Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[ShackledNation]

To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Same sex couples are not allowed to get a marriage license for the same reason they can't get a plumber's license, they don't qualify or meet the criteria. You continue your lie as if we've established that homosexual partnerships are marriages and that has never been established.

A homosexual person has the same access to the marriage license as anyone else. You are wanting to change marriage to include something marriage does not include, and what's more, you're acting as if that is already a settled fact. The 14th simply doesn't give anyone the right to pervert the meaning of words to include that which it doesn't include so they can claim an "equality" bias. If it did, then when someone decided they wanted to fuck little kids, they'd simply change 'marriage' to mean that. All it would ever take is someone jumping up and down, screaming their rights have been violated.

Not all criteria are constitutional. That's why you can't say people can only marry within their own race. After all, although black and white people could not marry each other, they can still both marry within their respective races, so equality, right? Nope. Wrong.

No words are being perverted. Marriage means many different things across cultures. That marriage includes unions of same-sex couples is a settled fact. A huge number of people consider marriage to include the union of two people of the same-sex. That is what the word means. Your religion might disagree, but your religion doesn't define civil law, nor does it own a monopoly on the word marriage. Period.

 

[ShackledNation]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

False. Same-sex couples can still raise and produce children. But instead of allowing them to raise unwanted children of careless heterosexual couples, I guess we could just allow women to abort them instead, right? BTW, apparently you have never heard of a sperm donor.

Oh, and just for kicks:

Net human life resulting from same eldery/infertile coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO.

Oh yeah, but they can get married because...they aren't gay. Your arguments are shallow and easily tossed in the trashbin.

 

[Boss]

To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Same sex couples are not allowed to get a marriage license for the same reason they can't get a plumber's license, they don't qualify or meet the criteria. You continue your lie as if we've established that homosexual partnerships are marriages and that has never been established.

A homosexual person has the same access to the marriage license as anyone else. You are wanting to change marriage to include something marriage does not include, and what's more, you're acting as if that is already a settled fact. The 14th simply doesn't give anyone the right to pervert the meaning of words to include that which it doesn't include so they can claim an "equality" bias. If it did, then when someone decided they wanted to fuck little kids, they'd simply change 'marriage' to mean that. All it would ever take is someone jumping up and down, screaming their rights have been violated.

Not all criteria are constitutional. That's why you can't say people can only marry within their own race. After all, although black and white people could not marry each other, they can still both marry within their respective races, so equality, right? Nope. Wrong.

No words are being perverted. Marriage means many different things across cultures. That marriage includes unions of same-sex couples is a settled fact. A huge number of people consider marriage to include the union of two people of the same-sex. That is what the word means. Your religion might disagree, but your religion doesn't define civil law, nor does it own a monopoly on the word marriage. Period.

With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race. This is about a fundamental change to the institution of marriage itself, to make an exception for homosexuals. The problem is, a huge number of people also believe marriage is between a man and woman, and anything else is a contradiction of their religion which they cannot condone or support. The only "settled fact" is, there are two sides to this argument.

Now... Religion DOES define civil law, in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any law that I can't directly tie to some religious belief to some degree. Nothing in the Constitution says our laws that we all decide on, can't be formed on the basis of our religious beliefs. In fact, we are protected from being discriminated against in any way, shape or form, because of our religious views. They certainly can be (and are) used as a basis for determining our laws.

Now, I am personally not religious, and I have a multitude of gay friends. My proposed solution to this issue comes from a gay couple who have been together 30 years, and who also oppose Gay Marriage. (Did I mention they had a Gay Wedding in rural Alabama in 1986?) So why would this couple be so opposed to "Gay Marriage" and the movement it has become? Aren't you curious?

The moral controversy is never going away, even if it becomes socially accepted. A very large contingent of people will always and forever believe that homosexual behavior is wrong and immoral. This is not like racism where prejudice was rooted in ignorance and bigotry, it is a foundational religious belief for most. So... even IF pie-in-the-sky social reform liberals get their way, and establish Gay Rights or whatever... it is going to be decades and decades before the society is going to embrace what is done. It's going to be a huge fight, the evangelicals don't play.

So the stage is set, the lawyers are going to make a fortune, and the everyday struggles of actual gay couples will continue as the battles rage on for... 10... 20... 30 years. Doesn't have to be that way.

This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life?

At the Federal level, you adopt a very simple directive to change the term "marriage" and all other subsequent terms like "spouse" or "couple" to a non-inflected term for the civil partnership. This kind of should be done anyway, now that we actually have several states with gay married partners. But what this does is takes the government, at the Federal level, out of the game. They are no longer the arbiters of what is marriage, how we define marriage as individuals. As far as taxes and benefits from the Federal government, they would only recognize contracts of civil union, and we would simply 'grandfather in' the existing marriage licenses out there. From here, you open the door for states to follow the lead and adopt civil union contracts to replace marriage licenses.

Suddenly, the problem is solved. No war, no 30 year crusade... it's done. Government isn't controlling your life, no one is telling you how to live, gay couples have all the benefits and perks, religious people still break the champagne glass and yell Mazal Tov! Traditional marriages still happen. Gay marriages start happening more.

 

[martybegan]

[

Would you please stop re-writing history to suit your agenda. Marriage in this Country has always been between a man and a woman. There are no examples of same sex people applying for marriage licenses AS same sex couples prior to the past 20 years.

For a large chunk of our history, women couldn't own property in their own names.

Because something has always been a certain way isn't a good enough reason.

You are comparing apples to camels. You are using the flawed logic of change is always good.

Also, not one is denying that women were once denied property rights, which was a carry over from European practices. What the SSM marriage side is claiming is that these restrictions just sprung up overnight, which is clearly not the case. They merely codified precedent.

 

[Seawytch]

This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life?

I'm still waiting for you to square your "states rights" position on civil marriage with:

Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail.

You can't use the race dodge on those.

 

[toxicmedia]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

There is this poster on another forum, who year after year, as this debate evolves and unfolds...always bribgs up the procreation element of the debate...and he always got lambasted, and his argument completely discredited in the process.

The obvious course would include what we do about marriages between infetile couples, or couples that simpy have no intention of having children, or couples that already had children from previous marriages or relationships.

I've never seen gay marriage equality opponents address that aspect with any type of conclusive cogent response.....

 

[Pop23]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

There is this poster on another forum, who year after year, as this debate evolves and unfolds...always bribgs up the procreation element of the debate...and he always got lambasted, and his argument completely discredited in the process.

The obvious course would include what we do about marriages between infetile couples, or couples that simpy have no intention of having children, or couples that already had children from previous marriages or relationships.

I've never seen gay marriage equality opponents address that aspect with any type of conclusive cogent response.....

What have you got against reproductive privacy

Of course, reproductive privacy is bigoted since it only applies to opposite gender coupling.

Right?

 

[Pop23]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

There is this poster on another forum, who year after year, as this debate evolves and unfolds...always bribgs up the procreation element of the debate...and he always got lambasted, and his argument completely discredited in the process.

The obvious course would include what we do about marriages between infetile couples, or couples that simpy have no intention of having children, or couples that already had children from previous marriages or relationships.

I've never seen gay marriage equality opponents address that aspect with any type of conclusive cogent response.....

Oh, I might add that procreation between the members of the unit, as well as the anatomical difference between those participants make the demographic group far and away different than same sex couplings.

K?

 

[Pop23]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

False. Same-sex couples can still raise and produce children. But instead of allowing them to raise unwanted children of careless heterosexual couples, I guess we could just allow women to abort them instead, right? BTW, apparently you have never heard of a sperm donor.

Oh, and just for kicks:

Net human life resulting from same eldery/infertile coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO.

Oh yeah, but they can get married because...they aren't gay. Your arguments are shallow and easily tossed in the trashbin.

 

[Pop23]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

False. Same-sex couples can still raise and produce children. But instead of allowing them to raise unwanted children of careless heterosexual couples, I guess we could just allow women to abort them instead, right? BTW, apparently you have never heard of a sperm donor.

Oh, and just for kicks:

Net human life resulting from same eldery/infertile coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO.

Oh yeah, but they can get married because...they aren't gay. Your arguments are shallow and easily tossed in the trashbin.

So easy you failed to address them

No, none, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by same sex coupling.

That my dear loony friend is an absolute truth.

Turkey basters and Dixie cups are not allowed to marry.

 

[toxicmedia]

Our Constitution states government can't establish a religion. Religion is codified in every law that exists.

Again, "Freedom From Religion" is a concept which doesn't exist in the Constitution, or in any other civilized society that I am aware of.

I agree with this last part.

If the 1st protects the free exercise of religion, there isn't any reason why the US senate can't have a Xmas tree or the ten commandments on a statue in the lobby...as long as the government doesn't pay for it.

Whether government pays for it or not is irrelevant.

The First Amendment also prohibits the establishment of religion, thus protecting citizens' from religion as codified in secular law. This also manifests with the Constitution' prohibition of re

So, you're saying that the law was changed, like with the 14th amendment, in order to expand civil liberties to people that had previously been denied those liberties? No? Then you're right. We wouldn't want to change those laws in the way that you are attempting to change them, because those changes would directly conflict with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

You deflect, the 14th was never intended to address same sex marriage. Homosexuals were considered mentally challenged, perverted.

The 14th Amendment was intended to protect the rights of all persons in the United States to be afforded due process and equal protection of the law by the states and local jurisdictions.

To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which is why such measures are being invalidated by the court in accordance with the Amendment's original intent.

I disagree, the thought would have never crossed their minds. Homosexuals were considered mentally incompetent

WERE. As WERE blacks at one time. As WERE women at one time. As WERE Asians at one time.

Dummy, they are races.

Homosexuality is not a race.

This may be an obtuse concept...but humans are part of the human race, and Homosexuals are Homo Sapiens

 

[toxicmedia]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

There is this poster on another forum, who year after year, as this debate evolves and unfolds...always bribgs up the procreation element of the debate...and he always got lambasted, and his argument completely discredited in the process.

The obvious course would include what we do about marriages between infetile couples, or couples that simpy have no intention of having children, or couples that already had children from previous marriages or relationships.

I've never seen gay marriage equality opponents address that aspect with any type of conclusive cogent response.....

What have you got against reproductive privacy

Of course, reproductive privacy is bigoted since it only applies to opposite gender coupling.

Right?

Still not understanding huh?

Is reproduction a requirement for state recognized marriages?

 

[Pop23]

I agree with this last part.

If the 1st protects the free exercise of religion, there isn't any reason why the US senate can't have a Xmas tree or the ten commandments on a statue in the lobby...as long as the government doesn't pay for it.

Whether government pays for it or not is irrelevant.

The First Amendment also prohibits the establishment of religion, thus protecting citizens' from religion as codified in secular law. This also manifests with the Constitution' prohibition of re

You deflect, the 14th was never intended to address same sex marriage. Homosexuals were considered mentally challenged, perverted.

The 14th Amendment was intended to protect the rights of all persons in the United States to be afforded due process and equal protection of the law by the states and local jurisdictions.

To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which is why such measures are being invalidated by the court in accordance with the Amendment's original intent.

I disagree, the thought would have never crossed their minds. Homosexuals were considered mentally incompetent

WERE. As WERE blacks at one time. As WERE women at one time. As WERE Asians at one time.

Dummy, they are races.

Homosexuality is not a race.

This may be an obtuse concept...but humans are part of the human race, and Homosexuals are Homo Sapiens

So are mass murders and plumbers.

Ones called a contractor, the other a felon

Are you going to make a point?

 

[toxicmedia]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

There is this poster on another forum, who year after year, as this debate evolves and unfolds...always bribgs up the procreation element of the debate...and he always got lambasted, and his argument completely discredited in the process.

The obvious course would include what we do about marriages between infetile couples, or couples that simpy have no intention of having children, or couples that already had children from previous marriages or relationships.

I've never seen gay marriage equality opponents address that aspect with any type of conclusive cogent response.....

Oh, I might add that procreation between the members of the unit, as well as the anatomical difference between those participants make the demographic group far and away different than same sex couplings.

K?

And this justifies eliminating their option to marry under the law....because??...........why?.........

 

[Pop23]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

There is this poster on another forum, who year after year, as this debate evolves and unfolds...always bribgs up the procreation element of the debate...and he always got lambasted, and his argument completely discredited in the process.

The obvious course would include what we do about marriages between infetile couples, or couples that simpy have no intention of having children, or couples that already had children from previous marriages or relationships.

I've never seen gay marriage equality opponents address that aspect with any type of conclusive cogent response.....

What have you got against reproductive privacy

Of course, reproductive privacy is bigoted since it only applies to opposite gender coupling.

Right?

Still not understanding huh?

Is reproduction a requirement for state recognized marriages?

Why do states refuse to marry fathers to daughters?

 

[Pop23]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

There is this poster on another forum, who year after year, as this debate evolves and unfolds...always bribgs up the procreation element of the debate...and he always got lambasted, and his argument completely discredited in the process.

The obvious course would include what we do about marriages between infetile couples, or couples that simpy have no intention of having children, or couples that already had children from previous marriages or relationships.

I've never seen gay marriage equality opponents address that aspect with any type of conclusive cogent response.....

Oh, I might add that procreation between the members of the unit, as well as the anatomical difference between those participants make the demographic group far and away different than same sex couplings.

K?

And this justifies eliminating their option to marry under the law....because??...........why?.........

Cause they ain't even closely related.

Why can't attorneys do brain surgery.

 

[toxicmedia]

Whether government pays for it or not is irrelevant.

The First Amendment also prohibits the establishment of religion, thus protecting citizens' from religion as codified in secular law. This also manifests with the Constitution' prohibition of re
The 14th Amendment was intended to protect the rights of all persons in the United States to be afforded due process and equal protection of the law by the states and local jurisdictions.

To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which is why such measures are being invalidated by the court in accordance with the Amendment's original intent.

I disagree, the thought would have never crossed their minds. Homosexuals were considered mentally incompetent

WERE. As WERE blacks at one time. As WERE women at one time. As WERE Asians at one time.

Dummy, they are races.

Homosexuality is not a race.

This may be an obtuse concept...but humans are part of the human race, and Homosexuals are Homo Sapiens

So are mass murders and plumbers.

Ones called a contractor, the other a felon

Are you going to make a point?

I've made it, and you continue to miss it.

Who do murders, plumbers, or contractors have to do with the prohibition of gay marriage?

 

[Pop23]

I disagree, the thought would have never crossed their minds. Homosexuals were considered mentally incompetent

WERE. As WERE blacks at one time. As WERE women at one time. As WERE Asians at one time.

Dummy, they are races.

Homosexuality is not a race.

This may be an obtuse concept...but humans are part of the human race, and Homosexuals are Homo Sapiens

So are mass murders and plumbers.

Ones called a contractor, the other a felon

Are you going to make a point?

I've made it, and you continue to miss it.

Who do murders, plumbers, or contractors have to do with the prohibition of gay marriage?

I think you meant what, not who.

The dynamics and description of each are useful in society.

By the way, you brought it up.

Always here to help you straighten out your arguments

 

[toxicmedia]

To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Same sex couples are not allowed to get a marriage license for the same reason they can't get a plumber's license, they don't qualify or meet the criteria. You continue your lie as if we've established that homosexual partnerships are marriages and that has never been established.

A homosexual person has the same access to the marriage license as anyone else. You are wanting to change marriage to include something marriage does not include, and what's more, you're acting as if that is already a settled fact. The 14th simply doesn't give anyone the right to pervert the meaning of words to include that which it doesn't include so they can claim an "equality" bias. If it did, then when someone decided they wanted to fuck little kids, they'd simply change 'marriage' to mean that. All it would ever take is someone jumping up and down, screaming their rights have been violated.

Not all criteria are constitutional. That's why you can't say people can only marry within their own race. After all, although black and white people could not marry each other, they can still both marry within their respective races, so equality, right? Nope. Wrong.

No words are being perverted. Marriage means many different things across cultures. That marriage includes unions of same-sex couples is a settled fact. A huge number of people consider marriage to include the union of two people of the same-sex. That is what the word means. Your religion might disagree, but your religion doesn't define civil law, nor does it own a monopoly on the word marriage. Period.

With Loving, the issue was about discriminations based on race. This is about a fundamental change to the institution of marriage itself, to make an exception for homosexuals. The problem is, a huge number of people also believe marriage is between a man and woman, and anything else is a contradiction of their religion which they cannot condone or support. The only "settled fact" is, there are two sides to this argument.

Now... Religion DOES define civil law, in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any law that I can't directly tie to some religious belief to some degree. Nothing in the Constitution says our laws that we all decide on, can't be formed on the basis of our religious beliefs. In fact, we are protected from being discriminated against in any way, shape or form, because of our religious views. They certainly can be (and are) used as a basis for determining our laws.

Now, I am personally not religious, and I have a multitude of gay friends. My proposed solution to this issue comes from a gay couple who have been together 30 years, and who also oppose Gay Marriage. (Did I mention they had a Gay Wedding in rural Alabama in 1986?) So why would this couple be so opposed to "Gay Marriage" and the movement it has become? Aren't you curious?

The moral controversy is never going away, even if it becomes socially accepted. A very large contingent of people will always and forever believe that homosexual behavior is wrong and immoral. This is not like racism where prejudice was rooted in ignorance and bigotry, it is a foundational religious belief for most. So... even IF pie-in-the-sky social reform liberals get their way, and establish Gay Rights or whatever... it is going to be decades and decades before the society is going to embrace what is done. It's going to be a huge fight, the evangelicals don't play.

So the stage is set, the lawyers are going to make a fortune, and the everyday struggles of actual gay couples will continue as the battles rage on for... 10... 20... 30 years. Doesn't have to be that way.

This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life?

At the Federal level, you adopt a very simple directive to change the term "marriage" and all other subsequent terms like "spouse" or "couple" to a non-inflected term for the civil partnership. This kind of should be done anyway, now that we actually have several states with gay married partners. But what this does is takes the government, at the Federal level, out of the game. They are no longer the arbiters of what is marriage, how we define marriage as individuals. As far as taxes and benefits from the Federal government, they would only recognize contracts of civil union, and we would simply 'grandfather in' the existing marriage licenses out there. From here, you open the door for states to follow the lead and adopt civil union contracts to replace marriage licenses.

Suddenly, the problem is solved. No war, no 30 year crusade... it's done. Government isn't controlling your life, no one is telling you how to live, gay couples have all the benefits and perks, religious people still break the champagne glass and yell Mazal Tov! Traditional marriages still happen. Gay marriages start happening more.

"The moral controversy is never going away"?.......the moral controversy about inter-racial marriges went away. Why not same sex marriages as well?

 

[toxicmedia]

WERE. As WERE blacks at one time. As WERE women at one time. As WERE Asians at one time.

Dummy, they are races.

Homosexuality is not a race.

This may be an obtuse concept...but humans are part of the human race, and Homosexuals are Homo Sapiens

So are mass murders and plumbers.

Ones called a contractor, the other a felon

Are you going to make a point?

I've made it, and you continue to miss it.

Who do murders, plumbers, or contractors have to do with the prohibition of gay marriage?

I think you meant what, not who.

The dynamics and description of each are useful in society.

By the way, you brought it up.

Always here to help you straighten out your arguments

It occurs to me how easily this issue would just go away if you stopped thinking about that little piece of paper, stuffed in the skinny drawer of the desk in the upstairs study, of married gay couples.