Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Maybe...the People can get together....maybe a rally...or a march.....to Washington...yeah, Washington. Better make it in the Spring when the weather is not so hot. What shall we call it? I know.....let's call it American Spring! I bet we can get millions! Woot! Let's Roll!mdk troll, do you hate little kids?
You see what party is filled with the Intolerant (who want's to shut down our freedoms of speech) and are the nastiest bullies in the country. The people better wake up Now before it's too late. We have every right to question the ruling by this Supreme court. the thing that gets me is this wasn't even a Unanimous vote. Yet we are suppose to give up our votes and states rights on the vote of a few of the black robed justices and just accept that they are now the Rulers of us? .
So bodecea, how exactly do you feel about kids being deprived of either a mother or a father in the newly contrived institution called "gay marriage"?Maybe...the People can get together....maybe a rally...or a march.....to Washington...yeah, Washington. Better make it in the Spring when the weather is not so hot. What shall we call it? I know.....let's call it American Spring! I bet we can get millions! Woot! Let's Roll!
do you mean like voting to raise tax and take money from one family in order to give it to another? because that does harm people, just like obamacare is harming thousands that had affordable insurance but no longer do.You're a scum bag piece of shit bigot. People should not have the right to harm others through the power of the vote.Valid legal argument in a nutshell: Proaction to protect the psychological health of children; a state's future fledged citizens.
All it would take is an authority figure, or even a lone voter who wishes there vote to have counted on any marriage statute limiting who may marry in their state to make this challenge go straight to the US Supreme Court.
From a conversation started here: Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 183 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go awayGot one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK?And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.
There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.
.
Blind people cannot drive. They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road. People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage. By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for children: who share the marriage contract by implication. "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all. Otherwise it's a net loss for the states handing out what is now just random tax breaks for adult people.
Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...
So bodecea, how exactly do you feel about kids being deprived of either a mother or a father in the newly contrived institution called "gay marriage"?Maybe...the People can get together....maybe a rally...or a march.....to Washington...yeah, Washington. Better make it in the Spring when the weather is not so hot. What shall we call it? I know.....let's call it American Spring! I bet we can get millions! Woot! Let's Roll!
Your thoughts on their formative environment, compared to their peers? Say, of a boy being made to consider one of his lesbian moms "dad" and a girl being forced to consider one of her gay dads as "mom"? Your thoughts on how that might inadvertently affect their psychological formation and self-identification? Their self-esteem? Even, their feeling of a place of actual belonging within their own (unrepresented) gender in "a normal adult world"?
Then outlaw divorce.Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home:
There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.
mdk troll, do you hate little kids?
You see what party is filled with the Intolerant (who want's to shut down our freedoms of speech) and are the nastiest bullies in the country. The people better wake up Now before it's too late. We have every right to question the ruling by this Supreme court. the thing that gets me is this wasn't even a Unanimous vote. Yet we are suppose to give up our votes and states rights on the vote of a few of the black robed justices and just accept that they are now the Rulers of us? .
There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.
Equal protection of the laws is in the Constitution. So if the law grants drivers licenses, it cannot exclude someone from getting a license just because you hate them.
You see, my hate or non-hate is irrelevant to the topic. Blind people cannot drive, ergo they do not get a license to drive unless states want to take that risk. People doing "gay" cannot provide a man and wife (more importantly father & mother) in marriage, so they cannot get a marriage license unless states want to take that risk.
There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.
Equal protection of the laws is in the Constitution. So if the law grants drivers licenses, it cannot exclude someone from getting a license just because you hate them.
But what if I hated blind people?
Valid legal argument in a nutshell: Proaction to protect the psychological health of children; a state's future fledged citizens.
Blindness is a rational reason to exclude people from a drivers license.
Hatred is not!
do you mean like voting to raise tax and take money from one family in order to give it to another? because that does harm people, just like obamacare is harming thousands that had affordable insurance but no longer do.You're a scum bag piece of shit bigot. People should not have the right to harm others through the power of the vote.Valid legal argument in a nutshell: Proaction to protect the psychological health of children; a state's future fledged citizens.
All it would take is an authority figure, or even a lone voter who wishes there vote to have counted on any marriage statute limiting who may marry in their state to make this challenge go straight to the US Supreme Court.
From a conversation started here: Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 183 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go awayGot one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK?There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.
.
Blind people cannot drive. They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road. People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage. By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for children: who share the marriage contract by implication. "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all. Otherwise it's a net loss for the states handing out what is now just random tax breaks for adult people.
Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...
Is that the kind of harming of others through a vote that people should not have?
Do you have any more red herrings and false equivalencies to toss out as a way of masking the fact that you hate gays more than you care about the children?
Blindness is a rational reason to exclude people from a drivers license.
Hatred is not!
Agreed. You and I agree that blind people pose a real danger to others who implicitly share the road with them...good..
Just as hatred isn't a reason to deny people doing gay a marriage license. That denial must be made at a local level based on each state's majority view on giving tax breaks to people for depriving children of either a father or mother since children implicity "share the road" with "gay marriage drivers"..
Windsor v. US said:"......And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."
Do you have any more red herrings and false equivalencies to toss out as a way of masking the fact that you hate gays more than you care about the children?
A child's best psychological adjustment and a state's concern with that is not "a red herring".
Why do you hate children so?
Windsor v. US said:"......And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."
Do you have any more red herrings and false equivalencies to toss out as a way of masking the fact that you hate gays more than you care about the children?
A child's best psychological adjustment and a state's concern with that is not "a red herring".
Why do you hate children so?
Denying same sex parents marriage won't change anything you've alleged. But is utterly irrelevant to it. As denying same sex marriage doesn't mean that children of same sex couples magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarentees that these children will never have married parents.
Do you have any more red herrings and false equivalencies to toss out as a way of masking the fact that you hate gays more than you care about the children?
A child's best psychological adjustment and a state's concern with that is not "a red herring".
Why do you hate children so?
Denying same sex parents marriage won't change anything you've alleged. But is utterly irrelevant to it. As denying same sex marriage doesn't mean that children of same sex couples magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarentees that these children will never have married parents.
I took biology and learned that children each and every single one all have opposite gender parents. You seek to force states to abide by an insitution which strips children of their biological rights to have both a man and woman in their home presiding as "mom and dad". Boys without a father and girls without a mother are being psychologically deprived of their natural birthright, and it shows in ways that will cost the state forced to do this to them, real money as the child becomes a statistically-dysfuncitonal young adult.
Read the Prince's Trust Survey link in the OP for details. States have a duty and responsibility to entice both a mother and father for children in the singular venue in which they do best: a married home with a mother and father..
lol)
'Defense of Marriage' Act
Repealing it just because you don't like it, as Obama did / had done after he refused to enforce the law because he didn't like it, is not justifiable.
Discuss....
(...backing quietly out of the room after throwing in the proverbial grenade...
evidently you speak without knowledge, Common amount the shit level socialists like yourself.do you mean like voting to raise tax and take money from one family in order to give it to another? because that does harm people, just like obamacare is harming thousands that had affordable insurance but no longer do.You're a scum bag piece of shit bigot. People should not have the right to harm others through the power of the vote.Valid legal argument in a nutshell: Proaction to protect the psychological health of children; a state's future fledged citizens.
All it would take is an authority figure, or even a lone voter who wishes there vote to have counted on any marriage statute limiting who may marry in their state to make this challenge go straight to the US Supreme Court.
From a conversation started here: Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 183 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go awayGot one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK?There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.
.
Blind people cannot drive. They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road. People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage. By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for children: who share the marriage contract by implication. "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all. Otherwise it's a net loss for the states handing out what is now just random tax breaks for adult people.
Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...
Is that the kind of harming of others through a vote that people should not have?
Do you have any more red herrings and false equivalencies to toss out as a way of masking the fact that you hate gays more than you care about the children?
