Regressive GOP Tries to Thwart Gay Rights

[Remodeling Maidiac]

30 plus states have shot down gay rights. And its THE PEOPLE VOTING not the GOP.

 

[paperview]

Works for me!

That's right. It's the democratic process.

How do you like that.

Kinda like what North Carolina did.

Boop: Three whole words....your vocabulary has surpassed Frnaco's.

people's rights should not be up for a vote. minority rights NEVER win electorally. that's what courts are for.... or used to be.

what happened to all of you "rights are inherant" people. you know, the ones who think you don't need the government to defend those rights.

^^ what she said.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

That's right. It's the democratic process.

How do you like that.

Kinda like what North Carolina did.

Boop: Three whole words....your vocabulary has surpassed Frnaco's.

people's rights should not be up for a vote. minority rights NEVER win electorally. that's what courts are for.... or used to be.

what happened to all of you "rights are inherant" people. you know, the ones who think you don't need the government to defend those rights.

^^ what she said.

Nonsense. Gays have all the same rights I have.

 

[paperview]

What "rights" do only gays have that are being taken?

None. The legal institution of marriage is a privilege granted by the laws of the state, not a right.

SCOTUS has said marriage is a right.

 

[drsmith1072]

What "rights" do only gays have that are being taken?

None. The legal institution of marriage is a privilege granted by the laws of the state, not a right.

Well that runs counter to the core argument that it's all about protecting the sanctity of marriage. LOL

According to you, in order to argue that it is not a religious freedom issue, it's a "legal institution" not a religious one. So how does one pass legal institutions that discriminate against some by denying the the freedom or equal protection under the law to have the same consideration as other citizens? How is that not unconstitutional?

I thought the right was all about freedom and yet here they are limiting freedom.

Amazing isin't it?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What "rights" do only gays have that are being taken?

None. The legal institution of marriage is a privilege granted by the laws of the state, not a right.

Well that runs counter to the core argument that it's all about protecting the sanctity of marriage. LOL

According to you, in order to argue that it is not a religious freedom issue, it's a "legal institution" not a religious one. So how does one pass legal institutions that discriminate against some by denying the the freedom or equal protection under the law to have the same consideration as other citizens? How is that not unconstitutional?

I thought the right was all about freedom and yet here they are limiting freedom.

Amazing isin't it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What "rights" do only gays have that are being taken?

None. The legal institution of marriage is a privilege granted by the laws of the state, not a right.

SCOTUS has said marriage is a right.

If so, how then can marriage, as a legal institution, cease to exist by repealing the laws that create it?

States cannot create/grant rights; rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation.
The legal institution of marriage exists because the states created it; as such it is a privilege, and it cannot be a right.

 

[drsmith1072]

30 plus states have shot down gay rights. And its THE PEOPLE VOTING not the GOP.

who chose to put it up as a ballot initiative?

 

[paperview]

None. The legal institution of marriage is a privilege granted by the laws of the state, not a right.

SCOTUS has said marriage is a right.

If so, how then can marriage, as a legal institution, cease to exist by repealing the laws that create it?

States cannot create/grant rights; rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation.
The legal institution of marriage exists because the states created it; as such it is a privilege, and it cannot be a right.

You're entitled to your opinion, however the Supreme Court of the US disagrees.
They specifically said these words --->Marriage is a right.

 

[drsmith1072]

None. The legal institution of marriage is a privilege granted by the laws of the state, not a right.

SCOTUS has said marriage is a right.

If so, how then can marriage, as a legal institution, cease to exist by repealing the laws that create it?

States cannot create/grant rights; rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation.
The legal institution of marriage exists because the states created it; as such it is a privilege, and it cannot be a right.

right to life : can be taken away

right to liberty : can be taken away

right to freedom of religioin : can and has been taken away.

right to free speech : has limits and can be taken away in certain cases.

Rights can and have been taken away or limited so where do you get your line of bs from?

 

[M14 Shooter]

SCOTUS has said marriage is a right.

If so, how then can marriage, as a legal institution, cease to exist by repealing the laws that create it?

States cannot create/grant rights; rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation.
The legal institution of marriage exists because the states created it; as such it is a privilege, and it cannot be a right.

You're entitled to your opinion...

No opinion - just fact. If you disagree, please feel free to refute my argument.

however the Supreme Court of the US disagrees.

Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?

Tell me:
If marriage is a right, why does it only exist because the state passed laws to create it?
If marriage is a right, how can the state eliminate it by repealing those laws?

You -do- understand what a right is, yes? And how a right differs from a privilige?

 

[M14 Shooter]

SCOTUS has said marriage is a right.

If so, how then can marriage, as a legal institution, cease to exist by repealing the laws that create it?

States cannot create/grant rights; rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation.
The legal institution of marriage exists because the states created it; as such it is a privilege, and it cannot be a right.

right to life : can be taken away

right to liberty : can be taken away

right to freedom of religioin : can and has been taken away.

right to free speech : has limits and can be taken away in certain cases.

Rights can and have been taken away or limited so where do you get your line of bs from?

Reading comprehension fail.

I said:

States cannot create/grant rights; rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation

Show where any of the examples you provided are rights that can be taken away by repealing the legislation that created them.

 

[The Rabbi]

What "rights" do only gays have that are being taken?

None. The legal institution of marriage is a privilege granted by the laws of the state, not a right.

Well that runs counter to the core argument that it's all about protecting the sanctity of marriage. LOL

According to you, in order to argue that it is not a religious freedom issue, it's a "legal institution" not a religious one. So how does one pass legal institutions that discriminate against some by denying the the freedom or equal protection under the law to have the same consideration as other citizens? How is that not unconstitutional?

I thought the right was all about freedom and yet here they are limiting freedom.

Amazing isin't it?

Huh?
It isn't "all about protecting the sanctity of marriage." Where did you get that strawman?
Gays have exactly the same right to marry as anyone else in this country. What they want are extra rights. And they can't have them. Go whine.

 

[drsmith1072]

If so, how then can marriage, as a legal institution, cease to exist by repealing the laws that create it?

States cannot create/grant rights; rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation.
The legal institution of marriage exists because the states created it; as such it is a privilege, and it cannot be a right.

You're entitled to your opinion...

No opinion - just fact. If you disagree, please feel free to refute my argument.

So even though you failed to prove your own opinions as fact you apparently believe that stating they are fact makes them so even as you demand that others prove your OPINIONS wrong? LOL

however the Supreme Court of the US disagrees.

Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?

Tell me:
If marriage is a right, why does it only exist because the state passed laws to create it?
If marriage is a right, how can the state eliminate it by repealing those laws?

You -do- understand what a right is, yes? And how a right differs from a privilige?

You don't even seem to understand so how can you ask others? LOL Why do you continue to ask about repealing laws in reference to eliminating marriage? Who but you is talking about eliminating marriage?

 

[drsmith1072]

If so, how then can marriage, as a legal institution, cease to exist by repealing the laws that create it?

States cannot create/grant rights; rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation.
The legal institution of marriage exists because the states created it; as such it is a privilege, and it cannot be a right.

right to life : can be taken away

right to liberty : can be taken away

right to freedom of religioin : can and has been taken away.

right to free speech : has limits and can be taken away in certain cases.

Rights can and have been taken away or limited so where do you get your line of bs from?

Reading comprehension fail.

I said:

States cannot create/grant rights; rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation

Show where any of the examples you provided are rights that can be taken away by repealing the legislation that created them.

Yeah I was wondering why you phrased it that way. Again, where are you getting this bs from? Who is talking about taking away the right of marriage through repealing of a law but you?? Your spin is just a lame attempt to avoid the fact that supreme court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're entitled to your opinion...

No opinion - just fact. If you disagree, please feel free to refute my argument.

So even though you failed to prove your own opinions as fact...

No, what I stated was fact.
Facts:
-Marriage as a legal institution exists because the state passed legislation to create it.
-States do not/cannot grant rights.
-Marriage as a legal institution can be eliminated by repealing the laws that created it.
-Rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation
Thus:
Marriage is not a right, but a priviliege granted by the state.

If you disagree, please feel free to refute my argument

 

[Bigfoot]

WASHINGTON – On the same day that President Barack Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage, the House Armed Services Committee backed measures prohibiting the practice on U.S. military bases.

The panel stepped into the gays in the military issue as it considered a sweeping, $642 billion defense bill for next year that buys new weapons, ships and aircraft, increases military pay by 1.7 percent and sets policies for the Pentagon. The committee worked through the day Wednesday and into the early morning Thursday on the legislation that adds billions of dollars to the president's budget request.

The committee fleshed out a blueprint for next year that calls for a base defense budget of $554 billion, including nuclear weapons spending, plus $88 billion for the war in Afghanistan and counterterrorism efforts. That compares with the administration's proposal of $551 billion, plus $88 billion.

Conservative Republicans still angry with the end to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military pressed two measures."The president has repealed `don't ask, don't tell' and is using the military as props to promote his gay agenda," said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who is running for Senate.

The committee, on a vote of 37-24, backed an amendment that barred same-sex marriages or "marriage-like" ceremonies on military installations. The panel also endorsed an Akin amendment that said the services should accommodate the rights of conscience of members of the services and chaplains who are morally or religiously opposed to expressions of human sexuality.

Read more: House panel votes to ban same-sex marriages on US military bases | Fox News

That certainly is good news. Hopefully they will put something like "Don't ask don't tell" back into effect. I'm glad to see that the military is fighting against Obama's Gay agenda campaign ploy.

 

[DGS49]

(1) The Constitution does not give any rights to "couples." That is ridiculous.

(2) The Supreme Court has ruled in scores of cases that the States can treat INDIVIDUALS differently, provided the State has a reasonable basis for doing so. If the different treatment involves race, creed, gender, ethnicity, then the State must demonstrate a "compelling state interest," in order to justify the discrimination. There is no such standard or principle applicable to COUPLES. COUPLES have no rights. Once the marriage law is on the books, citizens have the RIGHT to get married. Any man has the right to marry a woman; any woman has the right to marry a man. No one is being denied any cognizable rights.

(3) The Defense of Marriage Act was passed with a STRONG, BI-PARTISAN majority, and signed by President Clinton - a Democrat. Thus, the official legal position of the United States government is that it WILL NOT RECOGNIZE gay marriages, and no state can be compelled to recognize a gay marriage from another state. The rider on the Defense spending bill is completely consistent with current Federal government policy, like it or not. If the "Progressives" in Congress thought that the public supported their position, all they have to do is introduce a law to repeal DOMA. They don't have the balls to do it, and will rely on the Supreme Court to do their dirty work for them. ONE MORE REASON WHY BARRY MUST BE DEFEATED IN NOVEMBER!

(4) The definition of marriage is a STATE issue, and NO STATE HAS AUTHORIZED GAY MARRIAGE BY A VOTE OF ITS POPULATION. Every single time it has been put to a vote - including Cali-Stinkin-Fornia - the people have voted it down. And this includes cases where "polling" has indicated that the people would vote otherwise. Apparently what people tell pollsters on the phone is not the same as what they do in the voting booth.

(5) How does the bastard prevaricator in the White House know the intimate details of the relationships of his worker bees? Are they monogamous? Are they happy? Are they good parents? According to Barry, all the "gay" ones are. Gee, I work with hundreds of people and I have no idea whether any of them are happily married or good parents. I know that a lot of them APPEAR to be, but I also know that appearances are often (intentionally) deceiving, having seen "great" marriages break up many times over my adult life.

(6) I am sick to death of this issue. The percentage of homosexuals in the population is around 2 percent, and the portion of them that is actually interested in lifetime monogamy is a small portion of the two percent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

right to life : can be taken away

right to liberty : can be taken away

right to freedom of religioin : can and has been taken away.

right to free speech : has limits and can be taken away in certain cases.

Rights can and have been taken away or limited so where do you get your line of bs from?

Reading comprehension fail.

I said:

States cannot create/grant rights; rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation

Show where any of the examples you provided are rights that can be taken away by repealing the legislation that created them.

Yeah I was wondering why you phrased it that way. Again, where are you getting this bs from? Who is talking about taking away the right of marriage through repealing of a law but you?? Your spin is just a lame attempt to avoid the fact that supreme court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right.

You -again- fail to comprehend what I wrote.
Until you develop the skill to do so, and the willingness to honestly, effectively and accurately apply that skill, there's no need for me to further consider your responses.