Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[martybegan]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

You seriously need to learn contract laws here in America.

You seem to be very ill informed about a lot of basic things everyone knows in America.

There are only 3 requirements for a legal contract in America.
1. The person must be 18 or over.
2. The person must be of sound mind.
3. The person must not sign the contract under duress.

That's it. Nothing more. There's nothing in those requirements that says a person must be of a certain sex to enter into the marriage contract. In fact we have specific laws that forbid discriminating against someone because of their sex.

The only reason you want to deny homosexuals that marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex in your opinion. Well that's illegal and unconstitutional in America. I've read enough of your posts to see that you don't give a damn about our laws or our constitution.

As for the cake, then I must assume you believe that African Americans or any minority group shouldn't be serviced equally in public either.

If you want to open a business here in America you need a business license. In that license you sign and agree to serve the public. There's no exceptions. if you don't want to serve the public then don't go into business.

Bravo!!!

It figures a progressive would use a gif of a bunch of self-congratulating Hollywood jackasses to show their own groupthink.

 

[martybegan]

Brave Sir Starkey ran away.
Bravely ran away, away.
When danger rears it's ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes Brave Sir Starkey turned about
He gallantly chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat.
Oh bravest of the brave, Sir Starkey.

You can't write even interesting rhymes.

You are the one wussing out of this conversation, wuss.

 

[martybegan]

Basically it means (1) YOU don't make or interpret the law with any authority, (2) YOU have to get along with society, not society with you.

Yes, massah, guess wes gots to leaves the figurin of our freedoms to our bettahs. Move alon, Move alon.

Your do not live alone in society. End of story.

So living in society means bending to every whim of said society, no matter how minuscule or nonsensical?

This is right around where you earn your "Starkey slurps governmental dick" reply. Congrats.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are only emoting your angst, Marty, not conversing intelligently, as your ad hom reveals.

You will not interfere with others' marriage rights nor they yours.

This is not a "whim", which once again demonstrates you misdefine words and terms.

Not hard, huh.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...

Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.

You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.

btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.

First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.

Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.

Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.

Actually, you are responsible for the information you post. I'll make a note of your Republican posting integrity and personal responsibility.

 

[martybegan]

Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...

Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.

You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.

btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.

First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.

Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.

Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.

Actually, you are responsible for the information you post. I'll make a note of your Republican posting integrity and personal responsibility.

So if I post a tract from Mein Kampf, I have to agree with it?

Duh.

 

[martybegan]

You are only emoting your angst, Marty, not conversing intelligently, as your ad hom reveals.

You will not interfere with others' marriage rights nor they yours.

This is not a "whim", which once again demonstrates you misdefine words and terms.

Not hard, huh.

Ad hominem is just a breakup between posts, and considering I figure you enjoy sucking government dick, I didn't mean an insult, slurp slurp slurp.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...

Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.

You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.

btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.

First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.

Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.

Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.

Actually, you are responsible for the information you post. I'll make a note of your Republican posting integrity and personal responsibility.

So if I post a tract from Mein Kampf, I have to agree with it?

Duh.

If you are using it to argue in favor of your case, yup.

 

[Carla_Danger]

LOL it's over Right Wingers.

Lol, I notice you couldn't retort the points I made.

LOL, you didn't make any. Someone else wrote that, remember?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are only emoting your angst, Marty, not conversing intelligently, as your ad hom reveals.

You will not interfere with others' marriage rights nor they yours.

This is not a "whim", which once again demonstrates you misdefine words and terms.

Not hard, huh.

Ad hominem is just a breakup between posts, and considering I figure you enjoy sucking government dick, I didn't mean an insult, slurp slurp slurp.

There you go misdefining and ad homming, clear revelation you know you have failed in this discussion.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.

You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.

btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.

First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.

Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.

Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.

Actually, you are responsible for the information you post. I'll make a note of your Republican posting integrity and personal responsibility.

So if I post a tract from Mein Kampf, I have to agree with it?

Duh.

If you are using it to argue in favor of your case, yup.

I mean, hello...

 

[Pop23]

If three people are married and one dies, are the remaining two still married? And if not, who gets custody of the kids?

If three people enter into an LLC, if one of the partners died does the LLC still exist, and who gets custody of the client list?

All you have to do is look at the LLC founding docs

It's boilerplate crap

 

[Ravi]

Your OP is making the claim that there is no difference between SSM and polygamy, basing his argument on emotion.

There is a large difference like I explained.

There is no constitutionally valid reason to disallow SSM, therefore the judges ruling on it cannot be making a fiat.

His position is that the arguments in favor of SSM and plural marriage are almost exactly the same, not that the two are the same, try some reading comprehension.

There is no constitutionally valid reason a court needs to decide on a law that was created in the State Legislatures, and is not breaking equal protection no matter how much you think SSM and OSM are "equal"

No, states cannot deny someone civil rights any more than the feds can.

And again, no, they aren't almost exactly the same (ssm & polygamy).

Where is gay marriage enshrined as a civil right?

Everything pertaining to the pursuit of happiness is a civil right unless it infringes on someone else's civil right.

so basically it boils down to "If i agree with it, its a civil right, if I don't, THEN BAKE THE DAMN CAKE YOU PEASANT"

Got it. Nice to see those in favor of mob rule and against the constitution come out so cleanly.

The bakery people weren't forced to be bakers. They chose to be bakers. If you think they are being treated in an unconstitutional manner, change the law. That's what gay people have been doing. Yet all you are doing is whining instead of being proactive.

 

[Pop23]

Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...

Nope

 

[Carla_Danger]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

You seriously need to learn contract laws here in America.

You seem to be very ill informed about a lot of basic things everyone knows in America.

There are only 3 requirements for a legal contract in America.
1. The person must be 18 or over.
2. The person must be of sound mind.
3. The person must not sign the contract under duress.

That's it. Nothing more. There's nothing in those requirements that says a person must be of a certain sex to enter into the marriage contract. In fact we have specific laws that forbid discriminating against someone because of their sex.

The only reason you want to deny homosexuals that marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex in your opinion. Well that's illegal and unconstitutional in America. I've read enough of your posts to see that you don't give a damn about our laws or our constitution.

As for the cake, then I must assume you believe that African Americans or any minority group shouldn't be serviced equally in public either.

If you want to open a business here in America you need a business license. In that license you sign and agree to serve the public. There's no exceptions. if you don't want to serve the public then don't go into business.

Such a simplistic understanding of how the world works. Its almost precious.

There can be plenty of other restrictions on a contract, even the marriage contract. You have to pass a blood test, you can't be related within a certain degree, and you can only have one at a time. All of those are perfectly valid legal restrictions above the three you posted.

Next, I would vote FOR same sex marriage if it came up in a referendum, my opposition comes when it is based on judicial fiat in opposition of the separation of powers found in the constitution.

Next, unlike gays, blacks are smart enough to go to service providers who want to cater to them. Also, sooner or later black religious people will be sued for this crap under PA laws, once the degree of acceptable "outness" in the black community approaches that of the white community. Watch how support for PA laws among the socially conservative blacks dried up after that.

Finally, the definition of a PA has been warped to include every business out there. Services for a wedding are not PA's.

FYI: There's only a handful of states that require premarital blood testing.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

You seriously need to learn contract laws here in America.

You seem to be very ill informed about a lot of basic things everyone knows in America.

There are only 3 requirements for a legal contract in America.
1. The person must be 18 or over.
2. The person must be of sound mind.
3. The person must not sign the contract under duress.

That's it. Nothing more. There's nothing in those requirements that says a person must be of a certain sex to enter into the marriage contract. In fact we have specific laws that forbid discriminating against someone because of their sex.

The only reason you want to deny homosexuals that marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex in your opinion. Well that's illegal and unconstitutional in America. I've read enough of your posts to see that you don't give a damn about our laws or our constitution.

As for the cake, then I must assume you believe that African Americans or any minority group shouldn't be serviced equally in public either.

If you want to open a business here in America you need a business license. In that license you sign and agree to serve the public. There's no exceptions. if you don't want to serve the public then don't go into business.

Bravo!!!

It figures a progressive would use a gif of a bunch of self-congratulating Hollywood jackasses to show their own groupthink.

I just like the diversity.

 

[Ravi]

If three people are married and one dies, are the remaining two still married? And if not, who gets custody of the kids?

If three people enter into an LLC, if one of the partners died does the LLC still exist, and who gets custody of the client list?

All you have to do is look at the LLC founding docs

It's boilerplate crap

So your answer is that a marriage contract is like an LLC and if one member dies, the remaining members are still married?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Basically it means (1) YOU don't make or interpret the law with any authority, (2) YOU have to get along with society, not society with you.

Yes, massah, guess wes gots to leaves the figurin of our freedoms to our bettahs. Move alon, Move alon.

Your do not live alone in society. End of story.

So living in society means bending to every whim of said society, no matter how minuscule or nonsensical?

This is right around where you earn your "Starkey slurps governmental dick" reply. Congrats.

If you don't respect our laws, maybe you should consider moving.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Basically it means (1) YOU don't make or interpret the law with any authority, (2) YOU have to get along with society, not society with you.

Yes, massah, guess wes gots to leaves the figurin of our freedoms to our bettahs. Move alon, Move alon.

Your do not live alone in society. End of story.

So living in society means bending to every whim of said society, no matter how minuscule or nonsensical?

This is right around where you earn your "Starkey slurps governmental dick" reply. Congrats.

You're just upset because you look like a fool.

 

[Pop23]

If three people are married and one dies, are the remaining two still married? And if not, who gets custody of the kids?

If three people enter into an LLC, if one of the partners died does the LLC still exist, and who gets custody of the client list?

All you have to do is look at the LLC founding docs

It's boilerplate crap

So your answer is that a marriage contract is like an LLC and if one member dies, the remaining members are still married?

Might be, on the other hand, the founders might have agreed on dissolution, upon the death of a partner, prior to acceptance of the terms.

Either way, boilerplate crap