March For Marriage Draws Tens, But Promises Ultimate Victory Over Obergefell

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You seem to be avoiding the issue of Loving v Virginia raised and for good reason. You can't be against it because that would make you sound racist. can't be for it because it is based same legal principles as Obergefell. Gotcha!!

No, you don't got me. Loving v. Virginia was based on the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which requires that the states provide equal protection of the laws.

No Shit!! I do GOTCHA because Obergefell WAS ALSO BASED ON THE 14th!! Holy shit! You don't know that?

The Fourteenth Amendment was written to address racial discrimination. It was never intended to apply to categories based on sexual orientation.

Let me tell you something else. Loving was not actually about discrimination against blacks , although the anti miscegenation laws were motivated by racism. It was about discrimination against anyone who wanted to marry outside of their race. So were does that leave your contention that Loving was and appropriate decision because of the intent of the 14th ? Try again. Either Loving was an over reach for the same reasons that you contend Obergefell was , or neither was. If not for Loving, some states would still not allow interracial marriage. Would you be OK with that?

I support the decision of Loving, as it was firmly grounded on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I've already stated that, so why do you need a repeat of what I've already said?

Holy Frankenfuck! You just keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole and you don't even know it. You made the claim that the intent of the 14th was to address racial discrimination against blacks. I pointed out that Loving was not actually about discrimination against blacks but rather against anyone who wanted to marry outside of their race.

Still you claim that the 14th was appropriately applied to Loving but not to Obergefell. You claim that Loving was grounded in the equal protection clause, but you are unable to explain why Obergefell is not given that fact that both cases fall outside of what you claim the intent of the 14th was. Can you even see how ridiculous you're being??

 

[Blackrook]

No, you don't got me. Loving v. Virginia was based on the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which requires that the states provide equal protection of the laws.

No Shit!! I do GOTCHA because Obergefell WAS ALSO BASED ON THE 14th!! Holy shit! You don't know that?

The Fourteenth Amendment was written to address racial discrimination. It was never intended to apply to categories based on sexual orientation.

Let me tell you something else. Loving was not actually about discrimination against blacks , although the anti miscegenation laws were motivated by racism. It was about discrimination against anyone who wanted to marry outside of their race. So were does that leave your contention that Loving was and appropriate decision because of the intent of the 14th ? Try again. Either Loving was an over reach for the same reasons that you contend Obergefell was , or neither was. If not for Loving, some states would still not allow interracial marriage. Would you be OK with that?

I support the decision of Loving, as it was firmly grounded on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I've already stated that, so why do you need a repeat of what I've already said?

Holy Frankenfuck! You just keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole and you don't even know it. You made the claim that the intent of the 14th was to address racial discrimination against blacks. I pointed out that Loving was not actually about discrimination against blacks but rather against anyone who wanted to marry outside of their race.

Still you claim that the 14th was appropriately applied to Loving but not to Obergefell. You claim that Loving was grounded in the equal protection clause, but you are unable to explain why Obergefell is not given that fact that both cases fall outside of what you claim the intent of the 14th was. Can you even see how ridiculous you're being??

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits all discrimination based on race, including Affirmative Action. The Supreme Court has erroneously allowed Affirmative Action to continue despite that. The Supreme Court makes mistakes, and Obergefell is one of them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Jesus fucking Christ !! You really don't know that gays couples have children in a variety of ways JUST LIKE OTHERS and more importantly provide families for them. Could you really be that ignorant?

Never heard of a pregnant man.

Did I say that men get pregnant? I said that gay coupes HAVE CHILDREN BY A VARIETY OF MEANS just like others . They are parents! What the fuck is wrong with you?

WTF is wrong with you. You flunked out on grade school biology.

And you never said what was wrong with government getting out of marriage.

Now you are just being willfully stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can't answer.

I have heard proposals many times before that government be divorced from marriage and it is, in my experience, most often motivated by a wish to avoid the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage. The thinking is that if we can’t preserve marriage for heterosexual, then -by God- no one can be married and enjoy the government benefits of it. However, few will admit to that reason and come up with some lame reason like " I don't need the government telling me who I can love". Others are motivated by an irrational antigovernment zealotry. It all comes down to the mentality of "Throw the baby out with the bath water” and “Sink the ship to drown the rats”

They ignore the fact that to get government out of marriage is extremely difficult, most likely impossible and that it would create more problems than it would solve- if indeed it would solve anything. None of those who have made these ludicrous proposals can explain exactly how it would work and play out in everyday life and how it would actually make anything better for them aside from circumventing the same sex marriage issue. I say it isn’t broken and there is need to fix it.
Regardless of how we got here and why, government is deeply entrenched to marriage. There are all of those government benefits to consider. If government were out of marriage, what would distinguish the married from the no so married? What would motivate people to marry? Sure some would still marry but others who might have would not. More unintended consequences such as more children without clear legal parentage ties. No, the system of marriage -save for the human short comings- is doing just fine and we have no need to change it.


Lastly, those who rail against government’s involvement in marriage seem to fall into two distinct camps. On one hand, there are those who simply want to do away with marriage and all of the associated benefits entirely. On the other hand, there are those who advocate the management of those benefits, rights and responsibilities privately through contracts. ( Of course, the latter arrangement would not really mean that the government would be out of marriage because contracts are provided for in law, and they are mediated by the courts. In addition
, there would still be a loss of benefits because a private contract cannot compel the government to provide them- but we won’t quibble about pesky details)
In either case, I’m willing to wager that even those who are the most ardent supporters of divorcing government from marriage will balk when they look at the impact such a scheme would have on their own lives if they are, or intend to get married.

Please review this list of government marriage benefits and try to explain which ones you could give up, and which ones you think could be privatized, and how that would work

Partners Task Force - Marriage Benefits List

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Loving decision was the marriage of a man and a woman whose children could not be legitimized without marriage.

Same sex marriage is more closely aligned with the marriage between a person and a St. Bernard.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Jesus fucking Christ !! You really don't know that gays couples have children in a variety of ways JUST LIKE OTHERS and more importantly provide families for them. Could you really be that ignorant?

Never heard of a pregnant man.

Did I say that men get pregnant? I said that gay coupes HAVE CHILDREN BY A VARIETY OF MEANS just like others . They are parents! What the fuck is wrong with you?

WTF is wrong with you. You flunked out on grade school biology.

And you never said what was wrong with government getting out of marriage.

Now you are just being willfully stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can't answer.

Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?


Can Government Get Out Of The Marriage Business?

Selected excerpts with notations where needed:

In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:
get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.

Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example). However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship). Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.

To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”
To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

 

[Iceweasel]

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

Smokescreen noted. Contracts, like I said, eliminates legal problems.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No Shit!! I do GOTCHA because Obergefell WAS ALSO BASED ON THE 14th!! Holy shit! You don't know that?

The Fourteenth Amendment was written to address racial discrimination. It was never intended to apply to categories based on sexual orientation.

Let me tell you something else. Loving was not actually about discrimination against blacks , although the anti miscegenation laws were motivated by racism. It was about discrimination against anyone who wanted to marry outside of their race. So were does that leave your contention that Loving was and appropriate decision because of the intent of the 14th ? Try again. Either Loving was an over reach for the same reasons that you contend Obergefell was , or neither was. If not for Loving, some states would still not allow interracial marriage. Would you be OK with that?

I support the decision of Loving, as it was firmly grounded on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I've already stated that, so why do you need a repeat of what I've already said?

Holy Frankenfuck! You just keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole and you don't even know it. You made the claim that the intent of the 14th was to address racial discrimination against blacks. I pointed out that Loving was not actually about discrimination against blacks but rather against anyone who wanted to marry outside of their race.

Still you claim that the 14th was appropriately applied to Loving but not to Obergefell. You claim that Loving was grounded in the equal protection clause, but you are unable to explain why Obergefell is not given that fact that both cases fall outside of what you claim the intent of the 14th was. Can you even see how ridiculous you're being??

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits all discrimination based on race, including Affirmative Action. The Supreme Court has erroneously allowed Affirmative Action to continue despite that. The Supreme Court makes mistakes, and Obergefell is one of them.

Your opinion . Where exactly did you get your Ph.D. in constitutional law? LOVING WAS NOT A RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CASE.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

Smokescreen noted. Contracts, like I said, eliminates legal problems.

That's all you got left?

 

[Iceweasel]

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

Smokescreen noted. Contracts, like I said, eliminates legal problems.

That's all you got left?

It's all I need. I said contracts would substitute for state laws and you posted a quote that didn't mention that. You have no argument.

 

[martybegan]

That is "tens" Not tens of thousands. TENS!! These people need to just give it up and get a life.

March For Marriage Draws Tens, But Promises Ultimate Victory Over Obergefell | Right Wing Watch

There has to be something really wrong with them!!The National Organization for Marriage has struggled in recent years to populate its annual anti-marriage-equality March for Marriage, with especially dismal turnout last year for the first march since the Supreme Court effectively made marriage equality the law of the land. But this year’s march reached a new low, as waning enthusiasm for the cause and what NOM president Brian Brown said were scheduling and permit troubles combined to produce a crowd of about 50.

And this is really absurd!! Comparing this to the fight for abolition!! To civil rights!!!!

Brown told the crowd not to be discouraged by their small numbers, comparing their cause to that of abolitionists in the 18th and early 19th century.

“We are on the side of truth,” he said. “We are on the side of true human rights, we are on the side of true civil rights

"Bake that fucking cake, Peasant"

bow to that statue, rube

Fuck of you bigoted fucktard.

 

[martybegan]

That is "tens" Not tens of thousands. TENS!! These people need to just give it up and get a life.

March For Marriage Draws Tens, But Promises Ultimate Victory Over Obergefell | Right Wing Watch

There has to be something really wrong with them!!The National Organization for Marriage has struggled in recent years to populate its annual anti-marriage-equality March for Marriage, with especially dismal turnout last year for the first march since the Supreme Court effectively made marriage equality the law of the land. But this year’s march reached a new low, as waning enthusiasm for the cause and what NOM president Brian Brown said were scheduling and permit troubles combined to produce a crowd of about 50.

And this is really absurd!! Comparing this to the fight for abolition!! To civil rights!!!!

Brown told the crowd not to be discouraged by their small numbers, comparing their cause to that of abolitionists in the 18th and early 19th century.

“We are on the side of truth,” he said. “We are on the side of true human rights, we are on the side of true civil rights

"Bake that fucking cake, Peasant"

Any luck getting rid of the PA law in your state?

I don't want to get rid of PA laws, I just want them applied only to actual Public Accommodations.

Speaking of PA laws, in NY, where sex is a PA law qualifier, did that theater who had a women's only showing of Wonder Woman break the law or not?

 

[Nia88]

Every state that voted on this voted AGAINST same sex marriage, so your side STOLE your victory, just like you STOLE victory with Roe v. Wade.

Not true:


Maryland, Maine, Washington approve gay marriage

Then why did your side cheat and steal the victory?

My state rejected same-sex marriage TWICE in two separate elections.

Why do our votes not count?

Because it infringes upon the rights of others. Majority cannot push their beliefs on the minority.

 

[Blackrook]

Every state that voted on this voted AGAINST same sex marriage, so your side STOLE your victory, just like you STOLE victory with Roe v. Wade.

Not true:


Maryland, Maine, Washington approve gay marriage

Then why did your side cheat and steal the victory?

My state rejected same-sex marriage TWICE in two separate elections.

Why do our votes not count?

Because it infringes upon the rights of others. Majority cannot push their beliefs on the minority.

Majorities push their beliefs on the minority all the time. It's called democracy.

 

[Nia88]

Every state that voted on this voted AGAINST same sex marriage, so your side STOLE your victory, just like you STOLE victory with Roe v. Wade.

Not true:


Maryland, Maine, Washington approve gay marriage

Then why did your side cheat and steal the victory?

My state rejected same-sex marriage TWICE in two separate elections.

Why do our votes not count?

Because it infringes upon the rights of others. Majority cannot push their beliefs on the minority.

Majorities push their beliefs on the minority all the time. It's called democracy.

Using that logic, interracial marriage would still be illegal in the south, slavery would probably still be a thing as well.

This is about civil rights. You cannot make laws taking people's personal rights away.

 

[Blackrook]

Every state that voted on this voted AGAINST same sex marriage, so your side STOLE your victory, just like you STOLE victory with Roe v. Wade.

Not true:


Maryland, Maine, Washington approve gay marriage

Then why did your side cheat and steal the victory?

My state rejected same-sex marriage TWICE in two separate elections.

Why do our votes not count?

Because it infringes upon the rights of others. Majority cannot push their beliefs on the minority.

Majorities push their beliefs on the minority all the time. It's called democracy.

Using that logic, interracial marriage would still be illegal in the south, slavery would probably still be a thing as well.

No, because of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

Smokescreen noted. Contracts, like I said, eliminates legal problems.

That's all you got left?

It's all I need. I said contracts would substitute for state laws and you posted a quote that didn't mention that. You have no argument.

You don't get any smarter as time goes on. Private contracts still involve government because contracts are provided for in law.....law passed by government.And the larger question is what purpose would it serve? As I said:

I have heard proposals many times before that government be divorced from marriage and it is, in my experience, most often motivated by a wish to avoid the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage. The thinking is that if we can’t preserve marriage for heterosexual, then -by God- no one can be married and enjoy the government benefits of it. However, few will admit to that reason and come up with some lame reason like " I don't need the government telling me who I can love". Others are motivated by an irrational antigovernment zealotry. It all comes down to the mentality of "Throw the baby out with the bath water” and “Sink the ship to drown the rats”

Another question is how does a private contract compel third parties such as employers, the government, and health care providers to recognize the marriage. ? It is a stupid as stupid gets idea. Stop whining and bleating about it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No Shit!! I do GOTCHA because Obergefell WAS ALSO BASED ON THE 14th!! Holy shit! You don't know that?

The Fourteenth Amendment was written to address racial discrimination. It was never intended to apply to categories based on sexual orientation.

Let me tell you something else. Loving was not actually about discrimination against blacks , although the anti miscegenation laws were motivated by racism. It was about discrimination against anyone who wanted to marry outside of their race. So were does that leave your contention that Loving was and appropriate decision because of the intent of the 14th ? Try again. Either Loving was an over reach for the same reasons that you contend Obergefell was , or neither was. If not for Loving, some states would still not allow interracial marriage. Would you be OK with that?

I support the decision of Loving, as it was firmly grounded on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I've already stated that, so why do you need a repeat of what I've already said?

Holy Frankenfuck! You just keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole and you don't even know it. You made the claim that the intent of the 14th was to address racial discrimination against blacks. I pointed out that Loving was not actually about discrimination against blacks but rather against anyone who wanted to marry outside of their race.

Still you claim that the 14th was appropriately applied to Loving but not to Obergefell. You claim that Loving was grounded in the equal protection clause, but you are unable to explain why Obergefell is not given that fact that both cases fall outside of what you claim the intent of the 14th was. Can you even see how ridiculous you're being??

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits all discrimination based on race, including Affirmative Action. The Supreme Court has erroneously allowed Affirmative Action to continue despite that. The Supreme Court makes mistakes, and Obergefell is one of them.

It does not mention race at all.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd be very curious to know how many people the organizers convinced themselves would show up. Thousands? Millions?

When you put something like this together, you're taking a chance that both you and your issue are going to look silly.

Kind of like this.
.

 

[WinterBorn]

I can't believe people are still fighting this. WTF? Why do you care? How about minding your own business and worrying about things that truly need to be fixed? Whether two men or two women marry has absolutely no effect on you.

 

[JoeB131]

"Bake that fucking cake, Peasant"

If you don't want to bake a cake, you can always get out of the cake baking business...

Or your customers can put you out of business when you lose all your customers for being bigots in a progressive town, which is what happened to the wife-beater.