How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

[Wineslob]

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?

[USA4ME]

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.

.

[No Limit]

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?

[wasp69]

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.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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.

[TVDOC]

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

[No Limit]

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?

[USA4ME]

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.

.

[No Limit]

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?

[TVDOC]

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

[wasp69]

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?

[wasp69]

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.

[USA4ME]

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.

.

[TVDOC]

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

[No Limit]

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

[No Limit]

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.

[USA4ME]

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.

.

[No Limit]

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.

[TVDOC]

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

[dandi]

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.

[USA4ME]

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.

.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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?

[Bondai]

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.

[TVDOC]

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

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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?