What rights are the gays missing?

[PubliusInfinitum]

Let's try this again: there is no "right" to be in a government-subsidized romantic relationship. The government doesn't "owe" you its blessing, and no, saying that it does doesn't make it so.

The right to enter freely into legally binding contracts with another person.

...with the intent on getting a government hand-out for your relationship with that other person. Carefully parsing the issue doesn't change anything.

Q-ball, understand what the idiot just said...

She is telling you in essence that ALL the homo's want is the right to enter into a binding legal contract... and she's lying right to your face.

There is absolutely NOTHING stopping ANY two queers from entering into a legally binding contract... There is no law which says that two fags can't join in ANY legally binding agreement; so... her goal must be something else.

And what they goal is, is VALIDATION... She wants the LEGITIMACY that she feel's marriage provides. Sadly for her, she wants to argue that Marriage is just a legal instrument... yet she rejects the notion that any two fags can enter into any legally binding agreement... the most common of which is incorporation... But that just won't DO! She has to have the assent of the culture to enter into marriage!

So we can deduce from that, that she does not truly believe that Marriage is JUST a legal instrument... despite her profession to the contrary... so AGAIN it becomes clear that she is LYING!

And that takes us to what trait of Marriage could she be after, other than the civil, legal aspect? What is it within Marriage that provides the legitimacy that she craves for faggery?

All that remains of Marriage when one carves out the legal aspect is what? Is it not the Religious sanction?

So despite all the lies about legal rights; all the protestations that marriage is merely a civil union; all of the hurrumphs poo pooing the Sanctity of Marriage; when it's all boiled down, the only thing that remains of their plea is that they want to force their hedonistic debauchery onto Holy Matrimony.

The problem of course is, that much like giving Noble Prizes to people who did absolutely nothing, is that the value of such is diminished; if the threshold for winning a Heisman was
being on a college roster, then winning a Heisman wouldn't mean crap...

And such is the case with dropping all standards for marriage... the minute you let two men marry, you might was well let two mules marry, as there is absolutely nothing of value remaining int he concept.


Thus the legitimacy that they feel marriage would provide, would evaporate the second they try to engage in it; thus as has always been the case... legitimacy just can't be had by the illegitimate.


Now, I am happy to report that I attended a wedding, just last night... and God is still front and center in the institution. There was no talk of legalities... no discussion of pensions, or any other financial concern. Just sacred oathes being exchanged, promises to God and each other; all of which was witnessed and sanctioned by God.

 

[paperview]

The 14th Amendment didn't have anything to do with the way she parsed the issue.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1603884-post370.html

That wasn't the post I'd responded to when I said the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it and you know it.

Oh no?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1603873-post366.html

 

[lawbuff]

No, sorry. Loving only established that laws that criminalized marriage between Whites and other races (since interracial marriage wasn't so much illegal in the case of couples in which neither person was white) were unconstitutional. Neither the 9th nor the 14th Amendment have anything to do with it.

Try again.

Yes, the 14th was the decisional basis of it.

It did more than decriminalize them, but that was the main gravaman. It would also be UNconstitutional to deny a marriage license to interracial couples, and or provide a civil penalty for such if attempted, even if DEcriminalized.

 

[lawbuff]

The gov't can either recognize or deny a marriage. Loving V. Virginia established that they can't pick and choose whose they recognize w/out violation the 9th and 14th amendments.

L. v. V. was challenged in the Baker case, it was denied. It does not offend the 14th AM to prohibit same sex marriages, also the 1st, 8th or 9th are not offended.

 

[Setarcos]

The gov't can either recognize or deny a marriage. Loving V. Virginia established that they can't pick and choose whose they recognize w/out violation the 9th and 14th amendments.

L. v. V. was challenged in the Baker case, it was denied. It does not offend the 14th AM to prohibit same sex marriages, also the 1st, 8th or 9th are not offended.

The exact same arguments are used against it; therefore the exact same refutations apply.

Both seek to restrict one's rights to enter into a legal contract with another person based on immutable aspects of one's personhood beyond one's control. Discrimination based on sex is already recognized as unconstitutional.

 

[lawbuff]

The exact same arguments are used against it; therefore the exact same refutations apply.

Both seek to restrict one's rights to enter into a legal contract with another person based on immutable aspects of one's personhood beyond one's control. Discrimination based on sex is already recognized as unconstitutional.

It is not that I disagree with your premise as a consitutional argument, all I am saying is the SC has ruled same sex marriages prohibitions are, at this time, federally constitutional.

 

[manu1959]

The gov't can either recognize or deny a marriage. Loving V. Virginia established that they can't pick and choose whose they recognize w/out violation the 9th and 14th amendments.

L. v. V. was challenged in the Baker case, it was denied. It does not offend the 14th AM to prohibit same sex marriages, also the 1st, 8th or 9th are not offended.

The exact same arguments are used against it; therefore the exact same refutations apply.

Both seek to restrict one's rights to enter into a legal contract with another person based on immutable aspects of one's personhood beyond one's control. Discrimination based on sex is already recognized as unconstitutional.

as the california supreme court satated they are not denied the right to enter into a legal contract with another person.....their specifc contract under state law is called a civil union....and that contract grants them all the same rights as the contract straight folks have which is called a marriage....

 

[Qball]

The state has defined that right to not include certain unions, which it has every right to do

The Constitution grants the fed no rights


Do you ever know what you're talking about?

Like you, I was using the term as another term for "entitlement". The government can, and does, regulate how and what it incentivizes.

 

[Qball]

The right to enter freely into legally binding contracts with another person.

...with the intent on getting a government hand-out for your relationship with that other person. Carefully parsing the issue doesn't change anything.

Q-ball, understand what the idiot just said...

She is telling you in essence that ALL the homo's want is the right to enter into a binding legal contract... and she's lying right to your face.

There is absolutely NOTHING stopping ANY two queers from entering into a legally binding contract... There is no law which says that two fags can't join in ANY legally binding agreement; so... her goal must be something else.

And what they goal is, is VALIDATION... She wants the LEGITIMACY that she feel's marriage provides. Sadly for her, she wants to argue that Marriage is just a legal instrument... yet she rejects the notion that any two fags can enter into any legally binding agreement... the most common of which is incorporation... But that just won't DO! She has to have the assent of the culture to enter into marriage!

So we can deduce from that, that she does not truly believe that Marriage is JUST a legal instrument... despite her profession to the contrary... so AGAIN it becomes clear that she is LYING!

And that takes us to what trait of Marriage could she be after, other than the civil, legal aspect? What is it within Marriage that provides the legitimacy that she craves for faggery?

All that remains of Marriage when one carves out the legal aspect is what? Is it not the Religious sanction?

So despite all the lies about legal rights; all the protestations that marriage is merely a civil union; all of the hurrumphs poo pooing the Sanctity of Marriage; when it's all boiled down, the only thing that remains of their plea is that they want to force their hedonistic debauchery onto Holy Matrimony.

The problem of course is, that much like giving Noble Prizes to people who did absolutely nothing, is that the value of such is diminished; if the threshold for winning a Heisman was
being on a college roster, then winning a Heisman wouldn't mean crap...

And such is the case with dropping all standards for marriage... the minute you let two men marry, you might was well let two mules marry, as there is absolutely nothing of value remaining int he concept.


Thus the legitimacy that they feel marriage would provide, would evaporate the second they try to engage in it; thus as has always been the case... legitimacy just can't be had by the illegitimate.


Now, I am happy to report that I attended a wedding, just last night... and God is still front and center in the institution. There was no talk of legalities... no discussion of pensions, or any other financial concern. Just sacred oathes being exchanged, promises to God and each other; all of which was witnessed and sanctioned by God.

You're right.

 

[Qball]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1603884-post370.html

That wasn't the post I'd responded to when I said the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it and you know it.

Oh no?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1603873-post366.html

Oh, so I guess you're trolling now. That's nice.

 

[Qball]

No, sorry. Loving only established that laws that criminalized marriage between Whites and other races (since interracial marriage wasn't so much illegal in the case of couples in which neither person was white) were unconstitutional. Neither the 9th nor the 14th Amendment have anything to do with it.

Try again.

Yes, the 14th was the decisional basis of it.

It did more than decriminalize them, but that was the main gravaman. It would also be UNconstitutional to deny a marriage license to interracial couples, and or provide a civil penalty for such if attempted, even if DEcriminalized.

I already said all of this.

 

[Setarcos]

as the california supreme court satated they are not denied the right to enter into a legal contract with another person.....their specifc contract under state law is called a civil union....and that contract grants them all the same rights as the contract straight folks have which is called a marriage....

No, it doesn't. Civil unions have no weight with the fed and other states are not requited to recognize it.

They tried 'separate yet equal' once before

 

[Qball]

as the california supreme court satated they are not denied the right to enter into a legal contract with another person.....their specifc contract under state law is called a civil union....and that contract grants them all the same rights as the contract straight folks have which is called a marriage....

No, it doesn't. Civil unions have no weight with the fed and other states are not requited to recognize it.

They tried 'separate yet equal' once before

Can you try to make an original argument for once? All you're doing is parroting talking points and sloganeering.

 

[lawbuff]

I already said all of this.

You said the 14th had nothing to do with L v V:

No, sorry. Loving only established that laws that criminalized marriage between Whites and other races (since interracial marriage wasn't so much illegal in the case of couples in which neither person was white) were unconstitutional. Neither the 9th nor the 14th Amendment have anything to do with it.

 

[Setarcos]

This from the person who said LvV never mentioned the 14th amendment after I cited the case?

 

[Qball]

I already said all of this.

You said the 14th had nothing to do with L v V:

No, sorry. Loving only established that laws that criminalized marriage between Whites and other races (since interracial marriage wasn't so much illegal in the case of couples in which neither person was white) were unconstitutional. Neither the 9th nor the 14th Amendment have anything to do with it.

I also said twice that I was referring to her argument, not the case itself. Perhaps that wasn't clear, but it should be now.

 

[Qball]

This from the person who said LvV never mentioned the 14th amendment after I cited the case?

Given that you've pretty much been wrong about everything, I'd hold off on the LOL emoticon.

 

[lawbuff]

I also said twice that I was referring to her argument, not the case itself. Perhaps that wasn't clear, but it should be now.

Got ya!

 

[Setarcos]

really?

you said I was relying on emotion after I referred to a SCOUTS case

you said LvV had nothing to do w/ the 14 amendment- I quoted the decision's reference to that very amendment

 

[manu1959]

as the california supreme court satated they are not denied the right to enter into a legal contract with another person.....their specifc contract under state law is called a civil union....and that contract grants them all the same rights as the contract straight folks have which is called a marriage....

No, it doesn't. Civil unions have no weight with the fed and other states are not requited to recognize it.

They tried 'separate yet equal' once before

uh....the states that have civil unions recognize them.....and you are correct the feds have not recognized the civil unions yet.....

the only right that i can see being denied is the right to be fucked by the IRS like the rest of us "married" folk .....

odd that everyone wants to argue separation of church till it comes to gay marriage then everyone wants the fed to step in and tell the church they have to marry gays.....

not to mention everyone wants the fed to stay of of the bedroom but pass laws marrying those in the bedroom....

should have just asked for civil union at the fed level and you would have all your rights.....

which beggs the question is there something more you all want than just the right to file a joint tax return.....