Today may be The Day for California!

[g5000]

The difference, you keep leaving out, is that the word "arms" "keep and bear" and "not to be infringed" are ALREADY IN THE CONSITUTION. it is then up to the courts to intepret these words. Thus we can all agree (or most of us) that people cannot keep a fucking howtizer in thier backyard (not arms) but can keep a personal firearm on thier person or at least in thier home.

There is no reference to marriage in the consitution. To get where you are going you have to go with the equal protection stretch. However now we rely on an interpretation of another intepretation, not an interpretation of base wording in the document.

If people are so hell bent on marriage equality, why not propose this:

1. The right to marriage between two people, regardless of gender, shall not be infringed except in cases of incest, bigamy, or coercsion shall not be infringed"

At that point the right is safe, its in the consitution, and my oppositon to gay marriage ends.

This is why I started the Reasons To Be Anti-Gay, By The Numbers topic a while back. Just for people like you.

Because you clearly have not heard me say, several times, that access to Santa's cash and prizes is protected under the 14th amendment's "equal protection of the laws" clause.

When a state sanctions the marriage of two people, they are entitled BY LAW to certain cash and prizes.

Got that? Has that penetrated your blindness yet? Law. Cash and prizes. Tax deductions, Social Security death benefits, and many other such things. These are not magically bestowed on people. They are provided IN LAWS.

DOMA blocks gay married people, who are LEGALLY married, from access to those cash and prizes.

.


.

Creating civil unions and making them equal to marriage would accomplish the same thing, wouldnt it? It just wouldnt be called marriage. This has been proposed, and rejected by many in the Marriage equality movement.

Plus civil unions would be created via legislation, which meets my requirement for getting the courts out of it. There is no consitutional ban on allowing civil unions, as all they are is a form of contract, recognized by the government.

Happy now?

What is up with this bigoted hangup over calling gay marriages marriages? It's the stupidest objection out of all the objections.

As for the rest, when gay marriages are able to file joint tax returns and collect Social Security death benefits and all the other gifts from Uncle Santa, THEN their marriages will be equal.

If you want to be HAPPY, then do that with legislation. Go right ahead. I wish you would. Then you won't have to force the courts to do it for you.

But you didn't. You passed DOMA instead.
.

 

[martybegan]

This is why I started the Reasons To Be Anti-Gay, By The Numbers topic a while back. Just for people like you.

Because you clearly have not heard me say, several times, that access to Santa's cash and prizes is protected under the 14th amendment's "equal protection of the laws" clause.

When a state sanctions the marriage of two people, they are entitled BY LAW to certain cash and prizes.

Got that? Has that penetrated your blindness yet? Law. Cash and prizes. Tax deductions, Social Security death benefits, and many other such things. These are not magically bestowed on people. They are provided IN LAWS.

DOMA blocks gay married people, who are LEGALLY married, from access to those cash and prizes.

.


.

Creating civil unions and making them equal to marriage would accomplish the same thing, wouldnt it? It just wouldnt be called marriage. This has been proposed, and rejected by many in the Marriage equality movement.

Plus civil unions would be created via legislation, which meets my requirement for getting the courts out of it. There is no consitutional ban on allowing civil unions, as all they are is a form of contract, recognized by the government.

Happy now?

What is up with this bigoted hangup over calling gay marriages marriages? It's the stupidest objection out of all the objections.

As for the rest, when gay marriages are able to file joint tax returns and collect Social Security death benefits and all the other gifts from Uncle Santa, THEN their marriages will be equal.

If you want to be HAPPY, then do that with legislation. Go right ahead. I wish you would. Then you won't have to force the courts to do it for you.

But you didn't. You passed DOMA instead.
.

Its not about my hangup, its about the RIGHT of others to have the hangup. People have the right to be bigots, its the government that should not have the right.

My concern is that once it is seen as "marriage" there will be lawsuits forcing clergy to perform gay weddings against their will, or even worse sued to oblivion due to their denial to perfom said ceremonies. Then there will be suits againt people who dont want to work at said weddings (already happened in New Mexico). Plus you can add the ostriczing of people purely for religously based views on homesexual relations.

Before you bring up racsim, remember none of the main religions promotes racism in its doctrine. Bans on homosexual behaviour, however, are all over the place in them.

I can see these lawsuits springing up all over the place.

 

[bodecea]

The federal government acts like Santa to married couples, giving them all kinds of cash and prize gifts.

These cash and prizes are withheld from gay married couples. They are not given equal protection of the law.

Anti-gay people are resentful about the idea of not being the only ones to get presents from Santa any more. The feel specially entitled to these gifts.
.

There are reasons the government began offering tax breaks to married couples. Procreation is healthy for a society. That said, I would be all for removing those incentives. Allowing for anyone to "a civil union". Keeping marriage as the conjoining ceremony reserved as the purview of the Church.

So, those gay couples that have children get thrown out with the bath water because most gay couples don't procreate? How about straight couples that don't procreate? Are their marriages thrown out too.

Two other points....some churches already perform gay marriages.....and......what about non-religious people, do their civil marriages not count?

 

[NLT]

I see the usual anti-freedom rw's are here.

If they had their way, there would be cameras mounted in our bedrooms so that every "depraved" action could be recorded and made illegal.

Get the #$%^&*(#$%^&* government out of our private lives.

You are a fucking idot. nobody cares what you do in your bed room. When you bring out into the streets and schools and try to force people to accept "the Gay Way" is the only way, yea then we have a big problem with it.

I could give a fuck if you take in the ass or suck a dick..thats your perogative, just dont try to teach my kids in school that its natural way of things.

I am not a Christian, so dont try your BS about "crazy religous nuts" with me.

 

[WillowTree]

The Point is...what is considered "the will of the people" is NOT static and if anyone were to try to legislate those things today, we'd be appalled.....100-200 years ago, they would win hands down.

so "the will of the people" is a mandate when electing bamie, but "the will of the people" is not a mandate when it goes against your wildest desires? Got it. Way to go.

Yes, Willow...because the Constitution, Article II is SET UP for an election of a President. (BTW, don't forget the Electoral College, hun)

However, "the will of the people" cannot vote out our rights by popularity. If that were the case, all Muslims in this country would be kicked out or penned up by now.

Yeah! right jackass. When did that ever come up for a vote?

 

[g5000]

Creating civil unions and making them equal to marriage would accomplish the same thing, wouldnt it? It just wouldnt be called marriage. This has been proposed, and rejected by many in the Marriage equality movement.

Plus civil unions would be created via legislation, which meets my requirement for getting the courts out of it. There is no consitutional ban on allowing civil unions, as all they are is a form of contract, recognized by the government.

Happy now?

What is up with this bigoted hangup over calling gay marriages marriages? It's the stupidest objection out of all the objections.

As for the rest, when gay marriages are able to file joint tax returns and collect Social Security death benefits and all the other gifts from Uncle Santa, THEN their marriages will be equal.

If you want to be HAPPY, then do that with legislation. Go right ahead. I wish you would. Then you won't have to force the courts to do it for you.

But you didn't. You passed DOMA instead.
.

Its not about my hangup, its about the RIGHT of others to have the hangup. People have the right to be bigots, its the government that should not have the right.

My concern is that once it is seen as "marriage" there will be lawsuits forcing clergy to perform gay weddings against their will, or even worse sued to oblivion due to their denial to perfom said ceremonies. Then there will be suits againt people who dont want to work at said weddings (already happened in New Mexico). Plus you can add the ostriczing of people purely for religously based views on homesexual relations.

Before you bring up racsim, remember none of the main religions promotes racism in its doctrine. Bans on homosexual behaviour, however, are all over the place in them.

I can see these lawsuits springing up all over the place.

You ever hear of a Jewish couple suing a mosque for not marrying them?

Neither have I.

You don't hear of Jews seeking to get married in a mosque and you won't hear of gays seeking to get married in a Catholic Church. And if they sued, they would lose because that would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Suing a wedding cake maker is a secular discrimination matter, not a religious one. I personally feel if a wedding cake maker or a photographer don't want to earn a check from a gay couple, they should not be forced to. And I don't understand why the gay couple would want to force them.

But that is an issue separate from the right to file a joint tax return.



.

 

[beretta304]

I see the usual anti-freedom rw's are here.

If they had their way, there would be cameras mounted in our bedrooms so that every "depraved" action could be recorded and made illegal.

Get the #$%^&*(#$%^&* government out of our private lives.

You are a fucking idot. nobody cares what you do in your bed room. When you bring out into the streets and schools and try to force people to accept "the Gay Way" is the only way, yea then we have a big problem with it.

I could give a fuck if you take in the ass or suck a dick..thats your perogative, just dont try to teach my kids in school that its natural way of things.

I am not a Christian, so try your BS about "crazy religous nuts" with me.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, this certainly is the issue of the day for CA....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I see the usual anti-freedom rw's are here.

If they had their way, there would be cameras mounted in our bedrooms so that every "depraved" action could be recorded and made illegal. Get the #$%^&*(#$%^&* government out of our private lives.

Really? Of course you can back up this absurd claim, right?

 

[bodecea]

so "the will of the people" is a mandate when electing bamie, but "the will of the people" is not a mandate when it goes against your wildest desires? Got it. Way to go.

Yes, Willow...because the Constitution, Article II is SET UP for an election of a President. (BTW, don't forget the Electoral College, hun)

However, "the will of the people" cannot vote out our rights by popularity. If that were the case, all Muslims in this country would be kicked out or penned up by now.

If they get 2/3 of the legislatures and 3/4 of the states, they sure as hell can. If DOMA became and amendment, the courts would have no legal recourse.

On that, you would be correct. IF.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is HIGHLY unlikely that the Supreme Court will uphold Prop 8. The nation is moving toward depravity and degeneracy. The only thing that is at all surprising is that even a liberal hell-hole like San Francisco can disgust itself enough to ban public nudity and that only after the requirement that a towel be used between bare ass and public seating failed. If San Francisco can find a shred of decency, there is always hope but my bet would be on the spread of degeneracy.

It's of note that with an overall population that is far from the majority, the left seems to think that everyone should march in lock-step on this issue.

Yet when it came to the election, these same libturds whined all day that "majority rules". And many here posted just that.

Funny how majority rules only when that rule goes in their favor.

Funny, I remember many members of the right over the years making the point "majority rules" over the years as they won vote after vote to deny Same-sex Civil Marriage, but now that marriage equality has begun losing at the ballot box the tune is supposed to change.



>>>>

 

[mudwhistle]

Wasn't Prop 8 the will of the people????

Isn't this an attempt to usurp the will of the people???

 

[WorldWatcher]

What I see is we're just minding our business trying to grant rights to Gay couples so they can take care of their legal problems the way hetero couples do and all of the sudden one of them walks up to us and kicks us in the cranberries.

You mean granting rights to same-sex couples so they can take care of their legal problems the way heterosexual couples do by passing laws and State Constitutional Amendments denying them the ability to take care of their legal problems the same way heterosexual couples do?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Courts cannot create rights, they can only protect those listed in the consitution as left to the people.

Sad that people think the the Constitution is supposed to list the rights that are held by the people.


>>>>

 

[beretta304]

What I see is we're just minding our business trying to grant rights to Gay couples so they can take care of their legal problems the way hetero couples do and all of the sudden one of them walks up to us and kicks us in the cranberries.

You mean granting rights to same-sex couples so they can take care of their legal problems the way heterosexual couples do by passing laws and State Constitutional Amendments denying them the ability to take care of their legal problems the same way heterosexual couples do?


>>>>

At first I wasn't sure what you were getting at in the last part of your reply to me. Having read this, now I see. Glad I didn't jump to conclusions.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wasn't Prop 8 the will of the people????

Isn't this an attempt to usurp the will of the people???

That's why the lefties love the courts so much.

 

[martybegan]

What is up with this bigoted hangup over calling gay marriages marriages? It's the stupidest objection out of all the objections.

As for the rest, when gay marriages are able to file joint tax returns and collect Social Security death benefits and all the other gifts from Uncle Santa, THEN their marriages will be equal.

If you want to be HAPPY, then do that with legislation. Go right ahead. I wish you would. Then you won't have to force the courts to do it for you.

But you didn't. You passed DOMA instead.
.

Its not about my hangup, its about the RIGHT of others to have the hangup. People have the right to be bigots, its the government that should not have the right.

My concern is that once it is seen as "marriage" there will be lawsuits forcing clergy to perform gay weddings against their will, or even worse sued to oblivion due to their denial to perfom said ceremonies. Then there will be suits againt people who dont want to work at said weddings (already happened in New Mexico). Plus you can add the ostriczing of people purely for religously based views on homesexual relations.

Before you bring up racsim, remember none of the main religions promotes racism in its doctrine. Bans on homosexual behaviour, however, are all over the place in them.

I can see these lawsuits springing up all over the place.

You ever hear of a Jewish couple suing a mosque for not marrying them?

Neither have I.

You don't hear of Jews seeking to get married in a mosque and you won't hear of gays seeking to get married in a Catholic Church. And if they sued, they would lose because that would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Suing a wedding cake maker is a secular discrimination matter, not a religious one. I personally feel if a wedding cake maker or a photographer don't want to earn a check from a gay couple, they should not be forced to. And I don't understand why the gay couple would want to force them.

But that is an issue separate from the right to file a joint tax return.



.

You ignore the fact that gay people can also be Catholic, and thus have a desire to get married in the Church, as strange as that may seem.

I do see this happening, and I see it because of the litigeous nature of our society.

 

[clevergirl]

Procreation is not a requirement to collect the cash and prizes from Uncle Santa for being married. If you have kids, you get additional cash and prizes.

You can call it whatever you like in your church. Outside the church it will be called marriage.

If you don't want your marriage in the church to sound the same as any other marriage, then call it something else.

Racists really hated it when marriage was "redefined" to include interracial marriages a few decades ago. But we rightly did not decide to call the union of a black and a white anything other than a marriage. America no longer caters to bigots.



.

Actually matrimony is a word with its roots in motherhood. It is and has been the purview of the Church. Civil Unions have been the purview of secular society...

The Church does not bestow federal cash and prizes to married people. The government does.

That is what is at issue here. State marriage.

And people are not going to called a gay marriage anything other than a marriage. "We're married." "They're married." It is just what people will do. You cannot force them to do otherwise.

.

Oh, but I digress...laws and policies can be and are regularly, changed. If the Homosexual Agenda is, to allow lawful state sanctioned unions...they can also be required to call them what they actually are, "civil unions". Marriage can be reserved for its proper usage to define a religious ceremony, as opposed to a strictly civil one.

Liberals never have a problem redefining a word in order to convey an attitude...think fetus.


As to the bequeathing of tax benefits? I have no problem with reverting to a time where these were not tied to "marriage".

 

[WorldWatcher]

Creating civil unions and making them equal to marriage would accomplish the same thing, wouldnt it? It just wouldnt be called marriage. This has been proposed, and rejected by many in the Marriage equality movement.

A little selective re-writing of history there. You seem to want to leave out that social authoritarians were busy passing State Constitutional Amenemdnet like the one in Virginia that denied BOTH Civil Marriage and Civil Unions.

You seem to want to leave out that when Civil Unions were passed with full equality to Civil Marriage that social authoritarians in Washington State had a hissy fit because "it was to much like marriage" and got Referendum 71 (2009) to rescind SB5688.

>>>>

 

[martybegan]

The Courts cannot create rights, they can only protect those listed in the consitution as left to the people.

Sad that people think the the Constitution is supposed to list the rights that are held by the people.


>>>>

It is common sense. The rights exist without the consitution, but they cannot be quantified and protected without it. The purpose is to clearly spell them out, thus setting where the line is for government with regards to a person's liberties.

Without that, the rights may exist, but they depend on the good graces of the legislatures, and increasingly the courts. Why people feel comfortable by their rights being protected by appointed officals (judges) is beyond me. What the courts give, the courts can take away, and very easily at that.

Only via amendment dose a right gain consitutional protection, and is thus proof from legislative majority manipulation. Or at least thats the way it should work.

Keep in mind courts that think they have the leeway to create laws can just as easily feel the ability to curtail rights already in the consitution.