32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[Redfish]

The word 'marriage' is not necessary for those things to happen. "partner" is a much more accurate word to describe the members of a gay committed relationship.

So get it changed Fishy, for everyone. I understand you don't feel special anymore because gays get to use the word marriage so go ahead and change it to civil unions for everyone. Gays don't care, you do.

Oh, but you do care. Its the only thing you care about. The word is everything to you. Equality is not your goal and you know it. I hate to keep saying it, but forced societal acceptance is your goal.

Admit it and then we can continue intelligently. If not , this is a waste of time.

 

[rightwinger]

What is legal and what is illegal is decided by each society or civilization by a consensus of the members of that society.

Our constitution and bill of rights was established by a majority vote of the states.

We do vote on what rights others are allowed to have. That is the entire purpose of our congress, to vote on the laws that govern this country---------and they decide each new law by MAJORITY vote.

Marriage is not about love. Its a legal document that binds a man and woman to a relationship. I want gays to have the same kind of legally binding document, I want them to have the same rights as everyone else. The word "marriage" is not necessary to achieve those equal rights.

Why is the word "marriage" sooooooooooooooooooooo important to you gays?

I know the answer, do you?

Yes I do know the answer

Because they have lived their lives hiding in the shadows keeping their mouths shut about their relationships. They have been told that their love is sinfull and been equated to animals. Because they want to be able to introduce the most important person in their lives as "This is my wife" or "This is my husband" not as..."This is my partner"

Because they want their relationship treated like everyone elses

The word 'marriage' is not necessary for those things to happen. "partner" is a much more accurate word to describe the members of a gay committed relationship.

But, you failed my test. The reason the word 'marriage' is soooooooooooooooo important is because the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government mandating societal acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual relationships as normal human conditions equal in every way to human male/female biology-----------------------but they aren't and never will be.

Virtually everyone (except muslims) wants gays to be treated equally and fairly. But virtually everyone does not want the government to tell us what to think and what to believe.

Orwell and Rand saw it coming-----------read their books, you might learn something.

Actually it is about equality and equal application of our laws

They are not forcing you to accept their marriage, you are still free to hate gays if you want

You just can't force the government to accept your hatred

I hate no one. The hate and hateful rhetoric is all coming from your side. the intolerance is all coming from your side.

Define your own emotions then....If it is not hatred is it..

Repulsion
Intolerance
Superiority
Ignorance

Regardless, your emotions should not be forced on the government

 

[Redfish]

Said the intolerant one. you are totally intolerant of any opinion that differs from yours. You support government mandated thoughts and opinions.

What gives you the right to dictate what others believe? You act like a radical muslim--------"anyone who disagrees with the doctrine is to be eliminated"

I am tolerant of their beliefs, I do not wish to make their beliefs illegal or jail them for them. It is not their beliefs that I have a problem with...it is when they try to codify their beliefs into US law that I "disagree" and will not tolerate their intolerance.

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

 

[Redfish]

What is legal and what is illegal is decided by each society or civilization by a consensus of the members of that society.

Our constitution and bill of rights was established by a majority vote of the states.

We do vote on what rights others are allowed to have. That is the entire purpose of our congress, to vote on the laws that govern this country---------and they decide each new law by MAJORITY vote.

Marriage is not about love. Its a legal document that binds a man and woman to a relationship. I want gays to have the same kind of legally binding document, I want them to have the same rights as everyone else. The word "marriage" is not necessary to achieve those equal rights.

Why is the word "marriage" sooooooooooooooooooooo important to you gays?

I know the answer, do you?

Yes I do know the answer

Because they have lived their lives hiding in the shadows keeping their mouths shut about their relationships. They have been told that their love is sinfull and been equated to animals. Because they want to be able to introduce the most important person in their lives as "This is my wife" or "This is my husband" not as..."This is my partner"

Because they want their relationship treated like everyone elses

The word 'marriage' is not necessary for those things to happen. "partner" is a much more accurate word to describe the members of a gay committed relationship.

But, you failed my test. The reason the word 'marriage' is soooooooooooooooo important is because the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government mandating societal acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual relationships as normal human conditions equal in every way to human male/female biology-----------------------but they aren't and never will be.

Virtually everyone (except muslims) wants gays to be treated equally and fairly. But virtually everyone does not want the government to tell us what to think and what to believe.

Orwell and Rand saw it coming-----------read their books, you might learn something.

Actually it is about equality and equal application of our laws

They are not forcing you to accept their marriage, you are still free to hate gays if you want

You just can't force the government to accept your hatred

I hate no one. The hate and hateful rhetoric is all coming from your side. the intolerance is all coming from your side.

Define your own emotions then....If it is not hatred is it..

Repulsion
Intolerance
Superiority
Ignorance

Regardless, your emotions should not be forced on the government

none of those, sympathy is probably the most accurate. I have gay friends and relatives. I love and respect every one of them. I want them treated equally in every way. I want their committed relationships legalized. They all want the same things. Not one of them is hung up on the word "marriage".

 

[mdk]

Said the intolerant one. you are totally intolerant of any opinion that differs from yours. You support government mandated thoughts and opinions.

What gives you the right to dictate what others believe? You act like a radical muslim--------"anyone who disagrees with the doctrine is to be eliminated"

I am tolerant of their beliefs, I do not wish to make their beliefs illegal or jail them for them. It is not their beliefs that I have a problem with...it is when they try to codify their beliefs into US law that I "disagree" and will not tolerate their intolerance.

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Rights of a minority should not be put up a popular vote.

Rights for any groups should not be put up a popular vote.

 

[rightwinger]

What is legal and what is illegal is decided by each society or civilization by a consensus of the members of that society.

Our constitution and bill of rights was established by a majority vote of the states.

We do vote on what rights others are allowed to have. That is the entire purpose of our congress, to vote on the laws that govern this country---------and they decide each new law by MAJORITY vote.

Marriage is not about love. Its a legal document that binds a man and woman to a relationship. I want gays to have the same kind of legally binding document, I want them to have the same rights as everyone else. The word "marriage" is not necessary to achieve those equal rights.

Why is the word "marriage" sooooooooooooooooooooo important to you gays?

I know the answer, do you?

Yes I do know the answer

Because they have lived their lives hiding in the shadows keeping their mouths shut about their relationships. They have been told that their love is sinfull and been equated to animals. Because they want to be able to introduce the most important person in their lives as "This is my wife" or "This is my husband" not as..."This is my partner"

Because they want their relationship treated like everyone elses

The word 'marriage' is not necessary for those things to happen. "partner" is a much more accurate word to describe the members of a gay committed relationship.

But, you failed my test. The reason the word 'marriage' is soooooooooooooooo important is because the gay agenda is not about equality, its about the government mandating societal acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual relationships as normal human conditions equal in every way to human male/female biology-----------------------but they aren't and never will be.

Virtually everyone (except muslims) wants gays to be treated equally and fairly. But virtually everyone does not want the government to tell us what to think and what to believe.

Orwell and Rand saw it coming-----------read their books, you might learn something.

Actually it is about equality and equal application of our laws

They are not forcing you to accept their marriage, you are still free to hate gays if you want

You just can't force the government to accept your hatred

I hate no one. The hate and hateful rhetoric is all coming from your side. the intolerance is all coming from your side.

Define your own emotions then....If it is not hatred is it..

Repulsion
Intolerance
Superiority
Ignorance

Regardless, your emotions should not be forced on the government

none of those, sympathy is probably the most accurate. I have gay friends and relatives. I love and respect every one of them. I want them treated equally in every way. I want their committed relationships legalized. They all want the same things. Not one of them is hung up on the word "marriage".

I would have to hear it from them

Are there any homosexuals on this board who do not think that marriage should apply to them?

Anyone? Anyone?

 

[rightwinger]

Said the intolerant one. you are totally intolerant of any opinion that differs from yours. You support government mandated thoughts and opinions.

What gives you the right to dictate what others believe? You act like a radical muslim--------"anyone who disagrees with the doctrine is to be eliminated"

I am tolerant of their beliefs, I do not wish to make their beliefs illegal or jail them for them. It is not their beliefs that I have a problem with...it is when they try to codify their beliefs into US law that I "disagree" and will not tolerate their intolerance.

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Rights of a minority should not be put up a popular vote.

Rights for any groups should not be put up a popular vote.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

 

[JakeStarkey]

Referendums are not allowed to eviscerate rights protected by the 14th amendment.

 

[mdk]

Said the intolerant one. you are totally intolerant of any opinion that differs from yours. You support government mandated thoughts and opinions.

What gives you the right to dictate what others believe? You act like a radical muslim--------"anyone who disagrees with the doctrine is to be eliminated"

I am tolerant of their beliefs, I do not wish to make their beliefs illegal or jail them for them. It is not their beliefs that I have a problem with...it is when they try to codify their beliefs into US law that I "disagree" and will not tolerate their intolerance.

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Rights of a minority should not be put up a popular vote.

Rights for any groups should not be put up a popular vote.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

What if I don't eat lamb?

 

[Silhouette]

Rights of a minority should not be put up a popular vote.

Rights for any groups should not be put up a popular vote.

And the fundamental premise to your conclusion is false. Ergo your conclusion is false. Deviant sexual behaviors while in the minority are not "a minority" when it comes to the 14th. Otherwise compulsive theft & serial killing would be protected behaviors repugnant to the majority. After all, they would argue, "we are born this way"...

You go opening that legal pandora's box and you might as well declare anarchy as the ruling principle of this country.

 

[mdk]

Rights of a minority should not be put up a popular vote.

Rights for any groups should not be put up a popular vote.

And the fundamental premise to your conclusion is false. Ergo your conclusion is false. Deviant sexual behaviors while in the minority are not "a minority" when it comes to the 14th. Otherwise compulsive theft & serial killing would be protected behaviors repugnant to the majority. After all, they would argue, "we are born this way"...

You go opening that legal pandora's box and you might as well declare anarchy as the ruling principle of this country.

I am not sure if you could possibly get any more dramatic. Theft and serial killing denies the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Consenting adults engaging in homosexual sex does none of those things.

 

[Silhouette]

Rights of a minority should not be put up a popular vote.

Rights for any groups should not be put up a popular vote.

And the fundamental premise to your conclusion is false. Ergo your conclusion is false. Deviant sexual behaviors while in the minority are not "a minority" when it comes to the 14th. Otherwise compulsive theft & serial killing would be protected behaviors repugnant to the majority. After all, they would argue, "we are born this way"...

You go opening that legal pandora's box and you might as well declare anarchy as the ruling principle of this country.

I am not sure if you could possibly get any more dramatic. Theft and serial killing denies the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Consenting adults engaging in homosexual sex does none of those things.

No see that's the thing. Blind justice doesn't get dramatic. It just examines precedent upon "same or similar" and acts accordingly, without prejudice. That's the problem and why the SCOTUS has to be very keenly aware of how things can spiral out of control. When y'all were petitioning for butt sex to be legal in Texas, you were assuring the public then to "not get dramatic...this doesn't mean we'll be trying to get gay married...we just want what we do in our bedrooms to be decriminalized..." Fast forward a couple of years and now y'all are screaming bloody murder that your "civil rights to gay marry are being denied!!"

So we anticipate that your steamroller isn't going to just suddenly stop dead in its tracks. We anticipate that you will pave the way for not just your little clique of deviant sexual behaviors you've labelled "LGBT" [yet still fight amongst yourselves if it includes the amorphic "Q" or not], but that you will also pave the way, quite logically, using blind justice, for polygamy as well. It's a no-brainer. If gay marriage gets federal protection then there is no reason whatsoever that a law school flunkie couldn't take his polygamist clients straight back to the SCOTUS next year and make polygamy legally-protected as well.

And as it happens, there is a group of polygamists petitioning for just that thing and have openly said this is precisely what they will do before the ink ever dries presuming the gay cult gets their way. Their attorney is no law school flunkie either. He is Jonathan Turley and he is no slouch.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And the fundamental premise to your conclusion is false. Ergo your conclusion is false. Deviant sexual behaviors while in the minority are not "a minority" when it comes to the 14th.

False. The 14th Amendment Applies to homosexuals as belonging to "All Citizens" - see Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.


>>>>

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Progressive judges in 32 states are trying to legitimize homosexual "marriage"?
How farcical !!!

 

[mdk]

Rights of a minority should not be put up a popular vote.

Rights for any groups should not be put up a popular vote.

And the fundamental premise to your conclusion is false. Ergo your conclusion is false. Deviant sexual behaviors while in the minority are not "a minority" when it comes to the 14th. Otherwise compulsive theft & serial killing would be protected behaviors repugnant to the majority. After all, they would argue, "we are born this way"...

You go opening that legal pandora's box and you might as well declare anarchy as the ruling principle of this country.

I am not sure if you could possibly get any more dramatic. Theft and serial killing denies the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Consenting adults engaging in homosexual sex does none of those things.

No see that's the thing. Blind justice doesn't get dramatic. It just examines precedent upon "same or similar" and acts accordingly, without prejudice. That's the problem and why the SCOTUS has to be very keenly aware of how things can spiral out of control. When y'all were petitioning for butt sex to be legal in Texas, you were assuring the public then to "not get dramatic...this doesn't mean we'll be trying to get gay married...we just want what we do in our bedrooms to be decriminalized..." Fast forward a couple of years and now y'all are screaming bloody murder that your "civil rights to gay marry are being denied!!"

So we anticipate that your steamroller isn't going to just suddenly stop dead in its tracks. We anticipate that you will pave the way for not just your little clique of deviant sexual behaviors you've labelled "LGBT" [yet still fight amongst yourselves if it includes the amorphic "Q" or not], but that you will also pave the way, quite logically, using blind justice, for polygamy as well. It's a no-brainer. If gay marriage gets federal protection then there is no reason whatsoever that a law school flunkie couldn't take his polygamist clients straight back to the SCOTUS next year and make polygamy legally-protected as well.

And as it happens, there is a group of polygamists petitioning for just that thing and have openly said this is precisely what they will do before the ink ever dries presuming the gay cult gets their way. Their attorney is no law school flunkie either. He is Jonathan Turley and he is no slouch.

I stated from the get go that Lawrence v. Texas would be used to overturn state DOMA laws. Any one that claimed otherwise was clearly fooling themselves. Besides, the state has absolutely no business legislating the sexual acts of consenting adults. If you claim to be an advocate of small government then you would never support such a gross intrusion by the state. The state has absolutely no compelling interest to deny it's gay citizens access to marriage. The state's that support these discriminatory laws/amendments have failed miserably in front of the courts, often with no arguments even being presented before the courts.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, but you do care. Its the only thing you care about. The word is everything to you. Equality is not your goal and you know it. I hate to keep saying it, but forced societal acceptance is your goal.

Admit it and then we can continue intelligently. If not , this is a waste of time.

Damn the founding fathers and their "forced social acceptance", well at least they didn't make people sit with black people huh? But they did make sure that poor people were considered on par with others as long as they were white, idiots, the lot of them, right?

And as for Lincoln and his getting black people out of slavery and all that nonsense, why should I have to put up with black people being free? It's just not right, the bible says it wrong, I'm sure I can find a version that supports me.

Oh, by the way, you don't have to accept that gay people have rights, you just need to understand that the constitution protects everyone and it protects equality when it comes to the govt. Can you understand that? Or is it beyond comprehension?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, but you do care. Its the only thing you care about. The word is everything to you. Equality is not your goal and you know it. I hate to keep saying it, but forced societal acceptance is your goal.

Admit it and then we can continue intelligently. If not , this is a waste of time.

Why keep lying? Change the name. It's the equality gays care about, not the word. Change it to "life partner contract" if that twirls your whiskers, but make it exactly the same for your civil marriage as it is for mine. Do it...but the onus is on you precisely because we don't care what it's called.

 

[Silhouette]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

The 14th doesn't extend to sexual behaviors. No matter how much they want the world to suspend judgment and think of them as "a minority race". For they are not. And making this crucial error in premise is going to be the downfall of the gay-cult argument in Court.

 

[Seawytch]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

No more than blacks who wanted to marry whites would have accepted a vote on THEIR civil rights. I don't believe we should get to vote on civil rights...with good reason.