The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: CactusCarlos on December 13, 2011, 03:17:35 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100212602
WilliamPitt
How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot
Because a certain segment of the population still connects marriage equality with being able to marry anyone and/or thing you want. It's kind of messed up that this still needs to be explained.
Buzzfeed
(http://i44.tinypic.com/okr8na.jpg)
A whole lot more: http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-rights-is-nothing-like-legalizing-beastali
I don't know about y'all, but I am all for gay rights now. All it took was for some clever liberal to call me an idiot!
:whatever:
-
Whose job is it to decide if Adam is really capable to make his own decisions?
He's passed up Evelyn in order to take it up the rear. To most this is outside the norm and reflects on his ability to make decisions.
If he stood naked on a railroad track clucking like a chicken while a train was coming would he still be capable to make is own decisions?
Does there ever come a time when I, and the majority of others, are allowed to question Adam's ability to make his own decisions? OR are we to be forced to agree with Adam as long as he's taking it up the rear? Why is Adam not forced to agree with us, the majority, instead of us being forced to agree with him?
I'm just curious. Steve can bang Adam's butt like a drum all day long as far as I'm concerned... As long as they do it in private and I'm not forced to agree with it.
-
I don't see how that amounts to any kind of refutation that polygamy and polyandry between any number of consenting adults should become completely legal under the same rationale as gay marriage.
-
As long as they do it in private and I'm not forced to agree with it.
Agree with it? To them we'll be haters until we endorse that lifestyle.
-
I don't see how that amounts to any kind of refutation that polygamy and polyandry between any number of consenting adults should become completely legal under the same rationale as gay marriage.
Or incest for that matter.
-
If Adam wants to take it up the rear, you all have to take it up the rear, America.
Ain't that the jest of the gay agenda?
-
The culture has an active interest in Adam and Evelyn. Adam and Evelyn will produce offspring and the culture can be assumed to last another generation.
Adam and Steve? Statistically, they'll be dead soon. They won't leave any offspring. Their's is the path of death and desolation for a culture.
-
That has got to be one of the most overly simplistic and stupidest things Will has ever posted and based on Will's past that is saying a lot.
-
OK, I think it was on "The Doctors" or the "Dr. OZ" show today that I caught a few minutes of....They had a brain specialist on that showed MRI's of the heterosexual male brain, the homosexual male brain, the heterosexual female brain and the homosexual female brain....bunch of innerconnected mumbo-jumbo-blah-blah-blah explanation of why they are queer...they got the wrong brain.
Ok, so why not scan them in the womb and abort the homosexuals...what's wrong with that if a woman chooses not to have a homosexual, right? It's a woman's choice, right? Liberals are all for aborting kids that are not headed for a stellar life, right? Liberals believe abortion is a tool to solve social ills, right? So why not,right?
Watch the liberal position on abortion do a 180 now.
-
I bet the same Sir William the Pittiful would also tell us how it is the Government's job to tell us as citizens what we can and cannot do, regardless if the person is 'capable of making their own decisions'
A) Obamacare.
B) Taxation without Representation
C) Tobacco
D) Alcohol
E) Dietary Decisions
And a crapload of other things Democrats want to do to 'protect us from ourselves'
So - you need to pick a side, Pitt - is it the government's right, or isn't it ?
-
I bet the same Sir William the Pittiful would also tell us how it is the Government's job to tell us as citizens what we can and cannot do, regardless if the person is 'capable of making their own decisions'
A) Obamacare.
B) Taxation without Representation
C) Tobacco
D) Alcohol
E) Dietary Decisions
And a crapload of other things Democrats want to do to 'protect us from ourselves'
So - you need to pick a side, Pitt - is it the government's right, or isn't it ?
Frederic Bastiat quoted quite a few French legislaturists in "The Law". It just goes to show how far back statists have sought to rule everyone else for their own good.
Bastiat even sneered at mandatory french public education. His opponents argued that if they were allowed to choose, people might be choose to be educated in Egyptian, Turk, or Hindu thought. He commented that the French were instead being taught to be good Romans.
-
The culture has an active interest in Adam and Evelyn. Adam and Evelyn will produce offspring and the culture can be assumed to last another generation.
Adam and Steve? Statistically, they'll be dead soon. They won't leave any offspring. Their's is the path of death and desolation for a culture.
I think Vagabond says it the best.
To me it is all about personal, sexual preference...
Homosexual couples know that they cannot have a joint IRS 1040, The union/marriage whatever is only recognized/toloerated, accepted in a handful of states. Why not just live together, do what you want in the privacy of your bedroom and stfu.
-
Easy quesion: If it's Constitutional, then why hasn't it been practiced since the US Constitution was ratified?
And saying it was Constitutional from day one but was not something that was an acceptable practice by the citizens of this country up until recently is not a satisfactory answer.
.
-
Easy quesion: If it's Constitutional, then why hasn't it been practiced since the US Constitution was ratified?
And saying it was Constitutional from day one but was not something that was an acceptable practice by the citizens of this country up until recently is not a satisfactory answer.
.
It's in the good and plenty clause. Same place that gives the feds the power to tax the rich.
-
The culture has an active interest in Adam and Evelyn. Adam and Evelyn will produce offspring and the culture can be assumed to last another generation.
Adam and Steve? Statistically, they'll be dead soon. They won't leave any offspring. Their's is the path of death and desolation for a culture.
Ding ding, we have a winner.
What is the rationale for government being involved in the regulation of a relationship between two people? If it is merely about the two of them, then there is none - society's interest (and thus the rationale for government involvement) is merely in the perpetuation of society into the future.
-
Gay rights have nothing to do with society and its traditions that kept humans from dieing out.
All this is is about is SEX, they say ,they have the right to screw anything that they can out run.
If gays want to be recognised then they can march down to the court house and sign over powers of attorneys to each other. Make out wills in behalf of their partner.
Even heterosexual married folks must be married at least 10 years to get Death benefits from SS. [unless children have been concieved in a lesser time frame.]
Gay demands have nothing to do with Sex, it is all about money, putting a partner on their health insurance at work, insuring if death happens to a sex partner that they can claim their SS after the death of a partner. OK, so there are ways to protect themselves, one partner can adopt the other, one partner can legally change their last name to that of their partner.
Then if one or both partners have had children, they can insure the children of the deceased partner cannot come in and demand the survivors estate.
We are being misdirected by the SEX thing, the Gays want to collect from insurance company's and the government and retirement funds for themselves.
I wonder how divorces are handled, child custody, and splitting funds and property is among the Gay married.
No one has the RIGHT to sex, or marriage. To say so places people in bondage to the law. One cannot remarry without a divorce from a former spouse, inconvenient if one is gay, inconvenient if one is heterosexual.
The choice of sex partners has nothing to do with Rights, Incest and Rape of Animals now can be put to the test.
Guess I am a total idiot when it comes to sexual rights-----, when do we lower the age of concent to 8 years old ???
-
Gay rights have nothing to do with society and its traditions that kept humans from dieing out.
All this is is about is SEX, they say ,they have the right to screw anything that they can out run.
If gays want to be recognised then they can march down to the court house and sign over powers of attorneys to each other. Make out wills in behalf of their partner.
Even heterosexual married folks must be married at least 10 years to get Death benefits from SS. [unless children have been concieved in a lesser time frame.]
Gay demands have nothing to do with Sex, it is all about money, putting a partner on their health insurance at work, insuring if death happens to a sex partner that they can claim their SS after the death of a partner. OK, so there are ways to protect themselves, one partner can adopt the other, one partner can legally change their last name to that of their partner.
Then if one or both partners have had children, they can insure the children of the deceased partner cannot come in and demand the survivors estate.
We are being misdirected by the SEX thing, the Gays want to collect from insurance company's and the government and retirement funds for themselves.
I wonder how divorces are handled, child custody, and splitting funds and property is among the Gay married.
No one has the RIGHT to sex, or marriage. To say so places people in bondage to the law. One cannot remarry without a divorce from a former spouse, inconvenient if one is gay, inconvenient if one is heterosexual.
The choice of sex partners has nothing to do with Rights, Incest and Rape of Animals now can be put to the test.
Guess I am a total idiot when it comes to sexual rights-----, when do we lower the age of concent to 8 years old ???
There's a cold front blowing through Hell today . . . H5, vesta. :o
-
Typical Liberal condescending bullshit.
:cheersmate: Vesta.
-
There's a cold front blowing through Hell today . . . H5, vesta.
I'll be damned. Someone doesn't have vesta on ignore.
-
I don't believe in ignore. You might miss something good. Anyway, Vesta makes a good point.
-
I don't believe in ignore. You might miss something good.
So far I haven't.
-
Gay rights have nothing to do with society and its traditions that kept humans from dieing out.
All this is is about is SEX, they say ,they have the right to screw anything that they can out run.
If gays want to be recognised then they can march down to the court house and sign over powers of attorneys to each other. Make out wills in behalf of their partner.
Even heterosexual married folks must be married at least 10 years to get Death benefits from SS. [unless children have been concieved in a lesser time frame.]
Gay demands have nothing to do with Sex, it is all about money, putting a partner on their health insurance at work, insuring if death happens to a sex partner that they can claim their SS after the death of a partner. OK, so there are ways to protect themselves, one partner can adopt the other, one partner can legally change their last name to that of their partner.
Then if one or both partners have had children, they can insure the children of the deceased partner cannot come in and demand the survivors estate.
We are being misdirected by the SEX thing, the Gays want to collect from insurance company's and the government and retirement funds for themselves.
I wonder how divorces are handled, child custody, and splitting funds and property is among the Gay married.
No one has the RIGHT to sex, or marriage. To say so places people in bondage to the law. One cannot remarry without a divorce from a former spouse, inconvenient if one is gay, inconvenient if one is heterosexual.
The choice of sex partners has nothing to do with Rights, Incest and Rape of Animals now can be put to the test.
Guess I am a total idiot when it comes to sexual rights-----, when do we lower the age of concent to 8 years old ???
H5 Vesta!
-
I love how you guys are all for small government, except when it's to deny people basic human rights or to shove your fairy tales...I mean religion...down people's throats.
-
I love how you guys are all for small government, except when it's to deny people basic human rights or to shove your fairy tales...I mean religion...down people's throats.
The gay lobby wants to shove their sexuality down our throats. Turnabout is fair play.
-
Really? Gay people asking for a simple right to marry each other is shoving their sexuality down your throat? Please, explain this logic of yours to me in greater detail, I am intrigued. Are you saying that if gay people are allowed to marry you will have no choice but to become gay yourself?
-
I love how you guys are all for small government, except when it's to deny people basic human rights or to shove your fairy tales...I mean religion...down people's throats.
Basic human right? Religion? EVERY society on Earth has regarded marriage as involving at least one man on one side, and at least one woman on the other side, since the concept of 'Marriage' has existed, regardless of whatever religion if any was in vogue at the time. Until the last decade or so, when as vesta correctly (Shockingly, I admit) notes it became all about the Benjamins. You, sir, are a victim of your own bullshit propaganda.
You can pass a law that any cat that thinks it is really a dog is a dog legally, but that doesn't make it factually true, just a stupid legalism and a symbol of the intellectual corruption of any system that would do that.
-
I love how you guys are all for small government, except when it's to deny people basic human rights or to shove your fairy tales...I mean religion...down people's throats.
Where is it said that gay marriage is a right? (sounds like a fairy tale, Oh, wait that's right, I can't say "fairy")
And here I was going to be nice. You assholes just CAN'T help but denigrate Christians.
-
Really? Gay people asking for a simple right to marry each other is shoving their sexuality down your throat? Please, explain this logic of yours to me in greater detail, I am intrigued. Are you saying that if gay people are allowed to marry you will have no choice but to become gay yourself?
By marry, do you mean a licence from the Government which says, Oh, these two people are together legally?
Well, then, by all means get such a licence from Caeser. BUT- you mean force someone to say fairy tale language (your term) in their make believe house of "sky angel" to someone they don't want to? AND- force the government, who should stay out of religion (your view) to get hip deep into it? Wonder why we call you ****ing stupid?
How does one group of 'rights' trump another?
-
Really? Gay people asking for a simple right to marry each other is shoving their sexuality down your throat?
Folsom Street Fair. Nuff said.
-
Basic human right? Religion? EVERY society one Earth has regarded marriage as involving at least one man on one side, and at least one woman on the other side, since the concept of 'Marriage' has existed, regardless of whatever religion if any was in vogue at the time. Until the last decade or so, when as vesta correctly (Shockingly, I admit) notes it became all about the Benjamins. You, sir, are a victim of your own bullshit propaganda.
You can pass a law that any cat that thinks it is really a dog is a dog legally, but that doesn't make it factually true, just a stupid legalism and a symbol of the intellectual corruption of any system that would do that.
How very nice of you to take on the liberty of defining marriage. Again, there goes that whole freedom thing you guys love so much. Sure, you love freedom, until a church decides to excercise that freedom by allowing gay marriage, then freedom is no longer okay.
I also have a feeling you have absolutely no sense of history when it comes to marriage, if you are worried about marriage and tradition why are none of you out and about fighting for arranaged marriages. Is that part of "traditional marriage" not convenient for you? How about going out there an fighting for making adultury by the women illegal which has been part of tradition throughout history? again, that part of history not convenient enough for you?
-
By marry, do you mean a licence from the Government which says, Oh, these two people are together legally?
Well, then, by all means get such a licence from Caeser. BUT- you mean force someone to say fairy tale language (your term) in their make believe house of "sky angel" to someone they don't want to? AND- force the government, who should stay out of religion (your view) to get hip deep into it? Wonder why we call you ****ing stupid?
How does one group of 'rights' trump another?
How many people here are for civil unions? How many people here are okay with government giving gay people marriage licenses? Raise your hands
-
How many people here are okay with government giving gay people marriage licenses? Raise your hands
[raises hand] Not only that, but I never saw why sexual preference would destroy the military. Sure, some issues at the start, but who you **** doesn't have much with combat effectiveness. No more that race does.
You may find the issue isn't with 'unions' per se, but with the seeminly jihadist push to force homosexual acceptance into places it is not, by tradition, accepted. AND, if I may add, selective outrage at this non acceptance. Christians are loathed, Muslims ignored. Republicans are called racists, homophobic murders, Obama...
well, you see my point, I am sure.
And will ignore it.
-
So just to be clear, you are okay with government treating gay marraige EXACTLY the same as non-gay marriage, correct? You are simply not okay with government forcing churches that don't want to perform gay marriages to do so?
If that is your position I can't really argue with you, and you seem to agree with the graphic in the OP. But I wonder how many here actually share your view. You know the people here better than I do, what do you think?
-
Which makes one happy and relieved that our President, when asked in a questionnaire fifteen years ago, while running for the Illinois State Senate, whether he was for gay marriage, checked the box marked “yes.†Which meant that he was both right and early on the issue.
Unfortunately, Obama readily reversed himself in subsequent campaigns, backtracking to the politically safer ground of favoring civil unions. His rationale, presumably, was that he was no longer trying to win over liberal Hyde Park; in 2004, he had to win the state of Illinois and, in 2008, the country.
The mystery is why Obama chose to make gay marriage the subject of the worst, least sincere, and most mealy-mouthed moment of his 2008 Presidential campaign. Obama, an intelligent man steeped in civil-rights history, was never so disappointing as when he sat with Pastor Rick Warren, at a televised appearance in front of twenty-eight hundred evangelicals, and won applause for his declaration “that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.â€
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/06/obama-and-gay-marriage.html#ixzz1gWtezDDV
OOOooo... Obama is either a homophob, a lier, or just does whatever he can to gain more power...
Your call.
-
There was a person once that said something like "intelligent people discuss issues, idiots discuss people". I know I am not quoting it word for word but that was the gist of it.
I asked you a very specific question about your position, just to verify I have your position correct since if I do I actually agree with you. You didn't answer my question, instead you went on to Obama.
If you think I am here to defend Obama you haven't bothered to check my site out and are making some rather premature assumptions. I have no interest in defending the guy. Gay rights is just one issue out of a whole handful he has reversed himself on once people like me fought to elect him. I will not be voting for him in 2012, so if you are looking for someone to defend the guy you will need to look elsewhere.
So if you could answer my question to you I would greatly appreciate it, I am interested in your position on this since you seem to be completely different on this issue from most here.
-
How very nice of you to take on the liberty of defining marriage. Again, there goes that whole freedom thing you guys love so much. Sure, you love freedom, until a church decides to excercise that freedom by allowing gay marriage, then freedom is no longer okay.
I also have a feeling you have absolutely no sense of history when it comes to marriage, if you are worried about marriage and tradition why are none of you out and about fighting for arranaged marriages. Is that part of "traditional marriage" not convenient for you? How about going out there an fighting for making adultury by the women illegal which has been part of tradition throughout history? again, that part of history not convenient enough for you?
You revel in your obtuseness, and putting words in the mouths of all you oppose, so discussion with you is essentially pointless since you lack any basic intellectual honesty.
Is it I who am defining marriage, or you? I speak only from all of human history prior to the last decade, which itself inductively defines the term, it is you who seeks to rewrite it.
Arranged marriage? It is a feature of some traditions, not all, and so is not relevant to the essence of marriage. Again, your logical shortcomings are on display, like a monkey's ass when he climbs a pole.
Relligion? I have not invoked any such thing, you are creating a straw man, and an irrelevant one. I am not in fact a religious person, which you have failed to note in the argument so far since it doesn't fit your preconceptions of Conservatives, a body which includes many Agnostics, Atheists, Theists, and non-Christian believers.
You lack the honesty to conduct a legitimate discussion, and are therefore not worth my time.
-
So just to be clear, you are okay with government treating gay marraige EXACTLY the same as non-gay marriage, correct? You are simply not okay with government forcing churches that don't want to perform gay marriages to do so?
If that is your position I can't really argue with you, and you seem to agree with the graphic in the OP. But I wonder how many here actually share your view. You know the people here better than I do, what do you think?
Well, just to be clear, if you want to buy a Bee licence from the government, for your pet bee, Eric, and there is a law for it, feel free. What do you mean by EXACTLY? I could assume that since the civil union law is written EXACTLY like the marrage law of the US Government...
Oh, wait. Is there a marrage law of the US Government?
§ 7. Definition of “marriage†and “spouseâ€
How Current is This? In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage†means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse†refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Hmmm. puts a hold on 'marrying' your brother, fred, doesn't it.
As used in the United States, beginning with the state of Vermont in 2000, the term civil union has connoted a status equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples; domestic partnership, offered by some states, counties, cities, and employers since as early as 1985, has generally connoted a lesser status with fewer benefits.However, the legislatures of the West Coast states of California, Oregon and Washington have preferred the term domestic partnership for enactments similar or equivalent to civil union laws in East Coast states.
So, it's state laws that allow civil unions.
What's that law about things not given over to Federal law is the...what is it again?
-
So just to be clear, you are okay with government treating gay marriage EXACTLY the same as non-gay marriage, correct? You are simply not okay with government forcing churches that don't want to perform gay marriages to do so?
If that is your position I can't really argue with you, and you seem to agree with the graphic in the OP. But I wonder how many here actually share your view. You know the people here better than I do, what do you think?
Dutch petty much nailed it.
I have homosexual siblings and coworkers, and treat them no differently that anyone else. Unlike the Folsom Street Freaks, they don't lead with "I'm Homosexual!!!" at every encounter and wave their genitals in my face, just as proclaiming "I'm Heterosexual" to someone I'm meeting for the first time and pantomiming sex with my wife would never occur to me. I have no problems with civil unions and with extending the same rights of survivorship benefits and medical consent to homosexuals that are in deeply committed relationships.
Just don't ask me to condone that lifestyle, because that isn't going to happen.
-
There was a person once that said something like "intelligent people discuss issues, idiots discuss people". I know I am not quoting it word for word but that was the gist of it.
I asked you a very specific question about your position, just to verify I have your position correct since if I do I actually agree with you. You didn't answer my question, instead you went on to Obama.
If you think I am here to defend Obama you haven't bothered to check my site out and are making some rather premature assumptions. I have no interest in defending the guy. Gay rights is just one issue out of a whole handful he has reversed himself on once people like me fought to elect him. I will not be voting for him in 2012, so if you are looking for someone to defend the guy you will need to look elsewhere.
So if you could answer my question to you I would greatly appreciate it, I am interested in your position on this since you seem to be completely different on this issue from most here.
Like I said, you ignore it.
-
Why are you guys for government calling gay marriage one thing and "traditional" marriage another?
Why can't the government simply issue marriage licenses no matter what kind of marriage between 2 consenting adults it is?
-
Like I said, you ignore it.
I didn't ignore anything. You responded with something about Obama before you finally answered my question. I only saw your Obama response when I made that post, your answer didn't come until later.
-
Why are you guys for government calling gay marriage one thing and "traditional" marriage another?
Why can't the government simply issue marriage licenses no matter what kind of marriage between 2 consenting adults it is?
How about you muster up some actual law and case precedence as to this "basic human right" of homosexual marriage?
-
How about you muster up some actual law and case precedence as to this "basic human right" of homosexual marriage?
Are you aware of the equal protection clause of the United States constitution?
-
Are you aware of the equal protection clause of the United States constitution?
I repeat: How about you muster up some actual law and case precedence as to this "basic human right" of homosexual marriage?
I am not interested in your obtuse musings, I want concrete evidence.
-
What does the equal protection clause mean to you? Or will you not answer this question because the constitution in this case is too inconvenient for you?
If you want a federal court case pay close attention to Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which will eventually end up in the supreme court. A number of federal courts have already ruled on this case saying discrimination in the form California has done is unconstitutional. Which has also been the case with DOMA which should also end up in the supreme court.
-
You may as well give up Wasp, he's far too nuanced for us plebs.
-
You may as well give up Wasp, he's far too nuanced for us plebs.
Yeah. He's writing from an alternate reality that has no relationship to the rule of law known in this one. It's a waste of digits to even engage.
-
What does the equal protection clause mean to you? Or will you not answer this question because the constitution in this case is too inconvenient for you?
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Do you see what I just did? I just quoted and posted a link to the Equal Protection Clause so there is no doubt in anyone's mind what it says and what it means.
No where, and I mean no where, will you find the "basic human right" of homosexual "marriage" in the text of that. What I want is actual law and case precedence, not my nor your interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
If you want a federal court case pay close attention to Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which will eventually end up in the supreme court. A number of federal courts have already ruled on this case saying discrimination in the form California has done is unconstitutional. Which has also been the case with DOMA which should also end up in the supreme court.
Interesting. Looks like you are going to have a hard time finding actual law and case precedence, huh?
-
How very nice of you to take on the liberty of defining marriage. Again, there goes that whole freedom thing you guys love so much. Sure, you love freedom, until a church decides to excercise that freedom by allowing gay marriage, then freedom is no longer okay.
Ever hear of "consent of the governed"? You should look into it because it is considered an integral part of freedom.
And marriage is not a right, it's legislated and varies from one government to the next, i.e. age of consent laws vary by state.
I would also note that the purpose of marriage isn't to be inclusive, just the opposite its intent is wholly exclusionary.
-
What it does say is that no state can treat individuals any different, that means if a state gives marriage licenses out to straight people it must also do so to gay people. Unless you believe that gay people aren't protected by the constitution. Let me know if you disagree with this.
If you want to argue marriage isn't a basic human right that's fine, that is your opinion and has little to do with this discussion.
-
Ever hear of "consent of the governed"? You should look into it because it is considered an integral part of freedom.
And marriage is not a right, it's legislated and varies from one government to the next, i.e. age of consent laws vary by state.
I would also note that the purpose of marriage isn't to be inclusive, just the opposite its intent is wholly exclusionary.
So the states don't have to follow the 14th amendment? If that is what you are saying I wonder if you feel the same about all amendments.
-
So the states don't have to follow the 14th amendment? If that is what you are saying I wonder if you feel the same about all amendments.
And what right have so-called "gays" been denied?
Perusing the constitution I see a right to publish my opinions, the right to appeal to deity were I so inclined, the right to petition the government, the right to vote, the right to seek elected office, the right to arm bears.
In fact, every right the constitution compels the government to protect centers on political rights, not social mores; and near as I can tell no state has forbidden homosexuals from voting or whatnot.
And as marriage is not enumerated in Art 1 Sec 8 or subsequent amendment it is relegated back to the states for them to decide as they see fit according to the wishes of their citizens.
Marriage is not a right, it is a legal construct just the same as contract law and traffic controls.
-
Last I checked heterosexual men can only marry women, and heterosexual women can only marry men. Hetero men can not marry men and hetero women can not marry women. Equality under the law.
What about bisexuals? Should they be able to marry 1 person of each sex?
Or are they not getting equal protection under the law?
-
What about bisexuals? Should they be able to marry 1 person of each sex?
Or are they not getting equal protection under the law?
Or religion-based polygamy.
-
What it does say is that no state can treat individuals any different, that means if a state gives marriage licenses out to straight people it must also do so to gay people.
Okay, great. Show me actual law and case precedence to back up your words. Surely you can do that, can't you?
Unless you believe that gay people aren't protected by the constitution. Let me know if you disagree with this.
Or, in the absence of actual proof, you can keep tossing out snark. But wouldn't that kind of blow the whole high road concept that you were claiming earlier?
If you want to argue marriage isn't a basic human right that's fine, that is your opinion and has little to do with this discussion.
Oh, no, my dear, it does. It was enough for you to bring it up, it is enough for you to show the proof that it is a "basic human right" citing actual law and case precedence.
-
Or religion-based polygamy.
You know what the penalty for bigamy is?
Having 2 wives. :lmao:
-
For a community that loves the constitution so much it's amazing to me how you guys love to ignore it when it isn't convenient for you.
Equal protection means that if a state has a set of laws (laws dealing with marriage licenses in this case) all people must be treated equally under those laws. Yes, that includes gay people.
So if a state has a law on the books which gives out marriage licenses to 2 consenting adults it has no right to discriminate which adults it will give them out to. If 2 men or 2 women want a marriage license a state has no right to deny that if it gives marrige licenses to one men and one woman.
There are no laws protecting polygamy in states, so trying to compare gay marriage to that is not accurate.
-
Okay, great. Show me actual law and case precedence to back up your words. Surely you can do that, can't you?
Or, in the absence of actual proof, you can keep tossing out snark. But wouldn't that kind of blow the whole high road concept that you were claiming earlier?
Oh, no, my dear, it does. It was enough for you to bring it up, it is enough for you to show the proof that it is a "basic human right" citing actual law and case precedence.
I gave you 2 cases so far where federal judges said gay people deserve equal protection just as straight people do. Both of these cases are heading to the supreme court, I'm sorry if you feel a need to ignore this.
You quoted the equal protection clause yourself and then proceeded to ignore what it said.
Marriage is not a right, it is a legal construct just the same as contract law and traffic controls.
You are absolutely right. And asw a legal construct the constitution (which Im sure you love) says you can't legally treat one group of people differently from another group of people. Which is exactly what most states in this country are doing with their marriage laws.
-
For a community that loves the constitution so much it's amazing to me how you guys love to ignore it when it isn't convenient for you.
Equal protection means that if a state has a set of laws (laws dealing with marriage licenses in this case) all people must be treated equally under those laws. Yes, that includes gay people.
Utter, self-serving fiction unsupported by history, intent or plain reading of the 14A.
There are no laws protecting polygamy in states, so trying to compare gay marriage to that is not accurate.
No but there is supposedly an amendment protecting freedom to practice religion as you see fit...except you can't. There are limits.
Ditto speech with its time, place and manner restrictions.
States can forbid felons from owning guns despite the supremacy of the RKBA.
Ditto states forbidding felons from voting despite constitutional supremacy AND the 14A.
To be president you must be at least age 35, a rather arbitrary number, despite the fact you have every other political right...unless you have not reached your state's age of majority.
Now, if specified rights can be limited why not a mere legal construct like marriage which the COTUS is silent about?
-
Do states have the right to deny gay people driving licenses? Why not?
-
Do states have the right to deny gay people driving licenses? Why not?
Certainly you're not suggesting driving takes legal precedent over voting, owning a gun, protesting or the practice of religion.
Is that really all you have left?
-
You didn't answer the question. Do states have a constitutional right to deny gay people driving licenses. I assume your answer is no. Why?
-
You didn't answer the question. Do states have a constitutional right to deny gay people driving licenses. I assume your answer is no. Why?
Don't play indignant shitbag with me, shitbag.
Before you asked your insipid dodge I asked, "Now, if specified rights can be limited why not a mere legal construct like marriage which the COTUS is silent about?"
Which, if you bothered to pay attention to other people's arguments as much as you demand they pay attention to yours, you would notice it probably answers your insipid dodge.
Now why don't you ****ing answer my ****ing question.
-
Do states have the right to deny gay people driving licenses? Why not?
States have the right to deny driving privileges to people for a variety of reasons. State laws on driving privileges vary greatly from state to state.......you know all of this, your argument is simply disingenuous.....
Marriage licenses are (like driver's licenses) granted by the state, therefore the states set the eligibility requirements......if you are gay and live in a state like mine that has a Constitutional Amendment forbidding gay marriage (duly voted upon by the electorate), you are free to move to a state that allows such a travesty.
doc
-
No Limit is making Bunny angry.........not good.
(http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrfquvFCy01qfe78oo1_500.png)
-
Still waiting for a simple answer to a very simple question.
Do states have a constitutional right to deny gay people driving licenses. If this question seems too complicated for you guys lets simplify it.
Do states have a cosntitutional right to deny black people driving licenses?
Why not?
-
Still waiting for a simple answer to a very simple question.
No, you're dodging the question put to you before you started dodging.
-
Do states have a constitutional right to deny gay people driving licenses.
Do they need to register as Ghay, or be known as Ghay on the license?
-
Still waiting for a simple answer to a very simple question.
Do states have a constitutional right to deny gay people driving licenses. If this question seems too complicated for you guys lets simplify it.
The answer is YES.....should they choose to do so.....as I stipulated above.....and you ignored.....
Equating being black (a race), and gay (a "lifestyle")....is not a valid argument, and will only succeed in pissing off 12% of the (black) population. Just like it did in California.
Again disingenuous....asked and answered.
doc
-
Wow, I asked a simple question on page 2 of this thread and it *still* hasn't been answered.
.
-
Do they need to register as Ghay, or be known as Ghay on the license?
I think if the vehicle is a Prius or Subaru it's implied.
-
Ok finally, I got an answer.
According to some constitutional scholars here states have a legal right to deny gay and black people driving privileges if they so choose to.
Thanks for clearing that up. Luckily federal courts disagree with you, and in the next few years we will hear on the marriage issue directly from the supreme court. And whne the supereme court rules that states must give gay people marriage licenses you all will be sitting here bitching about activist judges.
-
Ok finally, I got an answer.
According to some constitutional scholars here states have a legal right to deny gay and black people driving privileges if they so choose to.
Thanks for clearing that up. Luckily federal courts disagree with you, and in the next few years we will hear on the marriage issue directly from the supreme court. And whne the supreme court rules that states must give gay people marriage licenses you all will be sitting here bitching about activist judges.
We have no (openly) ghey people in this state....we're still enforcing our sodomy laws......we're an independent lot, in some areas still fighting the Civil War..... :fuelfire:
And I seriously doubt this SCOTUS is going to overturn DOMA.......remember there is an election next year, and the pendulum swings.......
The gheys rattling their "sabers" about court decisions overturning the collective will of the voters in the various states are the quickest way that I know of to ensure that there will be a US Constitutional Amendment enshrining marriage as between a man and woman.....a tiny (but noisy) 3% of the population is rapidly succeeding in doing serious damage to their cause.....they just don't know when to STFU......
doc
-
The definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. No law of man can ever change that. A law might be passed where it's permitted to happen, and it might even be called "marriage," but it's not marriage.
Once again, if homosexual marriage was one of the things the Constitution intended when it speaks of equal protection, it would have been happening in the USA for 200 years now. It hasn't.
.
-
Yes, a "law of men" can and will change it. Not everybody subscribes to your silly beliefs, especially not our legal system.
Your argument that its not constitutional because it hasn't been practiced yet is absolutely absurd. Does that mean slavery was constitutional because it was around for 80+ years before it was banned? Was seperate but equal constitutional because that was around for close to 200 years before it was finally changed?
-
How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot
According to some constitutional scholars here states have a legal right to deny gay and black people driving privileges if they so choose to.
It's not working.
And whne the supereme court rules that states must give gay people marriage licenses you all will be sitting here bitching about activist judges
So tell me, was it within the Gay's "rights" to find a Judge to throw out a prop (here in Cali) banning gay marriage that was passed by OVER 60% of the population?
-
Yes, a "law of men" can and will change it. Not everybody subscribes to your silly beliefs, especially not our legal system.
Never. Marriage wasn't established by mankind.
And it matters not whether they subscribe to a belief in God or not, they're still going to be held accountable. That's something else no one can change.
.
-
Yes, marriage was established by man kind. As was your silly religion.
So tell me, was it within the Gay's "rights" to find a Judge to throw out a prop (here in Cali) banning gay marriage that was passed by OVER 60% of the population?
How does one find a judge? You are telling me I can go out and pick the judges which will preside over my case? What is the process for doing that?
-
I gave you 2 cases so far where federal judges said gay people deserve equal protection just as straight people do. Both of these cases are heading to the supreme court, I'm sorry if you feel a need to ignore this.
Sorry, No Limit, you gave me 1 case (Perry v Schwarzenegger) which (in your own words) "will eventually end up in the supreme court". While it may eventually end up in the supreme court, as of right now it is a decision from the most overturned activist court in the country. If I were you, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
So, No Limit, there currently is not actual law nor any real case precedence to back up that homosexual marriage is a Federally protected "basic human right". There is a case pending, but there is nothing currently on the Federal books that says any state that issues marriage licenses to heterosexual couples must issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
You quoted the equal protection clause yourself and then proceeded to ignore what it said.
No, unlike you, I happen to have a very firm grasp on not only it's history but also it's meaning as it applies to Federal and Constitutional law.
-
Yes, a "law of men" can and will change it.
Exactly. So petition for LEGISLATION to legalize gay marriage. I defend your right to do so.
Not everybody subscribes to your silly beliefs, especially not our legal system.
Take your own advice.
Your argument that its not constitutional because it hasn't been practiced yet is absolutely absurd. Does that mean slavery was constitutional because it was around for 80+ years before it was banned? Was seperate but equal constitutional because that was around for close to 200 years before it was finally changed?
The COTUS is not a declaration of morality as if it were Holy Writ. It describes the structure and process of the US government.
-
Yes, marriage was established by man kind. As was your silly religion.
You are treading very close to a violation of our TOS.....I'd suggest that if you wish to stay here for discussion you either tone it down, or pick a different topic.
There are only a few reasons for a ban here, I'd suggest that you familiarize yourself with them.
doc
-
Sorry, No Limit, you gave me 1 case (Perry v Schwarzenegger) which (in your own words) "will eventually end up in the supreme court". While it may eventually end up in the supreme court, as of right now it is a decision from the most overturned activist court in the country. If I were you, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
So, No Limit, there currently is not actual law nor any real case precedence to back up that homosexual marriage is a Federally protected "basic human right". There is a case pending, but there is nothing currently on the Federal books that says any state that issues marriage licenses to heterosexual couples must issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
No, unlike you, I happen to have a very firm grasp on not only it's history but also it's meaning as it applies to Federal and Constitutional law.
I gave you 2 cases, I just didn't feel like looking up the name for the DOMA case, I figured you could do that yourself.
If the appeals court upholds the decision what will you say then?
-
Yes, marriage was established by man kind. As was your silly religion.
Keep believing that. It won't do you any good, but keep believing it anyway.
.
-
You are treading very close to a violation of our TOS.....I'd suggest that if you wish to stay here for discussion you either tone it down, or pick a different topic.
There are only a few reasons for a ban here, I'd suggest that you familiarize yourself with them.
doc
Where are the TOS located? If I understand you correctly calling people names is okay, but calling religion silly is not?
-
Exactly. So petition for LEGISLATION to legalize gay marriage. I defend your right to do so.
Take your own advice.
The COTUS is not a declaration of morality as if it were Holy Writ. It describes the structure and process of the US government.
Precisely....and they know that they can't get legislation passed, therefore they are attempting to "piggyback" on the Civil Rights Act.......or utilize the courts to accomplish what the electorate will, most certainly deny.
doc
-
Yes, marriage was established by man kind. As was your silly religion.
Awww, ain't it cute? Nail a self righteous liberal on their bull and they will resort to the same tactics every time: change the subject and hurl insults.
What's next, No Limit? Going to call us homophobes? Racists?
-
I gave you 2 cases, I just didn't feel like looking up the name for the DOMA case, I figured you could do that yourself.
I'm not doing your work when I asked you for examples, No Limit. Burden of proof was on you and you failed to deliver.
-
Awww, ain't it cute? Nail a self righteous liberal on their bull and they will resort to the same tactics every time: change the subject and hurl insults.
I'm so used to these dolts saying things online they wouldn't dare say to my face I don't even notice anymore.
.
-
Where are the TOS located? If I understand you correctly calling people names is okay, but calling religion silly is not?
You are free to use the search function to locate the general board rules.....forum rules are "stickied" at the top of each forum.
Should you chose to discuss religion (or the lack thereof) there is a forum for that purpose......insulting the faith of the majority of the members here is inappropriate and off-topic for this forum.
You are perfectly free to argue whether or not "gay marriage" is constitutional, however argue on the merits, not by casting aspersions on people of faith (which, by the way, constitute the majority of Americans).
doc
-
I'm not doing your work when I asked you for examples, No Limit. Burden of proof was on you and you failed to deliver.
I asked you a question, what will you say when the appeals court stands by the prop 8 decision?
For DOMA, since you are too lazy to look it up:
Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management
Windsor v. United States
-
You are free to use the search function to locate the general board rules.....forum rules are "stickied" at the top of each forum.
Should you chose to discuss religion (or the lack thereof) there is a forum for that purpose......insulting the faith of the majority of the members here is inappropriate and off-topic for this forum.
You are perfectly free to argue whether or not "gay marriage" is constitutional, however argue on the merits, not by casting aspersions on people of faith (which, by the way, constitute the majority of Americans).
doc
Fair enough. But you don't seem to have a problem with others talking about how this is God's law, not man's law.
-
Fair enough. But you don't seem to have a problem with others talking about how this is God's law, not man's law.
Because doing so isn't belittling your non-belief, it's pointing out that many people, including myself, have an understanding of where certain laws originated and how they cannot be changed by mankind, even if the laws of mankind claim differently.
Calling someone's religious beliefs, or belief in God at all, is extremely immature. Let me express that again: Extremely Immature. The dimwits at DU and other such sites put up with that type of immaturity because that's the type of poster they attract in general. This is not DU or a similar type of site.
.
-
Right, it's perfectly mature to use religion as a justification for your beliefs about marriage. But it is immature to point out that some people find religion to be absurd.
Whatever, I don't run the site so I certainly have no say in the rules even if I believe any topic should be allowed anywhere instead of using rules in an effort to limit discussion.
-
Fair enough. But you don't seem to have a problem with others talking about how this is God's law, not man's law.
You will notice that was their argument....not mine.....you asked a constitutional question, combined with a "states rights" question.....I answered it......
Personally, I believe that a faith-based response to an issue like this is a poor argument.....were it me, I would ignore it, with the understanding that our laws are really steeped in the moral foundations set by religion, historically, and therefore its influence cannot be totally dismissed.
doc
-
Homosexuals have equal protection. They are free to marry a person of opposite gender just like heterosexuals can. They may not want to, but that's their choice.
-
Personally, I believe that a faith-based response to an issue like this is a poor argument.....were it me, I would ignore it, with the understanding that our laws are really steeped in the moral foundations set by religion, historically, and therefore its influence cannot be totally dismissed.
I bring it up for a couple of reasons. As citizens, those who are believers have the right to petition our representatives to write legislation and pass laws which uphold certain moral frameworks. The political left can't seem to grasp that is a legitimate right. Their desire is for those of religious convictions to leave their beliefs at the door of their home or church. Not going to happen.
As with many things, the political left can't seem to see beyond the next 5 mintues, essentially ignoring the ultimate consequences of their actions. It's good to remind them that their way is not a way of unity among citizens or the hope of keeping the USA going for another 50 years, much less 200 years.
.
-
Right, it's perfectly mature to use religion as a justification for your beliefs about marriage. But it is immature to point out that some people find religion to be absurd.
So would you lash-out just as vehemently against the abolitionists because they were religiously motivated or do you only judge religion in realtion to your personal convenience?
-
I am not very smart...perhaps some smart nancy boy could tell me exactly what constitutional rights gays are being denied.Just as a hint to get you started. "Marriage is not a right"....carry on.
-
I bring it up for a couple of reasons. As citizens, those who are believers have the right to petition our representatives to write legislation and pass laws which uphold certain moral frameworks. The political left can't seem to grasp that is a legitimate right. Their desire is for those of religious convictions to leave their beliefs at the door of their home or church. Not going to happen.
As with many things, the political left can't seem to see beyond the next 5 minutes, essentially ignoring the ultimate consequences of their actions. It's good to remind them that their way is not a way of unity among citizens or the hope of keeping the USA going for another 50 years, much less 200 years.
No criticism of you intended.....its just that these discussions inevitably descend into a pissing contest when religion is brought into them specifically as a rebuttal to a legal issue.....particularly when, after his first response it was easy to determine that you were debating with, at least an agnostic, if not an atheist.
Just wanted to keep the discussion "between the ditches".....
doc
-
Ok finally, I got an answer.
And yet I'm still waiting for the answer to the question I asked first.
Since you're so spun up over drivers licensing and the COTUS perhaps you'd care to explain why COTUS gives you a right to not incriminate yourself but you cannot claim such a right to avoid a sobriety test and refusal can lead to immediate revocation of the license without so much as legal representation, due process or adjudication.
If COTUS trumps all how can states be allowed to legislate such conditions?
-
Just to throw a little gas on the fire.
I disagree with Dandi.
Homos do not have the right to marry.
Marriage for centuries has been the union beween male and female.
I see it as a religious ceremony, recognized by the laws of man.
I believe homos should have the right to a civil union, to suffer or benefit as the the law dictates.
I don't particularly agree with it, but, i can accept it.
It also appears the homos wish to co-opt a widely held discriptive term, and apply it towards themselves.
Does the word "gay", come to mind?
As Bondai correctly stated, marriage is not a right.
Liberals as a whole, have for decades, tried to redefine the words of the Constitution, to fit their own agenda.
The most common practice is demanding that conservatives, compromise.
Sorry, homos. You can have a civil ceremony, just not a marriage.
-
I am not very smart...perhaps some smart nancy boy could tell me exactly what constitutional rights gays are being denied.Just as a hint to get you started. "Marriage is not a right"....carry on.
^5 :cheersmate:
-
Just myself - I really don't give a rats ass about the gays getting married, under the provision that they cannot force any private entity (for example a church) to perform or endorse the service, and so long as you don't attempt to force me (as a private citizen) to approve of it or view it with anything other than disgust.
As has been stated in this thread before - It has nothing to do with "love" or "sex" - it's all about the benefits, which as I understand it a power of attorney would achieve equally as effectively.
I do however recognise it as the edge of a slippery slope towards polygamy and polyandry (All ten of us are consenting adults and legally responsible to make our decisions - so why can't we do what those two can - same logic).
It does amuse me somewhat that people who give the impression of being dogmatic atheists would support something so contrary to the evolutionary theory.
Personally I think there are far more important things to be concerned about than gays getting hitched.
-
I am still waiting for someone to show me a right that homosexuals don't have.
-
What it does say is that no state can treat individuals any different, that means if a state gives marriage licenses out to straight people it must also do so to gay people. Unless you believe that gay people aren't protected by the constitution. Let me know if you disagree with this.
If you want to argue marriage isn't a basic human right that's fine, that is your opinion and has little to do with this discussion.
If a state issues a marriage liscense between one man and one woman, then equal protection would tend to indicate that it must issue to another man and woman should they ask for it. It does not logically follow that because the state issues a marriage liscense to one man and woman that it must then issue a liscense to any and all combinations of people who ask for one.
Gay people are protected by the constitution. However the constitution does not extend them any special rights or protections not granted to anyone else.
You assert equal protection to demand special and unusual protections and rights.
-
Just to throw a little gas on the fire.
I disagree with Dandi.
Homos do not have the right to marry.
Marriage for centuries has been the union beween male and female.
I see it as a religious ceremony, recognized by the laws of man.
I believe homos should have the right to a civil union, to suffer or benefit as the the law dictates.
I don't particularly agree with it, but, i can accept it.
It also appears the homos wish to co-opt a widely held discriptive term, and apply it towards themselves.
Does the word "gay", come to mind?
As Bondai correctly stated, marriage is not a right.
Liberals as a whole, have for decades, tried to redefine the words of the Constitution, to fit their own agenda.
The most common practice is demanding that conservatives, compromise.
Sorry, homos. You can have a civil ceremony, just not a marriage.
Don't give it any ideas about a "living document".
-
what will you say when the appeals court stands by the prop 8 decision?
Oh, I don't know, probably the same thing I've said every other time a special interest minority decides to overrun the will of the electorate of the State of California.
Considering that "marriage" is not a "basic human right" that is Federally and Constitutionally protected, not even by the 14th Amendment, I don't think I'll be the one whining about this when it's all said and done.
For DOMA, since you are too lazy to look it up:
Me, lazy?
I just didn't feel like looking up the name for the DOMA case, I figured you could do that yourself.
Uh, yeah.....
:lmao:
Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management
Windsor v. United States
Marriage, not a "basic human right", see above, lather, rinse, repeat.
-
I'm so used to these dolts saying things online they wouldn't dare say to my face I don't even notice anymore.
.
Meh, I knew how this one was going to turn out, it never changes.
-
Certainly you're not suggesting driving takes legal precedent over voting, owning a gun, protesting or the practice of religion.
Is that really all you have left?
Hell, it didn't have much before that. As soon as its liberal ideology made first contact with reality (no actual law and case precedence showing homosexual marriage as a "basic human right") and crumbled, it went to flailing and hurling.
How many times have all of us seen that?
Of course, No Limit could go back to his site and encourage his posters to come on over and collect their own personal forum beatdowns in an attempt to speak troof to powa or whatever the Hell they call it...
-
How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot ...Can't be done. I offer NO Limit as a prime example.
-
How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot ...Can't be done. I offer NO Limit as a prime example.
This seems like more of a case of an idiot explaining gay rights...
-
Your argument that its not constitutional because it hasn't been practiced yet is absolutely absurd. Does that mean slavery was constitutional because it was around for 80+ years before it was banned? Was seperate but equal constitutional because that was around for close to 200 years before it was finally changed?
Slavery was Constitutional until the Constitution was amended. Separate but equal has never changed, just the viewpoints of those who misapply the intent.
This is too easy.
If it's Constitutional, then why hasn't it been practiced since the US Constitution was ratified?
They never answer this.
If the equal protection clause gives homosexuals the right to marry, then it was that way from the time it was written. So if one could turn back the clock to 1830, if the same arguments were to be made then concerning homosexual marriage are the ones being made today, would homosexual marriage have become law in 1830? No Limit and all the other libs have to answer that question. Because the Constitution hasn't changed, only the way it's viewed by some.
If homosexual marriage would not have been declared legal in 1830 based upon the same arguments being made today (and I highly doubt it would have been), then it should not be made law today. The only argument they have is that we are a more "enlightened" society and therefore what is acceptable now was not acceptable then. But that's an emotional argument, not one based upon what the law states.
If the US Constitution is a living, breathing document of which its meaning can be intrepreted based upon the current societial trends, then it is a worthless document.
.
-
Really? Gay people asking for a simple right to marry each other is shoving their sexuality down your throat? Please, explain this logic of yours to me in greater detail, I am intrigued. Are you saying that if gay people are allowed to marry you will have no choice but to become gay yourself?
Here is my logic on this issue - I don't know if its been repeated downthread but here goes.
Marriage is a condition defined by religion, that the state recognizes and permits, as freedom of religion demands.
Civil Marriage is a condition permitted by the state, that in many ways mimics religious marriage - the state decides what may be considered a Civil Marriage.
Civil Union is a condition permitted by the state, that in many ways mimics civil marriage - the state decides what may constitute a Civil Union.
All states permit marriage - as freedom of religion dictates. The states themselves determine laws based on civil marriage and civil union, and what may or may not be permitted.
The first, marriage - is permitted nationally, as it falls under Freedom of Religion, and it is in The Constitution.
The second two, fall under States Rights, and are determined by the state in which the union and/or civil marriage is performed.
Now to answer the question..
- If you are gay, and wish to form a civil union with your partner within a state that permits it, that is your right.
- If you are straight, and wish to marry your partner in a church ceremony as is permitted federally, that is your right.
HOWEVER ::::
Thats not what the gay community wants, is it ?
What it wants is something that is not permitted via The Constitution, so what it should do is work toward an amendment.
Instead, what it has been doing is attempting to graft onto 'all men are created equal' which instead will work to REMOVE federally recognized religious marriage from The Constitution. Because, there are only two courses of action ;
A ) Amendment permitting marriage of anyone to anyone. (Hard to do)
B ) Remove language that recognizes Religious Marriage federally. (Much easier to do)
--Now, lets move onto the slams at religion...
I love how you guys are all for small government, except when it's to deny people basic human rights or to shove your fairy tales...I mean religion...down people's throats.
Firstly - Regardless of one's beliefs, the United States is based on laws that derive from codes that dictate good and moral behavior in the Old & New Testament. If you dislike that condition, work to change The Constitution. It can be done. It has been done.
Secondly - When your opening sentence slams Christianity, do you really expect to end up in a civil debate ?
-
If marriage is a Constitutional right as No Limit suggests, then state laws against first cousins marrying are unconstitutional, right?
-
If marriage is a Constitutional right as No Limit suggests, then state laws against first cousins marrying are unconstitutional, right?
If nl is correct, yes. Any law barring any type of marriage would be wrong.
-
Miskie, good post, however, I've made two changes:
Now to answer the question..
- If you are gay, and wish to form a civil union with your partner within a state that permits it, that is your privilege.
- If you are straight, and wish to marry your partner in a church ceremony as is permitted federally, that is your privilege.
"Marriage" is not an enumerated right in the Constitution for either religious or secular definitions. Extending First Amendment interpretations of religious freedom to marriage is a logical fallacy if the remainder of your excellent post is correct.
doc
-
Miskie, good post, however, I've made two changes:
"Marriage" is not an enumerated right in the Constitution for either religious or secular definitions. Extending First Amendment interpretations of religious freedom to marriage is a logical fallacy if the remainder of your excellent post is correct.
doc
Yes, true - And an excellent clarification - I meant 'privilege' when I used 'right' - which can be confused either innocently or intentionally with the BoR..
There is no defined 'right to marry' in The Constitution, the BoR, or any of the amendments - current or removed.
-
Yes, true - And an excellent clarification - I meant 'privilege' when I used 'right' - which can be confused either innocently or intentionally with the BoR..
There is no defined 'right to marry' in The Constitution, the BoR, or any of the amendments - current or removed.
Precisely....we simply cannot let liberals (or gheys) collective noses under the "Rights" tent, or we'll be forever doomed.....it will never stop, until the Constitution is totally meaningless.
doc
-
Precisely....we simply cannot let liberals (or gheys) collective noses under the "Rights" tent, or we'll be forever doomed.....it will never stop, until the Constitution is totally meaningless.
doc
You mean like the right to health care since it is guaranteed in the Constitution? :-)
-
Still waiting for a simple answer to a very simple question.
Do states have a constitutional right to deny gay people driving licenses. If this question seems too complicated for you guys lets simplify it.
Do states have a cosntitutional right to deny black people driving licenses?
Why not?
States have the constitutional right to deny driver's licenses to anyone. Every state has quite a number of laws about just that subject, in fact. They deny licenses to people under certain ages and with certain disabilities. Just as blind people can't obtain a driver's license because they don't fulfill one of the requirements, two people of the same sex can't be married because they don't fulfill one of the requirements.
Why are you guys for government calling gay marriage one thing and "traditional" marriage another?
Why can't the government simply issue marriage licenses no matter what kind of marriage between 2 consenting adults it is?
Actually, this option would be perfectly acceptable to many of us. no matter what kind of marriage between 2 consenting adults it is...siblings, parent and child, or any other 2 adults with no basis on any sexual actions between those 2 consenting adults. Remove sex from it, and allow any 2 people to marry, but not necessarily to copulate. This would allow parents of handicapped children more options to care for their adult kids, would allow siblings to have simpler inheritance rights and the ability to insure each other, etc. It could well allow actual roommates the ability to save money on their taxes and insurance costs. It's just too bad the gays are so intent on basing their special rights solely on what happens in "the privacy of their own bedrooms." (Unless they happen to be practicing in gay bars, bath houses, public restrooms, or on Main Street.)
For a community that loves the constitution so much it's amazing to me how you guys love to ignore it when it isn't convenient for you.
Equal protection means that if a state has a set of laws (laws dealing with marriage licenses in this case) all people must be treated equally under those laws. Yes, that includes gay people.
So if a state has a law on the books which gives out marriage licenses to 2 consenting adults it has no right to discriminate which adults it will give them out to. If 2 men or 2 women want a marriage license a state has no right to deny that if it gives marrige licenses to one men and one woman.
There are no laws protecting polygamy in states, so trying to compare gay marriage to that is not accurate.
You seem to have very little understanding of the limits put on heterosexual marriage. There are age limits, residency limits and relationship limits, just to name a few. One other limit is the sex of the participants. This limit has been in place for years, decades, centuries...actually, for all recorded history. There are those working very, very hard to force their own definition of this union upon the entire country at this time, trying desperately to change an ancient and long-respected institution to benefit their own egos, and their acceptance issues. This is truly an example of "shoving beliefs down the throats of others." In fact, down the throats of more than 70% of the voters of every state that has put this issue on a ballot. One side is truly abusive, egotistical, and demanding...and YOU are on it. Congrats. or whatever.
The way I see it, when same sex couples need to decide what type of birth control they'll use before they "take a chance on getting pregnant," they can start calling their "thing" marriage. Until then, the best they can manage is a poor copy.
-
Do states have the right to deny gay people driving licenses? Why not?
Apples and oranges here, but I will play. Sure the states have the right to deny gay people driver's licenses. The right to a license is not currently regulated by the federal government. Of course this law would be overturned and by federal courts because it is aimed at denying a class of people a privilege afforded others with no valid grounds to deny the privilege to begin with.
Marriage is a different animal all together. We don't have the room here to go in to the biological/historical/cultural reasons for marriage so I will assume that you are familiar with them so I'll hit just the high lights. Men and women have the ability to make babies. Marriage originated to first protect children as they grew. The mother was busy raising the children and the father was busy fighting of wild animals and when possible turning those animals in to food for the table. Since human children grow slowly and first need protection because they can't survive on then own and then as they get older they need taming so that they can learn to behave in a manner that will allow them to fit in to the tribe/society to which the family belongs when the time comes to take their place in it. Traditionally a man his wife and their children made up a family and families group together to create societies. Family procreate and society grows and continues. This in a nutshell is the foundation of marriage. Society reserves the right to protect itself from anything that it deems threatening to the order of things in respect to its foundations.
As someone pointed out, marriage to first cousins is forbidden because the offspring of first cousins have a higher chance of being born defect and thus strain on the family and society that must protect it. Western Society has determined that and individual with multiple spouses is not a positive for the family and society so that relationship is banned. Society chooses to prohibit lots of things because of the potential negative impact those things my have on the family and society.
Homosexuals driving do not present a danger to the order of society. Homosexual marriage, however, does present a threat to the family unit and thus to society. A homosexual couple cannot naturally procreate so they cannot bear children to contribute to society's growth or it's continued existence. Also once homosexual marriage becomes the norm the other forms of marriage will start jockeying for acceptance. Polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia... where does society draw the line?
Denying homosexuals a drivers license in no way protects the society from something it might consider harmful.
-
You mean like the right to health care since it is guaranteed in the Constitution? :-)
..And apparently the right to squat anywhere at anytime A-La Occupy..
-
Commenter "no limit" is just shopping for inflammitory remarks made by CC members.
Such comments will be used as an example in an upcoming post in LU.
We do this on occasion with the DUmp people, so, I really can't fault him for that.
His comments here have definately brought out some insight.
I doubt it was what he was looking for unless he takes words out of context and massages them. :-)
Things may get rather interesting when the former hog-tied Dumpmonkeys find they may post about us freely, on LU.
The monkeys are now free! :panic:
-
What an annoying little twat you are. I'm one of those on this site who could care less who you marry. I must say though that your hated for Christains could be compared to hatred for gays.
-
Why is it when a liberal shows up here, the first thing they run to is the gay marriage discussions?
Boring boring boring. Same ****ing thing every time.
-
Why is it when a liberal shows up here, the first thing they run to is the gay marriage discussions?
Boring boring boring. Same ****ing thing every time.
Do you want to get into economics with them? Gay marriage is probably their best case for making any reasonable argument.
-
Why is it when a liberal shows up here, the first thing they run to is the gay marriage discussions?
Boring boring boring. Same ****ing thing every time.
I think some of it is the hope of baiting decent and civilized people, with the additional hope that an inappropriate comment might be made, which the liberal can take back to other liberals, saying, "look, this is what they're all like."
But that's old, and we're used to it. The trick doesn't work like it did some years ago.
-
I think some of it is the hope of baiting decent and civilized people, with the additional hope that an inappropriate comment might be made, which the liberal can take back to other liberals, saying, "look, this is what they're all like."
But that's old, and we're used to it. The trick doesn't work like it did some years ago.
:racist:
>snort<
-
Well, I imagine oat that nolimit is one of those poor cocksuckers who is picked on, beaten,
thrown into the camps, executed, and burned on a large fire with the other gays, gypsies, slavs, Jews, etc.
-
Do states have the right to deny gay people driving licenses? Why not?
States do have the right to deny a drivers license to those that have Grand Mal seizures, are blind, behind on child support, have a number of convictions for Drunk driving, The deaf can be licensed but must have big mirrors on the front of the car. Some states will yank the licence of a driver if their doctor calls in that they are too old, loss of reflexes, or have a debilitating heart condition.
Age limit, no 10 year old can be licensed but is allowed to drive a tractor or truck on private property. Driving is a privilege not a RIGHT.
So, what does SEXUAL preference have to do with a drivers license, a hunting license, buy a home, register a pet, vote or get medical care???
Marriage my dear came into being in the past to insure the kingdom next door does not attack yours. Marriage is to protect the children and wives from having a man just up and leave them to fend for themselves. Marriage is to insure the children have both male and female training in how to become an adult themselves. Sexist sure.
Woman teach their girls how to cook and make a home for children of their own. Males taught their sons to hunt. fish, to provide for their family's. How to Protect their family's when the woman were pregnant and could not march out to war.
Two men raising an adopted son with little female bonding, having no idea of what the opposite sex goes through, can leave the child adrift in the world as an adult. If it is true children are born Gay, is it not also true that children are born heterosexual ????
Two woman raising a male child can be disastrous, children mimic the actions of their parents and will soon be calling their skivies panties.
While we worry about Gay children born into a heterosexual family-----What happens to a heterosexual adopted into a Gay family ???
Like it or not, there are 2 sexes on earth for most mammals, ever wonder if the dinosaurs died out because they for some reason all turned GAY?????
Ever cook, the word marriage is used to denote two separate things to make a new mixture. Someone has to come up with a new word for same sex coupling that is unnatural in the scheme of things. One cannot fool mother nature.
-
I love how you guys are all for small government, except when it's to deny people basic human rights or to shove your fairy tales...I mean religion...down people's throats.
This from a "guy" that has Jesus as an avatar.
What is even weirder is he is accusing the faithful of forcing their beliefs down others throats while the gay community is trying to force their beliefs down everyones collective throat.
-
What is even weirder is he is accusing the faithful of forcing their beliefs down others throats while the gay community is trying to force their beliefs down everyones collective throat.
"You're wrong for judging people!" has been the ages-old, self-contradicting battlecry of hypocrites the world over.
-
Equal protection means that if a state has a set of laws (laws dealing with marriage licenses in this case) all people must be treated equally under those laws. Yes, that includes gay people.
So if a state has a law on the books which gives out marriage licenses to 2 consenting adults it has no right to discriminate which adults it will give them out to. If 2 men or 2 women want a marriage license a state has no right to deny that if it gives marrige licenses to one men and one woman.
Fail.
I make no claim to be a constitutional scholar or a jurist, indeed I'm not an American. As I understand the case, the states cannot discriminate against a person because of the fact of him being gay - fine and good, the states do not do so; they do, however, accept the natural law reality that marriage is legitimately limited to couples of different sexes. If you go to get a marriage licence, does the clerk ever ask you whether you're gay or straight? No, merely whether there is a man and a woman in the couple to whom a licence is being issued.
There are no laws protecting polygamy in states, so trying to compare gay marriage to that is not accurate.
It is precisely the same issue. Your contention is that states should accept any pair of consenting adults who desire to wed; yet in the same breath refuse to extend that protction to a consenting trio, quartet &c. You oppose the natural law definition of marriage, and posit marriage's nature as linked exclusively to consent...then refuse to allow three consenting adults to contract a marriage.
-
Polygamy and to a much lesser extent polyandry have a much better claim to being within the bounds of marriage as human cultures have defined it in practice than bone smugglers stuffing each other.
-
Advocating Same-Sex Marriage: Consistency Is Another Victim
by Matthew J. Franck
December 15, 2011
In deciding the basic question, people should ask themselves, what is marriage? For it is a thing with a nature, and a purpose. Marriage has always been understood, throughout human history, as a comprehensive union of a man and a woman, grounded in their complementary natures—a couple of the kind that is capable of generating offspring, and being father and mother to them. (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4451)
...
Same-sex marriage advocates have so far been unable to give an answer to the question “What is marriage?†that does not result in the complete collapse of all shape and form to the institution.
Several more excellent points in this article
-
My feeling is a marriage is between a man and a woman, end of discussion. If same sex couples want to share a life together, adopt, buy a house, go for it....
In all honesty however, if one of my parents decided to have a same sex partner, I would have a hard time with it...
I may find other women attractive, but that doesn't mean I want to live with them as a man and a wife would.
-
I may find other women attractive, but that doesn't mean I want to live with them as a man and a wife would.
:therock:
-
Adam and Steve have the "right" to do whatever they want. Not a dang thing stopping them from finding a pastor to marry them and have a ceremony with friends and family share in the celebration. What they want is to be recognized by the government. IMO, I'd just as soon see the government out of the marriage business (can you say "flat tax") but plenty of groups aren't allowed to marry. Polygamists can only marry one of their wives. For them, this is deeply held religious belief. They simply have meaningful, religious ceremonies binding them together. And at last time I checked, the government won't come in and arrest 2 gays who are living together as man and man or woman and woman. Gay people think they have it bad, they should try choosing polygamy as an alternative lifestyle.
Cindie
-
I don't have a problem with gay people. I have a problem with gay "progressives". Then again, I have a problem with all "progressives". These are the f'ers that aren't content with just living their lives like everyone else, no they want to force others to accept them as if it's somehow a special arrangement. Same can be said about atheist "progressives". I know atheists and the ones I know could care less what you put in front of the city hall on Christmas day. They also don't care if you wish them a merry Christmas. They do it also, even though they don't believe. It's something about being a "progressive".