"Smaller government" advocates

[Ray From Cleveland]

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

And therein not only lies your force but also the crux of your problem. Religion has no place in deciding government benefits and demanding that everyone accept your definition so that you can receive benefits that they do not have access to is simply wrong.

Marriage was part of humanity long before the US was even thought of. It's even written about in the Holy Bible. Religion didn't force itself on government, government forced itself into this religious rite.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

And you're more than welcome to whatever belief you want. But what you can't do is try to abrogate people's rights with your belief.

Which is why your ilk lost this debate in court.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

Per our law, marriage is right. You can ignore legal precedent. But legal precedent doesn't change because you ignore it. You're free to 'believe' whatever you'd like. You're not free to legislate whatever you'd like. The power of the States is checked by the rights of the individual.

If marriage was intended to be a right in the USA, it would have been included in the US Constitution. Just because some ogres in black robes say it's a right doesn't mean it is.

 

[Skylar]

We can do 2 things here - remove the government from marriage entirely (no more benefits derived from marrying) OR we can recognize whatever marriage 2 adults wish to enter into.

Or we can just recognize the source of the angst as bing that of irrational fools, who are incapable of objective reason, this they're unable of recognizing that Marriage is defined by the laws of nature; specifically human physiology... wherein two distinct but complementing genders, with each respectively designed to join with the other.

On the irrepressible recognition that this represents what is OKA: The Biological Imperative, and that such comes with great benefit to the species... the importance of which stands well above the abyss of irrational need of a tiny minority of weak minded freaks, whose very existence represents inviability.

Which for those keeping score, is something a viable culture needs to avoid.

I think the gay rights advocates, hypocritically, show no sympathy for single people. Why should people receive tax benefits solely because of their relationship status.................THAT is unfair..............and if the court ruled as it did it should have also made sure no tax benefits could be allowed based solely on marriage status.............they did not which shows one flaw in their reasoning.

Beautiful... yet ANOTHER self evident flaw in the latest whim of the Supreme Legislature has been well noted.

Well said.

Your argument fails in the same place every time: your assumption that sex can serve only one purpose; procreation.

That's as foolish as assuming that the only possible purpose for eating is to fuel the body. And no one wouuld ever do it for any other reason. But what if your'e in the mood for some barbeque chicken? Or want to celebrate a national holiday like thanksgiving. Or bond with a special someone over a good meal. Or have some comfort food after an especially rough day. Or make a birthday cake for a 4 year old's birthday?

Or a myriad of other reasons?

Your needlessly rigid reasoning can't accomindate ANY purpose beyond fueling the body. Smiilarly, your reasoning can't accomindate any reason to have sex save procreation. What if you like the way it feels? What if you want to feel closer to someone? What if you want to release stress? Or do some sweaty cardio? Or comfort someone you are intimate with?

Or a myriad of other reasons?

They're all valid reasons to have sex. Just as there are many valid reasons to eat beyond fueling the body.

 

[Skylar]

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

And you're more than welcome to whatever belief you want. But what you can't do is try to abrogate people's rights with your belief.

Which is why your ilk lost this debate in court.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

Per our law, marriage is right. You can ignore legal precedent. But legal precedent doesn't change because you ignore it. You're free to 'believe' whatever you'd like. You're not free to legislate whatever you'd like. The power of the States is checked by the rights of the individual.

If marriage was intended to be a right in the USA, it would have been included in the US Constitution. Just because some ogres in black robes say it's a right doesn't mean it is.

Nonsense. The Constitution was an exhaustive list of powers. It was NOT an exhaustive list of rigthts. Enumeration in the constitution is not, nor has ever been a prerequisite for the existence of a right.

Check out the 9th amendment. It destroys your argument. Then check out the reason there is a 9th amendment. Its because of people just like you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You openly support marriage rights only being offered to those that agree with your lifestyle.

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman. It's called The Biological Imperative. Look it up... .

Be careful to fully consider the word "imperative" and note that its weight registers in an entirely superior to the 'choice', with regard to one's lifestyle.

What you want marriage to be is irrelevant.

Without regard to what I want, or what you want...

Nature defines Marriage as: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

This being demonstrated through the Biological imperative, wherein Nature designed the human species (and all mammals) with two distinct, but complementing genders, each specifically designed to join with the other.

That you recognize that this is irrefutable... inarguable and otherwise irrepressible, SHOULD BE sufficient to turn you from your former position and toward that inalterable reality.

You simply lack the objectivity sufficient to sustain your status as a viable human being. And as you influence others in this irrational assertion of yours, you are steadily working to undermine the viability of your culture.

And that is true and remains true, without regard to how BADLY you need it to not be true.

 

[Skylar]

You openly support marriage rights only being offered to those that agree with your lifestyle.

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman. It's called The Biological Imperative. Look it up... .

Be careful to fully consider the word "imperative" and note that its weight registers in an entirely superior to the 'choice', with regard to one's lifestyle.

What you want marriage to be is irrelevant.

Without regard to what I want, or what you want...

Nature defines Marriage as: The Joining of One Man and One Woman. This being demonstrated through the Biological imperative, wherein Nature designed the human species (and all mammals) with two distinct, but complementing genders, each specifically designed to join with the other. ]

Nope. There is no marriage in 'nature'. There is only marriage within human societies as we invented it and we define it. It is whatever we say it is. As its our creation.

That you recognize that this is irrefutable... inarguable and otherwise irrepressible, SHOULD BE sufficient to turn you from your former position and toward that inalterable reality.

Your personal opinion isn't 'irrefutable', nor 'inarguable' nor 'reality'. Its just your opinion. You've deluded yourself into believing that anything you think, anything at all, is objective fact.

Its simply not so. Your subjective opinions are not objective reality, no matter how many times you type 'irrefutable'. Its just you, citing you, making an argument that can't withstand an even passing application of logic or reason.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

And you're more than welcome to whatever belief you want. But what you can't do is try to abrogate people's rights with your belief.

Which is why your ilk lost this debate in court.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

Per our law, marriage is right. You can ignore legal precedent. But legal precedent doesn't change because you ignore it. You're free to 'believe' whatever you'd like. You're not free to legislate whatever you'd like. The power of the States is checked by the rights of the individual.

If marriage was intended to be a right in the USA, it would have been included in the US Constitution. Just because some ogres in black robes say it's a right doesn't mean it is.

Wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI, reflecting the original intent of the Framers and centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

In addition to the right to marry there is also the right to privacy, the right of an individual to possess a firearm, and the right to vote – all of which are in the Constitution as part of its case law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

CASE LAW HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE US CONSTITUTION.

And this without regard to the anti-American cult that demands otherwise. But that's only because those who reject American principle are also irrelevant.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

CASE LAW HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE US CONSTITUTION.

Says you citing yourself. Which is meaningless gibbber jabber. The Federalist Papers indicate that the Judiciary's role is to interpret the constitution. Making case law immediately relevant to the constitution. As its a record of the Judiciary's interpretations of the constitution. A role they have and were intended to have.

Remember Keyes......you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

And therein not only lies your force but also the crux of your problem. Religion has no place in deciding government benefits and demanding that everyone accept your definition so that you can receive benefits that they do not have access to is simply wrong.

Marriage was part of humanity long before the US was even thought of. It's even written about in the Holy Bible. Religion didn't force itself on government, government forced itself into this religious rite.

Ignorant nonsense.

Marriage is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts.

14th Amendment jurisprudence concerns solely this marriage contract law, prohibiting the states from denying citizens eligible to enter into marriage contracts from doing so for no other reason than who they are.

Marriage as religious ritual and as practiced by private persons and private religious institutions is not subject to the 14th Amendment, where government has not 'forced itself' into any religious rite.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nope. There is no marriage in 'nature'.

Once again... There is marriage in humanity and humanity exist in nature...

Now I know you're dumb as a stump... but even you should be able to figure that out.

Of course for you to be able to understand, you will need the capacity to reason soundly... and part and parcel of that is the recognition that the ONLY thing that separates humanity from lower nature... is that specific trait.

(Reader, enjoy this... as what you're witnessing is a Leftist demonstrating the substandard nature of their limited intellectual means. Placing the lowly leftist; particularly this one, as SUB-HUMAN.

Pretty cool, huh?)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

CASE LAW HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE US CONSTITUTION.

Says you citing yourself.

Yes... now tell me, what would be the specific disqualifying component of "me citing me"?

(Reader you'll want to follow this... it is going to be a GAS!)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is ... .

The Joining of One Man and One Woman. This as a consequence of the natural law known as the biological Imperative; wherein Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing Genders, each specifically designed to "JOIN WITH" the other.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. There is no marriage in 'nature'.

Once again... There is marriage in humanity and humanity exist in nature...

And there it is again. You intentionally editing out the parts of my post that are inconvenient to your counter argument. Lets try this again:

Nope. There is no marriage in 'nature'. There is only marriage within human societies as we invented it and we define it. It is whatever we say it is. As its our creation.

And your entire argument collapses. Marriage only exists within human societies. It doesn't exist anywhere in nature. There's no marriage between plants. No animals 'marry'. Its just us. And we define what marriage is.

Sometimes its for life. Sometimes its not. Sometimes its one man and one woman. Sometimes its one man and many women. Sometimes its only white men and white women. Sometimes its one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

Marriage is our invention. So we always define what it is. It doesn't exist without us.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm not saying it all makes sense. It would be better if the govt stayed out of marriage altogether.

But marriage is the linking of two people. But brother and sister are already linked. You are linked. Clearly. Women in many European societies take on the surname of their partner and are considered by the state to be linked.

A brother and sister are "simply two different people" who happen to have the same parents.

Is it right? It's not necessarily fair that sister and brother should be kept apart. But that's the way of the world and it should be something that is encouraged for logical reasons. However, like I said, gay couples who couldn't marry ended up being adopted by the other in order to gain most of the important benefits, so, brother and sister, father and son, already have many of those benefits.

Brother and sister can have kids without being married. However it's a matter of making sure that society sends the message that it is not okay for brother and sister to be together in such a relationship. Again, its biology, not necessarily fair.

It seems I'm a hypocrite huh? Well I'm sure you're one too.

You're looking for holes in an argument which will inherently have holes. Why? Because there are various parts to it that aren't necessarily compatible. However, like I've said, I'd prefer it if the govt stayed out of marriage and churches or institutions can decide who is married under their own house and nothing else matters. No benefits, not privileges.

If people want someone to inherit, then they merely write a legal document to say so.

However.... what we're talking about, and which you're trying to push, is what you might call a half way house.

If the govt is going to be a part of marriage, then it needs to abide by the 14th Amendment equality of the laws. Now, you say brother and sister should be able to marry, but under the law brother and sister already get lower inheritance tax and many of the other benefits. So.... is it unfair?

Society makes some things illegal. Murder is illegal. We discourage doing it by making laws. Brother and sister marrying is also discouraged for reasons I have said. It's not fair. It's life. Get over it. If you want that to be hypocritical, then so be it, I don't care.

However, which is better, fighting for the govt out of marriage and not getting anywhere, or having gay people able to marry and get the benefits and live their life as they so wish as the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights dictate?

As you stated, most marital benefits can be worked out with a good lawyer, so why not gay couples?

If my sister dies today, I will not see any of her social security money as her husband might if she was still married. That's a government benefit, isn't it?

While I agree government should be totally out of marriage, it isn't, and that too is just part of life. But the gay marriage decision by the court opens up a Pandora's box we will really wish we never opened down the road. It may not be in my lifetime, but down the road, somebody will sue to marry their sibling. Somebody may sue to marry their pet. And because of the SC's decision, they will have to rule the same way they did for gay marriage.

The Constitutional grounds for gay marriage was equal rights, but equal rights apply to everybody, not just hetero, homosexual couples, or couples you happen to approve of.

Then do you actually support the right of all adults to marry any other adult?

We need to start there for this assertion to be genuine.

No, I don't believe that. I believe in traditional marriage between normal people. I think this bastardization of marriage and the expression of people thereof creates a bad environment for our children and the public in general. Marriage is a social standard that we've embellished since the founding of this country. Now it has become perverted.

As I stated, we opened up a can of worms that we will regret in the future. If anybody thinks this marriage issue will stop at gays only, they have another thing coming. No, probably not next year, the year after that or maybe ten years from now, who knows, but it will rear it's ugly head once again. Trust me on that.

And why should people who weren't born normal be subject to what you want to dish out? They're not allowed to marry because of what you believe?

The Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in place to stop mob rule when it come to freedoms and rights.

Just because you think something, doesn't mean that govt SHOULD impose itself on people. I don't like basketball, does it mean no one should be able to play it?

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

Wrong again.

There are all manner of families that manifest other than a man, woman, and biological child.

A divorced father and his two sons are a family.

A man and woman with their adopted daughter are a family.

And a same-sex couple with a biological child of one of the parents are also a family.

Neither you nor any other arrogant, hateful, authoritarian conservative has the authority to dictate to anyone else what constitutes a family.

Moreover, citizens' rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' the voters are not authorized to determine who will or will not have his Constitutional rights, and one does not forfeit his rights merely as a consequence of his jurisdiction of residence.

Our rights are fundamental and inalienable, immune from attack by the state, including the right to marry, the right to due process, and the right to equal protection of the law.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

CASE LAW HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE US CONSTITUTION.

Says you citing yourself.

Yes... now tell me, what would be the specific disqualifying component of "me citing me"?

(Reader you'll want to follow this... it is going to be a GAS!)

You do realize that your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself, right?

You citing yourself is merely your personal opinion. Which doesn't define anything in the constitution, English, nature, history or religion. It just defines your opinion.

Second, the Federalist Papers contradict you, explicitly indicating that the Judiciary's role is to interpret the constitution. And as the Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution, they have a far greater insight into its meaning and purpose than you do. As you didn't write anything.

And while you may believe that anything you imagine must be 'objective truth'......its just your subjective opinion. Which defines nothing but your opinion. Subjective is not objective, Keyes.

You can't get around that.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is ... .

The Joining of One Man and...

....One Man. Or One Man and One Woman. Or One Woman and One Woman. As marriage is our creation and means whatever we decide it means.

Not whatever *you* decide it means. As you're nobody. Even when you pretend you're 'nature'.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Needless to say, it comes as no surprise that 'advocates' of 'small government' are the same who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law, by denying same-sex couples their right to access marriage law, and by interfering with citizens' right to vote with more laws, more regulation, and more government.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There are all manner of families that manifest other than a man, woman, and biological child.

So what?

A divorced father and his two sons are a family.

So what?

A man and woman with their adopted daughter are a family.

So what?

And a same-sex couple with a biological child of one of the parents are also a family.

False... That is a Father or Mother, criminally flaunting a degenerate lifestyle to a minor child.

Neither you nor any other arrogant, hateful, authoritarian conservative has the authority to dictate to anyone else what constitutes a family.

Well if that is true, then that truth would also preclude you the addle-minded, unprincipled, debauched degenerates of the Ideological Left.

Yet... being incapable of recognizing objective principle... you fail to recognize that truth. Huh... Now what CAN we make of THAT?

Moreover, citizens' rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' the voters are not authorized to determine who will or will not have his Constitutional rights, and one does not forfeit his rights merely as a consequence of his jurisdiction of residence.

The US Constitution does not confer a single right to ANYONE!

The Constitution merely sets specific, enumerated limits upon the power of government, as a specific means to preclude any legitimate means for the Government to usurp or otherwise infringe upon those specific, God-given rights.

There is NO POTENTIAL FOR A RIGHT for a degenerate cult to set aside the laws of nature in an attempt to induce their perversion in undermining of the central nucleus of the culture, in promoting their own subjective needs.

Our rights are fundamental and inalienable, immune from attack by the state, including the right to marry...

So true... what you do not want to come to grips with is that MARRIAGE IS: THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... One Woman. Or One Woman and One Woman ...

No... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. This as a consequence of the natural law known as the Biological Imperative; wherein Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing Genders, each specifically designed to "JOIN WITH" the other.

Now to refute that, you merely need to show nature did not design the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders and that homosexuality is not just a stark deviation from the human biological norm, but that such is NOT the very antithesis of that normality... with homosexuality deviating as far from the human biological norm as is possible, where the subjects at issue remain exclusively... human.

Short of that... Your argument fails, AGAIN~