60 Percent Of Americans Soon Will Live In States With Marriage Equality

[Skylar]

If you're married to someone of the same gender, your marriage will still be second rate to mine.

You're certainly welcome to that opinion. But the law is increasingly not making making any such distinction, recognizing that gay marriages are just as valid under the law as straight ones.

The only thing for which your will be recognized it's its abnormality.

So you say. Yet gay marriage supporters out pace gay marriage opponents by about 12 points. Among the youth, is ridiculously one sided, with nearly 80% supporting same sex marriage. I suspect that a fair amount of the shift in favor of marriage equality is just your ilk dying off.

 

[Kosh]

Well you have shown with your list you refuse to post again that you do not want "equal" protection under the law.

Equal access to marriage, silly. Are you telling me that after all this time, you *still* don't know what marriage equality debate is about? Sweet Jesus, its been years.

Read any of the more than 2 dozen rulings overturning gay marriage bans and educate yourself.

The revenge has already been pointed out, just that the far left wants to do endless postings to cover that fact.

How is equal protection under the law 'revenge'? I mean if you're gonna cook up yet another batshit conspiracy theory, why balk and backpedal now? Double down on the tin foil wingnuttery and turn into the skid!

And who is your imaginary 'revenge' supposedly against? I mean, its not like anyone loses any rights because gays are allowed to legally marry.

So that would be a NO in listing all the "rights" that gays do not have because they are not "Married".

Well called it, the far left made up some "rights" claims and can not support it.

 

[Skylar]

So that would be a NO in listing all the "rights" that gays do not have because they are not "Married".

Marriage is a right, no matter how much you deny it. Its a right legally recognized and protected by the USSC. Yet somehow you've twisted equal protection in your head so completely that gays and lesbians being denied the right to marry is somehow a 'special privileged' for gays and lesbians. Though you never could explain how that worked.

And even more awkward, offered us the steaming rhetorical pile that equal protection in the law is somehow 'revenge'. How, you can't say. Revenge against who, you can't say. But you never let such trivial details get in the way of your latest conspiracy theory, have you buddy!

And of course, you still can't provide us with a single reason why we would deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. I'll clue you in on the worst kept secret on the internet:

< there is no reason >

 

[Kosh]

So that would be a NO in listing all the "rights" that gays do not have because they are not "Married".

Marriage is a right, no matter how much you deny it. Its a right legally recognized and protected by the USSC. Yet somehow you've twisted equal protection in your head so completely that gays and lesbians being denied the right to marry is somehow a 'special privileged' for gays and lesbians. Though you never could explain how that worked.

And even more awkward, offered us the steaming rhetorical pile that equal protection in the law is somehow 'revenge'. How, you can't say. Revenge against who, you can't say. But you never let such trivial details get in the way of your latest conspiracy theory, have you buddy!

And of course, you still can't provide us with a single reason why we would deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. I'll clue you in on the worst kept secret on the internet:

< there is no reason >

So that would be a NO in listing all the "rights" that gays do NOT have because they are not "Married".

Still showing that the whole "rights" claim is bogus there, not sure you can dig your way out of that hole now.

And as always "Marriage" is not a "right"..

 

[Skylar]

So that would be a NO in listing all the "rights" that gays do NOT have because they are not "Married".

You're still confounded and confused on what marriage equality is about? You STILL don't understand that the right to marry is what gays and lesbians are fighting for?

Dude, its been *years*. And you still don't get this?

Still showing that the whole "rights" claim is bogus there, not sure you can dig your way out of that hole now.

Laughing....still claiming that you know better than the Supreme Court what rights are? Like it or not, the right to marry is a legally protected, legally recognized right.

You can ignore it. You can keep pretending that YOU define all rights. You can keep insisting that you know better than the Supreme Court.

But all that pretending doesn't change a thing. You're still irrelevant. The USSC is still authoritative. And denial of the right to marry to gays and lesbians without a very good reason is still an abrogation of rights and a violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

And yes, despite your ignorant claims to the contrary, the equal protection clause most definitely exists.

 

[Kosh]

So that would be a NO in listing all the "rights" that gays do NOT have because they are not "Married".

You're still confounded and confused on what marriage equality is about? You STILL don't understand that the right to marry is what gays and lesbians are fighting for?

Dude, its been *years*. And you still don't get this?

Still showing that the whole "rights" claim is bogus there, not sure you can dig your way out of that hole now.

Laughing....still claiming that you know better than the Supreme Court what rights are? Like it or not, the right to marry is a legally protected, legally recognized right.

You can ignore it. You can keep pretending that YOU define all rights. You can keep insisting that you know better than the Supreme Court.

But all that pretending doesn't change a thing. You're still irrelevant. The USSC is still authoritative. And denial of the right to marry to gays and lesbians without a very good reason is still an abrogation of rights and a violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

And yes, despite your ignorant claims to the contrary, the equal protection clause most definitely exists.

Yes! Yes! we know that the whole "rights" thing was just a far left propaganda . I see the far left drone still will not post what "rights" gays do NOT have now because they can not "Marry"..

 

[Skylar]

Yes! Yes! we know that the whole "rights" thing was just a far left propaganda . I see the far left drone still will not post what "rights" gays do NOT have now because they can not "Marry"..

The USSC affirming that marriage is a right in 14 separate cases over 85 years is 'far left propoganda'? I don't think you know what 'far left' means. Or 'propaganda'. In our language, those are called 'rulings'.

Face it, marriage is a right. And if you're going to deny that right to gays and lesbians, you're going to need a good reason.

And you don't have one. Which is why your ilk keep failing. And why gays and lesbians continue to expand their right to marry throughout the country.

30 and counting!

 

[Kosh]

Yes! Yes! we know that the whole "rights" thing was just a far left propaganda . I see the far left drone still will not post what "rights" gays do NOT have now because they can not "Marry"..

The USSC affirming that marriage is a right in 14 separate cases over 85 years is 'far left propoganda'? I don't think you know what 'far left' means. Or 'propaganda'. In our language, those are called 'rulings'.

Face it, marriage is a right. And if you're going to deny that right to gays and lesbians, you're going to need a good reason.

And you don't have one. Which is why your ilk keep failing. And why gays and lesbians continue to expand their right to marry throughout the country.

30 and counting!

YEs! Yes! We know that the far left drones see a non-ruling as a ruling..

And still has ZERO listings of the "rights" gays do NOT have because they are NOT "Married".

 

[Skylar]

YEs! Yes! We know that the far left drones see a non-ruling as a ruling..

Are you honestly claiming that the USSC didn't rule that marriage is a right? Seriously? Shall I quote several of those cases to you?

Or do you still insist that you know better than the USSC on what rights are?

 

[Kosh]

YEs! Yes! We know that the far left drones see a non-ruling as a ruling..

Are you honestly claiming that the USSC didn't rule that marriage is a right? Seriously? Shall I quote several of those cases to you?

Or do you still insist that you know better than the USSC on what rights are?

Yes we know that the whole "rights" thing was far left propaganda to scare the programmed masses.

Still not going to provide those "rights" gays do NOT have for NOT being "Married".

 

[Skylar]

Yes we know that the whole "rights" thing was far left propaganda to scare the programmed masses.

So gays really didn't want the right to marry....and they were scared into wanting it? You may want to actually talk to some gay and lesbians folks and ask them what they want before you come to that kind of assine conclusion

As equal protection in the law isn't something you have to be 'scared' into wanting. Especially when the USSC has long since affirmed, recognized and protected marriage as a right.

 

[Kosh]

Yes we know that the whole "rights" thing was far left propaganda to scare the programmed masses.

So gays really didn't want the right to marry....and they were scared into wanting it? You may want to actually talk to some gay and lesbians folks and ask them what they want before you come to that kind of assine conclusion

As equal protection in the law isn't something you have to be 'scared' into wanting. Especially when the USSC has long since affirmed, recognized and protected marriage as a right.

Yes I know the far left is just like a two year old..

So still not going to post those "rights" that gays do NOT have because they are NOT "Married"?

Once again the far left uses that words "rights" to scare their base..

 

[Skylar]

es I know the far left is just like a two year old..

Face it, gays want marriage equality. They want the same rights as straights. This wasn't a 'trick' from the left. This wasn't something they were 'scared' into. They championed the issue themselves. And the rest of the nation has followed in their wake.

Equal protection isn't 'revenge'. It isn't 'special privileges'. Its simply gays and lesbians being treated with the same dignity and respect by the law as straights have enjoyed for decades.

And you can't give us one valid reason why this should ever be denied them.

 

[Seawytch]

He knows they can't, he just WANTS them to be able to.

In contrast, you want the minority to vote away the rights of the majority---------can't you see that?

There is no right being taken away from bigots.

you are correct, you bigots are not having any rights taken from you by the US constitution and statutes.

Gays are not the ones trying to keep a fundamental right from a minority group Fishy, you are. That makes you an unadulterated bigot. There is no right you are losing by my legal, civil marriage...which by the way will be celebrating its 6th anniversary at the end of this month.

It is important to remember that conservatives, some of them mind you. are not "trying to keep a fundamental right away from a minority group," as you suggest. They are instead responding to a militant and progressive movement to change definitions and the historic and fundamental traditions of marriage. NOBODY is denying gays from civil unions and other such legal and contractual agreements that protect them in all relevant ways. What it all boils down to is not "rights" but public acceptance, and that isn't going to happen with the methodologies in play by the aggressive, militant, intolerant leftists of this country and most others. A naturally occurring sexual abnormality is worthy of respect and acknowledgment, but to aggressively assert such a thing into a natural and historical institution called marriage is clearly a debatable topic worthy of respect on both sides, yet the libs give ZERO respect for the historical and pre-historical nature of sanctified natural pair-bonding.

I understand the radicals will not understand a word I just said. Been there, done that.

Did you really say nobody is denying gays civil unions? Apparently you are not aware that Nebraska, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, Alabama and South Dakota all wrote their anti gay amendments to include civil unions. Guess that shoots your "nobody" all to pieces.

Gays are married. We marry civilly and religiously. Now, using a reasonable person standard, cite the societal harm in treating my legal, civil marriage exactly like yours. We'll wait.

 

[Kosh]

es I know the far left is just like a two year old..

Face it, gays want marriage equality. They want the same rights as straights. This wasn't a 'trick' from the left. This wasn't something they were 'scared' into. They championed the issue themselves. And the rest of the nation has followed in their wake.

Equal protection isn't 'revenge'. It isn't 'special privileges'. Its simply gays and lesbians being treated with the same dignity and respect by the law as straights have enjoyed for decades.

And you can't give us one valid reason why this should ever be denied them.

And yet we still go round and round, because the far left can not post the "rights" gays do NOT have because they are NOT "Married".

And as it always has been it is revenge!!

 

[Kosh]

In contrast, you want the minority to vote away the rights of the majority---------can't you see that?

There is no right being taken away from bigots.

you are correct, you bigots are not having any rights taken from you by the US constitution and statutes.

Gays are not the ones trying to keep a fundamental right from a minority group Fishy, you are. That makes you an unadulterated bigot. There is no right you are losing by my legal, civil marriage...which by the way will be celebrating its 6th anniversary at the end of this month.

It is important to remember that conservatives, some of them mind you. are not "trying to keep a fundamental right away from a minority group," as you suggest. They are instead responding to a militant and progressive movement to change definitions and the historic and fundamental traditions of marriage. NOBODY is denying gays from civil unions and other such legal and contractual agreements that protect them in all relevant ways. What it all boils down to is not "rights" but public acceptance, and that isn't going to happen with the methodologies in play by the aggressive, militant, intolerant leftists of this country and most others. A naturally occurring sexual abnormality is worthy of respect and acknowledgment, but to aggressively assert such a thing into a natural and historical institution called marriage is clearly a debatable topic worthy of respect on both sides, yet the libs give ZERO respect for the historical and pre-historical nature of sanctified natural pair-bonding.

I understand the radicals will not understand a word I just said. Been there, done that.

Did you really say nobody is denying gays civil unions? Apparently you are not aware that Nebraska, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, Alabama and South Dakota all wrote their anti gay amendments to include civil unions. Guess that shoots your "nobody" all to pieces.

Gays are married. We marry civilly and religiously. Now, using a reasonable person standard, cite the societal harm in treating my legal, civil marriage exactly like yours. We'll wait.

Get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

Then you can decide who gets your money..

 

[Seawytch]

YEs! Yes! We know that the far left drones see a non-ruling as a ruling..

Are you honestly claiming that the USSC didn't rule that marriage is a right? Seriously? Shall I quote several of those cases to you?

Or do you still insist that you know better than the USSC on what rights are?

Yes we know that the whole "rights" thing was far left propaganda to scare the programmed masses.

Still not going to provide those "rights" gays do NOT have for NOT being "Married".

So are you willfully ignoring the words "Fundamental Right to Marry" in SCOTUS rulings? I can quote them since you seem to lazy to look as I suggested. Far left right wing drones sure like other people to do the work for them...

Loving v Virginia: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma,316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill,125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

Zablocki v Redhail: Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....

More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court observed: "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Turner v Safley:. The constitutional right of prisoners to marry is impermissibly burdened by the Missouri marriage regulation.

Are you going to try to deny the words "right to marry" in all those rulings?

 

[Seawytch]

Because you want to deny and so much fun watching you deny what you post proving my point time and time again that you are far left hack that sees gay "Marriage" as the ultimate revenge.

Um, how is equal protection in the law 'revenge'. And who, pray tell, is it 'revenge' against?

Its not like you lose a single right just because the law recognizes gay and lesbians marriages as legally valid.

You have already expressed you want special privileges and not "equal" protection..

So your entire post is moot!

Still can not tell anyone how getting the government out of the business of "Marriage" is going to "Invalidate" all "marriages".

What "special privileges"? Name them and be specific. What do you believe gays want in legal civil marriage that straights don't get with legal civil marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

There is no right being taken away from bigots.

you are correct, you bigots are not having any rights taken from you by the US constitution and statutes.

Gays are not the ones trying to keep a fundamental right from a minority group Fishy, you are. That makes you an unadulterated bigot. There is no right you are losing by my legal, civil marriage...which by the way will be celebrating its 6th anniversary at the end of this month.

It is important to remember that conservatives, some of them mind you. are not "trying to keep a fundamental right away from a minority group," as you suggest. They are instead responding to a militant and progressive movement to change definitions and the historic and fundamental traditions of marriage. NOBODY is denying gays from civil unions and other such legal and contractual agreements that protect them in all relevant ways. What it all boils down to is not "rights" but public acceptance, and that isn't going to happen with the methodologies in play by the aggressive, militant, intolerant leftists of this country and most others. A naturally occurring sexual abnormality is worthy of respect and acknowledgment, but to aggressively assert such a thing into a natural and historical institution called marriage is clearly a debatable topic worthy of respect on both sides, yet the libs give ZERO respect for the historical and pre-historical nature of sanctified natural pair-bonding.

I understand the radicals will not understand a word I just said. Been there, done that.

Did you really say nobody is denying gays civil unions? Apparently you are not aware that Nebraska, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, Alabama and South Dakota all wrote their anti gay amendments to include civil unions. Guess that shoots your "nobody" all to pieces.

Gays are married. We marry civilly and religiously. Now, using a reasonable person standard, cite the societal harm in treating my legal, civil marriage exactly like yours. We'll wait.

Get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

Then you can decide who gets your money..

Yeah? How's that going? Have you called your Congressman or Senator? Have they laughed at you?

 

[Kosh]

YEs! Yes! We know that the far left drones see a non-ruling as a ruling..

Are you honestly claiming that the USSC didn't rule that marriage is a right? Seriously? Shall I quote several of those cases to you?

Or do you still insist that you know better than the USSC on what rights are?

Yes we know that the whole "rights" thing was far left propaganda to scare the programmed masses.

Still not going to provide those "rights" gays do NOT have for NOT being "Married".

So are you willfully ignoring the words "Fundamental Right to Marry" in SCOTUS rulings? I can quote them since you seem to lazy to look as I suggested. Far left right wing drones sure like other people to do the work for them...

Loving v Virginia: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma,316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill,125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

Zablocki v Redhail: Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....

More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court observed: "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Turner v Safley:. The constitutional right of prisoners to marry is impermissibly burdened by the Missouri marriage regulation.

Are you going to try to deny the words "right to marry" in all those rulings?

And once again the same old cases that does not prove their point in the slightest.

However to the far left being gay is the same as being a race.

"Marriage" is not a "right"..