Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[LadyGunSlinger]

Same sex marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. There is no Constitutional right to marry anyone. Now that same sex marriage as an alternative lifestyle has been legitimized, every kind and type of "marriage" has been legitimized. Marriage equality is marriage elasticity with a goal of marriage extinction.

And this is why the GUBMINT had no fucking business reviewing that decision to begin with^^ Valid points.

 

[deltex1]

Check your christian morality bullshit at the door and LEARN to pick your fights. Gays are a minute voting block but they DO have the support of many others.
Losing elections over trivial bullshit that only affects a few people while the debt and everything else spirals out of control makes no sense.

Lets focus on the things that matter to everyone and stop picking fights that alienate us over small things.

Sin is sin for believers so stop bitching about what Sally does with her tongue when Johnny is no better off when he envies the Harley in his neighbors garage.
If they want to partake in the hell aka marriage give it to them. It's a piece of fucking paper ultimately.

One can diminish the importance of anything...like a fetus is just a lump of fucking goo ultimately.

 

[idb]

Of course and it too was a big deal. It was done through a change in the constitution that was voted on by the people. This fundamental change is being shoved down our throat by the courts not the people. If the people, of the states, decide that they want to change the definition of marriage then so be it but when the people decide the courts should not be allowed to overthrow their will. That said, slavery and women's suffrage was addressed in the Constitution by amendment, as far as I know marriage is not so the federal government, in my opinion, does not have a say in the definition of marriage it is up to the states. So if the federal government wants to be involved then it would take a Constitutional amendment or should but since we are no longer a republic I don't see that happening.

There is more to it than just changing the definition of marriage, there is a way is should be done and we aint't doing it. I know this is hyperbole to some but if this goes through the way it has then what stops first cousins from marrying? Or polygamy? Or the enforcement of any age limit for marriage?

There's no need to change the constitution....gay marriage has already been ruled constitutional

Only, through the back door. Marriage does not appear in the Constitution so I am not sure what the judges could be ruling on. As I recall the lame limp wristed ruling said that those opposing the 9th circuit ruling had no standing, that his hardly saying gay marriage is constitutional.

A bit like the ruling on the Voting Rights Act in that case...hardly a definitive decision.

 

[idb]

Same sex marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. There is no Constitutional right to marry anyone. Now that same sex marriage as an alternative lifestyle has been legitimized, every kind and type of "marriage" has been legitimized. Marriage equality is marriage elasticity with a goal of marriage extinction.

So you're of the school that believes if something isn't mentioned specifically by name in the constitution then the constitution can't apply to it?

 

[Freewill]

There's no need to change the constitution....gay marriage has already been ruled constitutional

Only, through the back door. Marriage does not appear in the Constitution so I am not sure what the judges could be ruling on. As I recall the lame limp wristed ruling said that those opposing the 9th circuit ruling had no standing, that his hardly saying gay marriage is constitutional.

A bit like the ruling on the Voting Rights Act in that case...hardly a definitive decision.

The SCOTUS could not rule on the Constitutionality of marriage because it is not defined, period, end of sentence and they were at least smart enough not to have tried. So they deferred to the lower court allowing that court to take away the will of the people, as voted on, and they merely said absolutely nothing. But that is not how the ruling was taken.

 

[Seawytch]

Who used the Bible to justify slavery? If it were not for Bible believing Christians slavery would have dragged on for many more years. Thank God for the Republican party and their Christian beliefs.

The slave owners and segregationists used the bible. A judge even tried to use the bible and his religion in his ruling in favor of interracial marriage laws.

Can you tell us how they did so? When the evidence is that the VAST, OVERWELMING, majority of Christians interpreted the Bible correctly isn't it just a tad bit on the disengenous side to say that because the democrat slavery supporters tried, unsuccessfully to use the Bible as their justification it tells us something about the people and not the Bible?

A picture is worth a thousand words they say...

But I'll give you words to read too if you choose.

The Bible Tells Me So

And even now, today, in two thousand and freaking thirteen, the lovely state of Texas brings us...

Texas church pushes racist doctrine

 

[Seawytch]

the issue here is not gayness, racism, segregation, or prejudice. The issue is a government that is trying to FORCE people to change their basic beliefs of what is right and wrong to what the government has decreed to be politically correct.

no matter how you try to spin it, it is taking away the very basics for freedom---freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

this country is teetering on the edge of the abyss, will we fall in or will we wake up and return to the vision of the founders?---------i.e. true individual freedom.

How are you being forced? How is a single right of yours being taken way by my right to legally marry the consenting adult of my choice?

Where your right of marriage defined? How can that right, if it did exist, be limited to adults? Or one adult?

The Supreme Court defined marriage as a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. They did it when they said blacks could marry whites, they did it when they said that divorced people could not be prevented from legally marrying and they did it when they said that convicted murderers on death row could not be prevented from legally marrying.

Since there has been no case before the SCOTUS (yet) that challenges the Constitutionality of anti-gay marriage laws, we'll just have to wait a year or two for the first case to wind its way there.

 

[FJO]

I'll make it simple for Republucans

Convince working Americans that you care about their problems and they will vote for you......just like they used to

And what would it take to match the success of the Democratic Party, that spent billions in order to relieve poverty with absolutely NO visible results?

Spend on schools in inner cities, where the cost is already so high that the same amounts spent in Korea of Finland would produce a veritable army of geniuses, while it only produces pimps, drug dealers, whores and fatherless kids, and abortions, and drive by shootings and murder and racist hatred and rap and hip-hop vulgar profanity?

The Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves.

The Democrat Party of Obama wants to keep them slaves. Sadly, succeeding.

 

[rightwinger]

1. They do, the two are not mutually exclusive.

2. The beating of those on welfare is actually from the left. The right points out that the economic policies of this administration has cause a HUGE increase of those in need. But to the left just pointing out the situation is the same as being against helping people. That is leftist BS designed to hide the failures of their policies. What is sensible and fair immigration reform? Have you been to Ellis Island and did you see what immigrates used to have to go through? Again this is a situation where the left is completely hypocritical. The impact of making 11 million ILLEGALS legal will most effect the poor and the blacks. The left they don't care because they know they have the black vote tied up and the 11 million will be voting for them regardless of the impact on society as a whole. Fair would be a guest worker program as Bush tried, what isn't fair is making 11 million Mexicans legal only because they had the ability to swim the Rio Grande.

We have gun control but none of them stopped the crazies.

The democrat won the Presidency as is the way the system has been working for quite some time. The storyline of the democrats is that the Republicans can't win elections. Yet Republicans hold the House and most of the state governments and the way the Presidents popularity is dropping there is a chance that the American people will come to the sense and the Republicans will, as history has shown, will take the Senate in 2014. The same thing being said about Republicans was said about Democrats during the latter part of Clinton and up to 2006. The worm will turn as it always does and the disasters that the democrats have put onto America should mean a Republican majority for many many years.

Democrats win elections because they do not let Republicans win on arguments about paragraph 1. They drawn them into arguments about items in paragraph 2 and wait for them to say something stupid. Republicans never fail to deliver

Again, you just keep repeating liberal storylines.

The elections democrats win have only been because they hold the majority not because anything is going right in the country. And Obama? We know what is the only reason he won.

Republicans would hold the Senate now if only they could avoid stupid statements on social issues. Legitimate rape, pregnancy from rape is gods will, self deportation, second amendment remedies......the list goes on and on

Democrats lay the the bait and Republucans go for it every time

Avoid the social issues......they are killing you

 

[Seawytch]

"Were they bigots when they used the bible to justify slavery and segregation?"

Times change. Mores change. Values change.

Your question, referring to someone who lived 200 years ago prompts one to ask you:

Were they stupid and ignorant, because they had no clue how to drive a car, use a telephone or operate a computer?

Yes, they do change and yet it is the changing values regarding the rights of gays and lesbians to legally marry that has the right in such disarray.

It's still bigotry whether you claim ignorance or even by knowing their "culture" at the time. Enough people knew it was wrong or they wouldn't have tried to use the bible to justify it.

but the thing is that I can accept your lifestyle as your choice, but I cannot be compelled to believe that it is a normal human condition.

the government can FORCE me to deal with you and your partner, but it cannot FORCE me to change what I believe.

Nobody is trying to.

You already have equality, but what you really want is for the government to mandate that every other citizen change his or her basic beliefs about human sexuality.

We almost do thanks to the repeal of DOMA Section 3. Once Section 2 is gone we will. When my legal marriage licence is recognized in all 50 states just like yours is, then we will have equality, but not until then.

Sorry, wytchey, but your lifestyle is an aberation of the human condition. I understand that you have no control over it, but neither do I have any control over my farsightedness. But I don't demand that the government force all businesses to put their menus in large print for me.

not a great analogy, but maybe you get it------probably not.

No, it's a terrible analogy. If you were being denied the right to legally marry the consenting adult of your choice based upon your poor eyesight, you'd have an analogy.

 

[Seawytch]

the issue here is not gayness, racism, segregation, or prejudice. The issue is a government that is trying to FORCE people to change their basic beliefs of what is right and wrong to what the government has decreed to be politically correct.

no matter how you try to spin it, it is taking away the very basics for freedom---freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

this country is teetering on the edge of the abyss, will we fall in or will we wake up and return to the vision of the founders?---------i.e. true individual freedom.

Recognising gay marriage is taking rights away from you?

if a business is punished for not dealing with gays, then the government is punishing him for his beliefs.

Businesses are punished for violating Public Accommodation laws, that's all. Don't like it, repeal all the laws so that I don't have to "deal" with religious crazies in my business. Federal law says I have to though.

 

[rightwinger]

I'll make it simple for Republucans

Convince working Americans that you care about their problems and they will vote for you......just like they used to

And what would it take to match the success of the Democratic Party, that spent billions in order to relieve poverty with absolutely NO visible results?

Spend on schools in inner cities, where the cost is already so high that the same amounts spent in Korea of Finland would produce a veritable army of geniuses, while it only produces pimps, drug dealers, whores and fatherless kids, and abortions, and drive by shootings and murder and racist hatred and rap and hip-hop vulgar profanity?

The Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves.

The Democrat Party of Obama wants to keep them slaves. Sadly, succeeding.

Simple solution for Republicans on poverty. Find them jobs like you are always telling them to get. Find a way to funnel jobs to impoverished areas, a way for poor people to qualify for good jobs

Let them know that they owe their jobs to Republucan policies and they will vote Republucan forever

Right now, all you offer are threats and ridicule

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage isn't a right.

Ah, the old retreat to semantics trick.

So, how is recognising gay marriage impinging on Redfish's rights or freedoms?

when the will of the people is overruled by 9 arrogant lifetime judges (as it was twice in california) then the freedom of the majority to decide how they choose to live has been taken away.

The "will of the people" was overruled by 9 "arrogant lifetime judges" in 1965 too.

oopsie...

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no right to marry the person of your choice. Marriage by its very nature is not an individual right. The Supreme Court has been tinkering with rights to socially engineer. They should never have done it to begin with.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Ah, the old retreat to semantics trick.

So, how is recognising gay marriage impinging on Redfish's rights or freedoms?

when the will of the people is overruled by 9 arrogant lifetime judges (as it was twice in california) then the freedom of the majority to decide how they choose to live has been taken away.

The "will of the people" was overruled by 9 "arrogant lifetime judges" in 1965 too.

oopsie...

Homosexuality is not a race..it's a behavior. Regardless, if and when those same 9 (may have different names) RULE AND DEMAND their opinion to become national law over something you believe in, and the people have by a majority voted TWICE as you believed- overturn that, you'll be the first one crying over it. It doesn't matter what decision they made or what the issue was- IT WAS WRONG of them to overturn the will of the majority. Lastly, marriage is not a right..

 

[Katzndogz]

Recognising gay marriage is taking rights away from you?

if a business is punished for not dealing with gays, then the government is punishing him for his beliefs.

Businesses are punished for violating Public Accommodation laws, that's all. Don't like it, repeal all the laws so that I don't have to "deal" with religious crazies in my business. Federal law says I have to though.

That's the way it should be. There is no reason on earth why you should have to deal with religious crazies. You should be able to eject someone from your business if all they are doing is wearing a cross necklace.

 

[Seawytch]

if a business is punished for not dealing with gays, then the government is punishing him for his beliefs.

Businesses are punished for violating Public Accommodation laws, that's all. Don't like it, repeal all the laws so that I don't have to "deal" with religious crazies in my business. Federal law says I have to though.

That's the way it should be. There is no reason on earth why you should have to deal with religious crazies. You should be able to eject someone from your business if all they are doing is wearing a cross necklace.

I agree...but it's against Federal Law to do it...just like it is against the law in 13 states and the District of Columbia not to "deal" with "the gheys". You've got to change the laws, but in order to not appear homophobic, you need to start with the CRA and ADA. Best of luck.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Democrats win elections because they do not let Republicans win on arguments about paragraph 1. They drawn them into arguments about items in paragraph 2 and wait for them to say something stupid. Republicans never fail to deliver

Again, you just keep repeating liberal storylines.

The elections democrats win have only been because they hold the majority not because anything is going right in the country. And Obama? We know what is the only reason he won.

Republicans would hold the Senate now if only they could avoid stupid statements on social issues. Legitimate rape, pregnancy from rape is gods will, self deportation, second amendment remedies......the list goes on and on

Democrats lay the the bait and Republucans go for it every time

Avoid the social issues......they are killing you

wow you really want to be a right winger.....guess its anger becuase we both know the left is wrong

 

[rightwinger]

Again, you just keep repeating liberal storylines.

The elections democrats win have only been because they hold the majority not because anything is going right in the country. And Obama? We know what is the only reason he won.

Republicans would hold the Senate now if only they could avoid stupid statements on social issues. Legitimate rape, pregnancy from rape is gods will, self deportation, second amendment remedies......the list goes on and on

Democrats lay the the bait and Republucans go for it every time

Avoid the social issues......they are killing you

wow you really want to be a right winger.....guess its anger becuase we both know the left is wrong

All those opinions turn off the moderate voter. When the only voice of moderation is coming from the left.....that is their only choice

Anti poverty rhetoric of blacks don't want jobs......they want free stuff
Hispanics are all lazy and illegals
Women who use birth control or get abortions are sluts
Gays are degenerates

All these views chase away key voting blocks. Even worse, young people hear it and say......that is not the opinions I want to affiliate with

 

[Seawytch]

when the will of the people is overruled by 9 arrogant lifetime judges (as it was twice in california) then the freedom of the majority to decide how they choose to live has been taken away.

The "will of the people" was overruled by 9 "arrogant lifetime judges" in 1965 too.

oopsie...

Homosexuality is not a race..it's a behavior. Regardless, if and when those same 9 (may have different names) RULE AND DEMAND their opinion to become national law over something you believe in, and the people have by a majority voted TWICE as you believed- overturn that, you'll be the first one crying over it. It doesn't matter what decision they made or what the issue was- IT WAS WRONG of them to overturn the will of the majority. Lastly, marriage is not a right..

Interracial marriage is a "behavior" by that definition. It isn't a race.

The whole purpose of the SCOTUS is to interpret the laws and find them Constitutional or not. They found interracial marriage, divorced remarriages and the marriages of convicted murderers to be a fundamental right. You do realize that rights need not be expressly enumerated in the Constitution, don't you?