Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[kaz]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

I'm sure glad we have government to tell us what marriage is. Makes me sleep well at night that we don't have to make these choices for ourselves. Don't you think so, Geaux and Michael? Is there any point where either of you start to wonder why we need government to tell us that at all?

And have you noticed how government uses this to manipulate us?

- Directly, they are using marriage to divide citizens by redistributing money and deciding who gets it.

- Indirectly, they are trawling for getting votes by saying vote for me, I agree with you what marriage is.

What if we ended the sham, had government treat all citizens the same, then we the people can decide what marriage is? I don't give a shit if gays "marry" or not, I just want government to not be the one to decide that.

 

[kaz]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

 

[kaz]

Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And one may perceive it being not fair that gays aren't able to marry same sex partners. Unfortunately for the left, making life fair is nowhere in the Constitution. The courts are to apply the law. The 14th says the law must be applied to everyone equally. Being gay does not who you can marry. Straights cannot marry same sex partners either. Gays can marry opposite sex partners. If Steve is straight or gay, Steve can marry exactly the same people. The law is applied consistently between straights and gays. Therefore, it's a job for the legislature. So go get em, Tiger. Do it the right way and stop advocating the courts commit crimes against the people.

 

[kaz]

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

Nonsense.

In Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court held that homosexuals are entitled to Constitutional protections, and are entitled to the rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

Yes, they are. And they have that. Gays have exactly the same protections and rights as straights. What you want is the courts to give them a right straights don't have, the right to marry the same sex. There is a place to get that legitimately, the legislature...

 

[Seawytch]

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And one may perceive it being not fair that gays aren't able to marry same sex partners. Unfortunately for the left, making life fair is nowhere in the Constitution. The courts are to apply the law. The 14th says the law must be applied to everyone equally. Being gay does not who you can marry. Straights cannot marry same sex partners either. Gays can marry opposite sex partners. If Steve is straight or gay, Steve can marry exactly the same people. The law is applied consistently between straights and gays. Therefore, it's a job for the legislature. So go get em, Tiger. Do it the right way and stop advocating the courts commit crimes against the people.

I guess we can assume you meant does not change who you can marry? I know, you can call me a stupid bitch again.

Wow...such an original argument. Oh wait, no it's not. It's actually an argument that lasted a good 85 years when the racist bigots used it. They claimed that no discrimination took place because blacks could marry each other. Anti gay bigots are trying the same argument. The courts are finding that gender discrimination based on nothing but animus is no different than racist bigotry based solely on animus. Imagine that!

 

[Seawytch]

I'm sure glad we have government to tell us what marriage is. Makes me sleep well at night that we don't have to make these choices for ourselves. Don't you think so, Geaux and Michael?

And Kaz and his wife...who have a civil marriage license issued by the evil government.

 

[Seawytch]

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

Nonsense.

In Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court held that homosexuals are entitled to Constitutional protections, and are entitled to the rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

Yes, they are. And they have that. Gays have exactly the same protections and rights as straights. What you want is the courts to give them a right straights don't have, the right to marry the same sex. There is a place to get that legitimately, the legislature...

In most states...36 now...you also have that right.

 

[The Rabbi]

Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

Nonsense.

In Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court held that homosexuals are entitled to Constitutional protections, and are entitled to the rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

What due process and equal protection are they not receiving? Be specific here.

 

[The Rabbi]

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

Yes, it is discrimination.

Marriage is a contract of commitment between two equal, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That some might perceive marriage as between only a man and woman is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as neither history nor tradition justify discriminating against a given class of persons.

And one may perceive it being not fair that gays aren't able to marry same sex partners. Unfortunately for the left, making life fair is nowhere in the Constitution. The courts are to apply the law. The 14th says the law must be applied to everyone equally. Being gay does not who you can marry. Straights cannot marry same sex partners either. Gays can marry opposite sex partners. If Steve is straight or gay, Steve can marry exactly the same people. The law is applied consistently between straights and gays. Therefore, it's a job for the legislature. So go get em, Tiger. Do it the right way and stop advocating the courts commit crimes against the people.

I guess we can assume you meant does not change who you can marry? I know, you can call me a stupid bitch again.

Wow...such an original argument. Oh wait, no it's not. It's actually an argument that lasted a good 85 years when the racist bigots used it. They claimed that no discrimination took place because blacks could marry each other. Anti gay bigots are trying the same argument. The courts are finding that gender discrimination based on nothing but animus is no different than racist bigotry based solely on animus. Imagine that!

Argument 1.
Imagine that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

Nonsense.

In Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court held that homosexuals are entitled to Constitutional protections, and are entitled to the rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

Yes, they are. And they have that. Gays have exactly the same protections and rights as straights. What you want is the courts to give them a right straights don't have, the right to marry the same sex. There is a place to get that legitimately, the legislature...

In most states...36 now...you also have that right.

Argument 2.
Imagine that.

 

[bodecea]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

 

[The Rabbi]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

And under the Republic law makers derive their power from the will of the people. And the will of the people in most states is that marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

[Seawytch]

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

Nonsense.

In Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court held that homosexuals are entitled to Constitutional protections, and are entitled to the rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

What due process and equal protection are they not receiving? Be specific here.

Why not ask the actual judges that keep ruling over and over and over that these anti gay laws violate it?

Judge Karen Schreier ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who challenged the South Dakota ban on gay marriage and put her decision on hold pending appeals.

"Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry. South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification," Schreier said in a 28-page decision.
--------------------------------------------
A federal judge has struck down South Carolina’s ban on same-sex marriage on the basis of legal precedent in the state’s judicial circuit. In a 26-page decision issued on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Mark Gergel, an Obama appointee, determines the South Carolina’s ban on gay nuptials violates same-sex couples’ rights to equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
--------------------------------------------
In his decision, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle held that by denying the plaintiffs fundamental right to marry, Florida’s marriage ban violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. He also held that there was no justification for denying recognition of the marriages stating that "[t]he undeniable truth is that the Florida ban on same-sex marriage stems entirely, or almost entirely, from moral disapproval of the practice," and that "moral disapproval alone cannot sustain" a ban restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.​

 

[kaz]

I'm sure glad we have government to tell us what marriage is. Makes me sleep well at night that we don't have to make these choices for ourselves. Don't you think so, Geaux and Michael?

And Kaz and his wife...who have a civil marriage license issued by the evil government.

When you get to the point you value your partner as much as yourself, then you may be ready for marriage. Let me know when you get there.

 

[The Rabbi]

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

Nonsense.

In Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court held that homosexuals are entitled to Constitutional protections, and are entitled to the rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

What due process and equal protection are they not receiving? Be specific here.

Why not ask the actual judges that keep ruling over and over and over that these anti gay laws violate it?

Judge Karen Schreier ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who challenged the South Dakota ban on gay marriage and put her decision on hold pending appeals.

"Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry. South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification," Schreier said in a 28-page decision.
--------------------------------------------
A federal judge has struck down South Carolina’s ban on same-sex marriage on the basis of legal precedent in the state’s judicial circuit. In a 26-page decision issued on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Mark Gergel, an Obama appointee, determines the South Carolina’s ban on gay nuptials violates same-sex couples’ rights to equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
--------------------------------------------
In his decision, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle held that by denying the plaintiffs fundamental right to marry, Florida’s marriage ban violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. He also held that there was no justification for denying recognition of the marriages stating that "[t]he undeniable truth is that the Florida ban on same-sex marriage stems entirely, or almost entirely, from moral disapproval of the practice," and that "moral disapproval alone cannot sustain" a ban restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.​

Argument 2.
Imagine that.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm sure glad we have government to tell us what marriage is. Makes me sleep well at night that we don't have to make these choices for ourselves. Don't you think so, Geaux and Michael?

And Kaz and his wife...who have a civil marriage license issued by the evil government.

When you get to the point you value your partner as much as yourself, then you may be ready for marriage. Let me know when you get there.

Homoesxuality is an expression of extreme narcissism. So that wont happen. It's irrelevant to the argument here but there you have it.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm sure glad we have government to tell us what marriage is. Makes me sleep well at night that we don't have to make these choices for ourselves. Don't you think so, Geaux and Michael?

And Kaz and his wife...who have a civil marriage license issued by the evil government.

When you get to the point you value your partner as much as yourself, then you may be ready for marriage. Let me know when you get there.

My statement said nothing about you and your values. It merely pointed out that when you ask these silly questions about civil marriage, you already have the answer living in your own home...civilly married guy.

 

[kaz]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

 

[kaz]

I'm sure glad we have government to tell us what marriage is. Makes me sleep well at night that we don't have to make these choices for ourselves. Don't you think so, Geaux and Michael?

And Kaz and his wife...who have a civil marriage license issued by the evil government.

When you get to the point you value your partner as much as yourself, then you may be ready for marriage. Let me know when you get there.

Homoesxuality is an expression of extreme narcissism. So that wont happen. It's irrelevant to the argument here but there you have it.

Narcissism? You lost me on that one...

 

[The Rabbi]

Not it doesn't. Marriage is between man and woman. Therefore, the union between man and man,,, woman and woman,,, or man with a chicken,,,fail to meet muster under definition of what common sense people call marriage.

-Geaux

With a solid 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, the 'common sense' definition may be different than you think it is.

We are a democracy, if the majority speaks, they get their way. Period. Well, unless they are wrong, then the courts fix it. Period.

Hmm...seems you don't give a shit about the majority, you just want your way...

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Didn't you ever take a Government class?

Wow you're dumb, you can't even get OBVIOUS sarcasm.

She cant do anything but repeat the same 2 arguments over and over either Of course there arent any other arguments so she's sort of stuck.
To review:
Argument 1: Homosexuals are really blacks c.1960. This is patently absurd on its face.
Argument 2: We're winning this argument in the courts. That is a statement of fact not an argument.
And that's it. You'll see every post of hers and anyone else supporting gay marriage makes one or both of those arguments.