Told ya! Only a matter of time. Gop goes after gays - AGAIN!

[bripat9643]

And again the color of a mans skin is not a lifestyle.....

And again that doesn't change the discrimination. Those people didn't think it was discrimination to prevent blacks from marrying whites (but it WAS) and you don't think it is discrimination to keep gays and lesbians from marrying the consenting adult partner of their choice (but it IS).

Bunk. Your imbecile analogy only fools the Kool-Aid guzzlers. Blacks certainly aren't buying it.

 

[bripat9643]

However religion is, would it be discriminatory for a state to make a law that an atheist cannot marry?
>>>>

It would fall under the Constitutional definition of discrimination. Notice that the Constitution says nothing about gays.

 

[WorldWatcher]

However religion is, would it be discriminatory for a state to make a law that an atheist cannot marry?
>>>>

It would fall under the Constitutional definition of discrimination. Notice that the Constitution says nothing about gays.

Where in the Constitution is the definition of "discrimination". Last I checked in my pocket Constitution (Printed 1986) that I've carried since then in my backpack/briefcase the word "discrimination" isn't defined in the Constitution - let alone appear.

If such a "Constitutional definition" were to appear in - well - the Constitution, could you point out where specifically says it applies to all people except gays?

Are you of the opinion that rights must be enumerated in the Constitution for them to exist?



Thank you for the research.

>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Last time I checked a gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I do.....

Your argument is not new Ollie...it was used during the discussion about legalizing (wait for it...) interracial marriage. It was argued (just like you are doing) that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were NOT discriminatory because they applied equally to men and women. A black man was free to marry a black woman and the same was true for whites and therefore they felt there was no discrimination.

Again, good company you keep...

If I remember correctly, when that argument was presented to the Supreme Court by the Virginia lawyer, a few of them actually laughed out loud.

 

[bodecea]

Last time I checked a gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I do.....

Your argument is not new Ollie...it was used during the discussion about legalizing (wait for it...) interracial marriage. It was argued (just like you are doing) that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were NOT discriminatory because they applied equally to men and women. A black man was free to marry a black woman and the same was true for whites and therefore they felt there was no discrimination.

Again, good company you keep...

No one is swallowing the comparison with discrimination against blacks, especially blacks. They are insulted by such comparisons. The rest of just laugh and ridicule such idiocies.

You speak for black people now? I remember during the Women Rights movement, that some veterans of the Civil Rights movement were offended by the comparison too. Some are narrowminded enough to think that discrimination against them is unique in some way. But discrimination is discrimination is discrimination...whether you are wrongfully discriminated against because of your race, your gender, your age, or your sexual orientation.

 

[Seawytch]

And again the color of a mans skin is not a lifestyle.....

And again that doesn't change the discrimination. Those people didn't think it was discrimination to prevent blacks from marrying whites (but it WAS) and you don't think it is discrimination to keep gays and lesbians from marrying the consenting adult partner of their choice (but it IS).

Bunk. Your imbecile analogy only fools the Kool-Aid guzzlers. Blacks certainly aren't buying it.

So you feel that you can speak for all blacks? When were you named spokesman?

Quite a few African American civil rights leaders (including the late Cora Scott King) support gay and lesbian marriage equality.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/fact_sheets/BlackLeadersOnMarriageEquality.pdf

 

[bodecea]

And again the color of a mans skin is not a lifestyle.....

But discrimination by law is still discrimination by law whether it is based on the color of one's skin, one's gender, one' age, one's religion, or one's sexual orientation.

This isn't about race....that is a red herring...it is about discrimination for no legitimate reason.

 

[bodecea]

However religion is, would it be discriminatory for a state to make a law that an atheist cannot marry?
>>>>

It would fall under the Constitutional definition of discrimination. Notice that the Constitution says nothing about gays.

What Worldwatcher said. Would like to see where the Constitution defines discrimination. (BTW...the Constitution said nothing about women til 1920 either)

 

[SFC Ollie]

Because you say so? Because it isn't the way you want? Because through out history it hasn't been your way?


What ever you want to believe you just go right ahead.

 

[Seawytch]

Because you say so? Because it isn't the way you want? Because through out history it hasn't been your way?


What ever you want to believe you just go right ahead.

See, what it seems like from where I'm sitting is that YOU want to discriminate based on what you believe. Where is your compelling state reason to deny me and my partner the protections and benefits that come with legal civil marriage? What is the over-riding harm in allowing us to legally marry?

 

[bripat9643]

Where in the Constitution is the definition of "discrimination". Last I checked in my pocket Constitution (Printed 1986) that I've carried since then in my backpack/briefcase the word "discrimination" isn't defined in the Constitution - let alone appear.

It says the government cannot limit the right to vote based on race. I thought it also said religion and national origin, but I was mistaken.However, there is obviously no constitutional bar to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

If such a "Constitutional definition" were to appear in - well - the Constitution, could you point out where specifically says it applies to all people except gays?

You want me to point out where something exists that doesn't exist?

Are you of the opinion that rights must be enumerated in the Constitution for them to exist?

That's the liberal conception of rights, not mine.

 

[bripat9643]

No one is swallowing the comparison with discrimination against blacks, especially blacks. They are insulted by such comparisons. The rest of just laugh and ridicule such idiocies.

You speak for black people now? I remember during the Women Rights movement, that some veterans of the Civil Rights movement were offended by the comparison too. Some are narrowminded enough to think that discrimination against them is unique in some way. But discrimination is discrimination is discrimination...whether you are wrongfully discriminated against because of your race, your gender, your age, or your sexual orientation.

Only liberals believe they speak for black people. I simply note what black people themselves say. Again, comparing the civil rights struggle for blacks to the fetish gays have to get married isn't justified by the facts. There is simply no comparison.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds
Comments (399)
(148)
(0)
November 5, 2008 | 12:10 pm

A lot of Obama/Yes-on-8 voters? The Associated Press exit polls show that African Americans and Latinos backed Proposition 8 in good numbers. Details here from AP:

California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state's same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press.

More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8, while whites were split. Religious groups led the tightly organized campaign for the measure, and religious voters were decisive in getting it passed. Of the seven in 10 voters who described themselves as Christian, two-thirds backed the initiative. Married voters and voters with children strongly supported Proposition 8. Unmarried voters were heavily opposed.

-- Shelby Grad

Photo: Los Angeles Times

 

[Seawytch]

Bripat, where is your compelling state reason to deny marriage equality to gays and lesbians? What is the over-riding harm in allowing me and my partner of 15 years and our two children the benefits of legal marriage?

 

[Seawytch]

No one is swallowing the comparison with discrimination against blacks, especially blacks. They are insulted by such comparisons. The rest of just laugh and ridicule such idiocies.

You speak for black people now? I remember during the Women Rights movement, that some veterans of the Civil Rights movement were offended by the comparison too. Some are narrowminded enough to think that discrimination against them is unique in some way. But discrimination is discrimination is discrimination...whether you are wrongfully discriminated against because of your race, your gender, your age, or your sexual orientation.

Only liberals believe they speak for black people. I simply note what black people themselves say. Again, comparing the civil rights struggle for blacks to the fetish gays have to get married isn't justified by the facts.

You obviously don't speak for these black civil rights leaders:

Civil Rights Leaders that Support Marriage Equality

You have yet to provide a compelling state reason to deny marriage equality. (but don't feel bad...lawyers that are fighting against marriage equality can't either which is why they keep LOSING in Federal court). Because you don't like how we have sex isn't a compelling state reason I'm afraid.

 

[bripat9643]

So you feel that you can speak for all blacks? When were you named spokesman?

Quite a few African American civil rights leaders (including the late Cora Scott King) support gay and lesbian marriage equality.

Isn't it astounding how liberals give the impression they are reading the same talking points?

Only liberals believe they speak for blacks. When blacks speak for themselves, they say they find the comparison with so-called "gay-rights" insulting. Furthermore, a majority of them voted for proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage.

 

[bripat9643]

And again the color of a mans skin is not a lifestyle.....

But discrimination by law is still discrimination by law whether it is based on the color of one's skin, one's gender, one' age, one's religion, or one's sexual orientation.

This isn't about race....that is a red herring...it is about discrimination for no legitimate reason.

But there is a legitimate reason. Marriage laws discriminate against men in all manner of ways. They exist for the benefit of mothers and children. Why do you think gays should be exempt?

 

[bripat9643]

What Worldwatcher said. Would like to see where the Constitution defines discrimination. (BTW...the Constitution said nothing about women til 1920 either)

That's true, and women were not allowed to vote in a lot of states before then. The Constitution says nothing about gays, so where is their right not to be discriminated against?

 

[bodecea]

No one is swallowing the comparison with discrimination against blacks, especially blacks. They are insulted by such comparisons. The rest of just laugh and ridicule such idiocies.

You speak for black people now? I remember during the Women Rights movement, that some veterans of the Civil Rights movement were offended by the comparison too. Some are narrowminded enough to think that discrimination against them is unique in some way. But discrimination is discrimination is discrimination...whether you are wrongfully discriminated against because of your race, your gender, your age, or your sexual orientation.

Only liberals believe they speak for black people. I simply note what black people themselves say. Again, comparing the civil rights struggle for blacks to the fetish gays have to get married isn't justified by the facts. There is simply no comparison.

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds
Comments (399)
(148)
(0)
November 5, 2008 | 12:10 pm

A lot of Obama/Yes-on-8 voters? The Associated Press exit polls show that African Americans and Latinos backed Proposition 8 in good numbers. Details here from AP:

California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state's same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press.

More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8, while whites were split. Religious groups led the tightly organized campaign for the measure, and religious voters were decisive in getting it passed. Of the seven in 10 voters who described themselves as Christian, two-thirds backed the initiative. Married voters and voters with children strongly supported Proposition 8. Unmarried voters were heavily opposed.

-- Shelby Grad

Photo: Los Angeles Times

There was no attempt to target minorities for the "NO on Prop H8" vote...that will never happen again.

Besides that, you have not in anyway shown that all blacks are against gay rights. But I suppose it comforts you in some way to think that "Hah! Minorities against gays so it must be ok!"

 

[bripat9643]

You obviously don't speak for these black civil rights leaders:

Civil Rights Leaders that Support Marriage Equality

Civil rights leaders don't speak for blacks either. They are a bunch of pimps who make a living by claiming to speak for blacks. A majority of blacks voted for proposition 8 in one of the most liberal states in the entire country.

You have yet to provide a compelling state reason to deny marriage equality. (but don't feel bad...lawyers that are fighting against marriage equality can't either which is why they keep LOSING in Federal court). Because you don't like how we have sex isn't a compelling state reason I'm afraid.

You can have sex any way you like. No one is stopping you. However, there are very good reasons not to allow gays to marry. The marriage laws of this country were created for the benefit of mother and children. Watering down that benefit by extending it to arrangements that can't possibly produce children is counter productive. It would make better sense to abolish these laws than to extend them to gays.

The obligation to make a compelling case is incumbent on those who want to overturn the centuries old norms of society, not those who wish to maintain them.

 

[bripat9643]

There was no attempt to target minorities for the "NO on Prop H8" vote...that will never happen again.

What is that supposed to mean, that lib propaganda organs weren't sufficiently employed to bamboozle black voters?

Besides that, you have not in anyway shown that all blacks are against gay rights. But I suppose it comforts you in some way to think that "Hah! Minorities against gays so it must be ok!"

ROFL! The fact that blacks voted against rights in overwhelming numbers doesn't show that they are against gay rights? Is there anything in your mind that would show they are opposed to gay rights?

The liberal talent for deluding themselves is extraordinary