We're Getting Married!

[Silhouette]

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?"

That was before Justice Kennedy remembered that gay marriage guarantees that one of the blood parents is missing 100% of the time and that in those same "marriages" the complimentary gender-as-role-model is missing 100% of the time. A child's formative years are not to be tampered with by forcing states to incentivize a free-for-all. Justice Kennedy's understanding of the situation is evolving...like all of ours are. Justice Kennedy's mind is not set in stone on the matter. The concept of two people playing at "mom and dad" to kids is new, unusual and experimental. I just don't think kids should be used as lab rats. Justice Kennedy may come to agree with that after careful deliberation and ongoing investigation.

He will have to weigh the audited group think conclusions of the APA (CQR) that "thousands of kids of gay people are suffering from not having married parents" (while in other homes where one of the blood parents/complimentary gender as role model is missing 100% of the time, 10s of millions of kids are suffering the same...single parent homes..) vs 100s of millions of future children yet to be to be born as lab rats in the grand "let's all play pretend" experiment that "two gay parents" is.

 

[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?"

That was before Justice Kennedy remembered that gay marriage guarantees .

I am providing Justice Kennedy's actual opinion- not your imagination about what Justice Kennedy 'sekretly' thinks.



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?"

Unlike yourself- Justice Kennedy both cares about the welfare of children- and is in a position of authority.

 

[Jroc]

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)

So gay people are a race now? or maybe a religion? How about you start a gay religion and claim religious freedom to gay marry ....Your arguments are weak and don't make any sense. Political hack politicians, AKA Judges force their views on the masses... That's tyranny to me. If states want it, let them have it. If states want legalized abortion, with restrictions of course, let them have it. Just don't try and force your ideology down my throat Religion is not a "behavior' its faith. Black men and white men are the same. black women and white women are the same. Claiming gay people are a race is stupidity

 

[Syriusly]

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)

So gay people are a race now? or maybe a religion? How about you start a gay religion and claim religious freedom to gay marry ....Your arguments are weak and don't make any sense. Political hack politicians, AKA Judges force their views on the masses... That's tyranny to me. If states want it, let them have it. If states want legalized abortion, with restrictions of course, let them have it. Just don't try and force your ideology down my throat Religion is not a "behavior' its faith. Black men and white men are the same. black women and white women are the same. Claiming gay people are a race is stupidity

Clearly reading comprehension is not one of your strong points.

 

[Listening]

Nice try.

If you wan
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.

The court can't reverse itself on slaver as there is a constitutional amendment that forbids it.

Please show me the constitutional amendment that speaks specifically to marriage (spare me any allusion to the 14th).

 

[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.

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

You look pretty stupid even when you've not been drinking.

 

[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.

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

Oh, Roe had a constitutional basis.....??? Really.

Yes, they seem to do it all the time.

And they reverse themselves on a routine basis as well.

 

[squeeze berry]

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

He's got circles around his right eye from too much glory hole viewing. And a stiff jaw.

who else around here made their own thread to announce their marriage: ?

asshole

Oh, a game!

I don't know. Who????

look at me, look at me says Howie

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

You don't understand.

Our protected liberties are more than just race or religion, the Constitution also protects the right to express oneself as an individual, to make life decisions as free and independent persons absent unwarranted interference by the state:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently your 'race/behavior' argument fails, it is devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.

 

[Geaux4it]

So how did the honeymoon go?

Got aids yet?

-Geaux

 

[Statistikhengst]

So how did the honeymoon go?

Got aids yet?

-Geaux

So, you really ARE that stupid, what?

Yepp, you are.

 

[Geaux4it]

So how did the honeymoon go?

Got aids yet?

-Geaux

So, you really ARE that stupid, what?

Yepp, you are.

You know, the new 'S'... Scarlet Letter.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So how did the honeymoon go?

Got aids yet?

-Geaux

So, you really ARE that stupid, what?

Yepp, you are.

You know, the new 'S'... Scarlet Letter.

Wear it with pride, young man. G-d knows, you have earned it!

 

[Seawytch]

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)

So gay people are a race now? or maybe a religion? How about you start a gay religion and claim religious freedom to gay marry ....Your arguments are weak and don't make any sense. Political hack politicians, AKA Judges force their views on the masses... That's tyranny to me. If states want it, let them have it. If states want legalized abortion, with restrictions of course, let them have it. Just don't try and force your ideology down my throat Religion is not a "behavior' its faith. Black men and white men are the same. black women and white women are the same. Claiming gay people are a race is stupidity

Riiigghhttt. My arguments are weak and yours are ironclad. That must be why there is now marriage equality in 35+ states now.

Nobody is "forcing" anything down your throat. (ah...the homoerotic imagery abounds doesn't it?) You are not effected in any way, shape or form by gays legally marrying, drama queen.

Religion is a behavior. It's a choice. You're not born religious. If marriage were prohibited for Baptists, that would not pass Constitutional muster in your world, but you have no problem denying it to gays because YOU believe it is a behavior.

And no, there are no "states rights" when it comes to civil marriage. A 40 year old man that marries his 15 year old first cousin in Alabama is still married in NY or CA.

 

[Jroc]

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

Blacks may support Obama but not gay marriage which is why they voted against it in of all places California. I've ran into only one black person who said he didn't care. Blacks are generally more anti -Homosexual than whites

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds

70 of African Americans backed Prop. 8 exit poll finds L.A. NOW Los Angeles Times

 

[Seawytch]

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.

The court can't reverse itself on slaver as there is a constitutional amendment that forbids it.

Please show me the constitutional amendment that speaks specifically to marriage (spare me any allusion to the 14th).

You want to be spared from facts and the truth? How very republican of you.

The 14th is what was cited in Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail.

 

[Seawytch]

So how did the honeymoon go?

Got aids yet?

-Geaux

And the douchetastic award goes to...

 

[Seawytch]

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

Blacks may support Obama but not gay marriage which is why they voted against it in of all places California. I've ran into only black person who said he didn't care. Blacks are generally more anti -Homosexual than whites

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds

70 of African Americans backed Prop. 8 exit poll finds L.A. NOW Los Angeles Times

2008? You know it's almost 2015 now, right?

 

[Wildman]

So how did the honeymoon go?

Got aids yet?

-Geaux

So, you really ARE that stupid, what?

Yepp, you are.

You know, the new 'S'... Scarlet Letter.

Wear it with pride, young man. G-d knows, you have earned it!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
what ever the fuck G-d means, if you are referring to GOD say so, and referring to GOD he says.., paraphrasing, "mankind shall not lie with man" .., ahhhh, here it is: You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. KingJames ... Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

........


speaking of S....., how big is yours now ? is your sphincter worn out yet ???

 

[Statistikhengst]

You seem very angry. Go check out your BP.