Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage

[Texanmike]

Yes, you cant violate anothers constitutional rights, voting like prop 8 in cali was just that.im not sure how many times this has to be told to you people, but seriously buy a clue.

Where do you find a right in the Constitution? Without using interpretation, show me where you think that the right to be married lies in the Constitution? Better yet, show me where that authority is taken away from the states?

Mike

Gee...you got us there. NO ONE has the right to marry.

You are correct. The power for that has been left to the states. (Or we could just vote to have the state the hell out of our vows and have all marriages treated like contracts?)

Mike

 

[bodecea]

It's about unhealthy lifestyles. Not Dictating.

Alcoholics die fairly young
Drug users die young
Smokers die young
Overeating you die fairly young
Homosexuals die fairly young.

So, in order to not appear the self-righteous hypocrite, you are fighting to keep all of those groups from being afforded civil marriage licenses.


Right?


(BTW, are you aware that one of the fastest growing businesses catering to gay clientele is the Retirement Community business?....so much for "dieing fairly young")

How many times do I have to say that gay's should have their rights under the law?
I bet you that they did not run around on their partners either and that's how they made it to a ripe old age.[/QUOTE]

You sure know a lot about gays......and what we do and don't do. (actually, that was sarcasm...figured you wouldn't get that)

 

[Valerie]

To those of you invoking the Bible, AGAIN (yawn), SO WHAT if your God thinks someone is a "sinner"...?


Wake up and get a clue, God said we are ALL sinners, so please DO try to get past that point with your failed logic... The US Constitution does not defer to the Bible and the 14th Amendment does not exclude SINNERS.



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.

Do you know the intention of the text which you are quoting?

Mike

Yes, I do... That's the 14th Amendment to the US constitution, of course.



Did you know that Marriage laws originate in State law? Did you know that that the public status of being "Married" conveys certain rights and privileges to heterosexual couples, but the same such rights and privileges are abridged for homosexual couples...? True story!

 

[bodecea]

Where do you find a right in the Constitution? Without using interpretation, show me where you think that the right to be married lies in the Constitution? Better yet, show me where that authority is taken away from the states?

Mike

Gee...you got us there. NO ONE has the right to marry.

You are correct. The power for that has been left to the states. (Or we could just vote to have the state the hell out of our vows and have all marriages treated like contracts?)

Mike

Ah, so marriage is based on the POWERS of the states....and the 14th amendment says those powers must be used EQUALLY among the People....thank you for proving my point.

Denying law-abiding, tax-paying gay citizens the same POWERS as straights is against the 14th amendment.

Furthermore, denying equal rights based on gender is unconstitutional.

 

[Seawytch]

It's about unhealthy lifestyles. Not Dictating.
Alcoholics die fairly young
Drug users die young
Smokers die young
Overeating you die fairly young
Homosexuals die fairly young.

Well, let's start with the FACT that druggies, alcoholics, smokers and fatties aren't prohibited from marrying so your ridiculous argument is moot.

Follow that up with the FACT that "homosexuals" don't "die young" and that leaves you with nothing.

 

[Seawytch]

How many times do I have to say that gay's should have their rights under the law?
I bet you that they did not run around on their partners either and that's how they made it to a ripe old age.

Their rights to include legal marriage as well?

I know quite a few healthy, promiscuous gay men. Being gay isn't unhealthy...having unprotected sex is...but that goes for EVERYONE.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The health issue is not . . . an issue that determines whether a set of people can marry.

It's a non-starter.

The issue is whether the civil rights of gays under the 14th Amendment have been violated.

The courts, not us, will settle the constitutionality of universal marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

States have the ability to define what marriage is. In Oklahoma we have a constitutional amendment that defines it as one man and one woman. Further, our state does not recognize marriages that do not conform to that definition from other states. It is a state issue and it should be. Don't like it? Then don't live there.

Loving v Virginia disagrees that marriage is a "states rights" issue.

I also think that when Prop 8 from California gets to the Supreme Court, it's going to be bad news for those of you that want it over turned. But hey, we'll see.

You think so? Based on what? What's the precedent? What reasonable person standard would be used to continue denying marriage equality?

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, there's no such thing as rights. Interesting theory you have. Does it stand up anywhere?

yeah. to fucking reality. Ask the Japanese Americans who were alive in 1942 about "rights". Oh, wait. THey didn't have any. They just locked their asses up and everyone was just fine with it. Except for the Japanese Americans.

Okay, we'll play it your way. When have "privileges" ever been granted by a majority vote on a ballot?

The fact is they haven't. The "privilege" for women and blacks to vote was not put to a majority vote. The "privilege" for blacks to marry whites was not granted by a majority vote.

No, those were put up to the AMENDATORY process. And laws passed in Congress and the State Legislatures. And everyone agreed that they SHOULD be changed. 15th Amendment was a constitutional amendment, not a decision by a court. same with the 19th, which I think is less a good idea every day.

Besides, those are states of being, not lifestyle choices.

It's only for those "icky" gays that the "majority" has to decide what "privileges" they are granted.

Hey,if you can get an amendment passed to grant you special rights, have at it.

 

[Texanmike]

Gee...you got us there. NO ONE has the right to marry.

You are correct. The power for that has been left to the states. (Or we could just vote to have the state the hell out of our vows and have all marriages treated like contracts?)

Mike

Ah, so marriage is based on the POWERS of the states....and the 14th amendment says those powers must be used EQUALLY among the People....thank you for proving my point.

Denying law-abiding, tax-paying gay citizens the same POWERS as straights is against the 14th amendment.

Furthermore, denying equal rights based on gender is unconstitutional.

Wow. Do you know how ridiculous your assertion is? If the ratifiers of the 14th amendment were really trying to take marriage licensing away from the states then why did they not do that?

Second do you understand that there are a difference between individual rights and privileges and privileges held in a group of people?

Third, what? What are you going on about "powers" for?

Do you know why the 14th amendment was written? Did it have an actual purpose or do you think the writers and ratifiers all just put down as many words as they could on a piece of paper so that someone could come back a century later and use them to mean whatever fit them later?

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

The health issue is not . . . an issue that determines whether a set of people can marry.

It's a non-starter.

The issue is whether the civil rights of gays under the 14th Amendment have been violated.

The courts, not us, will settle the constitutionality of universal marriage.

God lets hope not. Our SCOTUS may just be the biggest threat to civil liberties in the country.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

To those of you invoking the Bible, AGAIN (yawn), SO WHAT if your God thinks someone is a "sinner"...?


Wake up and get a clue, God said we are ALL sinners, so please DO try to get past that point with your failed logic... The US Constitution does not defer to the Bible and the 14th Amendment does not exclude SINNERS.



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.

Do you know the intention of the text which you are quoting?

Mike

Yes, I do... That's the 14th Amendment to the US constitution, of course.



Did you know that Marriage laws originate in State law? Did you know that that the public status of being "Married" conveys certain rights and privileges to heterosexual couples, but the same such rights and privileges are abridged for homosexual couples...? True story!

I didn't ask you if you know where it can be found. I asked if you knew the intent. Look like 2 posts above this, I'm too tired to repost the question.

Mike

 

[bodecea]

You are correct. The power for that has been left to the states. (Or we could just vote to have the state the hell out of our vows and have all marriages treated like contracts?)

Mike

Ah, so marriage is based on the POWERS of the states....and the 14th amendment says those powers must be used EQUALLY among the People....thank you for proving my point.

Denying law-abiding, tax-paying gay citizens the same POWERS as straights is against the 14th amendment.

Furthermore, denying equal rights based on gender is unconstitutional.

Wow. Do you know how ridiculous your assertion is? If the ratifiers of the 14th amendment were really trying to take marriage licensing away from the states then why did they not do that?

Um...Loving v Virginia took the power of the states to forbid inter-racial marriages away. I would have thought you would have known that.

Second do you understand that there are a difference between individual rights and privileges and privileges held in a group of people?

Third, what? What are you going on about "powers" for?

Do you know why the 14th amendment was written? Did it have an actual purpose or do you think the writers and ratifiers all just put down as many words as they could on a piece of paper so that someone could come back a century later and use them to mean whatever fit them later?

Mike

Well, it's interesting that those who wrote the 14th amendment meant it for ALL Americans. Amendments have a way of applying to ALL Americans.

 

[Texanmike]

Ah, so marriage is based on the POWERS of the states....and the 14th amendment says those powers must be used EQUALLY among the People....thank you for proving my point.

Denying law-abiding, tax-paying gay citizens the same POWERS as straights is against the 14th amendment.

Furthermore, denying equal rights based on gender is unconstitutional.

Wow. Do you know how ridiculous your assertion is? If the ratifiers of the 14th amendment were really trying to take marriage licensing away from the states then why did they not do that?

Um...Loving v Virginia took the power of the states to forbid inter-racial marriages away. I would have thought you would have known that.

Second do you understand that there are a difference between individual rights and privileges and privileges held in a group of people?

Third, what? What are you going on about "powers" for?

Do you know why the 14th amendment was written? Did it have an actual purpose or do you think the writers and ratifiers all just put down as many words as they could on a piece of paper so that someone could come back a century later and use them to mean whatever fit them later?

Mike

Well, it's interesting that those who wrote the 14th amendment meant it for ALL Americans. Amendments have a way of applying to ALL Americans.

This is the perfect example of what is wrong. Loving v Va took something away from the States? You thought I would know that. I understand the effect that the ruling had, but the 14th amendment was not written to have an ever-expanding scope.

For example. The 14th Amendment was written to respond to the needs of former slaves. It wasn't supposed to invent any new rights, it wasn't supposed to impose more on the state's authority... it was just supposed to apply what already was to the 14rth amendments. If your case were true then why did it take decades for marriage to be brought up? In fact, why didn't the ratifiers declare an end to all regulations on marriage period?

"The layman's view is that, that which they like is Constitutional and that which they dislike is Unconstitutional"-- SJC Black

Mike

 

[rdean]

Every time I see Crispie's name, I want to rush out and buy a ham sandwich.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, there's no such thing as rights. Interesting theory you have. Does it stand up anywhere?

yeah. to fucking reality. Ask the Japanese Americans who were alive in 1942 about "rights". Oh, wait. THey didn't have any. They just locked their asses up and everyone was just fine with it. Except for the Japanese Americans.

I see...because we were shits to the Japanese, that somehow equates to "we have no rights". Okey dokey.

Okay, we'll play it your way. When have "privileges" ever been granted by a majority vote on a ballot?

The fact is they haven't. The "privilege" for women and blacks to vote was not put to a majority vote. The "privilege" for blacks to marry whites was not granted by a majority vote.

No, those were put up to the AMENDATORY process. And laws passed in Congress and the State Legislatures. And everyone agreed that they SHOULD be changed. 15th Amendment was a constitutional amendment, not a decision by a court. same with the 19th, which I think is less a good idea every day.

Besides, those are states of being, not lifestyle choices.

And there you go again...letting a little of your bigotry slip out a bit. I know this isn't convenient, but being gay isn't a "lifestyle choice". That would be religion, bigotry and hatred, not sexual orientation.

The FACT remains that civil rights have NEVER in our history been put to a majority vote. Why do you suddenly want to change the rules just for the gheys?

It's only for those "icky" gays that the "majority" has to decide what "privileges" they are granted.

Hey,if you can get an amendment passed to grant you special rights, have at it.

And what "special rights" would those be? Far as I know, we're simply asking for the SAME EXACT rights as everyone else.

 

[bodecea]

The health issue is not . . . an issue that determines whether a set of people can marry.

It's a non-starter.

The issue is whether the civil rights of gays under the 14th Amendment have been violated.

The courts, not us, will settle the constitutionality of universal marriage.

God lets hope not. Our SCOTUS may just be the biggest threat to civil liberties in the country.

Mike

Show us where the Supreme Court TOOK AWAY our civil liberties.

 

[bodecea]

Wow. Do you know how ridiculous your assertion is? If the ratifiers of the 14th amendment were really trying to take marriage licensing away from the states then why did they not do that?

Um...Loving v Virginia took the power of the states to forbid inter-racial marriages away. I would have thought you would have known that.

Second do you understand that there are a difference between individual rights and privileges and privileges held in a group of people?

Third, what? What are you going on about "powers" for?

Do you know why the 14th amendment was written? Did it have an actual purpose or do you think the writers and ratifiers all just put down as many words as they could on a piece of paper so that someone could come back a century later and use them to mean whatever fit them later?

Mike

Well, it's interesting that those who wrote the 14th amendment meant it for ALL Americans. Amendments have a way of applying to ALL Americans.

This is the perfect example of what is wrong. Loving v Va took something away from the States? You thought I would know that. I understand the effect that the ruling had, but the 14th amendment was not written to have an ever-expanding scope.

For example. The 14th Amendment was written to respond to the needs of former slaves. It wasn't supposed to invent any new rights, it wasn't supposed to impose more on the state's authority... it was just supposed to apply what already was to the 14rth amendments. If your case were true then why did it take decades for marriage to be brought up? In fact, why didn't the ratifiers declare an end to all regulations on marriage period?

"The layman's view is that, that which they like is Constitutional and that which they dislike is Unconstitutional"-- SJC Black

Mike

So, you are saying that the 14th amendment applied ONLY to former slaves? That would mean it is now defunct since they are all dead now.

See how very very foolish and WRONG your argument is?

Good thing you are not a Constitutional Expert.

 

[JoeB131]

I see...because we were shits to the Japanese, that somehow equates to "we have no rights". Okey dokey.

Nope, it just proves that they don't really exist. Not saying our behavior wasn't shitty. But at the time, everyone was just fine with it. Except the Japanese, they weren't too cool with it.

And there you go again...letting a little of your bigotry slip out a bit. I know this isn't convenient, but being gay isn't a "lifestyle choice". That would be religion, bigotry and hatred, not sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation isn't a "choice", but acting on it is. What do you think lesbians in Iran do? They take one for the team. Because society will hang them if they don't. Again- hard concept for you to accept- it's what society will tolerate, not what you are "entitled" to.

The FACT remains that civil rights have NEVER in our history been put to a majority vote. Why do you suddenly want to change the rules just for the gheys?

I stated- I would be equally fine with a LEGISLATIVE process. Which is how it should be done. My problem is with some gay judge on his way to the bathhouse saying, "Shit, screw what the peeople want, I'm a judge!"

And what "special rights" would those be? Far as I know, we're simply asking for the SAME EXACT rights as everyone else.

You have the same right as everyone else. You can marry any person of the opposite sex who will have you. Which is the same right the rest of us have.

Now, if you want to expand that to being able to marry someone of the same sex, or multiple people, or your cousin, that's fine, as long as can get the majority to agree with you that the law should be changed.

Because if you state, "But I waaaaaant it" as the legal standard, you have no standard.

 

[bodecea]

I see...because we were shits to the Japanese, that somehow equates to "we have no rights". Okey dokey.

Nope, it just proves that they don't really exist. Not saying our behavior wasn't shitty. But at the time, everyone was just fine with it. Except the Japanese, they weren't too cool with it.

And there you go again...letting a little of your bigotry slip out a bit. I know this isn't convenient, but being gay isn't a "lifestyle choice". That would be religion, bigotry and hatred, not sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation isn't a "choice", but acting on it is. What do you think lesbians in Iran do? They take one for the team. Because society will hang them if they don't. Again- hard concept for you to accept- it's what society will tolerate, not what you are "entitled" to.

The FACT remains that civil rights have NEVER in our history been put to a majority vote. Why do you suddenly want to change the rules just for the gheys?

I stated- I would be equally fine with a LEGISLATIVE process. Which is how it should be done. My problem is with some gay judge on his way to the bathhouse saying, "Shit, screw what the peeople want, I'm a judge!"

And what "special rights" would those be? Far as I know, we're simply asking for the SAME EXACT rights as everyone else.

You have the same right as everyone else. You can marry any person of the opposite sex who will have you. Which is the same right the rest of us have.

Now, if you want to expand that to being able to marry someone of the same sex, or multiple people, or your cousin, that's fine, as long as can get the majority to agree with you that the law should be changed.

Because if you state, "But I waaaaaant it" as the legal standard, you have no standard.

If they don't really exist, why did the U.S. Government admit they were wrong for what they did to the Japanese-Americans during the war and compensate them?