32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[bodecea]

Well hey, history's most infamous queer, Adolph Hitler, was "married" way before the war, wasn't he? To Rudolph Hess, in Landesberg prison, whom their fellow Nazi inmates dubbed "Mrs. Hitler" or "Frau Hitler". Hitler and his 300,000 SA officer corps of militant queers. Lots of them were "married"...to one another. Or wait a minute, what am I talking about? They were Germany's most debauched legion of pederasts. They were "married" to little boys, a never ending stream of whom were dragged in and out of Berlin's SA barracks complex. It got so disgusting that hundreds of complaints were filed with Berlin's police by civilian witnesses. But I don't want to get present company sexually aroused with all this queer "marriage" history. You can read about it yourself in any of Peter Padfield's three biographies of Heinrich Himmler, especially the 1991 edition:

Amazon.com peter padfield himmler

Ok, now you are just getting silly.

 

[bodecea]

13 year Olds marrying. ...Okie dokie...hey look good luck with whatever this is you are trying to do. I don't talk to you because you dishonest and don't face reality when it comes to gay marriage...

So hey good luck..

As to my "dishonesty" [ironic, coming from you]... From Page 18 of the Windsor Opinion:

Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State. United States v. Windsor

SCOTUS bringing up this paragraph is their way of saying "just because gay marriage is legal in one state does not mandate it must be allowed in all 50".

The definitions and practices of various marriages are a State issue only. The federal government has no right to dictate marriage laws as per the 10th Amendment, but at the same time is obliged to honor every marriage from every State as per the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution is a restriction meant for the federal government, it was not meant to be a weapon used against the People. Its a shame that as a Nation we've forgotten what freedom really is.

ISIS doesn't stand a chance against our debauchery.

When one state doesn't recognize legal documents issued by another state, the federal government needs to get involved

What happens when a legally married gay soldier stationed in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage has issues related to state services or medical coverage?

Military Posts are federal lands and have all the services Military personnel and their spouses require. After your first enlistment, you start to get options available to get the duty station of your choice depending on the career path you've chosen. In any case, the Military isn't here to serve its Soldiers and spouses. Soldiers are here to support the Military. The Military (a federal entity) will uphold federal law.

ETA: Just so you know, I'm not here to do anything but give my opinions on the topics I participate in. Don't hate me for being different.

We always called it "The needs of the Navy come first."

Ewww, please don't tell me any submarine stories! LOL

Not a Bubblehead.....Airdales all the way!

 

[Seawytch]

You asked me a question: "Is that the debauchery you're referring to, Loving v Virginia?"

I said no, it was not what I was referring to.

There's really no point in asking a question if you're going to argue with the answer.

This is a thread about gay marriage and I applaud you for reciting the Loving case without injecting race into the issue. Please continue to keep the two separate. Now, since it has been mentioned, a little background:

I have my own opinions on the matter; namely, that X skin color can't marry Y skin color because they are different shades is a retarded thing to do. When a man and a woman love each other (as things were meant to be - a man and a woman), there is no legal standing to deny them what comes perfectly natural as a human being (love).

Gay people on the other hand, are not born gay (there is no factual evidence to the contrary either, only theories). If anyone can ever prove to me that people are in fact born gay (beyond a shadow of a doubt), I am willing to make changes to my opinions. But until then, gay marriage is nothing more than a manufactured thing and per the 10th and 14th Amendments, the States have every right to define it as they see fit and the federal government has every obligation to support every State's decision, be it for or against gay marriage.

You probably won't find very many Conservatives who view gay marriage this way,

And yet it was argued in miscegenation cases that going outside your race was a choice and that because people could marry within their race, that it was not discriminatory. Discrimination based on race is no different than discrimination based on gender.

Are you born with an attraction to people of another race or is a choice and what does that matter in a free country? Religion most definitely is a choice and yet if a state were to pass a law saying that Muslims could not civilly marry, you would expect the SCOTUS to get involved would you not?

I did not choose my attractions to women, but I do choose to act upon them. I have the same right to marry the consenting adult same sex partner of my choice that Lovings had in legally marrying their partner of choice.

 

[Seawytch]

Just be consistent folks...if you don't believe the SCOTUS should be ruling on marriage equality cases AND that they should not have ruled in Loving v Virginia...you are being consistent. If you believe that the SCOTUS was perfectly right in ruling in Loving, but think they are being "judicial activists" in ruling on gays civilly marrying each other, you're an anti-gay bigot.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Quiz question: What high profile queer activist stated in a lengthy NY Times piece, that if Hitler was gay, that would "serve to humanize him"? The inference being of course, that if Hitler was queer, all those little indiscretions like 52 million dead people, would play second fiddle to the humanity of his gayness. Who was it? Anybody want to venture a guess?

 

[SixFoot]

You asked me a question: "Is that the debauchery you're referring to, Loving v Virginia?"

I said no, it was not what I was referring to.

There's really no point in asking a question if you're going to argue with the answer.

This is a thread about gay marriage and I applaud you for reciting the Loving case without injecting race into the issue. Please continue to keep the two separate. Now, since it has been mentioned, a little background:

I have my own opinions on the matter; namely, that X skin color can't marry Y skin color because they are different shades is a retarded thing to do. When a man and a woman love each other (as things were meant to be - a man and a woman), there is no legal standing to deny them what comes perfectly natural as a human being (love).

Gay people on the other hand, are not born gay (there is no factual evidence to the contrary either, only theories). If anyone can ever prove to me that people are in fact born gay (beyond a shadow of a doubt), I am willing to make changes to my opinions. But until then, gay marriage is nothing more than a manufactured thing and per the 10th and 14th Amendments, the States have every right to define it as they see fit and the federal government has every obligation to support every State's decision, be it for or against gay marriage.

You probably won't find very many Conservatives who view gay marriage this way,

And yet it was argued in miscegenation cases that going outside your race was a choice and that because people could marry within their race, that it was not discriminatory. Discrimination based on race is no different than discrimination based on gender.

Are you born with an attraction to people of another race or is a choice and what does that matter in a free country? Religion most definitely is a choice and yet if a state were to pass a law saying that Muslims could not civilly marry, you would expect the SCOTUS to get involved would you not?

I did not choose my attractions to women, but I do choose to act upon them. I have the same right to marry the consenting adult same sex partner of my choice that Lovings had in legally marrying their partner of choice.

I don't care what the arguments were. It was an attempt by one side to keep marriages restricted between races and it was wrong. People are born different colors. If a man of X shade wants to marry a woman of Y shade, there's no legal means to restrict that.

Manufactured things like gay marriage are all based on choosing to live an alternative lifestyle. I'm not on board with that, and I've stated several times in this thread already that I support the States who do choose to legalize gay marriage.

There's not much here to argue with me over, and certainly nothing to change my mind (short of proving that homosexuals are born that way). The Constitution can be (and should be) followed in a manner that benefits both the opposition and support of these manufactured marriages.

As California proved though, people will vote to ban it even in the most liberal of places, so its no wonder people are trying to use the lower courts to force acceptance of this alternative lifestyle. They don't want to abide by the Constitution, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Gay marriage". The the next step for queers is to "adopt" a little boy, to get their hands on a little boy. That's what this insanity is really all about.

Yeah, because certainly no male-female family ever molested their kids.

"Hedman, 40, later was arrested and told investigators she set her husband on fire because he hurt her 7-year-old daughter, who is his stepdaughter. She said she did it because shooting him "was too nice."
Then on Wednesday detectives said they are recommending that Phillips be charged with first-degree child molestation."
Police Man set on fire by wife now faces sex crime charges Local Regional Seattle News Weather Sports Breaking News KOMO News

"Her husband, Robert Brown, also 72, was convicted last year on 42 counts related to the sexual abuse of four children, and was sentenced in April to 40 to 120 years in state prison."
Wife of convicted Newville child molester testifies she was unaware of her husband s actions PennLive.com

It's clear to me straight people can't keep their hands off little kids. Shouldn't allow them to marry as a result. Or have any sort of contact with children, their own or others.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't care what the arguments were. It was an attempt by one side to keep marriages restricted between races and it was wrong. People are born different colors. If a man of X shade wants to marry a woman of Y shade, there's no legal means to restrict that.

Manufactured things like gay marriage are all based on choosing to live an alternative lifestyle. I'm not on board with that, and I've stated several times in this thread already that I support the States who do choose to legalize gay marriage.

There's not much here to argue with me over, and certainly nothing to change my mind (short of proving that homosexuals are born that way). The Constitution can be (and should be) followed in a manner that benefits both the opposition and support of these manufactured marriages.

As California proved though, people will vote to ban it even in the most liberal of places, so its no wonder people are trying to use the lower courts to force acceptance of this alternative lifestyle. They don't want to abide by the Constitution, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

States with anti gay ballot initiatives or legislative actions are only proving that they don't understand the 14th Amendment. The SCOTUS will rectify that for them.

(Loving was in 1967)

Popular opinion should never be a driver for civil rights.

 

[Seawytch]

Quiz question: What high profile queer activist stated in a lengthy NY Times piece, that if Hitler was gay, that would "serve to humanize him"? The inference being of course, that if Hitler was queer, all those little indiscretions like 52 million dead people, would play second fiddle to the humanity of his gayness. Who was it? Anybody want to venture a guess?

Larry Craig?

 

[SixFoot]

I don't care what the arguments were. It was an attempt by one side to keep marriages restricted between races and it was wrong. People are born different colors. If a man of X shade wants to marry a woman of Y shade, there's no legal means to restrict that.

Manufactured things like gay marriage are all based on choosing to live an alternative lifestyle. I'm not on board with that, and I've stated several times in this thread already that I support the States who do choose to legalize gay marriage.

There's not much here to argue with me over, and certainly nothing to change my mind (short of proving that homosexuals are born that way). The Constitution can be (and should be) followed in a manner that benefits both the opposition and support of these manufactured marriages.

As California proved though, people will vote to ban it even in the most liberal of places, so its no wonder people are trying to use the lower courts to force acceptance of this alternative lifestyle. They don't want to abide by the Constitution, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

...

Popular opinion should never be a driver for civil rights.

I agree with you on that. However, gay marriage is not a civil right, its a manufactured thing.


Now, if people could produce actual proof that homosexuals are born that way, this would indeed be a civil rights issue.

 

[Seawytch]

I agree with you on that. However, gay marriage is not a civil right, its a manufactured thing.


Now, if people could produce actual proof that homosexuals are born that way, this would indeed be a civil rights issue.

Wait...so if the state of TN decided to ban all Muslims from civil marriage, that wouldn't be a civil rights issue?

Some men are not attracted to black women and vice versa. Does that make interracial attraction a choice?

I'm gay. I did not choose to be attracted to women, only to act upon that attraction.

 

[SixFoot]

I agree with you on that. However, gay marriage is not a civil right, its a manufactured thing.


Now, if people could produce actual proof that homosexuals are born that way, this would indeed be a civil rights issue.

Wait...so if the state of TN decided to ban all Muslims from civil marriage, that wouldn't be a civil rights issue?

Some men are not attracted to black women and vice versa. Does that make interracial attraction a choice?

I'm gay. I did not choose to be attracted to women, only to act upon that attraction.

If your intentions are to have an actual debate, please stop throwing the goalposts all over the room.

If you want to just call me a dirty icky bigot, please just get it over with and move on.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't care what the arguments were.

You should, because they are a mirror image of the arguments used in anti-miscegenation cases.

How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I think the Supreme Court should rule gay marriage for male queers legal, but with the condition that such "marriages" will never get their hands on little boys...or children of any stripe. That'll end gay marriage as an issue in about an hour. We'll never hear another peep.

 

[Skylar]

gay marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. equality does not require gay marriage. equality means you are treated the same regardless of your sex, race, age, ethnicity, or sexual orientaton. you do not need the word marraige to achieve equality.

Nor is the right to self defense with a fire arm. But the 9th amendment makes it pretty clear that the rights we possess are far in excess of what is written in the Bill of Rights. The primary opponents of the BIll of Rights were those who argued that if you articulated rights of the people in a Bill, many would argue that the this list defined an exhaustive list.

You seem to be justifying that concern with your 'not mentioned in the constitution' argument related to rights.

"Gay Marriage' is just marriage. And there's no rational reason to prevent gays and lesbians from being able to engage in the union.

 

[SixFoot]

I don't care what the arguments were.

You should, because they are a mirror image of the arguments used in anti-miscegenation cases.

How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation

I'm well aware that both sides are proceeding ahead with gay marriage as if it were interracial marriage. That's a smart move on the homosexual side.

 

[Skylar]

Listen to this from the link in the OP:

In Virginia, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in July that the state's voter-approved ban is unconstitutional. The state has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which hasn't said whether it will accept the case. But the high court granted a request on Aug. 20 from a county clerk to delay implementation of the ruling, which would have allowed same-sex couples to marry beginning the next day.

That was the same request made by a county clerk in California [San Diego County] and WAS REFUSED!

WTF? Different federal treatment for different states based on what? Whim? I get why the 32 states are seeking clarity. There should have been an honest press release following Windsor so that all this crap wouldn't be happening right now.

The problem with your interpretation of Windsor....is that it doesn't actually say anything you've attributed to it. You've hallucinated entire passages that simply do not exist. And 'honesty' isn't imbibing whatever imaginative nonsense you've made up.

 

[Seawytch]

If your intentions are to have an actual debate, please stop throwing the goalposts all over the room.

If you want to just call me a dirty icky bigot, please just get it over with and move on.

I'm not shifting any goal posts, I'm following your logic. You said that gay rights are not civil rights because YOU believe being gay is a choice. Religion is a choice so is THAT choice deserving of civil rights or not? Would you find it acceptable for the state of TN to prohibit all Muslims from civilly marrying each other?

You are a bigot yes, but dirty and icky I have no knowledge of.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm well aware that both sides are proceeding ahead with gay marriage as if it were interracial marriage. That's a smart move on the homosexual side.

The discrimination is the same so of course it's smart.

 

[SixFoot]

If your intentions are to have an actual debate, please stop throwing the goalposts all over the room.

If you want to just call me a dirty icky bigot, please just get it over with and move on.

I'm not shifting any goal posts, I'm following your logic. You said that gay rights are not civil rights because YOU believe being gay is a choice. Religion is a choice so is THAT choice deserving of civil rights or not? Would you find it acceptable for the state of TN to prohibit all Muslims from civilly marrying each other?

You are a bigot yes, but dirty and icky I have no knowledge of.

OK, time for you to move on. Its a shame you can't be more civil, I think we could've had some better conversations.