Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Skylar]

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage- yet marriage is a constitutional right.

You know this- because the court decisions have been pointed out to you again and again- but you choose to pretend they don't exist(or like Kaz pretend that the courts don't matter).

The decision before the Supreme Court right now is whether or not that constitutional right applies to gay couples just as it applies to straight couples.

What you are relying on is an "interpretation" of the constitution by a few left wing judges with an agenda.

If you really want this settled, you need a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states saying that marriage consists of two unrelated people who are above the age of majority. Get that and its over.

Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?

LOL.....I love how wingnuts like you always call judges that disagree with you 'left wing judges with agenda's'...while applauding when you agree with them.

The issue is before the Supreme Court- just as marriage rights have been before the Supreme Court at least 3 other times.

And just like in Zablocki- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so fathers who owe child support can still enjoy their constitutional right to marry. And just like in Loving- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so that a mixed race couple can enjoy their constitutional right to marry.

The courts are here to protect all of our constitutional rights- not just the ones you approve of, for people you approve of.

LOL, thats really funny, you post a bunch of bullshit about courts protecting rights, but you limit it to rights that YOU approve of. You are a hypocrit of the highest degree

Show me where I have called the courts 'activists' just because I disagree with their rulings and we can talk. I think that the court was wrong in Citizen's United- but I don't therefore call the court 'right wing judges with an agenda' like you wingnuts on the far right do to judges you disagree with.

You are fine with judges when they rule how you want them to rule- and you call them tyrants when they don't- pure hypocrites.

lower court judges who make unconstitutional rulings will be overturned by the next higher court.

Are you really so naive that you think some federal court districts do not lean left?

44 out of 46 times? Really?

 

[bodecea]

April 29- May 20- we are closing in on a month since Redfish announced that people are wasting their time talking about gay marriage and that he was done......2473 posts later....he is still whining about gay marriage.

Yep. How can one take him seriously when he lies so blatantly (or else can't control himself and his own postings)

 

[Seawytch]

Blacks were treated exactly the same as whites- blacks could marry marry ]anyone that they wanted- so long as they were black

So they were the same, but completely different, great argument. Not.

Being black changed who they could marry for every black.

Being gay changes who you can marry for ... no one ...

Fail

It changes what gender you want to marry. Gays don't want to marry someone of the opposite gender, just like Mildred Loving did not want to marry a black person of the opposite gender.

Your willingness to try to justify an anti gay position is telling. That and using pejoratives for gays.

 

[Redfish]

Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?

Did we need a Constitutional amendment to allow blacks to marry whites?

Blacks were treated differently under the law than whites. Gays were treated exactly like straights, so there is no comparison

Wrong.

Blacks were treated exactly the same as whites- blacks could marry marry anyone that they wanted- so long as they were black. Whites could marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were white.

Just as men can marry anyone that we want- as long as they are women. And women can marry anyone that they want- as long as they are men.

There was no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on mixed race marriages, and there is no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on same gender marriages.

race and gayness are not the same thing. a mixed race man/woman marriage is not the same legally or biologically as a man/man or woman/woman marriage.

I know you guys want it to be so, but its not.

Of course you didn't actually respond to my post

The claim was made that blacks were being treated differently than whites with mixed race marriage bans

Wrong.

Blacks were treated exactly the same as whites- blacks could marry marry anyone that they wanted- so long as they were black. Whites could marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were white.

Just as men can marry anyone that we want- as long as they are women. And women can marry anyone that they want- as long as they are men.

There was no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on mixed race marriages, and there is no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on same gender marriages.

I did reply, when the topic is marriage, race and sex are not the same thing, legally or biologically

 

[Redfish]

This thread and issue is indeed the biggest and most important event in Redfish's life.

43 of 46 federal judges agree on Marriage Equality, and SCOTUS will agree next month. The last five state elections agree on Marriage Equality should be the law. The American citizenry in a solid majority want it. The millennials, the largest voting block next year, overwhelmingly want it.

An amendment is not required. No one has ever given a compelling reason why it should be offered.

We also get your new PC buzzwords-------"marriage equality" instead of "gay marriage". Everyone gets it, your new name is fooling no one..

'Marriage Equality" has been the term used since the beginning.

Regardless of how the court rules next month, I will accept the ruling as legal, and I will not be calling the Justices 'black robed tyrants' or similar pejoratives.

What about you?

Yep, I have said many times that I would accept the ruling of the SC. But I do not believe that you will if it goes against you.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish now acts stubbornly and smarmily as his points go down in defeat one after another.

nothing posted by you are any of your buddies on this topic has defeated one basic premise. In a free society we are free to believe whatever we want to believe, practice whatever religion we want to practice, and state our views openly.

the problem that you lefties have is that you want to curtail the freedom of anyone who does not share your views and call them bigots or homophobes for not accepting your view of humanity, biology, and civilization.

YOU are the bigots.

 

[Redfish]

What you are relying on is an "interpretation" of the constitution by a few left wing judges with an agenda.

If you really want this settled, you need a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states saying that marriage consists of two unrelated people who are above the age of majority. Get that and its over.

Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?

LOL.....I love how wingnuts like you always call judges that disagree with you 'left wing judges with agenda's'...while applauding when you agree with them.

The issue is before the Supreme Court- just as marriage rights have been before the Supreme Court at least 3 other times.

And just like in Zablocki- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so fathers who owe child support can still enjoy their constitutional right to marry. And just like in Loving- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so that a mixed race couple can enjoy their constitutional right to marry.

The courts are here to protect all of our constitutional rights- not just the ones you approve of, for people you approve of.

LOL, thats really funny, you post a bunch of bullshit about courts protecting rights, but you limit it to rights that YOU approve of. You are a hypocrit of the highest degree

Show me where I have called the courts 'activists' just because I disagree with their rulings and we can talk. I think that the court was wrong in Citizen's United- but I don't therefore call the court 'right wing judges with an agenda' like you wingnuts on the far right do to judges you disagree with.

You are fine with judges when they rule how you want them to rule- and you call them tyrants when they don't- pure hypocrites.

lower court judges who make unconstitutional rulings will be overturned by the next higher court.

Are you really so naive that you think some federal court districts do not lean left?

44 out of 46 times? Really?

prove it

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, Redfish, any of your requests for common knowledge info (such as the judges above) will not get an answer because you don't deserve it.

Two, Redfish, everyone of your points has been refuted.

If this is the most important issue in your life, your life has been truncated emotionally.

People insisting on their rights are never bigots, while people like you trying to deny those rights are bigots.

 

[Syriusly]

Did we need a Constitutional amendment to allow blacks to marry whites?

Blacks were treated differently under the law than whites. Gays were treated exactly like straights, so there is no comparison

Wrong.

Blacks were treated exactly the same as whites- blacks could marry marry anyone that they wanted- so long as they were black. Whites could marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were white.

Just as men can marry anyone that we want- as long as they are women. And women can marry anyone that they want- as long as they are men.

There was no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on mixed race marriages, and there is no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on same gender marriages.

race and gayness are not the same thing. a mixed race man/woman marriage is not the same legally or biologically as a man/man or woman/woman marriage.

I know you guys want it to be so, but its not.

Of course you didn't actually respond to my post

The claim was made that blacks were being treated differently than whites with mixed race marriage bans

Wrong.

Blacks were treated exactly the same as whites- blacks could marry marry anyone that they wanted- so long as they were black. Whites could marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were white.

Just as men can marry anyone that we want- as long as they are women. And women can marry anyone that they want- as long as they are men.

There was no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on mixed race marriages, and there is no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on same gender marriages.

I did reply, when the topic is marriage, race and sex are not the same thing, legally or biologically

Discrimination however is.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage bans three times- and just like in this case- none of those required a Constitutional Amendment to ensure the Constitutional rights of Americans.

 

[Syriusly]

Redfish now acts stubbornly and smarmily as his points go down in defeat one after another.

nothing posted by you are any of your buddies on this topic has defeated one basic premise. In a free society we are free to believe whatever we want to believe, practice whatever religion we want to practice, and state our views openly.

the problem that you lefties have is that you want to curtail the freedom of anyone who does not share your views and call them bigots or homophobes for not accepting your view of humanity, biology, and civilization.

YOU are the bigots.

You apparently mistake 'freedom of speech' with 'freedom from criticism' or 'freedom from consequences'

No one is saying you should be put in jail for being a stupid bigot like you are.

We are however pointing out that you are a stupid bigot.

 

[Syriusly]

This thread and issue is indeed the biggest and most important event in Redfish's life.

43 of 46 federal judges agree on Marriage Equality, and SCOTUS will agree next month. The last five state elections agree on Marriage Equality should be the law. The American citizenry in a solid majority want it. The millennials, the largest voting block next year, overwhelmingly want it.

An amendment is not required. No one has ever given a compelling reason why it should be offered.

We also get your new PC buzzwords-------"marriage equality" instead of "gay marriage". Everyone gets it, your new name is fooling no one..

'Marriage Equality" has been the term used since the beginning.

Regardless of how the court rules next month, I will accept the ruling as legal, and I will not be calling the Justices 'black robed tyrants' or similar pejoratives.

What about you?

Yep, I have said many times that I would accept the ruling of the SC. But I do not believe that you will if it goes against you.

Lets compare in June.

Mind you- I have no problem if you complain or whine because you disagree with the conclusion- only if you attack the court for their decision.

 

[Redfish]

This thread and issue is indeed the biggest and most important event in Redfish's life.

43 of 46 federal judges agree on Marriage Equality, and SCOTUS will agree next month. The last five state elections agree on Marriage Equality should be the law. The American citizenry in a solid majority want it. The millennials, the largest voting block next year, overwhelmingly want it.

An amendment is not required. No one has ever given a compelling reason why it should be offered.

We also get your new PC buzzwords-------"marriage equality" instead of "gay marriage". Everyone gets it, your new name is fooling no one..

'Marriage Equality" has been the term used since the beginning.

Regardless of how the court rules next month, I will accept the ruling as legal, and I will not be calling the Justices 'black robed tyrants' or similar pejoratives.

What about you?

Yep, I have said many times that I would accept the ruling of the SC. But I do not believe that you will if it goes against you.

Lets compare in June.

Mind you- I have no problem if you complain or whine because you disagree with the conclusion- only if you attack the court for their decision.

and the left won't attack the court if they lose???????????? don't be ridiculous.

 

[Syriusly]

This thread and issue is indeed the biggest and most important event in Redfish's life.

43 of 46 federal judges agree on Marriage Equality, and SCOTUS will agree next month. The last five state elections agree on Marriage Equality should be the law. The American citizenry in a solid majority want it. The millennials, the largest voting block next year, overwhelmingly want it.

An amendment is not required. No one has ever given a compelling reason why it should be offered.

We also get your new PC buzzwords-------"marriage equality" instead of "gay marriage". Everyone gets it, your new name is fooling no one..

'Marriage Equality" has been the term used since the beginning.

Regardless of how the court rules next month, I will accept the ruling as legal, and I will not be calling the Justices 'black robed tyrants' or similar pejoratives.

What about you?

Yep, I have said many times that I would accept the ruling of the SC. But I do not believe that you will if it goes against you.

Lets compare in June.

Mind you- I have no problem if you complain or whine because you disagree with the conclusion- only if you attack the court for their decision.

and the left won't attack the court if they lose???????????? don't be ridiculous.

I can't speak for anyone other than myself- I won't.

But I would be surprised if anyone uses any term similar to 'black robed dictators'- that seems to be exclusive to the far right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone using the term 'black robed dictators' is excoriate SCOTUS is dolt, a Creepy American, nothing more.

 

[Redfish]

Anyone using the term 'black robed dictators' is excoriate SCOTUS is dolt, a Creepy American, nothing more.

no one has used that term except those of you on the left. but carry on, idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you on the far right are Creepy Americans, as described by those like me, a solid member of the mainstream GOP.

 

[thanatos144]

If you didn't think homosexualism wasn't perverted why did you have to make sure you told me you were hetro?

Yes or no, dumb ass, is being heterosexual perverted in your dumb ass eyes?

Or course it isn't perverted. It is how the human race survives.....Are you normally so retarded?

You called me perverted... I'm just clarifying why it is that you think I'm perverted.

Hey you are the one demanding people see marriage between you and your boyfriend as normal....Not I.

I'll repeat. I'm not gay. I have no "boyfriends." Further, I've never "demanded" anyone see anyone's marriage as normal. Let alone "demanded" that anyone see gay marriage as normal.

To summarize, you are nothing but a piece of shit liar.

What do you think you are doing when you demand that a community acknowledge what they see as sin? The only lying shit here is you.

 

[thanatos144]

you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used. Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

Who told you you have a right to get married?????????

It is a natural right and purely private act; I don't need permission to get married.

Who the **** said you did need permission???? I just wont recognize your perversion as normal or valid..

I really don't care whether your refuse to recognize homosexuals or blacks or Jews or Germans as normal or valid.

No one cares.

Just so long as you don't deny Americans their rights and treat them legally equally, you can hold whatever perverted point of view you want.

Stop trying to lump perverted homosexuals with blacks and Jews! Homosexual life is a CHOSEN ONE being a Jew or black is not and it is a insult to their struggle to be associated with perverts!

 

[Seawytch]

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

Who told you you have a right to get married?????????

It is a natural right and purely private act; I don't need permission to get married.

Who the **** said you did need permission???? I just wont recognize your perversion as normal or valid..

I really don't care whether your refuse to recognize homosexuals or blacks or Jews or Germans as normal or valid.

No one cares.

Just so long as you don't deny Americans their rights and treat them legally equally, you can hold whatever perverted point of view you want.

Stop trying to lump perverted homosexuals with blacks and Jews! Homosexual life is a CHOSEN ONE being a Jew or black is not and it is a insult to their struggle to be associated with perverts!

Religion, like Judaism, is chosen, numbskull.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes or no, dumb ass, is being heterosexual perverted in your dumb ass eyes?

Or course it isn't perverted. It is how the human race survives.....Are you normally so retarded?

You called me perverted... I'm just clarifying why it is that you think I'm perverted.

Hey you are the one demanding people see marriage between you and your boyfriend as normal....Not I.

I'll repeat. I'm not gay. I have no "boyfriends." Further, I've never "demanded" anyone see anyone's marriage as normal. Let alone "demanded" that anyone see gay marriage as normal.

To summarize, you are nothing but a piece of shit liar.

What do you think you are doing when you demand that a community acknowledge what they see as sin? The only lying shit here is you.

NO ONE IS DEMANDING A COMMUNITY ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THEY SEE AS SIN. Your strawman is a joke.