls are bullshit, but since you gay marriage supporters are constantly posting them, I thought I would do the same.

making your post meaningless.

Did you read it? what I said in that post is 100% true. you like your polls but don't like mine--------BFD

if you post something you think is bullshit as evidence, kinda makes you look stupid.

sorry if the whole thing is beyond your ablility to comprehend. I was using an example to show the foolishness of polls posted by gay agenda advocates. Sorry if the analogy was over your head.

 

[rightwinger]

More like valid question too uncomfortable for you too answer.

I don't have to address every random question you ask me that has nothing to do with anything I said. Sorry Steve. A tip though, if you make it sound like you are addressing something I said when you are addressing the voices in your head, I definitely won't address it. I'm not interested in speaking for your voices, you can figure that one out yourself.

It does. Why should my civil marriage license be treated differently than yours? Explain that for us.

Because of human biology. your entire existence is dominated by your gayness. Grow the fuck up and accept the fact that not everyone will ever agree with you and that others will not accept the government mandating how they think or what they believe.

That does not answer the question. That is why you don't believe we should be able to marry at all. Why should my legal, civil marriage license, issued by the state of California be treated differently than yours?

In california and other states that recognize it, it shouldn't be. If I move to California my Louisiana drivers license won't be valid and I will have to get a Cal license. Either we have states or we don't. If everything is controlled by the feds in DC, why have states?

You are free to use your Louisiana license in California. Once you cross the border, California is not allowed to treat you as an unlicensed driver. But states do that with a marriage license granted to gays

 

[Redfish]

lets settle this. Lets have a national referendum on the november ballot. Let the voters decide-------------OK?

we settle everything else by voting, why not this?

Let's settle the gun debate the same way! Great idea! If your state votes to ban firearms...suck it up sunshine!

Works for me. Let the people speak. Thats what this country is all about-----------freedom, democracy, one vote per citizen, majority vote wins. Lets do it. Lets put all of these issues up to a vote of the people.

Right...screw our representative republic that was set up by the founders...Fishy wants to vote on civil rights!

I was agreeing with you, ya silly bitch. you said lets vote on gun rights. I agree. Lets vote on that and all of the other issues of the day.

The civil rights laws WERE PASSED BY MAJORITY VOTE. THATS HOW OUR COUNTRY WORKS. As much as you would like it, we do not decide things based on minority opinion.

 

[Redfish]

I don't have to address every random question you ask me that has nothing to do with anything I said. Sorry Steve. A tip though, if you make it sound like you are addressing something I said when you are addressing the voices in your head, I definitely won't address it. I'm not interested in speaking for your voices, you can figure that one out yourself.

It does. Why should my civil marriage license be treated differently than yours? Explain that for us.

Because of human biology. your entire existence is dominated by your gayness. Grow the fuck up and accept the fact that not everyone will ever agree with you and that others will not accept the government mandating how they think or what they believe.

That does not answer the question. That is why you don't believe we should be able to marry at all. Why should my legal, civil marriage license, issued by the state of California be treated differently than yours?

In california and other states that recognize it, it shouldn't be. If I move to California my Louisiana drivers license won't be valid and I will have to get a Cal license. Either we have states or we don't. If everything is controlled by the feds in DC, why have states?

You are free to use your Louisiana license in California. Once you cross the border, California is not allowed to treat you as an unlicensed driver. But states do that with a marriage license granted to gays

I said "if I move to california". not pass through. No state is going to do anything to a california married gay couple if they cross a state line. If they relocate to a different state, they have to abide by the laws of that state.

 

[Redfish]

Look up the other two cases. They weren't about interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment has to do with all Americans.

The 14th amendment was presented to the people that passed it as being about race, not gender as the need to have another amendment to allow women the right to vote some years later proves.

Besides that the 14th was the only amendment which had to be "reconsidered" under coercive threat. That includes the other slavery amendments the 13th and 15th.

That does not change what I said. The 14th Amendment, regardless of who it was originally written for or about has to do with all Americans, not just Americans of color.

The reason the 14th didn't give women the right to vote was because of the specific language in Section 2 having to do with voting.

If they wanted to restrict the 14th amendment to just blacks they could have. They specifically opened it up to all people

Gay marriage was not discussed or considered or thought about when the 14th was drafted. You guys are totally out of context trying to make it about gay marriage. It was about equal treatment for all races. nothing more.

The 14th is about equal application of the laws to ALL people

If they meant to exclude gays from that requirement, they could have

homosexuality was not an issue in those days. you are being ridiculous

 

[WorldWatcher]

I said "if I move to california". not pass through. No state is going to do anything to a california married gay couple if they cross a state line. If they relocate to a different state, they have to abide by the laws of that state.

Yes they do, if a married same-sex couple from California visits relatives in Virginia, as soon as they cross state lines and arrive in Virginia their civil marriage is considered void for all state law purposes. They don't have rights of medical decision making, if one spouse were to die in Virginia they don't have a right to sue for wrongful death (you know the suit has to take place in the state where the death occurs right?), they have no spousal privilege in the event of a court action, etc...


>>>>

 

[Redfish]

I said "if I move to california". not pass through. No state is going to do anything to a california married gay couple if they cross a state line. If they relocate to a different state, they have to abide by the laws of that state.

Yes they do, if a married same-sex couple from California visits relatives in Virginia, as soon as they cross state lines and arrive in Virginia their civil marriage is considered void for all state law purposes. They don't have rights of medical decision making, if one spouse were to die in Virginia they don't have a right to sue for wrongful death (you know the suit has to take place in the state where the death occurs right?), they have no spousal privilege in the event of a court action, etc...


>>>>

as I said, when you go to another state you are subject to the laws of that state. If you don't like it, don't go there---------thats why I will never go to north korea.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I said "if I move to california". not pass through. No state is going to do anything to a california married gay couple if they cross a state line. If they relocate to a different state, they have to abide by the laws of that state.

Yes they do, if a married same-sex couple from California visits relatives in Virginia, as soon as they cross state lines and arrive in Virginia their civil marriage is considered void for all state law purposes. They don't have rights of medical decision making, if one spouse were to die in Virginia they don't have a right to sue for wrongful death (you know the suit has to take place in the state where the death occurs right?), they have no spousal privilege in the event of a court action, etc...


>>>>

as I said, when you go to another state you are subject to the laws of that state. If you don't like it, don't go there---------thats why I will never go to north korea.

Yes but you started this with the discussion of drivers licenses and how they were valid across state lines, that you had to be reissued a drivers license only if you relocate (as in change residence).

It is not the same for same-sex and difference-couples (you claimed nothing happened) who either relocate or visit a different state.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

More like valid question too uncomfortable for you too answer.

I don't have to address every random question you ask me that has nothing to do with anything I said. Sorry Steve. A tip though, if you make it sound like you are addressing something I said when you are addressing the voices in your head, I definitely won't address it. I'm not interested in speaking for your voices, you can figure that one out yourself.

It does. Why should my civil marriage license be treated differently than yours? Explain that for us.

Because of human biology. your entire existence is dominated by your gayness. Grow the fuck up and accept the fact that not everyone will ever agree with you and that others will not accept the government mandating how they think or what they believe.

That does not answer the question. That is why you don't believe we should be able to marry at all. Why should my legal, civil marriage license, issued by the state of California be treated differently than yours?

In california and other states that recognize it, it shouldn't be. If I move to California my Louisiana drivers license won't be valid and I will have to get a Cal license. Either we have states or we don't. If everything is controlled by the feds in DC, why have states?

A driver's license is not a marriage license. If a 40 year old marries his 15 year old 1st cousin in Alabama, that marriage license is valid in all 50 states. My civil marriage license, issued by the state of California is not valid in all 50 states like yours is. Please explain how that is equal application of the law.

 

[Seawytch]

lets settle this. Lets have a national referendum on the november ballot. Let the voters decide-------------OK?

we settle everything else by voting, why not this?

Let's settle the gun debate the same way! Great idea! If your state votes to ban firearms...suck it up sunshine!

Works for me. Let the people speak. Thats what this country is all about-----------freedom, democracy, one vote per citizen, majority vote wins. Lets do it. Lets put all of these issues up to a vote of the people.

Right...screw our representative republic that was set up by the founders...Fishy wants to vote on civil rights!

I was agreeing with you, ya silly bitch. you said lets vote on gun rights. I agree. Lets vote on that and all of the other issues of the day.

The civil rights laws WERE PASSED BY MAJORITY VOTE. THATS HOW OUR COUNTRY WORKS. As much as you would like it, we do not decide things based on minority opinion.

Yes, I know you think that's how the country should work...we should all get to vote on stuff. I'm all for it, but you'll need to change the Constitution first. Since your little "idea" has less chance than a snowball in hell, I think you should dedicate all your time and energy into getting nationwide referendums.

We'd for sure get immigration reform, a public option and higher taxes on the 1%. Get to work on that Constitution Fishboi.

 

[rightwinger]

It does. Why should my civil marriage license be treated differently than yours? Explain that for us.

Because of human biology. your entire existence is dominated by your gayness. Grow the fuck up and accept the fact that not everyone will ever agree with you and that others will not accept the government mandating how they think or what they believe.

That does not answer the question. That is why you don't believe we should be able to marry at all. Why should my legal, civil marriage license, issued by the state of California be treated differently than yours?

In california and other states that recognize it, it shouldn't be. If I move to California my Louisiana drivers license won't be valid and I will have to get a Cal license. Either we have states or we don't. If everything is controlled by the feds in DC, why have states?

You are free to use your Louisiana license in California. Once you cross the border, California is not allowed to treat you as an unlicensed driver. But states do that with a marriage license granted to gays

I said "if I move to california". not pass through. No state is going to do anything to a california married gay couple if they cross a state line. If they relocate to a different state, they have to abide by the laws of that state.

I moved to California and they made me take a written test but accepted my NY driving test. California can make a valid argument why a driver from another state needs to know specific rules related to California

There is no valid reason why a state should not accept another states marriage license

 

[rightwinger]

I said "if I move to california". not pass through. No state is going to do anything to a california married gay couple if they cross a state line. If they relocate to a different state, they have to abide by the laws of that state.

Yes they do, if a married same-sex couple from California visits relatives in Virginia, as soon as they cross state lines and arrive in Virginia their civil marriage is considered void for all state law purposes. They don't have rights of medical decision making, if one spouse were to die in Virginia they don't have a right to sue for wrongful death (you know the suit has to take place in the state where the death occurs right?), they have no spousal privilege in the event of a court action, etc...


>>>>

as I said, when you go to another state you are subject to the laws of that state. If you don't like it, don't go there---------thats why I will never go to north korea.

Yes but you started this with the discussion of drivers licenses and how they were valid across state lines, that you had to be reissued a drivers license only if you relocate (as in change residence).

It is not the same for same-sex and difference-couples (you claimed nothing happened) who either relocate or visit a different state.


>>>>

I think that may be key to striking down anti gay marriage laws.

What happens when a married gay couple enters a state and a spouse is not allowed to make medical decisions for an injured partner? What happens to married gay soldiers who are stationed in states that do not recognize their marriage?

 

[dcraelin]

You're not believing it does not make it less so. In Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safely the SCOTU declared marriage a fundamental right.

A fundamental right for a man and a woman of different races to marry. It has nothing to do with gays.

Look up the other two cases. They weren't about interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment has to do with all Americans.

The 14th amendment was presented to the people that passed it as being about race, not gender as the need to have another amendment to allow women the right to vote some years later proves.
Besides that the 14th was the only amendment which had to be "reconsidered" under coercive threat. That includes the other slavery amendments the 13th and 15th.

That does not change what I said. The 14th Amendment, regardless of who it was originally written for or about has to do with all Americans, not just Americans of color.
The reason the 14th didn't give women the right to vote was because of the specific language in Section 2 having to do with voting.

If they wanted to restrict the 14th amendment to just blacks they could have. They specifically opened it up to all people

The language in Section 2 demonstrates, in part, who it was meant to apply too,.... and common sense should also. Also I have posted elsewhere how historian Charles Beard and others have postulated that some of the vagueness within the bill possibly was meant to be a benefit to Railroad corporations...the most powerful lobbyists of the day........and was an exercise in corruption. ....a john Graham has demonstrated that none of the honest purposes of the amendment couldn't have been accomplished without it...using the other civil war era amendments,13 and 15 and the Constitution itself......Ironic that an amendment, a large part of the surface purpose was meant to be a correction of past errors in Supreme Court precedent.....is now being proped up as some sort of testament of the courts infallibility.

 

[daws101]

You're not believing it does not make it less so. In Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safely the SCOTU declared marriage a fundamental right.

A fundamental right for a man and a woman of different races to marry. It has nothing to do with gays.

Look up the other two cases. They weren't about interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment has to do with all Americans.

The 14th amendment was presented to the people that passed it as being about race, not gender as the need to have another amendment to allow women the right to vote some years later proves.

Besides that the 14th was the only amendment which had to be "reconsidered" under coercive threat. That includes the other slavery amendments the 13th and 15th.

That does not change what I said. The 14th Amendment, regardless of who it was originally written for or about has to do with all Americans, not just Americans of color.

The reason the 14th didn't give women the right to vote was because of the specific language in Section 2 having to do with voting.

So the historical context and the intent of the drafters of the 14th don't matter? You just assume that your interpretation is correct because it suits your agenda?

The 14th was about race, not sexual orientation.

false the founding fathers were smart enough to understand the the constitution was a living document.
and would be interpreted and changed as the country grew.
it's not stuck in the 18th century

 

[daws101]

Shortly?

Like a thousand years?

much less than that. I recommend world history 101 at your local jr college.

Actually, you would be hard pressed to find a link between the onset of open homosexuality and the collapse of those empires. If you want to look at the Roman Empire, the emergence of Christianity occurred closer to the collapse than the emergence of homosexuality

christianity killed the roman empire ...

Homosexuality was openly accepted in Rome throughout the period of the Empire. It was the Christians who started calling it a "sin". It was shortly after the emergence of the Christians that the Roman Empire collapsed

^^^^^^^atheist version of history. amazingly stupid

only to the willfully ignorant .
the atheist version of history is the most objective.

 

[daws101]

only 635 ? what snake handler or holy roller baptist church was that poll taken at?
it would have been much different i new orleans.
funny how they're activist judges when they disagree with the fringe right agenda and saints when they do.
isn't there something in the constitution about insuring domestic tranquility, general welfare and the blessing of liberty ?

most polls consist of 500-1000 people. This one is as valid as any of them. Personally I thinks all polls are bullshit, but since you gay marriage supporters are constantly posting them, I thought I would do the same.

making your post meaningless.

Did you read it? what I said in that post is 100% true. you like your polls but don't like mine--------BFD

if you post something you think is bullshit as evidence, kinda makes you look stupid.

sorry if the whole thing is beyond your ablility to comprehend. I was using an example to show the foolishness of polls posted by gay agenda advocates. Sorry if the analogy was over your head.

thanks for proving my point !

 

[rightwinger]

A fundamental right for a man and a woman of different races to marry. It has nothing to do with gays.

Look up the other two cases. They weren't about interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment has to do with all Americans.

The 14th amendment was presented to the people that passed it as being about race, not gender as the need to have another amendment to allow women the right to vote some years later proves.
Besides that the 14th was the only amendment which had to be "reconsidered" under coercive threat. That includes the other slavery amendments the 13th and 15th.

That does not change what I said. The 14th Amendment, regardless of who it was originally written for or about has to do with all Americans, not just Americans of color.
The reason the 14th didn't give women the right to vote was because of the specific language in Section 2 having to do with voting.

If they wanted to restrict the 14th amendment to just blacks they could have. They specifically opened it up to all people

The language in Section 2 demonstrates, in part, who it was meant to apply too,.... and common sense should also. Also I have posted elsewhere how historian Charles Beard and others have postulated that some of the vagueness within the bill possibly was meant to be a benefit to Railroad corporations...the most powerful lobbyists of the day........and was an exercise in corruption. ....a john Graham has demonstrated that none of the honest purposes of the amendment couldn't have been accomplished without it...using the other civil war era amendments,13 and 15 and the Constitution itself......Ironic that an amendment, a large part of the surface purpose was meant to be a correction of past errors in Supreme Court precedent.....is now being proped up as some sort of testament of the courts infallibility.

Oh...I get it

Is that kind of like "Well regulated militia"?

 

[Redfish]

I don't have to address every random question you ask me that has nothing to do with anything I said. Sorry Steve. A tip though, if you make it sound like you are addressing something I said when you are addressing the voices in your head, I definitely won't address it. I'm not interested in speaking for your voices, you can figure that one out yourself.

It does. Why should my civil marriage license be treated differently than yours? Explain that for us.

Because of human biology. your entire existence is dominated by your gayness. Grow the fuck up and accept the fact that not everyone will ever agree with you and that others will not accept the government mandating how they think or what they believe.

That does not answer the question. That is why you don't believe we should be able to marry at all. Why should my legal, civil marriage license, issued by the state of California be treated differently than yours?

In california and other states that recognize it, it shouldn't be. If I move to California my Louisiana drivers license won't be valid and I will have to get a Cal license. Either we have states or we don't. If everything is controlled by the feds in DC, why have states?

A driver's license is not a marriage license. If a 40 year old marries his 15 year old 1st cousin in Alabama, that marriage license is valid in all 50 states. My civil marriage license, issued by the state of California is not valid in all 50 states like yours is. Please explain how that is equal application of the law.

Some counties ban the sale of alcoholic beverages. Some states ban smoking in all restaurants, some mandate smoking sections. Smoking and alcohol are legal in all states. Pot is legal in colorado and washington. Do you understand the concepts of states rights and local jurisdiction?