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.
No, I want to legally marry the consenting adult of my choice. It won't be "special" since you would be able to as well.
No one was stopping you from doing that. It's the government validation and handouts you wanted. Not for everyone who doesn't get them now, just for yourself.
You realize that is not a logical statement. There are 37 states that prevent same-sex couples from entering into a legally valid Civil Marriage.
>>>>
No one was stopping you from doing that. It's the government validation and handouts you wanted. Not for everyone who doesn't get them now, just for yourself.
You realize that is not a logical statement. There are 37 states that prevent same-sex couples from entering into a legally valid Civil Marriage.
>>>>
No, 37 governments didn't recognize same-sex marriage as marriage. They did nothing to stop the same-sex couple from considering their union marriage.
Now it's not even marriage to you unless government says it's marriage. That's not the norm in history, nobody considered that government had any say in the matter.
Government marriage is about validation and perks. Government has nothing to do with relationships between citizens.
No one was stopping you from doing that. It's the government validation and handouts you wanted. Not for everyone who doesn't get them now, just for yourself.
You realize that is not a logical statement. There are 37 states that prevent same-sex couples from entering into a legally valid Civil Marriage.
>>>>
No, 37 governments didn't recognize same-sex marriage as marriage. They did nothing to stop the same-sex couple from considering their union marriage.
Now it's not even marriage to you unless government says it's marriage.
That's not the norm in history, nobody considered that government had any say in the matter.
Government marriage is about validation and perks. Government has nothing to do with relationships between citizens.
you have equality. What you want is special treatment.
No, I want to legally marry the consenting adult of my choice. It won't be "special" since you would be able to as well.
No one was stopping you from doing that. It's the government validation and handouts you wanted. Not for everyone who doesn't get them now, just for yourself.
Try buying a gun in the state of new york or California and you'll find out yea, your rights are compromised. you don't have the same rights to you constitutional rights as more progressive thinking states.No, I want to legally marry the consenting adult of my choice. It won't be "special" since you would be able to as well.
No one was stopping you from doing that. It's the government validation and handouts you wanted. Not for everyone who doesn't get them now, just for yourself.
And?
Citizens arent required to justify the exercising a fundamental right as a prerequisite for doing so.
Equal protection doctrine is all-inclusive; same-sex couples are just as entitled to ensure their families are financially secure as any other family, by any legal means available.
Because polygamy is currently illegal. Is being gay? Is discrimination based on gender legal?
Oh, suddenly you're all about following the law. Yet in California where the law says "no gay marriage" you push for disobedience. My how progressive you are, stepping on the necks of 7 million voters, the CA initiative system, while being upset about voting rights being suppressed. Your deviant sexual subculture celebrates illegal and shady manuevers to force its agenda into marriage and ultimately into the eyes and minds of children thereby. Yet at the same time you profess "polygamy is illegal!" What is polygamy other than one persons' sexual preference for more than one partner at a time and then falling in love with those partners? How is that different from what it is that gays do from a purely "anything goes" attitude towards sexual/marital relationships your side always spouts about?
You realize that is not a logical statement. There are 37 states that prevent same-sex couples from entering into a legally valid Civil Marriage.
>>>>
No, 37 governments didn't recognize same-sex marriage as marriage. They did nothing to stop the same-sex couple from considering their union marriage.
Which is what I said, 37 states deny legal Civil Marriage, therefore in those states those are the the only legal marriages.
Correct, it's not a Civil Marriage unless recognized by the government. "Civil" as under the laws of the government.
That's not the norm in history, nobody considered that government had any say in the matter.
Ah, that changed about 500 years ago in this country as colonist wrote marriage laws into secular law. So the norm in this country for quite some time is that Civil Marriage is that recognized by government entities under the law.
Government marriage is about validation and perks. Government has nothing to do with relationships between citizens.
That may be true and is something that we heterosexuals have written into the secular law for hundreds of years.
So all those different-sex Civil Marriages are about nothing but validation and perks?
>>>>
No, no marriage law in California supports either one. "Between a man and a woman" supports neither polygamy nor gay marriage.You’re making the mistake of comparing two completely different issues, plural marriage and equal protection rights for same-sex couples.
Unlike polygamy, all current marriage law can accommodate same-sex couples.
That’s one of many reasons why Proposition 8 was invalidated, it lacked a rational basis, there was no objective, documented evidence in support of disallowing same-sex couples access to marriage law that they were already eligible to access.
Queers deserve equal rights, but not special rights. Legal unions or special POAs, I can tolerate, but I don't like calling it a marriage.
Don't tell me that your lower court ruling is superior to CA's recently Upheld and reaffirmed retroactive constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage either. We put that one to bed. Prop 8 is the law of the land and gay marriage has never been legal in CA.
No, 37 governments didn't recognize same-sex marriage as marriage. They did nothing to stop the same-sex couple from considering their union marriage.
Which is what I said, 37 states deny legal Civil Marriage, therefore in those states those are the the only legal marriages.
Correct, it's not a Civil Marriage unless recognized by the government. "Civil" as under the laws of the government.
Ah, that changed about 500 years ago in this country as colonist wrote marriage laws into secular law. So the norm in this country for quite some time is that Civil Marriage is that recognized by government entities under the law.
Government marriage is about validation and perks. Government has nothing to do with relationships between citizens.
That may be true and is something that we heterosexuals have written into the secular law for hundreds of years.
So all those different-sex Civil Marriages are about nothing but validation and perks?
>>>>
Blacks were told to use different drinking fountains, bathrooms, schools, sit on a different part of the bus, ... The 14th said you can't do that. That is what the 14th says government can't do. Gays on the other hand can marry exactly the same people as straights.
From a legal standard, the 14th doesn't apply for that reason in any way, shape or form. To argue it does is beyond spin, it's a baseless, agenda driven argument to ignore the law.
From a fairness standpoint, it's a job for the legislature. Take it there. I'm sick of your stupid, vacuous arguments justifying that we should be a dictatorship and the courts job is to make life fair. Life isn't fare, and the courts aren't fair. Grow up.
Word.
Blacks were told to use different drinking fountains, bathrooms, schools, sit on a different part of the bus, ... The 14th said you can't do that. That is what the 14th says government can't do. Gays on the other hand can marry exactly the same people as straights.
From a legal standard, the 14th doesn't apply for that reason in any way, shape or form. To argue it does is beyond spin, it's a baseless, agenda driven argument to ignore the law.
From a fairness standpoint, it's a job for the legislature. Take it there. I'm sick of your stupid, vacuous arguments justifying that we should be a dictatorship and the courts job is to make life fair. Life isn't fare, and the courts aren't fair. Grow up.
Word.
You realize that the same argument you present was used by Virginia in the Loving v. Virginia case - that all coloreds and whites were treated equally under the law because they couldn't marry each other. Both treated the same. How well did it work then?
>>>>
Blacks were told to use different drinking fountains, bathrooms, schools, sit on a different part of the bus, ... The 14th said you can't do that. That is what the 14th says government can't do. Gays on the other hand can marry exactly the same people as straights.
From a legal standard, the 14th doesn't apply for that reason in any way, shape or form. To argue it does is beyond spin, it's a baseless, agenda driven argument to ignore the law.
From a fairness standpoint, it's a job for the legislature. Take it there. I'm sick of your stupid, vacuous arguments justifying that we should be a dictatorship and the courts job is to make life fair. Life isn't fare, and the courts aren't fair. Grow up.
Word.
You realize that the same argument you present was used by Virginia in the Loving v. Virginia case - that all coloreds and whites were treated equally under the law because they couldn't marry each other. Both treated the same. How well did it work then?
>>>>
You have a fundamental choice if you want to live in a free country or a dictatorship. A free country is work, so you just want to take a short cut. The cost of that short cut is astronomical.
As to your ridiculous Loving argument. I'll assume you're a straight, white man. If Steve is exactly like you, except he's black, then in Virginia in the early sixties then government did not allow you and Steve to marry the people. That is unequal treatment.
Today in a State that does not have gay marriage, if Steve is like you in every way except he's gay, you and Steve can marry the exact same people. That is equal treatment. If government said gays cannot enter in a man-woman marriage, you'd have an argument. But they don't, so you don't. Steve could also have a gay government marriage if you got off your lazy ass and convinced people to convince the legislature to create gay marriage.
Running to the courts to create gay marriage is as lame as your arguments are.
Blacks were told to use different drinking fountains, bathrooms, schools, sit on a different part of the bus, ... The 14th said you can't do that. That is what the 14th says government can't do. Gays on the other hand can marry exactly the same people as straights.
From a legal standard, the 14th doesn't apply for that reason in any way, shape or form. To argue it does is beyond spin, it's a baseless, agenda driven argument to ignore the law.
From a fairness standpoint, it's a job for the legislature. Take it there. I'm sick of your stupid, vacuous arguments justifying that we should be a dictatorship and the courts job is to make life fair. Life isn't fare, and the courts aren't fair. Grow up.
Word.
You realize that the same argument you present was used by Virginia in the Loving v. Virginia case - that all coloreds and whites were treated equally under the law because they couldn't marry each other. Both treated the same. How well did it work then?
>>>>
You have a fundamental choice if you want to live in a free country or a dictatorship. A free country is work, so you just want to take a short cut. The cost of that short cut is astronomical.
As to your ridiculous Loving argument. I'll assume you're a straight, white man. If Steve is exactly like you, except he's black, then in Virginia in the early sixties then government did not allow you and Steve to marry the people. That is unequal treatment.
Today in a State that does not have gay marriage, if Steve is like you in every way except he's gay, you and Steve can marry the exact same people. That is equal treatment. If government said gays cannot enter in a man-woman marriage, you'd have an argument. But they don't, so you don't. Steve could also have a gay government marriage if you got off your lazy ass and convinced people to convince the legislature to create gay marriage.
Running to the courts to create gay marriage is as lame as your arguments are.
You realize that the same argument you present was used by Virginia in the Loving v. Virginia case - that all coloreds and whites were treated equally under the law because they couldn't marry each other. Both treated the same. How well did it work then?
>>>>
You have a fundamental choice if you want to live in a free country or a dictatorship. A free country is work, so you just want to take a short cut. The cost of that short cut is astronomical.
As to your ridiculous Loving argument. I'll assume you're a straight, white man. If Steve is exactly like you, except he's black, then in Virginia in the early sixties then government did not allow you and Steve to marry the people. That is unequal treatment.
Today in a State that does not have gay marriage, if Steve is like you in every way except he's gay, you and Steve can marry the exact same people. That is equal treatment. If government said gays cannot enter in a man-woman marriage, you'd have an argument. But they don't, so you don't. Steve could also have a gay government marriage if you got off your lazy ass and convinced people to convince the legislature to create gay marriage.
Running to the courts to create gay marriage is as lame as your arguments are.
#1
I'm sorry, your argument makes no logical sense and is simply a repeat of what the State of Virginia attempted to argue in the Loving case.
1. Virginia argued that each person could marry the same people, just that those people had to be of the same race. The SCOTUS didn't buy it.
Even though that is my personal opinion, that doesn't mean I don't recognize and understand that differentiating support for discrimination based on biology (race v. gender) with no compelling government interest is inconsistent when some say - when it was blacks it was wrong but when it's based on gender it's OK. Doesn't make sense.
Bigot redo...
You have a fundamental choice if you want to live in a free country or a dictatorship. A free country is work, so you just want to take a short cut. The cost of that short cut is astronomical.
As to your ridiculous Loving argument. I'll assume you're a straight, white man. If Steve is exactly like you, except he's black, then in Virginia in the early sixties then government did not allow you and Steve to marry the people. That is unequal treatment.
Today in a State that does not have gay marriage, if Steve is like you in every way except he's gay, you and Steve can marry the exact same people. That is equal treatment. If government said gays cannot enter in a man-woman marriage, you'd have an argument. But they don't, so you don't. Steve could also have a gay government marriage if you got off your lazy ass and convinced people to convince the legislature to create gay marriage.
Running to the courts to create gay marriage is as lame as your arguments are.
#1
I'm sorry, your argument makes no logical sense and is simply a repeat of what the State of Virginia attempted to argue in the Loving case.
1. Virginia argued that each person could marry the same people, just that those people had to be of the same race. The SCOTUS didn't buy it.
That "just" is what fundamentally changes the entire argument. They didn't argue the same thing. Black Steve could not marry the same people white you can. No buts. Gay Steve can. No buts. You have no argument.
Bigot redo...
welfare whore.
You don't ever care about the arguments for gay marriage, it's about the $$$.
