State Nullification on Gay Marriage!

[Kosh]

So yes there have been ZERO gays locked up for being in "illegal" "marriages" even in states where it is "illegal". I would have assumed that the far left drones could have posted at least one link.

And no one has ever claimed that a gay couple was imprisoned for getting married. You're refuting an argument no one is making. And beating the stuffing out of that strawman.

What is being claimed, and the courts have affirmed dozens of times, is that gays and lesbians are being denied equal protection under the law by gay marriage bans. As their right to marry is being denied for no good reason. There is no state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. It just is.

And that's not good enough. A fact you reiterate every time you run from it and cling desperately to your strawman stuffing....continuing to pummel an argument no one save you has ever made.

What "equal" protection, the "right" to plunder your partners Social Security?

What protections do you not have now that you think "Marriage" gives to you? I am sure you will link to a list of false claims, may have been true at some point in history, but now the only one is a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it and the plundering of your partners Social Security.

Like I said get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

 

[Skylar]

You're literally arguing for the equality of outcomes, not the equality of opportunity. THAT was anathema to the Founders.

An argument that might make some sense if banning gays and lesbians from marriage didn't deny them equality of opportunity. As they don't have the opportunity to be married under the law.

IF you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a good reason. Alas, you don't have one.

Fagosexuality is a BEHAVIOR.

So what? Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Seeking redress is a behavior. Virtually the whole of the 1st amendment is behaviors. Yet they are all protected rights. Your entire argument...isn't.

Murder, manslaughter, gross negligence, all are treated differently under the law.

Gay marriage isn't murder, manslaughter or gross negligence. Robbing your latest argument of even a semblance of relevance.

Fag marriage isn't equal rights.

Sure it is. As marriage is a right. And if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a good reason. That reason doesn't exist.

It's the government mandating that fags are allowed not only to be fags, but to get treated as if they were a normal couple, and remain free to force their faggotry into the public spotlight.

Its the federal government mandating that everyone is equally protected in the law. You, a gay guy, a black fella, everyone. And well it should be.

 

[Kosh]

No the ultimate authority are the citizens of the states. All power derives from the consent of the governed.

The State lacks the authority to violate the rights of the individual. You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority. And that was anathema to the founders.

You're literally arguing for the equality of outcomes, not the equality of opportunity. THAT was anathema to the Founders.

Fagosexuality is a BEHAVIOR. It is the BEHAVIOR that we don't like, and we refuse to allow that BEHAVIOR to have the same legal results, rights, and privileges as another more acceptable BEHAVIOR, heterosexuality, AKA BEING NORMAL. Murder, manslaughter, gross negligence, all are treated differently under the law. They are BEHAVIORS. Society can outlaw a BEHAVIOR. Ours has benevolently chosen not to outlaw fagosexuality, but that wasn't enough for the fagosexuals. No, they want weddings, priests, publicity, a pat on the back for being AN ABOMINATION before the Lord. Too bad, you don't get that. You don't deserve it.

Fag marriage isn't equal rights. It's the government mandating that fags are allowed not only to be fags, but to get treated as if they were a normal couple, and remain free to force their faggotry into the public spotlight.

We have laws against eating dogs and cats. We have laws against playing loud music. We have laws against tons and tons of BEHAVIORS. Why is this type of law such a big deal to you liberals?

Well I am going to have to disagree with this here as I do not care who want to e "Married", I just want the government out of the business of "Marriage".

The government should not be concerned with who is "Married" and who is not. It is not their business.

 

[Skylar]

What "equal" protection, the "right" to plunder your partners Social Security?

There are a variety of rights and privileges to being married. Gays want the same rights as everyone else. And there's no valid reason to deny them. Without that reason, your denial of rights is an abrogation of said rights. And is thus constitutionally invalid.

Like I said get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

If you don't want a marriage recognized by the law, you can have it.

If someone else does want a marriage recognized and protected by the law, they can have it.

Its a win win all around!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

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.

The power of assuring equal protection under the law is granted to the federal government in the 14th amendment.

Gay people have equal rights to marry the opposite sex just like normal people do. It's inconceivable the Legislature had homosexual marriage in mind when writing the 14th Amendment.

 

[Skylar]

Well I am going to have to disagree with this here as I do not care who want to e "Married", I just want the government out of the business of "Marriage".

Why nullify every marriage and every marriage certificate everywhere along with all law pertaining to marriage.....just to keep the gays out? Its far simpler and more just to simply recognize gay marriages as being as valid as straight ones.

The government should not be concerned with who is "Married" and who is not. It is not their business.

Sure it is. Work benefits, inheritance, child custody, medical decisions, issues of testifying in court, joint property, etc are included in the marriage contract. And the state has ever business to help regulate and protect these rights and privileges.

 

[EriktheRed]

Fag-bashers lost.

 

[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.

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.

The power of assuring equal protection under the law is granted to the federal government in the 14th amendment.

Gay people have equal rights to marry the opposite sex just like normal people do. It's inconceivable the Founders had homosexual marriage in mind when writing the 14th Amendment.

Um.......I think you're a little confused. The founders were dead about a half century when the 14th amendment was written. That would be like talking about Clark Gable in the newest Batman movie. You'd need a flux capacitor or a Blue Police Box to make the narrative work.

And the 14th amendment was about protecting the rights and freedoms of federal citizens. All citizens. All rights and freedoms.

And marriage is a right.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

The states have no authority to deny citizens their civil rights.

No one is being denied anything, bozo. States have the power to set rules for marriage. The government cannot deny the will of the citizens.

So a state ban of privately owned firearms can't be overturned by the Supreme Court?

lol

where does it specifically say gays can marry same sex? The 2nd is specific.

 

[Kosh]

Well I am going to have to disagree with this here as I do not care who want to e "Married", I just want the government out of the business of "Marriage".

Why nullify every marriage and every marriage certificate everywhere along with all law pertaining to marriage.....just to keep the gays out? Its far simpler and more just to simply recognize gay marriages as being as valid as straight ones.

The government should not be concerned with who is "Married" and who is not. It is not their business.

Sure it is. Work benefits, inheritance, child custody, medical decisions, issues of testifying in court, joint property, etc are included in the marriage contract. And the state has ever business to help regulate and protect these rights and privileges.

Once again it is not the business of government to know who is and is not "married", but the far left in you will not let go, will it?

Our system is more adapt to handle it than you would think and there are not that many benefits that "married" couples get through the government. You actually get more being single with kids than you do being "Married" with kids.

One can still get a certificate with the word "Marriage" on it, send me $100 and I print one out fro you.

Post all the laws that pertain to "Marriage"...

 

[Skylar]

Fag-bashers lost.

Rhetorically speaking, they're in a really awful position. As their actual motivations aren't admissible in court. As one witty journalist put it, the case of 'Yahweh V. Sodom' isn't binding precedent.

That leaves them with weak, second tier arguments that are easily refuted with an even passing review.

 

[Kosh]

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.

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.

The power of assuring equal protection under the law is granted to the federal government in the 14th amendment.

Gay people have equal rights to marry the opposite sex just like normal people do. It's inconceivable the Founders had homosexual marriage in mind when writing the 14th Amendment.

Um.......I think you're a little confused. The founders were dead about a half century when the 14th amendment was written. That would be like talking about Clark Gable in the newest Batman movie. You'd need a flux capacitor or a Blue Police Box to make the narrative work.

And the 14th amendment was about protecting the rights and freedoms of federal citizens. All citizens. All rights and freedoms.

And marriage is a right.

"Marriage" is not a "right".

A "right" is something that can not be taken away and someone can take away your "right" to be "Married" to them.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

States aren't sovereign

thread denied.

 

[dilloduck]

Why isn't the legal age to consent to marriage the same in all states ? So much for equal protection under the law.

 

[Skylar]

where does it specifically say gays can marry same sex? The 2nd is specific.

The 2nd says nothing about the right to self defense with a fire arm. Which is the basis of the Heller decision. And the accompanying McDonald V. Chicago. The right to self defense with a firearm is a reserve right. One of those unemumerated rights still retained by the people as described in the 9th amendment.

So too, is marriage. And if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a good reason. Alas, no such reason exists. Which is why the record of failure for gay marriage opponents is so close to perfect.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

The states have no authority to deny citizens their civil rights.

No one is being denied anything, bozo. States have the power to set rules for marriage. The government cannot deny the will of the citizens.

You are dumb

Loving vs Virginia settled the matter of states having the right to define marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Once again it is not the business of government to know who is and is not "married", but the far left in you will not let go, will it?[/quote

Once again, of course it is. Work benefits, inheritance, child custody, medical decisions, issues of testifying in court, joint property, etc are included in the marriage contract. And the state has ever business to help regulate and protect these rights and privileges.

Our system is more adapt to handle it than you would think and there are not that many benefits that "married" couples get through the government. You actually get more being single with kids than you do being "Married" with kids.

The aforementioned protection of rights and privileges contradict your assertion.

One can still get a certificate with the word "Marriage" on it, send me $100 and I print one out fro you.

The difference being that you're nobody, legally speaking. And nothing you print means anything, legally speaking.

Whereas a State recognized marriage contract brings with it rights and privileges that are recognized by the law. And its this legal recognition that gays and lesbians are seeking and overwhelmingly winning.

 

[Skylar]

Loving vs Virginia settled the matter of states having the right to define marriage.

Yup. Demonstrating elegantly that any set of State restrictions on marriage that violate individual rights without a good reason are invalid and within the authority of the Federal government to overrule.

 

[Kosh]

Once again it is not the business of government to know who is and is not "married", but the far left in you will not let go, will it?[/quote

Once again, of course it is. Work benefits, inheritance, child custody, medical decisions, issues of testifying in court, joint property, etc are included in the marriage contract. And the state has ever business to help regulate and protect these rights and privileges.

Our system is more adapt to handle it than you would think and there are not that many benefits that "married" couples get through the government. You actually get more being single with kids than you do being "Married" with kids.

The aforementioned protection of rights and privileges contradict your assertion.

One can still get a certificate with the word "Marriage" on it, send me $100 and I print one out fro you.

The difference being that you're nobody, legally speaking. And nothing you print means anything, legally speaking.

Whereas a State recognized marriage contract brings with it rights and privileges that are recognized by the law. And its this legal recognition that gays and lesbians are seeking and overwhelmingly winning.

And I see the a typical far left list that does not really apply anymore, I predicted they would post a bunk list and they did.

And of course I print out many contract for people to sign and they are legal and everything..

Yes you can get "Married" and yes it will be "legal", just that it will not be recognized by the government so you can plunder your partners Social Security and you will have that nice certificate you wanted with the word "Marriage" on it. Other than that that is all you get nowa days.

 

[Skylar]

And marriage is a right.

"Marriage" is not a "right".
[/quote]

Sure it is. The USSC settled that generations ago.

A "right" is something that can not be taken away and someone can take away your "right" to be "Married" to them.

You're confusing a right with an obligation. The right to get married is the freedom to be married. Not the obligation to do so. And that freedom to be married can't be taken away without a very, very good reason.

Which opponents of gay marriage don't have.