Gay Marriage to the Rescue!

[Gunny]

You want to marry me? Sorry, we can only do that in Massachusetts.



I can comprehend that you'll spout any piece of tripe even if it doesn't relate to the topic in an attempt to distort, distract and divert attention from the fact that you're wrong. DOMA covers the states' rights issue. The case law proves it. No "Texas case" is going to change that.

What you can't comprehend however is that the discussion moved on ...something you obviously CANNot comprehend as well .... and the US Constitution and US Supreme Court were broght into the topic, and not by ME.

Yet another of your bullshit assumptions shot down like the Red Baron.

 

[jasendorf]

What you can't comprehend however is that the discussion moved on ...something you obviously CANNot comprehend as well .... and the US Constitution and US Supreme Court were broght into the topic, and not by ME.

Yet another of your bullshit assumptions shot down like the Red Baron.

Problem is... the USSC hasn't. They have never ruled on a gay marriage issue ever... not once... regardless of what you think of your "Texas case."

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Chimpy McPresident (a.k.a. Dubbyuh) will be giving a speech supporting a Constitutional amendment banning same-gender marriage. Bill Frist is speaking in support of an amendment banning the burning of the US flag. While they're at it, why don't they sponsor an amendment requiring couples to get married wrapped in the flag?

A desperate GOP is working to whip the lunatic fringe base into a homophobic,

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the old "H" word. Talk about desperate...........

 

[Gunny]

Problem is... the USSC hasn't. They have never ruled on a gay marriage issue ever... not once... regardless of what you think of your "Texas case."

You are THE dullest knife in the drawer, aren't you? I never said the Supreme Court HAD ruled on gay marriage, knucklehead.

I said the pro-gay faction used the sodomy case to get the gay agenda into the Supreme Court.

Reading and comprehension really IS tough on you, isn't it?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Since they're on the subject, why not a constitutional amendment to ban pre-marital sex all together? It is logically consistent with the notion of banning the marriage of same-gender couples.:

Trying to connect a law that cant be enforced (premarital sex) with one that can be (same sex marriage) is S-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O disappointing.

And, s-o-o-o typical, you can't intelligently address the issue, so you resort to lame-assed insults. I'm s-o-o-o disappointed, but not in the least bit surprised.

HA!
You start your post by calling republicans HOMOPHOBES, then you accuse him of resorting to lame ass insults??????
POT
KETTLE
BLACK

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually, an amendment banning same-gender marriages could violate the notion of separation of church and state as objections to such unions are rooted in religious doctrine.

So, we need to get rid of the seven year term for forgivness of debts and BK?
We need to eliminate all CHristian based holidays, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter"|?
We need to eliminate "in god we trust"?
stop having the president swear his oath on the Bible?
Eliminate many of our laws which according to the founding fathers is founded in religion?
I really find it funny how the libs are always screaming seperation of church and state, then go to executions and protest waving signs of "thou shall not kill" (and of course they have even distorted that - as they do with most of Gods word) since it actually says, "thou shalt not murder" then on the next page commands that those who murder "shall be put to death".

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Clearly, there are two other viable arguments on this issue. One is the equal rights clause of the 14th Amendment, in which case homosexual marriage would be a question of individual rights. The other is the 10th Amendment, in which case it would be a question of States' rights. (The states already have the constitutional authority to regulate marriage laws, but there is a legal question as to whether they could actually dictate the content of marriage laws in terms of who marries whom. This could open an ugly door: interracial marriages, for example.

As for violating the First Amendment, the U.S. could move to the European position on marriage in which legal marriages are civil unions; and Church marriages are optional. That would solve the problem neatly, IMO.

If it is a federal amendment, their can be no challenge by the states for authority.
Equal protection does not apply to "licenses granted". Can a 5 year old use that arguement to apply for a drivers license? Is driving not a right?
Yea, back to the old FEAR tactic, "they will start banning interracial marriages"

Yea, lets become more like Europe. Higher unemployment, bad economies, creating TWO world wars, being taken over by Muslims, riots, terrorists attacks all over since 9/11, rising drug usage rates, rising out of wedlock kids born rate,

How about;, LEAVE MARRIAGE TO A MAN AND A WOMAN ONLY, that would solve the problem too. Oh, I get it though, as long as you liberals dont get your way, its still a problem. Thats why most protests are by liberals. Because they cant get the majority to vote in the actions they want, so they try to get them by force.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I meant the 14th Amendment as an issue of homosexual marriage, not just individual rights as they apply to gays and lesbians.

By the way, by any rational evolutionary standard, homosexual are "normal". Homosexuality occurs among many different animal species.

But I agree with your basic point.

You have proof that homosexuality occurs in animals? I might remind you that it would require to prove that the animal that engages in a homosexual act is not necessarily homosexual. If it then later engages in sex with a female, it is indeed BY SEXUAL. So, did the researchers make sure that didnt occur?
LINK???

 

[LuvRPgrl]

This is a anti-gay marriage/gay marriage thread... if you want to troll around about OTHER topics... find another thread. Maybe one entitled "the gay agenda" or "how gays are stealing our laws" or something like that...

The adults were all discussing gay marriage and the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment QUOTE]

NO, liberals might discuss "anti...something or other" but liberals arent very adult anyways.
Of course you resort to propaganda, because any arguement you may present has no weight, so you decide to try to change the language to make us supporters of traditional marriage look bad. WONT WORK, its OLD, worn, tired.
How pathetic

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Problem is... the USSC hasn't. They have never ruled on a gay marriage issue ever... not once... regardless of what you think of your "Texas case."

I understand why gunny thinks you are a fucking idiot, and you keep proving it with your posts.

Gunny stated the USSC was BROUGHT INTO THE DISCUSSION, he DIDNT say they had ruled on the issue.

Your response is "they have never ruled on the issue"
Please show in Gunny's post that you responded to where he said that. Copy and past only please, NO distortion of words or terminology.
Of course your hero leads with "that depends on what the definition of is, is"

HHAHHAHAH, what are your hero's legacies anyways?
Depends on what the definition of is, is
Blowjobs in the white house
Cum stains on Monicas dress
bombing aspirin factories
Waving his finger and lieing to the American People
THOSE ARE THE THINGS PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER ABOUT HIM, hahahhaha

oh, am I off topic,,well, I brought that up because even YOUR HERO didnt support same sex marriage. There, now its on topic, you dont have to wet your diaper now.

 

[jasendorf]

For those unable to follow along, each of these posts quoted the previously noted quote (with the only exception being the statement in blue):

First Matrixx8 makes a statement regarding "homosexual marriage'.

Clearly, there are two other viable arguments on this issue. One is the equal rights clause of the 14th Amendment, in which case homosexual marriage would be a question of individual rights. The other is the 10th Amendment, in which case it would be a question of States' rights. (The states already have the constitutional authority to regulate marriage laws, but there is a legal question as to whether they could actually dictate the content of marriage laws in terms of who marries whom. This could open an ugly door: interracial marriages, for example.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437279&postcount=11

GunnyL attempts to change the subject to sodomy.

And I agree it is a matter of State's rights; however, the lefty backdoor sliders (no pun intended) took it to the Supreme Court and involved the Fed Government because they could not otherwise circumvent the will of the people.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437380&postcount=15

What "it" are you talking about if "it" isn't homosexual marriage???

Matrixx8 tries to get him back on path.

I meant the 14th Amendment as an issue of homosexual marriage, not just individual rights as they apply to gays and lesbians.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437387&postcount=16

GunnyL won't have any of it... he's insistent on changing the subject

Homosexuality is not by ANY rational standard, evolutionary or not, normal. Sex is a biological function for procreation of the species. It requires a male and female. THAT is natural. Two males or two females is not.

Comparinf homosexuals to animals is a disservice to the animals. The difference between animals and man is cognitive reasoning/thought. Animals doing what feels good at the time that pro-homosexual folk claim are homosexual, are in reality just doing what feels good at the time. They STILL mate with the opposite gender to procreate.

True homosexual animals just die.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437391&postcount=17



They chit-chat about physiology and stuff now that Gunny has changed the subject...

Then in bursts me sort of wildly flailing about:

And I agree it is a matter of State's rights; however, the lefty backdoor sliders (no pun intended) took it to the Supreme Court and involved the Fed Government because they could not otherwise circumvent the will of the people.

Really? Where? Oh, you didn't mean THE Supreme Court... you meant Massachusetts' Supreme Court. I see... (that' would be his lying excuse for trying to mislead, so I'll save him the trouble).

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437476&postcount=27

You're about stupid, and you should quit proving it with your ignorant posts. I DIDN'T mean the MA Supreme COurt, nimrod. I meant the US Supreme Court. The issue of the rights of homosexuals was bumped up to the Supreme Court from a ruling in Texas, Einstein.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437528&postcount=33

Nevermind his, and I'm quoting, "And I agree it is a matter of State's rights; however, the lefty backdoor sliders (no pun intended) took it to the Supreme Court..." after QUOTING Matrixx8's very first post which was obviously about "homosexual marriage".

I then say:

You wanna post that case "in Texas" that the USSC? Is this like your "girlfriend" in Niagara Falls?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437545&postcount=34

To which he replies with a case about sodomy:

Dude, summer school registration at the elementary school is still open. Feel free to partake of same. Learn to read and comprehend at the second-grade level, then come back and try again. Perhpas you can turn that gibberish above into coherent thought. Touche

But here you go: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437547&postcount=35

To which I call him on, since the beginning of this line of discussion was clearly about gay marriage, well, "homosexual marriage."

You're citing a SODOMY LAW case as the equivalent to gay marriage???

How about some real cases involving DOMA?

[Followed by a posting of about a half dozen cases where DOMA has been upheld.]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437554&postcount=36

be a good little troll and go back and try and read and comprehend the context in which I made the statement. I did not cite the case as ab equivalent to gay marriage. I cited the case as an example of the gay agenda using the judiciary to dictate what the legislature won't give them.

Are you EVER going to get ANYTHING right?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437557&postcount=37


Following a bit of bickering about who's doing what...

What you can't comprehend however is that the discussion moved on ...something you obviously CANNot comprehend as well .... and the US Constitution and US Supreme Court were broght into the topic, and not by ME.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437597&postcount=41

Problem is... the USSC hasn't. They have never ruled on a gay marriage issue ever... not once... regardless of what you think of your "Texas case."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437597&postcount=42

You are THE dullest knife in the drawer, aren't you? I never said the Supreme Court HAD ruled on gay marriage, knucklehead.

I said the pro-gay faction used the sodomy case to get the gay agenda into the Supreme Court.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437597&postcount=44

Perhaps you need to read your very first response to Matrixx8 before you go making that statement.




Don't take my word for it... read the friggin' thread.

 

[Matrixx8]

What's the best way to describe a desperate political group groping around in the dark and throwing any and all shit against the wall to see if it sticks?

Sorry, I overlooked this post, Gunnyl.

If you're referring to the source of this article, Reason.com, I'm not sure they're any more desperate than other political groups in the U.S., including a growing number of conservatives. Reason.com is in the Libertarian camp and many supported Bush II in 2000 and 2004. They seem a bit disillusioned with the Bush administration at present -- as are a large majority of Americans, if the polls on Iraq and immigration are any gauge.

No matter how one might stand on gay marriage, the real issue here is probably whether a proposed amendment to the constitution is a valid legal avenue for settling what is essential a social and an individual rights' question.

In that sense, the Libertarians probably agree with strict constitutionalist conservatives.

I doubt that this is an issue at all for liberals. Many probably support gay marriage as a right. Others believe that "marriage" is only necessary for tax and legal purposes. In which case, civil unions would do just fine, thank you.

 

[Matrixx8]

If it is a federal amendment, their can be no challenge by the states for authority.
Equal protection does not apply to "licenses granted". Can a 5 year old use that arguement to apply for a drivers license? Is driving not a right?
Yea, back to the old FEAR tactic, "they will start banning interracial marriages"

If it's restricted to licensing, not definitions, there would be no problem.

Yea, lets become more like Europe. Higher unemployment, bad economies, creating TWO world wars, being taken over by Muslims, riots, terrorists attacks all over since 9/11, rising drug usage rates, rising out of wedlock kids born rate

Looks to me like you're trying to draw fire. I notice you didn't provide any link to support these statements. I think you're stereotyping here. I'm an American who has lived in Europe for many years. I am quite familiar with the issues you mention and have done considerable research in this area. It would be interesting to compare notes, but I don't think this is the right thread to do so.

How about;, LEAVE MARRIAGE TO A MAN AND A WOMAN ONLY, that would solve the problem too. Oh, I get it though, as long as you liberals dont get your way, its still a problem. Thats why most protests are by liberals. Because they cant get the majority to vote in the actions they want, so they try to get them by force.

Again, you're making very broad statements. Gay marriage is pretty much an established fact in Canada and western in Europe. Like the sexual revolution of the 60s, it looks to me like another one of those ideas whose time has come. But I guess we'll have to wait and see how long it takes to pursuade a majority of Americans of this.

 

[Matrixx8]

You have proof that homosexuality occurs in animals? I might remind you that it would require to prove that the animal that engages in a homosexual act is not necessarily homosexual. If it then later engages in sex with a female, it is indeed BY SEXUAL. So, did the researchers make sure that didnt occur?
LINK???

Proof is not the right word. Science provides accumulated evidence. It's a self-correcting system. When new, contradictory evidence emerges -- e.g. when Hubbel demonstrated that Einstein's theory of space as "static" was wrong --, it makes whatever adjustments are necessary to fit in the facts.

I posted [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/031225377X/104-4697319-1833513]this link[/ame] in an earlier post on this thread. It is early days for this particular line of research. But there does seem to be considerable emperical evidence.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

If it is a federal amendment, their can be no challenge by the states for authority.
Equal protection does not apply to "licenses granted". Can a 5 year old use that arguement to apply for a drivers license? Is driving not a right?
Yea, back to the old FEAR tactic, "they will start banning interracial marriages"

Yea, lets become more like Europe. Higher unemployment, bad economies, creating TWO world wars, being taken over by Muslims, riots, terrorists attacks all over since 9/11, rising drug usage rates, rising out of wedlock kids born rate,

How about;, LEAVE MARRIAGE TO A MAN AND A WOMAN ONLY, that would solve the problem too. Oh, I get it though, as long as you liberals dont get your way, its still a problem. Thats why most protests are by liberals. Because they cant get the majority to vote in the actions they want, so they try to get them by force.

I would think that for someone as uneducated as you are that you would be a little less vocal. The whole debate here is whether or not federal intervention is even legitimate. The constitution provides in the 10th Amendment that any rights not delegated to the Federal government explicitly in the Constitution are delgated to the States or the people respectively. The ability to govern who does and does not marry is not a Constitutionally granted power to the federal government. In fact it was specifically reserved to the States during the founding of the Constitution and thereafter.

Those in favor of interracial marriages were blocked by the same "scare tactics" of how society would fall down a magical "slippery slope" and how the end of the world was near if a black could marry a white. They appealed to the Supreme Court via the 14th Amendment and won. A great injustice was repealed.

Furthermore your analogy is horribly flawed. A 5 year old cannot posess a driver's license because society has deemed him unable to competently access a motor vehicle at that age (for whatever reason). However once he turns 16, he has the right (14th Amendment) as everyone else does to seek a license provided he has no outstanding medical or criminal issues. The law does not guarantee everyone the right to everything simultaneously. Rather it guarantees that everyone has the right to certain unequivocable rights, and beyond those rights everything else is a priviledge. You have a priviledge to drive, that can be revoked. You cannot have your right to an attorney to be revoked.

Blah, Blah, Blah (Insert Anti-Liberal) Rant.

If you had even an inkling as to the purpose of the Constitution you would understand that it is there to protect the minorities from tyranny from the majority. Just because the majority of people (which ironically it seems as though it is no longer a majority opposing gay marriage), want to preclude other people from what may or may not be a right, does not mean they have the right to do so. To quote the popular axiom: "What is popular, is not always what is right." Without the system of checks and balances, that many of you abhor with such fervor, many people would still be without essential liberties.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

This is a anti-gay marriage/gay marriage thread... if you want to troll around about OTHER topics... find another thread. Maybe one entitled "the gay agenda" or "how gays are stealing our laws" or something like that...

The adults were all discussing gay marriage and the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment QUOTE]

NO, liberals might discuss "anti...something or other" but liberals arent very adult anyways.
Of course you resort to propaganda, because any arguement you may present has no weight, so you decide to try to change the language to make us supporters of traditional marriage look bad. WONT WORK, its OLD, worn, tired.
How pathetic

See my above post. I think history will look back upon this debate and remember only that it was an era ripe with bigotry. The same bigotry that this country has been fighting for over 200 years. A hatred of something that we do not understand and fear for apparently no reason.

Why dont you give me a list of reasons why gay marriage is wrong, and when I prove everyone of them wrong, we can have a nice discussion as to why I just completely rolled you. Science, logic and reasoning trump fear mongering.

 

[Avatar4321]

Sorry, I overlooked this post, Gunnyl.

If you're referring to the source of this article, Reason.com, I'm not sure they're any more desperate than other political groups in the U.S., including a growing number of conservatives. Reason.com is in the Libertarian camp and many supported Bush II in 2000 and 2004. They seem a bit disillusioned with the Bush administration at present -- as are a large majority of Americans, if the polls on Iraq and immigration are any gauge.

No matter how one might stand on gay marriage, the real issue here is probably whether a proposed amendment to the constitution is a valid legal avenue for settling what is essential a social and an individual rights' question.

In that sense, the Libertarians probably agree with strict constitutionalist conservatives.

I doubt that this is an issue at all for liberals. Many probably support gay marriage as a right. Others believe that "marriage" is only necessary for tax and legal purposes. In which case, civil unions would do just fine, thank you.

Of course its a valid legal avenue. The Constitution explicitly gives us the power to amend it for whatever we want. The last time it was amended was for Congressional pay raises. I think at marriage is a bit more important that raises for Congress. In fact, its the only really valid legal avenue there is.

If it remains a state issue. they there may be states that are forced to accept gay marriage. The second one does so, then the gay marriage advocates would make all states recognize it through the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, exactly like the Slave states made the Free states acknowledge slaves as their property even while in free states.

Whether the activists force it through the full faith and credit clause or whether gay marriage will be forced upon the public through the due process/equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth amendment, the issue is going to be a end up being a federal constitutional issue. So we may as well create a federal amendment to the Constitution stating the position the people want right now before judges make it a constitutional issues in a way we dont want.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Homosexuals currently possess the same rights as normal people under the 14th Amendment, so there is no question.

And I agree it is a matter of State's rights; however, the lefty backdoor sliders (no pun intended) took it to the Supreme Court and involved the Fed Government because they could not otherwise circumvent the will of the people.

By your logic, then, the leftys took the issue of Brown v. Board of Education to the SCOTUS and involved the federal government, thus circumventing "the will of the people". And that is the purpose of the courts, to redress the grievances that result when the "will of the people" is wrong and unjust.

But, more to the point, why do you care if a same-gender couple is afforded the same rights, responsibilities and priviledges extended to traditional married couples? Do you feel threatened because you are unsure of your own sexuality? Would some physical or psychological harm fall upon you and your family if same-gender couples are allowed to marry? Define, clearly, just what it is that leads you oppose the marriage of same-gender couples.

 

[Bonnie]

Spoken like an ignorant tool. Please, read up on the US Constitution, Artcile IV, Section !, as well some of the various case law surrounding it before commenting further. The embarrassment you prevent will probably be your own.



The whole issue of marriage belongs with the States alone. A marriage licence is issued by the state, not the Federal government. And if FF&C is the argument, all a state has to do is pass legislation prohibiting homosexual marriage in order to take FF&C off the table.

Exactly!!

 

[Bonnie]

Bully..By your logic, then, the leftys took the issue of Brown v. Board of Education to the SCOTUS and involved the federal government, thus circumventing "the will of the people". And that is the purpose of the courts, to redress the grievances that result when the "will of the people" is wrong and unjust.

Okay then, so you must be content with the recent Eminant Domain ruling as well? I thought the purpose of Scotus was to make rulings strictly within the confines of the Constitution?