Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Silhouette]

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act that is Only commuted public for full faith and credit purposes in our Union.

Then in walked the rights of children to marriage....
And that changed the whole ball game. It's like you're discussing a contract with five parties and only hearing arguments from two of them; while the other three have the most vested interest in the contract of all five.
Children thrive best with a role model of their same gender in the home. There is no arguing this and further, the Prince's Trust study proves this. In this next Hearing, the Supreme Court will be forced to look at the welfare not just of some kids caught up in a lacking situation by the adults or adult in their lives, but also the 100s of millions of kids yet to be born in this lab experiment.
Since "parenting" kids with no role model of their gender present half the time is highly experimental (and statistically doomed to failure of the children's best interest and esteem), an absolute rock-bottom MUST is allowing the discreet communities this radical change will affect into time unforeseeable, the RIGHT to vote on whether or not this base structural change to marriage should or should not be allowed.
Anything less is a macabre tyranny, a forced perversion into the heart of American society without its expressed consent. And that violates the core structure of our country, on top of marriage.. Violating the core of things seems to be an ongoing theme with the aggressive group lobbying for these collosal changes without the permission of the governed for them.

How many of them actually got married? Freedom of association is also a natural right.

Like I said...

You think you're being clever, but what you've actually done is underscored my points about kids and marriage.
Your arrogant point of view is apparent. It is "fuck kids, they aren't old enough to challenge this legally". My reply to that is, thanks for your honesty about your regards to a suffering demographic who is impotent to affect conditions for their best shot at life equal to others. Noted for the record.
Unfortunately for you and your ilk, there is someone old enough to advocate for these voiceless parties to the contract. That is the US Supreme Court. I hope they read this post.

Challenge what legally? In any Case, emancipation is available for those cognizant of their responsibilities as adults. You may be resorting to a fallacy of composition by confusing two separate issues.

THE FORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR CHILDREN CANNOT BE UNDONE WHEN THEY REACH THE AGE OF EMANCIPATION. THE DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE. Nice try Stalin.. The formative age of children where their entire self-view is cooked and incubated is between the ages of 0 and 6. Are you suggesting that 3 year olds file for legal emancipation??

Well...come to think of it, maybe this kid when he was 3 should've filed for emancipation.. Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Challenge the base structural environment that LGBTers are proposing to use them as guinea pigs in. You know what. You know exactly what the custodians of this voteless demographic can and must challenge.

 

[mdk]

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act that is Only commuted public for full faith and credit purposes in our Union.

Then in walked the rights of children to marriage....

And that changed the whole ball game. It's like you're discussing a contract with five parties and only hearing arguments from two of them; while the other three have the most vested interest in the contract of all five.

Children thrive best with a role model of their same gender in the home. There is no arguing this and further, the Prince's Trust study proves this. In this next Hearing, the Supreme Court will be forced to look at the welfare not just of some kids caught up in a lacking situation by the adults or adult in their lives, but also the 100s of millions of kids yet to be born in this lab experiment.

Since "parenting" kids with no role model of their gender present half the time is highly experimental (and statistically doomed to failure of the children's best interest and esteem), an absolute rock-bottom MUST is allowing the discreet communities this radical change will affect into time unforeseeable, the RIGHT to vote on whether or not this base structural change to marriage should or should not be allowed.

Anything less is a macabre tyranny, a forced perversion into the heart of American society without its expressed consent. And that violates the core structure of our country, on top of marriage.. Violating the core of things seems to be an ongoing theme with the aggressive group lobbying for these collosal changes without the permission of the governed for them.

How many of them actually got married? Freedom of association is also a natural right.

You think you're being clever, but what you've actually done is underscored my points about kids and marriage.

Your arrogant point of view is apparent. It is "fuck kids, they aren't old enough to challenge this legally". My reply to that is, thanks for your honesty about your regards to a suffering demographic who is impotent to affect conditions for their best shot at life equal to others. Noted for the record.

Unfortunately for you and your ilk, there is someone old enough to advocate for these voiceless parties to the contract. That is the US Supreme Court. I hope they read this post.

It is abundantly clear that you really do not care about children. They are nothing more than pawns in your anti-gay game of chess. That is why you ignore every single study that disproves your assertions about gay parents and misrepresent studies (The Prince's Trust) that do not even study or mention same-sex parents.

Unless they are in desperate need of laugh I am pretty sure the SC isn't reading any of your posts.

 

[danielpalos]

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act that is Only commuted public for full faith and credit purposes in our Union.

Then in walked the rights of children to marriage....
And that changed the whole ball game. It's like you're discussing a contract with five parties and only hearing arguments from two of them; while the other three have the most vested interest in the contract of all five.
Children thrive best with a role model of their same gender in the home. There is no arguing this and further, the Prince's Trust study proves this. In this next Hearing, the Supreme Court will be forced to look at the welfare not just of some kids caught up in a lacking situation by the adults or adult in their lives, but also the 100s of millions of kids yet to be born in this lab experiment.
Since "parenting" kids with no role model of their gender present half the time is highly experimental (and statistically doomed to failure of the children's best interest and esteem), an absolute rock-bottom MUST is allowing the discreet communities this radical change will affect into time unforeseeable, the RIGHT to vote on whether or not this base structural change to marriage should or should not be allowed.
Anything less is a macabre tyranny, a forced perversion into the heart of American society without its expressed consent. And that violates the core structure of our country, on top of marriage.. Violating the core of things seems to be an ongoing theme with the aggressive group lobbying for these collosal changes without the permission of the governed for them.

How many of them actually got married? Freedom of association is also a natural right.

Like I said...

You think you're being clever, but what you've actually done is underscored my points about kids and marriage.
Your arrogant point of view is apparent. It is "fuck kids, they aren't old enough to challenge this legally". My reply to that is, thanks for your honesty about your regards to a suffering demographic who is impotent to affect conditions for their best shot at life equal to others. Noted for the record.
Unfortunately for you and your ilk, there is someone old enough to advocate for these voiceless parties to the contract. That is the US Supreme Court. I hope they read this post.

Challenge what legally? In any Case, emancipation is available for those cognizant of their responsibilities as adults. You may be resorting to a fallacy of composition by confusing two separate issues.

THE FORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR CHILDREN CANNOT BE UNDONE WHEN THEY REACH THE AGE OF EMANCIPATION. THE DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE. Nice try Stalin.. The formative age of children where their entire self-view is cooked and incubated is between the ages of 0 and 6. Are you suggesting that 3 year olds file for legal emancipation??

Challenge the base structural environment that LGBTers are proposing to use them as guinea pigs in. You know what. You know exactly what the custodians of this voteless demographic can and must challenge.

What "damage" are you referring to? In any Case, our Founding Fathers already knew that trick, and proscribed Bills of Attainder as well for groups of Individuals, not with the majority.

 

[Silhouette]

What "damage" are you referring to? In any Case, our Founding Fathers already knew that trick, and proscribed Bills of Attainder as well for groups of Individuals, not with the majority.

FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

 

[Syriusly]

What "conspiracy" is that? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Including the privelege of the blind to drive! And homosexuals to be "mother and father" vital and necessary to the best formative environment for kids!

You cannot violate the base structure of the privelege you are petitioning to enjoy..

What privelege are you speaking of?

Marriage is a right not a privelege


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


Zablocki

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

[

I'm about 90% sure, (though we are moving quite rapidly towards fascism in the courts with this LGBT aggression-lobby...hence the 10% doubt), that you will have this made very clear to you in the coming year by the Highest Court.

LOL....you are delusional.

And marriage is a right.

 

[Syriusly]

What "damage" are you referring to? In any Case, our Founding Fathers already knew that trick, and proscribed Bills of Attainder as well for groups of Individuals, not with the majority.

FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
Page 8 (the left side on the green background)]

You keep mentioning the Prince's Trust- I refer you to the Princess Bride

 

[Skylar]

What "conspiracy" is that? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Including the privelege of the blind to drive! And homosexuals to be "mother and father" vital and necessary to the best formative environment for kids!

You cannot violate the base structure of the privelege you are petitioning to enjoy..

Marriage isn't a privilege. Its a right.

See, this is the part of your process I've never understood. You say marriage is priveledge. The courts recognize it is a right. Why then would they ignore themselves and half a century of legal precedent.....to adopt your personal opinion? Your process doesn't make the slightest sense.

Nope. Even the Justices called your group out on this one. They said well, 56 times, in Windsor that the definition of weird quirky marriages like close cousins, 13 year olds etc. were up to the separate states: meaning if one state approved them, the others most certainly did not have to.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us where the Justices in the Windsor decision;

1) Said marriage wasn't a right

2) Said that state marriage laws trump rights.

You'll find you hallucinated both citations. Again, you keep making up passages in the Windsor ruling that don't exist. And ignoring those passages that shatter your argument. Far from saying that state marriage laws trump rights, the Windsor court explicitly found that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees, even citing the Loving v. Virginia case as an example of such.

"Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393. "

Windsor V. US

With one of the 'constitutional guarantees' being violated by state marriage law in the Loving ruing being the 'right to marry'. A right you insist doesn't exist. A right the courts have found does exist at least half a dozen times.

You ignoring the Court doesn't mean the Court is obligated to ignore itself. You still don't get this. But come June, you will.

So since it is in fact a qualified privelege, like driving with blind people, homosexuals defy the base structure and each state must decide if that's OK.

You say marriage is a priveledge. The courts recognize it as a fundamental right. In any legal contest, the courts are authoritative. And you're nobody.

I'm about 90% sure, (though we are moving quite rapidly towards fascism in the courts with this LGBT aggression-lobby...hence the 10% doubt), that you will have this made very clear to you in the coming year by the Highest Court.

Odd, Scalia is pretty certain you're wrong:

"In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. "

Justice Scalia
Dissent in Windsor V. US

He said that the Windsor court's position against gay marriage bans was 'beyond mistaking'. And that the USSC applying the logic of the Windsor ruling to overturn state gay marriage bans was 'inevitable'.

But you have a better handle on the meaning of the Windsor ruling that Justice Scalia does, huh?

I'm about 90% sure you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. With the remaining 10% being you lying to yourself.

 

[danielpalos]

What "damage" are you referring to? In any Case, our Founding Fathers already knew that trick, and proscribed Bills of Attainder as well for groups of Individuals, not with the majority.

FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

Freedom of association can not be infringed in favor of Socialism via public policy of a State; only the right doesn't believe they should limit their "Communism" to Cuba.

 

[Skylar]

What "damage" are you referring to? In any Case, our Founding Fathers already knew that trick, and proscribed Bills of Attainder as well for groups of Individuals, not with the majority.

FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

Freedom of association can not be infringed in favor of Socialism via public policy of a State; only the right doesn't believe they should limit their "Communism" to Cuba.

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

 

[danielpalos]

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

 

[Skylar]

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

 

[danielpalos]

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

It has to do with this:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And, this:

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;

And, not Only that, but Also, this:

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

 

[Skylar]

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

It has to do with this:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And, this:

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;

And, not Only that, but Also, this:

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

And what does this have to do with gay marriage specifically. You're getting willfully vague, failing to offer a single bridge from generic appellation of freedom and liberty......to specific applications of rights and protections. Such as gay marriage.

I suspect you don't actually have anything to say regarding the topic of the thread. Nor a sufficient understanding of the topic to add anything useful even if you had a mind to.

 

[Syriusly]

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

It has to do with this:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And, this:

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;

And, not Only that, but Also, this:

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

And what does this have to do with gay marriage specifically. You're getting willfully vague, failing to offer a single bridge from generic appellation of freedom and liberty......to specific applications of rights and protections. Such as gay marriage.

I suspect you don't actually have anything to say regarding the topic of the thread. Nor a sufficient understanding of the topic to add anything useful even if you had a mind to.

I haven't even been trying to figure out what he thinks he is saying.

 

[danielpalos]

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

It has to do with this:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And, this:

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;

And, not Only that, but Also, this:

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

And what does this have to do with gay marriage specifically. You're getting willfully vague, failing to offer a single bridge from generic appellation of freedom and liberty......to specific applications of rights and protections. Such as gay marriage.

I suspect you don't actually have anything to say regarding the topic of the thread. Nor a sufficient understanding of the topic to add anything useful even if you had a mind to.

dude, do you even understand the concepts? An attainder is a bill denying and disparaging civil privileges and immunities, to only some Individuals in the several States, regardless of the privileges and immunities of all the other citizens in the several States.

 

[danielpalos]

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

It has to do with this:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And, this:

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;

And, not Only that, but Also, this:

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

And what does this have to do with gay marriage specifically. You're getting willfully vague, failing to offer a single bridge from generic appellation of freedom and liberty......to specific applications of rights and protections. Such as gay marriage.

I suspect you don't actually have anything to say regarding the topic of the thread. Nor a sufficient understanding of the topic to add anything useful even if you had a mind to.

I haven't even been trying to figure out what he thinks he is saying.

It merely requires a clue and a Cause; Only shills don't know that.

 

[Syriusly]

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

It has to do with this:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And, this:

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;

And, not Only that, but Also, this:

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

And what does this have to do with gay marriage specifically. You're getting willfully vague, failing to offer a single bridge from generic appellation of freedom and liberty......to specific applications of rights and protections. Such as gay marriage.

I suspect you don't actually have anything to say regarding the topic of the thread. Nor a sufficient understanding of the topic to add anything useful even if you had a mind to.

I haven't even been trying to figure out what he thinks he is saying.

It merely requires a clue and a Cause; Only shills don't know that.

LOL......so you think that anyone who can't understand your bizarre posts is a shill......whatever dude- Sklyar actually makes an attempt to argue with you- I can't even figure what the hell you think you are arguing for.

 

[Skylar]

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

It has to do with this:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And, this:

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;

And, not Only that, but Also, this:

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

And what does this have to do with gay marriage specifically. You're getting willfully vague, failing to offer a single bridge from generic appellation of freedom and liberty......to specific applications of rights and protections. Such as gay marriage.

I suspect you don't actually have anything to say regarding the topic of the thread. Nor a sufficient understanding of the topic to add anything useful even if you had a mind to.

dude, do you even understand the concepts? An attainder is a bill denying and disparaging civil privileges and immunities, to only some Individuals in the several States, regardless of the privileges and immunities of all the other citizens in the several States.

And what does that have to do with gay marriage. Specifically.

Every time I ask you to apply your random political phrase to a specific situation.....you can't. You can't answer any specific question about whatever principle you're citing, you can't give us any practical application, you can't offer any comment relevant to the thread.

I'm really starting to think you're just trolling the thread.

 

[Skylar]

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

Only an Attainder can Infringe upon rights to the point of denying or disparaging them to some citizens in the several States.

What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

It has to do with this:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And, this:

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;

And, not Only that, but Also, this:

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

And what does this have to do with gay marriage specifically. You're getting willfully vague, failing to offer a single bridge from generic appellation of freedom and liberty......to specific applications of rights and protections. Such as gay marriage.

I suspect you don't actually have anything to say regarding the topic of the thread. Nor a sufficient understanding of the topic to add anything useful even if you had a mind to.

I haven't even been trying to figure out what he thinks he is saying.

It merely requires a clue and a Cause; Only shills don't know that.

A 'shill'. Damn, dude....another conspiracy theory?

You simply have nothing specific to say about the thread. Its not a conspiracy. You're simply irrelevant.