Today may be The Day for California!

[Plasmaball]

So you're excited about the will of the people being overturned in favor of depravity. Not terribly surprised here. But it's still amazing to comprehend that sometimes.

figures you would get this wrong as well. We the people can't vote on something that takes away rights of others. This should have been struck down the next day.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?


>>>>

No.

Sorry, I wasn't listening.

What was the middle thing?

 

[martybegan]

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.

>>>>

I have no issue with states chaning thier consitutions with regards to this, as I see no equal protection. Also note changing state consitutions can be easier than the federal one.

In those cases the fight for a federal amendment redefining marriage should be even more a priority for those who want gay marriage. If you write it in such a was as it is incorporated via the 14th amendment, then all those issues go away.

 

[martybegan]

So you're excited about the will of the people being overturned in favor of depravity. Not terribly surprised here. But it's still amazing to comprehend that sometimes.

figures you would get this wrong as well. We the people can't vote on something that takes away rights of others. This should have been struck down the next day.

We do that all the time when it comes to the right to associate with others of our choosing, why is this any different?

 

[mudwhistle]

So you're excited about the will of the people being overturned in favor of depravity. Not terribly surprised here. But it's still amazing to comprehend that sometimes.

figures you would get this wrong as well. We the people can't vote on something that takes away rights of others. This should have been struck down the next day.

You can vote on anything.

Besides, Obamacare takes rights away, so what's your point?

 

[Plasmaball]

The Supreme Court is also looking at DOMA.

That is where things are really going to crumble for the anti-gay marriage movement.
.

I didn't know such a movement existed.

I thought it was the Gay activists movement that broached the subject first.

Don't you see, by us preventing them from forcing their viewpoints on us, the people, we are somehow a movement trying to prevent equality.

Nevermind the fact that the same rights have always existed for all people.

ah this tired excuse.

here is what im going to do. Im going to get enough people to think like i do, and vote that you don't get religious freedom to worship where ever you like. I dont like you and i think what you worship and think are perversion of reality. I think people like you are mentally challenged Now you may have been born that way, but it also could have been a choice.
Lets say it was a choice, and you should be able to change your thinking and beliefs.

 

[bodecea]

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?

You honestly think we wouldn't call it marriage?

 

[Plasmaball]

So you're excited about the will of the people being overturned in favor of depravity. Not terribly surprised here. But it's still amazing to comprehend that sometimes.

figures you would get this wrong as well. We the people can't vote on something that takes away rights of others. This should have been struck down the next day.

You can vote on anything.

Besides, Obamacare takes rights away, so what's your point?

no, laws that strip people of rights are typically struck down. Basic civil rights are for everyone. You and people like you want a second class of people.

you should just be honest and state this for once.

 

[bodecea]

So you're excited about the will of the people being overturned in favor of depravity. Not terribly surprised here. But it's still amazing to comprehend that sometimes.

figures you would get this wrong as well. We the people can't vote on something that takes away rights of others. This should have been struck down the next day.

You can vote on anything.

Besides, Obamacare takes rights away, so what's your point?

Wasn't that assertion made and rejected by the Supreme Court?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Maybe you could provide some example so support this position where members of the clergy were forced to perform:

1. Interfaith marriages against their religious dogma,

2. Interracial marriages against their religious dogma,

3. Marriages in cases of divorce where one (or both partners) had a divorce against their religious dogma,

4. Or since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal since 2004 in at least one State, where a member of the clergy was required to perform a marriage against their religoius dogma.​

Then there will be suits againt people who dont want to work at said weddings (already happened in New Mexico).

Please link to the case from New Mexico where a member of the clergy was sued for not performing a marriage against their religious dogma.

(BTW - The case you are referring to had nothing to do with Civil Marriage, the case had to do with Public Accommodation laws.)

Plus you can add the ostriczing of people purely for religously based views on homesexual relations.

So you are against "ostriczing" people, like how gays were told to stay in the closet or face jail time, being committed to the loony bin, or fired from their jobs?

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.

Secular law isn't based on religious dogma.

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

Maybe you can provide some examples as requested above.


>>>>

 

[g5000]

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.

You clearly have not read the 10th Amendment, which was written precisely for the reasons I outlined earlier. There were those who feared that if a right was delineated in the Constitution, it would imply those not delineated would not be protected.

So when you say "they cannot be quantified and protected" without being specifically described in the Constitution, their fears have been not only been justified, but realized.

What do you think "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" means?

.

 

[mudwhistle]

Sorry, I don't have a dog in this hunt.

I think both sides are wrong, those that want to fight Prop 8 and those that want to stop Gays from suffering from the same pain, anguish, and tremendous financial hardship bad marriages can bring.

 

[Plasmaball]

The Supreme Court is also looking at DOMA.

That is where things are really going to crumble for the anti-gay marriage movement.
.

I didn't know such a movement existed.

I thought it was the Gay activists movement that broached the subject first.

Don't you see, by us preventing them from forcing their viewpoints on us, the people, we are somehow a movement trying to prevent equality.

Nevermind the fact that the same rights have always existed for all people.

forcing? Don't be a fucking moron. Nobody is forcing anything on you. You don't have to accept anything ever. The law does. You are not the law.

You keep pushing this lie that the rights have always been there for these people. Yeah sure if they convert to your way of thinking and adhere to your morals the rights are there.

See thats forcing people, not the way you currently "think" that you are being forced. You can take every state in the USA ,every country in the world that currently has gay marriage, and i can tell you that you are wrong. Your way of thinking is wrong. You will loose, you will loose this fight badly, and then we won't give a shit about your bigoted, moronic, ignorant opinion on the matter.

people like you are being breed out of society, and i am thankful for that.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You clearly have not read the 10th Amendment, which was written precisely for the reasons I outlined earlier. There were those who feared that if a right was delineated in the Constitution, it would imply those not delineated would not be protected.

So when you say "they cannot be quantified and protected" without being specifically described in the Constitution, their fears have been not only been justified, but realized.

What do you think "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" means?

.

When the 14th amendment started to get used to bypass state legislatures then the concept of "reserved to the states" got muddied up. Now in the case of the civil rights era legislation, this was mandated by the state governments, via Plessy V. Fergueson passing all sorts of unconsitutional crap. Also note that the 10th sends things to the "states OR the people." Most progressive court actions these days are to deny the states the very "right" you are trying to deny them.

 

[Plasmaball]

So you're excited about the will of the people being overturned in favor of depravity. Not terribly surprised here. But it's still amazing to comprehend that sometimes.

figures you would get this wrong as well. We the people can't vote on something that takes away rights of others. This should have been struck down the next day.

We do that all the time when it comes to the right to associate with others of our choosing, why is this any different?

no....show me a law where we strip people of a right.

 

[beretta304]

I didn't know such a movement existed.

I thought it was the Gay activists movement that broached the subject first.

Don't you see, by us preventing them from forcing their viewpoints on us, the people, we are somehow a movement trying to prevent equality.

Nevermind the fact that the same rights have always existed for all people.

forcing? Don't be a fucking moron. Nobody is forcing anything on you. You don't have to accept anything ever. The law does. You are not the law.

You keep pushing this lie that the rights have always been there for these people. Yeah sure if they convert to your way of thinking and adhere to your morals the rights are there.

See thats forcing people, not the way you currently "think" that you are being forced. You can take every state in the USA ,every country in the world that currently has gay marriage, and i can tell you that you are wrong. Your way of thinking is wrong. You will loose, you will loose this fight badly, and then we won't give a shit about your bigoted, moronic, ignorant opinion on the matter.

people like you are being breed out of society, and i am thankful for that.

Your way means no breeding...nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.

 

[mudwhistle]

figures you would get this wrong as well. We the people can't vote on something that takes away rights of others. This should have been struck down the next day.

You can vote on anything.

Besides, Obamacare takes rights away, so what's your point?

Wasn't that assertion made and rejected by the Supreme Court?

The only thing decided was the issue "Is it constitutional?"

Legal battles on whether it infringes on religious freedoms are yet to be decided.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

ah this stupidity.

 

[martybegan]

figures you would get this wrong as well. We the people can't vote on something that takes away rights of others. This should have been struck down the next day.

We do that all the time when it comes to the right to associate with others of our choosing, why is this any different?

no....show me a law where we strip people of a right.

High Court Rules Cities May Ban Bias by Clubs : Justices Uphold New York Law Forcing Large, Private Groups to Accept Women, Minorities - Los Angeles Times

 

[Plasmaball]

We do that all the time when it comes to the right to associate with others of our choosing, why is this any different?

no....show me a law where we strip people of a right.

High Court Rules Cities May Ban Bias by Clubs : Justices Uphold New York Law Forcing Large, Private Groups to Accept Women, Minorities - Los Angeles Times

thats private, not government. Nice try.