Idaho Republicans pass resolution urging Supreme Court to end marriage equality

[Zincwarrior]

It never ******* fails. Whenever the subject is about gays , it quickly devolves into something about child molestation . That is just plain stupid

Its also completely unrelated.

 

[martybegan]

Ninth Amendment.

That just means that the Constitution doesn't limit rights to the ones in the initial document, nor does it exclude other enumerated rights from being created at a later date.

It also allows the States to define rights in their Constitutions above and beyond those in the federal one.

Are you saying someone can just declare something a right and that it becomes a right?

"I declare my right to murder people"

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

It never ******* fails. Whenever the subject is about gays , it quickly devolves into something about child molestation . That is just plain stupid

.




Just like when the conversation is about religion, your side sends it toward pedo priests.








.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

That just means that the Constitution doesn't limit rights to the ones in the initial document, nor does it exclude other enumerated rights from being created at a later date.

It also allows the States to define rights in their Constitutions above and beyond those in the federal one.

Are you saying someone can just declare something a right and that it becomes a right?

"I declare my right to murder people"

.

I declare my right to take 50% of all money of leftist dems, as well as illegal aliens, either earned honestly or via entitlement or criminal activity.


.

 

[Robert W]

Idaho Republicans pass resolution urging Supreme Court to end marriage equality - LGBTQ Nation

I really have to ask…what the hell is wrong with these people ? Why can’t they just leave others alone to live their lives as they choose ? Same sex marriage has been the law of the land in all 50 states for nearly a decade. It has been legal in some states and in other countries for much longer. It’s really not much of an issue anymore . Married same sex couples inhabit nearly every community across the country. They have become part of the fabric of society. They own homes, have families, hold jobs, pay taxes , volunteer in their towns and are good neighbors. Most people don’t even notice them and those who do don’t care . They bother no one

I challenge these people to provide and evidence at all that same sex marriage has in any way been detrimental to society , or to them personally . There is absolutely no reason for them to seek to upend the lives of these people and take from them that which they can take for granted . The only explanation for this is the creeping scourge of Christian Nationalism that seeks to impose their distorted and cruel suede Christian beliefs and values on others .

Selected excerpts from the above link:

You enjoy the feel of a boner in the rectum. I see why you object to marriage defined as a man to a woman. But this is a historical law dating over 2000 years back.

I helped you in CA by voting for homosexuals to have a contract that handed them civil rights. We put it in the Constitution. But hell no your pals said, they were like women to their men. We don't accept that at all.

 

[Robert W]

It never ******* fails. Whenever the subject is about gays , it quickly devolves into something about child molestation . That is just plain stupid

When did homosexuals get gay? Why was it changed. Gay means happy. Your post sure is not happy.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Are you saying someone can just declare something a right and that it becomes a right?

"I declare my right to murder people"

No. I am not sayign that. I am saying our rights were not limited to those spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I see why you object to marriage defined as a man to a woman. But this is a historical law dating over 2000 years back.

David had multiple wives. In many societies you could, and indeed still can.
Personally, one is way more than I can handle.

Why is it the purview of the state in any way if they are consenting adults. What grant of power was given to them?

 

[Robert W]

Codswallop! Would you draw the same conclusion if the subject were interracial marriage ?

You switching it to men to women? Because what you tell us looks that way to me.

 

[martybegan]

No. I am not sayign that. I am saying our rights were not limited to those spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

What is protected by the federal government is limited by the constitution as amended.

Lets go with a less blatant one.

Is housing a right? if so does that mean people need to be housed even if they don't feel like paying for it?

 

[Robert W]

David had multiple wives. In many societies you could, and indeed still can.
Personally, one is way more than I can handle.

Why is it the purview of the state in any way if they are consenting adults. What grant of power was given to them?

Key, men women

 

[Zincwarrior]

Is housing a right? if so does that mean people need to be housed even if they don't feel like paying for it?

One can indeed make that argument. But lets stick with this discussion. What grant of authority gives Idaho the right to interfere with this contract. WHY?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Key, men women

It used to be illegal to marry interracially.

 

[martybegan]

One can indeed make that argument. But lets stick with this discussion. What grant of authority gives Idaho the right to interfere with this contract. WHY?

Because Idaho is the one creating the contract, it's a government provided contract.

Marriage licenses are a State thing, created by State laws.

 

[Robert W]

What is protected by the federal government is limited by the constitution as amended.

Lets go with a less blatant one.

Is housing a right? if so does that mean people need to be housed even if they don't feel like paying for it?

Marriage is not named in the constitution at all. If it was a right, as homosexuals say, wouldn't it have marriage licenses named? A license says in effect, until the Government approves it, no, you must not do it. Drivers licenses, fishing licenses, auto licenses... no, it is not a right when it must be licensed.

 

[Robert W]

It used to be illegal to marry interracially.

Not in all states.

United States

• Colonial era: Virginia and Maryland were the first to pass laws criminalizing interracial marriage and sexual relations.
  
  
• Deep South: The Deep South banned interracial marriage until 1967.
  
  
• California: California banned interracial marriage until 1948.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Not in all states.

United States

• Colonial era: Virginia and Maryland were the first to pass laws criminalizing interracial marriage and sexual relations.
  
  
• Deep South: The Deep South banned interracial marriage until 1967.
  
  
• California: California banned interracial marriage until 1948.

Thats my point.

 

[Robert W]

No. I am not sayign that. I am saying our rights were not limited to those spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

If it was in the constitution, that homosexuals could marry, why can't we find that? When states banned whites and blacks from marrying, most states did not have that law. Marriage could be a right if the state did not require it be licensed.

 

[initforme]

Holy shit, what?? That is a stupid idea that has been floated many times before, usually by those opposed to gay marriage and INCELS and want to throw the baby out with the bath water. No one has ever been able to explain how that would work in reality . And just where do you think that you would find sufficient political support?

Why do we need "marriage" in the first place?

 

[Zincwarrior]

If it was in the constitution, that homosexuals could marry, why can't we find that? When states banned whites and blacks from marrying, most states did not have that law. Marriage could be a right if the state did not require it be licensed.

Its not in the Constitution that anyone can marry, own property, not be a slave.