Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[Seawytch]

Nope, not all. Your civil marriage license (the one you hate so much...dirty, dirty marriage license) is good in all 50 states, mine in fewer than half. When mine is recognized in all 50 just like yours, then I'll have what you have and hate.

Strawman, you really are too stupid to debate, that isn't what I said.

You just want gays to get special treatment. If you don't want to be treated like everyone else like you are now, you have two legal options. Amend the Constitution or go to the legislature. In the meantime, you will go to hell for committing such abominous acts. You can still be saved. Repent your sinful lifestyle.

Having my civil marriage license treated exactly like yours is treated is not "special" treatment.

Strawman. You and I have the same rights now. You want rights I don't have. And you want rights that individuals don't have. You have every right to your view, but you have no right to be on a high horse about it. You're exactly like the man/woman marriage crowd, you are both in favor of government discriminating against some citizens over others. You just draw the line in a different place. Tom-a-to, tom-ah-to.

I obviously don't have to amend the Constitution to get equal access to marriage which is why "conservatives" tried to amend it to prevent marriage equality.

Civil rights should never be put to majority vote.

You have the same rights I do now, you don't want those, you want more. That's fine, but you want judges to commit crimes against their country to do it for you instead of your doing the work to get it legally yourself.

Sorry but that argument failed in 1964. I have the right to marry the partner of my choice (and did) because I live in a marriage equality state...one who has properly recognized my right to marry the adult of my choice. People in 31 states can't. My legal civil marriage isn't treated exactly like yours since it's not valid in all 50 like yours. That's not the same.

Yes, gays are rightfully petitioning the courts (and winning) because their right to marry is being denied.

 

[deltex1]

How can they not be part of the conversation when they see daddy fondling daddy in front of the fridge?

 

[deltex1]

Or vise versa.

 

[kaz]

Nope, not all. Your civil marriage license (the one you hate so much...dirty, dirty marriage license) is good in all 50 states, mine in fewer than half. When mine is recognized in all 50 just like yours, then I'll have what you have and hate.

Strawman, you really are too stupid to debate, that isn't what I said.

You just want gays to get special treatment. If you don't want to be treated like everyone else like you are now, you have two legal options. Amend the Constitution or go to the legislature. In the meantime, you will go to hell for committing such abominous acts. You can still be saved. Repent your sinful lifestyle.

Having my civil marriage license treated exactly like yours is treated is not "special" treatment.

I obviously don't have to amend the Constitution to get equal access to marriage which is why "conservatives" tried to amend it to prevent marriage equality.

Civil rights should never be put to majority vote.

Does that go for civil rights of unborn children too?

Not under current law, no. Until the fetus lives outside the woman's body, it has no civil rights.

According to the courts and what they pulled out of their ass. The Constitution is silent on the matter, which by the 10th amendment means it's a State power.

I'm pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination. The Federal government has no say. I favor States staying out of it and letting women own their own bodies, not government.

 

[kaz]

Sorry but that argument failed in 1964. I have the right to marry the partner of my choice (and did) because I live in a marriage equality state...one who has properly recognized my right to marry the adult of my choice. People in 31 states can't. My legal civil marriage isn't treated exactly like yours since it's not valid in all 50 like yours. That's not the same.

Yes, gays are rightfully petitioning the courts (and winning) because their right to marry is being denied.

Being black changed who you can marry. Being gay doesn't. You disagree yet can't name a single gay who being gay changed who they could marry. Being black in Virginia in 1964 did change who you could marry. You can dance if you want to, but you can't name anyone who being gay changed the law.

You also can't name another law where what someone wants changes how the law is applied to them. It's a ridiculous standard.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry but that argument failed in 1964. I have the right to marry the partner of my choice (and did) because I live in a marriage equality state...one who has properly recognized my right to marry the adult of my choice. People in 31 states can't. My legal civil marriage isn't treated exactly like yours since it's not valid in all 50 like yours. That's not the same.

Yes, gays are rightfully petitioning the courts (and winning) because their right to marry is being denied.

No, you don't live in a gay marriage state. You live in California where a 7 million majority vote described via the only legal system to do so [Windsor 2013] the initiative system, that marriage is only between a man and a woman. You are illegally "married". Just because you misunderstand the law does not change it. Ignorance is not an excuse.

 

[Seawytch]

Sorry but that argument failed in 1964. I have the right to marry the partner of my choice (and did) because I live in a marriage equality state...one who has properly recognized my right to marry the adult of my choice. People in 31 states can't. My legal civil marriage isn't treated exactly like yours since it's not valid in all 50 like yours. That's not the same.

Yes, gays are rightfully petitioning the courts (and winning) because their right to marry is being denied.

Being black changed who you can marry. Being gay doesn't. You disagree yet can't name a single gay who being gay changed who they could marry. Being black in Virginia in 1964 did change who you could marry. You can dance if you want to, but you can't name anyone who being gay changed the law.

You also can't name another law where what someone wants changes how the law is applied to them. It's a ridiculous standard.

Wrong. Race and gender are the same. Denying based on race is no different than denying based on gender...as court after court after court after court after court after court after court after court after court...is finding.

 

[RKMBrown]

I was just rubbing it in. He can sour grape it all he wants to, so can you. You'll end up just like the people bitter and angry over the Loving decision. You'll get over it or die and we'll still be getting the same rights, benefits and protections you have (buy you don't enjoy, I know)

Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.

Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.

As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one.

Strawman

Oh... did not realize you were just drawing up a fallacious straw-man argument that "you are not equal unless you are superior."

So you agree then that homosexual marriages are not superior to heterosexual marriages. Fine, do you believe they are inferior or equal? And if so why.

As to the solution of banning federal and state governments from regulating marriage, and restricting said types of laws to contract or estate management, such as by only allowing civil unions of consenting adults to be regulated and removing restrictions on plural and sexual orientation. Well ok where's the support for that from our elected officials? Seems to me the tyrants in the majority like their marriages to be regulated, thus placing you and I in the minority and left to settle for a less than optimal solution.

Ask your questions without being an ass about it and I'll be glad to address them

How is quoting you being an ass?

 

[Seawytch]

“The Court heartily endorses the recent holding by the Tenth Circuit in Kitchen v. Herbert that the marital right at issue was never framed as the “right to interracial marriage in Loving or the “prisoner’s right to marriage” in Turner or the “dead-beat dad’s” right to marriage in Zablocki." Justice Crabtree

 

[RKMBrown]

Nope, not all. Your civil marriage license (the one you hate so much...dirty, dirty marriage license) is good in all 50 states, mine in fewer than half. When mine is recognized in all 50 just like yours, then I'll have what you have and hate.

Strawman, you really are too stupid to debate, that isn't what I said.

You just want gays to get special treatment. If you don't want to be treated like everyone else like you are now, you have two legal options. Amend the Constitution or go to the legislature. In the meantime, you will go to hell for committing such abominous acts. You can still be saved. Repent your sinful lifestyle.

Having my civil marriage license treated exactly like yours is treated is not "special" treatment.

I obviously don't have to amend the Constitution to get equal access to marriage which is why "conservatives" tried to amend it to prevent marriage equality.

Civil rights should never be put to majority vote.

Does that go for civil rights of unborn children too?

Not under current law, no. Until the fetus lives outside the woman's body, it has no civil rights.

You realize that's the same argument that the bigots are using to draw the line against homosexual marriages right? Until the homosexuals agree to get a heterosexual marriage they have no right to marriage. It's the same argument. They are arguing homosexuals are sub-human thus not deserving to be treated the same. Which is the same argument abortionists use, children in the womb are sub-human thus do not have the same rights as citizens. Yet children in the womb do have some rights. See regulations regarding care and treatment for same. These children only loose their rights when the mothers ask for them to be killed.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.

Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.

As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one.

He's not serious. He does it on purpose. Kaz doesn't think anyone should be civilly married (despite being civilly married).

I know you know this, which is why I don't get your insistance on calling me a homophobe in every argument. I realize that's what your liberal conditioning prescribes, and yet as you keep repeating you know it's not my issue with gay marriage. It just makes me not take you seriously.

He doesn't want to discuss the world where it is, but where he thinks it should be. If you ask him "as long as civil marriage exists, should gays have equal access to it?", despite being a self described libertarian, he won't answer that question and instead falls back to his "there should be no civil marriage argument". Back to the world where he wants it, not where it is.

I think you can't pin him down on the question because he thinks gays are icky and just doesn't want gays to have the same rights he enjoys with his civil marriage. I don't know if it's a deeply held religious belief for him or not, but he's decided to go full hyperbole over it instead of just answering the simple question;

As long as civil marriage exists, should gay couples have equal access to it for their relationships?

Actually, I've answered that question directly, many times. I don't answer it when you lace it with ridiculous strawmen and insults in the question, but I have taken every chance to answer it for you and others when you don't do that. I have two modes, serious and fun. You don't get to mix them, you have to pick. So again,

1) All government marriage is wrong, government should treat all of it's citizens equally. There are better solutions to everything government marriage does than government marriage. Taxes should be flat, the death tax is evil, parental rights and responsibilities should be related to biology and not paper, etc.

2) Adding gays to that extends inequality between married and single to more people. That a libertarian would believe that the path to ending government discrimination is by extending discrimination to more people is preposterous. It's also presposerous to argue to a libertarian that THEY have it, so you want it from government too. We don't like government. It's like asking Hitler to bless a Jewish wedding. I hate government, your need for validation from it isn't relevant to me and I don't grasp why it's relevant to you.

3) If you get gay marriage through the legislature, I am not for it, but I pretty much don't give a rat's ass. You're not going to get me demonstrating against it and it will be way, way down from the top of my list of government actions I oppose.

4) However, you are doing it criminally, by getting self appointed dictators to legislate from the bench and decree it. Every time they do that, they are more emboldened to decree more of my liberties away.

5) As for the 14th amendment. The role of the courts is literal, it is not to make life fair. When blacks were sent to separate schools, forced to sit in the back of the bus, use different drinking fountains, they were literally treated differently from other citizens. Being black changed how the law applied to you. Gays can literally marry the same people as straights. Either can enter man/woman government marriage, neither can enter single sex marriage. The job of the courts ends there. It's not fair? Fairness is a job for the legislature.

When I don't answer your questions, read this again and stop with the strawman crap putting words in my mouth and being an ass when you ask them. Or, insult me and have fun and don't expect a serious answer. But when you are posting with me, you pick. I'm fine either way. But when you choose to go with snotty questions, you won't get serious answers.

And if wishes were horses beggars would ride... but they aren't are they?

Um...OK? I answered the question I was asked. If that bothers you, that's your problem. PMSing is a bitch, but at least you'll be over it in a week.

So your point amounts to .. if they won't fight for liberty for all, screw em? Do I have that right?

FYI I held the same stance a few years back. The stance that gays, singles, and plural marriage folk should band together and fight against the marriage tyrants... but give that isn't gonna happen I think we should at least start tearing down the discriminatory laws one at a time.

 

[kaz]

Sorry but that argument failed in 1964. I have the right to marry the partner of my choice (and did) because I live in a marriage equality state...one who has properly recognized my right to marry the adult of my choice. People in 31 states can't. My legal civil marriage isn't treated exactly like yours since it's not valid in all 50 like yours. That's not the same.

Yes, gays are rightfully petitioning the courts (and winning) because their right to marry is being denied.

Being black changed who you can marry. Being gay doesn't. You disagree yet can't name a single gay who being gay changed who they could marry. Being black in Virginia in 1964 did change who you could marry. You can dance if you want to, but you can't name anyone who being gay changed the law.

You also can't name another law where what someone wants changes how the law is applied to them. It's a ridiculous standard.

Wrong. Race and gender are the same. Denying based on race is no different than denying based on gender...as court after court after court after court after court after court after court after court after court...is finding.

No one has disputed that courts are happy to legislate. You care committing a logical fallacy called "begging the question."

Are blacks property? The Supreme Court said so.

 

[kaz]

Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.

Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.

As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...

And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.

How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one.

Strawman

Oh... did not realize you were just drawing up a fallacious straw-man argument that "you are not equal unless you are superior."

So you agree then that homosexual marriages are not superior to heterosexual marriages. Fine, do you believe they are inferior or equal? And if so why.

As to the solution of banning federal and state governments from regulating marriage, and restricting said types of laws to contract or estate management, such as by only allowing civil unions of consenting adults to be regulated and removing restrictions on plural and sexual orientation. Well ok where's the support for that from our elected officials? Seems to me the tyrants in the majority like their marriages to be regulated, thus placing you and I in the minority and left to settle for a less than optimal solution.

Ask your questions without being an ass about it and I'll be glad to address them

How is quoting you being an ass?

Strawman. You're good at that. I never said quoting me is being an ass. It was your strawman commentary that was being an ass.

 

[kaz]

Nope, not all. Your civil marriage license (the one you hate so much...dirty, dirty marriage license) is good in all 50 states, mine in fewer than half. When mine is recognized in all 50 just like yours, then I'll have what you have and hate.

Strawman, you really are too stupid to debate, that isn't what I said.

You just want gays to get special treatment. If you don't want to be treated like everyone else like you are now, you have two legal options. Amend the Constitution or go to the legislature. In the meantime, you will go to hell for committing such abominous acts. You can still be saved. Repent your sinful lifestyle.

Having my civil marriage license treated exactly like yours is treated is not "special" treatment.

I obviously don't have to amend the Constitution to get equal access to marriage which is why "conservatives" tried to amend it to prevent marriage equality.

Civil rights should never be put to majority vote.

Does that go for civil rights of unborn children too?

Not under current law, no. Until the fetus lives outside the woman's body, it has no civil rights.

You realize that's the same argument that the bigots are using to draw the line against homosexual marriages right? Until the homosexuals agree to get a heterosexual marriage they have no right to marriage. It's the same argument. They are arguing homosexuals are sub-human thus not deserving to be treated the same. Which is the same argument abortionists use, children in the womb are sub-human thus do not have the same rights as citizens. Yet children in the womb do have some rights. See regulations regarding care and treatment for same. These children only loose their rights when the mothers ask for them to be killed.

Well, you're certainly an idiot. I don't know if you're talking about me since I said nothing in this quote, but i'm in the nesting. So I'll correct your idiotic rantings anyway.

I said legislating is a job for the legislature, not the courts. Stop being such an ass.

 

[kaz]

Um...OK? I answered the question I was asked. If that bothers you, that's your problem. PMSing is a bitch, but at least you'll be over it in a week.

So your point amounts to .. if they won't fight for liberty for all, screw em? Do I have that right?

Strawman

[
FYI I held the same stance a few years back. The stance that gays, singles, and plural marriage folk should band together and fight against the marriage tyrants...

And what triggered your epiphany that if you're a complete ass about it then you'll convince other people to change their minds?

While conservatives and libertarians agree on a lot of things regarding small government, this is one where the difference is profound. While we agree that marriage need not be a government function, in the end, you do value government. You think gays need what straights have or it's not fair, including government validation.

As a libertarian, government validation means nothing to me. So the idea that government validates one group and not another is irrelevant to me, it's not an argument. So I don't need to cave and say shucks, we aren't getting rid of it, so gays need it too. I still don't grasp why anyone needs government validation whether someone else gets it or not. I only have a government marriage now for my wife. She values it. I value her. That government recognizes us as marriage means absolutely nothing to me. I don't stay because of it, I don't care about it at all, and I have no idea why anyone would.

[but give that isn't gonna happen I think we should at least start tearing down the discriminatory laws one at a time.

Right, you're going to tear down discrimination by expanding it. I'm not seeing that as progress.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sorry but that argument failed in 1964. I have the right to marry the partner of my choice (and did) because I live in a marriage equality state...one who has properly recognized my right to marry the adult of my choice. People in 31 states can't. My legal civil marriage isn't treated exactly like yours since it's not valid in all 50 like yours. That's not the same.

Yes, gays are rightfully petitioning the courts (and winning) because their right to marry is being denied.

Being black changed who you can marry. Being gay doesn't. You disagree yet can't name a single gay who being gay changed who they could marry. Being black in Virginia in 1964 did change who you could marry. You can dance if you want to, but you can't name anyone who being gay changed the law.

You also can't name another law where what someone wants changes how the law is applied to them. It's a ridiculous standard.

Wrong. Race and gender are the same. Denying based on race is no different than denying based on gender...as court after court after court after court after court after court after court after court after court...is finding.

No one has disputed that courts are happy to legislate. You care committing a logical fallacy called "begging the question."

Are blacks property? The Supreme Court said so.

Slaves were property at the time. What part of slave is confusing?

 

[kaz]

Sorry but that argument failed in 1964. I have the right to marry the partner of my choice (and did) because I live in a marriage equality state...one who has properly recognized my right to marry the adult of my choice. People in 31 states can't. My legal civil marriage isn't treated exactly like yours since it's not valid in all 50 like yours. That's not the same.

Yes, gays are rightfully petitioning the courts (and winning) because their right to marry is being denied.

Being black changed who you can marry. Being gay doesn't. You disagree yet can't name a single gay who being gay changed who they could marry. Being black in Virginia in 1964 did change who you could marry. You can dance if you want to, but you can't name anyone who being gay changed the law.

You also can't name another law where what someone wants changes how the law is applied to them. It's a ridiculous standard.

Wrong. Race and gender are the same. Denying based on race is no different than denying based on gender...as court after court after court after court after court after court after court after court after court...is finding.

No one has disputed that courts are happy to legislate. You care committing a logical fallacy called "begging the question."

Are blacks property? The Supreme Court said so.

Slaves were property at the time. What part of slave is confusing?

Um..OK? What does that have to do with what I said?

But to answer your question, the bill of rights says you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. What part of that is confusing?

 

[RKMBrown]

Um...OK? I answered the question I was asked. If that bothers you, that's your problem. PMSing is a bitch, but at least you'll be over it in a week.

So your point amounts to .. if they won't fight for liberty for all, screw em? Do I have that right?

Strawman

[
FYI I held the same stance a few years back. The stance that gays, singles, and plural marriage folk should band together and fight against the marriage tyrants...

And what triggered your epiphany that if you're a complete ass about it then you'll convince other people to change their minds?

While conservatives and libertarians agree on a lot of things regarding small government, this is one where the difference is profound. While we agree that marriage need not be a government function, in the end, you do value government. You think gays need what straights have or it's not fair, including government validation.

As a libertarian, government validation means nothing to me. So the idea that government validates one group and not another is irrelevant to me, it's not an argument. So I don't need to cave and say shucks, we aren't getting rid of it, so gays need it too. I still don't grasp why anyone needs government validation whether someone else gets it or not. I only have a government marriage now for my wife. She values it. I value her. That government recognizes us as marriage means absolutely nothing to me. I don't stay because of it, I don't care about it at all, and I have no idea why anyone would.

[but give that isn't gonna happen I think we should at least start tearing down the discriminatory laws one at a time.

Right, you're going to tear down discrimination by expanding it. I'm not seeing that as progress.

Your accusation that gays getting the right to marry is discrimination against heterosexuals is complete and utter bullshit.

My epiphany? There was none it took time and deep introspection before I left the republican party. From there it was fairly easy to decide what I would stand for, liberty, for all and what I would not stand for, tyranny of the majority to take liberty away from others and cause them harm based on unjustified prejudices.

To me it's not a matter of government validation, more the other way around, it's the laws that exclude homosexuals from equal protection that I'm fighting.

While you may not care because you are not in a minority group, some day you might, and when that day comes you'll be looking around yelling why are you putting your jack boot on me?

It seems to me more like you are putting blinders on to what is going on ... more like blaming the victim, than really looking at what is going on.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sorry but that argument failed in 1964. I have the right to marry the partner of my choice (and did) because I live in a marriage equality state...one who has properly recognized my right to marry the adult of my choice. People in 31 states can't. My legal civil marriage isn't treated exactly like yours since it's not valid in all 50 like yours. That's not the same.

Yes, gays are rightfully petitioning the courts (and winning) because their right to marry is being denied.

Being black changed who you can marry. Being gay doesn't. You disagree yet can't name a single gay who being gay changed who they could marry. Being black in Virginia in 1964 did change who you could marry. You can dance if you want to, but you can't name anyone who being gay changed the law.

You also can't name another law where what someone wants changes how the law is applied to them. It's a ridiculous standard.

Wrong. Race and gender are the same. Denying based on race is no different than denying based on gender...as court after court after court after court after court after court after court after court after court...is finding.

No one has disputed that courts are happy to legislate. You care committing a logical fallacy called "begging the question."

Are blacks property? The Supreme Court said so.

Slaves were property at the time. What part of slave is confusing?

Um..OK? What does that have to do with what I said?

But to answer your question, the bill of rights says you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. What part of that is confusing?

I'm not confused... you are in defending laws that restrict life, liberty, and property of gays based on majority opinion.

 

[kaz]

Um...OK? I answered the question I was asked. If that bothers you, that's your problem. PMSing is a bitch, but at least you'll be over it in a week.

So your point amounts to .. if they won't fight for liberty for all, screw em? Do I have that right?

Strawman

[
FYI I held the same stance a few years back. The stance that gays, singles, and plural marriage folk should band together and fight against the marriage tyrants...

And what triggered your epiphany that if you're a complete ass about it then you'll convince other people to change their minds?

While conservatives and libertarians agree on a lot of things regarding small government, this is one where the difference is profound. While we agree that marriage need not be a government function, in the end, you do value government. You think gays need what straights have or it's not fair, including government validation.

As a libertarian, government validation means nothing to me. So the idea that government validates one group and not another is irrelevant to me, it's not an argument. So I don't need to cave and say shucks, we aren't getting rid of it, so gays need it too. I still don't grasp why anyone needs government validation whether someone else gets it or not. I only have a government marriage now for my wife. She values it. I value her. That government recognizes us as marriage means absolutely nothing to me. I don't stay because of it, I don't care about it at all, and I have no idea why anyone would.

[but give that isn't gonna happen I think we should at least start tearing down the discriminatory laws one at a time.

Right, you're going to tear down discrimination by expanding it. I'm not seeing that as progress.

Your accusation that gays getting the right to marry is discrimination against heterosexuals is complete and utter bullshit.

Well, it would be if I made that argument. You do so like strawmen.

My epiphany? There was none it took time and deep introspection before I left the republican party. From there it was fairly easy to decide what I would stand for, liberty, for all and what I would not stand for, tyranny of the majority to take liberty away from others and cause them harm based on unjustified prejudices.

That wasn't the question

To me it's not a matter of government validation, more the other way around, it's the laws that exclude homosexuals from equal protection that I'm fighting.

Begging the question

While you may not care because you are not in a minority group, some day you might, and when that day comes you'll be looking around yelling why are you putting your jack boot on me?

So you don't know the difference between government discriminating against minorities and government giving recognition and party gifts? You have credibility at this point you probably don't.

No, I am not going to ever go to government and say THEY have this, I want it too. Never, ever will that happen.

It seems to me more like you are putting blinders on to what is going on ... more like blaming the victim, than really looking at what is going on.

Strawman