Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

[antagon]

Of course she does not. No one with her legal training does.
Marriage is a state's issue.

So then a state can either have a legal contract called 'marriage' or not.

Now the matter becomes one of discrimination in issuing and recognizing that contract based on race, gender, etc. SCOTUS already established precedent by specifically addressing such discrimination in Loving v. Virginia.

Hi, you have received -141 reputation points from RetiredGySgt.
Reputation was given for this post.

I guess RGS is all for discrimination

what paradox. i always thought neg-repping was gay. this adds a lot of credibility to the homophobia simplex. dont ask dont tell, huh, sarge?

 

[bodecea]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...



peace...

So is she gay or not? The righty's seem to really care yet, we have this thread.

It's a secret meeting place for all the closet cases to come to and LOUDLY proclaim their aversion to homosexuality....while safely talking about homosexuality.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Oh So we're citin' LAW?

Well Homosexuality is Sodomy...

....And, if that's what two, consenting ADULTS decide to pursue, how does that impact you??

Why... it's the LAW!

And as per Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia an unconstitutional law as such a law is a clear deprivation of liberty.

NAMBLA is to homosexuals as Roman Polanski and other numerous heterosexual individuals that have sex with children are to heterosexuals. Also, ive never met a homosexual who supports NAMBLA or any of its goals.

 

[NYcarbineer]

None that I know of... Why do you ask?

Because you said it.

Nope...

I said that where NATURE intends to reduce the population Homosexuality is promoted...

Surely you're not arguing that Homosexuality has an effect on population which is something other than reduction?

If ya do, please take the time to PM the Gunny and let him know... I'm sure that he'll be happy to explain it to ya.

Where does 'nature' promote homosexuality in order to reduce the population?

Since many people believe God is nature, are you saying that homosexuality is an act of God designed to keep the human species from the harm of overpopulation?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So then a state can either have a legal contract called 'marriage' or not.

Now the matter becomes one of discrimination in issuing and recognizing that contract based on race, gender, etc. SCOTUS already established precedent by specifically addressing such discrimination in Loving v. Virginia.

Hi, you have received -141 reputation points from RetiredGySgt.
Reputation was given for this post.

I guess RGS is all for discrimination

what paradox. i always thought neg-repping was gay. this adds a lot of credibility to the homophobia simplex. dont ask dont tell, huh, sarge?

All repping is ghey. I only do it if someone lies about what I said, or calls me a liar when I told the truth.

 

[Gadawg73]

that reasoning need only support the contention that the heterosexual definition of marriage is not necessarily malicious.

You yourself said they said nothing of maliciousness, but of procreation.

Can't follow your own claims?

keep it real.

the argument is about precluding application of the loving decision, which the hernandez argued impinged on the intent of the definition - malicious intent or non-malicious. my term is malicious; the hernandez said something like 'bigoted, ignorant'.

at any rate, the quote applies to the application of loving, not gay rights directly, as you'd stretched it.

let's see if, with concern for reality, this issue entails mutual exclusivity of a prenup and a marriage license:

a marriage license and a marriage contract are not the same thing.

you need a license to have a state-recognized marriage.

you dont need a contract to have a state-recognized marriage.

you dont need to have a license to sign a contract.

you certainly dont need a contract to pull a license

i put reduction of the issue of marriage licenses to some kind of contract issue on par with my suicide metaphor with regard to honesty...

It is not a legal document? It does not bind two parties to terms of an agreement to be enforced by the courts should either party violate its terms?

a non sequitur to the issue of definitions in marriage licenses by way of contracts and marriage licenses being mutually exclusive in my reality described above.

why not just elect a politician who'd change the definition in the state?

When you get a marriage license you GRANT the State total JURISDICITON over your marriage.
If that ain't a contract brother nothing is.

 

[antagon]

You yourself said they said nothing of maliciousness, but of procreation.

Can't follow your own claims?

keep it real.

the argument is about precluding application of the loving decision, which the hernandez argued impinged on the intent of the definition - malicious intent or non-malicious. my term is malicious; the hernandez said something like 'bigoted, ignorant'.

at any rate, the quote applies to the application of loving, not gay rights directly, as you'd stretched it.

let's see if, with concern for reality, this issue entails mutual exclusivity of a prenup and a marriage license:

a marriage license and a marriage contract are not the same thing.

you need a license to have a state-recognized marriage.

you dont need a contract to have a state-recognized marriage.

you dont need to have a license to sign a contract.

you certainly dont need a contract to pull a license

It is not a legal document? It does not bind two parties to terms of an agreement to be enforced by the courts should either party violate its terms?

a non sequitur to the issue of definitions in marriage licenses by way of contracts and marriage licenses being mutually exclusive in my reality described above.

why not just elect a politician who'd change the definition in the state?

When you get a marriage license you GRANT the State total JURISDICITON over your marriage.
If that ain't a contract brother nothing is.

if this contract garbage isn't the thinnest, shittiest argument...

lets say your size 6 left shoe contract fits the size 10 right foot license: there cant be stipulations as to who qualifies to enter this contract? no provisions for age or incest, either?

how far will you go to argue for the circumvention of a decidedly democratic process? the recourse is to cultivate and elect politicians at the state local level to issue licenses for for gays by way of changing the definition. the licenses could leverage federal rights cases or political action to affect the same for the purposes of tax or immigration, by way of the standing they endow.

while you make arguments that seem effective in your head, they dont stick up in reality. this is not a shoe-in issue, constitutionally.

 

[JBeukema]

lets say your size 6 left shoe contract fits the size 10 right foot license: there cant be stipulations as to who qualifies to enter this contract? no provisions for age or incest, either?

How far will you go to argue for the circumvention of a decidedly democratic process?

Could you please try forming coherent sentences?

Antagon should try going through a one-sided dissolution (divorce) to see just how the State treats the marriage contract.

 

[antagon]

lets say your size 6 left shoe contract fits the size 10 right foot license: there cant be stipulations as to who qualifies to enter this contract? no provisions for age or incest, either?

How far will you go to argue for the circumvention of a decidedly democratic process?

Could you please try forming coherent sentences?

Antagon should try going through a one-sided dissolution (divorce) to see just how the State treats the marriage contract.

think e e cummings, JB. but im no poet. instead, i could give a shit.

is that a flag of surrender you're waving on the contract == license thing? the ol' grammar nazi surrender flag?

i've seen some lame divorces, and i wouldn't wish that on anyone, but im not sure how that would enhance your argument.

JB should try viewing a marriage license before leaping to conclude its anything like a contract in and of itself. like any license it aims to assess qualifications and grant release to engage in its aim. where it applies to marriage, it stipulates that close family, lil kids, non-consenting individuals, currently married folks and same-sex individuals fail to qualify... sometimes.

don't you have anything else with tighter grips on credibility than bending semantics? no thoughts on smelt or perry v guhvuhn8uh which presented real arguments?

 

[Gadawg73]

lets say your size 6 left shoe contract fits the size 10 right foot license: there cant be stipulations as to who qualifies to enter this contract? no provisions for age or incest, either?

How far will you go to argue for the circumvention of a decidedly democratic process?

Could you please try forming coherent sentences?

Antagon should try going through a one-sided dissolution (divorce) to see just how the State treats the marriage contract.

think e e cummings, JB. but im no poet. instead, i could give a shit.

is that a flag of surrender you're waving on the contract == license thing? the ol' grammar nazi surrender flag?

i've seen some lame divorces, and i wouldn't wish that on anyone, but im not sure how that would enhance your argument.

JB should try viewing a marriage license before leaping to conclude its anything like a contract in and of itself. like any license it aims to assess qualifications and grant release to engage in its aim. where it applies to marriage, it stipulates that close family, lil kids, non-consenting individuals, currently married folks and same-sex individuals fail to qualify... sometimes.

don't you have anything else with tighter grips on credibility than bending semantics? no thoughts on smelt or perry v guhvuhn8uh which presented real arguments?

Sorry fella but I just do not follow any of your arguments.
I would like for you to roll me one out of your bag.

 

[JBeukema]

perry v guhvuhn8uh

guhvuhn8uh?

Clearly, I was mistaken in thinking you could discuss the matter like an adult.

Dismissed.

 

[antagon]

thanks for playin' guys.

its in the mail, gadawg.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Because you said it.

Nope...

I said that where NATURE intends to reduce the population Homosexuality is promoted...

Surely you're not arguing that Homosexuality has an effect on population which is something other than reduction?

If ya do, please take the time to PM the Gunny and let him know... I'm sure that he'll be happy to explain it to ya.

Where does 'nature' promote homosexuality in order to reduce the population?

Where ever Homosexuality exists... the simple fact is that the increase in population has never been increased through a promotion of homosexuality...

If you weren't an absolute idiot, you'd be up to speed on this... HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT PROCREATE: DUMBASS...

Since many people believe God is nature, are you saying that homosexuality is an act of God designed to keep the human species from the harm of overpopulation?

I am one of those people... and No... I am saying that God is slapping the individual homosexual out of the gene pool.

Meaning that it's personal... where there exists a homosexual; that that is GOD, declaring that individual queer is UNWORTHY of life and that the respective ***'s genetic lineage is being round-filed, in finality; with the collest part being that THEY'RE GIVEN A CHOICE... and they are CHOOSING to pull their lineage.

ROFL... it's hysterical when ya think about it...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You yourself said they said nothing of maliciousness, but of procreation.

Can't follow your own claims?

keep it real.

the argument is about precluding application of the loving decision, which the hernandez argued impinged on the intent of the definition - malicious intent or non-malicious. my term is malicious; the hernandez said something like 'bigoted, ignorant'.

at any rate, the quote applies to the application of loving, not gay rights directly, as you'd stretched it.

let's see if, with concern for reality, this issue entails mutual exclusivity of a prenup and a marriage license:

a marriage license and a marriage contract are not the same thing.

you need a license to have a state-recognized marriage.

you dont need a contract to have a state-recognized marriage.

you dont need to have a license to sign a contract.

you certainly dont need a contract to pull a license

It is not a legal document? It does not bind two parties to terms of an agreement to be enforced by the courts should either party violate its terms?

a non sequitur to the issue of definitions in marriage licenses by way of contracts and marriage licenses being mutually exclusive in my reality described above.

why not just elect a politician who'd change the definition in the state?

When you get a marriage license you GRANT the State total JURISDICITON over your marriage.

LOL... FALSE!

I've been married for 30 years and I've never granted the state jurisdition over anything...
If that ain't a contract brother nothing is.[/quote]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope...

I said that where NATURE intends to reduce the population Homosexuality is promoted...

Surely you're not arguing that Homosexuality has an effect on population which is something other than reduction?

If ya do, please take the time to PM the Gunny and let him know... I'm sure that he'll be happy to explain it to ya.

Where does 'nature' promote homosexuality in order to reduce the population?

Where ever Homosexuality exists... the simple fact is that the increase in population has never been increased through a promotion of homosexuality...

If you weren't an absolute idiot, you'd be up to speed on this... HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT PROCREATE: DUMBASS...

Since many people believe God is nature, are you saying that homosexuality is an act of God designed to keep the human species from the harm of overpopulation?

I am one of those people... and No... I am saying that God is slapping the individual homosexual out of the gene pool.

Meaning that it's personal... where there exists a homosexual; that that is GOD, declaring that individual queer is UNWORTHY of life and that the respective ***'s genetic lineage is being round-filed, in finality; with the collest part being that THEY'RE GIVEN A CHOICE... and they are CHOOSING to pull their lineage.

ROFL... it's hysterical when ya think about it...

You're profoundly stupid. But you and I have one thing in common,

neither of us has any clue what you're talking about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

None that I know of... Why do you ask?

Because you said it.

Nope...

I said that where NATURE intends to reduce the population Homosexuality is promoted...

Surely you're not arguing that Homosexuality has an effect on population which is something other than reduction?

If ya do, please take the time to PM the Gunny and let him know... I'm sure that he'll be happy to explain it to ya.

The human population has been increasing steadily for thousands and thousands of years, with a constant percentage of homosexuals within that population that for the most part have neither been reproducing OR marrying.

How, exactly is allowing those people to marry going to have any effect whatsoever on population growth, since they aren't reproducing anyway?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
I am one of those people... and No... I am saying that God is slapping the individual homosexual out of the gene pool.

Meaning that it's personal... where there exists a homosexual; that that is GOD, declaring that individual queer is UNWORTHY of life and that the respective ***'s genetic lineage is being round-filed, in finality; with the collest part being that THEY'RE GIVEN A CHOICE... and they are CHOOSING to pull their lineage.

ROFL... it's hysterical when ya think about it...

Who the **** cares about their 'lineage'? You? Newsflash: you'll be dead. it won't matter who you 'sired'.