Conservative states trying to hold out on marriage equality

[bodecea]

You mean some normal folks are standing up against queerism? God forbid. But good for them.

How does one "stand up against queerism", exactly?

 

[DriftingSand]

You mean some normal folks are standing up against queerism? God forbid. But good for them.

How does one "stand up against queerism", exactly?

See the OP

 

[Pop23]

Why not? The marriage contract has always been seen as one between a man or a woman, or in some societies between multiple women and one man.

So we discriminate because we've discriminated? That's argument without corners.

What compelling state interest is served in continuing to discriminate against gays and lesbians? If you're going to deny rights, you need a very good reason. And there just isn't any with gay marriage bans.

Gay women and gay men could always marry

That's always worked out well....hasn't it?

Yes, why do you ask?

Actually, no it doesn't. Living a lie rarely works. Marrying someone you aren't attracted to just to keep some kind of hetero fantasy going doesn't work well either.

But living a delusion while seeking out enablers does.

Got it

Care to comment on my post showing how different the demographic groups are?

Maybe point out my obvious grammatical errors?

 

[bodecea]

So we discriminate because we've discriminated? That's argument without corners.

What compelling state interest is served in continuing to discriminate against gays and lesbians? If you're going to deny rights, you need a very good reason. And there just isn't any with gay marriage bans.

Gay women and gay men could always marry

That's always worked out well....hasn't it?

Yes, why do you ask?

Actually, no it doesn't. Living a lie rarely works. Marrying someone you aren't attracted to just to keep some kind of hetero fantasy going doesn't work well either.

But living a delusion while seeking out enablers does.

Got it

Care to comment on my post showing how different the demographic groups are?

Maybe point out my obvious grammatical errors?

Why?

 

[bodecea]

You mean some normal folks are standing up against queerism? God forbid. But good for them.

How does one "stand up against queerism", exactly?

See the OP

I saw it. Now...how does one "stand up against queerism"?

 

[Pop23]

i say texas falls soon....

Steers and Queers....Steers and Queers.

Shame on you. SillyWytch thinks the word queer is derogatory. She's gonna git y'all

 

[Pop23]

Gay women and gay men could always marry

That's always worked out well....hasn't it?

Yes, why do you ask?

Actually, no it doesn't. Living a lie rarely works. Marrying someone you aren't attracted to just to keep some kind of hetero fantasy going doesn't work well either.

But living a delusion while seeking out enablers does.

Got it

Care to comment on my post showing how different the demographic groups are?

Maybe point out my obvious grammatical errors?

Why?

It's your brevity I find most refreshing

 

[DriftingSand]

You mean some normal folks are standing up against queerism? God forbid. But good for them.

How does one "stand up against queerism", exactly?

See the OP

I saw it. Now...how does one "stand up against queerism"?

By refusing to bow to it. See the OP.

(Oh ... and fire and brimstone seemed to be effective back in the day)

 

[Skylar]

Gay women and gay men could always marry

Yeah, but gay men couldn't always marry each other. So what's the compelling state interest in denying same sex marriage? What's the rational purpose of it? IF you're going to deny rights, you need a very good reason. And there isn't one.

Or, at least none that opponents of gay marriage have been able to sufficiently articulate in court.

 

[Skylar]

By refusing to bow to it. See the OP.

And by 'bow to it', you mean recognize that gays and lesbians have the same rights as anyone else?

 

[DriftingSand]

Gay women and gay men could always marry

Yeah, but gay men couldn't always marry each other. So what's the compelling state interest in denying same sex marriage? What's the rational purpose of it? IF you're going to deny rights, you need a very good reason. And there isn't one.

Or, at least none that opponents of gay marriage have been able to sufficiently articulate in court.

1) It's disgusting.
2) It's sickening.
3) It's filthy.
4) It's a disease waiting to happen.
5) Did I say it's disgusting?

 

[bodecea]

i say texas falls soon....

Steers and Queers....Steers and Queers.

Shame on you. SillyWytch thinks the word queer is derogatory. She's gonna git y'all

She does? When did she say that?

 

[bodecea]

Gay women and gay men could always marry

Yeah, but gay men couldn't always marry each other. So what's the compelling state interest in denying same sex marriage? What's the rational purpose of it? IF you're going to deny rights, you need a very good reason. And there isn't one.

Or, at least none that opponents of gay marriage have been able to sufficiently articulate in court.

1) It's disgusting.
2) It's sickening.
3) It's filthy.
4) It's a disease waiting to happen.
5) Did I say it's disgusting?

Interesting. Lesbians could say the same about hetero sex....and yet I don't see you advocating for lesbian marriage being legal.

 

[Skylar]

1) It's disgusting.
2) It's sickening.
3) It's filthy.
4) It's a disease waiting to happen.
5) Did I say it's disgusting?

So you think its icky. K.

You get that you finding it icky isn't a compelling state interest or a rational reason, right?

 

[Skylar]

i say texas falls soon....

Steers and Queers....Steers and Queers.

Shame on you. SillyWytch thinks the word queer is derogatory. She's gonna git y'all

She does? When did she say that?

Yeah, Queer is the Q in LGBTQ. Its the lost sock drawer of gender identity, gender expression and LGBT advocacy.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay women and gay men could always marry

Yeah, but gay men couldn't always marry each other. So what's the compelling state interest in denying same sex marriage? What's the rational purpose of it? IF you're going to deny rights, you need a very good reason. And there isn't one.

Or, at least none that opponents of gay marriage have been able to sufficiently articulate in court.

1) It's disgusting.
2) It's sickening.
3) It's filthy.
4) It's a disease waiting to happen.
5) Did I say it's disgusting?

Well that really is the basic argument of those who hate gays- "its icky"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

it will be interesting to see what happens as soon as a red state circuit court upholds a marriage ban.

So far the only time that's happened is when a lone Louisiana federal judge ruled that the gay marriage bans were valid. A ruling that must go to quorum as a matter of course, and likely won't survive the trip. Or the appeal. Or the next appeal. Or the petition for a writ of centori.

As even Reagan appointed federal judges are giving the anti-gay marriage folks the 'WTF'' face when they argue their cases in courts.

Many gay marriage opponents are at a severe disadvantage, as they can't argue their actual motivation for the positions they've taken. As a witty journalist put it, the case of 'Yahweh v. Sodom' isn't admissible in court. So they're left with a bunch of half assed second tier arguments that are easily refuted with an even passing review.

And a nearly perfect record of failure in federal court.

it's pretty clear at this point that if a ban actually does survive to the petition for cert stage, the SCOTUS will have to conform the dissenting circuit to the others. I don't see the court ever issuing a ruling that upsets marriage equality at this point.

this is why i don't understand why scotus punted with the recent 7 states. perhaps they want to keep marriage a state's right issue, however, that goes against other scotus rulings like loving v. virginia....

this issue will ultimately make it to scotus again and they are going to need to rule, especially since many fed courts have invoked the constitution to allow gays equal access to marriage.

they "punted" because there was a) no reason to take the cases. all the circuits are in agreement; b) as a precedent, loving v Virginia made it perfectly clear that marriage is a fundamental right which can't be denied for no reason.

they have no reason to rule unless and until a circuit goes against the others.

True.

In essence the Court has already ruled on the issue, as the Federal courts are following precedent such as Loving and Romer.

 

[Skylar]

Well that really is the basic argument of those who hate gays- "its icky"

Well that or 'God thinks it icky".

 

[jillian]

Well that really is the basic argument of those who hate gays- "its icky"

Well that or 'God thinks it icky".

always an amusing political position

 

[jillian]

You mean some normal folks are standing up against queerism? God forbid. But good for them.

How does one "stand up against queerism", exactly?

See the OP

I saw it. Now...how does one "stand up against queerism"?

By refusing to bow to it. See the OP.

(Oh ... and fire and brimstone seemed to be effective back in the day)

by "bow to it" do you mean continue to violate the law by trying to ban something that really can't be banned if we look at the recent decisions?