Regressive GOP Tries to Thwart Gay Rights

[paperview]

Loving vs. Virginia

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."

 

[M14 Shooter]

Loving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."

See post 51, et al

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

 

[bodecea]

Romney would make the spouses cut off their hair....or he'd do it forcibly himself.

If your Messiah® is so wonderful, why do you rely on slander and lies?

Who?

 

[bodecea]

Gays have an absolute right to live their lives however they see fit. They just don't have the right to make everyone else accept it.

You have the legal right to marry...but you don't have the right to make the rest of us accept it now.


I certainly don't.

 

[peach174]

You can't have it both ways, Dem's.
First they want religion out of government, then they want chaplains (religious ceremony) to marry Gay's on the bases.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

wow thanks for showing once again showing your ability to forget the obvious facts.

Support the Sanctity of Marriage in North Carolina Vote for Amendment One | Living Waters Impact Ministries

Supporters of the amendment in North Carolina, a swing state in the Nov. 6 presidential election, said it would preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and make laws forbidding gay marriage harder to repeal.
Why North Carolina banned gay marriage (+video) - CSMonitor.com

And I have heard your bs argument that they have the same right because they can marry as long as they marry based on who the government allows them to legally marry but that is hardly the same. So how is having the freedom to marry who you want to marry an extra right? LOL

 

[paperview]

Loving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."

See post 51, et al

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

Hey, I happen to disagree with the SCOTUS ruling that corporations are people, but that doesn't make my opinion fact.

See how that works?

 

[bodecea]

Loving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."

See post 51, et al

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

Because you know so much more about Constitutional Law than SCOTUS?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Loving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."

See post 51, et al
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?

Hey, I happen to disagree with the SCOTUS ruling that corporations are people, but that doesn't make my opinion fact.
See how that works?

Please see post 57.

See how that works?

Demonstrating a ruling unsound is not the same as simply disagreeing with it.

So, I ask again:
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?

 

[drsmith1072]

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

thanks for the opinions now were is the proof?

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]

Reading comprehension fail.

I said:


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.

says the hack who fails to comprehend the FACT that the supreme court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right.

Based on that FACT alone your argument falls flat no matter how your phrase or spin it. LOL.

 

[drsmith1072]

Loving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."

See post 51, et al

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

Yeah take a look at m14 and his OPINIONS in post 51 and see how he tries to avoid the fact that the supreme court ruling on marriage coutners all of his baseless OPNIONS.

Even now he makes claims about the SCOTUS and offers nothing but opinions as if his opinions are unquestionable fact. LOL

 

[jillian]

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

wrong... it is only the state that can confer and protect rights. your "rights" do not exist absent state sanction.

wrong... the supreme court found marriage to BE a fundamental right. which means it can only be abridged in the face of substantial governmental interest.

so... wrongo buckaroo...

see, Loving v Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

until you address the reality that marriage is a fundamental right, your analysis, and any corrollary to it, fails.

 

[drsmith1072]

You can't have it both ways, Dem's.
First they want religion out of government, then they want chaplains (religious ceremony) to marry Gay's on the bases.

are you retarded?? The fact is that marriages already occur on bases so nothing new is being asked for. So how is it hypocritical to want fair and equal treatment to all soliders that serve in the military?? Or are you arguing that they didn't earn it?

 

[jillian]

Loving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."

See post 51, et al

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

um... because it isn't.

and no offense, but i'll go with the wisdom of that court over your unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[drsmith1072]

See post 51, et al
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?

Hey, I happen to disagree with the SCOTUS ruling that corporations are people, but that doesn't make my opinion fact.
See how that works?

Please see post 57.

See how that works?

Demonstrating a ruling unsound is not the same as simply disagreeing with it.

So, I ask again:
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?

here is your post 57

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

how does it demonstrate anything of the kind?? You presented your own opinions with nothing to substantiate them.

I see your tactic. You post some lame bs pretending it is irrefutable fact then you refer back to it by post # alone claiming it does something it clearly does NOT and then continue to pretend that your opinions are the same as irrefutable fact. LOL


Thanks for showing that you have nothing valid to offer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

wrong... it is only the state that can confer and protect rights. your "rights" do not exist absent state sanction.

This is abject ignorace, or an outright lie.
Given that you are a known liar and an outright fraud, my bet is the latter - but feel free to argue that you are simply ignorant.

No law creates the right to life; no law creates the right to free speech; these righst exist w/o any state sanction whatsover - and thus, you are wrong.

GIven that, my argument stands, and continues to prove that the statement made in Loving is unsound.

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

 

[M14 Shooter]

Loving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."

See post 51, et al
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?

um... because it isn't.
and no offense, but i'll go with the wisdom of that court over your unsubstantiated opinion.

Another lie, as my "opinion" was clearly substantiated, and proves that the statement is unsound.

 

[Contumacious]

Regressive GOP Tries to Thwart Gay Rights

I fully concur that being a homosexual is a constitutionally protected acivity.

What I disagree with is the double standard.

You have no problem when the government thwarts my, out of many, property and self defense rights.

Why?

.

 

[jillian]

Regressive GOP Tries to Thwart Gay Rights

I fully concur that being a homosexual is a constitutionally protected acivity.

What I disagree with is the double standard.

You have no problem when the government thwarts my, out of many, property and self defense rights.

Why?

.

i have no problem with self defense laws as they already exist. people are always allowed to protect their lives, their property and the lives of others.

my issue is with statutes that basically say, whomever shoots first wins.

surely that can't trouble you. you don't think we should live in the wild west, do you?