Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No Interracial Marriage is NOT behavior.

Sure it is.

So then Marriage was outlawed in Loving?

Because you said Marriage is a behavior... and Loving prohibited Behavior.

Now Loving didn't outlaw Marriage, it only outlawed the refusal to license people of distinct races, who otherwise came to apply within the natural standard of Marriage; as one man and one woman, to join as one legal entity.

The issue here is the refusal to license people of the same gender... people who engage in DEVIANT BEHAVIOR. Behavior which falls outside of the human physiological standard of marriage.

There's absolutely NOTHING complex about this... it just seems that such is beyond your limited intellectual means.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Interracial marriage is a given condition within an essential, long standing institution; wherein one man and one woman join as one legal entity.

Prior to the Loving decision, governing bodies were legally capable of rejecting licenses from individuals of distinct races.

Loving determined that such decisions represented judgment set within irrational prejudices, thus failed the fundamental purpose of government which is the service of justice.

For your argument to have merit, the court would have needed to declare that the government has no vested interests in marriage, as marriage bears no liability against the interests, or the principles that sustain the people it represents.

Deviant behavior, by definition rejects the standards, rules and laws that govern human behavior, licensing deviant behavior thus strips government of the means to govern... thus precluding any potential for government to reasonably declare the licensing of deviancy, as being anything remotely within the scope of sound governance, the principles that define America or the interests of the people of the United States.

 

[Skylar]

No Interracial Marriage is NOT behavior.

Sure it is.

So then Marriage was outlawed in Loving?

Nope. Laws criminalizing the behavior of interracial marriage are outlaws. As are laws that fail to recognize the marriages of interracial couples.

 

[Skylar]

The BEHAVIOR of interracial marriage was banned.

The issue in Loving is RACE: Race is NOT BEHAVIOR...

Loving was about interracial marriage. And interracial marriage is a behavior.

No Interracial Marriage is NOT behavior. Interracial behavior is a given condition within long standing institution, wherein one man and one woman join as one legal entity.

Interracial marriage is a behavior. Where two people of different races marry. Virginia law prohibited it and had since the early 1700s. Richard and Mildred Loving were arrested for violating this prohibition by engaging in this banned behavior.

Prior to the Loving decision, governing bodies were legally capable of rejecting licenses from individuals of distinct races.

The interracial marriage ban was a criminal statute. It included potential prison time for offenders. Virginia failed to recognize the licenses of marriages performed in other states for interracial couples. And criminalized the behavior of interracial marriage.

Both the lack of recognition and the criminalization were unconstitutional, as marriage is a fundamental civil right.

Loving determined that such decisions represented judgment set within irrational prejudices, thus failed the fundamental purpose of government which is the service of justice.

The Loving decision never even mentions 'irrational prejudices'. The basis of their ruling was the Equal Protection Clause and marriage being a fundamental right.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're literally making up your own version of the Loving decision, while ignoring the bases of the actual one. No thank you.

For your argument to have merit, the court would have needed to declare that the government has no vested interests in marriage, as marriage bears no liability against interests, or the people it represents.

For my argument to have merit, marriage would have to be a fundamental right. And gays would have to be protected under the Equal Protection clause.

Both of which the court has already found to be true.

Remember, I'm citing the actual ruling. You're citing your imaginary version of it, citing a basis that the court never used. And your imagination has no relevance to any legal standard. As your imagination is objectively meaningless.

In terms of the law, the binding legal precedent is objectively meaningful.

 

[Spinster]

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

Gay and lesbian unions isn't just rhetoric for discussion. Obummer passed a law, on his own accord, last June, that effective the 1st, all same sex partners living together became automatically married. The reason for this insanity was so these partners would have access to health care benefits available through the employed partner's workplace to cover the non-working partner. Really? Just what we need, more free stuff for those who don't turn their hand. This, IMHO, was an atrocity! Not only the insurance benefits, but now these partners, forced into marriage, ultimately qualify for an IRS tax break. Yaah! Exactly what we needed, NOT!!!

 

[WorldWatcher]

So then Marriage was outlawed in Loving?

Nope.

Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites.

Marriage wasn't outlawed, the behavior of interracial marriages was limited.

Because you said Marriage is a behavior... and Loving prohibited Behavior.

people who engage in DEVIANT BEHAVIOR. Behavior which falls outside of the human physiological standard of marriage.

At the time...

................... interracial marriage was considered - you got it - DEVIANT BEHAVIOR.



>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

Gay and lesbian unions isn't just rhetoric for discussion. Obummer passed a law, on his own accord, last June, that effective the 1st, all same sex partners living together became automatically married.

And what law is this?

 

[Spinster]

No Interracial Marriage is NOT behavior.

Sure it is.

So then Marriage was outlawed in Loving?

Nope. Laws criminalizing the behavior of interracial marriage are outlaws. As are laws that fail to recognize the marriages of interracial couples.

How did this thread shift from gay/lesbian marriage to one of interracial marriage, I'd like to know. Reading this complete change from one post to another made me think I'd maybe had a stroke or something, but no, it really did occur.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gay and lesbian unions isn't just rhetoric for discussion. Obummer passed a law, on his own accord, last June, that effective the 1st, all same sex partners living together became automatically married. The reason for this insanity was so these partners would have access to health care benefits available through the employed partner's workplace to cover the non-working partner. Really? Just what we need, more free stuff for those who don't turn their hand. This, IMHO, was an atrocity! Not only the insurance benefits, but now these partners, forced into marriage, ultimately qualify for an IRS tax break. Yaah! Exactly what we needed, NOT!!!

OK, gotta ask.

Please explain how Obummer, all on his own, passed a law that magically made all homosexuals living with another homosexual civilly married?


>>>>

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How did this thread shift from gay/lesbian marriage to one of interracial marriage,

That is a result of the invalid nature of the sexual deviant argument. Which seeks to glom onto otherwise irrelevant judicial decisions, based upon implication that the refusal to accept sexual deviancy as acceptable behavior, is the same thing as racial discrimination.

It's desperation, plain and simple.

 

[Seawytch]

No Interracial Marriage is NOT behavior.

Sure it is.

So then Marriage was outlawed in Loving?

Nope. Laws criminalizing the behavior of interracial marriage are outlaws. As are laws that fail to recognize the marriages of interracial couples.

How did this thread shift from gay/lesbian marriage to one of interracial marriage, I'd like to know. Reading this complete change from one post to another made me think I'd maybe had a stroke or something, but no, it really did occur.

It didn't shift. Accurate comparison are made between prohibitions on interracial and same sex marriages.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Time to let this fight go kiddos, for life. Let's mush on, please...

 

[Syriusly]

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

Gay and lesbian unions isn't just rhetoric for discussion. Obummer passed a law, on his own accord, last June, that effective the 1st, all same sex partners living together became automatically married. The reason for this insanity was so these partners would have access to health care benefits available through the employed partner's workplace to cover the non-working partner. Really? Just what we need, more free stuff for those who don't turn their hand. This, IMHO, was an atrocity! Not only the insurance benefits, but now these partners, forced into marriage, ultimately qualify for an IRS tax break. Yaah! Exactly what we needed, NOT!!!

What law would that be?

I mean the horror of treating married gay couples the same as married straight couples- I can see why you would object to homosexuals getting the same benefits as straight people- but I have never heard of your law- so please provide the citation.

 

[Syriusly]

No Interracial Marriage is NOT behavior.

Sure it is.

So then Marriage was outlawed in Loving?

Nope. Laws criminalizing the behavior of interracial marriage are outlaws. As are laws that fail to recognize the marriages of interracial couples.

How did this thread shift from gay/lesbian marriage to one of interracial marriage, I'd like to know. Reading this complete change from one post to another made me think I'd maybe had a stroke or something, but no, it really did occur.

If you read the entire thread or even the last two pages its pretty obvious.

Or maybe you did have a stroke.

 

[Wake]

When I hear that a majority of people have their minds in support of something, I begin to doubt the importance of it, because there are more stupid people than intelligent people in any society in existence. The most important issue regarding America is likely something that a minority of Americans are aware of. Popularity does not necessarily equate importance.

 

[Skylar]

No Interracial Marriage is NOT behavior.

Sure it is.

So then Marriage was outlawed in Loving?

Nope. Laws criminalizing the behavior of interracial marriage are outlaws. As are laws that fail to recognize the marriages of interracial couples.

How did this thread shift from gay/lesbian marriage to one of interracial marriage, I'd like to know. Reading this complete change from one post to another made me think I'd maybe had a stroke or something, but no, it really did occur.

The Supreme Court cited the Loving v. Virginia decision as an example of state marriage laws being subject to constitutional guarantees in Windsor v. US. Windsor v. US is a famous recent case in which gay marriage bans were overturned.

Many opponents of same sex marriage have said that the Loving Decision has nothing to same sex marriage. We're pointing out how they're wrong.

 

[Skylar]

How did this thread shift from gay/lesbian marriage to one of interracial marriage,

That is a result of the invalid nature of the sexual deviant argument.

No, its the results of you making factually inaccurate statements about the Loving decision. And being corrected by folks who have actually read it.

The basis of the Loving decision was the Equal protection clause and marriage being a fundamental civil right. Which is the exact same basis that opponents of same sex marriage bans are arguing before the court.

Which seeks to glom onto otherwise irrelevant judicial decisions, based upon implication that the refusal to accept sexual deviancy as acceptable behavior, is the same thing as racial discrimination.

You say the Loving decision is irrelevant. The Supreme Court itself cited the Loving decision as an example of state marriage laws being subject to constitutional guarantees when they made the Windsor ruling overturning same sex marriage bans.

In a contest between you and the Supreme Court on legal relevance, the Supreme Court wins.

It's desperation, plain and simple.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the odds of success in the Obergefell ruling next week. You're the one who has started babbling about the 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals' and other insanely reactionary bullshit.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When I hear that a majority of people have their minds in support of something, I begin to doubt the importance of it, because there are more stupid people than intelligent people in any society in existence. The most important issue regarding America is likely something that a minority of Americans are aware of. Popularity does not necessarily equate importance.

It's worse than THAT... popularity has no potential correlation to validity.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Supreme Court cited the Loving v. Virginia decision...

IS IRRELEVANT where the issue is sexual deviants interjecting themselves into marriage, where they demand that people of the same gender should be licensed for such, BECAUSE:

MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, its the results of you making factually inaccurate statements...

So this thread is the result of lil' old ME?

Well ain't I special?

LOL!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.