Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Straight marriage isn't there either. Guess straight people aren't "REALLY" married after all.They should, but marriage only applies to one man and one woman. Simple, biologically correct, and historically accurate.
I want you and your partner to have the same rights and priviledges as a married man and woman. But your union is not a marriage no matter how many times you try to make that claim.
Must be something in the constitution that I overlooked....
Nope, gay marriage is not in it anywhere. Neither are gay rights, bigamy, polygamy, or anal sex. Maybe you should start a campaign to add those things to the bill or rights.
Because the two accusations are so much the same........In your sick imagination.I argue that gays started wanting to marry en masse precisely the time they became uncomfortably aware that civil unions wouldn't suffice to automatically allow them to adopt vulnerable orphans...
Then all of a sudden, marriage became a "civil right necessity". Given what they do in pride parades soberly anticipating and hoping kids will be watching, we'd better act on civil rights all right. The civil rights of children to be protected from anticipated harm. Imagine what they're "proud" of behind closed doors in front of kids?
Hey, if one idiot can claim that all conservatives wish to deny gays their civil rights why can't another idiot claim that all gays are pedophiles?
Because the two accusations are so much the same........In your sick imagination.I argue that gays started wanting to marry en masse precisely the time they became uncomfortably aware that civil unions wouldn't suffice to automatically allow them to adopt vulnerable orphans...
Then all of a sudden, marriage became a "civil right necessity". Given what they do in pride parades soberly anticipating and hoping kids will be watching, we'd better act on civil rights all right. The civil rights of children to be protected from anticipated harm. Imagine what they're "proud" of behind closed doors in front of kids?
Hey, if one idiot can claim that all conservatives wish to deny gays their civil rights why can't another idiot claim that all gays are pedophiles?
Because calling someone a bigot wanting to deny a group its civil rights is SO EQUAL to calling someone a pedophile.Because the two accusations are so much the same........In your sick imagination.I argue that gays started wanting to marry en masse precisely the time they became uncomfortably aware that civil unions wouldn't suffice to automatically allow them to adopt vulnerable orphans...
Then all of a sudden, marriage became a "civil right necessity". Given what they do in pride parades soberly anticipating and hoping kids will be watching, we'd better act on civil rights all right. The civil rights of children to be protected from anticipated harm. Imagine what they're "proud" of behind closed doors in front of kids?
Hey, if one idiot can claim that all conservatives wish to deny gays their civil rights why can't another idiot claim that all gays are pedophiles?
You mean because one idiot is "on your side"
Sorry, I don't play that, idiotic statements are idiotic statements.
Because calling someone a bigot wanting to deny a group its civil rights is SO EQUAL to calling someone a pedophile.Because the two accusations are so much the same........In your sick imagination.I argue that gays started wanting to marry en masse precisely the time they became uncomfortably aware that civil unions wouldn't suffice to automatically allow them to adopt vulnerable orphans...
Then all of a sudden, marriage became a "civil right necessity". Given what they do in pride parades soberly anticipating and hoping kids will be watching, we'd better act on civil rights all right. The civil rights of children to be protected from anticipated harm. Imagine what they're "proud" of behind closed doors in front of kids?
Hey, if one idiot can claim that all conservatives wish to deny gays their civil rights why can't another idiot claim that all gays are pedophiles?
You mean because one idiot is "on your side"
Sorry, I don't play that, idiotic statements are idiotic statements.
My Congresscritter goes by the name Pelosi, what do you think?
Nice excuse. So what you're saying is that your idea wouldn't be very popular then? And why wouldn't Ms Pelosi entertain your notion, it wouldn't effect California's Public Accommodation laws.
And you think they are equally idiotic, right?Because calling someone a bigot wanting to deny a group its civil rights is SO EQUAL to calling someone a pedophile.Because the two accusations are so much the same........In your sick imagination.I argue that gays started wanting to marry en masse precisely the time they became uncomfortably aware that civil unions wouldn't suffice to automatically allow them to adopt vulnerable orphans...
Then all of a sudden, marriage became a "civil right necessity". Given what they do in pride parades soberly anticipating and hoping kids will be watching, we'd better act on civil rights all right. The civil rights of children to be protected from anticipated harm. Imagine what they're "proud" of behind closed doors in front of kids?
Hey, if one idiot can claim that all conservatives wish to deny gays their civil rights why can't another idiot claim that all gays are pedophiles?
You mean because one idiot is "on your side"
Sorry, I don't play that, idiotic statements are idiotic statements.
Jesus you are stupid. I wasn't comparing the statement except to point out that they were both idiotic.
My Congresscritter goes by the name Pelosi, what do you think?
Nice excuse. So what you're saying is that your idea wouldn't be very popular then? And why wouldn't Ms Pelosi entertain your notion, it wouldn't effect California's Public Accommodation laws.
Pelosi is the stupidest person in Congress.
And you think they are equally idiotic, right?Because calling someone a bigot wanting to deny a group its civil rights is SO EQUAL to calling someone a pedophile.In your sick imagination.I argue that gays started wanting to marry en masse precisely the time they became uncomfortably aware that civil unions wouldn't suffice to automatically allow them to adopt vulnerable orphans...
Then all of a sudden, marriage became a "civil right necessity". Given what they do in pride parades soberly anticipating and hoping kids will be watching, we'd better act on civil rights all right. The civil rights of children to be protected from anticipated harm. Imagine what they're "proud" of behind closed doors in front of kids?
Hey, if one idiot can claim that all conservatives wish to deny gays their civil rights why can't another idiot claim that all gays are pedophiles?
Because the two accusations are so much the same........
You mean because one idiot is "on your side"
Sorry, I don't play that, idiotic statements are idiotic statements.
Jesus you are stupid. I wasn't comparing the statement except to point out that they were both idiotic.
Yes it bring about the requirement that fathers would have to adopt their own children at a cost of hundreds to thousands of dollars. Currently every state in the union has what are called "assumed parentage" laws. That means if a child is born to a Civilly Married couple that the mother automatically is a legal parent because of the birth, the father in such a situation is legally the parent under the law.
Without government recognition of the family relationship between the spouses (i.e. no Civil Marrige) - then fathers would have to adopt their own children to be the legal parent.
Ya, that's going to be real popular.
>>>>
Yes it bring about the requirement that fathers would have to adopt their own children at a cost of hundreds to thousands of dollars. Currently every state in the union has what are called "assumed parentage" laws. That means if a child is born to a Civilly Married couple that the mother automatically is a legal parent because of the birth, the father in such a situation is legally the parent under the law.
Without government recognition of the family relationship between the spouses (i.e. no Civil Marrige) - then fathers would have to adopt their own children to be the legal parent.
Ya, that's going to be real popular.
>>>>
WHAAAAAAAT?!?! Just let me make absolutely sure I am reading this correctly: are you actually claiming-with a straight face-that a man whose partner has a child out of wedlock has no parental rights? SERIOUSLY?!?!
But the Court has already held that overly intrusive Public Accommodation is unconstitutional for the federal government, though the Court has thus far allowed it to be asserted by the several states.
Please site the case you say exists, I'd like to review it. (And not it's not the Hobby Lobby case as that wasn't a Public Accommodation law case.)
Thanks,
>>>>
No problem, and thank you for raising the matter, as this is what happens when one has a more complex idea in the back of one's mind, but fails to clearly express it.
STTAB touched on this concern.
I'm alluding not only to United States v. Stanley, et.al., 109 U.S. 3 (1883), the consolidated case in which the Court struck down the public accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, but to its prescient historical ramifications touching on First Amendment liberties. In that case, as I'm sure you're aware, the Court deemed that while the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination by the several states, that is, prohibited them from denying equal protection, Congress did not have the power to prohibit acts of private discrimination by individuals unsupported by state authority. On the other hand, the Constitution did not necessarily prohibit the several states from enacting public accommodation codes.
The Act of 1875 narrowly prohibited discrimination on the basis of race or color. Since 1964, of course, the federal government has more broadly prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender or national origin. Despite the rhetorical shoe shine of wedge-issue baiting, the reason that leftists don't want to be more aggressive at the federal level, well, except for the naïve among them, for example, like those on this thread, is because that would provoke a nationwide reaction that would threaten to bring down the more obnoxious infringements on the prerogatives of free-association and private property asserted by blue states around the country under the banner of Public Accommodation.
Lefty's strategy is analogous to the preverbal frog in a pot of water gradually brought to the boiling point.
Since 1875, states have passed variously more aggressive antidiscrimination codes. At the state level, we now have prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, age, national origin, marital status, familial status, disability, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression. . . . The list goes on in the District of Columbia's public accommodation code to include things like matriculation, political affiliation, source of income and more. It's a real shmorgishborg of the kind of things that give leftists goose bumps and the rest of us indigestion.
(It's been rumored for years that the District of Columbia's wont is to compel business owners to accommodate those who practice their fetish for kitchen sinks in public, as long as the later is firmly secured to their persons so as not to endanger others upon the moment of . . . shall we say, completion. A fetish for kitchen sinks is one thing, but, come on, flying kitchen sinks in a crowded restaurant would be dangerous. Geez.)
As the Court observed in Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) and reiterated in Boy Scouts of American v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2001), public accommodation has become so broadly advanced that "the potential for conflict between state public accommodation laws and the First Amendment rights of organizations" has become a serious concern.
In addition to the well-established line of stare decisis regarding the inextricable link between First Amendment liberties and free-association, and the well-established line of stare decisis regarding the First Amendment liberties of corporations as individuals, which silly leftists think was asserted out of nowhere in the Hobby Lobby case, when in fact the matter's been settled in case law for years: we have the First Amendment liberties of artistic expression (National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 602 [1998]), coupled with the freedom of expression in "the form quiet persuasion, inculcation of traditional values, instruction of the young and community service" (Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 636 [1984]).
But even more emphatically, the First Amendment "protects the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster . . . an idea they find morally objectionable" (Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 715 [1977]). The government "may not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees" in order to "produce a society free of . . . biases" (Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos, citing W. Va. State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 [1943]). Such "invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control" (W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette). The First Amendment "prohibits improper restraints on the voluntary public expression of ideas" (prior restraint) and the "concomitant freedom not to speak publicly" (Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utilities Commission, 475 U.S. 1, 11 [1986]).
Hence, the right to dissent from the impertinent mores of government, more at, the right of the individual to tell the denizens of the herd mentality to take their boorishly moralistic drivel and shove it!
Folks have gotten so strung out on the banalities of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, i.e., cultural Marxism, more commonly known today as political correctness or multiculturalism, brought to you by the Social Studies Department of Columbia University beginning in the early 1930s: they've utterly lost sight of the preeminent concerns of inalienable First Amendment liberties and the case law with which the inordinate expansion of Public Accommodation into the sphere of ideological/behavioral concerns is in conflict.
Suggested reading: 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World, Logan's Run, Stranger in a Strange Land, A Canticle for Leibowitz.
But the Court has already held that overly intrusive Public Accommodation is unconstitutional for the federal government, though the Court has thus far allowed it to be asserted by the several states.
Please site the case you say exists, I'd like to review it. (And not it's not the Hobby Lobby case as that wasn't a Public Accommodation law case.)
Thanks,
>>>>
No problem, and thank you for raising the matter, as this is what happens when one has a more complex idea in the back of one's mind, but fails to clearly express it.
STTAB touched on this concern.
I'm alluding not only to United States v. Stanley, et.al., 109 U.S. 3 (1883), the consolidated case in which the Court struck down the public accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, but to its prescient historical ramifications touching on First Amendment liberties. In that case, as I'm sure you're aware, the Court deemed that while the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination by the several states, that is, prohibited them from denying equal protection, Congress did not have the power to prohibit acts of private discrimination by individuals unsupported by state authority. On the other hand, the Constitution did not necessarily prohibit the several states from enacting public accommodation codes.
The Act of 1875 narrowly prohibited discrimination on the basis of race or color. Since 1964, of course, the federal government has more broadly prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender or national origin. Despite the rhetorical shoe shine of wedge-issue baiting, the reason that leftists don't want to be more aggressive at the federal level, well, except for the naïve among them, for example, like those on this thread, is because that would provoke a nationwide reaction that would threaten to bring down the more obnoxious infringements on the prerogatives of free-association and private property asserted by blue states around the country under the banner of Public Accommodation.
Lefty's strategy is analogous to the preverbal frog in a pot of water gradually brought to the boiling point.
Since 1875, states have passed variously more aggressive antidiscrimination codes. At the state level, we now have prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, age, national origin, marital status, familial status, disability, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression. . . . The list goes on in the District of Columbia's public accommodation code to include things like matriculation, political affiliation, source of income and more. It's a real shmorgishborg of the kind of things that give leftists goose bumps and the rest of us indigestion.
(It's been rumored for years that the District of Columbia's wont is to compel business owners to accommodate those who practice their fetish for kitchen sinks in public, as long as the later is firmly secured to their persons so as not to endanger others upon the moment of . . . shall we say, completion. A fetish for kitchen sinks is one thing, but, come on, flying kitchen sinks in a crowded restaurant would be dangerous. Geez.)
As the Court observed in Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) and reiterated in Boy Scouts of American v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2001), public accommodation has become so broadly advanced that "the potential for conflict between state public accommodation laws and the First Amendment rights of organizations" has become a serious concern.
In addition to the well-established line of stare decisis regarding the inextricable link between First Amendment liberties and free-association, and the well-established line of stare decisis regarding the First Amendment liberties of corporations as individuals, which silly leftists think was asserted out of nowhere in the Hobby Lobby case, when in fact the matter's been settled in case law for years: we have the First Amendment liberties of artistic expression (National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 602 [1998]), coupled with the freedom of expression in "the form quiet persuasion, inculcation of traditional values, instruction of the young and community service" (Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 636 [1984]).
But even more emphatically, the First Amendment "protects the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster . . . an idea they find morally objectionable" (Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 715 [1977]). The government "may not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees" in order to "produce a society free of . . . biases" (Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos, citing W. Va. State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 [1943]). Such "invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control" (W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette). The First Amendment "prohibits improper restraints on the voluntary public expression of ideas" (prior restraint) and the "concomitant freedom not to speak publicly" (Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utilities Commission, 475 U.S. 1, 11 [1986]).
Hence, the right to dissent from the impertinent mores of government, more at, the right of the individual to tell the denizens of the herd mentality to take their boorishly moralistic drivel and shove it!
Folks have gotten so strung out on the banalities of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, i.e., cultural Marxism, more commonly known today as political correctness or multiculturalism, brought to you by the Social Studies Department of Columbia University beginning in the early 1930s: they've utterly lost sight of the preeminent concerns of inalienable First Amendment liberties and the case law with which the inordinate expansion of Public Accommodation into the sphere of ideological/behavioral concerns is in conflict.
Suggested reading: 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World, Logan's Run, Stranger in a Strange Land, A Canticle for Leibowitz.
I'm sorry I thought you were talking about a current decision that still held precedential value. The decision in the five case you speak of (of which one was United States v. Stanley) combined into what are known as "the Civil Rights Cases" was effectively overruled in Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States in 1964. Well maybe overruled is a little strong in terminology, more like set aside.
In Heartland the court upheld the Public Accommodation law portion of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights act because, unlike the 1875 law that was found to be unconstitutional because it was overly broad. The 1964 Act on the other hand was closely tied to interstate commerce.
In light of our ground for decision, it might be well at the outset to discuss the Civil Rights Cases, supra, which declared provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional. 18 Stat. 335, 336. We think that decision inapposite and without precedential value in determining the constitutionality of the present Act. Unlike Title II of the present legislation, the 1875 Act broadly proscribed discrimination in "inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement," without limiting the categories of affected businesses to those impinging upon interstate commerce. In contrast, the applicability of Title II is carefully limited to enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people, [p251] except where state action is involved. Further, the fact that certain kinds of businesses may not in 1875 have been sufficiently involved in interstate commerce to warrant bringing them within the ambit of the commerce power is not necessarily dispositive of the same question today. Our populace had not reached its present mobility, nor were facilities, goods and services circulating as readily in interstate commerce as they are today. Although the principles which we apply today are those first formulated by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824), the conditions of transportation and commerce have changed dramatically, and we must apply those principles to the present state of commerce.
So Stanley was overcome by Heartland as to Federal Public Accommodation laws.
I thought from your comment you were talking about a blanket decision (that was still valid) which ruled that federal and state public accommodation laws were unconstitutional.
>>>>
That's a bold statement. Not saying it isn't true, but in a building full of idiots to declare one is the biggest idiot of all? Bold my friend.
I'm sorry I thought you were talking about a current decision that still held precedential value. The decision in the five case you speak of (of which one was United States v. Stanley) combined into what are known as "the Civil Rights Cases" was effectively overruled in Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States in 1964. Well maybe overruled is a little strong in terminology, more like set aside.
In Heartland the court upheld the Public Accommodation law portion of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights act because, unlike the 1875 law that was found to be unconstitutional because it was overly broad. The 1964 Act on the other hand was closely tied to interstate commerce.
In light of our ground for decision, it might be well at the outset to discuss the Civil Rights Cases, supra, which declared provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional. 18 Stat. 335, 336. We think that decision inapposite and without precedential value in determining the constitutionality of the present Act. Unlike Title II of the present legislation, the 1875 Act broadly proscribed discrimination in "inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement," without limiting the categories of affected businesses to those impinging upon interstate commerce. In contrast, the applicability of Title II is carefully limited to enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people, [p251] except where state action is involved. Further, the fact that certain kinds of businesses may not in 1875 have been sufficiently involved in interstate commerce to warrant bringing them within the ambit of the commerce power is not necessarily dispositive of the same question today. Our populace had not reached its present mobility, nor were facilities, goods and services circulating as readily in interstate commerce as they are today. Although the principles which we apply today are those first formulated by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824), the conditions of transportation and commerce have changed dramatically, and we must apply those principles to the present state of commerce.
So Stanley was overcome by Heartland as to Federal Public Accommodation laws.
I thought from your comment you were talking about a blanket decision (that was still valid) which ruled that federal and state public accommodation laws were unconstitutional.
>>>>
I'm sorry I thought you were talking about a current decision that still held precedential value. The decision in the five case you speak of (of which one was United States v. Stanley) combined into what are known as "the Civil Rights Cases" was effectively overruled in Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States in 1964. Well maybe overruled is a little strong in terminology, more like set aside.
In Heartland the court upheld the Public Accommodation law portion of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights act because, unlike the 1875 law that was found to be unconstitutional because it was overly broad. The 1964 Act on the other hand was closely tied to interstate commerce.
In light of our ground for decision, it might be well at the outset to discuss the Civil Rights Cases, supra, which declared provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional. 18 Stat. 335, 336. We think that decision inapposite and without precedential value in determining the constitutionality of the present Act. Unlike Title II of the present legislation, the 1875 Act broadly proscribed discrimination in "inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement," without limiting the categories of affected businesses to those impinging upon interstate commerce. In contrast, the applicability of Title II is carefully limited to enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people, [p251] except where state action is involved. Further, the fact that certain kinds of businesses may not in 1875 have been sufficiently involved in interstate commerce to warrant bringing them within the ambit of the commerce power is not necessarily dispositive of the same question today. Our populace had not reached its present mobility, nor were facilities, goods and services circulating as readily in interstate commerce as they are today. Although the principles which we apply today are those first formulated by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824), the conditions of transportation and commerce have changed dramatically, and we must apply those principles to the present state of commerce.
So Stanley was overcome by Heartland as to Federal Public Accommodation laws.
I thought from your comment you were talking about a blanket decision (that was still valid) which ruled that federal and state public accommodation laws were unconstitutional.
>>>>
That was clearly some legal mumbo jumbo used to justify reversing a previous decision.
"things have changed"
No they haven't , private property is still private property. Heartland was an incorrect ruling.
I don't see how anyone could justify forcing someone to do business with another person.
And apart from that, I will ask for the fiftieth time, who in their right mind WANTS to do business with someone who has made it clear that they don't want their business?
That's a bold statement. Not saying it isn't true, but in a building full of idiots to declare one is the biggest idiot of all? Bold my friend.
Personally, I am pretty sure that prize goes to Rangel.
I apologize for the difficult reading in the above post upon first posting. Apparently, the forum doesn't like [ s ] with no spaces sometimes as it through lines in my text the first time below it. Just so you know, prohibits should be prohibit[ s ] in the quote from Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utilities Commission in the above. It took several minutes to fix by copying and pasting those portions into my Google search box and back again, rather than retyping it all again. It's legible now, World Watcher. Hope the post in the above answers your concern.
Straight marriage isn't there either. Guess straight people aren't "REALLY" married after all.They should, but marriage only applies to one man and one woman. Simple, biologically correct, and historically accurate.
I want you and your partner to have the same rights and priviledges as a married man and woman. But your union is not a marriage no matter how many times you try to make that claim.
Must be something in the constitution that I overlooked....
Nope, gay marriage is not in it anywhere. Neither are gay rights, bigamy, polygamy, or anal sex. Maybe you should start a campaign to add those things to the bill or rights.
