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.
Both sides of this issue are equally stubborn. Neither are so much concerned with their point as they are about humiliating the other side. The answer to this is simple.
Let the religious keep the title "Marriage", and expand "Civil Unions" to include every right and priviledge that married people enjoy.
There, done. Of course neither side is willing to compromise on the issue. it doesn't satisfy their desire to stick it to the other side.
Yes there was...in California. It was legal. We got married legally. Then that already established right was taken away by Prop H8 with no reasons given for taking that established legal right away. Do you support states being able to do that? Yes or no?
NO there is NO PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE.
Yes there is..in every state that had or has legalized gay marriage. Your yelling doesn't change that fact.
The federal government acts like Santa to married couples, giving them all kinds of cash and prize gifts.
These cash and prizes are withheld from gay married couples. They are not given equal protection of the law.
Anti-gay people are resentful about the idea of not being the only ones to get presents from Santa any more. The feel specially entitled to these gifts.
.
I wonder how the upcoming elimination of those tax perks will affect the burning desire of gays to marry?
Maybe the supreme court should step in an overturn the last election vote of the majority. That is what happened with the vote of prop 8 .
what a retarded comparison
you're just retarded.
Yes there was...in California. It was legal. We got married legally. Then that already established right was taken away by Prop H8 with no reasons given for taking that established legal right away. Do you support states being able to do that? Yes or no?
NO there is NO PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE.
Yes there is..in every state that had or has legalized gay marriage. Your yelling doesn't change that fact.
Both sides of this issue are equally stubborn. Neither are so much concerned with their point as they are about humiliating the other side. The answer to this is simple.
Let the religious keep the title "Marriage", and expand "Civil Unions" to include every right and priviledge that married people enjoy.
There, done. Of course neither side is willing to compromise on the issue. it doesn't satisfy their desire to stick it to the other side.
If it were only that simple I would go for it. How would you protect churches from being sued for discrimination? Yet another way to attack religious rights. It's not over till gays can walk into your church and get married. That is equal rights. If you have a gay employee at your church you better recognize, not fire, and give benefits. Birth control anyone? That's where this is going don't fool yourself.
Both sides of this issue are equally stubborn. Neither are so much concerned with their point as they are about humiliating the other side. The answer to this is simple.
Let the religious keep the title "Marriage", and expand "Civil Unions" to include every right and priviledge that married people enjoy.
There, done. Of course neither side is willing to compromise on the issue. it doesn't satisfy their desire to stick it to the other side.
NO there is NO PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE.
Yes there is..in every state that had or has legalized gay marriage. Your yelling doesn't change that fact.
Right. A state issue. The SCOTUS won't even consider this.
NO there is NO PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE.
Yes there is..in every state that had or has legalized gay marriage. Your yelling doesn't change that fact.
OH so now you're a 10th amendment advocate? A states righter loony toon?
NO there is NO PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE.
Yes there is..in every state that had or has legalized gay marriage. Your yelling doesn't change that fact.
Right. A state issue. The SCOTUS won't even consider this.
Yes there is..in every state that had or has legalized gay marriage. Your yelling doesn't change that fact.
Right. A state issue. The SCOTUS won't even consider this.
It’s a state issue to the extent the state doesn’t pass legislation – or a referendum in the case of Prop 8 – offensive to the Constitution.
If a citizen with standing sues in Federal court claming a civil rights violation by the state, it becomes an issue for the Federal judiciary.
And depending on the nature of the issue and rulings of lower courts, it could eventually become an appropriate issue for the Supreme Court to review, as in this case.
There’s a simple and easy way to end the lawsuits, court cases, and judicial conflict: each state obeys the Constitution, and allows same-sex couples access their marriage laws.
Both sides of this issue are equally stubborn. Neither are so much concerned with their point as they are about humiliating the other side. The answer to this is simple.
Let the religious keep the title "Marriage", and expand "Civil Unions" to include every right and priviledge that married people enjoy.
There, done. Of course neither side is willing to compromise on the issue. it doesn't satisfy their desire to stick it to the other side.
If it were only that simple I would go for it. How would you protect churches from being sued for discrimination? Yet another way to attack religious rights. It's not over till gays can walk into your church and get married. That is equal rights. If you have a gay employee at your church you better recognize, not fire, and give benefits. Birth control anyone? That's where this is going don't fool yourself.
Both sides of this issue are equally stubborn. Neither are so much concerned with their point as they are about humiliating the other side. The answer to this is simple.
Let the religious keep the title "Marriage", and expand "Civil Unions" to include every right and priviledge that married people enjoy.
There, done. Of course neither side is willing to compromise on the issue. it doesn't satisfy their desire to stick it to the other side.
So...it is a logical solution to change all marriage laws, statutes, etc. for all states so that the word marriage is stricken out to keep religion happy......even tho many religions are willing to marry gay couples.......ooooooookay
You would have REPLACE the word marriage...not add.Both sides of this issue are equally stubborn. Neither are so much concerned with their point as they are about humiliating the other side. The answer to this is simple.
Let the religious keep the title "Marriage", and expand "Civil Unions" to include every right and priviledge that married people enjoy.
There, done. Of course neither side is willing to compromise on the issue. it doesn't satisfy their desire to stick it to the other side.
So...it is a logical solution to change all marriage laws, statutes, etc. for all states so that the word marriage is stricken out to keep religion happy......even tho many religions are willing to marry gay couples.......ooooooookay
Wrong.
Add civil unions to the legal wording.
You are part of the problem.
But you didn't. The law states that they can't discriminate either.
The difference like i said is Private you should be able to where in the government all are equal. Government being in the Marriage business must treat everyone fairly.
I know you don't like this and would prefer there to be a second class of citizens, but for the most of us we prefer to achieve something better.
I dont want a second class of citizens, I want the proper procedure involved when people discover some consitutional "right." Bypassing the amendment procress is taking a giant shit on the document, and those who created it.
And your whole question was to find a case where a person's right is taken away, and I found it. you lose your right to association, evidently when your club becomes big enough. Yet you refuse to admit I countered your point. Thats what makes you a gutless coward.
but you really didnt because once you serve food you have to admit other people under the law.
You would have REPLACE the word marriage...not add.So...it is a logical solution to change all marriage laws, statutes, etc. for all states so that the word marriage is stricken out to keep religion happy......even tho many religions are willing to marry gay couples.......ooooooookay
Wrong.
Add civil unions to the legal wording.
You are part of the problem.
Yeah like you put me in my place.what a retarded comparison
you're just retarded.
wow you sure told me.
But I was at least telling the truth about you short bus.what a retarded comparison
Yes there is..in every state that had or has legalized gay marriage. Your yelling doesn't change that fact.
OH so now you're a 10th amendment advocate? A states righter loony toon?
Certainly more so than you.....and I notice you can't give me a yes or a no to my questio
Morality is subjective, and not a valid reason to deny a class of persons equal access to the law.
The voters of California violated the due process rights of same-sex couples, in this case taking from them the right to marry absent just cause. Prop 8 also violates equal protection jurisprudence, where no state may deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.
When you say, "a minority" your being vague. There's a big difference between a racial minority, and a sexual orientation minority. One being sex is strictly regulated, so the idea that your being denied rights as a minority is not true. What you are doing is seeking rights for your sexual orientation. Marriage is also regulated. Same sex couples are not the same as heterosexual couples, in that mothers, fathers and bloodlines are traditionally, lawfully, and religiously held in esteem. You can seek rights as a sexual orientation minority, but even if the law said you are equal, you are not the same.
No one is referring to a minority, but a class of persons, in this case same-sex couples.
In Romer the Court was clear that to exclude a class of persons due to sexual orientation is un-Constitutional, a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
The issue has nothing to do with the creation of a new right, simply the consistent application of rights already in existence in this case the right to marry and the right of equal protection of the law.
In the eyes of the law same sex couples are indeed the same as heterosexual couples, in that the state can not provide a compelling reason supported by evidence to exclude the former from marriage.
