Religious Right Wing Bigots Still Obsessing About Marriage-Get a Life!

[emilynghiem]

Dear Deplorable Yankee
I'm not saying it's okay.
I'm saying there's something called DUE PROCESS.
You can't just punish a WHOLE GROUP because of the violations or abuses of SOME people "associated" with that GROUP.

You have to specifically address the INDIVIDUALS who have violated laws and put those people through DUE PROCESS
before issuing penalty by law that would "DEPRIVE" them of liberty.

SEE Amendments 5 and 14 below which both state this principle:

AMENDMENT 5.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AMENDMENT 14 Section 1:
… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In order to protect your rights and mine under these SAME laws
these must be enforced for ALL people to ensure "equal protection of the laws."

Ever hear the saying you cannot break the laws you are trying to enforce?

Especially Deplorable Yankee if you don't want members of the LGBT community
to violate laws and rights for by imposing THEIR beliefs on the public through Govt
(in violation of Amendment 1 and Civil Rights laws against Discrimination by Creed)
then we CONSISTENTLY should enforce Constitutional laws so this gives
leverage and authority to hold OTHERS to uphold the same!

I still dont care if two flaming fags get married or not

WHY DO I HAVE TO give a rats ass either way ?
get married be well WHO CARES

Stop dancing naked in front of children in the streets ya fucked up ass backwards retards

Dear Deplorable Yankee
WHICH people are doing this?
File a complaint and police it.

If you live in a city like I do where certain districts
WANT to keep their transgender storytelling in the library,
then ask for EQUAL SUPPORT for ALL DISTRICTS to vote
in if they want Christian prayer and education
taught in their schools and libraries.

If taxpayers support these programs, let them pay for that.
If they don't, remove them all. Let's be fair and keep
this DEMOCRATIC. Let districts vote and police their own policies.

Listen if you stuck a pride sticker on your forehead , started dancing naked ,and chanting leftist slogans in front of a school they'd come and arrest you .....RIGHT ?
Whats the difference at a pride festival ? WHY is THAT OK ?

Japan and Lisbon pride festivals Are G rated ...funny i have absolutely no problem with that .Ive spent summers on fire island and wound up in the lesbian and gay towns ..
Which was anything but g rated .....bu t in the straight towns families would have their kids tucked in bed with a baby sitter ....and the adults would come out to play at night
I wasnt hanging out with the lip stickers for nothing..... some nights theyd want to share a guy .

Clean Immaculate private beaches, no cars allowed on the entire island ,and plenty of beautiful freaky broads to screw whats not to like ....bars and restaurants ...swim sun drink fuck ....i lost someone very dear to me so i was in a dark place and i thought debauchery would stop the "i dont wanna live anymore" ....nah it didnt really help

AND that would be real females DERP ..i dont swing the other way but if someone else does it doesnt bother me ...and if gods really pissed at you for it well thats between you and him ....MY names paul thats between y'all
ANyway

Its usually single mothers who expose thier children to this shit and they're no better then the twats who force their little girls onto these beauty pageant stages
Its pure sugar coated exploitation and THE LEFTY GAY NAZI S mask IT AS promoting tolerance and understanding .

what complete and utter horse shit
Children shouldnt be told they're gender confused in the 3rd grade by any "parent" or "caring school employee" or "shrink "''''''''''' or how to put on a condom
or told about anal sex ...or have a bunch of retards in dresses read to them in libraries .

AND doctors who give hormones to teens ARE the biggest asswipes on the planet

We all grew up fast ......My generation was completely out of control ...Ive been banging away since im a young teen but at least we had people around us to say HEY! whats your rush kid ?slow down! NOT encouraging it ..AND WE fuckin figured out the whole condom thing BY OURSELVES no problem derp .....
Some of our parents got knocked up at 16 and 17 , 18 but they got married and dads went to work and night school and did what they had to do .....consequences and personal responsibility OH MY

Our grandparents were even wilder..... the greatest generation we're not friggin saints ...
When it comes to sexuality Human nature is what it is ......theirs no getting around puberty ,,,and schools should do some kind of sex ed when they hit that age .
SUre then tell em about stds ,condoms , science says anal sex not all that healthy for both of any gender blah blah blah
Children should be kept innocent for as long as possible. Theirs plenty of time for the degenerate adult shit later ...what the problem with that is I have NO IDEA !

The state ,activist groups , and public libraries shouldn't be pushing any of this shit on children

 

[Correll]

You guys never stopped. For you to smear someone else for not stopping, is utter hypocrisy.

We never stopped what.? Defending the civil rights of LGBT people? Why the fuck should we stop. ?

You never stopped pushing your agenda despite getting slapped down, and it being settled law.


That you smear them for doing the same, is just utter hypocrisy.

I got slapped down really? They are doing the same? WTF? Gays and their advocates are defending against aggressors who are trying to take away rights. How the fuck is that the same?

Save your spin for your fellow lefties at your next circle jerk.



Yes, you lefteis got slapped down often, and you kept coming back, until you found a lefty enough judge to give you want you wanted.


It is the same, and you are just being a hypocrite.


That you can't see it, even when your face is rubbed in it, is because you are a blind hypocrite.

A lefty judge? Are you fucking serious. Numerous judges at all levels shot down bans on same sex marriage before it reached SCOTUS where Kennedy cast the deciding vote Do you consider Justice Anthony Kennedy a lefty. ? Thank you for demonstrating your pathetic and profound ignorance of what took place.

Thanks for dropping that bit about pretending that not giving up is different when you do it.


ANd anyone that would accept the silly argument that gay marriage was a rights issue, is a fucking lefty.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.

Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. ?Complete and utter stupidity and bigotry!

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.

That was my ideas that you are obviously not open to. You did not read it because you are afraid of being challenged on you utterly stupid and bigoted assertion that gay people already had equality because thy, like others, could marry someone of the opposite sex. That shows me that it is you who is not interested in understanding how others feel. I did, in fact listen to you and heard very clearly. Now, you need to listen.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We never stopped what.? Defending the civil rights of LGBT people? Why the fuck should we stop. ?

You never stopped pushing your agenda despite getting slapped down, and it being settled law.


That you smear them for doing the same, is just utter hypocrisy.

I got slapped down really? They are doing the same? WTF? Gays and their advocates are defending against aggressors who are trying to take away rights. How the fuck is that the same?

Save your spin for your fellow lefties at your next circle jerk.



Yes, you lefteis got slapped down often, and you kept coming back, until you found a lefty enough judge to give you want you wanted.


It is the same, and you are just being a hypocrite.


That you can't see it, even when your face is rubbed in it, is because you are a blind hypocrite.

A lefty judge? Are you fucking serious. Numerous judges at all levels shot down bans on same sex marriage before it reached SCOTUS where Kennedy cast the deciding vote Do you consider Justice Anthony Kennedy a lefty. ? Thank you for demonstrating your pathetic and profound ignorance of what took place.

Thanks for dropping that bit about pretending that not giving up is different when you do it.


ANd anyone that would accept the silly argument that gay marriage was a rights issue, is a fucking lefty.

Thank you for that brilliant and articulate retort on why same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Clearly it was well researched and considered. Once again you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB

 

[Correll]

You never stopped pushing your agenda despite getting slapped down, and it being settled law.


That you smear them for doing the same, is just utter hypocrisy.

I got slapped down really? They are doing the same? WTF? Gays and their advocates are defending against aggressors who are trying to take away rights. How the fuck is that the same?

Save your spin for your fellow lefties at your next circle jerk.



Yes, you lefteis got slapped down often, and you kept coming back, until you found a lefty enough judge to give you want you wanted.


It is the same, and you are just being a hypocrite.


That you can't see it, even when your face is rubbed in it, is because you are a blind hypocrite.

A lefty judge? Are you fucking serious. Numerous judges at all levels shot down bans on same sex marriage before it reached SCOTUS where Kennedy cast the deciding vote Do you consider Justice Anthony Kennedy a lefty. ? Thank you for demonstrating your pathetic and profound ignorance of what took place.

Thanks for dropping that bit about pretending that not giving up is different when you do it.


ANd anyone that would accept the silly argument that gay marriage was a rights issue, is a fucking lefty.

Thank you for that brilliant and articulate retort on why same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Clearly it was well researched and considered. Once again you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB

Your argument was the Kennedy was not a lefty. That was the sole point you raised.

My response was appropriate.


Marriage has been one man, one woman, in the US for it's entire history. If the homos wanted it expanded, they should have made the argument for doing that.

Instead they ran to the judges. That is on them, and you lefties.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Hopefully Mike Pence becomes president someday and the court overturns Obama’s gay marriage.....it should be decided by the states

How will A Pence Presidency overturn marriage equality? Should the states have decided interracial mariage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, each state should have their own laws , since the marriage certs are for each state. If a state doesnt recognize that the cert is valid, then the faggots can leave and find a state accommodating. Why is it a valid concealed carry license is valid in Utah and 38 other states, but in NY it isnt. Are we supposed to have equal opportunity clause? Only when it is for you sorry ass liberals and the rest be damned, again this is why we hate you fuckers.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.

Think whatever the hell you want. Just think ! Think about how your behavior and the policies that you advocate for effect others. By all means THINK!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.

Think whatever the hell you want. Just think ! Think about how your behavior and the policies that you advocate for effect others. By all means THINK!

We have thought, and we have grown very angry with your ilk constantly shoving your immorality in our faces, attacking law abiding businesses, and using courts to overturn the Democratic process of the people.

 

[rightwinger]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

In addition:

Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.

What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.

The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage. Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.

If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.

However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right. He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .

I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission. And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them. I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east. Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?

View attachment 266175

LOL

Those Islamic points sound a lot like Conservatives

 

[SweetSue92]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.

Think whatever the hell you want. Just think ! Think about how your behavior and the policies that you advocate for effect others. By all means THINK!

What I think does not affect my behavior. It is possible to think many things and not have them affect your behavior. This is what we try to teach our elementary children; in fact it is one of the marks of maturity.

That's first.

Second, what policies do you think I'm trying to make here? The one I'm strongly advocating for is the freedom to live by your conscience: that is, if you own a bake shop the gov't should not FORCE you to bake cakes for events you find morally objectionable. I think we're going to win that one, and I think it's wholly ethical. I do not think the gov't should force ANYONE'S service for an event they find morally objectionable. That goes for a gay baker, a black baker, a Muslim baker or any baker.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.

Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. ?Complete and utter stupidity and bigotry!

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.

That was my ideas that you are obviously not open to. You did not read it because you are afraid of being challenged on you utterly stupid and bigoted assertion that gay people already had equality because thy, like others, could marry someone of the opposite sex. That shows me that it is you who is not interested in understanding how others feel. I did, in fact listen to you and heard very clearly. Now, you need to listen.

I try to listen to you, but the reality is you are a very aggressively angry person with an extraordinarily disagreeable disposition. Let’s just say you’re easy to dislike and root against. You come on here not looking for any common ground, but rather throwing your sexuality in everybody’s face. You represent everything that is wrong with the LGBT movement towards acceptance. If the other non-cisgender people I associate with were nothing like you, I’d probably be the bigot you want me to be. I really hope you die soon. The world will be better off.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I got slapped down really? They are doing the same? WTF? Gays and their advocates are defending against aggressors who are trying to take away rights. How the fuck is that the same?

Save your spin for your fellow lefties at your next circle jerk.



Yes, you lefteis got slapped down often, and you kept coming back, until you found a lefty enough judge to give you want you wanted.


It is the same, and you are just being a hypocrite.


That you can't see it, even when your face is rubbed in it, is because you are a blind hypocrite.

A lefty judge? Are you fucking serious. Numerous judges at all levels shot down bans on same sex marriage before it reached SCOTUS where Kennedy cast the deciding vote Do you consider Justice Anthony Kennedy a lefty. ? Thank you for demonstrating your pathetic and profound ignorance of what took place.

Thanks for dropping that bit about pretending that not giving up is different when you do it.


ANd anyone that would accept the silly argument that gay marriage was a rights issue, is a fucking lefty.

Thank you for that brilliant and articulate retort on why same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Clearly it was well researched and considered. Once again you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB

Your argument was the Kennedy was not a lefty. That was the sole point you raised.

My response was appropriate.


Marriage has been one man, one woman, in the US for it's entire history. If the homos wanted it expanded, they should have made the argument for doing that.

Instead they ran to the judges. That is on them, and you lefties.

Your response was bullshit. My assessment of Kennedy was not my only point by far. It was the only point that you wanted to hear. The main point is that numerous judges at all levels of the judiciary shot down state bans on same sex marriage.

The " marriage has always been"...…...argument is well worn and tired, nothing more than an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. And gay PEOPLE have in fact made a compelling and convincing argument for marriage equality. The fact that you don't know that only speaks to your profound and pathetic ignorance of the subject. Had you bothers to read the Obergefell decision, the decisions of the lower courts or the briefs you would knw that and maybe not come off as such a dumb ass.

Lastly, when states violate the constitution, and are unresponsive to people whos rights are being denied, it is absolutely appropriate to turn to the courts for relief .Again, not knowing that is more clear and convincing evidence of you ignorance of the law and our system of justice

 

[Dick Foster]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Since faggots can't procreate, why do they need to get married. The whole concept of wedlock is about kids and the prevention of inner breeding.
If you're trying to appear to be normal you're not and never will be. The best you can be is a freak of nature. Homosexuals are called queer for a reason. Queer meaning odd, unusual or other than normal. And no you're not exactly gay either. That's just a word you stole. Gay means happy and care free. You can be queer and it's okay with me but stop trying to appear normal when you're not. If you're so damn happy being queer then own it and be queer and everything that entails. Then sit down and STFU.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.

Think whatever the hell you want. Just think ! Think about how your behavior and the policies that you advocate for effect others. By all means THINK!

What I think does not affect my behavior. It is possible to think many things and not have them affect your behavior. This is what we try to teach our elementary children; in fact it is one of the marks of maturity.

That's first.

Second, what policies do you think I'm trying to make here? The one I'm strongly advocating for is the freedom to live by your conscience: that is, if you own a bake shop the gov't should not FORCE you to bake cakes for events you find morally objectionable. I think we're going to win that one, and I think it's wholly ethical. I do not think the gov't should force ANYONE'S service for an event they find morally objectionable. That goes for a gay baker, a black baker, a Muslim baker or any baker.

What policies? The topic here is marriage. What is your policy on same sex marriage ?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.

Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. ?Complete and utter stupidity and bigotry!

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.

That was my ideas that you are obviously not open to. You did not read it because you are afraid of being challenged on you utterly stupid and bigoted assertion that gay people already had equality because thy, like others, could marry someone of the opposite sex. That shows me that it is you who is not interested in understanding how others feel. I did, in fact listen to you and heard very clearly. Now, you need to listen.

I try to listen to you, but the reality is you are a very aggressively angry person with an extraordinarily disagreeable disposition. Let’s just say you’re easy to dislike and root against. You come on here not looking for any common ground, but rather throwing your sexuality in everybody’s face. You represent everything that is wrong with the LGBT movement towards acceptance. If the other non-cisgender people I associate with were nothing like you, I’d probably be the bigot you want me to be. I really hope you die soon. The world will be better off.

And you have the fucking nerve to call me angry!!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Since faggots can't procreate, why do they need to get married. The whole concept of wedlock is about kids and the prevention of inner breeding.
If you're trying to appear to be normal you're not and never will be. The best you can be is a freak of nature. Homosexuals are called queer for a reason. Queer meaning odd, unusual or other than normal. And no you're not exactly gay either. That's just a word you stole. Gay means happy and care free. You can be queer and it's okay with me but stop trying to appear normal when you're not. If you're so damn happy being queer then own it and be queer and everything that entails. Then sit down and STFU.

That is just too moronic on so many levels to even respond to.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.

Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. ?Complete and utter stupidity and bigotry!

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.

That was my ideas that you are obviously not open to. You did not read it because you are afraid of being challenged on you utterly stupid and bigoted assertion that gay people already had equality because thy, like others, could marry someone of the opposite sex. That shows me that it is you who is not interested in understanding how others feel. I did, in fact listen to you and heard very clearly. Now, you need to listen.

I try to listen to you, but the reality is you are a very aggressively angry person with an extraordinarily disagreeable disposition. Let’s just say you’re easy to dislike and root against. You come on here not looking for any common ground, but rather throwing your sexuality in everybody’s face. You represent everything that is wrong with the LGBT movement towards acceptance. If the other non-cisgender people I associate with were nothing like you, I’d probably be the bigot you want me to be. I really hope you die soon. The world will be better off.

I support gay marriage, but find myself almost wanting to oppose it when he gets going on his rants. He really is everything you say about him. He is a humorless authoritarian who is everything he hates.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.

Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. ?Complete and utter stupidity and bigotry!

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.

That was my ideas that you are obviously not open to. You did not read it because you are afraid of being challenged on you utterly stupid and bigoted assertion that gay people already had equality because thy, like others, could marry someone of the opposite sex. That shows me that it is you who is not interested in understanding how others feel. I did, in fact listen to you and heard very clearly. Now, you need to listen.

I try to listen to you, but the reality is you are a very aggressively angry person with an extraordinarily disagreeable disposition. Let’s just say you’re easy to dislike and root against. You come on here not looking for any common ground, but rather throwing your sexuality in everybody’s face. You represent everything that is wrong with the LGBT movement towards acceptance. If the other non-cisgender people I associate with were nothing like you, I’d probably be the bigot you want me to be. I really hope you die soon. The world will be better off.

I support gay marriage, but find myself almost wanting to oppose it when he gets going on his rants. He really is everything you say about him. He is a humorless authoritarian who is everything he hates.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Since faggots can't procreate, why do they need to get married. The whole concept of wedlock is about kids and the prevention of inner breeding.
If you're trying to appear to be normal you're not and never will be. The best you can be is a freak of nature. Homosexuals are called queer for a reason. Queer meaning odd, unusual or other than normal. And no you're not exactly gay either. That's just a word you stole. Gay means happy and care free. You can be queer and it's okay with me but stop trying to appear normal when you're not. If you're so damn happy being queer then own it and be queer and everything that entails. Then sit down and STFU.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. ?Complete and utter stupidity and bigotry!

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.

That was my ideas that you are obviously not open to. You did not read it because you are afraid of being challenged on you utterly stupid and bigoted assertion that gay people already had equality because thy, like others, could marry someone of the opposite sex. That shows me that it is you who is not interested in understanding how others feel. I did, in fact listen to you and heard very clearly. Now, you need to listen.

I try to listen to you, but the reality is you are a very aggressively angry person with an extraordinarily disagreeable disposition. Let’s just say you’re easy to dislike and root against. You come on here not looking for any common ground, but rather throwing your sexuality in everybody’s face. You represent everything that is wrong with the LGBT movement towards acceptance. If the other non-cisgender people I associate with were nothing like you, I’d probably be the bigot you want me to be. I really hope you die soon. The world will be better off.

I support gay marriage, but find myself almost wanting to oppose it when he gets going on his rants. He really is everything you say about him. He is a humorless authoritarian who is everything he hates.

You have absolutely no self-awareness in that tiny little pea brain of yours, now, do you?