Supreme Court to take up Same Sex Marriage...

[JoeB131]

I just told you. You want to create some kind of strawman just to have something to say. Out of all the civilizations that have normalized homosexuality does one exist today? Just one. Has any civilization that normalized homosexuality ever passed that value on to the civilization that replaced the failure? Not one. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and Chinese all had recognition of same sex rights and they were all replaced by civilizations that slaughtered gays. If you want a present day example, look at Europe. Europe is failing and being replaced by islam. They will hang gays from lamp posts when Europe finally dies.

Wow, you really do think this stuff is true, don't you.

Okay. Let's start with the easy one. Egypt. No evidence that Egyptian society ever widely accepted homosexuality at least up until the Ptomoleic Dynasty, which was really a Greek Dynasty. Probably nobody thought much about it one way or the other.

Greece. It was replaced by Rome, which was also down with the gay. So that's wrong.

The Romans accepted homosexuality until the Christians came along under Constantine. And pretty much after accepting Christianity, the Roman Empire collapsed. So you could say Homophobia caused Rome's demise, if one was being as intellectually lazy as you are.

In fact, China accepted homosexuality through most of its history, until the late Qing Dynasty, when Western influences made it passe. Of course, the turmoil in china was not caused by accepting or rejecting gays, it was caused by a century of other powers trying to loot the place until they started fighting back.

So the best examples you gave, not a one stands up to any real scrutiny.

 

[JoeB131]

Not hare to understand your lack of comprehension. I am just not sure if it is by design or not.

Anyway, circumventing the law and the way things are suppose to work seems to me to effect everyone. I presume that you are against DOMA, why? I'll make a huge leap here and guess you are not gay. If not then how does this argument effect you and why have you chosen the side you have chosen?

Oh, because I enjoy the fuck out of watching religious assholes squirm when they don't get their way on shit. Any day the Christians LOSE is a wonderful day.

More to the point, the sooner we double tap these bullshit social issues like zombies, we can have just a straight up discussion on economics, and why 50% of the population seems to vote for plutocracy and against their own economic interests.

 

[mjollnir]

The other thought to be considered is the voice of the people. In California, for example, (right or wrong) it was the voice of the people at the ballot box that determined the outcome of Proposition 8. Does any judge have the right to completely nullify an individuals voting right on an issue, simply because they don't agree with the outcome? How much weight does the Constitutional right of the voter really have, if a select few in judicial postions can simply toss them out as "irrelevent"? This case before the Supreme Court is not a simple one there are many factors to consider, that only the established rule of law [under the United States Constitution] can answer.

It was found, in court, to be unconstitutional, and for very specific reasons cited in the decision.

That's how our process works, Sport.

It wasn't tossed out 'as irrelevant', it was struck down 'as unconstitutional'

Glad I could clear that up for you.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

The other thought to be considered is the voice of the people. In California, for example, (right or wrong) it was the voice of the people at the ballot box that determined the outcome of Proposition 8. Does any judge have the right to completely nullify an individuals voting right on an issue, simply because they don't agree with the outcome? How much weight does the Constitutional right of the voter really have, if a select few in judicial postions can simply toss them out as "irrelevent"? This case before the Supreme Court is not a simple one there are many factors to consider, that only the established rule of law [under the United States Constitution] can answer.

It was found, in court, to be unconstitutional, and for very specific reasons cited in the decision.

That's how our process works, Sport.

It wasn't tossed out 'as irrelevant', it was struck down 'as unconstitutional'

Glad I could clear that up for you.

The voice of the people first legalized in CA. Special Mormon interest intiated an overturn and won. Soooo the people spoke and big money manipulated to get their way.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Jesus would stand with the persecuted.

In parable after parable, Jesus is shown to care about the people who all others have given up on. He hung out with the tax collectors, publicly acknowledged women and children (which no men at the time did), and treated the homeless, sick and elderly with respect. He surrounded himself with people who had been hurt by the pompous religious elite, the Pharisees.

As a liar, he had no choice but to take those positions. I believe he was a real person but he lied about who he was. There have been many like him since but people are not so gullible anylonger.

 

[Glensather]

I guess Free Food and Lodging should have been in the Bill of Rights, too...

.

What does that have to do with this?
No, seriously, I'm asking.

Just something else that the government will force onto the majority. Where in the Constitution is marriage even mentioned?

How is this being forced upon you?

If you aren't inclined to marry your own gender, how does this effect your life in any way, shape or form?

The very minute a private individual has to accept same sex marriage they are affected. Every photographer forced to perform services for a same sex couple's wedding, every counselor, every wedding cake baker, every parent with a child in school is affected. If they could get into an unholy alliance and not bother anyone else it would be a different story. But that's not the case, is it?

So you're saying, then, that only homophobes will be affected.
How is this a bad thing?

Once same sex marriage is legal, it is natural that incest will follow, as will polygamy. More than polygamy, there is nothing to stop someone from having multiple wives and multiple husbands. Harvard has already started demanding rights for the incestuous.

Harvard Students Celebrate ‘Incest-Fest’

Haha, did you even read that?
Anyway, I could see polygamy possibly maybe being legalized, but only a few people (Mormons) actively participating in it.

As for incest... really? There are too many potential health risks for possible children for them to even consider legalizing it. Barring that, then it simply limits the gene pool, so that will never happen.

You're one of those people that say if gay marriage becomes legal, then murder will eventually come legal, aren't you?

Wow, you really do think this stuff is true, don't you.

Okay. Let's start with the easy one. Egypt. No evidence that Egyptian society ever widely accepted homosexuality at least up until the Ptomoleic Dynasty, which was really a Greek Dynasty. Probably nobody thought much about it one way or the other.

Greece. It was replaced by Rome, which was also down with the gay. So that's wrong.

The Romans accepted homosexuality until the Christians came along under Constantine. And pretty much after accepting Christianity, the Roman Empire collapsed. So you could say Homophobia caused Rome's demise, if one was being as intellectually lazy as you are.

In fact, China accepted homosexuality through most of its history, until the late Qing Dynasty, when Western influences made it passe. Of course, the turmoil in china was not caused by accepting or rejecting gays, it was caused by a century of other powers trying to loot the place until they started fighting back.

So the best examples you gave, not a one stands up to any real scrutiny.

To be fair, historically it was political corruption and pressure from the German barbarians to the North that caused the fall of Rome.

...just sayin.

 

[Freewill]

Not hare to understand your lack of comprehension. I am just not sure if it is by design or not.

Anyway, circumventing the law and the way things are suppose to work seems to me to effect everyone. I presume that you are against DOMA, why? I'll make a huge leap here and guess you are not gay. If not then how does this argument effect you and why have you chosen the side you have chosen?

Oh, because I enjoy the fuck out of watching religious assholes squirm when they don't get their way on shit. Any day the Christians LOSE is a wonderful day.

More to the point, the sooner we double tap these bullshit social issues like zombies, we can have just a straight up discussion on economics, and why 50% of the population seems to vote for plutocracy and against their own economic interests.

Your lack of abilty to conduct a civil discussion and decorum is also not hard to understand. After all you are defending gays but when it is even implied that you may be gay you explode in anger. Funny the liberal left. But then again me saying defending gays is not right either, by your own admission you don't give a F.... about gays you just want to belittle others using gays to do so, another liberal trait.

Who mentioned getting my way or even any religious aspect to this discussion? Not I, only you.

What part of passing a Constitutional amendment didn't you understand????? It was done for woman, blacks and the income tax, why not for alleged gay rights which are not spelled out any where in any document?

The economy and these issues can be discussed together, that argument does not change the proper method of implementing change.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Say what? What person was not allowed to marry?

Don't play cutsie-poo semantic games, child.

What law governs gay marriage? When was marriage not defined as between a man and a woman? All states restrict who a person can marry. If gay marriage is forced upon us, not through the legislature but the judicial branch does that not mean that all marriage laws go out the window? Does that not mean you can then marry or sister? If not then why not?

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ although it’s used as a political shorthand to address the issue, there is only marriage, it exists only as a single legal entity, part of a state’s contract law.

At issue is whether or not states have grounds to deny same-sex couples access to that law. In order for a state to do so, the exclusion must be consistent, and apply to everyone equally, the state must demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so backed by objective, documented evidence, and it must be done so free of animus toward the class of persons to be excluded.

Prop 8 and other similar measures fail on all the points above, which is why it’s un-Constitutional.

Prohibiting plural marriage, however, is Constitutional: it applies to everyone equally, the state has a compelling interest, and no animus is exhibited toward a particular class of persons.

Note also that for well over a generation marriage is defined as being between two equal individuals, the doctrine of coverture long abandoned, marriage has been for some time now gender neutral.

Consequently the is no ‘new right’ being created, there is no ‘judicial activism,’ or ‘legislating from the bench,’ and no one is seeking or being given ‘special treatment.’

There is only the fundamental right of marriage, and the right of two individuals to enter into that agreement, as recognized by their state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Once same sex marriage is legal, it is natural that incest will follow, as will polygamy. More than polygamy, there is nothing to stop someone from having multiple wives and multiple husbands. Harvard has already started demanding rights for the incestuous.

Harvard Students Celebrate ‘Incest-Fest’

When your ‘argument’ fails logically and legally, play the incest card.

 

[JoeB131]

Your lack of abilty to conduct a civil discussion and decorum is also not hard to understand. After all you are defending gays but when it is even implied that you may be gay you explode in anger. Funny the liberal left. But then again me saying defending gays is not right either, by your own admission you don't give a F.... about gays you just want to belittle others using gays to do so, another liberal trait.

Who mentioned getting my way or even any religious aspect to this discussion? Not I, only you.

What part of passing a Constitutional amendment didn't you understand????? It was done for woman, blacks and the income tax, why not for alleged gay rights which are not spelled out any where in any document?

The economy and these issues can be discussed together, that argument does not change the proper method of implementing change.

Guy, It's simple. I hate religion. I'd love to repeal the First Amendment and ban it completely in this country. Or maybe just apply the consumer fraud laws to Religion. Frankly, religion is the equivlent to the Nigerian General Scam writ large. Give us your money, do what we say, all these wonderful things will happen to you after you die. They're liars and frauds, and if we attached electrodes to their balls they'd admit as much, pretty quickly.

I've said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the courts deciding this. I'd rather have the legislatures do it, but frankly, the Founders probably realized that most elected officials would be cowards. Hence, why they gave the courts the power to act if elected officials wouldn't.

So let the courts do it, and we can do an "In Your FACE!" to the Churches. Just like we had to do with slavery when the churches wouldn't do the right thing on that.

 

[Freewill]

Jesus would stand with the persecuted.

In parable after parable, Jesus is shown to care about the people who all others have given up on. He hung out with the tax collectors, publicly acknowledged women and children (which no men at the time did), and treated the homeless, sick and elderly with respect. He surrounded himself with people who had been hurt by the pompous religious elite, the Pharisees.

As a liar, he had no choice but to take those positions. I believe he was a real person but he lied about who he was. There have been many like him since but people are not so gullible anylonger.

Who did He say He was?

 

[Katzndogz]

Jesus would stand with the persecuted.

In parable after parable, Jesus is shown to care about the people who all others have given up on. He hung out with the tax collectors, publicly acknowledged women and children (which no men at the time did), and treated the homeless, sick and elderly with respect. He surrounded himself with people who had been hurt by the pompous religious elite, the Pharisees.

Jesus would try to lead the sinners away from their sin. After all, he even told Mary Magdalene to go and sin no more. He didn't tell her to continue to be a prostitute.

 

[JoeB131]

If the Supreme Court legalizes same sex marriage, and I fully expect that it will, then people will just become more creative in avoiding the effects. Two years ago I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. They lost. Following the example I set, a local photographer is using the same principles to refuse to provide photography services to same sex couples. You'll just find more and more people finding ways to avoid acceptance. No one is going to be particularly harmed by adjustment of business practices. It will become just another incidence of a nation more divided tomorrow than it was today. The US will divide into two completely different cultures who not only don't want to have anything to do with one another, but exist independently from one another. The nation will not be able to tolerate such a division. We will follow all the other failures into the dustbin of history.

So why were you such an asshole that you wouldn't do their very sensible request to do wedding portrait? It sounds like what you are fighting for is the right to be a bigot.

If you refused to paint their portrait because they were black, there wouldn't be an issue. Or if they were an interracial couple. You'd clearly be guilty of discrimination.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Jesus would stand with the persecuted.

In parable after parable, Jesus is shown to care about the people who all others have given up on. He hung out with the tax collectors, publicly acknowledged women and children (which no men at the time did), and treated the homeless, sick and elderly with respect. He surrounded himself with people who had been hurt by the pompous religious elite, the Pharisees.

As a liar, he had no choice but to take those positions. I believe he was a real person but he lied about who he was. There have been many like him since but people are not so gullible anylonger.

Who did He say He was?

The son of god and our salvation. Simpletons would believe anything back then. Seems some still will

 

[Freewill]

Your lack of abilty to conduct a civil discussion and decorum is also not hard to understand. After all you are defending gays but when it is even implied that you may be gay you explode in anger. Funny the liberal left. But then again me saying defending gays is not right either, by your own admission you don't give a F.... about gays you just want to belittle others using gays to do so, another liberal trait.

Who mentioned getting my way or even any religious aspect to this discussion? Not I, only you.

What part of passing a Constitutional amendment didn't you understand????? It was done for woman, blacks and the income tax, why not for alleged gay rights which are not spelled out any where in any document?

The economy and these issues can be discussed together, that argument does not change the proper method of implementing change.

Guy, It's simple. I hate religion. I'd love to repeal the First Amendment and ban it completely in this country. Or maybe just apply the consumer fraud laws to Religion. Frankly, religion is the equivlent to the Nigerian General Scam writ large. Give us your money, do what we say, all these wonderful things will happen to you after you die. They're liars and frauds, and if we attached electrodes to their balls they'd admit as much, pretty quickly.

I've said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the courts deciding this. I'd rather have the legislatures do it, but frankly, the Founders probably realized that most elected officials would be cowards. Hence, why they gave the courts the power to act if elected officials wouldn't.

So let the courts do it, and we can do an "In Your FACE!" to the Churches. Just like we had to do with slavery when the churches wouldn't do the right thing on that.

So in order to f... over someone that is more important then the legislative process, gottja. And to hell with really caring about gays, gottja again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If they want to be on the right side of history, they will find against same sex marriage. If they want to be on the same wrong side of history as all the other failed civilizations that normalized homosexuality that's what they will do.

After the fiasco of Roe v. Wade, they might just rule against same sex marriage and let it be fought out where it should be, in legislatures.

Decisions like these ought to be fought and decided in the Legislative Branch, that's the role that the Constitution lays out for our nation and that's where Women's Rights was established. The role of the Supreme Court should solely be based upon prior legislation, and the "intent" of Constitution (it's amendments and bills of rights) during the time it was written and ratified. Right side or wrong side of history, cases should not be decided based upon "what is the popular thing to do at the time" and certainly not based upon the latest poll results. If "popularity and lifestyle" was the criteria for basing a Supreme Court decision, what would the ramifications be should the majority of the nation lean towards pro-life? Should abortion rights be based upon the same "popular" majority? Some may view the sanctification of life as being on the "right side of history" as well.

The other thought to be considered is the voice of the people. In California, for example, (right or wrong) it was the voice of the people at the ballot box that determined the outcome of Proposition 8. Does any judge have the right to completely nullify an individuals voting right on an issue, simply because they don't agree with the outcome? How much weight does the Constitutional right of the voter really have, if a select few in judicial postions can simply toss them out as "irrelevent"? This case before the Supreme Court is not a simple one there are many factors to consider, that only the established rule of law [under the United States Constitution] can answer.

With regard to your first paragraph: ideally, yes, the states should decide the nature of their laws and how they are implemented provided they act in accordance with the Constitution and its case law. When the states act in an un-Constitutional manner, however, and violate their citizens’ civil liberties, the Federal courts are the appropriate venue for citizens to seek remedy, as the states have consequently abdicated their authority.

With regard to your second paragraph and the bolded: the United States is a Republic, not a democracy, the people are subject to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling unjustly – the evidence of that is Prop 8, an example of the tyranny of the majority. And judges are not ruling on such matters in a capricious manner, they are simply following the case law concerning a given issue before the court and acknowledging the rule of law.

The majority may not determine who will or will not have his civil liberties, whether one has his civil liberties or not is not determined by his state of residence.

 

[Katzndogz]

I just told you. You want to create some kind of strawman just to have something to say. Out of all the civilizations that have normalized homosexuality does one exist today? Just one. Has any civilization that normalized homosexuality ever passed that value on to the civilization that replaced the failure? Not one. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and Chinese all had recognition of same sex rights and they were all replaced by civilizations that slaughtered gays. If you want a present day example, look at Europe. Europe is failing and being replaced by islam. They will hang gays from lamp posts when Europe finally dies.

Wow, you really do think this stuff is true, don't you.

Okay. Let's start with the easy one. Egypt. No evidence that Egyptian society ever widely accepted homosexuality at least up until the Ptomoleic Dynasty, which was really a Greek Dynasty. Probably nobody thought much about it one way or the other.

Greece. It was replaced by Rome, which was also down with the gay. So that's wrong.

The Romans accepted homosexuality until the Christians came along under Constantine. And pretty much after accepting Christianity, the Roman Empire collapsed. So you could say Homophobia caused Rome's demise, if one was being as intellectually lazy as you are.

In fact, China accepted homosexuality through most of its history, until the late Qing Dynasty, when Western influences made it passe. Of course, the turmoil in china was not caused by accepting or rejecting gays, it was caused by a century of other powers trying to loot the place until they started fighting back.

So the best examples you gave, not a one stands up to any real scrutiny.

Egypt did not accept homosexuality until it began to fail. Just as you said. China at one time accepted homosexuality until it was beaten and replaced with a culture that did not. Rome fell largely because of the spread of Christianity. A culture that accepted homosexuality was replaced by a culture that did not.

So yes, what you say is absolutely true, you just aren't making the correct connections. Greece was replaced by Rome, a culture firmly against homosexuality, until it too began to fail and then it became as accepting of homosexuality as the Greeks. Then it was replaced. Not a single one of these failed civilizations passed acceptance of homosexuality on to a replacement culture. Religion was passed, marriage rites and family structure was, but not homosexuality. Not one time. Ours won't be any different.

 

[JoeB131]

So in order to f... over someone that is more important then the legislative process, gottja. And to hell with really caring about gays, gottja again.

Fucking over people I don't like is ALWAYS more important to me than a "process".

 

[Katzndogz]

Now if you look at history, homosexuality was accepted right along with every other form of depravity. Nero married the boy, Sporos. Nero also married Agrippina, his own mother. Once depravity starts, it doesn't stop until the end.

 

[JoeB131]

Egypt did not accept homosexuality until it began to fail. Just as you said.

Not true... Egypt had been conquered by one civilization after another, so it "failed" long before the whole "gay" thing came up. The Assyrians, the Nubians, the Persians, the Macedonians and finally the Romans conquered it, before it fell to the Caliphate...

Correlation does not equal causation.

Fact is, in 50 years, we will look back at people like you, and seriously wonder what the fuck your problem was.

Kind of how we look at these guys today.

"Seriously, guys, what the fuck was your problem?"