State Nullification on Gay Marriage!

[Kosh]

\
Marriage has a long history in the religious world.

So? Language has a long history in the religious world. That doesn't mean that the use of language in the law violates the separation of church and state.

Who, other than yourself, insists that recognizing marriage as a right violates the separation of church and state?

Every time I've asked you this question, you've fled like it were on fire.

Yes I know the far left standard retorts to that, but it does prove it is more about punishing the church which saw you as an abomination in the eyes of god, than anything else. Just admit it is about revenge on the church.

And once again the far left uses terms from their programming which they do not understand.

 

[bodecea]

Here's the bloomberg poll from your own source:

Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. March 7-10, 2014. N=1,001 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.

"Do you support or oppose allowing same-sex couples to get married?"
Support: 55%
Oppose: 39%
Unsure 9%

Civil Rights

You're ignoring your own source again. Here's the Pew Research Poll:

"Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?"
May 2008, June 2008, April 2009, August 2009, April 2012, June 2012: "... allowing gay and lesbian couples ..."

Favor 54%
Oppose 39%
Unsure 7%

Civil Rights

That's the first 6 polls on whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Every single one contradicts you.

And of course, anything that contradicts you ignore.

And I do not care about polls or gay marriage, I want the government out of the business of marriage..

What part of that do you NOT understand?

So...what have you been actively doing to make that happen? And for how long have you been doing it?

 

[Skylar]

"illegal" means "rights" have been violated? Wow! That is very far left of you!

You're not actually quoting me, you know that right? This is what I said:

Who says that one must be put in jail to have one's rights violated?

So that would be you...and who? So far, every source for everything you've said is yourself. And your source is clearly insuffecient to carry your argument.

So in other words you have no basis for using the term "illegal" and gay "Marriage".

You are you quoting? Its certainly not me. I've said that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a good reason. And there isn't one. I've also said that the majority of folks support gay marriage. And they do.

Do you even disagree with me?

And I claim nothing other than you do not understand the Constitution or what "rights" are as you are a far left drone. And the government should not be in the business of "Marriage".

Yet the Supreme Court says that marriage is a right. Now why would I ignore the supreme court on what is a right...and instead believe you citing yourself?

 

[Skylar]

Yes I know the far left standard retorts to that, but it does prove it is more about punishing the church which saw you as an abomination in the eyes of god, than anything else. Just admit it is about revenge on the church.

Churches aren't being 'punished'. They're simply irrelevant in defining marriage under the law.

You're playing out this bizarre revenge fantasy in your head. And telling us far more about yourself then you are about me, the law, or the courts.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Discuss the topic, not each other. Thanks, Taz

 

[Kosh]

Yes I know the far left standard retorts to that, but it does prove it is more about punishing the church which saw you as an abomination in the eyes of god, than anything else. Just admit it is about revenge on the church.

Churches aren't being 'punished'. They're simply irrelevant in defining marriage under the law.

You're playing out this bizarre revenge fantasy in your head. And telling us far more about yourself then you are about me, the law, or the courts.

Yes they are as you want their term "Marriage". It is out of punishment otherwise you would ask for something like "Civil Unions", which in my opinion is what it should be.

Want to really show your partner that you love them then enter a real "Civil Union" with them.

Other than that the only real benefit you get from being "Married" is a potion of your partners Social Security after they die.

The laws have changed on "Marriage" since the 50's time for you far left drones to get with the here and now.

Personally I do not care. I want government out of the business of "Marriage". There are no longer any "real" benefits to be being "Married" and that is being reflected in today's youth. IMO: It is a word with little to no meaning anymore, well at least in the US. Not sure about the rest of the world.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kosh finally acknowledges that, "The Supreme Court of the United States recognizes that marriage is a right", which he denied above. Two, the 9th and 14th Amendments make it clear that marriage is a right for all citizens and cannot be infringed upon by inferior state legislatures.

 

[Plasmaball]

hey its one of these threads....

 

[Skylar]

Yes they are as you want their term "Marriage". It is out of punishment otherwise you would ask for something like "Civil Unions", which in my opinion is what it should be.

Nonsense. Churches have every right they did before the State made churches irrelevant in defining marriage under the law. If Catholics don't want to recognize gay marriage, they don't have to. But the law does.

And its legal recognition that gays and lesbians seek. And have largely won. And well they should have, as there was no valid reason to deny them the right to marry.

Other than that the only real benefit you get from being "Married" is a potion of your partners Social Security after they die.

If Civil Unions are the same as marriage, why bother with them? Why not just get married? Your own argument refutes the need for the differentiation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

“The 14th was never created with gay marriage in mind stop the distortion of that amendment”



The 14th Amendment was ratified to ensure, among other things, that residents of each state – who are first and foremost citizens of the United States – would be afforded equal protection of (equal access to) the laws of each state, including marriage law.

And as the courts have correctly and consistently determined, to disallow same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in is indeed a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Again, there is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law available to couples wishing to enter into a marriage contract – same- or opposite-sex.

"Marriage" is not in the Constitution and the far left keeps saying and think it is.

So why can't states ban interracial marriage?

 

[Kosh]

Here's the bloomberg poll from your own source:

Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. March 7-10, 2014. N=1,001 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.

"Do you support or oppose allowing same-sex couples to get married?"
Support: 55%
Oppose: 39%
Unsure 9%

Civil Rights

You're ignoring your own source again. Here's the Pew Research Poll:

"Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?"
May 2008, June 2008, April 2009, August 2009, April 2012, June 2012: "... allowing gay and lesbian couples ..."

Favor 54%
Oppose 39%
Unsure 7%

Civil Rights

That's the first 6 polls on whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Every single one contradicts you.

And of course, anything that contradicts you ignore.

And I do not care about polls or gay marriage, I want the government out of the business of marriage..

What part of that do you NOT understand?

So...what have you been actively doing to make that happen? And for how long have you been doing it?

Why does to matter to someone who wants to punish certain religious casts who do not care really care otherthan they want to plunder their

"illegal" means "rights" have been violated? Wow! That is very far left of you!

You're not actually quoting me, you know that right? This is what I said:

Who says that one must be put in jail to have one's rights violated?

So that would be you...and who? So far, every source for everything you've said is yourself. And your source is clearly insuffecient to carry your argument.

So in other words you have no basis for using the term "illegal" and gay "Marriage".

You are you quoting? Its certainly not me. I've said that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a good reason. And there isn't one. I've also said that the majority of folks support gay marriage. And they do.

Do you even disagree with me?

And I claim nothing other than you do not understand the Constitution or what "rights" are as you are a far left drone. And the government should not be in the business of "Marriage".

Yet the Supreme Court says that marriage is a right. Now why would I ignore the supreme court on what is a right...and instead believe you citing yourself?

"illegal" means "rights" have been violated? Wow! That is very far left of you! Yes that is what you said.

So can you post where any gay people (in the US) who have been put in jail for being "illegally" "Married"?

I bet you can not and thus goes to show that terms like "illegal" are scare tactic words.

 

[Kosh]

Yes they are as you want their term "Marriage". It is out of punishment otherwise you would ask for something like "Civil Unions", which in my opinion is what it should be.

Nonsense. Churches have every right they did before the State made churches irrelevant in defining marriage under the law. If Catholics don't want to recognize gay marriage, they don't have to. But the law does.

And its legal recognition that gays and lesbians seek. And have largely won. And well they should have, as there was no valid reason to deny them the right to marry.

Other than that the only real benefit you get from being "Married" is a potion of your partners Social Security after they die.

If Civil Unions are the same as marriage, why bother with them? Why not just get married? Your own argument refutes the need for the differentiation.

Because "Marriage" as acknowledge by the all is a product of religion, thus in order to have a true "separation of church and state", it can not exist or be recognized by the government. Since your far left programming will not allow you to see this, that is why you can not understand it. And thus why you and all the far left drones fail at the arguments and thus proving the far left does not know anything about the Constitution.

 

[Kosh]

“The 14th was never created with gay marriage in mind stop the distortion of that amendment”



The 14th Amendment was ratified to ensure, among other things, that residents of each state – who are first and foremost citizens of the United States – would be afforded equal protection of (equal access to) the laws of each state, including marriage law.

And as the courts have correctly and consistently determined, to disallow same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in is indeed a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Again, there is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law available to couples wishing to enter into a marriage contract – same- or opposite-sex.

"Marriage" is not in the Constitution and the far left keeps saying and think it is.

So why can't states ban interracial marriage?

So being "gay" is now a race?

Going to have to do better that that one.

Can you post one gay person (n the US) that has been imprisoned by being "illegally" "Married"?

 

[Skylar]

Why does to matter to someone who wants to punish certain religious casts who do not care really care otherthan they want to plunder their

But who says they're looking to punish religions?

"illegal" means "rights" have been violated? Wow! That is very far left of you! Yes that is what you said.

Then quote me saying that 'illegal' means 'rights' have been violated. You'll find you're only citing yourself. But perhaps you won't give us yet another excuse why you can't possibly back your claims.

As for my claims, I'll reiterate them:

"If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a good reason. And there isn't one".

Feel free to quote me.

So can you post where any gay people (in the US) who have been put in jail for being "illegally" "Married"?

Who says that you have to be put in jail for your rights to be violated? That would be you...and you. Alas, the 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law. Which means that you'll need to treat gay marriages equally to straight ones.......unless you have a very good reason.

And you don't.

Because "Marriage" as acknowledge by the all is a product of religion, thus in order to have a true "separation of church and state", it can not exist or be recognized by the government.

Marriage is not defined by religion. Its defined by the State. No one gives a fiddler's fuck what religion feels on the definition of marriage under the law.

The law doesn't. The courts certainly don't.

There's your separation.

 

[Skylar]

Can you post one gay person (n the US) that has been imprisoned by being "illegally" "Married"?

Can you post anyone other than yourself that says that one must be imprisoned in order to have one's rights violated?

A gay person need not be imprisoned in order for an equal protection violation to occur. You've insisted that no such violations can exist as no such provision exists in the law. Alas, the 14th amendment has a different account:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, Section 1

If you deny someone equal protection under the law, you violate their rights. No imprisonment required.

 

[Kosh]

Why does to matter to someone who wants to punish certain religious casts who do not care really care otherthan they want to plunder their

But who says they're looking to punish religions?

"illegal" means "rights" have been violated? Wow! That is very far left of you! Yes that is what you said.

Then quote me saying that 'illegal' means 'rights' have been violated. You'll find you're only citing yourself. But perhaps you won't give us yet another excuse why you can't possibly back your claims.

As for my claims, I'll reiterate them:

"If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a good reason. And there isn't one".

Feel free to quote me.

So can you post where any gay people (in the US) who have been put in jail for being "illegally" "Married"?

Who says that you have to be put in jail for your rights to be violated? That would be you...and you. Alas, the 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law. Which means that you'll need to treat gay marriages equally to straight ones.......unless you have a very good reason.

And you don't.

Because "Marriage" as acknowledge by the all is a product of religion, thus in order to have a true "separation of church and state", it can not exist or be recognized by the government.

Marriage is not defined by religion. Its defined by the State. No one gives a fiddler's fuck what religion feels on the definition of marriage under the law.

The law doesn't. The courts certainly don't.

There's your separation.

Once again the far left rewrites things to suit their own agenda.

It has already been established that "Marriage" was defined by RELIGION! Government chose to recognize those "Marriages" for "Tax" purposes. And thus defeats your far left argument.

And since you can not provide any proof of gay "Marriage" being "illegal", I am assuming we will not see the far left use those terms together. No wait I am know I am assuming to much!

 

[Contumacious]

Many states passed referenda and constitutional amendments declaring marriage as between one man and one woman. In some cases those votes passed with over 80% approval.
It's time states, which are sovereign, nullified meddling by Federal courts against the will of the people and simply declared that any official granting a license to anything other than two non-consanguineous single adults of the opposite sex will lose their salaries and benefits in perpetuity.

I understand the states rights issues , but INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS trump states rights. Specifically they have no right to prevent the homosexuals from marrying each other.

While I agree that if the good lord made something better than pussy he kept it for himself. , individuals have a right to pursue happiness.

.

 

[Skylar]

Once again the far left rewrites things to suit their own agenda.

So more excuses on why can't possibly quote me saying 'illegal' means 'rights' have been violated. How did I know that was coming. Feel free to post the quote if you ever find it. Though I wouldn't hold your breath.

It has already been established that "Marriage" was defined by RELIGION! Government chose to recognize those "Marriages" for "Tax" purposes. And thus defeats your far left argument.

Doesn't matter. Religion doesn't defines marriage under the law. And its recognition under the law that gays and lesbians are seeking and winning. Religious marriage can set whatever criteria it wishes. Religion is rrelevant to the legal definitions.

And since you can not provide any proof of gay "Marriage" being "illegal", I am assuming we will not see the far left use those terms together. No wait I am know I am assuming to much!

I've never made the claim of 'gay marriage being illegal'. That would be you citing yourself.

I've said that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians their right to marry, you need a very good reason. And there isn't one. I've also said that the 14th amendment requires equal protection in the law. And of course, it does. So if you're going to treat a gay marriage differently than a straight one, you're going to need a good reason.

And again, there isn't one. Which is why gay marriage's record is essentially perfect. And why gay marriage opponents have lost in court after court after court.

 

[Skylar]

Many states passed referenda and constitutional amendments declaring marriage as between one man and one woman. In some cases those votes passed with over 80% approval.
It's time states, which are sovereign, nullified meddling by Federal courts against the will of the people and simply declared that any official granting a license to anything other than two non-consanguineous single adults of the opposite sex will lose their salaries and benefits in perpetuity.

I understand the states rights issues , but INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS trump states rights.

Exactly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's the bloomberg poll from your own source:

Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. March 7-10, 2014. N=1,001 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.

"Do you support or oppose allowing same-sex couples to get married?"
Support: 55%
Oppose: 39%
Unsure 9%

Civil Rights

You're ignoring your own source again. Here's the Pew Research Poll:

"Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?"
May 2008, June 2008, April 2009, August 2009, April 2012, June 2012: "... allowing gay and lesbian couples ..."

Favor 54%
Oppose 39%
Unsure 7%

Civil Rights

That's the first 6 polls on whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Every single one contradicts you.

And of course, anything that contradicts you ignore.

And I do not care about polls or gay marriage, I want the government out of the business of marriage..

What part of that do you NOT understand?

So...what have you been actively doing to make that happen? And for how long have you been doing it?

Why does to matter to someone who wants to punish certain religious casts who do not care really care otherthan they want to plunder their

"illegal" means "rights" have been violated? Wow! That is very far left of you!

You're not actually quoting me, you know that right? This is what I said:

Who says that one must be put in jail to have one's rights violated?

So that would be you...and who? So far, every source for everything you've said is yourself. And your source is clearly insuffecient to carry your argument.

So in other words you have no basis for using the term "illegal" and gay "Marriage".

You are you quoting? Its certainly not me. I've said that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a good reason. And there isn't one. I've also said that the majority of folks support gay marriage. And they do.

Do you even disagree with me?

And I claim nothing other than you do not understand the Constitution or what "rights" are as you are a far left drone. And the government should not be in the business of "Marriage".

Yet the Supreme Court says that marriage is a right. Now why would I ignore the supreme court on what is a right...and instead believe you citing yourself?

"illegal" means "rights" have been violated? Wow! That is very far left of you! Yes that is what you said.

So can you post where any gay people (in the US) who have been put in jail for being "illegally" "Married"?

I bet you can not and thus goes to show that terms like "illegal" are scare tactic words.

You've never heard of anyone being convicted of violating someone's civil rights?

We're a constitutional republic, remember?

Those powers not explicitly grandted to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people respectively.
Seems states have the power to say who can marry and who can't, not the federal government.

...nor prohibited by it...

Unconstitutional state laws are prohibited.

Nothing unconstitutional about them. The states have been setting their own laws for marriage for 200 years. It is the proper function of the state, not the federtal goverment. If the feds want to exert control, nullify it!

Really? Then how did miscegenation prohibitions get overturned?

That was a racial issue. This is not a racial issue.

Again. You claimed this:

"Nothing unconstitutional about them. The states have been setting their own laws for marriage for 200 years. It is the proper function of the state, not the federtal goverment."

Laws against interracial marriage were set by the states for 200 years.

Which is it? Is those marriage laws the right of the states or not?