GOP hopefuls remind Iowans they oppose Gay Rights

[WorldWatcher]

So, show us where marriage is a civil "right"

I'll tell you what, show us where sitting in the front of the bus is a civil right. Better yet, show me what gives the government the right to discriminate against gay people.



Freedom of religion is a constitutional right. Some religions proclaim that men can have multiple wives. Yet the government is still allowed to deny people the right to enter into polygamous marriages. This is because possessing a right does not mean that said right is without limits that the government can impose when there is a legitimate public interest being served.



Doesn't the 10th amendment come into play?

The term "Gay Rights" is pure propoganda put out by the left. Nothing more.

Yeah, kinda like that propaganda a few decades ago when dem dirty black folk were complaining about equal civil rights so that they could drink from the same water fountains and eat at the same restaurants as good ol' clean white folk.

Still can't show that it's a civil RIGHT?

It's not!

Fact is, they would get a lot further if they dropped the "RIGHTS" BS.

Call it what it is, a ''WANT"........Fight for the "WANT", more power to them.

And, don't even try and compare it to the cause of blacks.......It's nothing more than tired left wing propoganda, and a slap in the face of the blacks who truly suffered.

Personally I've never viewed Same-sex Civil Marriage as a "Right". To me Civil Marriage is a privilege.

However, to me, Equal Treatment under the law is a "Right" as embodied in the 14th Amendment in it's Privileges and Immunities, Due Process and Equal Protections clauses. And while the Slaughterhouse case pretty much nullified P&I, Equal Protection and Due Process have been recognized as rights.

I have no problem with the government treating individuals or groups differently when there is a compelling government reason to do so. For example I think it's fine to discriminate against blind people by not allowing them to operate a multi-ton vehicle at 65 MPH on public highways. Their right to equal treatment does not override public safety on the roads. However to date, no one has presented a compelling government reason for treating similar situated groups differently. Those groups being law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult same-sex couples and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult different-sex couples.


>>>>

 

[Wicked Jester]

Still can't show that it's a civil RIGHT?

It's not!

Fact is, they would get a lot further if they dropped the "RIGHTS" BS.

Call it what it is, a ''WANT"........Fight for the "WANT", more power to them.

And, don't even try and compare it to the cause of blacks.......It's nothing more than tired left wing propoganda, and a slap in the face of the blacks who truly suffered.

Nice! Completely ignore your arguments being trounced, and settle back in by re uttering the BS that was just debunked.

You didn't debunk a damn thing.

You didn't trounce a damn thing.

Show me where it says, "MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT"

If you can't, just admit it, and move on.

Marriage for ANYBODY is a WANT. You cannot deny that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The government cannot grant marriage licenses to one group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and deny that same license to another group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens without an overriding, legal reason. That would go against the 14th amendment and equal treatment under the law...which IS a right.

OK, Bod...

.............. You've been seeing my posts for two long. Now you're stealing my ammo.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

The government cannot grant marriage licenses to one group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and deny that same license to another group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens without an overriding, legal reason. That would go against the 14th amendment and equal treatment under the law...which IS a right.

OK, Bod...

.............. You've been seeing my posts for two long. Now you're stealing my ammo.



>>>>

Oh come on...I coined "law-abiding, tax-paying citizens"......


But I agree that Wicked is avoiding your and my debate points like the Plague.

 

[gekaap]

Show me where it says, "MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT"

If you can't, just admit it, and move on.

Marriage for ANYBODY is a WANT. You cannot deny that.

I just told you, it's just as much a civil right as black people have to eat in the same restaurants as white people. You didn't like that response and told me not to say it, i.e. you ignored it. I also explained that it falls under the 10th amendment.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I'll tell you what, show us where sitting in the front of the bus is a civil right. Better yet, show me what gives the government the right to discriminate against gay people.



Freedom of religion is a constitutional right. Some religions proclaim that men can have multiple wives. Yet the government is still allowed to deny people the right to enter into polygamous marriages. This is because possessing a right does not mean that said right is without limits that the government can impose when there is a legitimate public interest being served.



Doesn't the 10th amendment come into play?



Yeah, kinda like that propaganda a few decades ago when dem dirty black folk were complaining about equal civil rights so that they could drink from the same water fountains and eat at the same restaurants as good ol' clean white folk.

Still can't show that it's a civil RIGHT?

It's not!

Fact is, they would get a lot further if they dropped the "RIGHTS" BS.

Call it what it is, a ''WANT"........Fight for the "WANT", more power to them.

And, don't even try and compare it to the cause of blacks.......It's nothing more than tired left wing propoganda, and a slap in the face of the blacks who truly suffered.

Personally I've never viewed Same-sex Civil Marriage as a "Right". To me Civil Marriage is a privilege.

However, to me, Equal Treatment under the law is a "Right" as embodied in the 14th Amendment in it's Privileges and Immunities, Due Process and Equal Protections clauses. And while the Slaughterhouse case pretty much nullified P&I, Equal Protection and Due Process have been recognized as rights.

I have no problem with the government treating individuals or groups differently when there is a compelling government reason to do so. For example I think it's fine to discriminate against blind people by not allowing them to operate a multi-ton vehicle at 65 MPH on public highways. Their right to equal treatment does not override public safety on the roads. However to date, no one has presented a compelling government reason for treating similar situated groups differently. Those groups being law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult same-sex couples and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult different-sex couples.


>>>>

That's my point.........It's not a "right''!

Everytime this subject comes up, we have the usuals claiming, "IT'S MY RIGHT!"

No it's not. It's not their "RIGHT", my "RIGHT", or anybody's "RIGHT"!

 

[bodecea]

Still can't show that it's a civil RIGHT?

It's not!

Fact is, they would get a lot further if they dropped the "RIGHTS" BS.

Call it what it is, a ''WANT"........Fight for the "WANT", more power to them.

And, don't even try and compare it to the cause of blacks.......It's nothing more than tired left wing propoganda, and a slap in the face of the blacks who truly suffered.

Personally I've never viewed Same-sex Civil Marriage as a "Right". To me Civil Marriage is a privilege.

However, to me, Equal Treatment under the law is a "Right" as embodied in the 14th Amendment in it's Privileges and Immunities, Due Process and Equal Protections clauses. And while the Slaughterhouse case pretty much nullified P&I, Equal Protection and Due Process have been recognized as rights.

I have no problem with the government treating individuals or groups differently when there is a compelling government reason to do so. For example I think it's fine to discriminate against blind people by not allowing them to operate a multi-ton vehicle at 65 MPH on public highways. Their right to equal treatment does not override public safety on the roads. However to date, no one has presented a compelling government reason for treating similar situated groups differently. Those groups being law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult same-sex couples and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult different-sex couples.


>>>>

That's my point.........It's not a "right''!

Everytime this subject comes up, we have the usuals claiming, "IT'S MY RIGHT!"

No it's not. It's not their "RIGHT", my "RIGHT", or anybody's "RIGHT"!

Well?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Personally I've never viewed Same-sex Civil Marriage as a "Right". To me Civil Marriage is a privilege.

However, to me, Equal Treatment under the law is a "Right" as embodied in the 14th Amendment in it's Privileges and Immunities, Due Process and Equal Protections clauses. And while the Slaughterhouse case pretty much nullified P&I, Equal Protection and Due Process have been recognized as rights.

I have no problem with the government treating individuals or groups differently when there is a compelling government reason to do so. For example I think it's fine to discriminate against blind people by not allowing them to operate a multi-ton vehicle at 65 MPH on public highways. Their right to equal treatment does not override public safety on the roads. However to date, no one has presented a compelling government reason for treating similar situated groups differently. Those groups being law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult same-sex couples and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult different-sex couples.


>>>>

That's my point.........It's not a "right''!

Everytime this subject comes up, we have the usuals claiming, "IT'S MY RIGHT!"

No it's not. It's not their "RIGHT", my "RIGHT", or anybody's "RIGHT"!

Well?

Well what?

It's not a civil "RIGHT"

And you can't show that it's written ANYWHERE that it's an absolute civil ''RIGHT"!

Imagine what this country would be like if it were an absolute "Civil Right".

Do you even have a clue as to why it's not an absolute "civil right"?

Ever take a biology course?........Do you know what can happen when family members pro-create?

Now, go out and fight for your "wants".......Good luck, more power to you.

Seriously, you people would get a lot further in your cause, if you stop with the propoganda. Once the word "rights" starts being thrown around, many people start going, "whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute, WHAT?"

 

[GHook93]

What a dishonest article. First, there wasn't one statement that wasn't out of context! NOT ONE. Second, being against gay marriage is MUCH different than being against gay rights. Who are you crappin?

All appealing to those far right wingers.

Trump, Santorum, Gingrich, Pawlenty Remind Iowans They Oppose Gay Rights | On Top Magazine :: Gay & Lesbian News, Entertainment, Commentary & Travel

 

[Nosmo King]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

How do you figure that? You are opposed to the right of sane, sober taxpaying American citizens to avail themselves of the protection afforded by contract law and you are not opposed to gay rights?

Walk me through your argument please.

Marriage is not a civil right, neither is making a contract of any type. A person can easily support polices that prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians and oppose same sex marriage, Obama does it all the time.

Making a contract is definately a civil right. Are the protections afforded under contract law restricted to a certain class?

 

[Uncensored2008]

And, just when did opposition to same sex marriage equate to being against "gay rights".

When leftists needed a wedge issue.

The left is an integrity free zone.

 

[Nosmo King]

How do you figure that? You are opposed to the right of sane, sober taxpaying American citizens to avail themselves of the protection afforded by contract law and you are not opposed to gay rights?

Walk me through your argument please.

Marriage is not a civil right, neither is making a contract of any type. A person can easily support polices that prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians and oppose same sex marriage, Obama does it all the time.

Exactly!.....If marriage were a "RIGHT" there would be no reasons for states to deny a marriage license for ANY reason.

I'm sick of hearing this "RIGHTS" crap......It's ridiculous, and nothing more than a left wing ploy to make it appear as something it's not.

The right wing has no appreciation of civil rights, only property rights. What's more vital in a free society: property rights or human rights?

Hell, the right would bargain with Satan if they thought there was a profit to be made. Not a shred of moral conscience.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Seriously, you people would get a lot further in your cause, if you stop with the propoganda. Once the word "rights" starts being thrown around, many people start going, "whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute, WHAT?"

Well I guess I'm not a "you people" because I'm not homosexual. But I should point out that...

1. 10-years ago you could be arrested for engaging in sex with the same gender and thrown in jail.

2. You could be discharged from the United States Military for being a homoseuxal.

3. The total number of States recognizing Same-sex Civil Marriages was - 0.

4. Less than 10-years ago (2002 & 2004) there was a slew of voter initiatives barring Same-sex Civil Marriage through State Constitutional Amendment and they succeeded with (IIRC) 23% margins of victory to 76%.​

Now you can't be arrested for being gay.

Now the Military is working towards implementation of a policy that has been repealed.

Now Same-Sex Civil Marriage is recognized in some fashion in 9 States and the District of Columnbia.

The last two referendums held (Prop 8 and Question 71) were so close that a change of 2-3% would have changed the outcome.

In addition to gains in the States and at the voting booth, polls show that consistently over the long term term society has become more accepting of homosexuals because as they get to know them they come to realize that the vast majority are not the stereotypes everyone likes to make fun of.

They are just people like the rest of us.



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

that's hardly the same. 1st district declared in unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. it'll wind up in front of SCOTUS eventually and be struck down, eventually, imo.

If it is it will not be for the reason that the 1st District ruled it unconstitutional. That was one of the shittiest legal arguments I have ever read.

your disagreement notwithstanding, it's the kind of law that should make a conservative puke.

Shitty laws should make everyone puke.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Democrats I would think you would want to make your political party in favor of gay marriage before you start worrying about the other party.

Btw I agree with you, anyone of legal age should be able to get married irregardless of sex, personally I want government out of ALL marriages. But look in the mirror before you start pointing fingers.

No you don't or at least you haven't thought it through. The reason government is involved in marriage is to sort out the legal and financial issues when there's sickness, death or divorce. Keeping government out would open a whole can of worms in those instances.

Believe it or not, you can handle those with the government being involved in determining who cannot get married.

 

[bodecea]

That's my point.........It's not a "right''!

Everytime this subject comes up, we have the usuals claiming, "IT'S MY RIGHT!"

No it's not. It's not their "RIGHT", my "RIGHT", or anybody's "RIGHT"!

Well?

Well what?

It's not a civil "RIGHT"

And you can't show that it's written ANYWHERE that it's an absolute civil ''RIGHT"!

Imagine what this country would be like if it were an absolute "Civil Right".

Do you even have a clue as to why it's not an absolute "civil right"?

Ever take a biology course?........Do you know what can happen when family members pro-create?

Now, go out and fight for your "wants".......Good luck, more power to you.

Seriously, you people would get a lot further in your cause, if you stop with the propoganda. Once the word "rights" starts being thrown around, many people start going, "whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute, WHAT?"

Gay Marriage is a Civil Right as long as Hetero Marriage is a Civil Right...it's all about the equality. You don't want gay marriage to be a right? Fine...get rid of Hetero marriage. Then the government cannot be seen to be favoring one law-abiding, tax-paying group over another for no legitimate, legal reason.

Are you willing to give up YOUR right to a civil marriage in order to keep gays from their right to a civil marriage?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And DOMA has been ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court more than once.

Edit: Comment removed, QW addressed it in a later post.

By the way, the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that the government has the power to define marriage however they want, and that that power actually trumps the Bill of Rights. If the right to practice a religion does not trump the power of the government to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, the right to get married is not going to cut it.

So explain how Virginia Law concerning marriage was found unconstitutional in the Loving v. Virginia Case.

I mean if States can "define marriage however they want", then that law should have been upheld right?



>>>>

I said government, not states. Federal law made bigamy illegal, even though Utah said it was legal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

It's opposition to at least one right.

Marriage is not a right, it is completely defined and regulated by the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Marriage is not a civil right, neither is making a contract of any type.

When you put it that way, not much different than saying that sitting in the front of the bus is not a civil right.

Marriage is controlled by the states. In Iowa, the right to marriage exists, as was recognized by their Supreme Court.

BTW, why are so many conservatives so quick to invoke the 10th amendment so often, but when it comes to marriage they stop in their tracks?

Not the same at all. Marriage laws exist solely to control who cannot get married, they always have been. Until you understand that you really do not understand the debate here.

As for why conservatives do things, try asking them. I do not pretend to read minds, so I will not deign to answer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly!.....If marriage were a "RIGHT" there would be no reasons for states to deny a marriage license for ANY reason.

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right. But there are reasons the government can deny you the opportunity to say certain things, or when you'll have the opportunity to say them.

I bet you believe that.