Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[Vandalshandle]

They should, but marriage only applies to one man and one woman. Simple, biologically correct, and historically accurate.

I want you and your partner to have the same rights and priviledges as a married man and woman. But your union is not a marriage no matter how many times you try to make that claim.

Must be something in the constitution that I overlooked....

 

[Seawytch]

Uh what?

My God you are stupid.

YOU and Bodecea are the ones arguing that if no one was en masse clamoring for something 20 years ago that means it isn't really important to those who are today, not me.

Right, we said nobody cared about the government being involved in marriage until gays wanted the cash and prizes for their committed relationships too. You're admitting that they are all bigots. That was understood.

 

[Seawytch]

Must be something in the constitution that I overlooked....

It's his "I can't feel special if you're married too" version.

Sucks to be him 'cause I am married.

 

[Redfish]

They should, but marriage only applies to one man and one woman. Simple, biologically correct, and historically accurate.

I want you and your partner to have the same rights and priviledges as a married man and woman. But your union is not a marriage no matter how many times you try to make that claim.

Must be something in the constitution that I overlooked....

Nope, gay marriage is not in it anywhere. Neither are gay rights, bigamy, polygamy, or anal sex. Maybe you should start a campaign to add those things to the bill or rights.

 

[Redfish]

Must be something in the constitution that I overlooked....

It's his "I can't feel special if you're married too" version.

Sucks to be him 'cause I am married.

In your mind you can be anything you can imagine.

 

[Seawytch]

They should, but marriage only applies to one man and one woman. Simple, biologically correct, and historically accurate.

I want you and your partner to have the same rights and priviledges as a married man and woman. But your union is not a marriage no matter how many times you try to make that claim.

Except your opinion on our marriages isn't supported by facts. Gays ARE marrying.

 

[Seawytch]

Nope, gay marriage is not in it anywhere. Neither are gay rights, bigamy, polygamy, or anal sex. Maybe you should start a campaign to add those things to the bill or rights.

The right to marry has been found in the Constitution. In order to keep a group of people from fundamental rights, you must demonstrate a societal harm. Go!

 

[Redfish]

They should, but marriage only applies to one man and one woman. Simple, biologically correct, and historically accurate.

I want you and your partner to have the same rights and priviledges as a married man and woman. But your union is not a marriage no matter how many times you try to make that claim.

Except your opinion on our marriages isn't supported by facts. Gays ARE marrying.

Some states have voted to allow that, or more accurately, in some states activist judges have overruled the will of the people to allow a gay union to be called a marriage. Those states will have to live with their choices. Its called freedom and responsibility.
BTW, when california goes completely broke don't come begging for the rest of us to bail you out.

 

[Redfish]

Nope, gay marriage is not in it anywhere. Neither are gay rights, bigamy, polygamy, or anal sex. Maybe you should start a campaign to add those things to the bill or rights.

The right to marry has been found in the Constitution. In order to keep a group of people from fundamental rights, you must demonstrate a societal harm. Go!

If you do not see all forms of human deviancy as being harmful to society, then you are either very naive or blinded by your gayness.

Please quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used.

 

[Seawytch]

Some states have voted to allow that, or more accurately, in some states activist judges have overruled the will of the people to allow a gay union to be called a marriage. Those states will have to live with their choices. Its called freedom and responsibility.
BTW, when california goes completely broke don't come begging for the rest of us to bail you out.

Yeah...just like those "activist judges" in the 60s that overturned bans on interracial marriage. They REALLY defied the "will of the people".

California can just stop sending more money to the Feds than it gets back...

 

[Seawytch]

If you do not see all forms of human deviancy as being harmful to society, then you are either very naive or blinded by your gayness.

Please quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used.

Ta da!!!! This is why not a single judge has ruled against marriage equality!!

 

[Redfish]

d

Some states have voted to allow that, or more accurately, in some states activist judges have overruled the will of the people to allow a gay union to be called a marriage. Those states will have to live with their choices. Its called freedom and responsibility.
BTW, when california goes completely broke don't come begging for the rest of us to bail you out.

Yeah...just like those "activist judges" in the 60s that overturned bans on interracial marriage. They REALLY defied the "will of the people".

California can just stop sending more money to the Feds than it gets back...

Race and sexual orientation are not analogous. They never will be, your attempt to equate them fails every time you try it.

Rather than stop sending money to DC, why not just become part of Mexico. OOps, how do mexicans feel about gay marriage? how do a majority of hispanics feel about gay marriage? Nope the mexico idea won't work. How about just seceding from the USA?

 

[Redfish]

If you do not see all forms of human deviancy as being harmful to society, then you are either very naive or blinded by your gayness.

Please quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used.

Ta da!!!! This is why not a single judge has ruled against marriage equality!!

Wrong, judges have ruled in favor of equality.

 

[Seawytch]

d


Race and sexual orientation are not analogous. They never will be, your attempt to equate them fails every time you try it.

Rather than stop sending money to DC, why not just become part of Mexico. OOps, how do mexicans feel about gay marriage? how do a majority of hispanics feel about gay marriage? Nope the mexico idea won't work. How about just seceding from the USA?

Discrimination does not rely only on race. You knew that already though.

 

[Seawytch]

Wrong, judges have ruled in favor of equality.

Ha ha...you just repeated what I said. Marriage equality for gays has not lost a single court case since Windsor. Republican judges are finding in favor of gays marrying. It's like an epidemic!!!

 

[WorldWatcher]

d

Some states have voted to allow that, or more accurately, in some states activist judges have overruled the will of the people to allow a gay union to be called a marriage. Those states will have to live with their choices. Its called freedom and responsibility.
BTW, when california goes completely broke don't come begging for the rest of us to bail you out.

Yeah...just like those "activist judges" in the 60s that overturned bans on interracial marriage. They REALLY defied the "will of the people".

California can just stop sending more money to the Feds than it gets back...

Race and sexual orientation are not analogous. They never will be, your attempt to equate them fails every time you try it.

Rather than stop sending money to DC, why not just become part of Mexico. OOps, how do mexicans feel about gay marriage? how do a majority of hispanics feel about gay marriage? Nope the mexico idea won't work. How about just seceding from the USA?

'Latinos’ views of same-sex marriage have changed dramatically in recent years. In 2012 for the first time, more Latinos said they favored same-sex marriage than opposed it (52% versus 34%) according to a Pew Hispanic Center survey. This is a reversal from six years earlier, when one-third (31%) of Latinos favored same-sex marriage and more than half (56%) opposed it. This shift in views tracks with that of the general public, whose opinions on same-sex marriage have also changed in recent years."

Latinos changing views of same-sex marriage Pew Research Center


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Some states have voted to allow that, or more accurately, in some states activist judges have overruled the will of the people to allow a gay union to be called a marriage. Those states will have to live with their choices. Its called freedom and responsibility.
BTW, when california goes completely broke don't come begging for the rest of us to bail you out.

Actually I have the file where I've tracked it on another computer, but the reality is that of the 19 States with SSCM - more have passed it through voter ballot initiative and legislative action then have it through judicial action.


>>>>

 

[Ravi]

I argue that gays started wanting to marry en masse precisely the time they became uncomfortably aware that civil unions wouldn't suffice to automatically allow them to adopt vulnerable orphans...

Then all of a sudden, marriage became a "civil right necessity". Given what they do in pride parades soberly anticipating and hoping kids will be watching, we'd better act on civil rights all right. The civil rights of children to be protected from anticipated harm. Imagine what they're "proud" of behind closed doors in front of kids?

In your sick imagination.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I argue that gays started wanting to marry en masse precisely the time they became uncomfortably aware that civil unions wouldn't suffice to automatically allow them to adopt vulnerable orphans...

Then all of a sudden, marriage became a "civil right necessity". Given what they do in pride parades soberly anticipating and hoping kids will be watching, we'd better act on civil rights all right. The civil rights of children to be protected from anticipated harm. Imagine what they're "proud" of behind closed doors in front of kids?

In your sick imagination.

Hey, if one idiot can claim that all conservatives wish to deny gays their civil rights why can't another idiot claim that all gays are pedophiles?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

But the Court has already held that overly intrusive Public Accommodation is unconstitutional for the federal government, though the Court has thus far allowed it to be asserted by the several states.

Please site the case you say exists, I'd like to review it. (And not it's not the Hobby Lobby case as that wasn't a Public Accommodation law case.)



Thanks,



>>>>

No problem, and thank you for raising the matter, as this is what happens when one has a more complex idea in the back of one's mind, but fails to clearly express it.

STTAB touched on this concern.

I'm alluding not only to United States v. Stanley, et.al., 109 U.S. 3 (1883), the consolidated case in which the Court struck down the public accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, but to its prescient historical ramifications touching on First Amendment liberties. In that case, as I'm sure you're aware, the Court deemed that while the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination by the several states, that is, prohibited them from denying equal protection, Congress did not have the power to prohibit acts of private discrimination by individuals unsupported by state authority. On the other hand, the Constitution did not necessarily prohibit the several states from enacting public accommodation codes.

The Act of 1875 narrowly prohibited discrimination on the basis of race or color. Since 1964, of course, the federal government has more broadly prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender or national origin. Despite the rhetorical shoe shine of wedge-issue baiting, the reason that leftists don't want to be more aggressive at the federal level, well, except for the naïve among them, for example, like those on this thread, is because that would provoke a nationwide reaction that would threaten to bring down the more obnoxious infringements on the prerogatives of free-association and private property asserted by blue states around the country under the banner of Public Accommodation.

Lefty's strategy is analogous to the preverbal frog in a pot of water gradually brought to the boiling point.

Since 1875, states have passed variously more aggressive antidiscrimination codes. At the state level, we now have prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, age, national origin, marital status, familial status, disability, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression. . . . The list goes on in the District of Columbia's public accommodation code to include things like matriculation, political affiliation, source of income and more. It's a real shmorgishborg of the kind of things that give leftists goose bumps and the rest of us indigestion.

(It's been rumored for years that the District of Columbia's wont is to compel business owners to accommodate those who practice their fetish for kitchen sinks in public, as long as the later is firmly secured to their persons so as not to endanger others upon the moment of . . . shall we say, completion. A fetish for kitchen sinks is one thing, but, come on, flying kitchen sinks in a crowded restaurant would be dangerous. Geez.)

As the Court observed in Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) and reiterated in Boy Scouts of American v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2001), public accommodation has become so broadly advanced that "the potential for conflict between state public accommodation laws and the First Amendment rights of organizations" has become a serious concern.

In addition to the well-established line of stare decisis regarding the inextricable link between First Amendment liberties and free-association, and the well-established line of stare decisis regarding the First Amendment liberties of corporations as individuals, which silly leftists think was asserted out of nowhere in the Hobby Lobby case, when in fact the matter's been settled in case law for years: we have the First Amendment liberties of artistic expression (National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 602 [1998]), coupled with the freedom of expression in "the form quiet persuasion, inculcation of traditional values, instruction of the young and community service" (Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 636 [1984]).

But even more emphatically, the First Amendment "protects the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster . . . an idea they find morally objectionable" (Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 715 [1977]). The government "may not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees" in order to "produce a society free of . . . biases" (Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos, citing W. Va. State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 [1943]). Such "invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control" (W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette). The First Amendment "prohibits improper restraints on the voluntary public expression of ideas" (prior restraint) and the "concomitant freedom not to speak publicly" (Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utilities Commission, 475 U.S. 1, 11 [1986]).

Hence, the right to dissent from the impertinent mores of government, more at, the right of the individual to tell the denizens of the herd mentality to take their boorishly moralistic drivel and shove it!

Folks have gotten so strung out on the banalities of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, i.e., cultural Marxism, more commonly known today as political correctness or multiculturalism, brought to you by the Social Studies Department of Columbia University beginning in the early 1930s: they've utterly lost sight of the preeminent concerns of inalienable First Amendment liberties and the case law with which the inordinate expansion of Public Accommodation into the sphere of ideological/behavioral concerns is in conflict.

Suggested reading: 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World, Logan's Run, Stranger in a Strange Land, A Canticle for Leibowitz.