Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage bans

[theHawk]

The whole "gay marriage" debate is based on lies to begin with. There are no gay marriage bans. Every single one of those laws simply say that the State will not recognize gay marriages for legal purposes, it does not outlaw or prevent anyone from performing a "gay marriage" or being in one. They don't "ban" anything.

What the queers and queer worshiping progressives want, is for everyone to accept "gay marriage" as normal, as well as to outlaw any type of opposition to it. Once they use the state to force everyone to accept it, they will start going after anyone who "discriminates" against queers when people choose to not recognize their "gay marriage" based on either their own religious beliefs or common sense. In the end, this is all about using the state to control and force anyone who isn't with the queer and progressive Agenda into submitting to it by force.

 

[Silhouette]

States incentivize marraige to encourage the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise the state loses money on the deal for no reason. Why would a state be involved in incentivizing anyone to shack up and get tax benefits? The payoff is future citizens that are raised and formed in the best possible way to commit the least amount of crime, or be indigent or wind up in mental institutions.

Depriving children of one of the genders as a parent statistically produces these terrible scenarios in our future citizens, so the state gets involved where kids are raised. It's a net gain for the state if children are raised well.

The State cannot police that situation, only entice it. So it does so through tax breaks and so on. Man/woman is the only combination that reliably gives the best shot at psycholgically-balanced kids. Imagine being raised in a home where both genders are not represented? Gay marriage is structurally no different than a single parent home..

 

[JoeB131]

The whole "gay marriage" debate is based on lies to begin with. There are no gay marriage bans. Every single one of those laws simply say that the State will not recognize gay marriages for legal purposes, it does not outlaw or prevent anyone from performing a "gay marriage" or being in one. They don't "ban" anything.

What the queers and queer worshiping progressives want, is for everyone to accept "gay marriage" as normal, as well as to outlaw any type of opposition to it. Once they use the state to force everyone to accept it, they will start going after anyone who "discriminates" against queers when people choose to not recognize their "gay marriage" based on either their own religious beliefs or common sense. In the end, this is all about using the state to control and force anyone who isn't with the queer and progressive Agenda into submitting to it by force.

Yup, it's all about crushing religious assholes...

whether you accept it or not is besides the point, it is the law of the land now.

 

[Iceweasel]

How do you ban something that isn't legal? Do those states have a ban on polygamy, mother/son, father/daughter, father/son etc. marriages? The wording is misleading, on purpose.

 

[Silhouette]

Yup, it's all about crushing religious assholes...

whether you accept it or not is besides the point, it is the law of the land now.

Hmm...yes...I remember reading in my poli-sci manual in school "whether the majority likes it or not, it's the law of the land".

Yep, I think that was in Chapter 1 actually...

Look pal, you have a MAJOR hurdle here legally speaking. You have to convince the Court that homosexual, monosexual (singles) and polysexual lifestyles are equal to race in the Constitution. Get to work on that because the spin you'll need there will take meticulous planning.

Then you'll have to make sure to include a pitch that "not all lifestyles repugnant to the majority may force them to allow their intrusion into longstanding and locally-regulated customs".

Then of course you'll have to take extra careful steps on that tightrope to describe how it is you arrived at "one lifestyle/behavior repugnant to the majority is better than another"..

..etc..

Good luck! And BTW, federal procedure dictates that those lower courts you think made "gay marriage" "the law of the land now", did so in violation of federal law and the dominance of Windsor 2013 until the High Court Itself and Itself only says differently. Gay marraige is NOT the law of the land now outside any state that acted itself to ratify it. If a state forbid it in the past and has not changed that position itself, gay marriage is not legal there. Lower courts may not "overrule/overturn from underneath"...no matter how sure they think they are predicting the future..

 

[WorldWatcher]

They only struck down a narrow portion of DOMA, not all of it.

only a narrow part of it was at issue. The rest of it goes down in June.

Really, the problem with DOMA was that it was unconstitutional when it was passed, and everyone knew it was. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause clearly states that if one state sanctions a marriage, all of the others have to recognize it. That's why your drive through wedding in Las Vegas after a night of drinking is considered legal in all 49 states.

So I guess you would agree that if a state sanctions concealed carry of a handgun all other states have to recognize it. Let's see how fast you back track that argument.

If a State recognizes CC permits from another State or doesn't recognize any - that isn't an issue.

On the other hand if a State based recognition on the gender of the permit saying we will honor CC permits for men but not for women - then that would be a problem.


>>>>

Both are State issued licenses how can one be treated differently than the other? Using your theory one state could refuse to recognize a drivers license from other states.

Theoretically they could although Federal interstate highways might be a problem.

But again that isn't the faulty logic with you claim.

The correct comparison would be saying we will honor Drivers License from other State for visitors if they are white (or male, or Christian) but not for blacks (or females, or Jews). You seem to be missing the point that the States are attempting to recognize some but not other certificates based on gender of the individuals involved.

BTW - Every State that I know of - and I don't claim it is all - requires people to get a new Drivers License within some time-frame if they change their residence to that State. Here in Virginia it's 60-days. After that Virginia no longer recognizes the Out-of-State license as permanent authorization to operate a motor vehicle. 60-days after changing residence an individual operating a motor vehicle is breaking Virginia law.

[Disclaimer: There is an exception in the law for active duty military personnel stationed in the State and who maintain a permanent place of residence on file outside the State. Which is why it was legal for me to use my New York license for 4-years after getting stationed here. Once I retired I had to get a VA license.]


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

So States can chose to treat any license from another State the same way including marriage license, you can't have it both ways.

Exactly correct. If they accept them they have to treat them the same way. They can't say we accept it for certain classes of persons but not for others.

They can't say we are going to accept Texas CC permits for everyone but Muslims.

>>>>

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Why are right wingers so obsessed about other people's private lives?

 

[OKTexas]

They only struck down a narrow portion of DOMA, not all of it.

only a narrow part of it was at issue. The rest of it goes down in June.

Really, the problem with DOMA was that it was unconstitutional when it was passed, and everyone knew it was. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause clearly states that if one state sanctions a marriage, all of the others have to recognize it. That's why your drive through wedding in Las Vegas after a night of drinking is considered legal in all 49 states.

So I guess you would agree that if a state sanctions concealed carry of a handgun all other states have to recognize it. Let's see how fast you back track that argument.

If a State recognizes CC permits from another State or doesn't recognize any - that isn't an issue.

On the other hand if a State based recognition on the gender of the permit saying we will honor CC permits for men but not for women - then that would be a problem.


>>>>

Both are State issued licenses how can one be treated differently than the other? Using your theory one state could refuse to recognize a drivers license from other states.

Theoretically they could although Federal interstate highways might be a problem.

But again that isn't the faulty logic with you claim.

The correct comparison would be saying we will honor Drivers License from other State for visitors if they are white (or male, or Christian) but not for blacks (or females, or Jews). You seem to be missing the point that the States are attempting to recognize some but not other certificates based on gender of the individuals involved.

BTW - Every State that I know of - and I don't claim it is all - requires people to get a new Drivers License within some time-frame if they change their residence to that State. Here in Virginia it's 60-days. After that Virginia no longer recognizes the Out-of-State license as permanent authorization to operate a motor vehicle. 60-days after changing residence an individual operating a motor vehicle is breaking Virginia law.

[Disclaimer: There is an exception in the law for active duty military personnel stationed in the State and who maintain a permanent place of residence on file outside the State. Which is why it was legal for me to use my New York license for 4-years after getting stationed here. Once I retired I had to get a VA license.]


>>>>

BS, there is no gender or race bias in denying gay marriage, they can marry just like every one else, the fact that they chose not to is their decision. Like I said before gays have been engaging in traditional marriage forever.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

only a narrow part of it was at issue. The rest of it goes down in June.

Really, the problem with DOMA was that it was unconstitutional when it was passed, and everyone knew it was. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause clearly states that if one state sanctions a marriage, all of the others have to recognize it. That's why your drive through wedding in Las Vegas after a night of drinking is considered legal in all 49 states.

So I guess you would agree that if a state sanctions concealed carry of a handgun all other states have to recognize it. Let's see how fast you back track that argument.

If a State recognizes CC permits from another State or doesn't recognize any - that isn't an issue.

On the other hand if a State based recognition on the gender of the permit saying we will honor CC permits for men but not for women - then that would be a problem.


>>>>

Both are State issued licenses how can one be treated differently than the other? Using your theory one state could refuse to recognize a drivers license from other states.

Theoretically they could although Federal interstate highways might be a problem.

But again that isn't the faulty logic with you claim.

The correct comparison would be saying we will honor Drivers License from other State for visitors if they are white (or male, or Christian) but not for blacks (or females, or Jews). You seem to be missing the point that the States are attempting to recognize some but not other certificates based on gender of the individuals involved.

BTW - Every State that I know of - and I don't claim it is all - requires people to get a new Drivers License within some time-frame if they change their residence to that State. Here in Virginia it's 60-days. After that Virginia no longer recognizes the Out-of-State license as permanent authorization to operate a motor vehicle. 60-days after changing residence an individual operating a motor vehicle is breaking Virginia law.

[Disclaimer: There is an exception in the law for active duty military personnel stationed in the State and who maintain a permanent place of residence on file outside the State. Which is why it was legal for me to use my New York license for 4-years after getting stationed here. Once I retired I had to get a VA license.]


>>>>

BS, there is no gender or race bias in denying gay marriage, they can marry just like every one else, the fact that they chose not to is their decision. Like I said before gays have been engaging in traditional marriage forever.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are being denied access to marriage as a consequence of law, not choice.

The fact that the Supreme Court will be hearing challenges to those laws is proof of that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The whole "gay marriage" debate is based on lies to begin with. There are no gay marriage bans. Every single one of those laws simply say that the State will not recognize gay marriages for legal purposes, it does not outlaw or prevent anyone from performing a "gay marriage" or being in one. They don't "ban" anything.

What the queers and queer worshiping progressives want, is for everyone to accept "gay marriage" as normal, as well as to outlaw any type of opposition to it. Once they use the state to force everyone to accept it, they will start going after anyone who "discriminates" against queers when people choose to not recognize their "gay marriage" based on either their own religious beliefs or common sense. In the end, this is all about using the state to control and force anyone who isn't with the queer and progressive Agenda into submitting to it by force.

This post is as ignorant as it is hateful, serving as evidence as to why gay Americans are very much in need of the Constitution and its case law that protects their civil liberties from such ignorance and hate.

 

[WorldWatcher]

only a narrow part of it was at issue. The rest of it goes down in June.

Really, the problem with DOMA was that it was unconstitutional when it was passed, and everyone knew it was. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause clearly states that if one state sanctions a marriage, all of the others have to recognize it. That's why your drive through wedding in Las Vegas after a night of drinking is considered legal in all 49 states.

So I guess you would agree that if a state sanctions concealed carry of a handgun all other states have to recognize it. Let's see how fast you back track that argument.

If a State recognizes CC permits from another State or doesn't recognize any - that isn't an issue.

On the other hand if a State based recognition on the gender of the permit saying we will honor CC permits for men but not for women - then that would be a problem.


>>>>

Both are State issued licenses how can one be treated differently than the other? Using your theory one state could refuse to recognize a drivers license from other states.

Theoretically they could although Federal interstate highways might be a problem.

But again that isn't the faulty logic with you claim.

The correct comparison would be saying we will honor Drivers License from other State for visitors if they are white (or male, or Christian) but not for blacks (or females, or Jews). You seem to be missing the point that the States are attempting to recognize some but not other certificates based on gender of the individuals involved.

BTW - Every State that I know of - and I don't claim it is all - requires people to get a new Drivers License within some time-frame if they change their residence to that State. Here in Virginia it's 60-days. After that Virginia no longer recognizes the Out-of-State license as permanent authorization to operate a motor vehicle. 60-days after changing residence an individual operating a motor vehicle is breaking Virginia law.

[Disclaimer: There is an exception in the law for active duty military personnel stationed in the State and who maintain a permanent place of residence on file outside the State. Which is why it was legal for me to use my New York license for 4-years after getting stationed here. Once I retired I had to get a VA license.]


>>>>

BS, there is no gender or race bias in denying gay marriage, they can marry just like every one else, the fact that they chose not to is their decision. Like I said before gays have been engaging in traditional marriage forever.

When the law says that Bill (a male) can marry Joan (a female) but that Joan (a female) cannot marry Jane (a female) that the laws are not written in terms of gender?


>>>>

 

[OKTexas]

So I guess you would agree that if a state sanctions concealed carry of a handgun all other states have to recognize it. Let's see how fast you back track that argument.

If a State recognizes CC permits from another State or doesn't recognize any - that isn't an issue.

On the other hand if a State based recognition on the gender of the permit saying we will honor CC permits for men but not for women - then that would be a problem.


>>>>

Both are State issued licenses how can one be treated differently than the other? Using your theory one state could refuse to recognize a drivers license from other states.

Theoretically they could although Federal interstate highways might be a problem.

But again that isn't the faulty logic with you claim.

The correct comparison would be saying we will honor Drivers License from other State for visitors if they are white (or male, or Christian) but not for blacks (or females, or Jews). You seem to be missing the point that the States are attempting to recognize some but not other certificates based on gender of the individuals involved.

BTW - Every State that I know of - and I don't claim it is all - requires people to get a new Drivers License within some time-frame if they change their residence to that State. Here in Virginia it's 60-days. After that Virginia no longer recognizes the Out-of-State license as permanent authorization to operate a motor vehicle. 60-days after changing residence an individual operating a motor vehicle is breaking Virginia law.

[Disclaimer: There is an exception in the law for active duty military personnel stationed in the State and who maintain a permanent place of residence on file outside the State. Which is why it was legal for me to use my New York license for 4-years after getting stationed here. Once I retired I had to get a VA license.]


>>>>

BS, there is no gender or race bias in denying gay marriage, they can marry just like every one else, the fact that they chose not to is their decision. Like I said before gays have been engaging in traditional marriage forever.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are being denied access to marriage as a consequence of law, not choice.

The fact that the Supreme Court will be hearing challenges to those laws is proof of that.

Are you saying gays never ever entered into a traditional marriage? I don't think even you are that stupid.

 

[OKTexas]

So I guess you would agree that if a state sanctions concealed carry of a handgun all other states have to recognize it. Let's see how fast you back track that argument.

If a State recognizes CC permits from another State or doesn't recognize any - that isn't an issue.

On the other hand if a State based recognition on the gender of the permit saying we will honor CC permits for men but not for women - then that would be a problem.


>>>>

Both are State issued licenses how can one be treated differently than the other? Using your theory one state could refuse to recognize a drivers license from other states.

Theoretically they could although Federal interstate highways might be a problem.

But again that isn't the faulty logic with you claim.

The correct comparison would be saying we will honor Drivers License from other State for visitors if they are white (or male, or Christian) but not for blacks (or females, or Jews). You seem to be missing the point that the States are attempting to recognize some but not other certificates based on gender of the individuals involved.

BTW - Every State that I know of - and I don't claim it is all - requires people to get a new Drivers License within some time-frame if they change their residence to that State. Here in Virginia it's 60-days. After that Virginia no longer recognizes the Out-of-State license as permanent authorization to operate a motor vehicle. 60-days after changing residence an individual operating a motor vehicle is breaking Virginia law.

[Disclaimer: There is an exception in the law for active duty military personnel stationed in the State and who maintain a permanent place of residence on file outside the State. Which is why it was legal for me to use my New York license for 4-years after getting stationed here. Once I retired I had to get a VA license.]


>>>>

BS, there is no gender or race bias in denying gay marriage, they can marry just like every one else, the fact that they chose not to is their decision. Like I said before gays have been engaging in traditional marriage forever.

When the law says that Bill (a male) can marry Joan (a female) but that Joan (a female) cannot marry Jane (a female) that the laws are not written in terms of gender?


>>>>

Nope, because any female is free to marry any male, if the female choses not to marry a male, well, that's on her.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If a State recognizes CC permits from another State or doesn't recognize any - that isn't an issue.

On the other hand if a State based recognition on the gender of the permit saying we will honor CC permits for men but not for women - then that would be a problem.


>>>>

Both are State issued licenses how can one be treated differently than the other? Using your theory one state could refuse to recognize a drivers license from other states.

Theoretically they could although Federal interstate highways might be a problem.

But again that isn't the faulty logic with you claim.

The correct comparison would be saying we will honor Drivers License from other State for visitors if they are white (or male, or Christian) but not for blacks (or females, or Jews). You seem to be missing the point that the States are attempting to recognize some but not other certificates based on gender of the individuals involved.

BTW - Every State that I know of - and I don't claim it is all - requires people to get a new Drivers License within some time-frame if they change their residence to that State. Here in Virginia it's 60-days. After that Virginia no longer recognizes the Out-of-State license as permanent authorization to operate a motor vehicle. 60-days after changing residence an individual operating a motor vehicle is breaking Virginia law.

[Disclaimer: There is an exception in the law for active duty military personnel stationed in the State and who maintain a permanent place of residence on file outside the State. Which is why it was legal for me to use my New York license for 4-years after getting stationed here. Once I retired I had to get a VA license.]


>>>>

BS, there is no gender or race bias in denying gay marriage, they can marry just like every one else, the fact that they chose not to is their decision. Like I said before gays have been engaging in traditional marriage forever.

When the law says that Bill (a male) can marry Joan (a female) but that Joan (a female) cannot marry Jane (a female) that the laws are not written in terms of gender?


>>>>

Nope, because any female is free to marry any male, if the female choses not to marry a male, well, that's on her.

Virginia used the same logic in the Loving case noting that blacks would marry other blacks and white could marry other whites, the decision was on them and so no discrimination occurred.

Didn't work then either.

Not saying black = gay, just pointing out the logic is faulty and didn't fly the last time it was used.



>>>>

 

[OKTexas]

Both are State issued licenses how can one be treated differently than the other? Using your theory one state could refuse to recognize a drivers license from other states.

Theoretically they could although Federal interstate highways might be a problem.

But again that isn't the faulty logic with you claim.

The correct comparison would be saying we will honor Drivers License from other State for visitors if they are white (or male, or Christian) but not for blacks (or females, or Jews). You seem to be missing the point that the States are attempting to recognize some but not other certificates based on gender of the individuals involved.

BTW - Every State that I know of - and I don't claim it is all - requires people to get a new Drivers License within some time-frame if they change their residence to that State. Here in Virginia it's 60-days. After that Virginia no longer recognizes the Out-of-State license as permanent authorization to operate a motor vehicle. 60-days after changing residence an individual operating a motor vehicle is breaking Virginia law.

[Disclaimer: There is an exception in the law for active duty military personnel stationed in the State and who maintain a permanent place of residence on file outside the State. Which is why it was legal for me to use my New York license for 4-years after getting stationed here. Once I retired I had to get a VA license.]


>>>>

BS, there is no gender or race bias in denying gay marriage, they can marry just like every one else, the fact that they chose not to is their decision. Like I said before gays have been engaging in traditional marriage forever.

When the law says that Bill (a male) can marry Joan (a female) but that Joan (a female) cannot marry Jane (a female) that the laws are not written in terms of gender?


>>>>

Nope, because any female is free to marry any male, if the female choses not to marry a male, well, that's on her.

Virginia used the same logic in the Loving case noting that blacks would marry other blacks and white could marry other whites, the decision was on them and so no discrimination occurred.

Didn't work then either.

Not saying black = gay, just pointing out the logic is faulty and didn't fly the last time it was used.



>>>>

That might be, but there is no comparison between race and gender, males and females of different races are still biologically compatible, where two of the same gender are not. Children raised in a household with both biological parents are proven to do better in life, so there is nothing to gain for the society in raising children in a gay household.

 

[theHawk]

Why are right wingers so obsessed about other people's private lives?

It's actually quite the opposite, we don't care about your private life, to include queer activities. Homos are free to be in any gay marriage ceremonies they want, nothing is stopping them and no one has ever proposed stopping them. Just don't ask us to condone such behavior and reward it with state recognition and entitlements that go with it.

 

[theHawk]

The whole "gay marriage" debate is based on lies to begin with. There are no gay marriage bans. Every single one of those laws simply say that the State will not recognize gay marriages for legal purposes, it does not outlaw or prevent anyone from performing a "gay marriage" or being in one. They don't "ban" anything.

What the queers and queer worshiping progressives want, is for everyone to accept "gay marriage" as normal, as well as to outlaw any type of opposition to it. Once they use the state to force everyone to accept it, they will start going after anyone who "discriminates" against queers when people choose to not recognize their "gay marriage" based on either their own religious beliefs or common sense. In the end, this is all about using the state to control and force anyone who isn't with the queer and progressive Agenda into submitting to it by force.

This post is as ignorant as it is hateful, serving as evidence as to why gay Americans are very much in need of the Constitution and its case law that protects their civil liberties from such ignorance and hate.

If it is so ignorant I am sure you can provide us with the legal text from any of these so-called "gay marriage bans" and prove me wrong.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[JoeB131]

That might be, but there is no comparison between race and gender, males and females of different races are still biologically compatible, where two of the same gender are not. Children raised in a household with both biological parents are proven to do better in life, so there is nothing to gain for the society in raising children in a gay household.

Guy, children are killed by their biological parents every day....

 

[thanatos144]

That might be, but there is no comparison between race and gender, males and females of different races are still biologically compatible, where two of the same gender are not. Children raised in a household with both biological parents are proven to do better in life, so there is nothing to gain for the society in raising children in a gay household.

Guy, children are killed by their biological parents every day....

By evil liberals