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

[Redfish]

You may be unscrupulous enough to rig a poll in exchange for payment, but you have no evidence the pollsters listed earlier are. You're also stuck with the reality that every single poll shows a majority of Americans is now in favor of gay marriage being available.

Every single one. Meanwhile, you remain empty-handed when it comes to proving your statement that a majority of Americans are against it. There is simply no proof of that; and you saying it simply doesn't make it suddenly become true.

I think that what you will find is that a majority favor equal rights for gays, and I am one of those.

I do not think you will find anything that says that a majority want their kids to be taught that they can be gay or straight and that its equally acceptable to society.

And of course, that wasn't the question asked in the polls.

And of course, that's not what you said earlier. Earlier, you said, "a majority of americans are opposed to gay marriage."

And of course, you simply have no evidence to support that in the face of every single poll indicating otherwise.

one follows the other in a logical succession.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Take a breather all. A nice cocktail and a couple hours away from this thread.

 

[bodecea]

there are no gray areas in the constitution, it is literally crystal clear. The founders drafted a marvelous document, there are no gray areas except in the minds of those who choose to ignore parts of it.

Oh? Do gays have the Constitutional right to marry each other? The Constitution forbids discriminating based on gender and Gay people are denied the right, in most states, to marry the person of their choice for no reason other than gender.

That seems pretty gray to me.

there is no prohibition of civil unions between two adults of the same sex, but thats not good enough for them, they have to destroy a centuries old definition of marriage.

Must not be made of sterner stuff if it can be destroyed by loving,committed gay couples getting married legally.....what a house of cards you think marriage is.

 

[mal]

Oh? Do gays have the Constitutional right to marry each other? The Constitution forbids discriminating based on gender and Gay people are denied the right, in most states, to marry the person of their choice for no reason other than gender.

That seems pretty gray to me.

there is no prohibition of civil unions between two adults of the same sex, but thats not good enough for them, they have to destroy a centuries old definition of marriage.

Must not be made of sterner stuff if it can be destroyed by loving,committed gay couples getting married legally.....what a house of cards you think marriage is.

Marriage isn't being destroyed if you are given Marriage in name in Law...

You simply are not capable of Marriage as long as you Defy your Natural Design and Equipment.

Two Women and Two Men are not Equal to Man and Woman.

But hey, the Despotic Branch once said that Slavery was a Right...

They have been Wrong plenty of times.



peace...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

there are no gray areas in the constitution, it is literally crystal clear. The founders drafted a marvelous document, there are no gray areas except in the minds of those who choose to ignore parts of it.

Oh? Do gays have the Constitutional right to marry each other? The Constitution forbids discriminating based on gender and Gay people are denied the right, in most states, to marry the person of their choice for no reason other than gender.

That seems pretty gray to me.

there is no prohibition of civil unions between two adults of the same sex, but thats not good enough for them, they have to destroy a centuries old definition of marriage.

Same-sex couples seek only to preserve marriage exactly as it exists now: a commitment of two equal partners, either same- or opposite-sex.

With regard to ‘civil unions,’ the issue has nothing to do with ‘being good enough,’ it has to do with the fact that a separate but equal policy is repugnant to the Constitution and offensive to the fundamental tenets of liberty and equality.

And that something is perceived to be a “centuries old definition of marriage” is both legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and is not justification to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

there is no prohibition of civil unions between two adults of the same sex, but thats not good enough for them, they have to destroy a centuries old definition of marriage.

Must not be made of sterner stuff if it can be destroyed by loving,committed gay couples getting married legally.....what a house of cards you think marriage is.

Marriage isn't being destroyed if you are given Marriage in name in Law...

You simply are not capable of Marriage as long as you Defy your Natural Design and Equipment.

Two Women and Two Men are not Equal to Man and Woman.

But hey, the Despotic Branch once said that Slavery was a Right...

They have been Wrong plenty of times.



peace...

Please feel free to take your “Defy your Natural Design and Equipment” ‘argument’ before any court in the land as ‘justification’ to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

Struck by your ignorance and stupidity, the expression on the judge’s face would be priceless.

 

[Faun]

there are no gray areas in the constitution, it is literally crystal clear. The founders drafted a marvelous document, there are no gray areas except in the minds of those who choose to ignore parts of it.

Oh? Do gays have the Constitutional right to marry each other? The Constitution forbids discriminating based on gender and Gay people are denied the right, in most states, to marry the person of their choice for no reason other than gender.

That seems pretty gray to me.

there is no prohibition of civil unions between two adults of the same sex, but thats not good enough for them, they have to destroy a centuries old definition of marriage.

Are you changing the question because you can't answer it? I said nothing about civil unions.

I'm talking about "marriage." The Constitution forbids against discrimination based on gender. There are people in this country who are denied a marriage license by the state for no other reason than gender. To me, it seems the Constitution is on their side and that banning same-sex marriages should be rendered unconstitutional.

Forget about gays having to settle for "civil unions," I'm not talking about that. Straight people aren't forced to settle for civil unions. I'm talking about marriage.

Do you agree with me that equal protection provided by the 14th Amendment protects gays' rights to marry just as it protects straights' rights to marry?

If not, why not?

 

[Faun]

I think that what you will find is that a majority favor equal rights for gays, and I am one of those.

I do not think you will find anything that says that a majority want their kids to be taught that they can be gay or straight and that its equally acceptable to society.

And of course, that wasn't the question asked in the polls.

And of course, that's not what you said earlier. Earlier, you said, "a majority of americans are opposed to gay marriage."

And of course, you simply have no evidence to support that in the face of every single poll indicating otherwise.

one follows the other in a logical succession.

Sorry, but your absurd claim follows nothing logically. It was false when you said it and it remains false now.

 

[Faun]

You simply are not capable of Marriage as long as you Defy your Natural Design and Equipment.

Says who?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You simply are not capable of Marriage as long as you Defy your Natural Design and Equipment.

Says who?

Say those fearful of change, diversity, and expressions of individual liberty.

 

[Unkotare]

Oh? Do gays have the Constitutional right to marry each other? The Constitution forbids discriminating based on gender and Gay people are denied the right, in most states, to marry the person of their choice for no reason other than gender.

That seems pretty gray to me.

there is no prohibition of civil unions between two adults of the same sex, but thats not good enough for them, they have to destroy a centuries old definition of marriage.

Are you changing the question because you can't answer it? I said nothing about civil unions.

If they satisfy all Constitutional questions involved and resolve the issue to the satisfaction of most Americans, then why not say something about them?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

there is no prohibition of civil unions between two adults of the same sex, but thats not good enough for them, they have to destroy a centuries old definition of marriage.

Are you changing the question because you can't answer it? I said nothing about civil unions.

If they satisfy all Constitutional questions involved and resolve the issue to the satisfaction of most Americans, then why not say something about them?

Anyone is at liberty to say whatever he wishes about civil unions.

But as a fact of 14th Amendment case law a doctrine of separate but equal will never pass Constitutional muster, whether civil unions resolve the issue to the satisfaction of most Americans or not, as our civil liberties – indeed, our inalienable rights – are not determined by majority rule.

 

[Unkotare]

Are you changing the question because you can't answer it? I said nothing about civil unions.

If they satisfy all Constitutional questions involved and resolve the issue to the satisfaction of most Americans, then why not say something about them?

Anyone is at liberty to say whatever he wishes about civil unions.

But as a fact of 14th Amendment case law a doctrine of separate but equal will never pass Constitutional muster

Individual marriages are not public schools, lodgings, restaurants, or essential business. Every marriage is separate, as would be every Civil Union. They would satisfy the protections guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

 

[Faun]

there is no prohibition of civil unions between two adults of the same sex, but thats not good enough for them, they have to destroy a centuries old definition of marriage.

Are you changing the question because you can't answer it? I said nothing about civil unions.

If they satisfy all Constitutional questions involved and resolve the issue to the satisfaction of most Americans, then why not say something about them?

Because it doesn't satisfy them.

Because the Constitution isn't for one person but not another. We don't have a Constitution so that some can enjoy the states' right of marriage while others have to settle for anything less for no reason other than the gender of the person they wish to marry.

 

[Unkotare]

Are you changing the question because you can't answer it? I said nothing about civil unions.

If they satisfy all Constitutional questions involved and resolve the issue to the satisfaction of most Americans, then why not say something about them?

Because it doesn't satisfy them.

Sure it does. If a civil union granted all the privileges and associated legal standing of a traditional marriage, with the only significant difference being the name "marriage," then they would most certainly satisfy them.

 

[Faun]

If they satisfy all Constitutional questions involved and resolve the issue to the satisfaction of most Americans, then why not say something about them?

Anyone is at liberty to say whatever he wishes about civil unions.

But as a fact of 14th Amendment case law a doctrine of separate but equal will never pass Constitutional muster

Individual marriages are not public schools, lodgings, restaurants, or essential business. Every marriage is separate, as would be every Civil Union. They would satisfy the protections guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

How the hell is telling one group of people they can marry while telling another group they cannot, equal protection??

 

[Unkotare]

Anyone is at liberty to say whatever he wishes about civil unions.

But as a fact of 14th Amendment case law a doctrine of separate but equal will never pass Constitutional muster

Individual marriages are not public schools, lodgings, restaurants, or essential business. Every marriage is separate, as would be every Civil Union. They would satisfy the protections guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

How the hell is telling one group of people they can marry while telling another group they cannot, equal protection??

If a civil union granted all the same rights and privileges of a marriage, then how the hell does it not?

 

[Redfish]

If they satisfy all Constitutional questions involved and resolve the issue to the satisfaction of most Americans, then why not say something about them?

Because it doesn't satisfy them.

Sure it does. If a civil union granted all the privileges and associated legal standing of a traditional marriage, with the only significant difference being the name "marriage," then they would most certainly satisfy them.

but it won't, the dialog from the gays and libs on this message board verify that the whole issue is that they insist on using the word marriage. its not about equality, its about the word.

 

[Redfish]

Anyone is at liberty to say whatever he wishes about civil unions.

But as a fact of 14th Amendment case law a doctrine of separate but equal will never pass Constitutional muster

Individual marriages are not public schools, lodgings, restaurants, or essential business. Every marriage is separate, as would be every Civil Union. They would satisfy the protections guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

How the hell is telling one group of people they can marry while telling another group they cannot, equal protection??

do you include the groups of bigamists and polygamists in that generalization? if not, why do you insist on discriminating against them?

 

[Unkotare]

Because it doesn't satisfy them.

Sure it does. If a civil union granted all the privileges and associated legal standing of a traditional marriage, with the only significant difference being the name "marriage," then they would most certainly satisfy them.

but it won't, the dialog from the gays and libs on this message board verify that the whole issue is that they insist on using the word marriage. its not about equality, its about the word.

In the immortal words of the Fonz, EXACTAMUNDO.