Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[JakeStarkey]

And Where_'s natural law theory falls on its own inconsistency. The hatred above expressed by him exposes that the end game is coming shortly for his hate group.

What is morally abnormal is the refusal by some Americans to allow others to live their private lives as they wish.

Hate? And we were discussing gay marriage, not outlawing gay behavior. Simmer down.

Yup, so the far right needs to remove the hate speech because all adults have the civil right to marry the partner they wish.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm about as Anti-Gay as you can possibly get - THe Gay Agenda people like to call me a "homophobe" Gays are disgusting degenerates -BUT as much as I don't like to admit it, they are Grown People entitled to the same rights and obligations as normal people - and IMO the Government has no business interfering in their perverted little lives.

They shouldn't have to fight for their right to form Marriages - it should be an unalienable right - even for perverts.

Well, I agree that Government should not be licensing marriage. Primarily because government in the US often provides for children to run the government, which results in every conceivable catastrophe.

Ask yourself how screwed up a 50 year old person has to be, to ADVOCATE that a MAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY ANOTHER MAN!

But the fact is that the REASON that it was decided that government SHOULD license marriage, is because GOVERNMENT WOULD DEFEND THE STANDARD THAT DEFINES MARRIAGE, AS A MEANS TO DEFEND THE CULTURE FROM THE VERY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW THREATENING THE CULTURE.

At the time, what is reality today, was a theoretical notion, a worst case scenario. But the prevention of men marrying men, was most definitely a point which was used to justify the idea. No one actually believed it would ever come to that (this), but the thought that it MIGHT was so abhorrent, that the State was given the licensing authority.

35 years ago, when my wife and I were married, you had to take a blood test to be sure that you didn't have a communicable disease. I expect that some STD advocacy has had that tossed by now.

But, the only way that ANY of this crap makes sense, is where one finally comes to understand that the purpose of liberalism (Collectivism) is to destroy cultures, then the whole thing makes perfect sense and ya go to the range to sharpen the skills that will be most central to your survival when they manage to fulfill their purpose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now we are back to collectivism and not far from socialism.

Moronic babbling by Where_.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

actually the burden of proof should be on you. It is a testament to the backwardness of the modern federal court system that some judges may think your right on that.

The gay-marriage movement is not about equal rights under the law or they would be demanding that no tax breaks result from relationship status.

So does every American have to demonstrate their societal worth before they get equal protection or just the gays?

Like I said the gay-marriage movement is not about equal protection or "societal worth"

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ and there is no ‘movement.’

There is only marriage, where both opposite- and same-sex couples are eligible to enter into those marriage contracts.

Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law exactly as it exists now – unaltered and unchanged – to deny them that access is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This is neither opinion nor speculation, but it is indeed a fact of Constitutional law, as appropriately determined by the Federal courts.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.

Again, notice the ever present Relativist qualifiers: Legal and legally.

Never 'moral' or 'morally'

But let's address the query: "...you must be able to identify a societal harm..."

Golly, let's see: What harm could possibly come from pretending that what is incontrovertibly ABNORMAL is Normal?

Does anyone reading this believe that societal delusion could result in societal harm? I mean it works SO WELL FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, what could possibly go wrong when ya sread it out over 300 million individuals.

Suffice it to say that even the homosexuals that marry hetero-females feel like their punched in the gut, when they find that their progeny is gay. Just as they feel when they learn that their child has down-syndrome, or any other debilitating disease.

Need another clue? "Homophobe". Who uses this? Homosexuals use it as a means to cow their opposition, by projecting upon others, that which THEY KNOW: HURTS THEM. Which is that which identifies them as DEVIANTS!

Yet, there they are, demanding that YOU ACCEPT THEM AS THAT WHICH THEY KNOW IS FALSE, THEMSELVES!

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<

I hope you argue in court.

Once again, the opposition rises to amaze the room with their oratorical skills, presenting the coveted: "NUH HUH!" defense.

The sad truth is that the Left goes to court ONLY if they know when, where and WHO is hearing the case.

They literally have a series of strategies established, with favorable judges identified in each district. So they wait and watch as the seas cycle, until they have a plaintiff and a judge. And once they do, they file the case and begin walking it up the line.

It's all calculated, its all fixed and it's all a part of the cultural subversion/despotism intrinsic to socialism.

Again, it's the formula for civil war.

 

[Iceweasel]

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ and there is no ‘movement.’

There is only marriage, where both opposite- and same-sex couples are eligible to enter into those marriage contracts.

Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law exactly as it exists now – unaltered and unchanged – to deny them that access is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This is neither opinion nor speculation, but it is indeed a fact of Constitutional law, as appropriately determined by the Federal courts.

Incorrect. Gay marriage exists in some states now. Marriage is redefined in those states to incluse (only) two same sex people, although I have no idea why it's limited to two and can't get an answer. Also the equal protection clause is about individual rights, not hetero, gay, threesome, group relationships.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So does every American have to demonstrate their societal worth before they get equal protection or just the gays?

Like I said the gay-marriage movement is not about equal protection or "societal worth"

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as &#8216;gay marriage,&#8217; and there is no &#8216;movement.&#8217;

There is only marriage, where both opposite- and same-sex couples are eligible to enter into those marriage contracts.

Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law exactly as it exists now &#8211; unaltered and unchanged &#8211; to deny them that access is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This is neither opinion nor speculation, but it is indeed a fact of Constitutional law, as appropriately determined by the Federal courts.

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as Same-sex Marriage. Just as there is no such thing as 'black-white', 'down-up', 'Happy-Sad' and 'Leftist Americans'.

You see friend, nature precludes that something can be at two places at one moment. Therefore it is impossible for one to simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis.

What you're speaking to is the illusion of reason. Wherein terms are merely redefined, without regard to the standing concept which the term formerly represented.

This is a chronic ploy of collectivism. For instance some months ago, we learned that our old insurance policies were "sub-standard". Now what was this based upon? Nothing. Absolutely NOTHING. They just snatched it out of the ether, demanding that they were now in charge and THEY DECIDE WHAT THE STANDARD IS!. Which in the case of Obamacare, it means for the moment that you must buy a bunch of crap that YOU DO NOT NEED AND WILL NEVER USE!

Never forget:

Deceit <=> FRAUD<=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<


Thank you for providing me this opportunity to teach and, I hope that helps.

 

[Seawytch]

Like I said the gay-marriage movement is not about equal protection or "societal worth"

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ and there is no ‘movement.’

There is only marriage, where both opposite- and same-sex couples are eligible to enter into those marriage contracts.

Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law exactly as it exists now – unaltered and unchanged – to deny them that access is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This is neither opinion nor speculation, but it is indeed a fact of Constitutional law, as appropriately determined by the Federal courts.

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as Same-sex Marriage. Just as there is no such thing as 'black-white', 'down-up', 'Happy-Sad' and 'Leftist Americans'.

You see friend, nature precludes that something can be at two places at one moment. Therefore it is impossible for one to simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis.

What you're speaking to is the illusion of reason. Wherein terms are merely redefined, without regard to the standing concept which the term formerly represented.

This is a chronic ploy of collectivism. For instance some months ago, we learned that our old insurance policies were "sub-standard". Now what was this based upon? Nothing. Absolutely NOTHING. They just snatched it out of the ether, demanding that they were now in charge and THEY DECIDE WHAT THE STANDARD IS!. Which in the case of Obamacare, it means for the moment that you must buy a bunch of crap that YOU DO NOT NEED AND WILL NEVER USE!

Never forget:

Deceit <=> FRAUD<=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<


Thank you for providing me this opportunity to teach and, I hope that helps.

You just said "incorrect" and then agreed with him. There is no "same sex marriage" there is just marriage.

"While it was assumed until recently that a person could only share an intimate emotional bond and develop a family with a person of the opposite sex, the realization that this assumption is false does not change the underlying right. It merely changes the result when the court applies that right to the facts before it. Applying that right to these Plaintiffs, the court finds that the Constitution protects their right to marry a person of the same sex to the same degree that the Constitution protects the right of heterosexual individuals to marry a person of the opposite sex." ~ Judge Robert Shelby Utah marriage case

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ and there is no ‘movement.’

There is only marriage, where both opposite- and same-sex couples are eligible to enter into those marriage contracts.

Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law exactly as it exists now – unaltered and unchanged – to deny them that access is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This is neither opinion nor speculation, but it is indeed a fact of Constitutional law, as appropriately determined by the Federal courts.

Incorrect. Gay marriage exists in some states now. Marriage is redefined in those states to incluse (only) two same sex people, although I have no idea why it's limited to two and can't get an answer. Also the equal protection clause is about individual rights, not hetero, gay, threesome, group relationships.

Friend, the assault on Marriage is designed to destroy the institution, in finality.

Please understand that the Left has been attacking marriage for decades.

They forced no-fault divorce, they undermined the role of the Father, etc. All this does is to finally dissolve from the conscience of the culture the idea of FAMILY!

Now to see how this will work, you need look no farther than the ghettos where the children who's fathers and mothers, having bought into collectivism, being dependent upon the State for their subsistence, are pulled into STREET GANGS as a means of acquiring the innate desire for the security and the bond of family.

Now, what happens when Street gangs become a problem?

Meaning WHO DO YA CALL?

Go ahead, take a stab at it: You call ___________________.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is a fundamental right. Look it up.

Look it up where? It isn't in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independance. Oh, you mean Google.

Yes, it demonstratively is. Gays want to be treated equally under the law, period. Feel free to change those laws if you like...fill the pool so the black kids can't swim, but we still want to be treated equally.

Gay individuals are treated the same. Hit a gay man, it's the same penalty. Marriage isn't a person. It's a legal union and unions are not guaranteed, sorry. Like I asked earlier, where would you draw the line and why?

Look up Fundamental Rights. A gay man cannot marry another gay man. That violates the 14th Amendment.

 

[dcraelin]

So does every American have to demonstrate their societal worth before they get equal protection or just the gays?

Like I said the gay-marriage movement is not about equal protection or "societal worth"

Incorrect.
There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ and there is no ‘movement.’
There is only marriage, where both opposite- and same-sex couples are eligible to enter into those marriage contracts.
Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law exactly as it exists now – unaltered and unchanged – to deny them that access is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
This is neither opinion nor speculation, but it is indeed a fact of Constitutional law, as appropriately determined by the Federal courts.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as &#8216;gay marriage,&#8217; and there is no &#8216;movement.&#8217;

There is only marriage, where both opposite- and same-sex couples are eligible to enter into those marriage contracts.

Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law exactly as it exists now &#8211; unaltered and unchanged &#8211; to deny them that access is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This is neither opinion nor speculation, but it is indeed a fact of Constitutional law, as appropriately determined by the Federal courts.

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as Same-sex Marriage. Just as there is no such thing as 'black-white', 'down-up', 'Happy-Sad' and 'Leftist Americans'.

You see friend, nature precludes that something can be at two places at one moment. Therefore it is impossible for one to simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis.

What you're speaking to is the illusion of reason. Wherein terms are merely redefined, without regard to the standing concept which the term formerly represented.

This is a chronic ploy of collectivism. For instance some months ago, we learned that our old insurance policies were "sub-standard". Now what was this based upon? Nothing. Absolutely NOTHING. They just snatched it out of the ether, demanding that they were now in charge and THEY DECIDE WHAT THE STANDARD IS!. Which in the case of Obamacare, it means for the moment that you must buy a bunch of crap that YOU DO NOT NEED AND WILL NEVER USE!

Never forget:

Deceit <=> FRAUD<=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<


Thank you for providing me this opportunity to teach and, I hope that helps.

You just said "incorrect" and then agreed with him. There is no "same sex marriage" there is just marriage.

"While it was assumed until recently that a person could only share an intimate emotional bond and develop a family with a person of the opposite sex, the realization that this assumption is false does not change the underlying right. It merely changes the result when the court applies that right to the facts before it. Applying that right to these Plaintiffs, the court finds that the Constitution protects their right to marry a person of the same sex to the same degree that the Constitution protects the right of heterosexual individuals to marry a person of the opposite sex." ~ Judge Robert Shelby Utah marriage case

I would ask that if you are going to participate in an adult discussion, that you try to comport yourself within the scope of what is expected from an adult.

That is to be of sober mind and to impart sound reasoning, to the extent that is possible.

If you truly are incapable of such, as the above response would indicate, please refrain from expressing yourself.

Marriage is the joining of one male human being and one female human being. The institution is designed to a human analogue to the natural biological design, wherein, two individuals of the distinct genders dedicate their respective lives to one another, becoming one entity, through the joining of coitus, which promotes the biological imperative to procreate in sound, stable, fulfilling families.

This is not possible for homosexuals, except where homosexuals turn from their abnormal desires, rising above their malady and join with another of the distinct gender.

Meaning that where two homosexuals go to a courthouse and fill out an application and are accepted to play house, that is all they are doing, they are no more participating in Marriage, than they are falling toward Mars. What they are doing is deluding themselves and, in the process, undermining the viability of their culture.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is a fundamental right. Look it up.

Look it up where? It isn't in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independance. Oh, you mean Google.

Yes, it demonstratively is. Gays want to be treated equally under the law, period. Feel free to change those laws if you like...fill the pool so the black kids can't swim, but we still want to be treated equally.

Gay individuals are treated the same. Hit a gay man, it's the same penalty. Marriage isn't a person. It's a legal union and unions are not guaranteed, sorry. Like I asked earlier, where would you draw the line and why?

Look up Fundamental Rights. A gay man cannot marry another gay man. That violates the 14th Amendment.

You're initially correct, a homosexual male cannot marry another homosexual male. But that doesn't violate ANY principle inherent in the 14th amendment, because a sexually-normal male cannot marry another sexually-normal male.

See how that works?

It's called a Standard. The purpose of which is to uphold the viability of the institution for which it stands. The marriage Standard was designed and established by nature, the supreme authority in such matters.

Homosexuality is a deviancy, often such deviancies are harbingers.

In the tome The Population Explosion, it was observed that instances of homosexuality exploded during the latter phases of population stress, just prior to the mindless explosion of mayhem, which nature provided as a reset, a means to rebalance the population within the given environment.

By Normalizing the Harbinger, you doom the culture.

Now the ugly part here is that the Ideological Left does not give a tinker's damn about the health of the culture, except where they can use such as a means to further their acquisition of power.

And the collectivist homo, they NEED to be Married. And they NEED to be MARRIED, because THEY feel that MARRIAGE will provide them with the status that can only come through the LEGITIMACY of MARRIAGE!

What the mouthy radicals fail to understand is that the Marriage Standard is the source of the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage.

The INSTANT that the Standard is lowered or removed, all legitimacy is lost.

I think it was Mark Twain that said it best when he said: "I would never be associated with any group that accepts me as a member."

This is serious stuff for sober minds. When a culture has devolved to the point that it allows children and fools to establish its identity, it will quickly come to be identified as children and fools.

 

[Truthmatters]

the world is not buying that diaper load buddy.


crawl back into you cave and cry

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once again, the opposition rises to amaze the room with their oratorical skills, presenting the coveted: "NUH HUH!" defense.

The sad truth is that the Left goes to court ONLY if they know when, where and WHO is hearing the case.

They literally have a series of strategies established, with favorable judges identified in each district. So they wait and watch as the seas cycle, until they have a plaintiff and a judge. And once they do, they file the case and begin walking it up the line.

It's all calculated, its all fixed and it's all a part of the cultural subversion/despotism intrinsic to socialism.

Again, it's the formula for civil war.

You are a moron.

All lawyers and legal teams do exactly the above.

It's the formula for successful litigation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When is Where_ going to discuss these matters as a sane adult American?

 

[Yurt]

when is jake going to start telling the truth and stop tattling all the time?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ and there is no ‘movement.’

There is only marriage, where both opposite- and same-sex couples are eligible to enter into those marriage contracts.

Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law exactly as it exists now – unaltered and unchanged – to deny them that access is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This is neither opinion nor speculation, but it is indeed a fact of Constitutional law, as appropriately determined by the Federal courts.

Incorrect. Gay marriage exists in some states now. Marriage is redefined in those states to incluse (only) two same sex people, although I have no idea why it's limited to two and can't get an answer. Also the equal protection clause is about individual rights, not hetero, gay, threesome, group relationships.

No, this is also incorrect.

In those states both same- and opposite-sex couples are allowed to access the same marriage law; the law is identical regardless the gender configuration of the couple.

Indeed, it would be just as un-Constitution for a state to have some separate ‘gay marriage’ law relegated only to same-sex couples.

Because same- and opposite-sex couples enter into the same marriage contract, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage.’

Now, it’s understood some might use the term as a kind of political shorthand to identify the issue, but from a technical, legal, and Constitutional standpoint, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage.’

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hysterical!

Speak and children and fools and look who shows up.

I'm quite new to the forum, but the first couple of posts I read them, I learned that Truth does not matter to them and JakeStarkey is a collectivist posing, poorly, as something else, meaning that
truth doesn't matter to them either.

CLICK! GONE!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as &#8216;gay marriage,&#8217; and there is no &#8216;movement.&#8217;

There is only marriage, where both opposite- and same-sex couples are eligible to enter into those marriage contracts.

Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law exactly as it exists now &#8211; unaltered and unchanged &#8211; to deny them that access is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This is neither opinion nor speculation, but it is indeed a fact of Constitutional law, as appropriately determined by the Federal courts.

Incorrect. Gay marriage exists in some states now. Marriage is redefined in those states to incluse (only) two same sex people, although I have no idea why it's limited to two and can't get an answer. Also the equal protection clause is about individual rights, not hetero, gay, threesome, group relationships.

No, this is also incorrect.

In those states both same- and opposite-sex couples are allowed to access the same marriage law; the law is identical regardless the gender configuration of the couple.

Indeed, it would be just as un-Constitution for a state to have some separate &#8216;gay marriage&#8217; law relegated only to same-sex couples.

Because same- and opposite-sex couples enter into the same marriage contract, there is no such thing as &#8216;gay marriage.&#8217;

Now, it&#8217;s understood some might use the term as a kind of political shorthand to identify the issue, but from a technical, legal, and Constitutional standpoint, there is no such thing as &#8216;gay marriage.&#8217;

This is absurd.

NATURE established the standard of marriage when it designed the human being.

The above argument merely regurgitates the same tired and erroneous collectivist boilerplate: "MAN DETERMINES RIGHTS!, etc.

Where it is determined that those who are decidedly unfit for marriage are suitable for marriage, then the legitimacy for which the standard provided is lost with the foolishness that struck the standard. Leaving the species to once again RE-LEARN the lessons that came when the last culture raised stupidity as their guiding principle, producing the three dreaded Cs: Chaos, Calamity and Catastrophe.

Such calculations demonstrate the great chap-laden, crotch grinding standard of the Homosexual movement: idiocy on parade.