32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[Seawytch]

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?

Whatever you call it, it should apply to our partnerships. If you change it to civil unions for everyone, great. I won't accept marriage for you and civil unions for gays though.

 

[Silhouette]

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?

Whatever you call it, it should apply to our partnerships. If you change it to civil unions for everyone, great. I won't accept marriage for you and civil unions for gays though.

You have to. That's how a democracy works. Behaviors repugnant to the majority don't get to dictate to it. Didn't you take poli-sci?

Just because your cult wants really really REALLY! badly to change the 1,000s of years old definition of marriage doesn't mean you automatically get to. Just because that toddler really really REALLY! wants to play with that electrical cord, doesn't mean they get to.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Whatever you call it, it should apply to our partnerships. If you change it to civil unions for everyone, great. I won't accept marriage for you and civil unions for gays though.

You have to. That's how a democracy works. Behaviors repugnant to the majority don't get to dictate to it. Didn't you take poli-sci?

Just because your cult wants really really REALLY! badly to change the 1,000s of years old definition of marriage doesn't mean you automatically get to. Just because that toddler really really REALLY! wants to play with that electrical cord, doesn't mean they get to.

A toddler playing with an electrical cord is harmful to society......gay marriage is not

 

[Silhouette]

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?

Whatever you call it, it should apply to our partnerships. If you change it to civil unions for everyone, great. I won't accept marriage for you and civil unions for gays though.

You have to. That's how a democracy works. Behaviors repugnant to the majority don't get to dictate to it. Didn't you take poli-sci?

Just because your cult wants really really REALLY! badly to change the 1,000s of years old definition of marriage doesn't mean you automatically get to. Just because that toddler really really REALLY! wants to play with that electrical cord, doesn't mean they get to.

A toddler playing with an electrical cord is harmful to society......gay marriage is not

yes it is... [Think: CHILDREN]...[oh, that's right, the LGBT cult never "thinks children"...well...almost never...]

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Whatever you call it, it should apply to our partnerships. If you change it to civil unions for everyone, great. I won't accept marriage for you and civil unions for gays though.

You have to. That's how a democracy works. Behaviors repugnant to the majority don't get to dictate to it. Didn't you take poli-sci?

Just because your cult wants really really REALLY! badly to change the 1,000s of years old definition of marriage doesn't mean you automatically get to. Just because that toddler really really REALLY! wants to play with that electrical cord, doesn't mean they get to.

A toddler playing with an electrical cord is harmful to society......gay marriage is not

yes it is... [Think: CHILDREN]...[oh, that's right, the LGBT cult never "thinks children"...well...almost never...]

Doesn't seem any more harmful to society than a bunch of frat boys having a good time

Why would you include a picture of gay fathers as harmful to society?

 

[Silhouette]

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?

Whatever you call it, it should apply to our partnerships. If you change it to civil unions for everyone, great. I won't accept marriage for you and civil unions for gays though.

You have to. That's how a democracy works. Behaviors repugnant to the majority don't get to dictate to it. Didn't you take poli-sci?

Just because your cult wants really really REALLY! badly to change the 1,000s of years old definition of marriage doesn't mean you automatically get to. Just because that toddler really really REALLY! wants to play with that electrical cord, doesn't mean they get to.

A toddler playing with an electrical cord is harmful to society......gay marriage is not

yes it is... [Think: CHILDREN]...[oh, that's right, the LGBT cult never "thinks children"...well...almost never...]

Doesn't seem any more harmful to society than a bunch of frat boys having a good time

Why would you include a picture of gay fathers as harmful to society?

The three pictures are inseparable. And "gay pride parades" are not "frat parties" where children are expected not to attend. Very unlike frat parties, gay pride parades are sober events where the participants express unapologetic and perennial-pride over the displays and behaviors therein. Participants HOPE children will be in attendance viewing what goes on.

There's the difference that all but simpletons would find compelling.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Redneck Chicken Wings and Cold Beer Gay Marriage Poll Update:

Last poll about first of the year: 3 no problem with it, 4 against, 2 leaning for it and 3 leaning against it

Moe: Against
Curtis: leaning against it
GaDawg: No problem with it
Hector: Leaning for it
Jeff: No problem with it
Crystal: Leaning for it
Bill: Against
Doug: No problem with it
Amber:Against
Carl: No problem with it
Jessica: Leaning for it
Josh: Leaning against it

4 no problem with it, 3 against, 3 leaning for it and 2 leaning against it

I have no problem with it either. Just so long as putting children into the hands of queers isn't part of the equation. Homosexuality is mental illness. We'll find a cure sooner or later.

 

[Seawytch]

I have no problem with it either. Just so long as putting children into the hands of queers isn't part of the equation. Homosexuality is mental illness. We'll find a cure sooner or later.

Fortunately you're not in charge of adoption agencies, court systems, sperm banks or infertility clinics...'cause gays are raising kids and from all the studies, we're doing a good job of it.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Fortunately you're not in charge of adoption agencies, court systems, sperm banks or infertility clinics...'cause gays are raising kids and from all the studies, we're doing a good job of it.

"All the studies." Link one, genius. And I mean an empirical study that'd withstand the scrutiny of peer review. A study by some long-established child welfare agency like the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Put up or shut up. "All the studies!" Your's were probably scribbled by the same queers who gave us the "gay gene".

 

[Seawytch]

"All the studies." Link one, genius. And I mean an empirical study that'd withstand the scrutiny of peer review. A study by some long-established child welfare agency like the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Put up or shut up. "All the studies!" Your's were probably scribbled by the same queers who gave us the "gay gene".

American Academy of Pediatrics Supports Same Gender Civil Marriage

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Sure they do. Mental illness is a societal malady with which every government should be involved. "Steve and Dave" are sick people, people who spread STD's to the general population 17 times as often as any other demographic. Steve and Dave had the chance to exhibit their concern for the general good when they had it within themselves to contain AIDS, but they chose not to, so now one million African-American females are infected. Steve and Dave are insidious racists.

But mostly, Steve and Dave, just by virtue of their mental illness based on sexual perversion, see nothing wrong in molesting little boys. It's the only motivation Steve and Dave have for wanting to get their hands on little boys. Steve and Dave deserve to swing from crane booms if they molest children, and if given a little boy, they will most certainly molest that little boy. The fact that things have gotten as far as they have in our society, is an indication of how weak our polity has become. When we toss our children into the maw of sexual predators, legally, we're a society that no longer deserves to exist.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Whatever you call it, it should apply to our partnerships. If you change it to civil unions for everyone, great. I won't accept marriage for you and civil unions for gays though.

You have to. That's how a democracy works. Behaviors repugnant to the majority don't get to dictate to it. Didn't you take poli-sci?

Obviously you he doesn't, as demonstrated by all the gay marriages. Our democratic republic doesn't allow the majority to strip the majority of fundamental rights without a very, very good reason. Marriage is a fundamental right. That you find it 'repugnant' isn't enough. Its not even a particularly good reason.

Just because your cult wants really really REALLY! badly to change the 1,000s of years old definition of marriage doesn't mean you automatically get to.

Calling the minority a 'cult' doesn't actually change their rights. All it does is reveal the basis of your perception for discrimination against them. Which, again, isn't a good reason to deny minorities fundamental rights.

Just because that toddler really really REALLY! wants to play with that electrical cord, doesn't mean they get to.

Alas, we're talking about adults. Not toddlers. And gay marriage isn't an 'electric cord'. A gay couple getting married harms you in no way. And benefits the couple. And from that basis you'd deny them fundamental rights?

Um, no. Your feelings don't define someone else's rights.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The 14th amendment does apply to rights. Marriage is a right. Thus, the 14th amendment applies to marriage. If gays and lesbians want to marry, the state needs a very, very good reason to deny them such rights. And the State has no compelling interest, let alone a good reason.

They discriminate against gays and lesbians....because they discriminate against gays and lesbians. Also known as 'tradition'. But that's not good enough either.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You can't force social acceptance. But you can force equal protection under the law. There's simply no good reason to deny gays and lesbians legal recognition of their marriages. And without a very, very good reason, you can't deny someone a fundamental right.

 

[LiberalMedia]

32 States Ask Supreme Court to Settle Gay Marriage - ABC News

yeah so 32 states on Thursday want Scotus to just settle the matter once and for all. Given the recent ruling for WI and IL we kinda already know where this will go if Scotus ever decides to deal with this. Watch them punt back to the lower courts.

This is why I voted in favor of North Carolina's Marriage Amendment.

The Marriage Amendment, passed during the primaries of 2012, amended the state constitution to define marriage as being between one manpig and one womyn.

Where there are disagreements on how to handle the same issue between states, the case often gets referred to federal court.

An issue like marriage equality was bound to be referred to the Supreme Court eventually. When it does, they will overrule not only state laws against gay marriage, but also state constitutions. The eventual legalization of gay marriage by the Supreme Court will set a strong modern precedent for other instances where the federal government wishes to overrule state governments and repeal state laws, including their constitutions. The federal government shall be supreme in this country; anything it passes is automatically debatable law, regardless of what bigoted state-level legislators and activists decide to push.

In effect, when voters anywhere cast a ballot in favor of using their state constitution to push their social conservatardism bullshit on the enlightened lybyryl masses, what they're really doing is handing that issue over to the government to control; where humyn ryghts are the subject of debate, the federal government will invariably be consulted, and will institute a policy more lybyryl than the most progressive of states could devise because a federal-level policy set by the Supreme Court is not subject to appeal.

I'm glad that conservatard hucksters like Mike Huckabee, Thom Tillis, Mark Harris, et al. were able to trick you conservatards into voting for the roundabout legalization of gay marriage. I'm a bit disappointed, however, that you conservatards who are appalled by the very notion of marriage equality fail to see the brilliance of the lybyryl strategy in this fyght.

 

[LiberalMedia]

And without a very, very good reason, you can't deny someone a fundamental right.

Stop right there, criminal scum. Are you saying that it is acceptable to deny someone their ryghts?

 

[Skylar]

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?

Within the bounds of rights, what becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. Rights aren't up for a vote. They exist autonomous of the democratic process. And the majority doesn't have the authority to strip the minority of fundamental rights.

Such rights are protected at the federal level with the passage of the constitution. And at the state level with the passage of the 14th amendment.

 

[Skylar]

And without a very, very good reason, you can't deny someone a fundamental right.

Stop right there, criminal scum. Are you saying that it is acceptable to deny someone their ryghts?

With a good reason, absolutely. Else criminal fines and imprisonment would be strictly unconstitutional.

 

[Skylar]

An issue like marriage equality was bound to be referred to the Supreme Court eventually. When it does, they will overrule not only state laws against gay marriage, but also state constitutions.

They'll overrule a part of the State constitution, rendering it unenforceable. As that part strips citizens of rights. And the States lack the authority to strip citizens of fundamental rights without very good reason. Without such a reason, that portion of the constitution can't be legally enforced.

They could keep the wording in the state constitution, I suppose. But it would be legally meaningless.

The eventual legalization of gay marriage by the Supreme Court will set a strong modern precedent for other instances where the federal government wishes to overrule state governments and repeal state laws, including their constitutions.

The precedent of the Federal Government overruling state constitutions when they violate the rights of citizens is already set. Segregation was written into the constitutions of some southern States. Alabama for example mandated segregation in education as part of their constitution. Some Southern State constitutions had poll taxes written into them.

And the federal government overruled educational segregation in 1954 and poll taxes in 1937. Nixing the idea that precedent would by set by gay marriage on the feds authority to overrule portions of State constitutions incompatible with the rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

That precedent is at least several generations old.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The voters of California crushed the gay marriage referendum 54%-48%. Millions of people voted. A margin that large is a mandate by any other name. Yet one homosexual alcoholic circuit judge rules the democratic will of the people as being "unconstitutional". This is the opinion of one queer drunk. So hey, I have an idea. Let's get some conservative circuit court judges, hardcore Christians...or better still, Muslims, to overturn all laws making homosexuality legal, as unconstitutional. Then we'll arrest all the queers. It'll be perfectly legal, right? I mean some circuit court judge said so...so it must be legal.

Crushed?

And....are you saying if an anti-gun measure passed 54%-48%...it's a mandate that no judge is permitted to overturn?

The right to bear arms is clearly stated in the Second Amendment. The right to homosexual marriage, or marriage, period, is ambiguous and determined solely in interpretation of various amendments.

And the right for all Americans to be treated equally under the law is clearly stated in the 14th Amendment. Check mate.

For 200 years, it was understood that not all rights are intended to be applied equally. It's not realistic to think the founders thought men should marry men. To extend this to its logical conclusion using liberal think, a dog could marry a woman. Think that won't happen? Check the United Kingdom. That's precisely what happened.