Marriage Beliefs: Honesty, can't we ADMIT we have political differences in bias and beliefs???

[kaz]

That's ridiculous, it has nothing to do with rights as a citizen, it has to do with the Full Faith and Credit clause

Did you know you are literally, incredible when you say that?

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Right, that isn't the issue. That has nothing to do with gay marriage. An example of violating that would be say gays can buy cake in Colorado, but only gays from Colorado, not out of State gays. Gays apparently love cake, that would be horrible. Read the Full Faith and Credit clause, you should get it then

It has to do with the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

OK, Batman, riddle me this.

So what State are you claiming allows it's own gay citizens to do that it doesn't allow out of State citizens to do?

It has to do with our federal form of government upon appeal from State government to the general government of the Union and that body of laws.

Thus, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our federal Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.--upon appeal to the federal Judicature.

And for the second time, how are out of State citizens being treated differently than in-State citizens? Seriously, you do not grasp what you quoted. Ask Seawytch, I'm sure she doesn't get it either

 

[Seawytch]

I'd have to actually believe it for you to be screwing with me. If you don't care that anyone reading this public board thinks you're a Westboro Christian, I sure as hell don't. "Screw" with me some more big fella!

So now the brain dead liberals who are too stupid to know what a libertarian is and keep calling me a Republican are going to think I'm a Republican? Wow, that would be ... what's the word ... irrelevant ... Think about it

You should, ironically, accuse me of a reading comprehension problem.

Anyone reading the board that doesn't do so regularly is going to think you're a Westboro "Christian". How does that screw with me Kazzie?

Again, it's only the leftists who are incapable of learning. If someone joins and misunderstands me who isn't a liberal, all I have to let them know what I'm doing and it's solved. And nothing is going to get through to liberals, you just repeat, so it's irrrelevant

Right...cause everyone that reads it is gonna ask.

So if I don't believe it, how is it screwing with me?

You start ranting that I'm a conservative, Republican Christian who thinks gay is immoral. You ignore my points and repeat your statements as fact. Then when I agree with you because you're an idiot, you ask, but you know I'm not so how am I screwing with you? I don't live in your circular, delusional world so you're going to need to give yourself directions

Yeah sorry but that screed doesn't explain how pretending to be something I know you are not is somehow screwing with me.

Keep doing it though...I like that other folks think you're like Fred Phelps.

Quote Leviticus some more. Maybe you'll get a fan club of retards..

 

[danielpalos]

Did you know you are literally, incredible when you say that?

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Right, that isn't the issue. That has nothing to do with gay marriage. An example of violating that would be say gays can buy cake in Colorado, but only gays from Colorado, not out of State gays. Gays apparently love cake, that would be horrible. Read the Full Faith and Credit clause, you should get it then

It has to do with the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

OK, Batman, riddle me this.

So what State are you claiming allows it's own gay citizens to do that it doesn't allow out of State citizens to do?

It has to do with our federal form of government upon appeal from State government to the general government of the Union and that body of laws.

Thus, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our federal Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.--upon appeal to the federal Judicature.

And for the second time, how are out of State citizens being treated differently than in-State citizens? Seriously, you do not grasp what you quoted. Ask Seawytch, I'm sure she doesn't get it either

It should be self-evident regarding the concept of marriage, except to the Right.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[kaz]

Yeah sorry but that screed doesn't explain how pretending to be something I know you are not is somehow screwing with me.

You're getting hot now! You are almost there. Because you keep saying things that you know I am not and I don't think and I don't get it

 

[kaz]

Right, that isn't the issue. That has nothing to do with gay marriage. An example of violating that would be say gays can buy cake in Colorado, but only gays from Colorado, not out of State gays. Gays apparently love cake, that would be horrible. Read the Full Faith and Credit clause, you should get it then

It has to do with the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

OK, Batman, riddle me this.

So what State are you claiming allows it's own gay citizens to do that it doesn't allow out of State citizens to do?

It has to do with our federal form of government upon appeal from State government to the general government of the Union and that body of laws.

Thus, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our federal Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.--upon appeal to the federal Judicature.

And for the second time, how are out of State citizens being treated differently than in-State citizens? Seriously, you do not grasp what you quoted. Ask Seawytch, I'm sure she doesn't get it either

It should be self-evident regarding the concept of marriage, except to the Right.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Right, which is why I keep asking you who. Who is not getting in a State something they would get if they were a citizen of that State? Seriously, you don't grasp that question? I've asked you several times now, what is so complicated about it?

 

[danielpalos]

It has to do with the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

OK, Batman, riddle me this.

So what State are you claiming allows it's own gay citizens to do that it doesn't allow out of State citizens to do?

It has to do with our federal form of government upon appeal from State government to the general government of the Union and that body of laws.

Thus, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our federal Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.--upon appeal to the federal Judicature.

And for the second time, how are out of State citizens being treated differently than in-State citizens? Seriously, you do not grasp what you quoted. Ask Seawytch, I'm sure she doesn't get it either

It should be self-evident regarding the concept of marriage, except to the Right.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Right, which is why I keep asking you who. Who is not getting in a State something they would get if they were a citizen of that State? Seriously, you don't grasp that question? I've asked you several times now, what is so complicated about it?

Yes, I thought so too; The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.-- Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage?

 

[kaz]

OK, Batman, riddle me this.

So what State are you claiming allows it's own gay citizens to do that it doesn't allow out of State citizens to do?

It has to do with our federal form of government upon appeal from State government to the general government of the Union and that body of laws.

Thus, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our federal Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.--upon appeal to the federal Judicature.

And for the second time, how are out of State citizens being treated differently than in-State citizens? Seriously, you do not grasp what you quoted. Ask Seawytch, I'm sure she doesn't get it either

It should be self-evident regarding the concept of marriage, except to the Right.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Right, which is why I keep asking you who. Who is not getting in a State something they would get if they were a citizen of that State? Seriously, you don't grasp that question? I've asked you several times now, what is so complicated about it?

Yes, I thought so too; The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.-- Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage?

My question is "WHO?", moron. Simple question. You keep repeating your empty leftist mantra. Tell me who is being denied this right specifically when what happens. The question is simple, and you're a simpleton, so it's in your native tongue. What would it take for you to answer the question?

 

[danielpalos]

It has to do with our federal form of government upon appeal from State government to the general government of the Union and that body of laws.

Thus, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our federal Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.--upon appeal to the federal Judicature.

And for the second time, how are out of State citizens being treated differently than in-State citizens? Seriously, you do not grasp what you quoted. Ask Seawytch, I'm sure she doesn't get it either

It should be self-evident regarding the concept of marriage, except to the Right.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Right, which is why I keep asking you who. Who is not getting in a State something they would get if they were a citizen of that State? Seriously, you don't grasp that question? I've asked you several times now, what is so complicated about it?

Yes, I thought so too; The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.-- Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage?

My question is "WHO?", moron. Simple question. You keep repeating your empty leftist mantra. Tell me who is being denied this right specifically when what happens. The question is simple, and you're a simpleton, so it's in your native tongue. What would it take for you to answer the question?

Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage? Is it some of the citizens in the several States.

 

[kaz]

And for the second time, how are out of State citizens being treated differently than in-State citizens? Seriously, you do not grasp what you quoted. Ask Seawytch, I'm sure she doesn't get it either

It should be self-evident regarding the concept of marriage, except to the Right.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Right, which is why I keep asking you who. Who is not getting in a State something they would get if they were a citizen of that State? Seriously, you don't grasp that question? I've asked you several times now, what is so complicated about it?

Yes, I thought so too; The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.-- Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage?

My question is "WHO?", moron. Simple question. You keep repeating your empty leftist mantra. Tell me who is being denied this right specifically when what happens. The question is simple, and you're a simpleton, so it's in your native tongue. What would it take for you to answer the question?

Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage? Is it some of the citizens in the several States.

What citizens?

 

[danielpalos]

It should be self-evident regarding the concept of marriage, except to the Right.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Right, which is why I keep asking you who. Who is not getting in a State something they would get if they were a citizen of that State? Seriously, you don't grasp that question? I've asked you several times now, what is so complicated about it?

Yes, I thought so too; The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.-- Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage?

My question is "WHO?", moron. Simple question. You keep repeating your empty leftist mantra. Tell me who is being denied this right specifically when what happens. The question is simple, and you're a simpleton, so it's in your native tongue. What would it take for you to answer the question?

Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage? Is it some of the citizens in the several States.

What citizens?

why do you even claim to care?

 

[kaz]

Right, which is why I keep asking you who. Who is not getting in a State something they would get if they were a citizen of that State? Seriously, you don't grasp that question? I've asked you several times now, what is so complicated about it?

Yes, I thought so too; The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.-- Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage?

My question is "WHO?", moron. Simple question. You keep repeating your empty leftist mantra. Tell me who is being denied this right specifically when what happens. The question is simple, and you're a simpleton, so it's in your native tongue. What would it take for you to answer the question?

Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage? Is it some of the citizens in the several States.

What citizens?

why do you even claim to care?

I care about the law. If you had an actual case I would care. Since you are only on a side, I realize you don't grasp that. But you won't answer the question because you can't, you made it up. No one is being treated differently in another State than citizens of that State

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, I thought so too; The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.-- Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage?

My question is "WHO?", moron. Simple question. You keep repeating your empty leftist mantra. Tell me who is being denied this right specifically when what happens. The question is simple, and you're a simpleton, so it's in your native tongue. What would it take for you to answer the question?

Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage? Is it some of the citizens in the several States.

What citizens?

why do you even claim to care?

I care about the law. If you had an actual case I would care. Since you are only on a side, I realize you don't grasp that. But you won't answer the question because you can't, you made it up. No one is being treated differently in another State than citizens of that State

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

 

[kaz]

My question is "WHO?", moron. Simple question. You keep repeating your empty leftist mantra. Tell me who is being denied this right specifically when what happens. The question is simple, and you're a simpleton, so it's in your native tongue. What would it take for you to answer the question?

Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage? Is it some of the citizens in the several States.

What citizens?

why do you even claim to care?

I care about the law. If you had an actual case I would care. Since you are only on a side, I realize you don't grasp that. But you won't answer the question because you can't, you made it up. No one is being treated differently in another State than citizens of that State

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

Let's see,

You claim they are not. I keep asking how they are not. You come back with how they are? How who are? You said it has to do something with gays, but you can't give any example where gays who come from any State are treated any differently than gays in whatever State they are in. Which is why I asked what you are talking about. You have no idea how they are not, I got it. You can give it up now

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

My question is "WHO?", moron. Simple question. You keep repeating your empty leftist mantra. Tell me who is being denied this right specifically when what happens. The question is simple, and you're a simpleton, so it's in your native tongue. What would it take for you to answer the question?

Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage? Is it some of the citizens in the several States.

What citizens?

why do you even claim to care?

I care about the law. If you had an actual case I would care. Since you are only on a side, I realize you don't grasp that. But you won't answer the question because you can't, you made it up. No one is being treated differently in another State than citizens of that State

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

Easy. Any state marriage law that says any adult can marry any unrelated adult of the opposite sex is treating everyone equally. It applies regardless of gender, race, religion, veteran status, age, and even sexual orientation. That's called equal treatment under the law.

 

[kaz]

Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage? Is it some of the citizens in the several States.

What citizens?

why do you even claim to care?

I care about the law. If you had an actual case I would care. Since you are only on a side, I realize you don't grasp that. But you won't answer the question because you can't, you made it up. No one is being treated differently in another State than citizens of that State

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

Easy. Any state marriage law that says any adult can marry any unrelated adult of the opposite sex is treating everyone equally. It applies regardless of gender, race, religion, veteran status, age, and even sexual orientation. That's called equal treatment under the law.

Danny Boy doesn't understand what he's saying. An example of a violation of what he cited would be if a State had gay marriage and let their citizens get married but they didn't recognize out of State gay couples as married. That would be Unconstitutional.

He's turned that around in his little mind where he thinks it says couples married in their own State have to have their rights recognized in other States, which is true, however, it is subject to the Full Faith and Credit clause meaning the US Congress can determine if, what and how it's recognized. DOMA said they don't for gay marriages, game over.

That's why I kept trying to get him to give me an example, to show where he went wrong. But he just kept drooling and couldn't grasp the question. He can't figure out what's going on, I think he might be Canadian

 

[danielpalos]

Whom is the Right trying to deny and disparage? Is it some of the citizens in the several States.

What citizens?

why do you even claim to care?

I care about the law. If you had an actual case I would care. Since you are only on a side, I realize you don't grasp that. But you won't answer the question because you can't, you made it up. No one is being treated differently in another State than citizens of that State

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

Let's see,

You claim they are not. I keep asking how they are not. You come back with how they are? How who are? You said it has to do something with gays, but you can't give any example where gays who come from any State are treated any differently than gays in whatever State they are in. Which is why I asked what you are talking about. You have no idea how they are not, I got it. You can give it up now

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What citizens?

why do you even claim to care?

I care about the law. If you had an actual case I would care. Since you are only on a side, I realize you don't grasp that. But you won't answer the question because you can't, you made it up. No one is being treated differently in another State than citizens of that State

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

Let's see,

You claim they are not. I keep asking how they are not. You come back with how they are? How who are? You said it has to do something with gays, but you can't give any example where gays who come from any State are treated any differently than gays in whatever State they are in. Which is why I asked what you are talking about. You have no idea how they are not, I got it. You can give it up now

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Incorrect. There's no state law that has deprived ANYONE access to marriage.

 

[danielpalos]

What citizens?

why do you even claim to care?

I care about the law. If you had an actual case I would care. Since you are only on a side, I realize you don't grasp that. But you won't answer the question because you can't, you made it up. No one is being treated differently in another State than citizens of that State

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

Easy. Any state marriage law that says any adult can marry any unrelated adult of the opposite sex is treating everyone equally. It applies regardless of gender, race, religion, veteran status, age, and even sexual orientation. That's called equal treatment under the law.

Danny Boy doesn't understand what he's saying. An example of a violation of what he cited would be if a State had gay marriage and let their citizens get married but they didn't recognize out of State gay couples as married. That would be Unconstitutional.

He's turned that around in his little mind where he thinks it says couples married in their own State have to have their rights recognized in other States, which is true, however, it is subject to the Full Faith and Credit clause meaning the US Congress can determine if, what and how it's recognized. DOMA said they don't for gay marriages, game over.

That's why I kept trying to get him to give me an example, to show where he went wrong. But he just kept drooling and couldn't grasp the question. He can't figure out what's going on, I think he might be Canadian

What I am saying is that if State elected representatives cannot do their job as declared in their own State supreme law of the land, it is why we have the federal option upon appeal to that venue: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[danielpalos]

why do you even claim to care?

I care about the law. If you had an actual case I would care. Since you are only on a side, I realize you don't grasp that. But you won't answer the question because you can't, you made it up. No one is being treated differently in another State than citizens of that State

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

Let's see,

You claim they are not. I keep asking how they are not. You come back with how they are? How who are? You said it has to do something with gays, but you can't give any example where gays who come from any State are treated any differently than gays in whatever State they are in. Which is why I asked what you are talking about. You have no idea how they are not, I got it. You can give it up now

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Incorrect. There's no state law that has deprived ANYONE access to marriage.

not any more. why were there some before?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I care about the law. If you had an actual case I would care. Since you are only on a side, I realize you don't grasp that. But you won't answer the question because you can't, you made it up. No one is being treated differently in another State than citizens of that State

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

Let's see,

You claim they are not. I keep asking how they are not. You come back with how they are? How who are? You said it has to do something with gays, but you can't give any example where gays who come from any State are treated any differently than gays in whatever State they are in. Which is why I asked what you are talking about. You have no idea how they are not, I got it. You can give it up now

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Incorrect. There's no state law that has deprived ANYONE access to marriage.

not any more. why were there some before?

What state law has ever prevented someone from marrying?

Stop lying, Leftists!