Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

[editec]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

Neither is heterosexual marriage.

So the hell what?

According to the Supreme Court it is.



peace...

They're not the greatest social engineers in this society, in my never humble opinion, Mal.

Lawyers seldom are, in fact, particularly good at thinking past the nicities of the law to the greater questions facing a society.

Now that's okay because that's not their job.

Their job is to decide if, given the laws we have, if the NEW laws and policies they are pondering jibe with the principles of the laws we have already accepted as THE LAW.

But if you ever wondered why law and justice as so obviously not at all the same thing?

That's why.




peace.

 

[mal]

Neither is heterosexual marriage.

So the hell what?

According to the Supreme Court it is.



peace...

They're not the greatest social engineers in this society, in my never humble opinion, Mal.

Lawyers seldom are, in fact, particularly good at thinking past the nicities of the law to the greater questions facing a society.

Now that's okay because that's not their job.

Their job is to decide if, given the laws we have, if the NEW laws and policies they are pondering jibe with the principles of the laws we have already accepted as THE LAW.

But if you ever wondered why law and justice as so obviously not at all the same thing?

That's why.




peace.

They were Observing a Natural Reality...

That Denying Blacks and Whites Marriage was Denying our VERY EXISTENCE...

Because Blacks and Whites can ProCreate...

Homosexuals can NOT.

The Court was Correct.

And there is not Analogy from Skin Color to Sexual Deviancy.



peace...

 

[Ravi]

According to the Supreme Court it is.



peace...

They're not the greatest social engineers in this society, in my never humble opinion, Mal.

Lawyers seldom are, in fact, particularly good at thinking past the nicities of the law to the greater questions facing a society.

Now that's okay because that's not their job.

Their job is to decide if, given the laws we have, if the NEW laws and policies they are pondering jibe with the principles of the laws we have already accepted as THE LAW.

But if you ever wondered why law and justice as so obviously not at all the same thing?

That's why.




peace.

They were Observing a Natural Reality...

That Denying Blacks and Whites Marriage was Denying our VERY EXISTENCE...

Because Blacks and Whites can ProCreate...

Homosexuals can NOT.

The Court was Correct.

And there is not Analogy from Skin Color to Sexual Deviancy.



peace...

There decision had NOTHING to do with procreation, moron. It had to do with the right to pursue happiness.

 

[ConHog]

Because I think something means I'm lying?

cornjob...are you bipolar? You have some serious issues.

Oh, so what makes you think that Mal would like to electrocute gay men? When you base your opinion on a lie ravi you don't get to later come back and say "well that was just my opinion" Your lie was stating that Mal has done anything to lead you to believe he would enjoy torturing gays.

I didn't say anything about torturing them, asshole. By your own standards that you claimed I did makes you a liar.

Nor did I state that mal has done anything to lead me to believe that.

Two lies on one thread.

Piss off.

So to be clear here, you don't consider electrocution to be torture? Can someone help me out here did Ravi declare that waterboarding was torture way back when?

As far as you didn't say Mal had done anything to lead you to believe he would electrocute people. then you admit you just made that shit up? Nice

You stupid hack

 

[ConHog]

Neither is heterosexual marriage.

So the hell what?

According to the Supreme Court it is.



peace...

They're not the greatest social engineers in this society, in my never humble opinion, Mal.

Lawyers seldom are, in fact, particularly good at thinking past the nicities of the law to the greater questions facing a society.

Now that's okay because that's not their job.

Their job is to decide if, given the laws we have, if the NEW laws and policies they are pondering jibe with the principles of the laws we have already accepted as THE LAW.

But if you ever wondered why law and justice as so obviously not at all the same thing?

That's why.




peace.

eh, Mal's wrong on this point anyway. read Loving, it clearly states that marriage is a natural right, it clearly does NOT say that marriage is a constitutional right. I still say a state could just refuse to sanction ANY marriages and that would be perfectly legal.

 

[Ravi]

I didn't say electrocution, either. Another lie on your part.

You really are mentally deficient, aren't you.

 

[ConHog]

I didn't say electrocution, either. Another lie on your part.

You really are mentally deficient, aren't you.

And?

Heterosexual Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival." either.

You can fuck and have kids WITHOUT being married. You can fuck and not have kids and still not be married.

And Homosexuals can't... EVER...



peace...

Sure they can.

Does anyone besides me think that mal would get a lot of pleasure using shock treatment on gay men?

Liar, if not for electrocution , how do you propose that Mal would give them shock treatment? With puppies?

Lying piece of shit.

 

[Ravi]

I didn't say electrocution, either. Another lie on your part.

You really are mentally deficient, aren't you.

And Homosexuals can't... EVER...



peace...

Sure they can.

Does anyone besides me think that mal would get a lot of pleasure using shock treatment on gay men?

Liar, if not for electrocution , how do you propose that Mal would give them shock treatment? With puppies?

Lying piece of shit.

As usual you look the fool. Why don't you refrain from replying to posts where the subject matter is over your head?

 

[ConHog]

I didn't say electrocution, either. Another lie on your part.

You really are mentally deficient, aren't you.

Sure they can.

Does anyone besides me think that mal would get a lot of pleasure using shock treatment on gay men?

Liar, if not for electrocution , how do you propose that Mal would give them shock treatment? With puppies?

Lying piece of shit.

As usual you look the fool. Why don't you refrain from replying to posts where the subject matter is over your head?

I look the fool? Look , I am quite sure you have vastly more experience with shock therapy than I do; but I at least know enough to be able to accurately describe that ELECTRICITY is used to electrocute the patient, or victim as you suggest Mal would like them to be.

Shock therapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're such an idiot, just admit you got caught making stupid statements, again, and move on.

 

[jillian]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

LOVING V. VIRGINIA, 388 U. S. 1 :: Volume 388 :: 1967 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

There was Supreme Court Precedent that the San Fran Judge Ignored...

Maybe that's because U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker is a Homosexual, eh?...

Dog in the Fight and all... Fucks with your Objectivity a little?



peace...

MARRIAGE is fundamental to our existence. The question then becomes... when can government discriminate with regard to marriage?

It seems pretty clear that the answer is, marriage is between consenting adults unless there is a really really good reason for government regulation. So, perhaps the government has a good reason for intervening in cases of sanguinity, but beyond that, it does seem it should keep hands off.

Where are all the libertarians and Goldwater republicans on this issue?

 

[ConHog]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

LOVING V. VIRGINIA, 388 U. S. 1 :: Volume 388 :: 1967 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

There was Supreme Court Precedent that the San Fran Judge Ignored...

Maybe that's because U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker is a Homosexual, eh?...

Dog in the Fight and all... Fucks with your Objectivity a little?



peace...

MARRIAGE is fundamental to our existence. The question then becomes... when can government discriminate with regard to marriage?

It seems pretty clear that the answer is, marriage is between consenting adults unless there is a really really good reason for government regulation. So, perhaps the government has a good reason for intervening in cases of sanguinity, but beyond that, it does seem it should keep hands off.

Where are all the libertarians and Goldwater republicans on this issue?

So you argue that there is a constitutional right to marriage? Because that is clearly wrong.

 

[Ravi]

I look the fool?

Yes, and a liar.

 

[ConHog]

I look the fool?

Yes, and a liar.

Simple solution then moron explain what you meant by shock therapy.

Liar

 

[mal]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

LOVING V. VIRGINIA, 388 U. S. 1 :: Volume 388 :: 1967 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

There was Supreme Court Precedent that the San Fran Judge Ignored...

Maybe that's because U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker is a Homosexual, eh?...

Dog in the Fight and all... Fucks with your Objectivity a little?



peace...

MARRIAGE is fundamental to our existence. The question then becomes... when can government discriminate with regard to marriage?

It seems pretty clear that the answer is, marriage is between consenting adults unless there is a really really good reason for government regulation. So, perhaps the government has a good reason for intervening in cases of sanguinity, but beyond that, it does seem it should keep hands off.

Where are all the libertarians and Goldwater republicans on this issue?

Homosexuals Marrying in Defiance of their Natural Design and how they got here is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

Nor is a Bisexual's Need to Couple with BOTH Sexes, yet the Homosexuals are MORE than Willing to Ask for an Exclusionary Expansion of Rights for themselves.



peace...

 

[Luissa]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

LOVING V. VIRGINIA, 388 U. S. 1 :: Volume 388 :: 1967 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

There was Supreme Court Precedent that the San Fran Judge Ignored...

Maybe that's because U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker is a Homosexual, eh?...

Dog in the Fight and all... Fucks with your Objectivity a little?



peace...

MARRIAGE is fundamental to our existence. The question then becomes... when can government discriminate with regard to marriage?

It seems pretty clear that the answer is, marriage is between consenting adults unless there is a really really good reason for government regulation. So, perhaps the government has a good reason for intervening in cases of sanguinity, but beyond that, it does seem it should keep hands off.

Where are all the libertarians and Goldwater republicans on this issue?

So you argue that there is a constitutional right to marriage? Because that is clearly wrong.

The Supreme Court believes it is.

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the whole paragraph, notice how they mention the 14th amendment?

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

It clearly states that denying someone the right to marriage is depriving them of liberty without due process.

 

[Luissa]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

LOVING V. VIRGINIA, 388 U. S. 1 :: Volume 388 :: 1967 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

There was Supreme Court Precedent that the San Fran Judge Ignored...

Maybe that's because U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker is a Homosexual, eh?...

Dog in the Fight and all... Fucks with your Objectivity a little?



peace...

MARRIAGE is fundamental to our existence. The question then becomes... when can government discriminate with regard to marriage?

It seems pretty clear that the answer is, marriage is between consenting adults unless there is a really really good reason for government regulation. So, perhaps the government has a good reason for intervening in cases of sanguinity, but beyond that, it does seem it should keep hands off.

Where are all the libertarians and Goldwater republicans on this issue?

I can't wait for someone to say Goldwater would have been against Gay marriage.

 

[Ravi]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

LOVING V. VIRGINIA, 388 U. S. 1 :: Volume 388 :: 1967 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

There was Supreme Court Precedent that the San Fran Judge Ignored...

Maybe that's because U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker is a Homosexual, eh?...

Dog in the Fight and all... Fucks with your Objectivity a little?



peace...

MARRIAGE is fundamental to our existence. The question then becomes... when can government discriminate with regard to marriage?

It seems pretty clear that the answer is, marriage is between consenting adults unless there is a really really good reason for government regulation. So, perhaps the government has a good reason for intervening in cases of sanguinity, but beyond that, it does seem it should keep hands off.

Where are all the libertarians and Goldwater republicans on this issue?

Homosexuals Marrying in Defiance of their Natural Design and how they got here is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

Nor is a Bisexual's Need to Couple with BOTH Sexes, yet the Homosexuals are MORE than Willing to Ask for an Exclusionary Expansion of Rights for themselves.



peace...

Poor mal, you fight a losing battle.

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

You can't deny someone the orderly pursuit of happiness.

 

[ConHog]

MARRIAGE is fundamental to our existence. The question then becomes... when can government discriminate with regard to marriage?

It seems pretty clear that the answer is, marriage is between consenting adults unless there is a really really good reason for government regulation. So, perhaps the government has a good reason for intervening in cases of sanguinity, but beyond that, it does seem it should keep hands off.

Where are all the libertarians and Goldwater republicans on this issue?

So you argue that there is a constitutional right to marriage? Because that is clearly wrong.

The Supreme Court believes it is.



Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the whole paragraph, notice how they mention the 14th amendment?

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

It clearly states that denying someone the right to marriage is depriving them of liberty without due process.

You have no constitutional right to marry, PERIOD. You do however have the right to not be discriminated against if the state chooses to license an activity. I hope you and Ravi are very happy together.

 

[Luissa]

So you argue that there is a constitutional right to marriage? Because that is clearly wrong.

The Supreme Court believes it is.



Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the whole paragraph, notice how they mention the 14th amendment?

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

It clearly states that denying someone the right to marriage is depriving them of liberty without due process.

You have no constitutional right to marry, PERIOD. You do however have the right to not be discriminated against if the state chooses to license an activity. I hope you and Ravi are very happy together.

The right to marry has been well established as a fundamental right, which are protected by the constitution. No state can deny you a fundamental right without due process.

 

[Luissa]

How about this Conhog, do you believe Marriage is a contract between two people?

1.
a. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. See Synonyms at bargain.
b. The writing or document containing such an agreement.
2. The branch of law dealing with formal agreements between parties.
3. Marriage as a formal agreement; betrothal.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contract