Gay Marriage: It's A Constitutional Right!

[Kosh]

Churches sanctify marriage as a rite within their religion. Churches do not issue marriage licenses and provide the legal protections and benefits under that license.

Yes one does not need to be "married" in order to have those same benefits, the only benefit one gets is to plunder another's Social Security.

So what benefits do gays not have in a "legally" binding relationship that those in a "marriage" have?

Many things that used to be automatics in "Marriage" do not exist any more. So why fight for special privileges that no one else gets?

Tax filing status, hospital visitation rights, adoption procedures, insurance premium discounts, financial claims and death benefits, estate dispersal and probate claims. all these benefits and more are automatic with a marriage license. What cause can you show proving same sex marriage to be a detriment, or any other impairment to heterosexual marriage?

I see the old talking point have come to light! All have been defeated before and once again show that the mind set is still in the 60's.

All those can be done with a legal will or legal document.

Child adoption can be done by anyone you do not have to be married.

Also if the family does not want the "spouse" to see their child, then they can not. So once again you want special privileges that do not exist.

A license as it is treated in the legal system is a "privilege" not a "right".

So far the far left Obama drone are batting zero on their bid that this is "right".

 

[Nosmo King]

Yes one does not need to be "married" in order to have those same benefits, the only benefit one gets is to plunder another's Social Security.

So what benefits do gays not have in a "legally" binding relationship that those in a "marriage" have?

Many things that used to be automatics in "Marriage" do not exist any more. So why fight for special privileges that no one else gets?

Tax filing status, hospital visitation rights, adoption procedures, insurance premium discounts, financial claims and death benefits, estate dispersal and probate claims. all these benefits and more are automatic with a marriage license. What cause can you show proving same sex marriage to be a detriment, or any other impairment to heterosexual marriage?

I see the old talking point have come to light! All have been defeated before and once again show that the mind set is still in the 60's.

All those can be done with a legal will or legal document.

Child adoption can be done by anyone you do not have to be married.

Also if the family does not want the "spouse" to see their child, then they can not. So once again you want special privileges that do not exist.

A license as it is treated in the legal system is a "privilege" not a "right".

So far the far left Obama drone are batting zero on their bid that this is "right".

If all those benefits and protections come AUTOMATIACLLY with a marriage license, why would you insist on going back to the 1950s and insist on 'separate but equal' for same sex couples? Does bigotry demand a reversal to the old playbook? Why not just grant equal access to the system of contract law and grant same sex couples a marriage license?

 

[Listening]

If three women want to marry one man.

Then each marriage is between one man (the same man) and one woman.

Why is that illegal ?

 

[Kosh]

Tax filing status, hospital visitation rights, adoption procedures, insurance premium discounts, financial claims and death benefits, estate dispersal and probate claims. all these benefits and more are automatic with a marriage license. What cause can you show proving same sex marriage to be a detriment, or any other impairment to heterosexual marriage?

I see the old talking point have come to light! All have been defeated before and once again show that the mind set is still in the 60's.

All those can be done with a legal will or legal document.

Child adoption can be done by anyone you do not have to be married.

Also if the family does not want the "spouse" to see their child, then they can not. So once again you want special privileges that do not exist.

A license as it is treated in the legal system is a "privilege" not a "right".

So far the far left Obama drone are batting zero on their bid that this is "right".

If all those benefits and protections come AUTOMATIACLLY with a marriage license, why would you insist on going back to the 1950s and insist on 'separate but equal' for same sex couples? Does bigotry demand a reversal to the old playbook? Why not just grant equal access to the system of contract law and grant same sex couples a marriage license?

And after you defeat the far left talking points this is what happens..

"Marriage" is not a "right" never has been. The problem is that government became involved with and it never should have.

And not all those things did not came automatically (except in WWII), but it sure goes to show that the far left thinks they did and still do.

Now nothing is automatic without legal documents, the "Marriage" license is just a piece of paper now. So the gays are fighting for a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it to punish the church.

Just admit that is the gay agenda, well that you want to plunder someone's else's Social Security. Other than that you can get all that without a "Marriage" license.

The rest is just for show and to pray on those that are ignorant and believe their so called "rights" are being violated, when in reality they are not.

 

[Nosmo King]

I see the old talking point have come to light! All have been defeated before and once again show that the mind set is still in the 60's.

All those can be done with a legal will or legal document.

Child adoption can be done by anyone you do not have to be married.

Also if the family does not want the "spouse" to see their child, then they can not. So once again you want special privileges that do not exist.

A license as it is treated in the legal system is a "privilege" not a "right".

So far the far left Obama drone are batting zero on their bid that this is "right".

If all those benefits and protections come AUTOMATIACLLY with a marriage license, why would you insist on going back to the 1950s and insist on 'separate but equal' for same sex couples? Does bigotry demand a reversal to the old playbook? Why not just grant equal access to the system of contract law and grant same sex couples a marriage license?

And after you defeat the far left talking points this is what happens..

"Marriage" is not a "right" never has been. The problem is that government became involved with and it never should have.

And not all those things did not came automatically (except in WWII), but it sure goes to show that the far left thinks they did and still do.

Now nothing is automatic without legal documents, the "Marriage" license is just a piece of paper now. So the gays are fighting for a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it to punish the church.

Just admit that is the gay agenda, well that you want to plunder someone's else's Social Security. Other than that you can get all that without a "Marriage" license.

The rest is just for show and to pray on those that are ignorant and believe their so called "rights" are being violated, when in reality they are not.

Let me see if I fully understand you. The reason same sex couples are calling for marriage equality is to punish the church. Marriage licenses are merely pieces of paper. Same sex couples are invited to jump through legal hoops not implemented against heterosexual couples and you're just fine with that.

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's true marriage is not a right but judges are using the fourth and fifth amendment to make gay marriage a right. Under these circumstances polygamy will be next.

This is not true, it is factually incorrect and this post completely wrong.

 

[Howey]

Yes one does not need to be "married" in order to have those same benefits, the only benefit one gets is to plunder another's Social Security.

So what benefits do gays not have in a "legally" binding relationship that those in a "marriage" have?

Many things that used to be automatics in "Marriage" do not exist any more. So why fight for special privileges that no one else gets?

Tax filing status, hospital visitation rights, adoption procedures, insurance premium discounts, financial claims and death benefits, estate dispersal and probate claims. all these benefits and more are automatic with a marriage license. What cause can you show proving same sex marriage to be a detriment, or any other impairment to heterosexual marriage?

I see the old talking point have come to light! All have been defeated before and once again show that the mind set is still in the 60's.

All those can be done with a legal will or legal document.

Child adoption can be done by anyone you do not have to be married.

Also if the family does not want the "spouse" to see their child, then they can not. So once again you want special privileges that do not exist.

A license as it is treated in the legal system is a "privilege" not a "right".

So far the far left Obama drone are batting zero on their bid that this is "right".

You're a ******* liar. How about educating your homophobic ass before you spew out more stupid?

http://www.lc.org/profamily/samesex_adoption_by_state.pdf

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kosh, because he dislikes the system as it is, somehow believes it does not exist.

Yeah, government regulates marriage, its contractual privileges and obligations and reciprocates and tax breaks, and divorce, etc.

 

[Seawytch]

No state is going to end legal, civil marriage, therefore same sex marriage is a right under equal protection under the law.

Incorrect! They can not force churches to marry gays and thus the whole "equal" protection thing and this being a "right" is null and void.



Also as I have already pointed out it is NOT in the constitution.



Yes I know the far left wants to justify this as a "right", but it is not on any level, no matter how much any far left Obama drone tries to make it such.

Interracial couples cannot force churches to marry them and yet, in Loving v Virginia, the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right you cannot deny mixed race couples.

Reconcile facts with your fantasy...if you can.

 

[Seawytch]

If all those benefits and protections come AUTOMATIACLLY with a marriage license, why would you insist on going back to the 1950s and insist on 'separate but equal' for same sex couples? Does bigotry demand a reversal to the old playbook? Why not just grant equal access to the system of contract law and grant same sex couples a marriage license?

And after you defeat the far left talking points this is what happens..



"Marriage" is not a "right" never has been. The problem is that government became involved with and it never should have.



And not all those things did not came automatically (except in WWII), but it sure goes to show that the far left thinks they did and still do.



Now nothing is automatic without legal documents, the "Marriage" license is just a piece of paper now. So the gays are fighting for a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it to punish the church.



Just admit that is the gay agenda, well that you want to plunder someone's else's Social Security. Other than that you can get all that without a "Marriage" license.



The rest is just for show and to pray on those that are ignorant and believe their so called "rights" are being violated, when in reality they are not.

Let me see if I fully understand you. The reason same sex couples are calling for marriage equality is to punish the church. Marriage licenses are merely pieces of paper. Same sex couples are invited to jump through legal hoops not implemented against heterosexual couples and you're just fine with that.



What color is the sky in your world?

His sky is RED, RED, RED!!!

Gays already have equal access to religious marriage...it's civil marriage we don't.

 

[hazlnut]

The issue needs to both go in a different direction and move out of the kangaroo courts.

Your days are numbered, bigot.


Just like the segregationists of the 60's you are on the wrong side of history and Christ.

 

[Stephanie]

You all love activist Judges UNTIL they make a ruling you don't like

that judge should be removed if he doesn't know about our constitution

he took an oath and now he's breaking it

 

[NYcarbineer]

The issue needs to both go in a different direction and move out of the kangaroo courts.

Your days are numbered, bigot.


Just like the segregationists of the 60's you are on the wrong side of history and Christ.

Conservatives fought integration and civil rights every step of the way, but nowadays they try to blame segregation on liberals.

That's how being on the wrong side of history works. Someday future conservatives will be trying to blame the resistance to same sex marriage on liberalism.

 

[Listening]

No state is going to end legal, civil marriage, therefore same sex marriage is a right under equal protection under the law.

Incorrect! They can not force churches to marry gays and thus the whole "equal" protection thing and this being a "right" is null and void.



Also as I have already pointed out it is NOT in the constitution.



Yes I know the far left wants to justify this as a "right", but it is not on any level, no matter how much any far left Obama drone tries to make it such.

Interracial couples cannot force churches to marry them and yet, in Loving v Virginia, the SCOTUS declared marriage a fundamental right you cannot deny mixed race couples.

Reconcile facts with your fantasy...if you can.

Next they'll be telling churches they have to teach that Christ was an Eskimo woman.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

A license as it is treated in the legal system is a "privilege" not a "right".

So far the far left Obama drone are batting zero on their bid that this is "right".

So owning a gun is not a right because you can be required to obtain a license for it?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

No a far left blog site disagrees with me.

Point to it in the Constitution.

Marriage is not a "right".

Government should not be in the marriage business.

Can you point to the section of the Constitution that says you have a right to procreate or to use contraception? How about the part of the Constitution that says I have the right to interstate travel? Can you point to that?

Do you believe that the only rights you have are strictly enumerated in the Constitution?

Can you tell me how many times you've contacted your legislator to tell him you want to do away with civil marriage? Did he/she laugh at you?

Yes another far left myth of "rights" and all far left talking points being defeated by a far left Obama drone in their yet another pointless post.

If "marriage" is a "right", then churches should be forced to perform them correct?

That is the goal of the far left using the gay agenda to do this?

Also if one person wants to divorce another and the other person wants to work on the "marriage" is the person wanting a divorce violating the other persons "rights"?

See why "Marriage" is not a right?

A religious marriage and a civil marriage are two different things.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And that is why government should not be in the business of "Marriage"..

You know that whole "separation of church and state" that the far left screams all the time.

So you are saying the government can force churches to marry gay couples so the government can not "discriminate"?

Churches sanctify marriage as a rite within their religion. Churches do not issue marriage licenses and provide the legal protections and benefits under that license.

Yes one does not need to be "married" in order to have those same benefits, the only benefit one gets is to plunder another's Social Security.

Then in the interests of equal protection, we should eliminate spousal Social Security benefits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No state is going to end legal, civil marriage, therefore same sex marriage is a right under equal protection under the law.

Incorrect! They can not force churches to marry gays and thus the whole "equal" protection thing and this being a "right" is null and void.

You can't force a library to carry 'Hustler' magazine but I don't think that nullifies freedom of the press.

 

[Kosh]

Can you point to the section of the Constitution that says you have a right to procreate or to use contraception? How about the part of the Constitution that says I have the right to interstate travel? Can you point to that?

Do you believe that the only rights you have are strictly enumerated in the Constitution?

Can you tell me how many times you've contacted your legislator to tell him you want to do away with civil marriage? Did he/she laugh at you?

Yes another far left myth of "rights" and all far left talking points being defeated by a far left Obama drone in their yet another pointless post.

If "marriage" is a "right", then churches should be forced to perform them correct?

That is the goal of the far left using the gay agenda to do this?

Also if one person wants to divorce another and the other person wants to work on the "marriage" is the person wanting a divorce violating the other persons "rights"?

See why "Marriage" is not a right?

A religious marriage and a civil marriage are two different things.

You are and the other far left members are claiming that they are not!

Marriage is not a "right"..

 

[Redfish]

No state is going to end legal, civil marriage, therefore same sex marriage is a right under equal protection under the law.

Incorrect! They can not force churches to marry gays and thus the whole "equal" protection thing and this being a "right" is null and void.

You can't force a library to carry 'Hustler' magazine but I don't think that nullifies freedom of the press.

I think you are wrong on that.

Marriage is NOT a right, The ability to enter into a contract is a right. Marriage is contract between a man and a woman. Gays can also enter into contracts with each, but such a gay contract is not a marriage.

I have said it many times----------the gay agenda is not about equality or rights--------its all about calling a gay union a marriage.

its about using the government to mandate societal acceptance of an aberant lifestyle as equal to a normal human lifestyle.