And another one down: U.S. judge orders Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages

[nodoginnafight]

It's just a matter of time.

You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

 

[Freewill]

Nope. SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, thus the state has to demonstrate a compelling interest that marriage equality is not a good thing. States have failed to do so.

There has been no SCOTUS ruling on Queer Marriage.

Try to keep up.

You are behind, Samson. I did not say that SCOTUS had ruled on marriage equality itself. Those cases are working through the court system now.

I am glad you are not foolish enough to suggest, as some on the Board, the marriage is not a fundamental civil right.

Have you yet to produce the document that states marriage is a right?

 

[Freewill]

Here's some more -- Chew on this:
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Yes, and most of them deal with the definition of marriage when they ruled, which was and always has been between a man and woman, not directly related.

Judges have been wrong, such as the Dred Scott ruling.

What would be nice is if you would point me to the document that states that Marriage is a right. Not a ruling from a judge but something like the Bill of Rights.

Try the 9th amendment.

There you go again, doing what you do. Post BS expecting people just to believe your BS.

The ninth amendment:


Scholarly interpretation[edit]

Professor Laurence Tribe shares the view that this amendment does not confer substantive rights: "It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution."[9]

Judicial interpretation[edit]

The Ninth Amendment has generally been regarded by the courts as negating any expansion of governmental power on account of the enumeration of rights in the Constitution, but the Amendment has not been regarded as further limiting governmental power. The U.S. Supreme Court explained this, in U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell 330 U.S. 75 (1947): "If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail."


No where in the amendment is marriage mentioned. Just another of your epic fails.

 

[paperview]

There's an epic fail there, but it's not on carb's part.

 

[KingOfCars]

Why not push for civil unions that do the same thing? Why call it marriage?

Because that would be a violation of the 14th Amendment as well; separate but ‘equal’ is just as un-Constitutional today as it was 60 years ago.

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

Since when does anything "Constitutional" matter? It hasn't for the last 3+ years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There has been no SCOTUS ruling on Queer Marriage.

Try to keep up.

You are behind, Samson. I did not say that SCOTUS had ruled on marriage equality itself. Those cases are working through the court system now.

I am glad you are not foolish enough to suggest, as some on the Board, the marriage is not a fundamental civil right.

Have you yet to produce the document that states marriage is a right?

Your comment reveals that you are not qualified to discuss this matter. Step along.

 

[Redfish]

With every new "gay marriage" state our society and culture take a step closer to the gutter.

mark my words--------bigamy and polygamy will be next because these people are being "discriminated against because of who they love and what to commit to"

Gay marriage is step one to societal collapse. it may be inevitable if history is to be considered.

 

[G.T.]

With every new "gay marriage" state our society and culture take a step closer to the gutter.

mark my words--------bigamy and polygamy will be next because these people are being "discriminated against because of who they love and what to commit to"

Gay marriage is step one to societal collapse. it may be inevitable if history is to be considered.

Gay people like straight people are mostly perfectly moral. Save your bullshit about "society."

culture is more moral in accepting gay marriage, not less.

With this, we are better.

 

[Redfish]

With every new "gay marriage" state our society and culture take a step closer to the gutter.

mark my words--------bigamy and polygamy will be next because these people are being "discriminated against because of who they love and what to commit to"

Gay marriage is step one to societal collapse. it may be inevitable if history is to be considered.

Gay people like straight people are mostly perfectly moral. Save your bullshit about "society."

culture is more moral in accepting gay marriage, not less.

With this, we are better.

wrong, accepting gays as people and treating them with respect and equality is moral. Calling a gay union a marriage is amoral.

no matter how much you flaunt it, homosexuality will never be a normal human condition, but homosexuals are human beings and citizens and should be treated fairly and equally.

If they want to commit to each other, a civil union contract will do that for them.

as I have said many times--------the gay agenda is not about equality, its about mandated societal validation. Thats why the word marriage is so important to them.

 

[Redfish]

With every new "gay marriage" state our society and culture take a step closer to the gutter.

mark my words--------bigamy and polygamy will be next because these people are being "discriminated against because of who they love and what to commit to"

Gay marriage is step one to societal collapse. it may be inevitable if history is to be considered.

Gay people like straight people are mostly perfectly moral. Save your bullshit about "society."

culture is more moral in accepting gay marriage, not less.

With this, we are better.

If you take that position, what do you say to bigamists and polygamists? What do you say when they say that they are being discriminated against because of who they love and want to commit to?

 

[G.T.]

With every new "gay marriage" state our society and culture take a step closer to the gutter.

mark my words--------bigamy and polygamy will be next because these people are being "discriminated against because of who they love and what to commit to"

Gay marriage is step one to societal collapse. it may be inevitable if history is to be considered.

Gay people like straight people are mostly perfectly moral. Save your bullshit about "society."

culture is more moral in accepting gay marriage, not less.

With this, we are better.

wrong, accepting gays as people and treating them with respect and equality is moral. Calling a gay union a marriage is amoral.

no matter how much you flaunt it, homosexuality will never be a normal human condition, but homosexuals are human beings and citizens and should be treated fairly and equally.

If they want to commit to each other, a civil union contract will do that for them.

as I have said many times--------the gay agenda is not about equality, its about mandated societal validation. Thats why the word marriage is so important to them.

 

[G.T.]

I say as long as you only get the state benefits for one of your wives, why the **** should anyone care how many wives you have?>

 

[paperview]

For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery, wife-beating, condemning "witches" to death, denying women the vote, or even any position of power; it was used to justify wars, genocide, segregation, child abuse and the divine right of kings. I could go on and on.
The bible is currently being used to justify the bigotry against homosexuals in the US.

Time moves on and but some folks will always use that book to deny rights to others.

Always was. Always will be. Eventually, enough people see how ridiculous it is, and things change.

150 years ago, slavery was an established societal norm.

100 years ago, only allowing men to vote was an established societal norm.

50 years ago, segregation was an established societal norm.


And 40 years from now (or less) same-sex marriage will be an established societal norm.

That is something you can take to the bank.

 

[Redfish]

I say as long as you only get the state benefits for one of your wives, why the **** should anyone care how many wives you have?>

if you had a teenage daughter would you want her to be a sister wife? Would you want her to share bed time with her husband and his other wives?

Why would you support a system that only gave benefits to one wife? why would you put the others on the street? how do you decide which one gets the benefits? how about divorces? A guy has three wives and divorces one of them, what does she get? lawyers are licking their chops thinking about polygamy being legal.

 

[Redfish]

For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery, wife-beating, condemning "witches" to death, denying women the vote, or even any position of power; it was used to justify wars, genocide, segregation, child abuse and the divine right of kings. I could go on and on.
The bible is currently being used to justify the bigotry against homosexuals in the US.

Time moves on and but some folks will always use that book to deny rights to others.

Always was. Always will be. Eventually, enough people see how ridiculous it is, and things change.

150 years ago, slavery was an established societal norm.

100 years ago, only allowing men to vote was an established societal norm.

50 years ago, segregation was an established societal norm.


And 40 years from now (or less) same-sex marriage will be an established societal norm.

That is something you can take to the bank.

none of those things is comparable to gay "marriage".

but you may be right that our society is doomed to degrade into an anything-goes society.

 

[paperview]

For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery, wife-beating, condemning "witches" to death, denying women the vote, or even any position of power; it was used to justify wars, genocide, segregation, child abuse and the divine right of kings. I could go on and on.
The bible is currently being used to justify the bigotry against homosexuals in the US.

Time moves on and but some folks will always use that book to deny rights to others.

Always was. Always will be. Eventually, enough people see how ridiculous it is, and things change.

150 years ago, slavery was an established societal norm.

100 years ago, only allowing men to vote was an established societal norm.

50 years ago, segregation was an established societal norm.


And 40 years from now (or less) same-sex marriage will be an established societal norm.

That is something you can take to the bank.

none of those things is comparable to gay "marriage".

but you may be right that our society is doomed to degrade into an anything-goes society.

Huh, and here I thought the morality of owning another human being as a farm animal, then denying equality to generation upon generation of those people's children would be considered pretty perverse and depraved.

Yet here we are.

What was I thinking?

 

[G.T.]

I say as long as you only get the state benefits for one of your wives, why the **** should anyone care how many wives you have?>

if you had a teenage daughter would you want her to be a sister wife? Would you want her to share bed time with her husband and his other wives?

Why would you support a system that only gave benefits to one wife? why would you put the others on the street? how do you decide which one gets the benefits? how about divorces? A guy has three wives and divorces one of them, what does she get? lawyers are licking their chops thinking about polygamy being legal.

What does my personal preference for my family have to do with limiting freedom for everyone else based on my own preferences?

It's not even INVOLVED in the discussion, it has no place.

 

[Redfish]

For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery, wife-beating, condemning "witches" to death, denying women the vote, or even any position of power; it was used to justify wars, genocide, segregation, child abuse and the divine right of kings. I could go on and on.
The bible is currently being used to justify the bigotry against homosexuals in the US.

Time moves on and but some folks will always use that book to deny rights to others.

Always was. Always will be. Eventually, enough people see how ridiculous it is, and things change.

150 years ago, slavery was an established societal norm.

100 years ago, only allowing men to vote was an established societal norm.

50 years ago, segregation was an established societal norm.


And 40 years from now (or less) same-sex marriage will be an established societal norm.

That is something you can take to the bank.

none of those things is comparable to gay "marriage".

but you may be right that our society is doomed to degrade into an anything-goes society.

Huh, and here I thought the morality of owning another human being as a farm animal, then denying equality to generation upon generation of those people's children would be considered pretty perverse and depraved.

Yet here we are.

What was I thinking?

slavery was perverse and depraved. It no longer exists in the USA. It was wrong for all involved. I never said or implied otherwise.

In my opinion, gay marriage is also perverse and depraved. The majority of americans share my view on that. Do we have the right to our opinion or are we to be slammed down by the government as Orwell and Rand predicted?

you silly assholes have no idea what you are asking for.

 

[paperview]

here's America's Best Christian sharing with us the history of Biblical Marriage...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw]Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Redfish]

I say as long as you only get the state benefits for one of your wives, why the **** should anyone care how many wives you have?>

if you had a teenage daughter would you want her to be a sister wife? Would you want her to share bed time with her husband and his other wives?

Why would you support a system that only gave benefits to one wife? why would you put the others on the street? how do you decide which one gets the benefits? how about divorces? A guy has three wives and divorces one of them, what does she get? lawyers are licking their chops thinking about polygamy being legal.

What does my personal preference for my family have to do with limiting freedom for everyone else based on my own preferences?

It's not even INVOLVED in the discussion, it has no place.

so you have no issues with legalized bigamy and polygamy? yes or no?