Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[JakeStarkey]

Says the bullshitter, Creepy Redfish.

Get over the shitter and get to work for Kasich, reactionar, and redeem yourself.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Bullshit, you are no more mainstream GOP than Stephenopoulous.

Says a typical Creepy American of the reactionary far right. Will you support Kasich over Cruz or Perry or Santorum or others of the reactionary ilk?

I have said several times that Kasich is my number one candidate.

As to "reactionary" I know you like that word, but like most of what you post, its bullshit.

You know Kasich is gay right?

 

[Redfish]

Says the bullshitter, Creepy Redfish.

Get over the shitter and get to work for Kasich, reactionar, and redeem yourself.

go **** yourself, you lying asshole.

 

[Redfish]

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

Bullshit, you are no more mainstream GOP than Stephenopoulous.

Says a typical Creepy American of the reactionary far right. Will you support Kasich over Cruz or Perry or Santorum or others of the reactionary ilk?

I have said several times that Kasich is my number one candidate.

As to "reactionary" I know you like that word, but like most of what you post, its bullshit.

You know Kasich is gay right?

So is Hillary, just think, the first lesbian president-------ain't that a wonderful thought?

 

[JakeStarkey]

HRC will not be president, and Kasich will know those on the far right who have been naughty and who have been nice.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Bullshit, you are no more mainstream GOP than Stephenopoulous.

Says a typical Creepy American of the reactionary far right. Will you support Kasich over Cruz or Perry or Santorum or others of the reactionary ilk?

I have said several times that Kasich is my number one candidate.

As to "reactionary" I know you like that word, but like most of what you post, its bullshit.

You know Kasich is gay right?

So is Hillary, just think, the first lesbian president-------ain't that a wonderful thought?

No pics didn't happen.

 

[beagle9]

Back to the playground for you, huh?

I'll type slower since you can't keep up. We never had gay government marriage, which is what you were talking about. You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage. I mean duh.

The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Bullshit, you are no more mainstream GOP than Stephenopoulous.

Says a typical Creepy American of the reactionary far right. Will you support Kasich over Cruz or Perry or Santorum or others of the reactionary ilk?

I have said several times that Kasich is my number one candidate.

As to "reactionary" I know you like that word, but like most of what you post, its bullshit.

Wrong.

The word is being used appropriately and accurately, it precisely describes you and others on the social right hostile to change, diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty:

reactionary

of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.

Reactionary Define Reactionary at Dictionary.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?

Immaterial question from a far right reactionary drone. Try again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

WHO NEVER HAD LIBERTY? What drugs are you on?

Back to the playground for you, huh?

I'll type slower since you can't keep up. We never had gay government marriage, which is what you were talking about. You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage. I mean duh.

The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

Gay Americans do have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law; where to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

When the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the Constitution, gay Americans had no other recourse than to seek relief in Federal court, particularly in cases where such measures were amendments to states' constitutions.

Consequently, the states have only themselves to blame for their measures hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans being invalidated; had the states simply obeyed the 14th Amendment and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, there would be no need to get the courts involved.

 

[kaz]

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

Gay Americans do have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law; where to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

When the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the Constitution, gay Americans had no other recourse than to seek relief in Federal court, particularly in cases where such measures were amendments to states' constitutions.

Consequently, the states have only themselves to blame for their measures hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans being invalidated; had the states simply obeyed the 14th Amendment and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, there would be no need to get the courts involved.

Name someone you would not be able to marry if you were gay that you can't now or vice versa

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?

A better term would be inalienable right as opposed to 'natural'; an inalienable right can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

In the case of gay Americans, it concerns the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where the states may not seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law predicated solely on who gay Americans are.

Another fundamental, inalienable right is that of choice, where the substantive component of the 14th Amendment prohibits the state from denying citizens their right to make personal, private decisions with regard to the conduct of one's life: whom to love or marry, whether to have a child or not, and decisions pertaining to how to raise one's child – these and other like matters are immune from attack by the state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

Gay Americans do have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law; where to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

When the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the Constitution, gay Americans had no other recourse than to seek relief in Federal court, particularly in cases where such measures were amendments to states' constitutions.

Consequently, the states have only themselves to blame for their measures hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans being invalidated; had the states simply obeyed the 14th Amendment and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, there would be no need to get the courts involved.

Name someone you would not be able to marry if you were gay that you can't now or vice versa

An immaterial question. Move along.

 

[kaz]

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?

A better term would be inalienable right as opposed to 'natural'; an inalienable right can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

In the case of gay Americans, it concerns the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where the states may not seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law predicated solely on who gay Americans are.

Another fundamental, inalienable right is that of choice, where the substantive component of the 14th Amendment prohibits the state from denying citizens their right to make personal, private decisions with regard to the conduct of one's life: whom to love or marry, whether to have a child or not, and decisions pertaining to how to raise one's child – these and other like matters are immune from attack by the state.

When government is based on negative rights, that is true. Negative rights do not infringe on other's rights.

But you are advocating positive rights. To call that "choice" is retarded, you are advocating one's rights over another. To refer to that as "rights" at all is an oxymoron

 

[Lilah]

It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?

A better term would be inalienable right as opposed to 'natural'; an inalienable right can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

In the case of gay Americans, it concerns the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where the states may not seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law predicated solely on who gay Americans are.

Another fundamental, inalienable right is that of choice, where the substantive component of the 14th Amendment prohibits the state from denying citizens their right to make personal, private decisions with regard to the conduct of one's life: whom to love or marry, whether to have a child or not, and decisions pertaining to how to raise one's child – these and other like matters are immune from attack by the state.

When government is based on negative rights, that is true. Negative rights do not infringe on other's rights.

But you are advocating positive rights. To call that "choice" is retarded, you are advocating one's rights over another. To refer to that as "rights" at all is an oxymoron

Negative rights vs. positive rights--would you provide examples, s'il vous plait.

 

[kaz]

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?

A better term would be inalienable right as opposed to 'natural'; an inalienable right can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

In the case of gay Americans, it concerns the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where the states may not seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law predicated solely on who gay Americans are.

Another fundamental, inalienable right is that of choice, where the substantive component of the 14th Amendment prohibits the state from denying citizens their right to make personal, private decisions with regard to the conduct of one's life: whom to love or marry, whether to have a child or not, and decisions pertaining to how to raise one's child – these and other like matters are immune from attack by the state.

When government is based on negative rights, that is true. Negative rights do not infringe on other's rights.

But you are advocating positive rights. To call that "choice" is retarded, you are advocating one's rights over another. To refer to that as "rights" at all is an oxymoron

Negative rights vs. positive rights--would you provide examples, s'il vous plait.

You know you're on the internet

Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Negative rights are the right to be left alone. Free speech, protection from someone breaking into your house, ...

Positive rights are the so called right to demand things from others. The right to housing, healthcare, paper saying you are married to someone, the right to force someone to bake you a cake...

Negative rights are applied to all equally, we all have the right to be left alone from others.

Not so with positive rights. Positive rights infringe on the rights of others, by definition. So a system of positive rights is a system where one group of citizens screw another. You know, like the Democratic party constantly demands

 

[JakeStarkey]

Two words for Kaz: constitutional nonsense.

 

[Lilah]

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?

A better term would be inalienable right as opposed to 'natural'; an inalienable right can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

In the case of gay Americans, it concerns the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where the states may not seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law predicated solely on who gay Americans are.

Another fundamental, inalienable right is that of choice, where the substantive component of the 14th Amendment prohibits the state from denying citizens their right to make personal, private decisions with regard to the conduct of one's life: whom to love or marry, whether to have a child or not, and decisions pertaining to how to raise one's child – these and other like matters are immune from attack by the state.

When government is based on negative rights, that is true. Negative rights do not infringe on other's rights.

But you are advocating positive rights. To call that "choice" is retarded, you are advocating one's rights over another. To refer to that as "rights" at all is an oxymoron

Negative rights vs. positive rights--would you provide examples, s'il vous plait.

You know you're on the internet

Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Negative rights are the right to be left alone. Free speech, protection from someone breaking into your house, ...

Positive rights are the so called right to demand things from others. The right to housing, healthcare, paper saying you are married to someone, the right to force someone to bake you a cake...

Negative rights are applied to all equally, we all have the right to be left alone from others.

Not so with positive rights. Positive rights infringe on the rights of others, by definition. So a system of positive rights is a system where one group of citizens screw another. You know, like the Democratic party constantly demands

OMG! " we all have the right to be left alone from others."
So the kid who doesn't want to attend school has the right to be left alone? And babies do not have the right to proper housing or healthcare?

 

[Syriusly]

The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

What is a natural right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?

Read Lawrence v. Texas.

 

[kaz]

OMG! " we all have the right to be left alone from others."
So the kid who doesn't want to attend school has the right to be left alone?

That sounded good to you?

And babies do not have the right to proper housing or healthcare?

Are you eight?