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

[TemplarKormac]

It matters not how you define it, it still remains discrimination based on gender. Perhaps Conservative logic allows for discrimination so long as you can frame the law in such a fashion as to appease the bigots, but in reality, that doesn't provide adequate protection from the reach of the Constitution.

Correct.

The Constitution places a very great burden of proof on the state when it seeks to deny citizens their civil liberties.

The restrictions must be rationally based, there must be a compelling governmental interest, there must be objective, documented evidence in support of the restrictions, and the restrictions must pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Measures designed to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law fail to satisfy any of the above criteria.

And though many Conservatives won't admit it, the real reason they're against gay marriage is because their bigotry against homosexuality his based on their religious beliefs. Which of course, has absolutely no place in the Constitution.

Although you won't admit it, calling people bigots does not qualify as a reason. If you read the First Amendment, religion has plenty a place in the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

People like you should stop talking out of your backside. Seriously. In regards to who you quoted, determining who can and can't marry should be a states issue. Dictating marriage is not inferred on the government in any part of the Constitution, and is thereby relegated to the states.

In my personal opinion, there should be no governance over marriage. I see any laws regarding marriage as a violation of the First Amendment since in some cases they would qualify as laws respecting an establishment of religion. You don't need governments to sanction marriage.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Ahh, you wish to invoke human rights? Ok, let's see where Human Rights Watch stands on abortion, shall we ... ?

Abortion

Women's ability to access safe and legal abortions is restricted in law or in practice in most countries in the world. In fact, even where abortion is permitted by law, women often have severely limited access to safe abortion services because of lack of proper regulation, health services, or political will.

At the same time, only a very small minority of countries prohibit all abortion. In most countries and jurisdictions, abortion is allowed at least to save the pregnant woman's life, or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Abortion is a highly emotional subject and one that excites deeply held opinions. However, equitable access to safe abortion services is first and foremost a human right. Where abortion is safe and legal, no one is forced to have one. Where abortion is illegal and unsafe, women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term or suffer serious health consequences and even death. Approximately 13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide are attributable to unsafe abortion-between 68,000 and 78,000 deaths annually.

Women's organizations across the world have fought for the right to access safe and legal abortion for decades, and increasingly international human rights law supports their claims. In fact, international human rights legal instruments and authoritative interpretations of those instruments compel the conclusion that women have a right to decide independently in all matters related to reproduction, including the issue of abortion.
​

quoting the United Nations......? that doesn't fly in America....

Yeah...human rights suck, right?

if you don't like American rights then just move to a country that has more humane rights......if you can find one....

 

[Faun]

Human rights offenses, including murder, are still considered human rights offenses, including murder, if they are LEGAL at the time they are committed.

Just ask any of the Nazis were were executed for war crimes..that were *legal* at the time they committed them.

Ahh, you wish to invoke human rights? Ok, let's see where Human Rights Watch stands on abortion, shall we ... ?

Abortion

Women's ability to access safe and legal abortions is restricted in law or in practice in most countries in the world. In fact, even where abortion is permitted by law, women often have severely limited access to safe abortion services because of lack of proper regulation, health services, or political will.

At the same time, only a very small minority of countries prohibit all abortion. In most countries and jurisdictions, abortion is allowed at least to save the pregnant woman's life, or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Abortion is a highly emotional subject and one that excites deeply held opinions. However, equitable access to safe abortion services is first and foremost a human right. Where abortion is safe and legal, no one is forced to have one. Where abortion is illegal and unsafe, women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term or suffer serious health consequences and even death. Approximately 13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide are attributable to unsafe abortion-between 68,000 and 78,000 deaths annually.

Women's organizations across the world have fought for the right to access safe and legal abortion for decades, and increasingly international human rights law supports their claims. In fact, international human rights legal instruments and authoritative interpretations of those instruments compel the conclusion that women have a right to decide independently in all matters related to reproduction, including the issue of abortion.
​

quoting the United Nations......? that doesn't fly in America....

It was koshergirl who brought up human rights, not I. I merely provided their position.

 

[bodecea]

if so that means you can't stop other types of marriages like polygamy as Faun stated....

btw....what is the 'compelling governmental interest' in this.....?

What do you have against polygamy? By what rationale should it not be allowed?

many women and children suffer in such an arrangement...

Then...there is probably some valid legal reasons to prevent such an arrangement to become legal don't you think?

 

[Faun]

there was one described in the video i posted.....New Jersey i believe...

And you would be wrong since the court didn't actually allow it. The case involved a judge who wrongly ruled against providing a woman a restraining order against her husband who she claimed was raping her; under the context that her husband was not raping her according to his religious beliefs ... but that judge was overruled because the husband's religious beliefs that he could rape his wife if he wanted to violated U.S. law.

So try another example cause that one only scored a point for the folks pointing out that Sharia law is not permissible in America when it violates U.S. law.

well i'm not up on the result of every court case that comes along......but it was one of the 51 cases or so that were mentioned...and that didn't include honor killings....

but more importantly......why the HELL are these types of cases even being heard in America in the first place....? that's what happens when we let in foreign people who are still adhering to barbarian belief systems....

Well you were challenged to cite an example and the one you cited, which was one of the 51 they referenced in that video, turned out to be false.

So the challenge remains ... provide an example. If you can't, that's ok, but don't expect anyone else to be afraid of the imaginary boogey man you fear just because you believe it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

And you would be wrong since the court didn't actually allow it. The case involved a judge who wrongly ruled against providing a woman a restraining order against her husband who she claimed was raping her; under the context that her husband was not raping her according to his religious beliefs ... but that judge was overruled because the husband's religious beliefs that he could rape his wife if he wanted to violated U.S. law.

So try another example cause that one only scored a point for the folks pointing out that Sharia law is not permissible in America when it violates U.S. law.

well i'm not up on the result of every court case that comes along......but it was one of the 51 cases or so that were mentioned...and that didn't include honor killings....

but more importantly......why the HELL are these types of cases even being heard in America in the first place....? that's what happens when we let in foreign people who are still adhering to barbarian belief systems....

Honor killings get a pass in the U.S.? Where?

did i say they got a pass.......? No...murdering your child is still (so far) against the law in this country.....well that is if the child is considered already born....

however the very fact that these things are happening in the U.S. AND that muslims are concurrently attempting to install Sharia law in various ways all over the country shows we have imported a poisonous belief system that needs to be nipped in the bud....especially when you look at what is happening in Europe....

 

[TemplarKormac]

What do you have against polygamy? By what rationale should it not be allowed?

many women and children suffer in such an arrangement...

Then...there is probably some valid legal reasons to prevent such an arrangement to become legal don't you think?

There are valid legal reasons why marriage should not be sanctioned by the government. At all. But if it must, then the issue should be relegated to the states. I don't support gay marriage, but as a libertarian I believe that marriage is in a great deal of cases an expression of religion; therefore, any laws concerning marriage would be unconstitutional as they would be respecting the establishment of multiple religions in America.

 

[bodecea]

many women and children suffer in such an arrangement...

Then...there is probably some valid legal reasons to prevent such an arrangement to become legal don't you think?

There are valid legal reasons why marriage should not be sanctioned by the government. At all. But if it must, then the issue should be relegated to the states. I don't support gay marriage, but as a libertarian I believe that marriage is in a great deal of cases an expression of religion; therefore, any laws concerning marriage would be unconstitutional as they would be respecting the establishment of multiple religions in America.

How long have you been fighting to get government out of the marriage business? And what specifically have you done in this fight?

 

[Faun]

Correct.

The Constitution places a very great burden of proof on the state when it seeks to deny citizens their civil liberties.

The restrictions must be rationally based, there must be a compelling governmental interest, there must be objective, documented evidence in support of the restrictions, and the restrictions must pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Measures designed to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law fail to satisfy any of the above criteria.

And though many Conservatives won't admit it, the real reason they're against gay marriage is because their bigotry against homosexuality his based on their religious beliefs. Which of course, has absolutely no place in the Constitution.

Although you won't admit it, calling people bigots does not qualify as a reason. If you read the First Amendment, religion has plenty a place in the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

People like you should stop talking out of your backside. Seriously. In regards to who you quoted, determining who can and can't marry should be a states issue. Dictating marriage is not inferred on the government in any part of the Constitution, and is thereby relegated to the states.

In my personal opinion, there should be no governance over marriage. I see any laws regarding marriage as a violation of the First Amendment since in some cases they would qualify as laws respecting an establishment of religion. You don't need governments to sanction marriage.

That's a pretty impulsive interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution protects the inalienable right for people to worship as they choose for themselves, not to allow the government to establish any religion or impose any religious beliefs on the people.

Meaning the Constitution does not consider religion where law is violated. That's the reason the husband seeking evasion from U.S. law due to his observance of Sharia law, who ScreamingEagle referred to earlier, was denied that protection.

 

[Faun]

So you are looking for Civil Unions for homosexuals then?

I'm looking for the Constitution to be upheld where everyone is provided equal protection under the law.

Ok, Civil Unions for homosexuals then. Problem solved.

That would solve the problem if it didn't persist in violating the 14th Amendment ... but regrettably, it still would.

 

[bodecea]

So you are looking for Civil Unions for homosexuals then?

I'm looking for the Constitution to be upheld where everyone is provided equal protection under the law.

Ok, Civil Unions for homosexuals then. Problem solved.

Why not civil unions for ALL civil marriages.? Why just gays?

 

[Faun]

if so that means you can't stop other types of marriages like polygamy as Faun stated....

btw....what is the 'compelling governmental interest' in this.....?

What do you have against polygamy? By what rationale should it not be allowed?

many women and children suffer in such an arrangement...

So? Many women and children suffer from infidelity, divorce, alcoholism, etc... and none of those are banned by U.S. law.

Do you think those should also be illegal?

 

[Faun]

quoting the United Nations......? that doesn't fly in America....

Yeah...human rights suck, right?

if you don't like American rights then just move to a country that has more humane rights......if you can find one....

That's pretty funny since this discussion was started by someone opposed to "American Rights" (abortion).

 

[bodecea]

Yeah...human rights suck, right?

if you don't like American rights then just move to a country that has more humane rights......if you can find one....

That's pretty funny since this discussion was started by someone opposed to "American Rights" (abortion).

Yep.

 

[Faun]

many women and children suffer in such an arrangement...

Then...there is probably some valid legal reasons to prevent such an arrangement to become legal don't you think?

There are valid legal reasons why marriage should not be sanctioned by the government. At all. But if it must, then the issue should be relegated to the states. I don't support gay marriage, but as a libertarian I believe that marriage is in a great deal of cases an expression of religion; therefore, any laws concerning marriage would be unconstitutional as they would be respecting the establishment of multiple religions in America.

It is left to the states. Unless of course, the laws violate the U.S. Constitution.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

And you would be wrong since the court didn't actually allow it. The case involved a judge who wrongly ruled against providing a woman a restraining order against her husband who she claimed was raping her; under the context that her husband was not raping her according to his religious beliefs ... but that judge was overruled because the husband's religious beliefs that he could rape his wife if he wanted to violated U.S. law.

So try another example cause that one only scored a point for the folks pointing out that Sharia law is not permissible in America when it violates U.S. law.

well i'm not up on the result of every court case that comes along......but it was one of the 51 cases or so that were mentioned...and that didn't include honor killings....

but more importantly......why the HELL are these types of cases even being heard in America in the first place....? that's what happens when we let in foreign people who are still adhering to barbarian belief systems....

Well you were challenged to cite an example and the one you cited, which was one of the 51 they referenced in that video, turned out to be false.

So the challenge remains ... provide an example. If you can't, that's ok, but don't expect anyone else to be afraid of the imaginary boogey man you fear just because you believe it.

here's one.....so you still think this isn't real....?

TAMPA — The question of what law applies in any Florida courtroom usually comes down to two choices: federal or state.

But Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen is being attacked by conservative bloggers after he ruled in a lawsuit March 3 that, to resolve one crucial issue in the case, he will consult a different source.

"This case," the judge wrote, "will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...-tampa-lawsuit-over-mosque-leadership/1158818

edit to fix link

 

[bodecea]

well i'm not up on the result of every court case that comes along......but it was one of the 51 cases or so that were mentioned...and that didn't include honor killings....

but more importantly......why the HELL are these types of cases even being heard in America in the first place....? that's what happens when we let in foreign people who are still adhering to barbarian belief systems....

Well you were challenged to cite an example and the one you cited, which was one of the 51 they referenced in that video, turned out to be false.

So the challenge remains ... provide an example. If you can't, that's ok, but don't expect anyone else to be afraid of the imaginary boogey man you fear just because you believe it.

here's one.....so you still think this isn't real....?

TAMPA — The question of what law applies in any Florida courtroom usually comes down to two choices: federal or state.

But Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen is being attacked by conservative bloggers after he ruled in a lawsuit March 3 that, to resolve one crucial issue in the case, he will consult a different source.

"This case," the judge wrote, "will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."

Tampa Bay, Florida news | Tampa Bay Times/St. Pete Times-orders-use-of-islamic-law-in-tampa-lawsuit-over-mosque-leadership/1158818

I'd love to read up on that case, but your link doesn't work.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What do you have against polygamy? By what rationale should it not be allowed?

many women and children suffer in such an arrangement...

So? Many women and children suffer from infidelity, divorce, alcoholism, etc... and none of those are banned by U.S. law.

Do you think those should also be illegal?

so you think pointing to other problems justifies creating a new one....?

 

[mal]

I'm looking for the Constitution to be upheld where everyone is provided equal protection under the law.

Ok, Civil Unions for homosexuals then. Problem solved.

Why not civil unions for ALL civil marriages.? Why just gays?

Because Woman and Woman is not Equal to Man and Woman... Fact not Fiction.



peace...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

if so that means you can't stop other types of marriages like polygamy as Faun stated....

Yes, the state may indeed disallow plural marriage.

Bigamy is fraud, contracts created to further a criminal enterprise are invalid and unenforceable. Seeking to prevent fraud is a compelling governmental interest, as there is ample documented evidence that criminal acts of fraud are detrimental to society as a whole. Seeking to prevent fraud is also a rational act by the state, where laws prohibiting bigamy (fraud) are applied to everyone equally.

btw....what is the 'compelling governmental interest' in this.....?

That’s for you and others opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples to demonstrate if you indeed seek to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

The compelling governmental interest applies to the state, not same-sex couples. The burden to ‘prove’ same-sex couples should be afforded their equal protection rights doesn’t rest with same-sex couples, that burden rests with the state. And that burden rests with you as well should you advocate laws denying same-sex couples their civil liberties.

And again: no such compelling governmental interest exists justifying denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

However trite it’s nonetheless true: the only thing that matters is what you can prove in a court of law.