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

[danielpalos]

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!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

That doesn't answer the question. What state has deprived anyone the right to marry?

 

[Seawytch]

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!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

That doesn't answer the question. What state has deprived anyone the right to marry?

The ones that passed anti gay marriage laws. Duh.

 

[kaz]

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.

So then why can't you come up with an example?

 

[kaz]

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.

You can keep repeating that, but you still can't come up with a single example.

That passage means that if someone comes into your State, your State cannot deprive them of the rights of citizens of that State. Again, if a State has gay marriage, you cannot deny recognition of gay marriages for gays who married in other States.

Being Canadian, you have reversed that with the Full Faith and Credit clause. That says other States have to recognize things like drivers licenses and marriages performed in other States. The problem for you is the Full Faith and credit clause gives congress the right to determine what that means, and DOMA said gay marriages don't have to be recognized

 

[kaz]

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?

Yet again, zero examples from you

 

[kaz]

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!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

So is that how you prove things in Canada? You just keep repeating it?

 

[danielpalos]

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!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

That doesn't answer the question. What state has deprived anyone the right to marry?

sorry; i didn't know you have so little clue and so little Cause.
any State that may distinguish based on gender upon appeal to the general government and Article4, Section 2.

 

[danielpalos]

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!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

That doesn't answer the question. What state has deprived anyone the right to marry?

The ones that passed anti gay marriage laws. Duh.

only the Right is that disingenuous for their allegedly "gospel Truth" Cause.

 

[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.

So then why can't you come up with an example?

don't be silly; it is an open book test that only the right fails consistently in the name of moral forms of absolutism. Any gender based laws will do upon appeal.

 

[danielpalos]

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!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

So is that how you prove things in Canada? You just keep repeating it?

only when the right insist on appealing to ignorance of our laws and that form of bearing false witness to Them, in the name of religious morals.
some on the left know they need an audit trail in the public domain.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

That doesn't answer the question. What state has deprived anyone the right to marry?

sorry; i didn't know you have so little clue and so little Cause.
any State that may distinguish based on gender upon appeal to the general government and Article4, Section 2.

But every state allows everyone to marry and doesn't discriminate by gender. You continue to fail to demonstrate that somebody has been treated unfairly.

 

[hazlnut]

As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage

I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this

Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?

Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.

Because each person has equal right to their BELIEFS I agree with
A. Oklahoma's approach of removing marriage from the state and keeping it to the churches or private sector
B. Another state that neither made gay marriage banned or illegal, but didn't endorse it either.
C. Leaving it to the people of each state to find ways where both views can be equally accommodated.

But if the conflict can't be resolved per state, taking the same unresolved conflict of beliefs to federal govt
isn't going to solve the problem. Because both sides still have equal rights to their beliefs!

Number 4 doesn't really exists, or is not a real point of view that makes sense, because the state is not "imposing" it is protecting rights equally.

 

[kaz]

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.

So then why can't you come up with an example?

don't be silly; it is an open book test that only the right fails consistently in the name of moral forms of absolutism. Any gender based laws will do upon appeal.

Got any examples?

 

[kaz]

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!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

So is that how you prove things in Canada? You just keep repeating it?

only when the right insist on appealing to ignorance of our laws and that form of bearing false witness to Them, in the name of religious morals.
some on the left know they need an audit trail in the public domain.

Look mental midget, I am not interested in defending W. You want to argue with Republicans do that. You want to argue with me do that

 

[danielpalos]

not any more. why were there some before?

What state law has ever prevented someone from marrying?

Stop lying, Leftists!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

That doesn't answer the question. What state has deprived anyone the right to marry?

sorry; i didn't know you have so little clue and so little Cause.
any State that may distinguish based on gender upon appeal to the general government and Article4, Section 2.

But every state allows everyone to marry and doesn't discriminate by gender. You continue to fail to demonstrate that somebody has been treated unfairly.

You are omitting Individual Liberty.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

So then why can't you come up with an example?

don't be silly; it is an open book test that only the right fails consistently in the name of moral forms of absolutism. Any gender based laws will do upon appeal.

Got any examples?

how about marriage? don't be silly; it is an open book test that only the right fails consistently in the name of moral forms of absolutism. Any gender based laws will do upon appeal.

 

[Seawytch]

not any more. why were there some before?

What state law has ever prevented someone from marrying?

Stop lying, Leftists!

laws denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States. The left doesn't need to bear False Witness to their Cause; unlike the Right.

That doesn't answer the question. What state has deprived anyone the right to marry?

sorry; i didn't know you have so little clue and so little Cause.
any State that may distinguish based on gender upon appeal to the general government and Article4, Section 2.

But every state allows everyone to marry and doesn't discriminate by gender. You continue to fail to demonstrate that somebody has been treated unfairly.

Any state with an anti gay marriage law is seeking to discriminate based on gender...the gender of the chosen life partner.

You know, the anti miscegenationists argued, like you, that there was no discrimination because people could marry within their race.

Same bigots different decade.

 

[kaz]

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.

So then why can't you come up with an example?

don't be silly; it is an open book test that only the right fails consistently in the name of moral forms of absolutism. Any gender based laws will do upon appeal.

Got any examples?

how about marriage? don't be silly; it is an open book test that only the right fails consistently in the name of moral forms of absolutism. Any gender based laws will do upon appeal.

Well, then why do you Republicans do that? Why can't you leave people alone to live their own lives? Why do you have to be in everyone's bedroom all the time? Stop worshiping the rich and corporations and care about people for a change

 

[danielpalos]

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

So then why can't you come up with an example?

don't be silly; it is an open book test that only the right fails consistently in the name of moral forms of absolutism. Any gender based laws will do upon appeal.

Got any examples?

how about marriage? don't be silly; it is an open book test that only the right fails consistently in the name of moral forms of absolutism. Any gender based laws will do upon appeal.

Well, then why do you Republicans do that? Why can't you leave people alone to live their own lives? Why do you have to be in everyone's bedroom all the time? Stop worshiping the rich and corporations and care about people for a change

thank you for ceding the point and the argument.