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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The government is obligated to protect the rights of unborn Americans on the same basis as it protects the rights of the snail darter fish or the peninsula blue butterfly.

Civil rights exist only so long as they do not impose on the civil rights of others.

More nonsense.

There is no such thing as an ‘unborn American’ concerning civil law and substantive due process, as the states decide matters with regard to viability and time limits in accordance with privacy rights jurisprudence, where the rights of a pregnant woman are paramount:

It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

The courts have wisely left such matters for families to decide, free from government interference, where each person may act in accordance with his faith and good conscience. Yet another conservative doctrine abandoned by the right.

One does not have the ‘civil right’ to discriminate against same-sex couples, or to compel the state to interfere with personal, private matters best left for individuals to decide.

One is at liberty to not be gay, or to not have an abortion, also free from government interference, but one is not at liberty to compel others to believe as they believe using the power and authority of the state.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I am in the process of reading the Federalist Papers, which is much more interesting than I though it would be. The first thing that I have learned is that the Constitution, and most of the amendments, is primarily focused on guaranteeing and expanding rights, not restricting rights. A notable exception, and a dismal failure, was the prohibition amendment. The Supreme Court, in the spirit of the Constitution, as written by the framers, tend to interpret the same way. If the Conservatives and the Right want to go against the grain of the Constitution, they have a right to that persuation, but I fear that most of them do not even reliaize that they are doing that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What's your fucking problem?? Why do you always think you can start threads preaching to conservatives about what they're allowed to believe, and what's off fucking limits according to you? Why don't you mind your own damn biznez for once, worry about your girlfriend or wife who collects welfare which almost caused you to leave her.. blah blah blah.. STFU already Gramps.. DAMN


You sound like Bloomberg telling people what to do.. Get over yourself!

Because if I can't call out my own I have no business bitching at the other side. I'm not a fucking drone. If you don't like it find the ignore feature and utilize it.

But that is just it. The government is making it our business. Why should government be involved in marriage at all? That is the question.

Because state governments write the marriage laws, administered by state courts. It’s in essence contract law, and can no more be separated from state governments than any other type of contract law, or laws regulating speed limits, or licensing physicians.

And the 14th Amendment requires the state to allow all persons access to all of that state’s laws, including marriage law.

If conservatives would simply obey the Constitution and its case law, then this pointless controversy wouldn’t be an issue at all.

 

[bodecea]

I am in the process of reading the Federalist Papers, which is much more interesting than I though it would be. The first thing that I have learned is that the Constitution, and most of the amendments, is primarily focused on guaranteeing and expanding rights, not restricting rights. A notable exception, and a dismal failure, was the prohibition amendment. The Supreme Court, in the spirit of the Constitution, as written by the framers, tend to interpret the same way. If the Conservatives and the Right want to go against the grain of the Constitution, they have a right to that persuation, but I fear that most of them do not even reliaize that they are doing that.

Prohibition was the only example of a Constitutional Amendment that restricted rights instead of expanding them or guaranteeing them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But you lie. You know exactly what I am talking about.

You lie to yourselves all the time. Believing you are superior because of your "tolerance" and "harmony." Believing that people should practice your brand of thinking is quite delusional. You want tolerance but never practice it, and when someone finally gets fed up with your crap, you call them out on it. You people are evil and misplaced in this world, toying with people's emotions as you do.

"You people"?

Would you rather refer to you in a derogatory way? I can think of a few terms that fit the lot of you.

 

[Redfish]

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.

You are making some excellent points this morning Red.

thank you.

 

[Zona]

What's your fucking problem?? Why do you always think you can start threads preaching to conservatives about what they're allowed to believe, and what's off fucking limits according to you? Why don't you mind your own damn biznez for once, worry about your girlfriend or wife who collects welfare which almost caused you to leave her.. blah blah blah.. STFU already Gramps.. DAMN


You sound like Bloomberg telling people what to do.. Get over yourself!

Because if I can't call out my own I have no business bitching at the other side. I'm not a fucking drone. If you don't like it find the ignore feature and utilize it.

But that is just it. The government is making it our business. Why should government be involved in marriage at all? That is the question.

Without the goverment, could whites marry blacks at one point?

 

[Redfish]

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.

Don't the majority have to respect the constitution...or only the bits they agree with?

of course they do. But the people of california voted twice against gay marriage in their state. Then the court overruled the will of the people. gay marriage is not a constitutional issue.

 

[Zona]

What's your fucking problem?? Why do you always think you can start threads preaching to conservatives about what they're allowed to believe, and what's off fucking limits according to you? Why don't you mind your own damn biznez for once, worry about your girlfriend or wife who collects welfare which almost caused you to leave her.. blah blah blah.. STFU already Gramps.. DAMN


You sound like Bloomberg telling people what to do.. Get over yourself!

I agree. Being gay is wrong according to the bible. Well, that and divorce.....you fucking hypocrites.

You know what I see here? The very reason why I broke ranks within my former party. People are turning on one another. Zona has now taken advantage of this. I see the microcosm of indecisiveness... no wonder we lost the elections the past two times. We have no direction. None. This is actually saddening to see.

I do get a kick out of a right winger finally saying something that makes sense. Even though Grampa didnt actually say he was for gay marriage, he said lets not hone in on it because it will make you all lose...AGAIN.

Now, on to you....According to the bible, being gay is just as wrong as divorce, no?

No direction? Try to address what I am saying here with diverting it into a diatribe please. Good luck.

 

[Freewill]

If you don't understand our system of government, just say so. We are a representative republic with three distinct branches; the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Each has it's role. The role of the SCOTUS is to determine which of the laws put forth by the legislative are unconstitutional. That's our system and it's been working (with a few bumps) pretty darn well for over 200 years.

We have this system, in part, to ensure that the rights of the minority are not taken away by the will of the majority.

I understand it quite well which is why you have an issue. The role of the SCOTUS is not to overturn the majority on something NOT contained in this country's founding documents, nor is it even a right.

So...Every amendment past the first 10 are not part of "country's founding documents." They are no good too? The 14th Amendment is no good? The Supreme Court has no right to determine that laws (passed by the people or by the legislature) are unconstitutional based on any amendment past the first 10?

What law did the SCOTUS declare was unconstitutional?

 

[Katzndogz]

The "gay rights movement" is representative of all that is wrong with progressives. They've tarted up the 14th Amendment to cover gay marriage. Gee, it never did before.

They've hijacked scientific inquiry with silly studies that supposedly prove homosexuality is not a choice.

They've created a fictional minority of "gays."

All of this to cater to the agenda of a vocal gaggle of malcontents who want to marry only for government benefits.

To hell with 'em.

Then, don't come to our weddings.

Don't ask photographers who object to photograph them. Don't ask caterers who object to cook for you. Don't ask bakers who object to bake your wedding cake. Don't ask florists who object to deliver your arrangements. Don't ask psychologists who object to give you counseling when the marriage falls apart. Don't ask clergy who object to perform the ceremony. Don't put your children in schools that teach that marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

[Redfish]

What's your fucking problem?? Why do you always think you can start threads preaching to conservatives about what they're allowed to believe, and what's off fucking limits according to you? Why don't you mind your own damn biznez for once, worry about your girlfriend or wife who collects welfare which almost caused you to leave her.. blah blah blah.. STFU already Gramps.. DAMN


You sound like Bloomberg telling people what to do.. Get over yourself!

Because if I can't call out my own I have no business bitching at the other side. I'm not a fucking drone. If you don't like it find the ignore feature and utilize it.

But that is just it. The government is making it our business. Why should government be involved in marriage at all? That is the question.

marriage licenses are issued by states, the federal government should not be involved. Each state should decide what are the criteria for a marriage.

 

[bodecea]

You lie to yourselves all the time. Believing you are superior because of your "tolerance" and "harmony." Believing that people should practice your brand of thinking is quite delusional. You want tolerance but never practice it, and when someone finally gets fed up with your crap, you call them out on it. You people are evil and misplaced in this world, toying with people's emotions as you do.

"You people"?

Would you rather refer to you in a derogatory way? I can think of a few terms that fit the lot of you.

So...tell us, what makes us "evil"? Is it wanting to be treated equally under the law with you? Is that it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

"You people"?

Would you rather refer to you in a derogatory way? I can think of a few terms that fit the lot of you.

So...tell us, what makes us "evil"? Is it wanting to be treated equally under the law with you? Is that it?

Read my response to C_Clayton_Jones.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-m-one-let-the-gay-shit-go-3.html#post7494192

 

[bodecea]

Because if I can't call out my own I have no business bitching at the other side. I'm not a fucking drone. If you don't like it find the ignore feature and utilize it.

But that is just it. The government is making it our business. Why should government be involved in marriage at all? That is the question.

marriage licenses are issued by states, the federal government should not be involved. Each state should decide what are the criteria for a marriage.

The federal government is involved because of SSN, because of federal income tax...and a load of other things:

List of 1,138 Federal Rights, Benefits, and Privileges of Marriage | Freedom to Marry

 

[TemplarKormac]

"You people"?

Would you rather refer to you in a derogatory way? I can think of a few terms that fit the lot of you.

So...tell us, what makes us "evil"? Is it wanting to be treated equally under the law with you? Is that it?

What makes you evil, is that you won't stop with equality.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

High 5

 

[Katzndogz]

What makes them evil is thinking that equality means the same thing as "the same as".

 

[bodecea]

I tolerate Gay people. But I will not sacrifice my base morals for the sake of a minute few. I see them as a sinful aberration of mankind. Call me a fundamentalist, but a man never sells his soul for want. This is why I disabused from the Republican Party. Too many people willing to sacrifice their core beliefs for a bit of social acceptance. If that alienates me from the mainstream, then so be it! I am a man of strength, not of cowardice. I fight for what I believe, and no man, woman or politician will deter me from doing so.

I'll be damned before I give up the essence of who I am. If gay folks want tolerance, they should stop begging for it and start practicing it.

And no one disputes your right to be ignorant and hateful in accordance with your faith.

But don’t attempt to codify that dogma of ignorance and hate through the ballot box or the courts.

While you get to codify your religious intolerance at the ballot box? How dare you lecture me about hate and ignorance? You hypocrite! You are hateful, ignorant and intolerant, whilst belonging to no faith at all, so what do you know hotshot? You think you can just diminish people like us and carry on with wanton disregard for what we are and what we stand for?

You want tolerance from us, but yet you wish to destroy us, ever so silently, quietly, with malice in your hearts. Do you think we're that ignorant? Do you think we will sit here and let you silence us? You have another thing coming Clayton. Your rank hypocrisy makes me sick. You want to force us into submission with your ideals instead of coexisting with us. The courts have already borne this out, you are just an example of it. How pathetic. How low must our society steep for this?

You preach of equality, but want nothing of it. You wish to diminish one to enhance the other. Ignorance is you thinking you can get away with such behavior.

If this is your response to C_Clayton_Jones....show us exactly what rights and privileges under the law YOU LOSE when gays are given the right to marry.

List them here:

1.

2.

3.

4.

 

[bodecea]

I understand it quite well which is why you have an issue. The role of the SCOTUS is not to overturn the majority on something NOT contained in this country's founding documents, nor is it even a right.

So...Every amendment past the first 10 are not part of "country's founding documents." They are no good too? The 14th Amendment is no good? The Supreme Court has no right to determine that laws (passed by the people or by the legislature) are unconstitutional based on any amendment past the first 10?

What law did the SCOTUS declare was unconstitutional?

The part of DOMA that blocks equal treatment under federal law.