Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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..
A state-issued marriage license is a privilege, not a right.And until your idea is reality, gays should have the same rights we do.
Were it a right, you wouldn't have to go begging to the state to get it.
Do yourself a favor and look up "license" in a legal dictionary.
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?
It's a states issue, not a federal one, see post above for my explanation.
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.
Damn right they have the same F-ing rights as I do. What you want, and what they are advocating is SPECIAL RIGHTS.
Whoever said that *privileges* are required to be equally applied or granted?Okay, so say I go "begging the State" for a marriage license. They give me one. Gays can beg, plead, storm the gates, commit hari-kari on the front walk, and in what? 44 states in the Union, they will be refused.
THEREFORE, dimwit. Therefore. It is not equal.
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.
Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians.
Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment. See, e.g., Aspen Municipal Code §§13-98(b), (c) (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§12-1-2,12-1-3 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV §§28-93 to 28-95, §28-97 (1991).
Romer v. Evans (1996)
Whoever said that *privileges* are required to be equally applied or granted?Okay, so say I go "begging the State" for a marriage license. They give me one. Gays can beg, plead, storm the gates, commit hari-kari on the front walk, and in what? 44 states in the Union, they will be refused.
THEREFORE, dimwit. Therefore. It is not equal.
More than a conceptual problem, theres also legal precedent that explicitly states that marriage is a right. In 1967, the Supreme Court established marriage as a civil right in their ruling of Loving v Virginia, which struck down state laws prohibiting mixed-race marriages.
Its one thing to say you disagree with gay marriage because you think it should be between a man and a woman. I and now the majority of the population believe otherwise; that the genders of the two parties involved are moot so long as the love and desire for companionship is present. But to deny it on the basis that its not a right of the general population but rather a privilege that the government can claim ownership to and arbitrarily revoke is wrong, both in the moral and literal sense.
Whoever said that *privileges* are required to be equally applied or granted?Okay, so say I go "begging the State" for a marriage license. They give me one. Gays can beg, plead, storm the gates, commit hari-kari on the front walk, and in what? 44 states in the Union, they will be refused.
THEREFORE, dimwit. Therefore. It is not equal.
Gays cannot marry who they love. YOU can. How can you say they have the same rights you do??
Gays cannot marry who they love. YOU can. How can you say they have the same rights you do??
Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.
Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.
Gays cannot marry who they love. YOU can. How can you say they have the same rights you do??
Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.
Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.
The key is that the Federal Government applies the same standard to all citizens. You can either have all marriage or all civil union
You can't have seperate but equal
Gays cannot marry who they love. YOU can. How can you say they have the same rights you do??
Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.
Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.
The constitution does not protect fagginess(homosexuals) as a class of people, and the courts can be wrong. Fagginess is a choice, period!!!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.
The Supreme Court and Constitution recognize homosexuals as a protected, minority class, entitled to equal protection and due process:
Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians.
Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment. See, e.g., Aspen Municipal Code §§13-98(b), (c) (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§12-1-2,12-1-3 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV §§28-93 to 28-95, §28-97 (1991).
Romer v. Evans (1996)
It therefore has everything to do with rights, your argument has no basis in law.
The court also acknowledges that homosexuality, whether naturally occurring or choice, constitutes a class of persons entitled to their Constitutional right to privacy. Just as an adult may elect to join a given religion and enjoy First Amendment protection accordingly, so too may homosexuals enjoy 14th Amendment protections, the issue of 'choice or nature' is moot.
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.
Well, since (as indicated in your post) we are pulling figures directly out of our hindquarters...100% of the obesity epidemic is comprised of fat people. Let's stop them from getting married! What do the incidents of HIV (your figures are beyond wrong) in gay men have to do with legal, civil marriage?
Lesbians are in the lowest risk category of most sexually transmitted disease...do they get to legally marry?
Are you seriously comparing glittering to being shot in the head? Do you belong to Landover Baptist Church by any chance?
While I do not support these acts of civil disobedience, you're being silly.
Gays cannot marry who they love. YOU can. How can you say they have the same rights you do??
Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.
Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.
If that were true then the Supreme Court would not have ruled on:
Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)
In all three of those cases they declared legal marriage a fundamental right.
Specifically in Turner v Safley the court stated that there was no compelling reason to prevent prison inmates from marrying. What compelling reason can you provide to deny gays and lesbians a fundamental right?
Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.
Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.
If that were true then the Supreme Court would not have ruled on:
Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)
In all three of those cases they declared legal marriage a fundamental right.
Specifically in Turner v Safley the court stated that there was no compelling reason to prevent prison inmates from marrying. What compelling reason can you provide to deny gays and lesbians a fundamental right?
I would deny no one the right marry. If the Church of the Sacred Beaver wishes to marry a gay couple, have at it. We have freedom of speech, so go ahead and call yourself married. No one cares. I would deny no one anything regarding marriage. I'm only saying that the Federal government has no business defining the institution of marriage...for anyone!
The constitution does not protect fagginess(homosexuals) as a class of people, and the courts can be wrong. Fagginess is a choice, period!!!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.
The Supreme Court and Constitution recognize homosexuals as a protected, minority class, entitled to equal protection and due process:
Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians.
Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment. See, e.g., Aspen Municipal Code §§13-98(b), (c) (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§12-1-2,12-1-3 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV §§28-93 to 28-95, §28-97 (1991).
Romer v. Evans (1996)
It therefore has everything to do with rights, your argument has no basis in law.
The court also acknowledges that homosexuality, whether naturally occurring or choice, constitutes a class of persons entitled to their Constitutional right to privacy. Just as an adult may elect to join a given religion and enjoy First Amendment protection accordingly, so too may homosexuals enjoy 14th Amendment protections, the issue of 'choice or nature' is moot.
