Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays
- Thread starter Steve_McGarrett
- Start date
I already put it in red for you.
All men and women who meet the same requirements (age, ...), can enter into a man/woman government marriage. Your claim makes no sense unless men and women are unisex. Spin all you want, but if you remove the unisex, then you lost your discrimination claim, there isn't any discrimination unless men and women are unisex.
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
What a crock of shit, I expected better from you Kaz, you should be ashamed.
YOU made the claim that gays and straights were treated equally based on gender, not me. Post 2353: "Straights can't marry anyone that gays can't, and gays can marry anyone that straights can."
YOU are the one that made it about gender since a straight would obviously be marrying a straight woman, but since (technically) the law written based on gender it excludes a same-sex couple because they are the same gender.
You attempt at deflection and ad hominem fails for two reasons:
1. YOU brought up gender, with your claim (an incorrect) one about gay and straight under the law, which are written in terms of gender.
2. I never said, nor implied that the Constitution said we were unisex, that means you lied.
With that said, I'm saddened by the level you sunk to when your stupid statement was exposed to be incorrect. I'm sorry you were embarrassed and tried to save face. Sorry, I thought you were a better man than that.
>>>>
Last edited:
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Oh? What right of yours is "destroyed" by my being legally married? This should be good.
How you're going about of it, encouraging judges to legislate from the bench completely destroys our Constitutional rights. The Constitution lays out Federal limits and the roles of the branches of government.
"Encouraging"? Hardly. It is the natural progression of violating the Constitution.
What a crock of shit, I expected better from you
Show where in the Constitution blacks and whites can marry.
How long was that taboo and the social mores of this culture, which you rely on as your foundation, banned it?
Why do you care if 2 folks that happen to love and are committed to each other that are of the same sex get married?
Why do you get great pleasure fighting to deny them and their families that joy?
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
You can't get your emotion out of your analysis. But it's not fair! It is what it is.
Blacks literally could not marry the same people as whites. Gays literally can marry the same people as straights.
Therefore, black government marriage restrictions are a violation of equal protection, not having gay marriage isn't. The courts are out. The good news for you is that you can still have gay government marriage, the bad news is you have to convince people to enact it through the legislature. Or you can follow your chosen path of getting it through illegal judicial fiats where the courts legislate. Yeah, you're getting it, but it's still wrong.
Word.
Last edited:
1751_Texan
VIP Member
Oh? What right of yours is "destroyed" by my being legally married? This should be good.
How you're going about of it, encouraging judges to legislate from the bench completely destroys our Constitutional rights. The Constitution lays out Federal limits and the roles of the branches of government.
The Congress or President can legislate "rights". The SC has been legislating since Marbury v Madison. Which "our rights" do you feel are being "destroyed" by bench rulings?
Last edited:
I tend to disagree. Congress and the President can place limits on when some rights are exercised to protect everyone else's right from infringement. However, neither can "create" rights or do away with them completely.
Oh? What right of yours is "destroyed" by my being legally married? This should be good.
How you're going about of it, encouraging judges to legislate from the bench completely destroys our Constitutional rights. The Constitution lays out Federal limits and the roles of the branches of government.
The Congress or President can legislate "rights". The SC has been legislating since Marbury v Madison. Which "our rights" do you feel are being "destroyed" by bench rulings?
Just a few:
Made up rights that would be legislating include Roe. v. Wade, Miranda, gay government marriage and "reverse" discrimination, which according to O'Conner is Constitutional for 25 years.
They allowed congress to regulate political speech going into elections (so called Campaign Finance Reform), confiscate property from one citizen and give it to another for private and not public use (New London). The IRS and War on Drugs both allow government to pry into our personal matters with no presumption of innocence, court oversight or warrants. They found government can spend money on endless programs with no constitutional authority (which violates the 9th and 10th amendments) with Social Security, Medicare and other welfare programs. Government can control and even ban int(ra) state commerce under the commerce clause which actually says they can regulate int(er) state commerce and it's supposed to be to enable it, not restrict it. Government can set up healthcare exchanges and fine people for not having a medical insurance plan approved government because it's all just a "tax." Inheritance taxes, which have no constitutional basis since they are not proportional and they are not income are acceptable. They can use foreign laws to justify their own decisions, and people have American Constitutional rights outside the United States.
That work for a start?
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
Explain public accomodation laws under that theory.
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
And you don't seem to get it. There are no laws, not one in the United States that defines Civil Marriage in terms of "Straights" v. "Gays". They all define them in terms of gender.
Therefore John can Civilly Marry Jone, Jane cannot Civilly Marry Joan (if the two parties agree of course).
The same structural argument that you use failed in the Loving case, and it's failing now. Same-sex Civil Marriage is winning in the courts, but more importantly it's winning in the hearts and minds of the people - polls continually show movement to end discrimination. They are winning in the legislatures and they have started winning at the ballot box. Illinois failed to ratify an amendment to ban SSCM this year, likely the last gasp of the movement. Oregon is on track to place SSCM on the ballot this year where it will likely pass. Just like the four votes in the 2012 General Elections were won by Marriage Equality (Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota.
That is the "Word".
>>>>
So do you.
Difference is I have more support than you do.
THE LAW is on my side.
All you have is rhetoric and religious views.
I am a Christian.
A Christian that would never question your or anyone else's religious beliefs.
Because I follow the teachings of Jesus.
Unlike many of the so called Christians here.
Who decides what is "good" as a "principle"?
You, me, your preacher, my preacher, GOVERNMENT?
Refer to the Constitution for that answer.
NO one's religious beliefs or principles are to be dominant.
THE LAW is what rules, not changing like the wind various religious beliefs.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
If you define support as quantity of people, you are correct, If you define it the way I do, as evidence to support your argument and the quality of the people who support you, you are wrong.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
You just proved yourself to be a liar.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
If you ask me, you get to decide what your principles are.
You, on the other hand, insist that you get to use the government to force me to follow your principles.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
New Jersey: Increase in concealed carry permits, decrease in crime.- Started by 2aguy
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
