Your Stories of how Gay Marriage ruined your Marriage

[bodecea]

Cant u see that some people would like to get married but cant?

What you are saying is akin to saying, Gay people can get married to someone of the opposite sex but choose not to. (and indeed a lot of gay people have been traditionally married.)

What's stopping them?

whats stopping gay and lesbians from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

Ah...so we are back to that are we? You know that the state of Virginia tried that same argument in Loving v. Virginia and the Supreme Court Justices laughed out loud.

 

[dcraelin]

What's stopping them?

whats stopping gay and lesbians from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

Ah...so we are back to that are we? You know that the state of Virginia tried that same argument in Loving v. Virginia and the Supreme Court Justices laughed out loud.

well then should laugh out loud at your discrimination against single people.......

 

[OnePercenter]

Republicans have NOTHING to offer the middle class.

 

[Political Junky]

Cant u see that some people would like to get married but cant?

What you are saying is akin to saying, Gay people can get married to someone of the opposite sex but choose not to. (and indeed a lot of gay people have been traditionally married.)

What's stopping them?

whats stopping gay and lesbians from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

Many gay people have married members of the opposite sex due to pressure from society to conform. Mostly that produced unhappy couples.

 

[dcraelin]

What's stopping them?

whats stopping gay and lesbians from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

Many gay people have married members of the opposite sex due to pressure from society to conform. Mostly that produced unhappy couples.

mostly, ..some produced children.....

anyway...bodecea seems to think its ok to put the same pressure on singles

 

[bodecea]

whats stopping gay and lesbians from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

Many gay people have married members of the opposite sex due to pressure from society to conform. Mostly that produced unhappy couples.

mostly, ..some produced children.....

anyway...bodecea seems to think its ok to put the same pressure on singles

Wait....until recently...gays couldn't marry legally anywhere....we couldn't. You want to compare that to straights who can legally marry at anytime but choose not to? Seriously?

 

[dcraelin]

Many gay people have married members of the opposite sex due to pressure from society to conform. Mostly that produced unhappy couples.

mostly, ..some produced children.....

anyway...bodecea seems to think its ok to put the same pressure on singles

Wait....until recently...gays couldn't marry legally anywhere....we couldn't. You want to compare that to straights who can legally marry at anytime but choose not to? Seriously?

Seriously.....and I suggest you go back and look at your responses....they make no logical sense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Its not motivated "solely by animus toward same-sex couples"...

Of course it is.

As the Romer Court concluded with regard to Colorado’s Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws:

Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

So too is the case with Utah’s Amendment 3, and other such measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, motivated solely by the “animus toward the class that it affects.”

And just as there is no such thing as ‘separate but equal,' there is also no such thing as ‘different but equal’ – as both are offensive to the Constitution.

As the Romer Court further held:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else.

This would also be the case with those seeking to relegate same-sex couples to some inane and un-Constitutional contrivance as ‘civil unions,’ intended only to make gay Americans unequal to everyone else.

 

[bodecea]

mostly, ..some produced children.....

anyway...bodecea seems to think its ok to put the same pressure on singles

Wait....until recently...gays couldn't marry legally anywhere....we couldn't. You want to compare that to straights who can legally marry at anytime but choose not to? Seriously?

Seriously.....and I suggest you go back and look at your responses....they make no logical sense.

Ok...until recently...what has kept gays from legally marrying each other?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think it dangerous to negate the will of the people no matter how important a person feels the issue is.

As opposed to the danger of ignoring the rule of law, the Constitution, and appeasing the tyranny of the majority.

In our Constitutional Republic the people lack the authority to deny American citizens their civil liberties, where one’s civil rights are not subject to ‘majority rule.’

That's not true.
We make laws which restrict behavior all the time.
For example. Blue laws which restrict certain activities on certain days of the week. In certain communities there are bans on the purchase of alcoholic beverages either entirely or on Sunday. Others may prohibit outdoor work including on one's property. Midland Park NJ has such laws. One cannot mow their grass, paint their house or even wash their car on Sunday. South Carolina prohibits shopping centers from opening before 1:30 pm on Sunday.
Kentucky prohibits the practice of BYOB into ANY public establishment.
New York prohibits the display of alcoholic beverages in any public area
Obscenity laws. Certain states ban the video transmission of pornography. NC bans certain pay per view programming with graphic sex acts. So do Utah, Alabama, Texas.
Most states ban public nudity. Many ban women from being top less in public.
Gambling of any kind is banned in many state. While certain forms of gambling are prohibited in others.
The tyranny of the majority applies only to absolute democracy. The USA is not a democracy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

this thread should be closed because it is no longer discussing the issue at hand

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Cant u see that some people would like to get married but cant?

What you are saying is akin to saying, Gay people can get married to someone of the opposite sex but choose not to. (and indeed a lot of gay people have been traditionally married.)

What's stopping them?

whats stopping gay and lesbians from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

This doesn’t make any sense.

Same-sex couples wish to marry someone of the same sex – hence ‘same-sex couples.’

Same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law, as are opposite-sex couples, where there’s no reason to prohibit them from doing so.

 

[dcraelin]

Wait....until recently...gays couldn't marry legally anywhere....we couldn't. You want to compare that to straights who can legally marry at anytime but choose not to? Seriously?

Seriously.....and I suggest you go back and look at your responses....they make no logical sense.

Ok...until recently...what has kept gays from legally marrying each other?

thats the wrong question..what prohibits them from marrying someone of the opposite sex, for the benefits of marriage, tax breaks etc....same thing that prohibits single people from marrying...

Its not motivated "solely by animus toward same-sex couples"...

Of course it is.
As the Romer Court concluded with regard to Colorado’s Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws:

Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

So too is the case with Utah’s Amendment 3, and other such measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, motivated solely by the “animus toward the class that it affects.”
And just as there is no such thing as ‘separate but equal,' there is also no such thing as ‘different but equal’ – as both are offensive to the Constitution.
As the Romer Court further held:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else.

This would also be the case with those seeking to relegate same-sex couples to some inane and un-Constitutional contrivance as ‘civil unions,’ intended only to make gay Americans unequal to everyone else.

Ironically enough the judges are influenced by the emotional argument....and their own arrogance ....read closely......"solely by animus toward same-sex couples"....solely?....their are emotional arguements on both sides. ....but, You dont think there is any concern for society as a whole?....for children?.....If you dont it is really your own blindness.

 

[bodecea]

Seriously.....and I suggest you go back and look at your responses....they make no logical sense.

Ok...until recently...what has kept gays from legally marrying each other?

thats the wrong question..what prohibits them from marrying someone of the opposite sex, for the benefits of marriage, tax breaks etc....same thing that prohibits single people from marrying...

Of course it is.
As the Romer Court concluded with regard to Colorado’s Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws:

So too is the case with Utah’s Amendment 3, and other such measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, motivated solely by the “animus toward the class that it affects.”
And just as there is no such thing as ‘separate but equal,' there is also no such thing as ‘different but equal’ – as both are offensive to the Constitution.
As the Romer Court further held:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else.

This would also be the case with those seeking to relegate same-sex couples to some inane and un-Constitutional contrivance as ‘civil unions,’ intended only to make gay Americans unequal to everyone else.

Ironically enough the judges are influenced by the emotional argument....and their own arrogance ....read closely......"solely by animus toward same-sex couples"....solely?....their are emotional arguements on both sides. ....but, You dont think there is any concern for society as a whole?....for children?.....If you dont it is really your own blindness.

It is the totally right question. Let me ask it again.

Ok...until recently...what has kept gays from legally marrying each other?

 

[Pheonixops]

If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing.

That's according to your myopic view point. I'm sure it means something to two heterosexual people and two homosexual people who marry each other.

 

[bodecea]

What's stopping them?

whats stopping gay and lesbians from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

This doesn’t make any sense.

Same-sex couples wish to marry someone of the same sex – hence ‘same-sex couples.’

Same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law, as are opposite-sex couples, where there’s no reason to prohibit them from doing so.

And here's the rub....he's talking about single Americans .... single gay Americans are treated equally under the law as are single straight Americans.

It is only with the issue of legal marriage that the discrimination occurs.

 

[dcraelin]

I think it dangerous to negate the will of the people no matter how important a person feels the issue is.

.....

......
The tyranny of the majority applies only to absolute democracy. The USA is not a democracy.

The US is not set up as a pure Democracy at the Federal level....but neither is it a pure Republic. The words at base mean the same thing....res.publica...the public thing...and Demos.cratia ..public power......

see my pics.. a couple have to do with this subject.......

Patrick Henry can be seen responding to a similar arguement at the Virginai ratifying convention....he opposed the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

.....

......
The tyranny of the majority applies only to absolute democracy. The USA is not a democracy.

The US is not set up as a pure Democracy at the Federal level....but neither is it a pure Republic. The words at base mean the same thing....res.publica...the public thing...and Demos.cratia ..public power......

see my pics.. a couple have to do with this subject.......

Patrick Henry can be seen responding to a similar arguement at the Virginai ratifying convention....he opposed the Constitution.

Yes he did...and he refused to sign it.

But it was ratified anyways.

 

[dcraelin]

Ok...until recently...what has kept gays from legally marrying each other?

thats the wrong question..what prohibits them from marrying someone of the opposite sex, for the benefits of marriage, tax breaks etc....same thing that prohibits single people from marrying...

Of course it is.
As the Romer Court concluded with regard to Colorado’s Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws:

So too is the case with Utah’s Amendment 3, and other such measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, motivated solely by the “animus toward the class that it affects.”
And just as there is no such thing as ‘separate but equal,' there is also no such thing as ‘different but equal’ – as both are offensive to the Constitution.
As the Romer Court further held:

This would also be the case with those seeking to relegate same-sex couples to some inane and un-Constitutional contrivance as ‘civil unions,’ intended only to make gay Americans unequal to everyone else.

Ironically enough the judges are influenced by the emotional argument....and their own arrogance ....read closely......"solely by animus toward same-sex couples"....solely?....their are emotional arguements on both sides. ....but, You dont think there is any concern for society as a whole?....for children?.....If you dont it is really your own blindness.

It is the totally right question. Let me ask it again.

Ok...until recently...what has kept gays from legally marrying each other?

Ok, Im done........for tonight anyway.....

Just cause you ask it again doesn't make it the right question.

 

[bodecea]

thats the wrong question..what prohibits them from marrying someone of the opposite sex, for the benefits of marriage, tax breaks etc....same thing that prohibits single people from marrying...



Ironically enough the judges are influenced by the emotional argument....and their own arrogance ....read closely......"solely by animus toward same-sex couples"....solely?....their are emotional arguements on both sides. ....but, You dont think there is any concern for society as a whole?....for children?.....If you dont it is really your own blindness.

It is the totally right question. Let me ask it again.

Ok...until recently...what has kept gays from legally marrying each other?

Ok, Im done........for tonight anyway.....

Just cause you ask it again doesn't make it the right question.

So..can't answer? Running away? Ok...you won't be the first.