We're Getting Married!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

So what are you complaining about? Judicial rulings are occurring in the way you describe. Gays are marrying in a MAJORITY of states.

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.

The United States is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to access marriage law are proof of that.

In our Constitutional Republic citizens' civil rights are not subject to majority rule, one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, where the Constitution prohibits 'national referenda' because they are anathema to a Republican form of government, see Article IV, Section 4, US Constitution.

The residents of the states who sought to deny gay Americans their 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law never had the authority to do so from the outset, which is why these measures are being invalidated by the courts.

 

[Listening]

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.

What would prevent the court from reversing itself ?

 

[Jroc]

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.

You had the same rights as any other women..... Equal

equal·i·ty
noun \i-ˈkwä-lə-tē\
: the quality or state of being equal : the quality or state of having the same rights,

 

[Syriusly]

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.

What would prevent the court from reversing itself ?

LOL....nothing at all.....just like nothing would prevent America from passing an Amendment legalizing slavery.

But the devil is in the details.

The court can't just 'reverse' itself.

First it would take a state- and you are welcome to start that process- making mixed race marriages illegal again.

Then someone who believed that their rights were being violated- like the Lovings or Edith Windsor- would have to go to court to fight for their rights.

If a judge decided that the Constitution does allow States to make mixed race marriages illegal, then it would be appealed to the Appeals Court- and if they agreed with the State, then it would go to the Supreme Court- and then all you would need would be a majority of justices to agree that States should be able to discriminate against mixed race couples.

And that is of course why there are so many states thinking of passing laws banning mixed race marriages.....

 

[Listening]

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

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.

What would prevent the court from reversing itself ?

LOL....nothing at all.....just like nothing would prevent America from passing an Amendment legalizing slavery.

 

[Listening]

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

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.

What would prevent the court from reversing itself ?

LOL....nothing at all.....just like nothing would prevent America from passing an Amendment legalizing slavery.

Which is to say that the amendment process was followed and there was a concious decision on the part of a majority of the states to enslave people. Even if such an amendment were possible...it would take decades to get passed.

And there would be no disputing that.

That is where your Red Herring goes awry.

 

[Skylar]

What would prevent the court from reversing itself ?

The lack of a valid legal reason to do so.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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.

What would prevent the court from reversing itself ?

LOL....nothing at all.....just like nothing would prevent America from passing an Amendment legalizing slavery.

Which is to say that the amendment process was followed and there was a concious decision on the part of a majority of the states to enslave people. Even if such an amendment were possible...it would take decades to get passed.

And there would be no disputing that.

That is where your Red Herring goes awry.

No red herring at all. You asked what would prevent a court from reversing itself- and just like reversing our rights to be free from slavery- nothing would prevent our country from reversing either issue.

Except of course the process itself.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You had the same rights as any other women..... Equal

equal·i·ty
noun \i-ˈkwä-lə-tē\
: the quality or state of being equal : the quality or state of having the same rights,

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." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
​

Link

 

[Mertex]

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.

Oh wow! I guess next you're going to tell us you're a Christian.....

 

[Mertex]

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.

Yep....that's what Craig kept insisting, when caught red handed.....

is Craig the poster boy for gay marriage? a men's room toe tapper, you should be so proud.

An ultra-Conservative toe-tapper.

he was a closet gay, what does his politics have to do with it? He lied to his wife, family, and voters. He is a slimeball. But Barney Frank running a gay brothel is ok with you because he is a libtard, right?

Politics has nothing to do with it, I'm just pointing out that Craig, who turned out to be gay was also an person who spoke against homosexuality...to prove my first response, that some of the people who are the most vocal against homosexuality have turned out to be homosexual...wonder why they were so vocal and so against it?

But, you seem to think that all homosexuals lean left....and Craig is a perfect example that they don't.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

Yep....that's what Craig kept insisting, when caught red handed.....

is Craig the poster boy for gay marriage? a men's room toe tapper, you should be so proud.

An ultra-Conservative toe-tapper.

he was a closet gay, what does his politics have to do with it? He lied to his wife, family, and voters. He is a slimeball. But Barney Frank running a gay brothel is ok with you because he is a libtard, right?

Politics has nothing to do with it, I'm just pointing out that Craig, who turned out to be gay was also an person who spoke against homosexuality...to prove my first response, that some of the people who are the most vocal against homosexuality have turned out to be homosexual...wonder why they were so vocal and so against it?

But, you seem to think that all homosexuals lean left....and Craig is a perfect example that they don't.

Or Mark Foley. Actually, a while back, I had a list of circa 50 well known gopers who ended up being gay.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[bodecea]

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.

You seem to think that courts make decisions arbitrarily with no constitutional basis.

 

[Jroc]

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.

You had the same rights as any other women..... Equal

equal·i·ty
noun \i-ˈkwä-lə-tē\
: the quality or state of being equal : the quality or state of having the same rights,

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." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
​

Link

You say it and keep saying it race and behavior is not the same and blacks Americans are 60% against gay marriage

 

[Jroc]

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.

You seem to think that courts make decisions arbitrarily with no constitutional basis.

You seem to think that politically driven judges are somehow super Superior to regular politicians. They certainly are not. We don't have kings in this country

 

[Silhouette]

Politics has nothing to do with it, I'm just pointing out that Craig, who turned out to be gay was also an person who spoke against homosexuality...to prove my first response, that some of the people who are the most vocal against homosexuality have turned out to be homosexual...wonder why they were so vocal and so against it?

But, you seem to think that all homosexuals lean left....and Craig is a perfect example that they don't.

Then there's the whole Anne Heche thing where people who were supposed to be gay turned out to be straight. And the whole thing where most gay couples have a member role-playing the opposite gender in dress and mannerisms..suggesting a gigantic portion of their ranks may be closeted heteros instead (the member attracted to the one posing as the opposite gender)..

Then there's the problem of marriage being by for and about children, the state's only real interest in it...and gay marriages guaranteeing that 100% of the time one of the blood parents will be missing or one of the complimentary gender as role model will be missing. That little snag in child developmental psychology...

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You had the same rights as any other women..... Equal

equal·i·ty
noun \i-ˈkwä-lə-tē\
: the quality or state of being equal : the quality or state of having the same rights,

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." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
​

Link

You say it and keep saying it race and behavior is not the same and blacks Americans are 60% against gay marriage

Wanting to marry someone of a different race is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Heterosexuality is a behavior. Whether you believe being gay is an immutable trait or not (it is, just like race), is irrelevant as to whether or not gays and lesbians should have equal access to civil marriage. (and we do...in more states than we don't)

 

[Mertex]

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.

You had the same rights as any other women..... Equal

equal·i·ty
noun \i-ˈkwä-lə-tē\
: the quality or state of being equal : the quality or state of having the same rights,

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." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
​

Link

You say it and keep saying it race and behavior is not the same and blacks Americans are 60% against gay marriage

Link, please, because:

Black support for gay marriage growing - SFGate

Poll Majority Of Blacks Support Gay Marriage After Obama s Endorsement

Majority of African-Americans Support Gay Marriage Justice TVONE.TV

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You seem to think that courts make decisions arbitrarily with no constitutional basis.

You seem to think that politically driven judges are somehow super Superior to regular politicians. They certainly are not. We don't have kings in this country

No, we have the Constitution and the rule of law.

And judges to rule on them.

 

[Syriusly]

Then there's the problem of marriage being by for and about children, the state's only real interest in it...and gay marriages guaranteeing that 100% of the time one of the blood parents will be missing or one of the complimentary gender as role model will be missing. That little snag in child developmental psychology...

And then there is the reality, rather than your fantasy interpretation

Justice Anthony KennedY:
"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"