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.
We're not discussing "dictating" we're discussing "recognizing." If you think your relationship isn't a relationship because government didn't say it was you're a sad person indeed.Why not? Because in America consenting adults are free to love whomever they love and the government can't dictate our relationships
Since state laws currently confer certain legal benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples
First it was about love, now it's about gays need money to have their relationship validated. So let's update the score. By not recognizing gay marriage as marriage and giving gays money, government is dictating...something. To be honest I never got the dictating thing.
they are constitutionally required under the 14th amendment to provide the same to homosexual couples.
A lie repeated is still a lie. Gays are subject to the same laws in the same way straights are. The 14th would apply only if straights could marry same sex and gays couldn't. The 14th does not say, if it makes a liberal's heart bleed then it's Unconstitutional, it says the law needs to apply to all people in the same way. If Steve is like me in every way but that he's gay, he and I can marry the exact same people.
My God woman, liberals are so lazy. Always looking for the shortcut over working to get people to support your view. Run to a dictator in robes. Laziness both physically and intellectually really drives your religion. It's pathetic.
Marriage laws are state laws therefore the 14th amendment argument is a legal avenue for marriage equality. Fact not opinion.
So if Steve and I are the same except he's gay and I'm straight, name one person I can marry that he cannot. We both can marry any woman, neither of us can marry a man. That is what the 14th Amendment says. I am pro-choice, but that doesn't mean abortion is protected by the Constitution, it's not. I advocate changing the law, you advocate finding a liberal dictator in robes. That is the difference between us. You're a lazy fuck. I hope you're a good fuck though because I explain this to you over and over and you don't get it.What LIE?
People who argue that gays are equally free to have a hetero marriage are attempting to dictate relationships. Consenting adults are free to commit to life partnership with whomever they love and your OPINION of them means nothing under the law.
What LIE?
People who argue that gays are equally free to have a hetero marriage are attempting to dictate relationships. Consenting adults are free to commit to life partnership with whomever they love and your OPINION of them means nothing under the law.
Its still wrong.
State laws cannot be used to abridge civil liberties. That is the purpose of the 14th Amendment. The right to marry is a civil liberty. SCOTUS established that a while ago. DOMA is what protects the right of the states not to recognize gay marriage. It hasn't been challenged as a violation of the 14th Amendment yet. But it doesn't mean it couldn't.
As for "life partnerships" what does it mean if it can't be recognized by the law? The purpose of marriage is to define a relationship in a legally binding manner with its own set of obligations, duties and rights between both partners. Even straight unmarried couples have greater recognition for their relationships under the law than gay couples do.
What LIE?
So if Steve and I are the same except he's gay and I'm straight, name one person I can marry that he cannot.
We both can marry any woman, neither of us can marry a man.
That is what the 14th Amendment says.
I am pro-choice, but that doesn't mean abortion is protected by the Constitution, it's not. I advocate changing the law, you advocate finding a liberal dictator in robes.
That is the difference between us.
You're a lazy fuck.
I hope you're a good fuck though because I explain this to you over and over and you don't get it.
People who argue that gays are equally free to have a hetero marriage are attempting to dictate relationships. Consenting adults are free to commit to life partnership with whomever they love and your OPINION of them means nothing under the law.
You care far more for the opinion of government then I do.
I want government to leave me alone, you need government to validate your choices.
Unfortunately you need government to dictate mine and when I don't go along with your need to have government validate your choices you say government is dictating to you because they aren't validating you.
You need to have more faith in what "Valerie" thinks, that is the only thing you should allow to "dictate" your choices in your life, not what anyone else thinks.
I can't help it if you're a poo flinging retard... 
What LIE?
People who argue that gays are equally free to have a hetero marriage are attempting to dictate relationships. Consenting adults are free to commit to life partnership with whomever they love and your OPINION of them means nothing under the law.
Its still wrong.
State laws cannot be used to abridge civil liberties. That is the purpose of the 14th Amendment. The right to marry is a civil liberty. SCOTUS established that a while ago. DOMA is what protects the right of the states not to recognize gay marriage. It hasn't been challenged as a violation of the 14th Amendment yet. But it doesn't mean it couldn't.
As for "life partnerships" what does it mean if it can't be recognized by the law? The purpose of marriage is to define a relationship in a legally binding manner with its own set of obligations, duties and rights between both partners. Even straight unmarried couples have greater recognition for their relationships under the law than gay couples do.
The 14th has been cited in declaring DOMA unconstitutional.
http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2011/06/14/bankruptcy-court-declares-doma-unconstitutional/
Here is a very simple question for you. Let's see if you will answer it straight up or will deflect:
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
What is the basis of the denial of Civil Marriages licenses in the above list, is it sexual orientation or is it the gender of the couple?
>>>>
You seriously don't understand what "illegal" means? I doubt that frankly, you just like the way it sounds. Marriage between men or between women isn't "illegal" it just isn't recognized by government as marriage. There is no law stating that a red ball is red. Does that make it not a red ball? I don't see why gays need government to validate their union is marriage any more then a ball needs to be validated by government that it's red.
kaz said:
"So if Steve and I are the same except he's gay and I'm straight, name one person I can marry that he cannot.
We both can marry any woman, neither of us can marry a man.
That is what the 14th Amendment says. "
My posts stand for those capable of comprehending. Have a nice day!
If Different-sex Civil Marriage is authorized by law - then it is legal. If Same-sex Civil Marriage is not according to or authorized by law - then it is illegal
he 14th has been cited in declaring DOMA unconstitutional
And PS what YOU claim the 14th amendment says is what is beyond pathetic and also incorrect. (I'd call it a LIE but I'm not that stooopid.)
he 14th has been cited in declaring DOMA unconstitutional
And yet DOMA is still the law
Here is a very simple question for you. Let's see if you will answer it straight up or will deflect:
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
What is the basis of the denial of Civil Marriages licenses in the above list, is it sexual orientation or is it the gender of the couple?
>>>>
You seriously don't understand what "illegal" means? I doubt that frankly, you just like the way it sounds. Marriage between men or between women isn't "illegal" it just isn't recognized by government as marriage. There is no law stating that a red ball is red. Does that make it not a red ball? I don't see why gays need government to validate their union is marriage any more then a ball needs to be validated by government that it's red.
Yes I do understand what "illegal" means. According to Merriam-Webster it means:
Definition of ILLEGAL
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit
Illegal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
If Different-sex Civil Marriage is authorized by law - then it is legal. If Same-sex Civil Marriage is not according to or authorized by law - then it is illegal.
Some people do often confuse the term illegal with criminal, just because something is not criminal does not mean it is not still considered illegal.
>>>>
The law doesn't recognize that red balls are red, so it's "illegal" for a ball to be red?
My posts stand for those capable of comprehending. Have a nice day!
Retard is you when you're losing you have to resort to negative rep. I'm not an insecure airhead like you are so it's not coming back. I hope you're a hottie so you can make a living on your back since you're obviously not going to do it with your brain.
Bitch.
)
Just because it was cut from the post doesn't change the definition of "illegal":
Definition of ILLEGAL
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit
he 14th has been cited in declaring DOMA unconstitutional
And yet DOMA is still the law
Your posts resorting to personal insults in your very first reply to me, and in every single reply to me, are on the record here for all to see... ( retard!
And PS what YOU claim the 14th amendment says is what is beyond pathetic and also incorrect. (I'd call it a LIE but I'm not that stooopid.)
I can't argue with you, you'll neg rep me. Bitch.
Oops, I shouldn't have said that, you'll neg rep me. What the hell, you're a bitch.
Your argument here is nothing but a useless bitch!
Just because it was cut from the post doesn't change the definition of "illegal":
Definition of ILLEGAL
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit
I meant nothing by cutting it, you can't carry every point forward or the posts get massive. If you rob a bank, that is "unlawful, illlicit." If Mike goes to the government and want to marry Steve, you are told "no." It's not a violation of the law, it's just not recognized by the law as marriage.
You're arguing the difference between immoral (negative morality) and amoral (without morals) as if they are the same. Unlawful is a violation of the law. Gay marriage is "a" lawful or just not part of the law. It's jot the same thing, hence my red ball example.
Your posts resorting to personal insults in your very first reply to me, and in every single reply to me, are on the record here for all to see... ( retard!
Sure, I insulted you in every post, you were the paragon of sweetness. You're the one who took it personally and went the negative rep route, I didn't even respond with negative rep. I don't believe in doing that over a different opinion. Useless bitch.
