Wow: Daughter of two moms boldly speaks out AGAINST gay marriage

[bendog]

and yet those kids aren't trying to take away the right of heterosexual parents to marry.

Seawytch you and everyone ALREADY has the right to marry whoever you want in whatever way you want under the RELIGION, CHURCH or PRIVATE practice/beliefs of your own.
That's already under the First Amendment religious freedom.

What is contested is how to word the STATE marriage laws to be neutral, and neither
excluding nor imposing anyone's beliefs unequally.

if you use the word MARRIAGE in a way that is offensive or against Christian beliefs,
that is like using the word GOD in a public institution that is offensive or against an Atheist.

Atheists sue to remove the word GOD, so to be fair, either side can sue to remove the word MARRIAGE
under terms that exclude or discriminate against people of other beliefs.

The problem, Seawytch is when either side GOES TOO FAR and tries to force THEIR beliefs
through the State at the expense or exclusion of the other.

if you believe in "separation of church and state" and "freedom of or from religion"
then NEITHER side should be pushing their beliefs into state laws and institutions.

Either keep the laws neutral and inclusive and equally open to all beliefs
or keep that institution OUT of state law if it can't be worded and agreed upon by people of all beliefs.

Be fair or get it out of govt, just like any other personal choice.

Seawytch if you don't want to include all public beliefs in public policy,
if you want to keep a free choice of BELIEFS protected, then keep it under free exercise of religion
which is already protected.

if you push too far and push YOUR beliefs about same-sex marriage into the public sector and public policy,
that's why people of OTHER beliefs will fight to do the same thing to protect THEIR beliefs.

well said. the intolerance of the left is well established. If you don't believe as they say you must, then you are to be destroyed.

If you don't believe, you must follow the law regardless, or face the consequences. It's not complicated.

Yes PaintMyHouse
1. And slavery treated slaves as property, where you could not take them away to be freed elsewhere,
or it was enforceable by law as theft of property.

2. And with prolife and prochoice issues, the law does not allow abortion to be banned based on religious beliefs and faith-based arguments NOR can people be forced to fund or support it against their beliefs. And the same is argued for gay marriage, that this is a personal belief that not all people share or choose to support. Because beliefs are involved, on both sides, marriage must remain a free choice and not mandated by the state against the beliefs of any of the public.

3. If the Left wants to keep contradicting the concept of "separation of church and state" by continuing to push political beliefs through law that violate and exclude the beliefs of others (whether pushing the right to health care but discriminating against the right to life or pushing beliefs in gay marriage over traditional marriage),
this may finally expose the "prochoice" movement as not being about choice but pushing political agenda.

Just because beliefs are secular doesn't make them any more privileged as a belief over those of others.

What gave prochoice the advantage in legal arguments over prolife is that prochoice was less restrictive and allowed prolife to be exercised WITHOUT having to fund anything prochoice.

With the ACA mandates (and these gay marriage laws that have already begun affecting wedding businesses and services) this is abusing govt to force people to change their beliefs, endorse and fund things against their beliefs, and even PUNISH business people for their beliefs against gay marriage and PENALIZE citizens for not complying with govt regulations on health care that not all people believe in as lawful.

With abortion, people had a choice not to provide them.

So if this continues, this could lead to destroying prochoice and "separation of church and state" arguments of the Left by proving the party members, leaders and policies contradict themselves, and are "discriminating by creed."

If the Left will not listen and correct their own arguments and policies,
maybe the parties should be sued for fraud, misrepresentation and breaches of contract.

I think you overstate it a bit. Public accommodation laws are one thing. I do not wish to discriminate against anyone for any reason, but honestly I cannot see that the govt has the power to make a bigot sell fried chicken to a black person. A majority found, I think, that the behavior was so corrosive to society, it had to be banned. I'm not shedding tears for Lester Maddux. I think those who don't want to trade with gays are equally bigots, but their beliefs are sincerely based on their religion. So, I'm not for aiding them, and I'm certainly not for letting them discriminate without being up front about what they're doing, but taking them to court and fining them or whatever ..... imo that's a bad idea. In short, I think people do have a constitutional right to discriminate. Or, more accurately, I don't see that the govt has the power to prevent their private actions.

Yes, the justification for the Hyde Amend is an understanding of the constitution that both religious conservatives (Henry Hyde) and sectarian progressives (Pat Schroeder) agreed that people should not be compelled to pay for abortion if it was against their personal or religious beliefs.

But taking it to the ACA is beyond strained. All of us who pay taxes and have private insurance end up paying more than we would if we weren't forced to subsidize care for those without insurance. All the ACA does is say "get insurance or pay the taxpayers back for what it costs to provide you free insurance."

 

[Redfish]

Actually you're right, I did misread that one quote.

Here is more on his past opposition to gay marriage.

"Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage when he first ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996,[39] was undecided about legalizing same-sex marriage when he ran for re-election to the Illinois Senate in 1998,[40] and supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and for U.S. President in 2008.[39]Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but stated in a 2008 interview that he personally believed that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."[41] He supported civil unions that would establish legal standing equal to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believed that decisions about the definition of marriage should be left to the states"


So, as late as 2008 he was a bigot, by your standards.

And I did not claim any specific legislation. I merely pointed out that he was against gay marriage while in the legislature, and that if he did vote against any gay friendly initiatives during that time, that the media would not tell you about it.

No, the bigot actively tries to take away gays and lesbians civil rights. Presdient Obama never did that. In fact, he's done everything he can to further them.

Yeah, that's MY kind of "bigot".

which civil right do you not have?

Equal treatment under the law. You and I both have valid marriage licenses issued by our state. Yours is valid in all 50 states, mine in fewer than that. That is not equal treatment under the law...but that will change in June.

maybe, maybe not.

Look, you and I are never going to agree on this. I am tolerant of your views and beliefs. All I ask is that you be equally tolerant of mine.

Let the people decide. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

Sorry Chickenfish, without a change to our system of government, you'll have to contend with the one the founders set up...where you get to redress grievances through the court.

And you'll have to accept their ruling. You don't have to like it, just deal.

you know, I tried to treat you like an adult and you reply like the juvenile, arrogant asshole that you are.

go fuck yourself, you are not worth my time.

 

[koshergrl]

No, the bigot actively tries to take away gays and lesbians civil rights. Presdient Obama never did that. In fact, he's done everything he can to further them.

Yeah, that's MY kind of "bigot".

which civil right do you not have?

Equal treatment under the law. You and I both have valid marriage licenses issued by our state. Yours is valid in all 50 states, mine in fewer than that. That is not equal treatment under the law...but that will change in June.

maybe, maybe not.

Look, you and I are never going to agree on this. I am tolerant of your views and beliefs. All I ask is that you be equally tolerant of mine.

Let the people decide. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

Sorry Chickenfish, without a change to our system of government, you'll have to contend with the one the founders set up...where you get to redress grievances through the court.

And you'll have to accept their ruling. You don't have to like it, just deal.

you know, I tried to treat you like an adult and you reply like the juvenile, arrogant asshole that you are.

go fuck yourself, you are not worth my time.

that's why most intelligent people have her on ignore.

 

[Redfish]

which civil right do you not have?

Equal treatment under the law. You and I both have valid marriage licenses issued by our state. Yours is valid in all 50 states, mine in fewer than that. That is not equal treatment under the law...but that will change in June.

maybe, maybe not.

Look, you and I are never going to agree on this. I am tolerant of your views and beliefs. All I ask is that you be equally tolerant of mine.

Let the people decide. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

Sorry Chickenfish, without a change to our system of government, you'll have to contend with the one the founders set up...where you get to redress grievances through the court.

And you'll have to accept their ruling. You don't have to like it, just deal.

you know, I tried to treat you like an adult and you reply like the juvenile, arrogant asshole that you are.

go fuck yourself, you are not worth my time.

that's why most intelligent people have her on ignore.

I am just so tired of all this gay shit. Why is this country so fucked up that it is letting 3% of the population dictate to the 97%?

and seabitch will be next on my ignore list.

 

[Redfish]

and yet those kids aren't trying to take away the right of heterosexual parents to marry.

Seawytch you and everyone ALREADY has the right to marry whoever you want in whatever way you want under the RELIGION, CHURCH or PRIVATE practice/beliefs of your own.
That's already under the First Amendment religious freedom.

What is contested is how to word the STATE marriage laws to be neutral, and neither
excluding nor imposing anyone's beliefs unequally.

if you use the word MARRIAGE in a way that is offensive or against Christian beliefs,
that is like using the word GOD in a public institution that is offensive or against an Atheist.

Atheists sue to remove the word GOD, so to be fair, either side can sue to remove the word MARRIAGE
under terms that exclude or discriminate against people of other beliefs.

The problem, Seawytch is when either side GOES TOO FAR and tries to force THEIR beliefs
through the State at the expense or exclusion of the other.

if you believe in "separation of church and state" and "freedom of or from religion"
then NEITHER side should be pushing their beliefs into state laws and institutions.

Either keep the laws neutral and inclusive and equally open to all beliefs
or keep that institution OUT of state law if it can't be worded and agreed upon by people of all beliefs.

Be fair or get it out of govt, just like any other personal choice.

Seawytch if you don't want to include all public beliefs in public policy,
if you want to keep a free choice of BELIEFS protected, then keep it under free exercise of religion
which is already protected.

if you push too far and push YOUR beliefs about same-sex marriage into the public sector and public policy,
that's why people of OTHER beliefs will fight to do the same thing to protect THEIR beliefs.

well said. the intolerance of the left is well established. If you don't believe as they say you must, then you are to be destroyed.

If you don't believe, you must follow the law regardless, or face the consequences. It's not complicated.

Yes PaintMyHouse
1. And slavery treated slaves as property, where you could not take them away to be freed elsewhere,
or it was enforceable by law as theft of property.

2. And with prolife and prochoice issues, the law does not allow abortion to be banned based on religious beliefs and faith-based arguments NOR can people be forced to fund or support it against their beliefs. And the same is argued for gay marriage, that this is a personal belief that not all people share or choose to support. Because beliefs are involved, on both sides, marriage must remain a free choice and not mandated by the state against the beliefs of any of the public.

3. If the Left wants to keep contradicting the concept of "separation of church and state" by continuing to push political beliefs through law that violate and exclude the beliefs of others (whether pushing the right to health care but discriminating against the right to life or pushing beliefs in gay marriage over traditional marriage),
this may finally expose the "prochoice" movement as not being about choice but pushing political agenda.

Just because beliefs are secular doesn't make them any more privileged as a belief over those of others.

What gave prochoice the advantage in legal arguments over prolife is that prochoice was less restrictive and allowed prolife to be exercised WITHOUT having to fund anything prochoice.

With the ACA mandates (and these gay marriage laws that have already begun affecting wedding businesses and services) this is abusing govt to force people to change their beliefs, endorse and fund things against their beliefs, and even PUNISH business people for their beliefs against gay marriage and PENALIZE citizens for not complying with govt regulations on health care that not all people believe in as lawful.

With abortion, people had a choice not to provide them.

So if this continues, this could lead to destroying prochoice and "separation of church and state" arguments of the Left by proving the party members, leaders and policies contradict themselves, and are "discriminating by creed."

If the Left will not listen and correct their own arguments and policies,
maybe the parties should be sued for fraud, misrepresentation and breaches of contract.

I think you overstate it a bit. Public accommodation laws are one thing. I do not wish to discriminate against anyone for any reason, but honestly I cannot see that the govt has the power to make a bigot sell fried chicken to a black person. A majority found, I think, that the behavior was so corrosive to society, it had to be banned. I'm not shedding tears for Lester Maddux. I think those who don't want to trade with gays are equally bigots, but their beliefs are sincerely based on their religion. So, I'm not for aiding them, and I'm certainly not for letting them discriminate without being up front about what they're doing, but taking them to court and fining them or whatever ..... imo that's a bad idea. In short, I think people do have a constitutional right to discriminate. Or, more accurately, I don't see that the govt has the power to prevent their private actions.

Yes, the justification for the Hyde Amend is an understanding of the constitution that both religious conservatives (Henry Hyde) and sectarian progressives (Pat Schroeder) agreed that people should not be compelled to pay for abortion if it was against their personal or religious beliefs.

But taking it to the ACA is beyond strained. All of us who pay taxes and have private insurance end up paying more than we would if we weren't forced to subsidize care for those without insurance. All the ACA does is say "get insurance or pay the taxpayers back for what it costs to provide you free insurance."

I agree with most of that. But before ACA those who paid for insurance covered those who did not. ACA does not change that, all it does is add an expensive govt beaurocracy to the equation that we now also have to pay for.

The best way to punish bigots who refuse to do business with anyone because of sex, race, etc, is to boycott them and put them out of business. Get the damn govt out of it.

 

[Seawytch]

No, the bigot actively tries to take away gays and lesbians civil rights. Presdient Obama never did that. In fact, he's done everything he can to further them.

Yeah, that's MY kind of "bigot".

which civil right do you not have?

Equal treatment under the law. You and I both have valid marriage licenses issued by our state. Yours is valid in all 50 states, mine in fewer than that. That is not equal treatment under the law...but that will change in June.

maybe, maybe not.

Look, you and I are never going to agree on this. I am tolerant of your views and beliefs. All I ask is that you be equally tolerant of mine.

Let the people decide. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

Sorry Chickenfish, without a change to our system of government, you'll have to contend with the one the founders set up...where you get to redress grievances through the court.

And you'll have to accept their ruling. You don't have to like it, just deal.

you know, I tried to treat you like an adult and you reply like the juvenile, arrogant asshole that you are.

go fuck yourself, you are not worth my time.

Oh poor Chickenfish got hims feelings hurt.

I gave you a reasoned response and a truthful one. For your national referendum, you must change our system of government to one different than the founders intended so you will need to amend the constitution. Good luck. (In the meantime, SCOTUS will rule, gays will marry and you can tilt at windmills)

 

[Seawytch]

which civil right do you not have?

Equal treatment under the law. You and I both have valid marriage licenses issued by our state. Yours is valid in all 50 states, mine in fewer than that. That is not equal treatment under the law...but that will change in June.

maybe, maybe not.

Look, you and I are never going to agree on this. I am tolerant of your views and beliefs. All I ask is that you be equally tolerant of mine.

Let the people decide. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

Sorry Chickenfish, without a change to our system of government, you'll have to contend with the one the founders set up...where you get to redress grievances through the court.

And you'll have to accept their ruling. You don't have to like it, just deal.

you know, I tried to treat you like an adult and you reply like the juvenile, arrogant asshole that you are.

go fuck yourself, you are not worth my time.

that's why most intelligent people have her on ignore.

You don't. You said you did...but obviously couldn't stay away.

Sorry Kosher, I'm not fat enough for you.

 

[Redfish]

which civil right do you not have?

Equal treatment under the law. You and I both have valid marriage licenses issued by our state. Yours is valid in all 50 states, mine in fewer than that. That is not equal treatment under the law...but that will change in June.

maybe, maybe not.

Look, you and I are never going to agree on this. I am tolerant of your views and beliefs. All I ask is that you be equally tolerant of mine.

Let the people decide. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

Sorry Chickenfish, without a change to our system of government, you'll have to contend with the one the founders set up...where you get to redress grievances through the court.

And you'll have to accept their ruling. You don't have to like it, just deal.

you know, I tried to treat you like an adult and you reply like the juvenile, arrogant asshole that you are.

go fuck yourself, you are not worth my time.

Oh poor Chickenfish got hims feelings hurt.

I gave you a reasoned response and a truthful one. For your national referendum, you must change our system of government to one different than the founders intended so you will need to amend the constitution. Good luck. (In the meantime, SCOTUS will rule, gays will marry and you can tilt at windmills)

well, you just qualified for my ignore list. anyone who is unable to discuss issues logically and rationally does not deserve being replied to. So, good bye.

As to your misinformed opinion about the constitution, I have refuted your position numerous times but your sexual ideology is more important to you than truth and logical thinking.

You did not hurt my feelings, you made a fool of yourself.

 

[Seawytch]

Equal treatment under the law. You and I both have valid marriage licenses issued by our state. Yours is valid in all 50 states, mine in fewer than that. That is not equal treatment under the law...but that will change in June.

maybe, maybe not.

Look, you and I are never going to agree on this. I am tolerant of your views and beliefs. All I ask is that you be equally tolerant of mine.

Let the people decide. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

Sorry Chickenfish, without a change to our system of government, you'll have to contend with the one the founders set up...where you get to redress grievances through the court.

And you'll have to accept their ruling. You don't have to like it, just deal.

you know, I tried to treat you like an adult and you reply like the juvenile, arrogant asshole that you are.

go fuck yourself, you are not worth my time.

that's why most intelligent people have her on ignore.

I am just so tired of all this gay shit. Why is this country so fucked up that it is letting 3% of the population dictate to the 97%?

and seabitch will be next on my ignore list.

Sure Chickenfish...that's why you NEVER post in any of the "gay" threads.

I love ignore...I get to say shit and you can't respond. Do it.

 

[Seawytch]

Equal treatment under the law. You and I both have valid marriage licenses issued by our state. Yours is valid in all 50 states, mine in fewer than that. That is not equal treatment under the law...but that will change in June.

maybe, maybe not.

Look, you and I are never going to agree on this. I am tolerant of your views and beliefs. All I ask is that you be equally tolerant of mine.

Let the people decide. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

Sorry Chickenfish, without a change to our system of government, you'll have to contend with the one the founders set up...where you get to redress grievances through the court.

And you'll have to accept their ruling. You don't have to like it, just deal.

you know, I tried to treat you like an adult and you reply like the juvenile, arrogant asshole that you are.

go fuck yourself, you are not worth my time.

Oh poor Chickenfish got hims feelings hurt.

I gave you a reasoned response and a truthful one. For your national referendum, you must change our system of government to one different than the founders intended so you will need to amend the constitution. Good luck. (In the meantime, SCOTUS will rule, gays will marry and you can tilt at windmills)

well, you just qualified for my ignore list. anyone who is unable to discuss issues logically and rationally does not deserve being replied to. So, good bye.

As to your misinformed opinion about the constitution, I have refuted your position numerous times but your sexual ideology is more important to you than truth and logical thinking.

You did not hurt my feelings, you made a fool of yourself.

We have no vehicle for a national referendum without changes to the Constitution, Chickenfish. This is a fact.

So you're a chicken AND a pussy.

 

[Correll]

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

It's called a reasonable person standard and a demonstratable harm. If you don't believe there is a demonstratable harm in polygamy or incest or whatever you are advocating, you can do as gays and interracial couples have done and redress your grievances. Best of luck!

"Reasonable person standard"? "Demonstratable harm"?

You support the limitation of a supposedly Fundamental Right.

IF it is ok for you to support a limitation on the Fundamental Rights for a smaller minority than you, than where do you get off being so self righteous about the traditional limitation to a man and a woman?

All of our rights have limitations. Not a one is unlimited or unrestricted. In order to limit a fundamental right, you must be able to show where allowing it would cause societal harm. If you don't believe that whatever you're advocating for causes societal harm, challenge the restriction in court.

How about we start with you admitting that you lied about the meaning of the word marriage in that you kept claiming it always meant two people?

How about I never made that claim. I said prior to 1965, marriage was for people of the same race and that court challenges changed that...just like they are now for people of the same gender.

After all, it's not like you gays didn't mount an effective public "debate" campaign before you started winning court cases.

Why did you lie about that? Is it because of your religion? It is isn't it?

You were probably raised Christian, and even if you rebelled in other ways, you still want to base laws on your mainstream Christian beliefs against polygamy.

Also were do you get off dismissing the FIrst Nation traditions and laws that were the law of the land far before Evul White people took their land?

Do you think being more vicious and bloodthirsty makes your laws better?

Again, I never lied and no I've never been a Christian. I was raised sans religious indoctrination of any kind.

Your words.

From earlier in this thread.

"Until 1965 marriage meant between two people...of the same race."


You are the one pushing this blah, blah, blah, bigoted lie, and supporting violating the equal protection right of people just because they are different than you and don't follow the same church teachings you were taught and want to have made into law.


You might not be aware of the church indoctrination, but you have clearly accepted and support this bigoted and unconstitutional law.

And as I said, marriage has ALWAYS meant between a man and as many women as want to marry him.

If you didn't lie, than you are such a closed mind that you can't even conceive that not everyone wants to be forced to make the same choices as you.

 

[Seawytch]

It's called a reasonable person standard and a demonstratable harm. If you don't believe there is a demonstratable harm in polygamy or incest or whatever you are advocating, you can do as gays and interracial couples have done and redress your grievances. Best of luck!

"Reasonable person standard"? "Demonstratable harm"?

You support the limitation of a supposedly Fundamental Right.

IF it is ok for you to support a limitation on the Fundamental Rights for a smaller minority than you, than where do you get off being so self righteous about the traditional limitation to a man and a woman?

All of our rights have limitations. Not a one is unlimited or unrestricted. In order to limit a fundamental right, you must be able to show where allowing it would cause societal harm. If you don't believe that whatever you're advocating for causes societal harm, challenge the restriction in court.

How about we start with you admitting that you lied about the meaning of the word marriage in that you kept claiming it always meant two people?

How about I never made that claim. I said prior to 1965, marriage was for people of the same race and that court challenges changed that...just like they are now for people of the same gender.

After all, it's not like you gays didn't mount an effective public "debate" campaign before you started winning court cases.

Why did you lie about that? Is it because of your religion? It is isn't it?

You were probably raised Christian, and even if you rebelled in other ways, you still want to base laws on your mainstream Christian beliefs against polygamy.

Also were do you get off dismissing the FIrst Nation traditions and laws that were the law of the land far before Evul White people took their land?

Do you think being more vicious and bloodthirsty makes your laws better?

Again, I never lied and no I've never been a Christian. I was raised sans religious indoctrination of any kind.

Your words.

From earlier in this thread.

"Until 1965 marriage meant between two people...of the same race."

Yes, this is true. Loving v Virginia was decided by the SCOTUS in 1965. What don't you understand about that...or are you trying to say that interracial couples aren't people?

You are the one pushing this blah, blah, blah, bigoted lie, and supporting violating the equal protection right of people just because they are different than you and don't follow the same church teachings you were taught and want to have made into law.

I'm sorry, but what?!? Was that gibberish supposed to mean something? You'll have to parse that out in English.

You might not be aware of the church indoctrination, but you have clearly accepted and support this bigoted and unconstitutional law.

What bigoted and unconstitutional law are you talking about that you claim I support?

And as I said, marriage has ALWAYS meant between a man and as many women as want to marry him.

Except it isn't anymore...and it's one at a time you know. Sure a man can marry as many women as he wants (and women can marry as many men as they want), but at the moment it's only one at a time. You obviously think it should be more than that. Good luck.

If you didn't lie, than you are such a closed mind that you can't even conceive that not everyone wants to be forced to make the same choices as you.

Who said I wanted them to? Trust me, if you don't want to be married to someone of the same sex, you don't have to and I certainly don't want you to.