Opposition to Gay Marriage - Any Basis Other Than Intolerance and Bigotry?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

t's a ceremony and a piece of paper for petes sakes. This has nothing to do with marriage, it has everything to do with breaking down the moral fibers of our CHRISTIAN nation. It's a communist tactic and falls under numbers 16 "Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights" and 26 "Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy". You can see all of the goals by googling "1963 communist goals".

lol, you’ve got to be kidding.

16 "Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights"

Ho-kay – what other entity besides the courts do you consider more qualified to determine whether one’s civil rights have been violated?

If it's a right then why is there issues then?

Because reactionary social conservative factions in state and local jurisdictions pass measures not allowing same-sex marriage, in violation of the 14th Amendment. Indeed, the history of the Amendment since the early ‘50s has been one of striking down discriminatory measures – from segregation to ‘sodomy’ laws.

To be honest with you, I really could care less about the issue, I'm just tired of hearing about it all the time, and the biggest voices for tolerance being the most intolerant people out there.

Then share your apathy with your fellow conservatives and tell them to enforce marriage laws equally – the whole thing will just go away, I assure you.

 

[Oddball]

No problem...

And any state sanctioned "privilege" has to be provided equally to all citizens

Um, no it doesn't...That's why it's a privilege.

Not if you are the state......they have a little problem called the Constitution.

Regardless....marriage has been established by the courts as a RIGHT

That right applies to common law marriage, as an extension of the Article 1, Section 10 right to contract, not statutory marriages...You should be a little more up on the difference, if you're going to shoot your keyboard off.

 

[Oddball]

Um, no it doesn't...That's why it's a privilege.

I agree with that,...so they are changing the law as to who has the privilege.

And the law was that it was only man and woman just like it used to also include only a man and woman of the same race.
Gay marriage is such a non issue. Time for the homophobe religous whack jobs to get over it.
Gay marriage AFFECTS NO heterosexual.

Actually, marriage to the state (which is what requires the licensing) affects everyone entering into the licensing agreement with the state, hetero or not.

 

[Oddball]

They do have the same rights as everyone else, but you must remember, marriage is not a right, it is not in the constitution, which is why it is a states issue, not a federal one. If gays don't like the way their state does marriages, then they can either move to a state that they agree with or vote out the politicians they dont agree with and put in place some that will pass gay marriage laws within the state they reside in.

Or they can draw up their own common law marriage contracts....And if the state in question attempts to stand in the way, they have a tort under Article 1, Section 10....But that would suck all the air out of their political attention whoring.

 

[Divine Wind]

There is a difference between being 'opposed to gay marriage' and being opposed to the government being in the business of marriage. The government has no business knowing who we love or who we trust to involve in our personal matters. Supporting gay marriage is only extending the unwarranted reach of the government. Get the government out of marriage you can marry anyone you like. I really don't give a shit.

Agreed. We shouldn't be letting our government intrude into our bedrooms at all, much less our religion. We should heed the warning in the story of the Camel Nose in the Tent.

The only part where "We, the People" would have a public interest is controlling disease such as requiring a full panel STD and a marriage license tax to cover the costs of oversight for registering marriages. This is important because of the legalities involved with marriage such as survivorship, parentage of children registered in public schools and the like.

 

[eflatminor]

Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.

Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.

Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.

No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."

Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.

There is a difference between being 'opposed to gay marriage' and being opposed to the government being in the business of marriage. The government has no business knowing who we love or who we trust to involve in our personal matters. Supporting gay marriage is only extending the unwarranted reach of the government. Get the government out of marriage you can marry anyone you like. I really don't give a shit.

And until your idea is reality, gays should have the same rights we do.

If a law gave the same rights to homosexuals AND EVERYONE ELSE, then yes, I'd support it. As it stands, there remains many who are excluded from the 'rights' granted to straight (and in some states gay) couples. Sorry, I can't support laws that give rights to some but not all.

 

[eflatminor]

Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.

Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.

Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.

No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."

Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.

There is a difference between being 'opposed to gay marriage' and being opposed to the government being in the business of marriage. The government has no business knowing who we love or who we trust to involve in our personal matters. Supporting gay marriage is only extending the unwarranted reach of the government. Get the government out of marriage you can marry anyone you like. I really don't give a shit.

Of course there is a difference, but you are NEVER going to get the government out of the "business" of legal marriage.

So, since we KNOW there will always be civil marriage, what viable reason is there to keep gays from this LEGAL contract?

I disagree that we are never going to get government out marriage. Check in after 2012.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That right applies to common law marriage, as an extension of the Article 1, Section 10 right to contract, not statutory marriages...You should be a little more up on the difference, if you're going to shoot your keyboard off.

Or they can draw up their own common law marriage contracts....And if the state in question attempts to stand in the way, they have a tort under Article 1, Section 10....But that would suck all the air out of their political attention whoring.

1. You might want to do a little research, Common Law Marriages are Statutory Marriages recognized under the law, however the vast majority of States do not even allow Common Law Civil Marriages to be entered into anymore.


2. Some States, when they amended their Constitutions in 2000 & 2004, specifically barred equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples that established contracts attempting to recreate the conditions of Civil Marriage (off the top of my head - Virginia is one, Amendment 15A - Wisconsin was another).


>>>>

 

[Google]

No problem...

And any state sanctioned "privilege" has to be provided equally to all citizens

Um, no it doesn't...That's why it's a privilege.

Not if you are the state......they have a little problem called the Constitution.

Regardless....marriage has been established by the courts as a RIGHT

Christ, yeah the Constitution clearly supports homosexual marriage

SOME courts have, and I'm waiting with anticipation for a Supreme Court ruling.

Does the fact that nearly all, around 70%, of all new AIDS cases are homosexuals? Or the fact that gays make up 2% of the population and the vast, over-whelming majority of AIDS cases?

Oh, its a healthy alternative lifestyle though. Bullshit. In classic shout em down tactics any mental health care professionals or organizations that dare state statistics are 'glittered'.

After the Giffords shooting I believe any of those morons that decide they are going to pose as a security threat like that should be shot.

Oh, it's okay for gays to commit acts of vandalism of those they disagree with.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If a law gave the same rights to homosexuals AND EVERYONE ELSE, then yes, I'd support it. As it stands, there remains many who are excluded from the 'rights' granted to straight (and in some states gay) couples. Sorry, I can't support laws that give rights to some but not all.

Laws don’t ‘give’ people rights, but laws and measures, such as Prop 8, might violate those existing rights.

Gays already ‘have their rights,’ the same rights as everyone else – the issue is the state preempting those rights in violation of the Constitution.

SOME courts have, and I'm waiting with anticipation for a Supreme Court ruling.

And I suspect you’re in for a disappointment – Justice Kennedy wrote both the Romer and Lawrence majority opinions, you’d be wise to check them out, since he alone will decide the issue.

Does the fact that nearly all, around 70%, of all new AIDS cases are homosexuals? Or the fact that gays make up 2% of the population and the vast, over-whelming majority of AIDS cases?

Oh, its a healthy alternative lifestyle though. Bullshit. In classic shout em down tactics any mental health care professionals or organizations that dare state statistics are 'glittered'.

Does the fact that this is utterly immaterial from a Constitutional standpoint mean anything to you? Americans aren’t required to justify the exercising of their rights, the burden lies with the state to demonstrate a compelling interest in preempting citizens’ rights – and none exist in the case of same-sex marriage.

 

[Google]

If a law gave the same rights to homosexuals AND EVERYONE ELSE, then yes, I'd support it. As it stands, there remains many who are excluded from the 'rights' granted to straight (and in some states gay) couples. Sorry, I can't support laws that give rights to some but not all.

Laws don’t ‘give’ people rights, but laws and measures, such as Prop 8, might violate those existing rights.

Gays already ‘have their rights,’ the same rights as everyone else – the issue is the state preempting those rights in violation of the Constitution.

SOME courts have, and I'm waiting with anticipation for a Supreme Court ruling.

And I suspect you’re in for a disappointment – Justice Kennedy wrote both the Romer and Lawrence majority opinions, you’d be wise to check them out, since he alone will decide the issue.

Does the fact that nearly all, around 70%, of all new AIDS cases are homosexuals? Or the fact that gays make up 2% of the population and the vast, over-whelming majority of AIDS cases?

Oh, its a healthy alternative lifestyle though. Bullshit. In classic shout em down tactics any mental health care professionals or organizations that dare state statistics are 'glittered'.

Does the fact that this is utterly immaterial from a Constitutional standpoint mean anything to you? Americans aren’t required to justify the exercising of their rights, the burden lies with the state to demonstrate a compelling interest in preempting citizens’ rights – and none exist in the case of same-sex marriage.

Listen, you can look in your crystal ball and predict what the Supreme Court is going to rule.

Where in the Constitution does it clearly justify the right to homosexual marriage?

Yes, those facts--and I'm glad you agree its factual--are immaterial from a Constitutional standpoint, but certainly isn't from a parental standpoint. Homosexual extremist organizations are damn and determined to force an extreme minority lifestyle that has proven is not healthy on school children as young as 5.

 

[Google]

If a law gave the same rights to homosexuals AND EVERYONE ELSE, then yes, I'd support it. As it stands, there remains many who are excluded from the 'rights' granted to straight (and in some states gay) couples. Sorry, I can't support laws that give rights to some but not all.

Laws don’t ‘give’ people rights, but laws and measures, such as Prop 8, might violate those existing rights.

Gays already ‘have their rights,’ the same rights as everyone else – the issue is the state preempting those rights in violation of the Constitution.
.

Damn right they have the same F-ing rights as I do. What you want, and what they are advocating is SPECIAL RIGHTS.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If a law gave the same rights to homosexuals AND EVERYONE ELSE, then yes, I'd support it. As it stands, there remains many who are excluded from the 'rights' granted to straight (and in some states gay) couples. Sorry, I can't support laws that give rights to some but not all.

Laws don’t ‘give’ people rights, but laws and measures, such as Prop 8, might violate those existing rights.

Gays already ‘have their rights,’ the same rights as everyone else – the issue is the state preempting those rights in violation of the Constitution.
.

Damn right they have the same F-ing rights as I do. What you want, and what they are advocating is SPECIAL RIGHTS.

Since you say they are asking of "special rights" could you provide us a list of what items under Civil Law same-sex couples are asking for that are already not available to different-sex couples or that would not be available to different-sex couples in the future.

Would it be:

• joint parenting;
• joint adoption;
• joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
• status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
• joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
• dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
• immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
• inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
• joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
• inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
• benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
• spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
• veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
• joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
• wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
• bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
• decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
• crime victims' recovery benefits;
• loss of consortium tort benefits;
• domestic violence protection orders;
• judicial protections and evidentiary immunity

What "special rights" are they asking for, under Civil Law, that would not be available to different-sex Civilly Married couples?






Legal and economic benefits of marriage

>>>>

 

[Google]

"Jesse William Dirkhising (May 24, 1986 – September 26, 1999), also known as Jesse Yates, was an American teenager from Prairie Grove, Arkansas, who was bound, drugged, tortured, raped, and died as a result of the drugs given him and the position in which he was tied down.[5][6].[5][6]

Dirkhising's death received only regional media coverage until a Washington Times article ran a story nearly a month after his death " Murder of Jesse Dirkhising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homosexual extremist political organizations actively attempt to shout down--death threats are a common tactic--and vandalize anyone that dares state anything negative about homosexuality.

2% of the population....and you believe it is as serious a civil rights struggle as that blacks fought for so valiantly for? It is a sickening though.

 

[Google]

"Jesse William Dirkhising (May 24, 1986 – September 26, 1999), also known as Jesse Yates, was an American teenager from Prairie Grove, Arkansas, who was bound, drugged, tortured, raped, and died as a result of the drugs given him and the position in which he was tied down.[5][6].[5][6]

Dirkhising's death received only regional media coverage until a Washington Times article ran a story nearly a month after his death " Murder of Jesse Dirkhising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homosexual extremist political organizations actively attempt to shout down--death threats are a common tactic--and vandalize anyone that dares state anything negative about homosexuality.

2% of the population....and you believe it is as serious a civil rights struggle as that blacks fought for so valiantly for? It is a sickening though.

 

[Google]

Dirkhising died two weeks before the first anniversary of Matthew Shepard's murder.[21] Dirkhising's case initially was reported regionally by "news organizations in Arkansas and also covered by newspapers in Oklahoma and Tennessee," yet almost no national press.[11][18] The Associated Press ran the story on its local wires but not nationally until a month later when the story was focused on the lack of coverage rather than the crime itself.[7] A LexisNexis search revealed only a few dozen articles that appeared only after the Washington Times story on the lack of coverage on October 22, 1999, a month after Dirkhising's death.[7]

Murder of Jesse Dirkhising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BDBoop]

Gays cannot marry who they love. YOU can. How can you say they have the same rights you do??

 

[Oddball]

That right applies to common law marriage, as an extension of the Article 1, Section 10 right to contract, not statutory marriages...You should be a little more up on the difference, if you're going to shoot your keyboard off.

Or they can draw up their own common law marriage contracts....And if the state in question attempts to stand in the way, they have a tort under Article 1, Section 10....But that would suck all the air out of their political attention whoring.

1. You might want to do a little research, Common Law Marriages are Statutory Marriages recognized under the law, however the vast majority of States do not even allow Common Law Civil Marriages to be entered into anymore.


2. Some States, when they amended their Constitutions in 2000 & 2004, specifically barred equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples that established contracts attempting to recreate the conditions of Civil Marriage (off the top of my head - Virginia is one, Amendment 15A - Wisconsin was another).


>>>>

I've done lots of research on this one...Not the least of which is the nature of licensing.

1) The failure of the number of states to recognize common law marriage is a violation of Article 1, Section 10: The right to contract...It's just that nobody has bothered to sue...If you're unwilling to assert your rights, you have none.

But the culture warriors don't seem very interested in this angle...Doesn't that make you the least bit curious?

2) You'll get equal treatment under the law when you treat this as, and assert your rights via, a contract law argument rather than one of statutory law,IM not-at-all HO.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

2% of the population....and you believe it is as serious a civil rights struggle as that blacks fought for so valiantly for? It is a sickening though.

Ignorant and idiotic – where in the Constitution or its case law does it state a given minority must constitute a certain percentage of the population to merit its rights?

If one American is denied his rights it is a serious civil rights struggle.

 

[logical4u]

2% of the population....and you believe it is as serious a civil rights struggle as that blacks fought for so valiantly for? It is a sickening though.

Ignorant and idiotic – where in the Constitution or its case law does it state a given minority must constitute a certain percentage of the population to merit its rights?

If one American is denied his rights it is a serious civil rights struggle.

Homosexuals are not a "minority".
Homosexuals are not a "race".
Homosexuals are not a "religion"
Homosexuals are not a "gender"
Homosexuals are not a specific age

It has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with choice. If a known drug addict wants to "adopt" the court stops them. If a known alcoholic/gambler/sex addict/cleptomaniac/ etc wants to adopt, the court stops them. The reason they can get married is their condition is not known to the state. If there was an "easy" way to determine who was making these bad decisions, the state would pass laws to stop them. Homosexuals are making bad choices, it is easy for the state, to discourage that behavior by not rewarding it with same sex marriage.