Republicans are not for our constitution.

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Why would we talk about the Founders Ray? This is tiring.

We're talking mostly about the 14th Amendment. The Amendment was passed in 1868. This would make a founding father who was 20 at the time of passing of the Constitution in 1789 101 years old. Not many people lived to 101 at that time, and I don't know if any of the Founding Fathers were 20 years old at the time.

Washington died in 1799, a long time before.

What the Founding Fathers did do, if you insist on talking about them, was to introduce Article Five into the Constitution. You do know Article Five, don't you?

Fine, the Founding Fathers SHOULD HAVE SAID "GTF out of marriage". They didn't do this. So, we're not talking what the Founding Fathers should have done. We're talking what they actually did.

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

You said we were talking about the Founding Fathers. The courts can only rule on what is in front of them. They have a certain amount of leeway, but they can't just pluck stuff from mid air.

Yes, the Founding Fathers didn't mention marriage. Maybe you didn't bother to read the bit about the 14th Amendment that wasn't written by the Founding Fathers.

So, if the Constitution was written to keep the govt out of our lives, then gay marriage should be on the same status as every other marriage, be that the govt stays out of it or not. Don't you agree?

Isn't that what the 14th Amendment is about? Equality of the laws?

No, that's not what it's about. The problem with marriage is government did get involved with it. Because of the ruling (you can't' specify gay or straight marriage) now any people can get married. Down the road, if somebody wants to marry his sister, they can. If a man wants to marry his daughter, he can. Thanks to that ruling, marriage is now a complete joke thanks to the gays.

What bullshit! The incest laws remain in place, and there does not seem to be any outcry to repeal them. Government has been involved in marriage for centuries. Don't you know that you have to have a license from the state? Are you saying that all existing marriages are now "jokes" just because people of the same sex can now marry? Do you want to go to your parents and grandparents and tell them that their relationship is a "joke"? Civil marriage has been with us for thousands of years and affords privileges within civil law. What the various religions wish to do with it is their own business.

I'm talking about in this country.

If the incest laws are challenged, those laws may be unconstitutional now and have have to be rescinded. The ruling was you can't deny any people of this so-called right which means you can't have any law that would prohibit that constitutional right.

 

[Lysistrata]

Why would we talk about the Founders Ray? This is tiring.

We're talking mostly about the 14th Amendment. The Amendment was passed in 1868. This would make a founding father who was 20 at the time of passing of the Constitution in 1789 101 years old. Not many people lived to 101 at that time, and I don't know if any of the Founding Fathers were 20 years old at the time.

Washington died in 1799, a long time before.

What the Founding Fathers did do, if you insist on talking about them, was to introduce Article Five into the Constitution. You do know Article Five, don't you?

Fine, the Founding Fathers SHOULD HAVE SAID "GTF out of marriage". They didn't do this. So, we're not talking what the Founding Fathers should have done. We're talking what they actually did.

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

You said we were talking about the Founding Fathers. The courts can only rule on what is in front of them. They have a certain amount of leeway, but they can't just pluck stuff from mid air.

Yes, the Founding Fathers didn't mention marriage. Maybe you didn't bother to read the bit about the 14th Amendment that wasn't written by the Founding Fathers.

So, if the Constitution was written to keep the govt out of our lives, then gay marriage should be on the same status as every other marriage, be that the govt stays out of it or not. Don't you agree?

Isn't that what the 14th Amendment is about? Equality of the laws?

No, that's not what it's about. The problem with marriage is government did get involved with it. Because of the ruling (you can't' specify gay or straight marriage) now any people can get married. Down the road, if somebody wants to marry his sister, they can. If a man wants to marry his daughter, he can. Thanks to that ruling, marriage is now a complete joke thanks to the gays.

What bullshit! The incest laws remain in place, and there does not seem to be any outcry to repeal them. Government has been involved in marriage for centuries. Don't you know that you have to have a license from the state? Are you saying that all existing marriages are now "jokes" just because people of the same sex can now marry? Do you want to go to your parents and grandparents and tell them that their relationship is a "joke"? Civil marriage has been with us for thousands of years and affords privileges within civil law. What the various religions wish to do with it is their own business.

I'm talking about in this country.

If the incest laws are challenged, those laws may be unconstitutional now and have have to be rescinded. The ruling was you can't deny any people of this so-called right which means you can't have any law that would prohibit that constitutional right.

The ruling said no such thing. You so don't understand reality. Do some legal research. Your tinfoil theories won't wash in court.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah.........that's kind of the point......

And just how would they do that? Trust me, if Democrats could, they would.

If I did, that would put me one over you, wouldn't it?

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Anyone who is married "forces" their marriage on the rest of us. I don't think much of the "marriages" between the fundie so-called "Christian" white boys and the poor women that they can demand sex from at will, no matter how much some fundie preacher-creature has "prayed" over them. I don't go much for heterosexuality in its cheapened, prostituted state.

Christians can demand sex at will? When did that start?

The phony Christian "preachers." There are perverted sects within Christianity that teach men to dishonor and disrespect their wives and teaches women that their husbands, not them, own their bodies. Heterosexual sexual perversion abounds in fundie "Christianity."

8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal
I Let My Husband Rape Me, and Here’s Why...


A lot of this shit comes from paul, a known woman-hater who never knew Jesus of Nazareth. Men from these perverted phony "Christian" cults are brought up to think that sex is their right, whenever they please, whatever they please, and that women's bodies belong to them. What a disgrace to humanity, to heterosexuality, and to all that is holy.

How strange, because I was raised as a Catholic. In fact went to a Catholic school for my primary education. Unlike public school, we had religion class every single day, and this is the first I've heard about it.

What you don't understand about Christian religions is they all attempt to mimic Jesus. I don't recall one story where Jesus ordered his women followers to be sexually enslaved to their husbands.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

You said we were talking about the Founding Fathers. The courts can only rule on what is in front of them. They have a certain amount of leeway, but they can't just pluck stuff from mid air.

Yes, the Founding Fathers didn't mention marriage. Maybe you didn't bother to read the bit about the 14th Amendment that wasn't written by the Founding Fathers.

So, if the Constitution was written to keep the govt out of our lives, then gay marriage should be on the same status as every other marriage, be that the govt stays out of it or not. Don't you agree?

Isn't that what the 14th Amendment is about? Equality of the laws?

No, that's not what it's about. The problem with marriage is government did get involved with it. Because of the ruling (you can't' specify gay or straight marriage) now any people can get married. Down the road, if somebody wants to marry his sister, they can. If a man wants to marry his daughter, he can. Thanks to that ruling, marriage is now a complete joke thanks to the gays.

What bullshit! The incest laws remain in place, and there does not seem to be any outcry to repeal them. Government has been involved in marriage for centuries. Don't you know that you have to have a license from the state? Are you saying that all existing marriages are now "jokes" just because people of the same sex can now marry? Do you want to go to your parents and grandparents and tell them that their relationship is a "joke"? Civil marriage has been with us for thousands of years and affords privileges within civil law. What the various religions wish to do with it is their own business.

I'm talking about in this country.

If the incest laws are challenged, those laws may be unconstitutional now and have have to be rescinded. The ruling was you can't deny any people of this so-called right which means you can't have any law that would prohibit that constitutional right.

The ruling said no such thing. You so don't understand reality. Do some legal research. Your tinfoil theories won't wash in court.

That's exactly what it said because judges cannot rule that the US Constitution is for straight and hero marriages only. The Constitution doesn't even mention marriage.

 

[Lysistrata]

Ray, the point is there. Whether they could do it or not is not the point of what I'm saying. Can you not see that?

The point is that lots of things aren't said in the US Constitution that are protected.

The 14th Amendment says:

"
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.
"

Now, any person should be able to see that things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution will be protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage isn't mentioned, but marriage is either a privilege or liberty or equal protection of the laws.

I mean, if a straight person can get certain privileges through marriage to the consenting adult of their choice, then so too should a gay person. Remember, if a gay person gets married to a person of the opposite sex in order to get such privileges like inheritance, then it's fraud.

No Ray, it wouldn't put one over me. Don't try and pretend to be smart Ray. You contradict yourself on a daily basis. You regurgitate what other people say all the time.

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Anyone who is married "forces" their marriage on the rest of us. I don't think much of the "marriages" between the fundie so-called "Christian" white boys and the poor women that they can demand sex from at will, no matter how much some fundie preacher-creature has "prayed" over them. I don't go much for heterosexuality in its cheapened, prostituted state.

Christians can demand sex at will? When did that start?

The phony Christian "preachers." There are perverted sects within Christianity that teach men to dishonor and disrespect their wives and teaches women that their husbands, not them, own their bodies. Heterosexual sexual perversion abounds in fundie "Christianity."

8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal
I Let My Husband Rape Me, and Here’s Why...


A lot of this shit comes from paul, a known woman-hater who never knew Jesus of Nazareth. Men from these perverted phony "Christian" cults are brought up to think that sex is their right, whenever they please, whatever they please, and that women's bodies belong to them. What a disgrace to humanity, to heterosexuality, and to all that is holy.

How strange, because I was raised as a Catholic. In fact went to a Catholic school for my primary education. Unlike public school, we had religion class every single day, and this is the first I've heard about it.

What you don't understand about Christian religions is they all attempt to mimic Jesus. I don't recall one story where Jesus ordered his women followers to be sexually enslaved to their husbands.

Jesus didn't say much about sex, did he. Tell your story to the right-wing evangelical/fundie trash. They are the ones who are pushing this shit.
My Catholic father loved my Catholic mother and I almost was not born because my father did not want her to go through the danger and pain she went through to give birth to my older brother again. But she wanted one more, a daughter, and talked him into it. Then he took me in his hands and never, ever, until his death at 83, let me go. His earnings paid for every dime of my university education. His shaky elderly self went to see my mother every day when she was in a nursing home prior to her death.
Interestingly, my father took me to Sunday school and any religious service I wished to attend when I was a teenager, Catholic or not. Sometimes Quaker, sometimes Unitarian, as I chose. He vetoed my mother's plan to send us to Catholic school, reasoning that we had to learn to live among all people.
He lived an unsung life of honor. He left a legacy of love and devotion. He would not have hated LGBTs. In fact, there is a story about his friendship with a man who seems to have been gay, and how this man honored him and my mother at the beginning of WWII, knowing that he, himself, could not go fight, so he showed my mom and dad the town, a royal tour of NYC. They, all of them, worked at NYC's Waldorf Astoria.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why would we talk about the Founders Ray? This is tiring.

We're talking mostly about the 14th Amendment. The Amendment was passed in 1868. This would make a founding father who was 20 at the time of passing of the Constitution in 1789 101 years old. Not many people lived to 101 at that time, and I don't know if any of the Founding Fathers were 20 years old at the time.

Washington died in 1799, a long time before.

What the Founding Fathers did do, if you insist on talking about them, was to introduce Article Five into the Constitution. You do know Article Five, don't you?

Fine, the Founding Fathers SHOULD HAVE SAID "GTF out of marriage". They didn't do this. So, we're not talking what the Founding Fathers should have done. We're talking what they actually did.

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

You said we were talking about the Founding Fathers. The courts can only rule on what is in front of them. They have a certain amount of leeway, but they can't just pluck stuff from mid air.

Yes, the Founding Fathers didn't mention marriage. Maybe you didn't bother to read the bit about the 14th Amendment that wasn't written by the Founding Fathers.

So, if the Constitution was written to keep the govt out of our lives, then gay marriage should be on the same status as every other marriage, be that the govt stays out of it or not. Don't you agree?

Isn't that what the 14th Amendment is about? Equality of the laws?

No, that's not what it's about. The problem with marriage is government did get involved with it. Because of the ruling (you can't' specify gay or straight marriage) now any people can get married. Down the road, if somebody wants to marry his sister, they can. If a man wants to marry his daughter, he can. Thanks to that ruling, marriage is now a complete joke thanks to the gays.

What bullshit! The incest laws remain in place, and there does not seem to be any outcry to repeal them. Government has been involved in marriage for centuries. Don't you know that you have to have a license from the state? Are you saying that all existing marriages are now "jokes" just because people of the same sex can now marry? Do you want to go to your parents and grandparents and tell them that their relationship is a "joke"? Civil marriage has been with us for thousands of years and affords privileges within civil law. What the various religions wish to do with it is their own business.

Yes all marriages are now jokes because fags can marry now, it's meaningless.

So don't get married. If you are married get divorced. I don't give a fuck!

 

[Wyatt earp]

I didn't say the founding fathers should have said GTF our of marriage, I said the Supreme Court should have when the issue was brought about.

What I did say about the founding fathers is that they didn't even mention marriage in the Constitution because it was not to be a federal government issue.

The US Constitution was written to keep the federal government out of our lives--not have it included in every aspect of it.

You said we were talking about the Founding Fathers. The courts can only rule on what is in front of them. They have a certain amount of leeway, but they can't just pluck stuff from mid air.

Yes, the Founding Fathers didn't mention marriage. Maybe you didn't bother to read the bit about the 14th Amendment that wasn't written by the Founding Fathers.

So, if the Constitution was written to keep the govt out of our lives, then gay marriage should be on the same status as every other marriage, be that the govt stays out of it or not. Don't you agree?

Isn't that what the 14th Amendment is about? Equality of the laws?

No, that's not what it's about. The problem with marriage is government did get involved with it. Because of the ruling (you can't' specify gay or straight marriage) now any people can get married. Down the road, if somebody wants to marry his sister, they can. If a man wants to marry his daughter, he can. Thanks to that ruling, marriage is now a complete joke thanks to the gays.

What bullshit! The incest laws remain in place, and there does not seem to be any outcry to repeal them. Government has been involved in marriage for centuries. Don't you know that you have to have a license from the state? Are you saying that all existing marriages are now "jokes" just because people of the same sex can now marry? Do you want to go to your parents and grandparents and tell them that their relationship is a "joke"? Civil marriage has been with us for thousands of years and affords privileges within civil law. What the various religions wish to do with it is their own business.

Yes all marriages are now jokes because fags can marry now, it's meaningless.

So don't get married. If you are married get divorced. I don't give a fuck!

Once again you are just a one trick pony on here...why?


The only subjects you post on is gays...you have no substance...a paid poster I assume.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's talk about the founders for a moment. They didn't include marriage because marriage was a religious rite--not a government provided right.

What the court should have ruled is that government GTF out of marriage and leave it to the church. There should be no government benefits to marriage. But that aside.......

It was not about rights because anything a married couple has by law, the same can be achieved with a good lawyer. It was about rejection. Some of the gay population can't stand being rejected, and their concept is if they can force their marriages upon us, they would then be accepted. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact it had just the opposite affect.

Anyone who is married "forces" their marriage on the rest of us. I don't think much of the "marriages" between the fundie so-called "Christian" white boys and the poor women that they can demand sex from at will, no matter how much some fundie preacher-creature has "prayed" over them. I don't go much for heterosexuality in its cheapened, prostituted state.

Christians can demand sex at will? When did that start?

The phony Christian "preachers." There are perverted sects within Christianity that teach men to dishonor and disrespect their wives and teaches women that their husbands, not them, own their bodies. Heterosexual sexual perversion abounds in fundie "Christianity."

8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal
I Let My Husband Rape Me, and Here’s Why...


A lot of this shit comes from paul, a known woman-hater who never knew Jesus of Nazareth. Men from these perverted phony "Christian" cults are brought up to think that sex is their right, whenever they please, whatever they please, and that women's bodies belong to them. What a disgrace to humanity, to heterosexuality, and to all that is holy.

How strange, because I was raised as a Catholic. In fact went to a Catholic school for my primary education. Unlike public school, we had religion class every single day, and this is the first I've heard about it.

What you don't understand about Christian religions is they all attempt to mimic Jesus. I don't recall one story where Jesus ordered his women followers to be sexually enslaved to their husbands.

Jesus didn't say much about sex, did he. Tell your story to the right-wing evangelical/fundie trash. They are the ones who are pushing this shit.
My Catholic father loved my Catholic mother and I almost was not born because my father did not want her to go through the danger and pain she went through to give birth to my older brother again. But she wanted one more, a daughter, and talked him into it. Then he took me in his hands and never, ever, until his death at 83, let me go. His earnings paid for every dime of my university education. His shaky elderly self went to see my mother every day when she was in a nursing home prior to her death.
Interestingly, my father took me to Sunday school and any religious service I wished to attend when I was a teenager, Catholic or not. Sometimes Quaker, sometimes Unitarian, as I chose. He vetoed my mother's plan to send us to Catholic school, reasoning that we had to learn to live among all people.
He lived an unsung life of honor. He left a legacy of love and devotion. He would not have hated LGBTs. In fact, there is a story about his friendship with a man who seems to have been gay, and how this man honored him and my mother at the beginning of WWII, knowing that he, himself, could not go fight, so he showed my mom and dad the town, a royal tour of NYC. They, all of them, worked at NYC's Waldorf Astoria.

Being against gay marriage is not hate of anybody. Marriage used to be a social standard. We all have standards. If they allowed man to marry dog, would you be against that and why? Or brother and sister, or mother and son?

Why should these people be denied the same happiness as a hetro married couple? Why should they be denied the same government protections that other married people have?

Now unless you can tell me you think anybody should be allowed to marry anybody else, then it's apparent you have standards too, it's just that your standards are different from other people.

So now that we agree marriage should have limitations, it's a matter of opinion what those limits should be. Gays could always get married. If they found a religion that was willing to marry them, they got married and nobody from the federal or state government stopped them. It's just that they didn't recognize the marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The ruling was you can't deny any people of this so-called right which means you can't have any law that would prohibit that constitutional right.

Plain and simply that statement represents willful ignorance. Obviously you are too lazy and incurious to have read the ruling.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Anyone who is married "forces" their marriage on the rest of us. I don't think much of the "marriages" between the fundie so-called "Christian" white boys and the poor women that they can demand sex from at will, no matter how much some fundie preacher-creature has "prayed" over them. I don't go much for heterosexuality in its cheapened, prostituted state.

Christians can demand sex at will? When did that start?

The phony Christian "preachers." There are perverted sects within Christianity that teach men to dishonor and disrespect their wives and teaches women that their husbands, not them, own their bodies. Heterosexual sexual perversion abounds in fundie "Christianity."

8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal
I Let My Husband Rape Me, and Here’s Why...


A lot of this shit comes from paul, a known woman-hater who never knew Jesus of Nazareth. Men from these perverted phony "Christian" cults are brought up to think that sex is their right, whenever they please, whatever they please, and that women's bodies belong to them. What a disgrace to humanity, to heterosexuality, and to all that is holy.

How strange, because I was raised as a Catholic. In fact went to a Catholic school for my primary education. Unlike public school, we had religion class every single day, and this is the first I've heard about it.

What you don't understand about Christian religions is they all attempt to mimic Jesus. I don't recall one story where Jesus ordered his women followers to be sexually enslaved to their husbands.

Jesus didn't say much about sex, did he. Tell your story to the right-wing evangelical/fundie trash. They are the ones who are pushing this shit.
My Catholic father loved my Catholic mother and I almost was not born because my father did not want her to go through the danger and pain she went through to give birth to my older brother again. But she wanted one more, a daughter, and talked him into it. Then he took me in his hands and never, ever, until his death at 83, let me go. His earnings paid for every dime of my university education. His shaky elderly self went to see my mother every day when she was in a nursing home prior to her death.
Interestingly, my father took me to Sunday school and any religious service I wished to attend when I was a teenager, Catholic or not. Sometimes Quaker, sometimes Unitarian, as I chose. He vetoed my mother's plan to send us to Catholic school, reasoning that we had to learn to live among all people.
He lived an unsung life of honor. He left a legacy of love and devotion. He would not have hated LGBTs. In fact, there is a story about his friendship with a man who seems to have been gay, and how this man honored him and my mother at the beginning of WWII, knowing that he, himself, could not go fight, so he showed my mom and dad the town, a royal tour of NYC. They, all of them, worked at NYC's Waldorf Astoria.

Being against gay marriage is not hate of anybody. Marriage used to be a social standard. We all have standards. If they allowed man to marry dog, would you be against that and why? Or brother and sister, or mother and son?

Why should these people be denied the same happiness as a hetro married couple? Why should they be denied the same government protections that other married people have?

Now unless you can tell me you think anybody should be allowed to marry anybody else, then it's apparent you have standards too, it's just that your standards are different from other people.

So now that we agree marriage should have limitations, it's a matter of opinion what those limits should be. Gays could always get married. If they found a religion that was willing to marry them, they got married and nobody from the federal or state government stopped them. It's just that they didn't recognize the marriage.

 

[Lysistrata]

So now that we agree marriage should have limitations, it's a matter of opinion what those limits should be. Gays could always get married. If they found a religion that was willing to marry them, they got married and nobody from the federal or state government stopped them. It's just that they didn't recognize the marriage.[/QUOTE]
There is no reason for the federal of state governments to not recognize a marriage. You, yourself, have stated that government should not be involved in marriages, and I disagree with you there since the law is concerned with things like taxation, rights to property, rights to make decisions for cometose partners, rights of inheritance, etc. These are all civil law matters.

Yes. I have standards. They are being met. But you are lying. Gays were not allowed to get married, legally, until the Supreme Court decision. Actually, there was a judicial decision that okayed the firing of a state-government lawyer who had a religious marriage ceremony with her same-sex partner. I am wracking my brain for the name of the case to post a link and can't come up with it, but I remember the case well.

If you want to get married, why don't you go down to the courthouse and get a license, and/or have a ceremony right there. If you want a religious ceremony, go plan it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So now that we agree marriage should have limitations, it's a matter of opinion what those limits should be. Gays could always get married. If they found a religion that was willing to marry them, they got married and nobody from the federal or state government stopped them. It's just that they didn't recognize the marriage.

There is no reason for the federal of state governments to not recognize a marriage. You, yourself, have stated that government should not be involved in marriages, and I disagree with you there since the law is concerned with things like taxation, rights to property, rights to make decisions for cometose partners, rights of inheritance, etc. These are all civil law matters.

Yes. I have standards. They are being met. But you are lying. Gays were not allowed to get married, legally, until the Supreme Court decision. Actually, there was a judicial decision that okayed the firing of a state-government lawyer who had a religious marriage ceremony with her same-sex partner. I am wracking my brain for the name of the case to post a link and can't come up with it, but I remember the case well.

If you want to get married, why don't you go down to the courthouse and get a license, and/or have a ceremony right there. If you want a religious ceremony, go plan it.[/QUOTE]

Marriage was always a religious rite. It was even wrote about in the First Testament. It was the same here in this country when it was founded, but as time went on, government got involved and adopted marriage.

So now that marriage meets your standards, everything is just fine and dandy? What about those of us who's standards marriage doesn't meet? And when the time comes when your standards are broken, what will you say then?

Property rights, inheritances, all that could be worked out legislatively without marriage. As far as spouse only visitation rights, that is not law, that is hospital policy. Same holds true with medical coverage. There is no law that states your spouses health insurance company must put you on their policy.

Yes, gays were always allowed to get married. Who tried to stop them? There was no law against it, it's just that the state didn't have to recognize the marriage until that SC decision. Now states are being forced to accept it.

 

[Bush92]

I constantly run across right wingers who claim that conservatives “follow the constitution” and are “for the constitution “.

Nothing but words . Whenever I ask for some real life proof, I get nothing .

I will concede that they are nuts over the 2nd . I’ll give you that .

But as far as the rest of the con? They push agendas to weaken our con freedoms .

Prove me wrong! What con talking points/agendas/ legislation strengthen (non 2nd amendmemt )constitutional rights ?

Conservatives support the concept of states rights as ensconced in the 10th Amendment. Conservatives are absolute civil libertarians that feel the protections provided in the 4th, 5th,6th,7th, and 8th Amendments are part of our natural rights as prescribed by John Locke. Conservatives also believe in the concept of “federalism” and that includes the Electoral College. Well, we’ve seen how liberals feel about that.

 

[Bush92]

I constantly run across right wingers who claim that conservatives “follow the constitution” and are “for the constitution “.

Nothing but words . Whenever I ask for some real life proof, I get nothing .

I will concede that they are nuts over the 2nd . I’ll give you that .

But as far as the rest of the con? They push agendas to weaken our con freedoms .

Prove me wrong! What con talking points/agendas/ legislation strengthen (non 2nd amendmemt )constitutional rights ?

GOP is only ones in the state houses trying to protect free speech on campuses,only ones trying to protect the religious rights of people while democrats try to assault their rights.

Exactly. Civil liberties are cornerstone of conservative thought.

 

[Bush92]

I constantly run across right wingers who claim that conservatives “follow the constitution” and are “for the constitution “.

Nothing but words . Whenever I ask for some real life proof, I get nothing .

I will concede that they are nuts over the 2nd . I’ll give you that .

But as far as the rest of the con? They push agendas to weaken our con freedoms .

Prove me wrong! What con talking points/agendas/ legislation strengthen (non 2nd amendmemt )constitutional rights ?

GOP is only ones in the state houses trying to protect free speech on campuses,only ones trying to protect the religious rights of people while democrats try to assault their rights.

Thank you for being brave enough to answer . Unlike the others .

1. Yes , college students have protested righty speakers . BUT, give me an example of a right wing institution bringing in far left speakers.

2. As far as “religious rights “. You really mean Christian rights . Gop is against any other religion.

Obama faces Notre Dame speech backlash - CNN.com
Here ya go Wee Timmy

 

[Bush92]

I constantly run across right wingers who claim that conservatives “follow the constitution” and are “for the constitution “.

Nothing but words . Whenever I ask for some real life proof, I get nothing .

I will concede that they are nuts over the 2nd . I’ll give you that .

But as far as the rest of the con? They push agendas to weaken our con freedoms .

Prove me wrong! What con talking points/agendas/ legislation strengthen (non 2nd amendmemt )constitutional rights ?

GOP is only ones in the state houses trying to protect free speech on campuses,only ones trying to protect the religious rights of people while democrats try to assault their rights.

Thank you for being brave enough to answer . Unlike the others .

1. Yes , college students have protested righty speakers . BUT, give me an example of a right wing institution bringing in far left speakers.

2. As far as “religious rights “. You really mean Christian rights . Gop is against any other religion.

Really so GOP does not support Jewish people and a Jewish state? Don’t think Israeli citizens feel that way.
JPost Poll: Skyrocketing support for Trump among Israelis

 

[Bush92]

They follow it as much as the dems.......meaning, either side hates the constitution.

Example ?

Lol. There are thousands. Go look and think.

Well if there are “thousands “ you can easily name 5 then!!

I’m calling you out . Put up or shut up .

1.) Support for 4th Amendment and opposition to FISA warrents.
2.) Support for states rights...across the board.
3.) Support for Electoral College.
4.) Support of federalism which includes state legislatures drawing up federal congressional districts.
5.) Support for states to regulate abortion and marriage...not liberal courts.
6.) Support for the right to keep and bear arms.
7.) Support for the Constitutional requirements for our President to protect and defend this nation and its people...that includes border security.
8.) Support for land owners in the West to be free from federal abuse of power.
9.) Support for the 9th Amendment implied right to privacy so federal government cannot spy on our internet searches and phone calls without proper warrant.
10.) Support for the Enumerated Powers of Congress...especially providing for a national defense.

 

[Timmy]

They follow it as much as the dems.......meaning, either side hates the constitution.

Example ?

Lol. There are thousands. Go look and think.

Well if there are “thousands “ you can easily name 5 then!!

I’m calling you out . Put up or shut up .

1.) Support for 4th Amendment and opposition to FISA warrents.
2.) Support for states rights...across the board.
3.) Support for Electoral College.
4.) Support of federalism which includes state legislatures drawing up federal congressional districts.
5.) Support for states to regulate abortion and marriage...not liberal courts.
6.) Support for the right to keep and bear arms.
7.) Support for the Constitutional requirements for our President to protect and defend this nation and its people...that includes border security.
8.) Support for land owners in the West to be free from federal abuse of power.
9.) Support for the 9th Amendment implied right to privacy so federal government cannot spy on our internet searches and phone calls without proper warrant.
10.) Support for the Enumerated Powers of Congress...especially providing for a national defense.

1#. Are you kidding ? FISA has been expanded by the cons since 911! The only time u cared is when Trump tower was bugged.

 

[Timmy]

#2 ) state rights : see my prior post on pot and universal gun license acceptence .

Your “across the board “ statement is obviously wrong .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

#2 ) state rights : see my prior post on pot and universal gun license acceptence .

Your “across the board “ statement is obviously wrong .

Gun possession is protected by the US Constitution, therefore it is a federal issue.

What about when Arizona made their own laws regarding identification of illegals? DumBama marched right to court with that and won. Immigration is a federal issue and less a state issue.