We're Getting Married!

[mdk]

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceeded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

please quote the language from the loving decision that addresses gay marriage. We'll be waiting.

It does not. I found this quote to be most illuminating though:

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. ... I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.” — Mildred Loving

one persons opinion. what makes it more significant than the opinion of any other american?

Not anymore then yours or mine, legally speaking. The opinions of the courts matter way more and they don't seem to be agreeing with you. Thank goodness for that as well.

I bet you disagree with the Ferguson and NY grand juries, right? and you would probably join those looting if you had the opportunity. My point? not all court decisions are agreed to by all of the people. OJ ring any bells?

What utter bullshit. I support the grand jury's finding and Officer Wilson during this whole circus. Sorry if that doesn't it your narrative.

 

[Syriusly]

The issue of gay marriage is rapidly ceasing to be a 'problem'. As its increasingly legal everywhere. 36 of 50 States. We're 14 away from the resolution of conflict on the issue.

and I guarantee that the next push from the left will be to legalize multiple person marriage, sibling marriage, and all other forms of "marriage".

It will come, do not doubt me.

It hasn't anywhere else yet.

Didn't happen when mixed race marriages were legalized, even though there were folks just like you predicting exactly that.

The only ones mentioning polygamy and incest are those on the right who oppose equal rights for homosexuals.

OK, then what legal argument do you bring to SCOTUS when a polygamist case arrives for decision? What do you tell them as the reason that they cannot marry who they please?

think before answering, this is important.

I will be glad to answer the question.

But first- do you understand the basis for argument for equal protection?

Do you understand that State's can only refuse rights to Americans when States can provide a compelling argument for why that right should be denied?

yes, and what is your compelling and legally valid reason for denying marriage to polygamists?

First of all- I don't have to defend denying plural marriages- but I will be glad to propose cite arguments already mentioned by the courts:

From the decision in Wisconsin

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net. A more
fundamental point is that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage is different from other
marriage restrictions because it completely excludes gay persons from participating in the
institution of marriage in any meaningful sense. In other words, gay persons simply are
asking for the right to marry someone. With the obvious exception of minors, no other class
is being denied this right. As in Romer, plaintiffs are not asking for “special rights”; they are
asking only for the rights that every adult already has.

 

[WorldWatcher]

when you demand that they change what they believe or receive punishment from the government. you do know about the baker case?

That's a problem with Public Accommodation laws and has nothing to do with Civil Marriage laws.

Are you familiar with the baker case? Actually there were two: Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakes in Colorado. Neither case had anything to do with Civil Marriage as Civil Marriage didn't exist in Oregon or Colorado at the time. If you like I can post the relevant sections of the law and show they say nothing about Civil Marriage in the expectation that businesses not discriminate based on various factors of the customer.

Personally I support for following compromise that tends to piss off both ends of the spectrum:

1. Civil Marriage for law abiding tax paying couples.

2. The repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses, such entities could accept or reject customers on any basis whether it be race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, etc. as part of respecting the property rights of the business owner.​

>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

[
But the gay agenda is all about the word, not equality, rights, or discrimination--------------its all about the word.

Edith Windsor would disagree with you.

She fought for equal rights for herself- to be treated like any other surviving spouse.

The Federal government specifically passed a law to ensure that she would not be treated the same- even if they were legally married or had a legal civil union.

This is about equal rights.

As a married man with a wife of 20 years, I see no reason why Edith Windsor and her wife should not have had the exact same legal protections and status as my wife and I enjoy.

 

[Syriusly]

you are missing the point. our rights were established and our constitution enacted by MAJORITY votes. The people of the USA decided what rights the citizens were to be granted. They did that by consensus, not govt dictate.

Not of the people. Not a single state ratified the constitution with a majority vote. All of them did it at the legislative level. Worse for your argument, the founders believed that rights preceded the government. Meaning that no rights were established with the creation of the constitution. The constitution simple enumerated rights that already existed.

Which is one of the reasons rights trump powers. The rights were here first. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

if you want minority rule and govt dictate, move to north korea.

Damn, I cannot understand the liberal brain, there is absolutely no logic to your arguments.

Says the fella that believes that rights are established by majority vote. That's not the view of the founders. Check out the 9th amendment if you'd like a brief lesson in your misconception about constitutional enumeration establishing rights.

And of course, interpreting the constitution was the job the judiciary by design. Read the federalist papers. Hamilton lays it out, where if a law that was passed conflicts with the constitution, deference should be given by the judiciary to the constitution. Not the law. And its the job of the judiciary to interpret the constitution.

So much for your 'minority rule government'. The judiciary is doing exactly what it was designed to do; protect rights and interpret the constitution.

I think the part of the 'liberal mind' you have the hardest time understanding is the 'informed' part. As you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I feel like I am discussing this with a frog. legislatures pass laws and ratify by majority vote. majority votes of the people put legislators in their positions. The judiciary decides cases by majority vote of a jury or panel of judges.

everything in our constitution and our statutes was put in place by majority vote at some level.

just because we are a republic does not mean we do not decide things by majority vote.

Then clearly you must be okay with the decisions reached by the judiciary.

Since apparently to you 'majority vote' encompasses anything done by any judge, legislature, or voters.

 

[Syriusly]

OK, then what legal argument do you bring to SCOTUS when a polygamist case arrives for decision? What do you tell them as the reason that they cannot marry who they please?

think before answering, this is important.

First, a polygamist can marry who they please, another consenting adult.

Transitioning from couple marriage to polygamy isn't about who the person can marry, it's about how many can be married to each other. A different premise.


******************************************************************

Secondly, there are many arguments against polygamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous (1 man, multiple women) and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.

However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:

A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fifth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...

So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.

So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.

>>>>

what do you want to bet that the lawyers will be in favor of polygamy? after all, lawyers are all about $

There will be lawyers arguing for polygamy and lawyers arguing against polygamy.

After all lawyers are paid to advocate someone's position.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, you're still wiling away with this decrepit argument?

Firstly it was a majority vote. It wasn't the majority will of the people.

Brown v. Board of education which ended segregation was NOT based on a majority vote in congress, but in the Supreme Court. The ending of slavery was done by the president.

But you're just digging a hole for yourself.

If gay marriage is implemented it will either be by the legislature, elected by the people somehow in a vote by some people in the legislature, or by the executive, elected by the people, or the judiciary which is chosen by the people who are elected.

It's all, sort of, democratic. So, you'd have to support gay marriage with this argument.

I already said that I would. I just want all voices to be heard.

Really? The amount of to-ing and fro-ing from you is incredible, tomorrow it'll be another story. So you'd let this supposed moral compass disappear if the will of the people says that the moral compass is plain wrong?

the moral compass of a society is set by the members of that society, with the majority view prevailing. In current parlance its called democracy. Thats all I want on the gay marriage issue, a societal consensus, not a govt dictate.

Exactly what the citizens of Virginia wanted back when they wanted mixed race marriage to be illegal.

No 'societal consensus' for some 20 odd years on mixed race marriages, yet most of us- most of us- agree that the State of Virginia should not have been making it illegal for the Lovings to be married in Virginia.

So much for the 'majority view prevailing'

the majority view changes over time. all I am saying is we need to let the majority decide these societal issues, as it did on slavery, women voting, prohibition, viet nam, and who sits in the whitehouse.

And you completely avoided Loving v. Virginia

Exactly what the citizens of Virginia wanted back when they wanted mixed race marriage to be illegal.

No 'societal consensus' for some 20 odd years on mixed race marriages, yet most of us- most of us- agree that the State of Virginia should not have been making it illegal for the Lovings to be married in Virginia.

So much for the 'majority view prevailing'

There are a whole litany of court cases where courts have ruled in favor of protecting the minority from the laws passed by the majority.

You ignore them because they don't fit your agenda.

 

[Howey]

Bill and Jim and Mary and Sue and Louise want to get married. they feel discriminated against because they share a mutual love. Why does this country discriminate against them but not against Joe and Tom or Jane and Donna?

You fools have opened the door to all forms of marriage. Gay marriage sets a legal precedent for all forms and combinations of marriage based on feeling discriminated against.

Its coming, get ready. I am sure the divorce lawyers are licking their chops to handle a multiple person divorce.

Great news!

You'll be able to marry your palm!

Only, he must first extricate it from his incredibly tight sphincter.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

spoken like a true buttfucker

Did you know that some of the most vocal homophobes turned out to be closet homosexuals? Your disgust may be a form of disguise?

Top 5 homophobes who turned out to be gay City Pages

nope, not a chance. but continue the fantasy if it somehow helps you to justify your anormality.

But there is a connection between gay marriage and two cousins marrying?

Oy!

 

[Howey]

Some of you need to grow up, or at least shut up.

This country has serious problems

Gay "marriage" isn't one of them.

The issue of gay marriage is rapidly ceasing to be a 'problem'. As its increasingly legal everywhere. 36 of 50 States. We're 14 away from the resolution of conflict on the issue.

and I guarantee that the next push from the left will be to legalize multiple person marriage, sibling marriage, and all other forms of "marriage".

It will come, do not doubt me.

And I predict you're a fucking ignorant fool.

Oh.

Wait.

That's a certainty!

 

[Listening]

Actually my biggest problem with it is, marriage is a state issue There is no "inequality" as is stated in my earlier post. if certain states want same sex marriage let them have it . but not forced on them by same Judge or the federal government. Is that clear enough for you?

Within certain constitutional guarantees, yes it is. If, however, a State violates these constitutional guarantees with its marriage laws, the 14th amendment more than authorizes the feds to step in an prevent the States from abrogating the rights of federal citizens.

As Loving demonstrated so elegantly. The State doesn't have the authority to strip federal citizens of their rights.

If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a very good reason. And you don't have one.

Gays and lesbians can of course marry a person of the opposite sex there is no inequality there, and if you can show me were the discussion and ratification of the 14th amendment they spoke about gay "marriage" I'd like you to point that out to me, ok? These judges have no authority to overturn the state constitutions. There inequality there.

Gay Americans cannot marry someone of the same sex, however, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, where same-sex couples are indeed eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

As for the Framers of the 14th Amendment:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

And Federal courts may in fact invalidate state measures repugnant to the Founding Document, as authorized by Article VI of the Constitution.

Such a statement is laughable and probably came from the biggest bastard the court ever knew: William O. Douglas.

To assume he somehow spoke with knowledge, much less a dispassionate POV, is to ignore reality.

"Greater Freedom".....

Tell me again why I can't own a nuclear bomb ? That would be greater freedom.

 

[Syriusly]

If you're so sure that polygamists people who engage in incest have the right to marry, they have it regardless of marriage equality for gays.

Name the countries that perform both same sex and polygamist marriages since there absolutely MUST be a slippery slope.

Ya know, the funny thing is the muslim countries allow polygamy but kill gays, while we tolerage homosexuality and ban polygamy.

Every culture has to set its own rules of human behavior based on religion or what the majority believes is right and wrong.

If this country sanctions gay marriage, thats OK with me, but it should be based on the will of a majority of the citizens, not a vocal minority.

I also believe that it would set a precedent such that we would not legally be able to block polygamous marriages in the future. If thats the way the country wants to go, OK. But lets let the people vote.

So no country is that right, Fishy? Not a single country that has legalize polygamy also has legalized same sex marriages and vice versa? Quite the "slippery slope" you found there...

Civil rights should never be decided by majority vote...here's why:

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceeded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

please quote the language from the loving decision that addresses gay marriage. We'll be waiting.

Way not to stand up to your claim.

Your claim was- and I repeat:

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

My reply- pointing out the fallacy of your argument:

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

Now- why not address how your argument about civil rights always being established by a majority vote rather than somehow change the subject to what the decision in Loving was about.

 

[Listening]

LISTENING SAID:

“If it were a constitutionaly protected right, there would be no court battles going on right now.”

Incorrect.

Citizens are often compelled to seek relief in Federal court when the states violate their protected rights, in this case the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law.

For example, earlier this month a Federal appeals court reaffirmed as un-Constitutional Florida's public assistance drug test law:

'A Federal appeals court on Wednesday said a Florida law requiring applicants for welfare benefits to undergo drug testing is unconstitutional, a decision that could affect efforts to enforce similar laws in other states.

"By virtue of poverty, TANF applicants are not stripped of their legitimate expectations of privacy," Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus wrote for a three-judge panel. "If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on blanket government searches, we must — and we do — hold that [the law] crosses the constitutional line."

The decision upheld a ruling last December by U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven in Tampa to permanently halt enforcement of the July 2011 law supported by Republican Gov. Rick Scott.'

Court strikes down drug testing for Florida welfare recipients - Orlando Sentinel

Obviously the 4th Amendment's right to privacy and right to be free from unwarranted searches was a protected right before the enactment of the un-Constitutional Florida measure, where a court battle was necessary to indeed protect the right to privacy from the state's excess and overreach.

Incorrect.....

The right to privacy isn't under attack.....

The whole court battle was about whether or not the drug test violated a universally accepted right. There is no disputing that such a "right" exists...it is in the application.

This does not hold as there is no universal right to marry. Marriage is restricted in many instances and applications.

Can't help that.

Incorrect.

The court determined that indeed the right to privacy was violated, a right that existed prior to the enactment of the un-Constitutional Florida measure.

Our rights have existed long before the advent of the Constitution or the founding of the Republic, rights acknowledged by the Constitution and protected by its case law. When government attempts to violate those rights, citizens are at liberty to seek relief in Federal court, where measures repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, such as laws requiring drug tests for those applying for public assistance.

Consequently your statement is wrong, rights do in fact exist – such as the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law – whether a law that violates citizens' rights is subject to litigation or not.

Poppycock....

If such a right existed, then so does the right of a woman to marry more than one man and vice versa.

Also, a grown woman would have the right to marry her father.

You don't get it both ways.

Such a right has never existed.

Sigh......

You have a right to bear a gun, but a State can still take that away from you if you are a convicted felon.

Just because rights can be restricted for cause doesn't mean that there is no such right.

Nice try.

If you wan

Ya know, the funny thing is the muslim countries allow polygamy but kill gays, while we tolerage homosexuality and ban polygamy.

Every culture has to set its own rules of human behavior based on religion or what the majority believes is right and wrong.

If this country sanctions gay marriage, thats OK with me, but it should be based on the will of a majority of the citizens, not a vocal minority.

I also believe that it would set a precedent such that we would not legally be able to block polygamous marriages in the future. If thats the way the country wants to go, OK. But lets let the people vote.

So no country is that right, Fishy? Not a single country that has legalize polygamy also has legalized same sex marriages and vice versa? Quite the "slippery slope" you found there...

Civil rights should never be decided by majority vote...here's why:

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceeded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

please quote the language from the loving decision that addresses gay marriage. We'll be waiting.

Way not to stand up to your claim.

Your claim was- and I repeat:

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

My reply- pointing out the fallacy of your argument:

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

Now- why not address how your argument about civil rights always being established by a majority vote rather than somehow change the subject to what the decision in Loving was about.

Loving v Virginia does nothing but give voice to a court that decided it wanted something one way.

Next, year it could be another way. I love how rights are so volatile based on what the left thinks.

 

[initforme]

How can one say they are for less gov't intervention and then want to stick their nose in 2 adults sex lives? As a Christian (life long) there are a lot bigger fish to fry. Live and let live.

 

[Syriusly]

LISTENING SAID:

“If it were a constitutionaly protected right, there would be no court battles going on right now.”

Incorrect.

Citizens are often compelled to seek relief in Federal court when the states violate their protected rights, in this case the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law.

For example, earlier this month a Federal appeals court reaffirmed as un-Constitutional Florida's public assistance drug test law:

'A Federal appeals court on Wednesday said a Florida law requiring applicants for welfare benefits to undergo drug testing is unconstitutional, a decision that could affect efforts to enforce similar laws in other states.

"By virtue of poverty, TANF applicants are not stripped of their legitimate expectations of privacy," Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus wrote for a three-judge panel. "If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on blanket government searches, we must — and we do — hold that [the law] crosses the constitutional line."

The decision upheld a ruling last December by U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven in Tampa to permanently halt enforcement of the July 2011 law supported by Republican Gov. Rick Scott.'

Court strikes down drug testing for Florida welfare recipients - Orlando Sentinel

Obviously the 4th Amendment's right to privacy and right to be free from unwarranted searches was a protected right before the enactment of the un-Constitutional Florida measure, where a court battle was necessary to indeed protect the right to privacy from the state's excess and overreach.

Incorrect.....

The right to privacy isn't under attack.....

The whole court battle was about whether or not the drug test violated a universally accepted right. There is no disputing that such a "right" exists...it is in the application.

This does not hold as there is no universal right to marry. Marriage is restricted in many instances and applications.

Can't help that.

Incorrect.

The court determined that indeed the right to privacy was violated, a right that existed prior to the enactment of the un-Constitutional Florida measure.

Our rights have existed long before the advent of the Constitution or the founding of the Republic, rights acknowledged by the Constitution and protected by its case law. When government attempts to violate those rights, citizens are at liberty to seek relief in Federal court, where measures repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, such as laws requiring drug tests for those applying for public assistance.

Consequently your statement is wrong, rights do in fact exist – such as the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law – whether a law that violates citizens' rights is subject to litigation or not.

Poppycock....

If such a right existed, then so does the right of a woman to marry more than one man and vice versa.

Also, a grown woman would have the right to marry her father.

You don't get it both ways.

Such a right has never existed.

Sigh......

You have a right to bear a gun, but a State can still take that away from you if you are a convicted felon.

Just because rights can be restricted for cause doesn't mean that there is no such right.

Nice try.

If you wan

So no country is that right, Fishy? Not a single country that has legalize polygamy also has legalized same sex marriages and vice versa? Quite the "slippery slope" you found there...

Civil rights should never be decided by majority vote...here's why:

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceeded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

please quote the language from the loving decision that addresses gay marriage. We'll be waiting.

Way not to stand up to your claim.

Your claim was- and I repeat:

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

My reply- pointing out the fallacy of your argument:

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

Now- why not address how your argument about civil rights always being established by a majority vote rather than somehow change the subject to what the decision in Loving was about.

Loving v Virginia does nothing but give voice to a court that decided it wanted something one way.

Next, year it could be another way. I love how rights are so volatile based on what the left thinks.

Loving v. Virginia established a legal precedent that recognized that bans on mixed race marriages are unconstitutional.

A precedent that has stood 47 years. Feel free to pass a law in your state to prohibit mixed race marriages and test the Constitution again.

I love how personal rights are so unimportant to the right.

 

[Skylar]

I feel like I am discussing this with a frog. legislatures pass laws and ratify by majority vote. majority votes of the people put legislators in their positions. The judiciary decides cases by majority vote of a jury or panel of judges.

Then what 'minority rule' government were you speaking of?

And can I take it from your complete and utter abandonment of your 'our rights were established and our constitution enacted by MAJORITY votes' argument, that you recognize that our rights weren't established by the constitution...but simply enumerated in the constitution?

If so, that was easy.

 

[Seawytch]

man made global warming is a hoax, but thats another thread.

I want gays to be able to make a legal binding mutual support contract with each other. I want that contract to be legally the same as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is NOT a marriage.

But the gay agenda is all about the word, not equality, rights, or discrimination--------------its all about the word.

until you admit that your real goal is for the govt to mandate societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, then you will never understand the opposition.

the basic issue is not gay marriage, or gay civil unions. The basic issue is freedom of belief and thought without punishment for beliefs and thoughts that are not PC or in line with govt dictates.

Read Orwell and Rand, you might learn something.

You're wrong in so many ways.

Gay marriage is marriage in most of the English as a first language speaking world. So.... what?

The gay agenda is about the word huh? How did you convince yourself of that? So, I assume when black people wanted to be equal it was all about a word?
How does a gay person go about fighting for their equality then?

You talk about freedom of belief, you can believe what you like, you come on this board spouting your nonsense all the time, yet gay people are getting married. Both live side by side. Or am I wrong?

If a gay person can't get married, then they DON'T live side by side. So, then freedom is being infringed upon.

Orwell? Like Big Brother watching him in the bedroom? Isn't that what a lot of people on the right would love? To spy on gay people and possible tuck themselves a little bit then moan about how wrong it is?

how does calling a legal union of two gays a civil union give you less rights that calling it a marriage.

it is all about the word with you, admit that and then we can move forward.

Liar...its a word for you, it's equality for gays.

Change it, just make it the same. But then you wouldn't feel special anymore. Boo hoo.

nope, but rant away. your desperation is obvious.

I'm not ranting, but you are lying. It's not about "a word" for gays, it's about equality. For YOU it's about the word...a word you don't want gays to use. Fine, change it. What you don't get is marriage for straights and civil unions for gays. Either we all get civil marriage or we all get civil unions. Sorry if you won't feel special anymore as a result.

 

[Seawytch]

thats fine, if a majority of the american people want that, then so be it. But let the people speak by voting.

if it came to a national referendum I would accept the results, would you? be truthful.

Could you point out the section of the Constitution that provides for a national referendum on anything about making laws?


Thank you in advance.


>>>>

of course not, it was a theoretical question. notice that wytchey did not answer.

I did...I came out in full support of your national referendum idea. I even gave you examples of the things we could accomplish if your fantasy world ever came to pass.

 

[Skylar]

man made global warming is a hoax, but thats another thread.

I want gays to be able to make a legal binding mutual support contract with each other. I want that contract to be legally the same as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is NOT a marriage.

But the gay agenda is all about the word, not equality, rights, or discrimination--------------its all about the word.

until you admit that your real goal is for the govt to mandate societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, then you will never understand the opposition.

the basic issue is not gay marriage, or gay civil unions. The basic issue is freedom of belief and thought without punishment for beliefs and thoughts that are not PC or in line with govt dictates.

Read Orwell and Rand, you might learn something.

You're wrong in so many ways.

Gay marriage is marriage in most of the English as a first language speaking world. So.... what?

The gay agenda is about the word huh? How did you convince yourself of that? So, I assume when black people wanted to be equal it was all about a word?
How does a gay person go about fighting for their equality then?

You talk about freedom of belief, you can believe what you like, you come on this board spouting your nonsense all the time, yet gay people are getting married. Both live side by side. Or am I wrong?

If a gay person can't get married, then they DON'T live side by side. So, then freedom is being infringed upon.

Orwell? Like Big Brother watching him in the bedroom? Isn't that what a lot of people on the right would love? To spy on gay people and possible tuck themselves a little bit then moan about how wrong it is?

how does calling a legal union of two gays a civil union give you less rights that calling it a marriage.

it is all about the word with you, admit that and then we can move forward.

Liar...its a word for you, it's equality for gays.

Change it, just make it the same. But then you wouldn't feel special anymore. Boo hoo.

nope, but rant away. your desperation is obvious.

I'm not ranting, but you are lying. It's not about "a word" for gays, it's about equality. For YOU it's about the word...a word you don't want gays to use. Fine, change it. What you don't get is marriage for straights and civil unions for gays. Either we all get civil marriage or we all get civil unions. Sorry if you won't feel special anymore as a result.

The civil union schtick is just a modern incarnation of the 'separate but equal' reasoning. Where gays are given something less than marriage to denote that their relationship are less. And that's fundamentally what infuriates many conservatives: the recognition by society that gay and lesbian unions are valid and equal.

 

[Skylar]

Incorrect.....

The right to privacy isn't under attack.....

The whole court battle was about whether or not the drug test violated a universally accepted right. There is no disputing that such a "right" exists...it is in the application.

This does not hold as there is no universal right to marry. Marriage is restricted in many instances and applications.

Can't help that.

Incorrect.

The court determined that indeed the right to privacy was violated, a right that existed prior to the enactment of the un-Constitutional Florida measure.

Our rights have existed long before the advent of the Constitution or the founding of the Republic, rights acknowledged by the Constitution and protected by its case law. When government attempts to violate those rights, citizens are at liberty to seek relief in Federal court, where measures repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, such as laws requiring drug tests for those applying for public assistance.

Consequently your statement is wrong, rights do in fact exist – such as the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law – whether a law that violates citizens' rights is subject to litigation or not.

Poppycock....

If such a right existed, then so does the right of a woman to marry more than one man and vice versa.

Also, a grown woman would have the right to marry her father.

You don't get it both ways.

Such a right has never existed.

Sigh......

You have a right to bear a gun, but a State can still take that away from you if you are a convicted felon.

Just because rights can be restricted for cause doesn't mean that there is no such right.

Nice try.

If you wan

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceeded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

please quote the language from the loving decision that addresses gay marriage. We'll be waiting.

Way not to stand up to your claim.

Your claim was- and I repeat:

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

My reply- pointing out the fallacy of your argument:

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

Now- why not address how your argument about civil rights always being established by a majority vote rather than somehow change the subject to what the decision in Loving was about.

Loving v Virginia does nothing but give voice to a court that decided it wanted something one way.

Next, year it could be another way. I love how rights are so volatile based on what the left thinks.

Loving v. Virginia established a legal precedent that recognized that bans on mixed race marriages are unconstitutional.

A precedent that has stood 47 years. Feel free to pass a law in your state to prohibit mixed race marriages and test the Constitution again.

I love how personal rights are so unimportant to the right.

It depends on the personal right. If it involve guns or their ability to discriminate against others based on their religion, they're all for it.

But you're generally hard pressed to convince many conservatives that rights are valuable unless they can shoot it, or use it to treat someone else like shit.

 

[Listening]

Incorrect.

The court determined that indeed the right to privacy was violated, a right that existed prior to the enactment of the un-Constitutional Florida measure.

Our rights have existed long before the advent of the Constitution or the founding of the Republic, rights acknowledged by the Constitution and protected by its case law. When government attempts to violate those rights, citizens are at liberty to seek relief in Federal court, where measures repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, such as laws requiring drug tests for those applying for public assistance.

Consequently your statement is wrong, rights do in fact exist – such as the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law – whether a law that violates citizens' rights is subject to litigation or not.

Poppycock....

If such a right existed, then so does the right of a woman to marry more than one man and vice versa.

Also, a grown woman would have the right to marry her father.

You don't get it both ways.

Such a right has never existed.

Sigh......

You have a right to bear a gun, but a State can still take that away from you if you are a convicted felon.

Just because rights can be restricted for cause doesn't mean that there is no such right.

Nice try.

If you wan

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceeded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

please quote the language from the loving decision that addresses gay marriage. We'll be waiting.

Way not to stand up to your claim.

Your claim was- and I repeat:

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

My reply- pointing out the fallacy of your argument:

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

Now- why not address how your argument about civil rights always being established by a majority vote rather than somehow change the subject to what the decision in Loving was about.

Loving v Virginia does nothing but give voice to a court that decided it wanted something one way.

Next, year it could be another way. I love how rights are so volatile based on what the left thinks.

Loving v. Virginia established a legal precedent that recognized that bans on mixed race marriages are unconstitutional.

A precedent that has stood 47 years. Feel free to pass a law in your state to prohibit mixed race marriages and test the Constitution again.

I love how personal rights are so unimportant to the right.

It depends on the personal right. If it involve guns or their ability to discriminate against others based on their religion, they're all for it.

But you're generally hard pressed to convince many conservatives that rights are valuable unless they can shoot it, or use it to treat someone else like shit.

Really ?

I truly love your right to show that you don't have an argument and must therefore resort to deflection.

As I've said before, I really don't care if gays get married or not. But trying to wrap yourself in the constitution in order to justify a non-existent foundation for your argument does not make you correct.

If you feel it is your right to treat others like s**t, then I guess you'll need to show me where that exists. Those wonderful liberals (which the left so hardily claims).... that created the constitution had an issue with slavery because of the economic issues connected with it....but somehow women were screwed up until the 19th was passed.

Of course, that liberal bastion...Wyoming...gave women the right to vote (in local elections) some 60 years prior to the passage of the 19th.

Who treated who like what ?