Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Skylar]

No state is going to get away with not sanctioning any marriages as we have been trying to drive home to you.

You can keep trying to drive it home. We're going to stop State sanctioning of marriage.

No, you're not. The State of Alabama still recognizes marriage under the new law. All Alabama is doing is eliminating the licensing portion. They aren't eliminating ANY of their statutes regarding marriage, child support, benefits, divorce, property, or anything else.

And any changes they make to marriage apply to both straights and gays. Regardless of what Alabama calls marriage.....they can't prevent gays from entering into it. Nor can they refuse to recognize marriages performed in any other state, straight or gay.

You're once again arguing what you think the Obergefell ruling 'shoulda' said. And ignoring what it actually does say. And this is why your predictions of legal outcomes are always wrong.

As no one gives a shit what you think the ruling 'oughta' say.

Then we will see if you can force states to sponsor your sexual behavior. I'm betting we see they don't have to. In the meantime, we are all entertained by your bombastic opinions but you haven't backed anything up with the Constitution.

The USSC has already answered the question you think you're posing them with this terminology change.

"The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex."

Obergefell v. Hodges

Call marriage whatever you like. License, contract, compact, agreement, it doesn't matter. If straight couples can enter into it....so can same sex couples. The same terms apply for both.

You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore it. Which is gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any case.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And you're more than welcome to your personal opinion. It still has nothing to do with the law.

As all the same sex couples getting married in every state demonstrate elegantly.

My post had EVERYTHING to do with the law, its limits and what it means when the SCOTUS redefines words to get the opinion it wants to give rather than being limited by the actual words of the law itself.

In what way do laws guide or limit the courts of our nation if they can just redefine the necessary words to mean whatever in the **** they want?

How can we be a 'nation of laws' if the courts can just pull shit out of their ass and call it law as they apparently can do now?

 

[sealybobo]

Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.

What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?" What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise! What kind of drugs are you smoking these days? ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here. It's what I do!

What the giddy left has not come down off their clouds enough to realize is how much vehement opposition is out there, who have no intention of accepting this as a "norm" of society. Oh yes, the studies all show there has been a growing acceptance of gay marriage but we have to look at the reason for this. Homosexuals represent somewhere around 10% of the population, studies vary but in that ballpark. The gay marriage initiative has been pushed largely by heterosexuals, not homosexuals. Heterosexuals, you have to believe, are not supporting it because homosexuality appeals to them personally, it is because there has been a perceived discrimination and inequity presented. The poor gays are being denied something.. that is what has fueled heterosexual support.

Now, what they have been denied is same-sex marriage licenses, which curiously didn't exist because marriage is the union of a man and woman. SCOTUS has now ruled that States cannot ban same-sex marriages through licenses which restrict that. So now, a marriage license has to be issued to same-sex couples the same as traditional male-female couples. Gay Marriage, here to stay, right? Not so fast....

There is no Constitutional requirement for the State to issue marriage licenses or recognize marriages of any kind. Regardless of whether they do or not, it doesn't change what any two people want to call marriage. I have pointed out numerous times in these long thread debates, that I attended a gay wedding in 1986, in rural Alabama.... of all places. No one came and stopped it, no one protested or caused a scene, it was a beautiful ceremony conducted by a Rastafarian pastor on a nice Spring day, on a mountainside in the country. We threw rice, the couple went on a honeymoon, they had a wedding cake and wedding album. In every sense of the word, in their hearts and souls, they are married. It does not matter that the State of Alabama doesn't recognize it.

So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination. Without that perception, the heterosexual support for gay marriage dissipates and eventually goes away, along with the popularity of gays marrying. After all, if there is no benefit to marriage from government, what is the point for homosexuals? Sure, there might be that rare case like the gay wedding I attended in 1986, but I am betting the vast majority of gay couples wouldn't really give a crap about "marrying" if there weren't some benefit.

Is my idea an unconventional strategy? Perhaps, but there are not many options remaining if we hope to get rid of this atrocious SCOTUS ruling. There isn't enough support to adopt a Constitutional Amendment and prohibition amendments don't historically last anyway. No other viable legal options remain, it's settled law according to SCOTUS. Keep in mind that even slavery could not be ended in this country without Amending the Constitution because of SCOTUS ruling.... even after a Civil War! So this is here to stay... as long as States authorize marriage licenses.

So Boss, how do we deal with the many intricacies of insurance, property rights, taxes, etc., if we don't have some government method of defining domestic partnerships? Well, contracts! That's how we do it. The same as my gay friends from 1986 have done it. They obtained a series of various contract agreements to cover those bases as they arose and they have no real issue in that regard other than taxation, which is minimal. And as more and more States abandon marriage licensing, this contract process will become more standard with insurance and other things... it will simply be a matter of filling out a form and submitting it... done! Equality!

Oh... So you're gonna take your ball and go home? Well, yes... in a manner of speaking, that's exactly what we are going to do. You didn't think we're just going to let you hijack the traditional institution of marriage and get away with that, did you? A non-sequitur... that's what you turn the SCOTUS ruling into. That effectively Kills Homosexual Marriage.

Does the spouses social security come included with their fake marriage? Can they share healthcare with that faux wedding?

 

[Skylar]

And you're more than welcome to your personal opinion. It still has nothing to do with the law.

As all the same sex couples getting married in every state demonstrate elegantly.

My post had EVERYTHING to do with the law, its limits and what it means when the SCOTUS redefines words to get the opinion it wants to give rather than being limited by the actual words of the law itself.

Your post has everything to do with your personal opinion of what you think the law 'oughta be'. Which doesn't define what the law actually is.

As the lower courts and States are bound by what the court did rule. Not by what you think the court 'shoulda' ruled. Your personal opinion has no legal relevence, defines nothing, limits nothing, affects nothing.

While the USSC ruling is still binding precedent. And gay marriage is still happening in every state of the union.

In what way do laws guide or limit the courts of our nation if they can just redefine the necessary words to mean whatever in the **** they want?

Redefine them according to who? Necessary according to who? And which terms?

Again, every term you're using is subjective opinion. Where the court's rulings are only valid if YOU say they are. If YOU think they agreed with the constitution.

And you're nobody. You are not the people. Nor are you granted any particular constitutional authority to interpret the constitution in any binding manner. Simply put, the validity of a court ruling is not predicated on YOUR interpretations of the constitution.

Your personal opinion is noted. And?

 

[Montrovant]

You have attempted to refute that with the inane claim that only marriages obtained by issuance of a license are really marriages.

No I haven't and you won't find anywhere that I've said that. Marriages are whatever people want to call them. I can marry my ******* mailbox if I want to call it that. So it's ridiculous to claim that the only kind of marriages that exist are the ones ordained and sanctioned by the state.

Removing States from the obligation of issuing a license for marriage, eliminates the state sanctioning of said marriage. It's no longer a state-sanctioned thing. It might be replaced by a private contract between parties but the State doesn't endorse whatever intent is of any contract. Marriage has been a type of contract, but with a marriage license the State is specifically endorsing marriage.

Again... private party contracts have been around forever. We're going to have those no matter what happens to gay marriage. You can argue that the state would still be sanctioning gay marriage in a round about way, but that has been the case for over 200 years in America, or as long as two parties have had contract law available.

I did not say that all marriages must be sanctioned by the state. You, however, claimed that the proposed bill in Alabama would get rid of state sanctioned marriage. You based that on the removal of marriage licenses from the process of getting married. Since civil marriage would still exist under the bill, since common law marriages would still exist under the bill, since all of the same rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage would exist under the bill, the only difference appears to be in the issuance of licenses. Therefore, if the only difference between a marriage and a non-marital contract is the issuance of a license, it follows that the issuance of a license is required for a marriage.

Can you point out any difference, other than the need to obtain a license, between civil marriages in Alabama now and civil marriages in Alabama if the bill were to pass?

It's funny that you say marriages are whatever people want to call them. You have claimed that same sex marriages aren't really marriages because marriage is between a man and a woman. Consistency is not your strong suit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And you're more than welcome to your personal opinion. It still has nothing to do with the law.

As all the same sex couples getting married in every state demonstrate elegantly.

My post had EVERYTHING to do with the law, its limits and what it means when the SCOTUS redefines words to get the opinion it wants to give rather than being limited by the actual words of the law itself.

Your post has everything to do with your personal opinion of what you think the law 'oughta be'. Which doesn't define what the law actually is.

As the lower courts and States are bound by what the court did rule. Not by what you think the court 'shoulda' ruled. Your personal opinion has no legal relevence, defines nothing, limits nothing, affects nothing.

While the USSC ruling is still binding precedent. And gay marriage is still happening in every state of the union.

In what way do laws guide or limit the courts of our nation if they can just redefine the necessary words to mean whatever in the **** they want?

Redefine them according to who? Necessary according to who? And which terms?

Again, every term you're using is subjective opinion. Where the court's rulings are only valid if YOU say they are. If YOU think they agreed with the constitution.

And you're nobody. You are not the people. Nor are you granted any particular constitutional authority to interpret the constitution in any binding manner. Simply put, the validity of a court ruling is not predicated on YOUR interpretations of the constitution.

Your personal opinion is noted. And?

If you think that there was not a long defined meaning to the word marriage you are either delusional, an idiot or a ******* liar.

And if you don't see the danger in the SCOTUS setting itself up as having no restraint or scope to its authority to even define long defined words, then you are a ******* PC Nazi.

 

[rdean]

Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.

What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?" What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise! What kind of drugs are you smoking these days? ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here. It's what I do!

What the giddy left has not come down off their clouds enough to realize is how much vehement opposition is out there, who have no intention of accepting this as a "norm" of society. Oh yes, the studies all show there has been a growing acceptance of gay marriage but we have to look at the reason for this. Homosexuals represent somewhere around 10% of the population, studies vary but in that ballpark. The gay marriage initiative has been pushed largely by heterosexuals, not homosexuals. Heterosexuals, you have to believe, are not supporting it because homosexuality appeals to them personally, it is because there has been a perceived discrimination and inequity presented. The poor gays are being denied something.. that is what has fueled heterosexual support.

Now, what they have been denied is same-sex marriage licenses, which curiously didn't exist because marriage is the union of a man and woman. SCOTUS has now ruled that States cannot ban same-sex marriages through licenses which restrict that. So now, a marriage license has to be issued to same-sex couples the same as traditional male-female couples. Gay Marriage, here to stay, right? Not so fast....

There is no Constitutional requirement for the State to issue marriage licenses or recognize marriages of any kind. Regardless of whether they do or not, it doesn't change what any two people want to call marriage. I have pointed out numerous times in these long thread debates, that I attended a gay wedding in 1986, in rural Alabama.... of all places. No one came and stopped it, no one protested or caused a scene, it was a beautiful ceremony conducted by a Rastafarian pastor on a nice Spring day, on a mountainside in the country. We threw rice, the couple went on a honeymoon, they had a wedding cake and wedding album. In every sense of the word, in their hearts and souls, they are married. It does not matter that the State of Alabama doesn't recognize it.

So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination. Without that perception, the heterosexual support for gay marriage dissipates and eventually goes away, along with the popularity of gays marrying. After all, if there is no benefit to marriage from government, what is the point for homosexuals? Sure, there might be that rare case like the gay wedding I attended in 1986, but I am betting the vast majority of gay couples wouldn't really give a crap about "marrying" if there weren't some benefit.

Is my idea an unconventional strategy? Perhaps, but there are not many options remaining if we hope to get rid of this atrocious SCOTUS ruling. There isn't enough support to adopt a Constitutional Amendment and prohibition amendments don't historically last anyway. No other viable legal options remain, it's settled law according to SCOTUS. Keep in mind that even slavery could not be ended in this country without Amending the Constitution because of SCOTUS ruling.... even after a Civil War! So this is here to stay... as long as States authorize marriage licenses.

So Boss, how do we deal with the many intricacies of insurance, property rights, taxes, etc., if we don't have some government method of defining domestic partnerships? Well, contracts! That's how we do it. The same as my gay friends from 1986 have done it. They obtained a series of various contract agreements to cover those bases as they arose and they have no real issue in that regard other than taxation, which is minimal. And as more and more States abandon marriage licensing, this contract process will become more standard with insurance and other things... it will simply be a matter of filling out a form and submitting it... done! Equality!

Oh... So you're gonna take your ball and go home? Well, yes... in a manner of speaking, that's exactly what we are going to do. You didn't think we're just going to let you hijack the traditional institution of marriage and get away with that, did you? A non-sequitur... that's what you turn the SCOTUS ruling into. That effectively Kills Homosexual Marriage.

I think it's the gays most Republican conservatives want to kill.

GOP says OK to kill gays - Google Search

 

[Pop23]

Thanks for the invite but I think I'll stick around and talk about how, when you modify a law, something best left to the legislative bodies, how you sometimes create a worse situation.

As for constitutionality. Due process has met that challenge, equal protection and its application has met that challenge. The States responsibilty to provide a compelling reason to deny citizens their rights have met judicial challenge as has probable cause.

So, your claim to a slippery slope falicy seems without merit.

Thanks

You just keep arguing that there will be a slippery slope. 11 years and no such 'slipping' has happened.

Your bigotry against homosexuals just leads you to your unsubstantiated predictions and opinions.

Again a deflection. States will need to look at the change the USSC made to the law and decide if the law can legally exclude same sex siblings the benefits of marriage

Unless you can come up with a compelling state interest in the denial of these rights, then so will they.

You have a pathetically piss poor understanding of how things work. First of all, SCOTUS did not "change the laws regarding marriage" They invalidated the new laws that were superimposed on those original laws which banned same sex marriage. Doing so DID NOT disturb laws concerning incest, age of consent or anything else.

Secondly, states don't need to look at anything in the absence of a challenge to any existing bans on incest or anything else. If there is, in fact, a challenge, then and only then will states have to justify those laws. I do not know of any such challenges in any state, but if you do, feel free to post them. Then we can all see what rational basis or compelling interest the state comes up with to justify the laws, and what the court did with it.

Please then tell me why same sex marriage was not allowed in all 50 state prior.

You love your semantics.

State do not have to modify laws because of changes on the judicial level but often do without, or to stop legal challenge.

Now, please state the compelling state interest in denying a heterosexual same sex sibling couple from the right to marry.

If you can't, admit defeat.

If you have an argument to make for sibling same sex marriage....make it. Tell us why you want it. Instead, you're laughably insisting that WE make your argument for you, telling you why we should have sibling marriage.

You want it. You make the argument. If you can't, admit defeat, Troll.

I beleive I've posted many times my opposition to it, and many times I've asked the question you progressives(?) can't or won't amswer:

What is the compelling state interest in denying this right to hetro same sex siblings?

Go ahead Sally, giver her a shot.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Unfortunately, with legal marriage comes equal adoption privilege for homos. My main argument against homo marriage.

And that is a stupid ******* argument bubba!

No, troglodyte neocon. It's the most relevant argument against homo marriage.

Says you. The Supreme Court disagree.....actually arguing the exact opposite of what you do. That denying same sex marriage hurts children.

I'm gonna go with the courts over you citing yourself.

Kids need a mother and a father. Empirical. Homo marriage lacks half of that. You do the rest of the math.

Kids need two parents. And they have them in same sex couples.

Kids need a mother and a father. Get with the program, move forward and get out of the 1960's while you still can.

 

[Rustic]

Like I said forget the eff'd up trannys... Just buy more guns and ammo.

See hope and change

 

[EverCurious]

lol so first it was "marriage is a state right and our state says no ****** marriages!!" now it's "**** you faggots, no marriages at all HA!"

Then they'll have to "recognize" all non-state marriages. And if they want to push it and say they don't recognize any marriages from /any/ state then the fed will step in and tell them to stop acting like ******* children, possibly require them to issue FED marriage licenses instead of state licenses. Which is just what we need right? More fed power...

 

[Boss]

You have attempted to refute that with the inane claim that only marriages obtained by issuance of a license are really marriages.

No I haven't and you won't find anywhere that I've said that. Marriages are whatever people want to call them. I can marry my ******* mailbox if I want to call it that. So it's ridiculous to claim that the only kind of marriages that exist are the ones ordained and sanctioned by the state.

Removing States from the obligation of issuing a license for marriage, eliminates the state sanctioning of said marriage. It's no longer a state-sanctioned thing. It might be replaced by a private contract between parties but the State doesn't endorse whatever intent is of any contract. Marriage has been a type of contract, but with a marriage license the State is specifically endorsing marriage.

Again... private party contracts have been around forever. We're going to have those no matter what happens to gay marriage. You can argue that the state would still be sanctioning gay marriage in a round about way, but that has been the case for over 200 years in America, or as long as two parties have had contract law available.

I did not say that all marriages must be sanctioned by the state. You, however, claimed that the proposed bill in Alabama would get rid of state sanctioned marriage. You based that on the removal of marriage licenses from the process of getting married. Since civil marriage would still exist under the bill, since common law marriages would still exist under the bill, since all of the same rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage would exist under the bill, the only difference appears to be in the issuance of licenses. Therefore, if the only difference between a marriage and a non-marital contract is the issuance of a license, it follows that the issuance of a license is required for a marriage.

Can you point out any difference, other than the need to obtain a license, between civil marriages in Alabama now and civil marriages in Alabama if the bill were to pass?

It's funny that you say marriages are whatever people want to call them. You have claimed that same sex marriages aren't really marriages because marriage is between a man and a woman. Consistency is not your strong suit.

I'll go through this really slowly for you....

If I am a State, and I issue to you a "license to marry" it has a specific intent.

Can anyone in class tell us what the intention of a marriage license would be?

That's right, it's found in the name... A marriage license signifies an intention to marry. If I am a State issuing you a "marriage license" then I fully understand, authorize, endorse, sanction and recognize your intention to marry.

Okay... you understand what a "contract" is? The intention of a contract is to protect the interests of the parties involved. Why the parties want to protect interests is not known or assumed by the State. The State is not endorsing, authorizing, approving, sanctioning or recognizing the reason parties want to protect their interests.

To license something is completely different than providing a legal apparatus to two parties who wish to enter into a contract. If you are not educated enough to know the difference, then I can't do much more to help... I've explained it to you as if you were a 6th grader. Short of breaking out the coloring books, I don't what else I can do.

Under the proposal in Alabama, the state would no longer issue ANY marriage license. Therefore, it ceases to recognize, endorse or sanction ANY kind of marriage. Instead, it will issue contracts. You may have any number of reasons for wanting a contract, the state doesn't care. It is not a party to your reasoning, that is entirely up to you. If you feel you need a contract because of the black helicopters... it's up to you. If you feel you need a contract or your God will be angered... up to you! If you want a contract so you and your gay lover can play house and file tax returns together... your call! --The State has no association with your reasons.

Now... Bonus points class... How long has the United States had contract law where two parties can enter into a contractual agreement with each other to resolve property rights issues and other things? I think you will find this concept predates our nation. To my knowledge, homosexuals have never been excluded from entering into contracts.

Furthermore, we can find that before there was ever a such thing as "gay marriage" ....when that term itself would have been considered a joke... there were homosexual couples obtaining private party contracts between each other to deal with property rights, etc. This has been going on for years and hasn't been a problem because the State isn't a party to the reasons for a contract between two parties.

 

[Boss]

Then they'll have to "recognize" all non-state marriages. And if they want to push it and say they don't recognize any marriages from /any/ state then the fed will step in and tell them to stop acting like ******* children, possibly require them to issue FED marriage licenses instead of state licenses. Which is just what we need right? More fed power...

I don't understand what you all mean when you say "have to recognize" ...what does that mean? If there is no function of the state requiring the need to know your private domestic arrangement, why does anything need to be "recognized" by the state? How would that even be done?

Maybe the State of Alabama should build a monument like the Vietnam War Memorial, where we engrave the names of gay couples getting married? Is that the kind of "recognition" you mean?

As for your notion of a Federal marriage licence... good luck with that, you'll need to change the Constitution. The Fed can't just "step in" whenever you don't get your way, that's not how our nation was established. That might be what some of you want, it's not what we have.

I will add, it's amusing as hell how the lefties are spinning in the wind on this topic. You guys go from laughing and chortling that this won't mean anything and doesn't make any difference... moot point... to pounding your fists demanding that we're going to do as you say or you're going to make us!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No state is going to get away with not sanctioning any marriages as we have been trying to drive home to you.

You can keep trying to drive it home. We're going to stop State sanctioning of marriage. Then we will see if you can force states to sponsor your sexual behavior. I'm betting we see they don't have to. In the meantime, we are all entertained by your bombastic opinions but you haven't backed anything up with the Constitution.

Sponsor your sexual behavior??? Ha ha! Now we are getting to the bottom of what this is really all about! You and certain others see same sex relations as being nothing more than about sex. All of your bizarre and idiotic legal theories are built around the idea that gays are less than human. Why is that. ??Do you have no inkling as to how ******* stupid that is??

At the core of every argument against same sex marriage is the attitude, a belief that gay folks are fundamentally different than other people. There is a refusal to acknowledge the fact that they are real people with real lives, loved one, commitments and responsibilities. They have hopes, dreams, aspirations and problems like everyone else. Opponents of equality talk about tradition, about religion, about the law, about procreation, and oh yes, the sex….they love to talk about the sex as though that was all that gay folks do. They bloviate about how kids need a mom and a dad, but cannot explain how banning same sex marriage will result in more children having a traditional home, why that is important, and reject the fact-indeed will not discuss the fact-that denying gays the right to marry harms children.

They promote inane slippery slope to polygamy, incest, bestiality and whatever without any rational basis or logical argument. However, they can never ever talk about the fact that these are human beings who are profoundly affected by discrimination and the denial of the rights and benefits of marriage. They can only deal with the subject using abstract concepts and logical fallacies. If they dare to humanize the subject, even they might come to see how stupid their arguments are and that’s what they fear the most. This was published just prior to Obergefell.......THERE IS NO GOING BACK


Don't Listen To Same-Sex Marriage Foes: It Was Always About Hating On The Gays Don't Listen To Same-Sex Marriage Foes: It Was Always About Hating On The Gays | Constitutional Accountability Center



Selected excerpts:


The leading opponents of same-sex marriage have been attempting to re-write recent American history, where decades of sneering public attacks on gays and lesbians, condemnations of their "lifestyle," and blaming them for a decline of America's moral virtue are quietly forgotten.

Their argument, made in front of the Supreme Court, no less, is that gay marriage bans are not motivated by prejudice toward gays and lesbians, but by a more noble if newfound purpose

Sweeping cultural change coupled with past decisions by the Supreme Court have limited the options the states who continue to ban same-sex marriage have to defend those prohibitions. If gay couples are kept from marrying because of state-sanctioned "animus" -- an intent to deny certain people their rights -- there is little escaping a constitutional violation.


"[T]he State's whole point is that we're not drawing distinctions based on the identity, the orientation, or the choices of anyone," John J. Bursch, the solicitor general of Michigan, said during the oral arguments in the case, Obergefell v. Hodges. "The State has drawn lines, the way the government has always done, to solve a specific problem. It's not meant to exclude."


"The states’ arguments don’t pass the straight face test, no pun intended," Judith Schaeffer, vice president of Constitutional Accountability Center, a D.C.-based legal organization, said in an interview with TPM. "These are ridiculous arguments that are being made to cover up the fact that these discriminatory laws are motivated by a desire to keep gay people out of this important legal relationship."

To say same-sex marriage bans were never meant to "exclude" anyone is to ignore years of anti-gay sentiments -- vitriolic posters and inflammatory commentary -- not to mention the comments made by elected officials when defending their opposition to same-sex marriage and enacting gay marriage bans.

 

[Boss]

No state is going to get away with not sanctioning any marriages as we have been trying to drive home to you.

You can keep trying to drive it home. We're going to stop State sanctioning of marriage. Then we will see if you can force states to sponsor your sexual behavior. I'm betting we see they don't have to. In the meantime, we are all entertained by your bombastic opinions but you haven't backed anything up with the Constitution.

Sponsor your sexual behavior??? Ha ha! Now we are getting to the bottom of what this is really all about! You and certain others see same sex relations as being nothing more than about sex. All of your bizarre and idiotic legal theories are built around the idea that gays are less than human. Why is that. ??Do you have no inkling as to how ******* stupid that is??

At the core of every argument against same sex marriage is the attitude, a belief that gay folks are fundamentally different than other people. There is a refusal to acknowledge the fact that they are real people with real lives, loved one, commitments and responsibilities. They have hopes, dreams, aspirations and problems like everyone else. Opponents of equality talk about tradition, about religion, about the law, about procreation, and oh yes, the sex….they love to talk about the sex as though that was all that gay folks do. They bloviate about how kids need a mom and a dad, but cannot explain how banning same sex marriage will result in more children having a traditional home, why that is important, and reject the fact-indeed will not discuss the fact-that denying gays the right to marry harms children.

They promote inane slippery slope to polygamy, incest, bestiality and whatever without any rational basis or logical argument. However, they can never ever talk about the fact that these are human beings who are profoundly affected by discrimination and the denial of the rights and benefits of marriage. They can only deal with the subject using abstract concepts and logical fallacies. If they dare to humanize the subject, even they might come to see how stupid their arguments are and that’s what they fear the most. This was published just prior to Obergefell.......THERE IS NO GOING BACK


Don't Listen To Same-Sex Marriage Foes: It Was Always About Hating On The Gays Don't Listen To Same-Sex Marriage Foes: It Was Always About Hating On The Gays | Constitutional Accountability Center



Selected excerpts:


The leading opponents of same-sex marriage have been attempting to re-write recent American history, where decades of sneering public attacks on gays and lesbians, condemnations of their "lifestyle," and blaming them for a decline of America's moral virtue are quietly forgotten.

Their argument, made in front of the Supreme Court, no less, is that gay marriage bans are not motivated by prejudice toward gays and lesbians, but by a more noble if newfound purpose

Sweeping cultural change coupled with past decisions by the Supreme Court have limited the options the states who continue to ban same-sex marriage have to defend those prohibitions. If gay couples are kept from marrying because of state-sanctioned "animus" -- an intent to deny certain people their rights -- there is little escaping a constitutional violation.


"[T]he State's whole point is that we're not drawing distinctions based on the identity, the orientation, or the choices of anyone," John J. Bursch, the solicitor general of Michigan, said during the oral arguments in the case, Obergefell v. Hodges. "The State has drawn lines, the way the government has always done, to solve a specific problem. It's not meant to exclude."


"The states’ arguments don’t pass the straight face test, no pun intended," Judith Schaeffer, vice president of Constitutional Accountability Center, a D.C.-based legal organization, said in an interview with TPM. "These are ridiculous arguments that are being made to cover up the fact that these discriminatory laws are motivated by a desire to keep gay people out of this important legal relationship."

To say same-sex marriage bans were never meant to "exclude" anyone is to ignore years of anti-gay sentiments -- vitriolic posters and inflammatory commentary -- not to mention the comments made by elected officials when defending their opposition to same-sex marriage and enacting gay marriage bans.

My goodness... what has prompted such a heterophobic rant in light of a plan that you have no problems with that doesn't effect your relationship at all?

What "discriminatory law" are you referring to with the abandoning of marriage licensing by the State? Or have you simply not caught up with the reality of the argument we're now having? Do you somehow think we are still debating whether same sex marriage is a thing? SCOTUS has ruled, that has been established by law now... it's not debatable anymore. If the State is going to sanction traditional marriages, they also have to sanction same-sex marriages according to SCOTUS. No need to fight that battle anymore... the rant you posted is outdated.

What is NOW the argument is whether or not the State is compelled to recognize ANY marriage. There is nothing in our Constitution which says they must... only that it must be "fair and equal" if they do.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No state is going to get away with not sanctioning any marriages as we have been trying to drive home to you.

You can keep trying to drive it home. We're going to stop State sanctioning of marriage. Then we will see if you can force states to sponsor your sexual behavior. I'm betting we see they don't have to. In the meantime, we are all entertained by your bombastic opinions but you haven't backed anything up with the Constitution.

Sponsor your sexual behavior??? Ha ha! Now we are getting to the bottom of what this is really all about! You and certain others see same sex relations as being nothing more than about sex. All of your bizarre and idiotic legal theories are built around the idea that gays are less than human. Why is that. ??Do you have no inkling as to how ******* stupid that is??

At the core of every argument against same sex marriage is the attitude, a belief that gay folks are fundamentally different than other people. There is a refusal to acknowledge the fact that they are real people with real lives, loved one, commitments and responsibilities. They have hopes, dreams, aspirations and problems like everyone else. Opponents of equality talk about tradition, about religion, about the law, about procreation, and oh yes, the sex….they love to talk about the sex as though that was all that gay folks do. They bloviate about how kids need a mom and a dad, but cannot explain how banning same sex marriage will result in more children having a traditional home, why that is important, and reject the fact-indeed will not discuss the fact-that denying gays the right to marry harms children.

They promote inane slippery slope to polygamy, incest, bestiality and whatever without any rational basis or logical argument. However, they can never ever talk about the fact that these are human beings who are profoundly affected by discrimination and the denial of the rights and benefits of marriage. They can only deal with the subject using abstract concepts and logical fallacies. If they dare to humanize the subject, even they might come to see how stupid their arguments are and that’s what they fear the most. This was published just prior to Obergefell.......THERE IS NO GOING BACK


Don't Listen To Same-Sex Marriage Foes: It Was Always About Hating On The Gays Don't Listen To Same-Sex Marriage Foes: It Was Always About Hating On The Gays | Constitutional Accountability Center



Selected excerpts:


The leading opponents of same-sex marriage have been attempting to re-write recent American history, where decades of sneering public attacks on gays and lesbians, condemnations of their "lifestyle," and blaming them for a decline of America's moral virtue are quietly forgotten.

Their argument, made in front of the Supreme Court, no less, is that gay marriage bans are not motivated by prejudice toward gays and lesbians, but by a more noble if newfound purpose

Sweeping cultural change coupled with past decisions by the Supreme Court have limited the options the states who continue to ban same-sex marriage have to defend those prohibitions. If gay couples are kept from marrying because of state-sanctioned "animus" -- an intent to deny certain people their rights -- there is little escaping a constitutional violation.


"[T]he State's whole point is that we're not drawing distinctions based on the identity, the orientation, or the choices of anyone," John J. Bursch, the solicitor general of Michigan, said during the oral arguments in the case, Obergefell v. Hodges. "The State has drawn lines, the way the government has always done, to solve a specific problem. It's not meant to exclude."


"The states’ arguments don’t pass the straight face test, no pun intended," Judith Schaeffer, vice president of Constitutional Accountability Center, a D.C.-based legal organization, said in an interview with TPM. "These are ridiculous arguments that are being made to cover up the fact that these discriminatory laws are motivated by a desire to keep gay people out of this important legal relationship."

To say same-sex marriage bans were never meant to "exclude" anyone is to ignore years of anti-gay sentiments -- vitriolic posters and inflammatory commentary -- not to mention the comments made by elected officials when defending their opposition to same-sex marriage and enacting gay marriage bans.

My goodness... what has prompted such a heterophobic rant in light of a plan that you have no problems with that doesn't effect your relationship at all?

What "discriminatory law" are you referring to with the abandoning of marriage licensing by the State? Or have you simply not caught up with the reality of the argument we're now having? Do you somehow think we are still debating whether same sex marriage is a thing? SCOTUS has ruled, that has been established by law now... it's not debatable anymore. If the State is going to sanction traditional marriages, they also have to sanction same-sex marriages according to SCOTUS. No need to fight that battle anymore... the rant you posted is outdated.

What is NOW the argument is whether or not the State is compelled to recognize ANY marriage. There is nothing in our Constitution which says they must... only that it must be "fair and equal" if they do.

I was responding to your one, inane comment about "sponsoring sexual behavior" I'm not arguing the law with you at this point. That is clearly a dead end. It's apparent that you will not own up to truth about your underlying attitude towards gay people. You cant see the issue in human terms.

 

[mdk]

I just checked again, it seems homosexual marriage is alive and well. Better luck next time I suppose. I wonder what other silliness people will conjure up so they can pretend they won the gay marriage debate?

 

[Boss]

I was responding to your one, inane comment about "sponsoring sexual behavior" I'm not arguing the law with you at this point. That is clearly a dead end. It's apparent that you will not own up to truth about your underlying attitude towards gay people. You cant see the issue in human terms.

And all you've done is make bigoted assumptions about me. Now you seek to imply or infer those assumptions onto me by claiming that I am being dishonest about my true views.

First of all, I don't need to prove anything to you. I don't need to defend myself by telling you how many gay friends I have or what my sentiments are toward homosexuality. You are not my moral judge, you don't get a vote. Second, it doesn't bother me to be attacked with the PC meme about "attitude toward gays" because I am comfortable with my attitude.

Finally, I am the one who sees marriage in human terms, you are the one who advocates the legal terms. I support marriage being defined by the individual and not government. You support marriage as defined by the court to ensure some protection from a perception of inequity under the law.

From MY perspective, you are really no different than some radical religious wacko telling me my 'marriage' can ONLY be to a Christian woman who doesn't wear makeup and attends church on Wednesdays and Sundays and the only "sex" I can have is in the government-approved missionary position. I don't want you telling me these things! Not through government or the court! Understand?

 

[Boss]

I just checked again, it seems homosexual marriage is alive and well. Better luck next time I suppose. I wonder what other silliness people will conjure up so they can pretend they won the gay marriage debate?

Thanks for checking in, I totally understand your concern. If radicals on the right managed to squeak by a 5-4 ruling which totally redefined something that had been a foundation of society up until then, I would be concerned as well. My nervousness and anxiety might even manifest itself into cockiness which prompted me to prematurely dismiss whatever was coming down the pike as a result of this action. I might even be arrogant, smug and condescending, just to emphasize how utterly frustrated I was that 'whatever' wasn't being accepted as I assumed it would be.

But look, no need for you to worry! We will surely keep you posted as things develop.

 

[mdk]

I just checked again, it seems homosexual marriage is alive and well. Better luck next time I suppose. I wonder what other silliness people will conjure up so they can pretend they won the gay marriage debate?

Thanks for checking in, I totally understand your concern. If radicals on the right managed to squeak by a 5-4 ruling which totally redefined something that had been a foundation of society up until then, I would be concerned as well. My nervousness and anxiety might even manifest itself into cockiness which prompted me to prematurely dismiss whatever was coming down the pike as a result of this action. I might even be arrogant, smug and condescending, just to emphasize how utterly frustrated I was that 'whatever' wasn't being accepted as I assumed it would be.

But look, no need for you to worry! We will surely keep you posted as things develop.

Please do. Seeing this perfect record of failure and delusion unfold is comical to behold.