Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[mudwhistle]

I don't know about you guys but I knew I was straight when I saw a girls naked ass for the first time and got a chubby.

That doesn't always work in Brazil.

It would suck if you discovered she had a tuck job going.

 

[Valerie]

It will all come down to can you vote on what rights others are allowed to have

You mean privileges, not rights.

No. Rights. The right to equal treatment.

Yes. Marriage laws are State laws and the 14th amendment prohibits States from denying the equal protection of the laws to any person within its jurisdiction.


Since Civil Marriage automatically confers hundreds of legal rights and responsibilities on couples, the State is Constitutionally required to offer equal protection under the law to ALL couples.

Although such things can become subject to majority vote via the State petition process, they are always ultimately subject to Constitutional review!

 

[rightwinger]

There are genetic reasons why you are a male or female.. there are genetic reasons why you have brown eyes or blue eyes.. there are genetic reasons why your skin is brown or white or yellow or whatever pigment...

There is no proof that there is a genetic cause to being gay or what you are attracted to... while it may not be ENTIRELY correct that it is conscious choice, it can also be based on exposure, experiences, conditions, etc..

just sayin'

Who cares if it is genetic or a personal choice?

If you are in love with someone of your own sex you should be allowed to marry them if you CHOOSE........just like anyone else

Because we are allowed to accept or not accept the choices of others without having government force it upon us.... hence why government should be out of the choices of 'marriage' except for things revolving around government such as taxes, inheritance, etc...

You have the right not to accept the behavior of others... you don't have to hire a person who chooses the have facial tattoos or who openly participates in satanic rituals... you don't have to rent your available room out to someone who does not meet behavior that is compatible with yours

And that is the thing here.... have the freedom to choose whomever you wish to be with, file a tax return with them, pass on your worldly possessions, make medical decisions when they are in a coma... fine.. great... but do not use government to force your choice upon the freedoms of others...

being yellow skinned or brown eyes or male or a dwarf or whatever is not a choice and should not be subject to rejection (unless you are a paraplegic applying to paint houses or crap that is that obvious).... a pattern or history of behavior and/or choice can be subject to the freedom of others to accept that behavior or not

I agree that government should be out of the marriage business. But if they are going to extend legal privileges to one group they must extend it equally to all. If they recognize marriage for taxes, survivor benefits, life and death decisions for heterosexuals......they must do the same for homosexuals

The government shouldnt be telling you who you are allowed to love

 

[Katzndogz]

Who cares if it is genetic or a personal choice?

If you are in love with someone of your own sex you should be allowed to marry them if you CHOOSE........just like anyone else

Because we are allowed to accept or not accept the choices of others without having government force it upon us.... hence why government should be out of the choices of 'marriage' except for things revolving around government such as taxes, inheritance, etc...

You have the right not to accept the behavior of others... you don't have to hire a person who chooses the have facial tattoos or who openly participates in satanic rituals... you don't have to rent your available room out to someone who does not meet behavior that is compatible with yours

And that is the thing here.... have the freedom to choose whomever you wish to be with, file a tax return with them, pass on your worldly possessions, make medical decisions when they are in a coma... fine.. great... but do not use government to force your choice upon the freedoms of others...

being yellow skinned or brown eyes or male or a dwarf or whatever is not a choice and should not be subject to rejection (unless you are a paraplegic applying to paint houses or crap that is that obvious).... a pattern or history of behavior and/or choice can be subject to the freedom of others to accept that behavior or not

I agree that government should be out of the marriage business. But if they are going to extend legal privileges to one group they must extend it equally to all. If they recognize marriage for taxes, survivor benefits, life and death decisions for heterosexuals......they must do the same for homosexuals

The government shouldnt be telling you who you are allowed to love

Not even if who you love is a cocker spaniel.

 

[bodecea]

Firearms are most assuredly IN the Constitution. Or did you miss the 2nd Amendment?

Arms are....but show me the word "gun(s)" in the Constitution. Is it right next to the words "separation of church and state"?

Firearms. care to define what a gun is?

Care to define what "separation of church and state" is?

If "separation of church and state" does not exist because those words are not in the Constitution, then protection of "gun" ownership does not exist either because the word "gun" is not in the Constitution.

Unless you want to say that's somehow......er......different.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The nation is becoming too degenerate, across the board, to not be forced to accept one more depravity as normal behavior.

It's not depravity.

What depravity is...... is telling blacks they are not worthy of being in the company of whites

What depravity is....is telling a white and a black who love each other that they are not allowed to marry

What depravity is......is telling people they are not allowed to show who they love in public

We are a much more moral society than we used to be. It is not even close

And yet a man that loves and is loved by 2 or 3 women can NOT LEGALLY WED them. A Brother that is an adult that loves and is loved by his Sister can not legally marry her. Are those also Civil Rights, or have I found something in the bedroom you ARE opposed to?

 

[Harry Dresden]

We have already been through this with serving blacks and interracial weddings which were also banned at one time

You are equating a normal man and a normal woman who's skin color is different with an abnormal behavior. So it doesn't make any sense. It's like saying we now allow blacks to sit at the lunch counter so we must also allow masturbating into the punch bowl.

Katz you are going too far, allowing blacks to sit at a lunch counter is nothing like allowing peepz to wack off in public.

you got that right HG.....

 

[rightwinger]

They let California citizens vote on it via direct democracy - they voted against the idea.

TYRANNY...

The Tenth Amendment won...

Our country is going to shit...

I suppose if you don't like a constitutional outcome you find a judge that will take your position..

Every progressive in this country belongs in prison.

If the Democrat FDR can throw the Japanese, communists and Italians in prison then we can throw progressives in prison - using their own Authoritarian logic...

The Libertarian wants to tell others who they are allowed to fall in love with

The Libertarian wants government in your bedroom

The libertarian embraces the Bill of Rights and more specifically the Tenth Amendment.

Meanwhile....the Libertarian ignores the 14th amendment

 

[xotoxi]

Arms are....but show me the word "gun(s)" in the Constitution. Is it right next to the words "separation of church and state"?

Firearms. care to define what a gun is?

Arms is a subjective term that could mean guns, but it could mean knives. swords, or sticks....

Guns is not in the 2nd amendment.

Actually it specifically refers to bear arms.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What am I forcing on the people? Am I forcing you to have a gay wedding now?

So if a gay couple goes to a photographer and a caterer for their wedding plans, you would totally respect a denial of service. If a landlord refused to rent to a same sex couple, you would feel they were completely within their rights.

No more and no less than if that photographer and a caterer refused service to an interracial couple or an interfaith couple.

In other words YOU DO want to force your life style down others throats, thanks for admitting it.

 

[Mr.Nick]

They let California citizens vote on it via direct democracy - they voted against the idea.

TYRANNY...

The Tenth Amendment won...

Our country is going to shit...

I suppose if you don't like a constitutional outcome you find a judge that will take your position..

Every progressive in this country belongs in prison.

If the Democrat FDR can throw the Japanese, communists and Italians in prison then we can throw progressives in prison - using their own Authoritarian logic...

The Libertarian wants to tell others who they are allowed to fall in love with

The Libertarian wants government in your bedroom

Boy, you could not be more wrong. Libertarian policy is to get the government out of marriage entirely.

No cash and prizes for anyone.

It does not get more equal and more small government than that!

You're right - the government(s) shouldn't recognize marriage....

Marriage is not an issue the government should be involved.

If a state government want's to they have every right to do such and if the residents of the state do not want - and democratically - reject civil unions then that is that.

The federal government should play no role in state issues - especially after direct democracy.

 

[rightwinger]

Because we are allowed to accept or not accept the choices of others without having government force it upon us.... hence why government should be out of the choices of 'marriage' except for things revolving around government such as taxes, inheritance, etc...

You have the right not to accept the behavior of others... you don't have to hire a person who chooses the have facial tattoos or who openly participates in satanic rituals... you don't have to rent your available room out to someone who does not meet behavior that is compatible with yours

And that is the thing here.... have the freedom to choose whomever you wish to be with, file a tax return with them, pass on your worldly possessions, make medical decisions when they are in a coma... fine.. great... but do not use government to force your choice upon the freedoms of others...

being yellow skinned or brown eyes or male or a dwarf or whatever is not a choice and should not be subject to rejection (unless you are a paraplegic applying to paint houses or crap that is that obvious).... a pattern or history of behavior and/or choice can be subject to the freedom of others to accept that behavior or not

I agree that government should be out of the marriage business. But if they are going to extend legal privileges to one group they must extend it equally to all. If they recognize marriage for taxes, survivor benefits, life and death decisions for heterosexuals......they must do the same for homosexuals

The government shouldnt be telling you who you are allowed to love

Not even if who you love is a cocker spaniel.

BINGO!

There it is.......the first Beastiality is equivalent to homosexuality post

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So if a gay couple goes to a photographer and a caterer for their wedding plans, you would totally respect a denial of service. If a landlord refused to rent to a same sex couple, you would feel they were completely within their rights.

No more and no less than if that photographer and a caterer refused service to an interracial couple or an interfaith couple.

You personally would find that the photographer and the caterer has the right then to deny services based on their personal opinion.

That is NOT what she said. She said since the law FORCES them to serve anyone that she is ok with that.

 

[g5000]

The government shouldnt be telling you who you are allowed to love

Not even if who you love is a cocker spaniel.

BINGO!

There it is.......the first Beastiality is equivalent to homosexuality post

Such people have chosen to be stupid.

 

[Harry Dresden]

That is just MY POINT! Skin color is NOTHING like behavior. Not close, not in the same ball park.

sure about that?.....how come some people act differently around people who are not the same shade as they are?.....

 

[Mr.Nick]

The Libertarian wants to tell others who they are allowed to fall in love with

The Libertarian wants government in your bedroom

The libertarian embraces the Bill of Rights and more specifically the Tenth Amendment.

Meanwhile....the Libertarian ignores the 14th amendment

Meanwhile 10 is before 14...

Amendments XI-XXVII are redundant..

 

[g5000]

The Libertarian wants to tell others who they are allowed to fall in love with

The Libertarian wants government in your bedroom

Boy, you could not be more wrong. Libertarian policy is to get the government out of marriage entirely.

No cash and prizes for anyone.

It does not get more equal and more small government than that!

You're right - the government(s) shouldn't recognize marriage....

Marriage is not an issue the government should be involved.

If a state government want's to they have every right to do such and if the residents of the state do not want - and democratically - reject civil unions then that is that.

The federal government should play no role in state issues - especially after direct democracy.

I'm all for the state and federal governments removing cash and prizes from the table. You should be getting married for other reasons.

 

[rightwinger]

The Libertarian wants to tell others who they are allowed to fall in love with

The Libertarian wants government in your bedroom

Boy, you could not be more wrong. Libertarian policy is to get the government out of marriage entirely.

No cash and prizes for anyone.

It does not get more equal and more small government than that!

You're right - the government(s) shouldn't recognize marriage....

Marriage is not an issue the government should be involved.

If a state government want's to they have every right to do such and if the residents of the state do not want - and democratically - reject civil unions then that is that.

The federal government should play no role in state issues - especially after direct democracy.

So you oppose the Defense of Marriage Act

 

[jillian]

Homosexuals didn't get to vote?

So the 95% who are not homosexual got to vote on what rights could be extended to the 5% who are

It doesn't really matter because I'm not arguing whether or not gay marriage should be legal. I already said I have no problem with it.

My point is that there is no reason for people to participate in a voter referendum if in the end one party will sue to get the results they ultimately want.

people's rights shouldn't be put to a referendum, imo. your rights are either protected or they aren't.

people would probably vote for jim crow laws in certain places if that was put to a referendum.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I could never understand why you would be legally allowed to marry one woman and have illegitimate children with the other two but if you tried to legally acknowledge the other relationships you are breaking the law

Polygamy invariably means one man, more than one woman. It never means one woman, several men.

And so women end up subordinated to men. So that is harm #1.

Through the basics of math, available women for marriage become more and more scarce, which inevitably leads to female children being forced into marriage. It is also very common for incestous marriages to occur for the same reasons. So that is harm #2 and harm #3.

The slippery slope argument fails.

Really... polygamy invariably means one man and many women?

He has no leg to stand on so he is making shit up to justify HIS aversion to something he does not like. While telling us to suck it up and live with it cause somehow States do not have the right to tell gays no but can tell multiples and siblings no.