Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Besides religion, which behavior is protected? Specifically?

Interracial civil marriage.

Wanting to marry someone of a different race is a behavior.


>>>>

Not since race was protected. If the two races were both of the same gender, the yes. There is not static definition of "LGBTQ" etc. There is a static and innate definition of race. For more details on that, visit this thread: A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum and see what the leadership of the LGBT community is talking about these days..

 

[Silhouette]

I think if you're going to claim rights, you should have who is petitioning for those rights nailed down before you head out of the chute.

 

[Montrovant]

I think if you're going to claim rights, you should have who is petitioning for those rights nailed down before you head out of the chute.

Once again, what part of the word gay do you have trouble with? Are you honestly trying to say that you don't think gay has been accurately defined? If that's the case, how can you be so opposed to gay marriage or gays in general, as you have been for as long as I've seen you post on this board? It seems you have been railing against something you don't understand.

 

[danielpalos]

I think if you're going to claim rights, you should have who is petitioning for those rights nailed down before you head out of the chute.

There is no appeal to ignorance of Article 4, Section 2 or its State equivalents.

 

[Silhouette]

I think if you're going to claim rights, you should have who is petitioning for those rights nailed down before you head out of the chute.

Once again, what part of the word gay do you have trouble with? Are you honestly trying to say that you don't think gay has been accurately defined? If that's the case, how can you be so opposed to gay marriage or gays in general, as you have been for as long as I've seen you post on this board? It seems you have been railing against something you don't understand.

We are both in agreement then: we should leave no stone unturned until every single member of the general public thoroughly understands what "gay" is, where it came from and where it's going.

And people said you and I don't ever agree...

 

[Syriusly]

Besides religion, which behavior is protected? Specifically?

Interracial civil marriage.

Wanting to marry someone of a different race is a behavior.


>>>>

There is a static and innate definition of race..

What idiocy.

There is no 'static and innate definition of race- hell biologists can't even agree on whether 'race' as such exists.

What race is Barack Obama? He calls himself 'black' - but he is half white and half black- because USUALLY in the United States NOW- that is what such a mix would be called.

At other times however he would have been called Mulatto or half breed or maybe 'high yeller". There were times when Mulatto's were considered a distinctive subgroup.

"Race" is far from static- and there is no 'innate' definition.

Hell its easier to come up with a clear definition of homosexual than African American.

 

[Syriusly]

I think if you're going to claim rights, you should have who is petitioning for those rights nailed down before you head out of the chute.

Pretty straightforward what was 'petitioned' before the courts- same gender couples said they deserved the same protections of marriage as opposite gender couples.

What part of that is 'not nailed down'?

The Supreme Court knows who 'same gender couples' are- why do you have trouble understanding who they are?

 

[Syriusly]

. You can't draw conclusions off of a muddled, shifty or false premise.

You do it all the time.

Pretty much every post.

 

[Skylar]

I think if you're going to claim rights, you should have who is petitioning for those rights nailed down before you head out of the chute.

Once again, what part of the word gay do you have trouble with? Are you honestly trying to say that you don't think gay has been accurately defined? If that's the case, how can you be so opposed to gay marriage or gays in general, as you have been for as long as I've seen you post on this board? It seems you have been railing against something you don't understand.

Its irrelevant if Sil can't figure out who gay people are. The courts have no such problem:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause,

Romer v. Evans

All the 'static class' gibberish is merely pseudo-legal drivel. And has no relevance to the law or the outcome of any court case.

 

[Syriusly]

I think if you're going to claim rights, you should have who is petitioning for those rights nailed down before you head out of the chute.

All the 'static class' gibberish is merely pseudo-legal drivel. And has no relevance to the law or the outcome of any court case.

Which could pretty much be said about every post Silhouette makes.

 

[danielpalos]

I can't wait to start blaming the Right in any affirmative action threads for being so clueless and so Causeless as any form of equal work for equal pay.

 

[Silhouette]

I can't wait to start blaming the Right in any affirmative action threads for being so clueless and so Causeless as any form of equal work for equal pay.

daniel, your strawmen are legendary...meanwhile...where were we? Oh, right..

I think if you're going to claim rights, you should have who is petitioning for those rights nailed down before you head out of the chute.

Once again, what part of the word gay do you have trouble with? Are you honestly trying to say that you don't think gay has been accurately defined? If that's the case, how can you be so opposed to gay marriage or gays in general, as you have been for as long as I've seen you post on this board? It seems you have been railing against something you don't understand.

We are both in agreement then: we should leave no stone unturned until every single member of the general public thoroughly understands what "gay" is, where it came from and where it's going.
And people said you and I don't ever agree...

 

[Skylar]

I can't wait to start blaming the Right in any affirmative action threads for being so clueless and so Causeless as any form of equal work for equal pay.

daniel, your strawmen are legendary...meanwhile...where were we? Oh, right..

I think if you're going to claim rights, you should have who is petitioning for those rights nailed down before you head out of the chute.

Once again, what part of the word gay do you have trouble with? Are you honestly trying to say that you don't think gay has been accurately defined? If that's the case, how can you be so opposed to gay marriage or gays in general, as you have been for as long as I've seen you post on this board? It seems you have been railing against something you don't understand.

We are both in agreement then: we should leave no stone unturned until every single member of the general public thoroughly understands what "gay" is, where it came from and where it's going.

Alas, the courts don't give a fiddler's fuck about your pseudo-legal 'requirement' of gays. The courts have had no problem figuring out who gays are. Just look at Romer v. Evans....almost 20 years ago.

 

[mdk]

We already know what gay is Sil. All one has to do is where a Gold's Gym tank and wear a wrist watch. You should alert the courts to these new and stunning details. It may sway their decision.

 

[dcraelin]

I can't wait to start blaming the Right in any affirmative action threads for being so clueless and so Causeless as any form of equal work for equal pay.

daniel, your strawmen are legendary...meanwhile...where were we? Oh, right..

I think if you're going to claim rights, you should have who is petitioning for those rights nailed down before you head out of the chute.

Once again, what part of the word gay do you have trouble with? Are you honestly trying to say that you don't think gay has been accurately defined? If that's the case, how can you be so opposed to gay marriage or gays in general, as you have been for as long as I've seen you post on this board? It seems you have been railing against something you don't understand.

We are both in agreement then: we should leave no stone unturned until every single member of the general public thoroughly understands what "gay" is, where it came from and where it's going.

Alas, the courts don't give a fiddler's fuck about your pseudo-legal 'requirement' of gays. The courts have had no problem figuring out who gays are. Just look at Romer v. Evans....almost 20 years ago.

The Romer decision is incomprehensible drivel........I would think the court would be embarrassed to even refer to it again.

 

[Skylar]

I can't wait to start blaming the Right in any affirmative action threads for being so clueless and so Causeless as any form of equal work for equal pay.

daniel, your strawmen are legendary...meanwhile...where were we? Oh, right..

I think if you're going to claim rights, you should have who is petitioning for those rights nailed down before you head out of the chute.

Once again, what part of the word gay do you have trouble with? Are you honestly trying to say that you don't think gay has been accurately defined? If that's the case, how can you be so opposed to gay marriage or gays in general, as you have been for as long as I've seen you post on this board? It seems you have been railing against something you don't understand.

We are both in agreement then: we should leave no stone unturned until every single member of the general public thoroughly understands what "gay" is, where it came from and where it's going.

Alas, the courts don't give a fiddler's fuck about your pseudo-legal 'requirement' of gays. The courts have had no problem figuring out who gays are. Just look at Romer v. Evans....almost 20 years ago.

The Romer decision is incomprehensible drivel........I would think the court would be embarrassed to even refer to it again.

Says you. And you merely ignore any ruling, any quote, any piece of history.....anything that doesn't agree with you. And your willful ignorance and flagrant cherry picking have no relevance to the validity or applicability of any ruling.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Romer decision is incomprehensible drivel........I would think the court would be embarrassed to even refer to it again.

They referred to is in Windsor.


>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

I can't wait to start blaming the Right in any affirmative action threads for being so clueless and so Causeless as any form of equal work for equal pay.

daniel, your strawmen are legendary...meanwhile...where were we? Oh, right..

I think if you're going to claim rights, you should have who is petitioning for those rights nailed down before you head out of the chute.

Once again, what part of the word gay do you have trouble with? Are you honestly trying to say that you don't think gay has been accurately defined? If that's the case, how can you be so opposed to gay marriage or gays in general, as you have been for as long as I've seen you post on this board? It seems you have been railing against something you don't understand.

We are both in agreement then: we should leave no stone unturned until every single member of the general public thoroughly understands what "gay" is, where it came from and where it's going.

Alas, the courts don't give a fiddler's fuck about your pseudo-legal 'requirement' of gays. The courts have had no problem figuring out who gays are. Just look at Romer v. Evans....almost 20 years ago.

The Romer decision is incomprehensible drivel........I would think the court would be embarrassed to even refer to it again.

Says you. And you merely ignore any ruling, any quote, any piece of history.....anything that doesn't agree with you. And your willful ignorance and flagrant cherry picking have no relevance to the validity or applicability of any ruling.

it is you that is ignoring history, and cherry picking.

 

[dcraelin]

The Romer decision is incomprehensible drivel........I would think the court would be embarrassed to even refer to it again.

They referred to is in Windsor.


>>>>

yeah, figures...............that was a case that should never have made it to the Supreme court.....

 

[Silhouette]

For that matter, Windor itself could be cited in this Monday's coming release of the Decision on the marriage part of this debate. 56 times it avered the choice to say yes or no to gay marriage was, is and always has been up to the states. If they decide differently, it would be a de facto overturning of the merits of Windsor 2013. The hinge of that case was whether or not a state had a right to ratify and apply all the perks of gay marriage or not..