How Is It Legal????

[The Rabbi]

uhm, the Mormom Church, bigoted and hateful conservative religious folks?

Blacks are bigoted and hateful? Generalize much?

"Generalize much?" - coming from you?

anyone who reads a few pages of your posts gets the joke here...

We're discussing you. Why are you changing the subject? Lose much?

 

[Dante]

Who is the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage in CA? Yeah, black churches.

uhm, the Mormom Church, bigoted and hateful conservative religious folks?

Blacks are bigoted and hateful? Generalize much?

and yes, Blacks who attend the Christian churches are more often than not bigoted and hateful towards gays. Shit, they even abandoned their own early on in the aids/hiv crisis because of homophobia within the black community. it's a fact

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion.

Perhaps you ought to face the fact that you aren't a legal scholar.

Nobody's religious beliefs trumps civil authority.

So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

So right there you prove you don't understand the law.

Suppose your religion included human sacrifice. Do you have that right because of the 1st amendment?


Golly, you haven't thought this issue through very deeply have you, Mal?

You ought to demand your money back from whatever law school you attended.

Cause you got ripped off, dude.

Strawman much? No one is arguing that religion trumps anything. But people have a right to vote based on their religious convictions.

 

[The Rabbi]

uhm, the Mormom Church, bigoted and hateful conservative religious folks?

Blacks are bigoted and hateful? Generalize much?

and yes, Blacks who attend the Christian churches are more often than not bigoted and hateful towards gays. Shit, they even abandoned their own early on in the aids/hiv crisis because of homophobia within the black community. it's a fact

So opposition is only motivated by bigotry and hatred? Narrow much?

 

[Dante]

That isn't in the Constitution, turd.
Does that mean I can rob you because it would make me happy?

If a ban on same sex marriage isn't in the Constitution, wouldn't that be a right "retained by the people"? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, nitwit.

WHat kind of right is a ban? Do you even know WTF you are talking about?
It is a power devolved to the states, and to the people. That means if people vote about it, that's it. I have no problem if the degenerates in MA want to legalize it. But in CA the people have voted multiple times to disallow it and courts have trampled all over that.

generalize much?

"WHat kind of right is a ban? " - talk about making no sense...

the rights that are unalienable are not up to a vote.

 

[Dante]

Blacks are bigoted and hateful? Generalize much?

and yes, Blacks who attend the Christian churches are more often than not bigoted and hateful towards gays. Shit, they even abandoned their own early on in the aids/hiv crisis because of homophobia within the black community. it's a fact

So opposition is only motivated by bigotry and hatred? Narrow much?

abandoning your own people during a major health crisis because of sexuality and homophobia? yeah, that be hatred and bigotry

 

[konradv]

That isn't in the Constitution, turd.
Does that mean I can rob you because it would make me happy?

If a ban on same sex marriage isn't in the Constitution, wouldn't that be a right "retained by the people"? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, nitwit.

WHat kind of right is a ban? Do you even know WTF you are talking about?
It is a power devolved to the states, and to the people. That means if people vote about it, that's it. Ihave no problem if the degenerates in MA want to legalize it. But in CA the people have voted multiple times to disallow it and courts have trampled all over that.

Equal protection and its enforcement hasn't devolved to the states. Snooping in peoples' bedroom windows is an invasion of privacy. No state should have that kind of control over its people. Why should anyone care what you have to say on the subject? State laws standing in the way of the people's freedom are no different than Jim Crow or Nuremburg laws.

 

[The Rabbi]

If a ban on same sex marriage isn't in the Constitution, wouldn't that be a right "retained by the people"? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, nitwit.

WHat kind of right is a ban? Do you even know WTF you are talking about?
It is a power devolved to the states, and to the people. That means if people vote about it, that's it. I have no problem if the degenerates in MA want to legalize it. But in CA the people have voted multiple times to disallow it and courts have trampled all over that.

generalize much?

"WHat kind of right is a ban? " - talk about making no sense...

the rights that are unalienable are not up to a vote.

OK so you dont know what you are talking about.
Glad we cleared that up.
And gays have exactly the same rights to marriage as anyone else, last I checked. So the rights issue is a false one.

 

[The Rabbi]

If a ban on same sex marriage isn't in the Constitution, wouldn't that be a right "retained by the people"? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, nitwit.

WHat kind of right is a ban? Do you even know WTF you are talking about?
It is a power devolved to the states, and to the people. That means if people vote about it, that's it. Ihave no problem if the degenerates in MA want to legalize it. But in CA the people have voted multiple times to disallow it and courts have trampled all over that.

Equal protection and its enforcement hasn't devolved to the states. Snooping in peoples' bedroom windows is an invasion of privacy. No state should have that kind of control over its people. Why should anyone care what you have to say on the subject? State laws standing in the way of the people's freedom are no different than Jim Crow or Nuremburg laws.

WTF are you blabbering about? Snooping in people's bedrooms? Is this what you do in your spare time?
No one is standing in the way of your freedom to buttfuck your buddy.

 

[Dante]

black christians are equal to white christians were bigotry and hatred are concerned. they use the same bible to spout and justify hatred

 

[konradv]

WHat kind of right is a ban? Do you even know WTF you are talking about?
It is a power devolved to the states, and to the people. That means if people vote about it, that's it. Ihave no problem if the degenerates in MA want to legalize it. But in CA the people have voted multiple times to disallow it and courts have trampled all over that.

Equal protection and its enforcement hasn't devolved to the states. Snooping in peoples' bedroom windows is an invasion of privacy. No state should have that kind of control over its people. Why should anyone care what you have to say on the subject? State laws standing in the way of the people's freedom are no different than Jim Crow or Nuremburg laws.

WTF are you blabbering about? Snooping in people's bedrooms? Is this what you do in your spare time?
No one is standing in the way of your freedom to buttfuck your buddy.

You're standing in the schoolhouse door. You're walling people up in ghettos. I really don't see a difference. You're the one with the false reading of the legal situation. People have a right to marry the person of THEIR choice, not your choice. Marriage laws have been a favorite target of oppressors and busybody snoops through the ages.

Much much?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If a ban on same sex marriage isn't in the Constitution, wouldn't that be a right "retained by the people"? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, nitwit.

WHat kind of right is a ban? Do you even know WTF you are talking about?
It is a power devolved to the states, and to the people. That means if people vote about it, that's it. Ihave no problem if the degenerates in MA want to legalize it. But in CA the people have voted multiple times to disallow it and courts have trampled all over that.

Equal protection and its enforcement hasn't devolved to the states. Snooping in peoples' bedroom windows is an invasion of privacy. No state should have that kind of control over its people. Why should anyone care what you have to say on the subject? State laws standing in the way of the people's freedom are no different than Jim Crow or Nuremburg laws.

I agree that banning gay marriage is, in the same way as banning use of illicit substances, the government meddling in what, in and of itself, is a victimless crime. I feel that gay marriage -should- be as legally viable as heterosexual marriage. I also feel that polygamy should be legal.

Unfortunately, however, there is no definitive protection for gay marriage in the founding documents. The pursuit of happiness argument Dante posted could be construed to allow it (should be, in my opinion, along with, again, polygamy and smoking marijuana), but that's a pretty loose one. On top of that, I have a problem with Supreme Court justices finding wiggle room in the wording of said documents that, to me, outranks the need for this consideration. The equal rights amendment also doesn't come into play in this one because those criteria by which laws can't discriminate against people are specifically enumerated and don't include sexual preference.

 

[zuul]

This is not about the pursuit of happiness or equal rights, it is an argument about the definition and use of a word. No one is denying same sex couples the same rights, privileges or responsibilities enjoyed (?) by heterosexual couples when they marry. If I decide to call my dog a cat and show up at the cat fanciers club with a pit bull, some owners of "traditional" cats might be upset. If the new guy at the office says "my wife is making dinner, come over and bring the kids" some people feel they should have a reasonable expectation of the physical gender of the significant other, especially if children are involved. If you are proud of your sexual orientation, why would you want to deliberately cloud the physical gender of your partner in everyday conversation by using a word that most people associate with a heterosexual union? Make a new word and use it proudly. I suggest "glarriage". But then I suppose you cannot be happy unless you get to use the traditional word to describe a non-traditional situation.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

This is not about the pursuit of happiness or equal rights, it is an argument about the definition and use of a word. No one is denying same sex couples the same rights, privileges or responsibilities enjoyed (?) by heterosexual couples when they marry. If I decide to call my dog a cat and show up at the cat fanciers club with a pit bull, some owners of "traditional" cats might be upset. If the new guy at the office says "my wife is making dinner, come over and bring the kids" some people feel they should have a reasonable expectation of the physical gender of the significant other, especially if children are involved. If you are proud of your sexual orientation, why would you want to deliberately cloud the physical gender of your partner in everyday conversation by using a word that most people associate with a heterosexual union? Make a new word and use it proudly. I suggest "glarriage". But then I suppose you cannot be happy unless you get to use the traditional word to describe a non-traditional situation.

Family medical coverage for spouses of government employees. Married filing joint tax returns. There's more to it than the moniker by which we refer to the union. If the government hadn't stuck a hand elbow deep into the situation, this wouldn't be an issue at all. As it stands, any couple or combination of people can hire a religious/cult preacher to join them in a ceremony, but that doesn't make their union equal in the eyes of the law, and that has very real implications.

 

[Dante]

1) This is not about the pursuit of happiness or equal rights, it is an argument about the definition and use of a word.

2) No one is denying same sex couples the same rights, privileges or responsibilities enjoyed (?) by heterosexual couples when they marry.

If I decide to call my dog a cat and show up at the cat fanciers club with a pit bull, some owners of "traditional" cats might be upset. If the new guy at the office says "my wife is making dinner, come over and bring the kids" some people feel they should have a reasonable expectation of the physical gender of the significant other, especially if children are involved. If you are proud of your sexual orientation, why would you want to deliberately cloud the physical gender of your partner in everyday conversation by using a word that most people associate with a heterosexual union? Make a new word and use it proudly. I suggest "glarriage". But then I suppose you cannot be happy unless you get to use the traditional word to describe a non-traditional situation.

1) smoke screen. A marriage recognized by the state is a civil contract between two p-e-o-p-l-e. A marriage in a house of worship can be and more often than not, a union between a man and a woman (though that is slowly changing by choice).

When conservatives and religious people argue about the meaning of a word, you can bet it is about more than just a word.

2) You need to get out more often. Lots of religious conservatives want to keep gay unions from being accepted by society. They say so in court documents.

case closed - you're ignorant, stupid or worse.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

No one is preventing gay people from voting.

Besides, marriage isn't a civil liberty - hence it is a state issue.

 

[DaGoose]

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

How did that work out for Black (or African-Americans) again?

blahblahblah.
Is this all the ***-fans have? Who is the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage in CA? Yeah, black churches.

"***-fans"? Is that kinda like saying "negro-lovers"?

Like it or not gays will eventually have the same legal right to marry as straight people. It's just a matter of getting past the hate and ignorance. And it's happening as we speak.

For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.

For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage

Soooo.......It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Doesn't it just piss you off to know that, somewhere out there, despite how obviously correct your morals are, there's someone -still- allowed to do shit that you disapprove of? GRRRR!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Youre presuming a right exists to begin with.

"Man is born free and he is everywhere in chains" because of people like you.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Doesn't it just piss you off to know that, somewhere out there, despite how obviously correct your morals are, there's someone -still- allowed to do shit that you disapprove of? GRRRR!

That's the beauty of living in the United States, and there shouldn't (for the most part) be legislation supporting or suppressing either/or..