Louisiana Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

[daws101]

Do any of the anti gay folks really think that marriage equality isn't an eventuality? Do you really think you're going to win in court or public opinion?

deep down I'd say no. but on the surface they talk a good game.

Where have the anti gay folks "talked a good game"? Many of their arguments are openly laughed at in court. Where's this "A" game you're seeing?

you have to work on your recognition of sarcasm...
they have no good game

 

[Seawytch]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."
55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

We all know how manipulated polls can be......the California prop 8 vote is the latest true poll demonstrating where the nation is on the issue.

Using that reasoning (i.e. the last General Election Ballot results are the last "true poll") - it passed on the ballot in Maine, Washington, and Maryland and adding a discriminatory amendment failed in Minnesota.
Oh ya, that was 4 States in 2012 - 4 years after Prop 8.
>>>>

I am not familiar with those votes....but probably all together they did not have the population count of the California vote......nor did they likely have the turnout percentage.

Prop 8 would not pass in California today. Polls show Californians strongly support marriage equality. That's probably one of the reasons we aren't supposed to vote on someone else's civil rights.

Imagine if we had been allowed to vote on interracial marriage. The SCOTUS ruled on Loving in 1967...

As I've said numerous times before, The issue of interracial marriage was in effect decided by the large majority opinnon expressed in the 13th and 15th amendments.

And yet the SCOTUS cited which amendment? Oh yeah, the 14th. "Majority opinion" did not favor interracial marriage until the 1990s. Still think "we the people" should get to vote on minority rights?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage is not being anti-gay. Many gays share that belief and are perfectly comfortable with civil unions and mutual support contracts.

Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages.

But, at the risk to being repetitive, equality is not what the gay agenda is about.

So you believe, "Those unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriages". If that's the case, then this argument is about semantics.

It always has been about semantics. The gay agenda insists on the word "marriage" because they believe that calling a gay union a marriage forces societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition and the all kids can just choose which way they want to go.

This has never been about equality with them. Anyone paying attention knows that.

Since we both agree civil unions should have the exact same rights and benefits as man/woman marriage and the argument has always been about semantics, then why don't we just change the wording in law from "marriage" to "civil union" in all state and federal law? Marriage would mean a religious contract. Civil unions would be the legal contract.

Marriage under man's law and marriage under God's law have always been different so why use the same terminology for both?
.

Because it's not about semantics.

Marriage co-exists as both legal and religious, perceived as co-equal by society, and afforded the same societal deference.

Whether married by a member of the clergy or a representative of the state is irrelevant, both are equal gateways to the legal entity that is marriage contract law, where to seek to designate the latter as something other than marriage is just as repugnant to the Constitution.

There is only one marriage law, where two equal, consenting, and adult partners enter into a contract of commitment recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

I understand your point but a marriage in the church is essential a religious contract based on religious doctrine, love, commitment, profession of faith, rituals, etc. Depending on the church, if you are married in the church, you're married in eyes of God with or without a marriage licence. A civil marriage is simply a legal contract with of course no requirement for a religious marriage.

We have traditionally used the same term to refer to both civil and religious marriages even thou they have different requirements, responsibilities, and rights. They are certainly not the same so why should use the same term when referring to them.

Again, because they are the same, where marriage law is marriage law regardless the gender configuration of the couple, regardless the gateway through which the couple enters into the marriage contract – whether officiated by a member of the clergy licensed by the state to perform marriage in the context of state contract law, or a judge or justice of the peace as an authorized official of the state.


Moreover, many opposite-sex couples get married by a judge or JP, where to designate that contract a 'marriage' when the same judge or JP performed a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple designated a 'civil union' would in fact be un-Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“As I've said numerous times before, The issue of interracial marriage was in effect decided by the large majority opinnon expressed in the 13th and 15th amendments.”

And has been proven to you numerous times before, this is ridiculous and as a fact of law wrong.

 

[dcraelin]

We all know how manipulated polls can be......the California prop 8 vote is the latest true poll demonstrating where the nation is on the issue.

Using that reasoning (i.e. the last General Election Ballot results are the last "true poll") - it passed on the ballot in Maine, Washington, and Maryland and adding a discriminatory amendment failed in Minnesota.
Oh ya, that was 4 States in 2012 - 4 years after Prop 8.
>>>>

I am not familiar with those votes....but probably all together they did not have the population count of the California vote......nor did they likely have the turnout percentage.

Prop 8 would not pass in California today. Polls show Californians strongly support marriage equality. That's probably one of the reasons we aren't supposed to vote on someone else's civil rights.

Imagine if we had been allowed to vote on interracial marriage. The SCOTUS ruled on Loving in 1967...

As I've said numerous times before, The issue of interracial marriage was in effect decided by the large majority opinnon expressed in the 13th and 15th amendments.

And yet the SCOTUS cited which amendment? Oh yeah, the 14th. "Majority opinion" did not favor interracial marriage until the 1990s. Still think "we the people" should get to vote on minority rights?

When the majority agreed to the 13th and 15th....and also agreed with the common sense intention of the 14th, they in effect said that there could not be racial discrimination.....which made laws banning interracial marriage illegal............BUT, I do not accept your poll results regardless, I think if debate had been had at the time.....the issue would have been decided in favor of allowing interracial marriages, especially on a national level.

For pro-gay-marriage advocates to continue to cynically use the Loving case is disgusting.....The Loving couple were, I believe, torn apart, physically separated and thrown in jail, and would have been even if they weren't married. NO gay couple faces that today.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Redfish "Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority."
55% of people support Gay Marriage according to Gallup Poll. 59% of registered voted according to Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

We all know how manipulated polls can be......the California prop 8 vote is the latest true poll demonstrating where the nation is on the issue.

Using that reasoning (i.e. the last General Election Ballot results are the last "true poll") - it passed on the ballot in Maine, Washington, and Maryland and adding a discriminatory amendment failed in Minnesota.
Oh ya, that was 4 States in 2012 - 4 years after Prop 8.
>>>>

I am not familiar with those votes....but probably all together they did not have the population count of the California vote......nor did they likely have the turnout percentage.

7 million voted against proposition 8, 6.4 million voted for. Voter turn out was 80%. So 7 of 17 million voted it down.

Maine had 370,000 to 334,000 in favor.

Washington 1.6 million to 1.4 in favor

Maryland 1.3 million to 1.2 million.

So yes, three states had less voters than California, and the combined result would be less, however these happened later, and potentially California would vote differently in the present day.

But then, Bush won the election without the majority of votes, or even more votes than Gore. So..... It happens.
Polls put California much higher than they did back in 2008.

Well you may have just mistyped the top part ...prop 8 passed,...... so the 7 million was for it..... I take it. The pro gay marriage side is
using the sympathy factor very effectively...but I think once people examine the issue closer they will/would reject gay marriage tho they might be in favor of most aspects of civil unions.

It's a pretty sad indictment that people will vote against something that is clearly against the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

However we see now that things are changing, 2012 was a year of voting for gay marriage.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is worrying when a lot of people don't have much concept of what rights are and what they do and how they should be.

Everyone worries about their own rights, the ones they want, and anyone else can, well.......

I agree with Jefferson, the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority........History has shown reliance on the wisdom of courts is foolish.

California is an example which proves you're wrong. People willing to vote against human rights. er....

Also, how much real democracy did the Founding Fathers allow? President, not elected by the people, Supreme Court not elected by the people, Senate not elected by the people but by the states, and most people couldn't vote anyway.

 

[frigidweirdo]

“As I've said numerous times before, The issue of interracial marriage was in effect decided by the large majority opinnon expressed in the 13th and 15th amendments.”

And has been proven to you numerous times before, this is ridiculous and as a fact of law wrong.

The 13A and 15A were made by the majority and the 14A wasn't?

 

[Redfish]

It is worrying when a lot of people don't have much concept of what rights are and what they do and how they should be.

Everyone worries about their own rights, the ones they want, and anyone else can, well.......

I agree with Jefferson, the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority........History has shown reliance on the wisdom of courts is foolish.

California is an example which proves you're wrong. People willing to vote against human rights. er....

Also, how much real democracy did the Founding Fathers allow? President, not elected by the people, Supreme Court not elected by the people, Senate not elected by the people but by the states, and most people couldn't vote anyway.

First of all---------- marriage of any kind is not a right guaranteed by the constitution
Second---------------the 14th amendment is about race, not sex
third-------------------in the USA societal rules are decided by majority vote
fourth-------------no where in the constitution or any of the amendments are gay marriage or homosexual rights mentioned.
fifth--------------using the word "marriage" does not guarantee equal treatment for gay couples
sixth------------forced societal acceptance by govt edict does not work
seventh-------------gays are not denied any of the rights enjoyed by straights
finally-------------the only way to settle this is to put it on the ballot in every state, let the people decide. And let everyone abide by the will of the people.

 

[Redfish]

It is worrying when a lot of people don't have much concept of what rights are and what they do and how they should be.

Everyone worries about their own rights, the ones they want, and anyone else can, well.......

I agree with Jefferson, the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority........History has shown reliance on the wisdom of courts is foolish.

California is an example which proves you're wrong. People willing to vote against human rights. er....

Also, how much real democracy did the Founding Fathers allow? President, not elected by the people, Supreme Court not elected by the people, Senate not elected by the people but by the states, and most people couldn't vote anyway.

So, in the Cal prop 8 vote, the will of the people meant nothing and the decision was made by one activist gay judge????????????????? is that the way you want this country run?

 

[Redfish]

We all know how manipulated polls can be......the California prop 8 vote is the latest true poll demonstrating where the nation is on the issue.

Using that reasoning (i.e. the last General Election Ballot results are the last "true poll") - it passed on the ballot in Maine, Washington, and Maryland and adding a discriminatory amendment failed in Minnesota.
Oh ya, that was 4 States in 2012 - 4 years after Prop 8.
>>>>

I am not familiar with those votes....but probably all together they did not have the population count of the California vote......nor did they likely have the turnout percentage.

7 million voted against proposition 8, 6.4 million voted for. Voter turn out was 80%. So 7 of 17 million voted it down.

Maine had 370,000 to 334,000 in favor.

Washington 1.6 million to 1.4 in favor

Maryland 1.3 million to 1.2 million.

So yes, three states had less voters than California, and the combined result would be less, however these happened later, and potentially California would vote differently in the present day.

But then, Bush won the election without the majority of votes, or even more votes than Gore. So..... It happens.
Polls put California much higher than they did back in 2008.

Well you may have just mistyped the top part ...prop 8 passed,...... so the 7 million was for it..... I take it. The pro gay marriage side is
using the sympathy factor very effectively...but I think once people examine the issue closer they will/would reject gay marriage tho they might be in favor of most aspects of civil unions.

It's a pretty sad indictment that people will vote against something that is clearly against the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

However we see now that things are changing, 2012 was a year of voting for gay marriage.

please show us where the words "gay marriage" appear in the bill of rights.

 

[Redfish]

the senate was not in recess when it did it. thats why SCOTUS ruled against him

the pres is not perfect..

first thing you have said that makes sense.

ALL OF WHAT i say makes sense.
it's not the left or the democrats who expect him to be perfect it's the right that does...
besides it's the repubs that vowed to block and hinder him in every way possible.
that's about as un american as it gets.

Did the dems work with Bush? This partisan shit started with Clinton. Reagan and O'Neill knew how to work together and get things done. No one since has, although clinton and newt came close.

Why do you continue with the same lies?

Yes the Dems worked with Bush

After 9-11 he got whatever legislation he wanted. He played the 9-11 card for all it was worth. During the economic collapse, Bush got TARP and stimulus out of the Dems. When Obama asked for the same urgent aid, 100% of Republicans voted him down

9/11 was a national crisis. Both parties did the right thing after that attack.

The repubs voted against obama, because what he wanted was wrong for the country at the time. History has proven them right.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, in the Cal prop 8 vote, the will of the people meant nothing and the decision was made by one activist gay judge????????????????? is that the way you want this country run?

Let's have a try.

0% of the people alive in the US today voted for the US Constitution. When the Congress that made the Constitution was put in place, 30,000 people voted from a population close to 4 million.

Those who signed the constitution made a very small number.

When the Bill of Rights was implemented it wasn't much greater and I very much doubt that the number of voters in state elections was much more either.

The will of the people huh?

 

[WorldWatcher]

First of all---------- marriage of any kind is not a right guaranteed by the constitution

No, but equal treatment under the law is.

Second---------------the 14th amendment is about race, not sex

Really, show the section of the 14th Amendment where all citizens and persons is limited to government actions based on race.

third-------------------in the USA societal rules are decided by majority vote

Societal rules maybe, but we're not talking about "societal rules" we're talking about Civil Marriage which is how government treats it's citizen.

fourth-------------no where in the constitution or any of the amendments are gay marriage or homosexual rights mentioned.

No where in the constitution or any of the amendments are interracial marriage mentioned either.

It's a sad day when people think the Constitution is supposed to be en enumerated lists of rights held by the people.

fifth--------------using the word "marriage" does not guarantee equal treatment for gay couples

Of course not. It does mean equal treatment by the government though, that's a good first step.

sixth------------forced societal acceptance by govt edict does not work

seventh-------------gays are not denied any of the rights enjoyed by straights

A straight people can enter into Civil Marriage and get treated a certain way. That same option is denied to same-sex couples (in only about 20 states now). Therefore the right of equal treatment under the law is in play because they aren't treated the same.

finally-------------the only way to settle this is to put it on the ballot in every state, let the people decide. And let everyone abide by the will of the people.

There are no provisions for a national ballot and you know that. Even if their were the provisions to amend the Constitution to do what you want require a super-majority and you don't have that.



>>>>

 

[Redfish]

First of all---------- marriage of any kind is not a right guaranteed by the constitution

No, but equal treatment under the law is.

Second---------------the 14th amendment is about race, not sex

Really, show the section of the 14th Amendment where all citizens and persons is limited to government actions based on race.

third-------------------in the USA societal rules are decided by majority vote

Societal rules maybe, but we're not talking about "societal rules" we're talking about Civil Marriage which is how government treats it's citizen.

fourth-------------no where in the constitution or any of the amendments are gay marriage or homosexual rights mentioned.

No where in the constitution or any of the amendments are interracial marriage mentioned either.

It's a sad day when people think the Constitution is supposed to be en enumerated lists of rights held by the people.

fifth--------------using the word "marriage" does not guarantee equal treatment for gay couples

Of course not. It does mean equal treatment by the government though, that's a good first step.

sixth------------forced societal acceptance by govt edict does not work

seventh-------------gays are not denied any of the rights enjoyed by straights

A straight people can enter into Civil Marriage and get treated a certain way. That same option is denied to same-sex couples (in only about 20 states now). Therefore the right of equal treatment under the law is in play because they aren't treated the same.

finally-------------the only way to settle this is to put it on the ballot in every state, let the people decide. And let everyone abide by the will of the people.

There are no provisions for a national ballot and you know that. Even if their were the provisions to amend the Constitution to do what you want require a super-majority and you don't have that.



>>>>

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Using that reasoning (i.e. the last General Election Ballot results are the last "true poll") - it passed on the ballot in Maine, Washington, and Maryland and adding a discriminatory amendment failed in Minnesota.
Oh ya, that was 4 States in 2012 - 4 years after Prop 8.
>>>>

I am not familiar with those votes....but probably all together they did not have the population count of the California vote......nor did they likely have the turnout percentage.

7 million voted against proposition 8, 6.4 million voted for. Voter turn out was 80%. So 7 of 17 million voted it down.

Maine had 370,000 to 334,000 in favor.

Washington 1.6 million to 1.4 in favor

Maryland 1.3 million to 1.2 million.

So yes, three states had less voters than California, and the combined result would be less, however these happened later, and potentially California would vote differently in the present day.

But then, Bush won the election without the majority of votes, or even more votes than Gore. So..... It happens.
Polls put California much higher than they did back in 2008.

Well you may have just mistyped the top part ...prop 8 passed,...... so the 7 million was for it..... I take it. The pro gay marriage side is
using the sympathy factor very effectively...but I think once people examine the issue closer they will/would reject gay marriage tho they might be in favor of most aspects of civil unions.

It's a pretty sad indictment that people will vote against something that is clearly against the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

However we see now that things are changing, 2012 was a year of voting for gay marriage.

please show us where the words "gay marriage" appear in the bill of rights.

Why do I need to show where it appears in the Bill of Rights?

Firstly the Bill of Rights merely prevents the US govt (and now state govts) from infringing on something.

Secondly I can show where a LOT of stuff that doesn't appear in the Bill or Rights or US Constitution prevents the US govt and state govts from doing things. Like segregation, not in the Constitution.

If your level of education is such that you need to have something explicitly written in the Constitution for you to be able to accept it, then I can only suggest you go back to High School. I'm NOT going to accept bull as an argument just because you're not educated enough to understand what things mean.

 

[frigidweirdo]

First of all---------- marriage of any kind is not a right guaranteed by the constitution

No, but equal treatment under the law is.

Second---------------the 14th amendment is about race, not sex

Really, show the section of the 14th Amendment where all citizens and persons is limited to government actions based on race.

third-------------------in the USA societal rules are decided by majority vote

Societal rules maybe, but we're not talking about "societal rules" we're talking about Civil Marriage which is how government treats it's citizen.

fourth-------------no where in the constitution or any of the amendments are gay marriage or homosexual rights mentioned.

No where in the constitution or any of the amendments are interracial marriage mentioned either.

It's a sad day when people think the Constitution is supposed to be en enumerated lists of rights held by the people.

fifth--------------using the word "marriage" does not guarantee equal treatment for gay couples

Of course not. It does mean equal treatment by the government though, that's a good first step.

sixth------------forced societal acceptance by govt edict does not work

seventh-------------gays are not denied any of the rights enjoyed by straights

A straight people can enter into Civil Marriage and get treated a certain way. That same option is denied to same-sex couples (in only about 20 states now). Therefore the right of equal treatment under the law is in play because they aren't treated the same.

finally-------------the only way to settle this is to put it on the ballot in every state, let the people decide. And let everyone abide by the will of the people.

There are no provisions for a national ballot and you know that. Even if their were the provisions to amend the Constitution to do what you want require a super-majority and you don't have that.



>>>>

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

What we get is your are avoiding the reality of the US Constitution.

No, people don't want a vote on the rights of people. Why? Because it might set a precedent that could destroy the Bill of Rights.

Let's have a vote on whether people can be religious, or can be part of this church or that church. Let's have a vote on whether people can say what they like as long as it doesn't hurt people. Let's have a vote on guns, let's have a vote on torture hey?

 

[WorldWatcher]

First of all---------- marriage of any kind is not a right guaranteed by the constitution

No, but equal treatment under the law is.

Second---------------the 14th amendment is about race, not sex

Really, show the section of the 14th Amendment where all citizens and persons is limited to government actions based on race.

third-------------------in the USA societal rules are decided by majority vote

Societal rules maybe, but we're not talking about "societal rules" we're talking about Civil Marriage which is how government treats it's citizen.

fourth-------------no where in the constitution or any of the amendments are gay marriage or homosexual rights mentioned.

No where in the constitution or any of the amendments are interracial marriage mentioned either.

It's a sad day when people think the Constitution is supposed to be en enumerated lists of rights held by the people.

fifth--------------using the word "marriage" does not guarantee equal treatment for gay couples

Of course not. It does mean equal treatment by the government though, that's a good first step.

sixth------------forced societal acceptance by govt edict does not work

seventh-------------gays are not denied any of the rights enjoyed by straights

A straight people can enter into Civil Marriage and get treated a certain way. That same option is denied to same-sex couples (in only about 20 states now). Therefore the right of equal treatment under the law is in play because they aren't treated the same.

finally-------------the only way to settle this is to put it on the ballot in every state, let the people decide. And let everyone abide by the will of the people.

There are no provisions for a national ballot and you know that. Even if their were the provisions to amend the Constitution to do what you want require a super-majority and you don't have that.



>>>>

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, try reading what I said. YOU have called for some kind of national vote to put an end to the issue. There are no provisions for any kind of national vote to approve or reject laws. If you think there is please site the Article and Section of the United States Constitution that provides this.

And FYI and no I don't think there should be national votes to amend laws like they have in California. If we did that we'd have national gun control votes and the liberals would make it illegal for me to own guns. If we did that the 47% who don't pay taxes along with the liberal elite would vote to take more money out of my pocket.

No thanks, I prefer what the founder setup which is a Constitutional Republic and not a direct democracy like you are calling for.


>>>>

 

[frigidweirdo]

the pres is not perfect..

first thing you have said that makes sense.

ALL OF WHAT i say makes sense.
it's not the left or the democrats who expect him to be perfect it's the right that does...
besides it's the repubs that vowed to block and hinder him in every way possible.
that's about as un american as it gets.

Did the dems work with Bush? This partisan shit started with Clinton. Reagan and O'Neill knew how to work together and get things done. No one since has, although clinton and newt came close.

Why do you continue with the same lies?

Yes the Dems worked with Bush

After 9-11 he got whatever legislation he wanted. He played the 9-11 card for all it was worth. During the economic collapse, Bush got TARP and stimulus out of the Dems. When Obama asked for the same urgent aid, 100% of Republicans voted him down

9/11 was a national crisis. Both parties did the right thing after that attack.

The repubs voted against obama, because what he wanted was wrong for the country at the time. History has proven them right.

So it's right when Bush does it, and wrong when Obama does the same thing? Uh hu!

 

[Redfish]

I am not familiar with those votes....but probably all together they did not have the population count of the California vote......nor did they likely have the turnout percentage.

7 million voted against proposition 8, 6.4 million voted for. Voter turn out was 80%. So 7 of 17 million voted it down.

Maine had 370,000 to 334,000 in favor.

Washington 1.6 million to 1.4 in favor

Maryland 1.3 million to 1.2 million.

So yes, three states had less voters than California, and the combined result would be less, however these happened later, and potentially California would vote differently in the present day.

But then, Bush won the election without the majority of votes, or even more votes than Gore. So..... It happens.
Polls put California much higher than they did back in 2008.

Well you may have just mistyped the top part ...prop 8 passed,...... so the 7 million was for it..... I take it. The pro gay marriage side is
using the sympathy factor very effectively...but I think once people examine the issue closer they will/would reject gay marriage tho they might be in favor of most aspects of civil unions.

It's a pretty sad indictment that people will vote against something that is clearly against the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

However we see now that things are changing, 2012 was a year of voting for gay marriage.

please show us where the words "gay marriage" appear in the bill of rights.

Why do I need to show where it appears in the Bill of Rights?

Firstly the Bill of Rights merely prevents the US govt (and now state govts) from infringing on something.

Secondly I can show where a LOT of stuff that doesn't appear in the Bill or Rights or US Constitution prevents the US govt and state govts from doing things. Like segregation, not in the Constitution.

If your level of education is such that you need to have something explicitly written in the Constitution for you to be able to accept it, then I can only suggest you go back to High School. I'm NOT going to accept bull as an argument just because you're not educated enough to understand what things mean.

you have to show it because you said it was there