Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[Syriusly]

Sure Rabbi, you "nailed it". I'll wait for the subpoena. Why not ask the reluctant hypocrite himself?

Strawman, I'm not reluctant. I'm glad it makes my spouse happy. When you grasp that, maybe you can move past government marriage just being collective validation and start to get the real thing. Gays are not all like you BTW. My VP of sales for my business is gay. She has worked for me about three years. She has been in a serious committed relationship for about one. She and her partner very much do things for each other's interest. Isn't it interesting? You have the paper, she doesn't want it, but I consider her far more married than you are.

Oh...so you're happy to be a raging hypocrite. Good to know. Can I call you the happy hypocrite instead?

Really? You're gonna try the "I have a gay friend" thing too?

Being civilly married was in the interest of both my spouse and I. We both wanted it and to you that means we're worthy of derision...because we want the same civil marriage you and your wife wanted that now only she wants.

And your opinion of my marriage doesn't make me any less married or any less in love with my wife.

You should consider that sometimes when you do things because they are in your partner's interest rather than your own and you don't demand your way or even a compromise, you get more in your own interest than getting your way. Blows your mind, doesn't it?

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge.

I have a marriage. We've been together 20 and married 7.

Let me tell you what that "piece of paper" has done for our family. First and foremost, our children can say their parents are married and if you talk to child experts, they'll tell you that's important to the children. Also importantly for our children, our civil marriage has allowed my spouse to not work. She can be on my employer sponsored health plan and so she can stay home and be there when the kids get home from school, have a hot meal cooked, clean clothes and a house for them.

What it could have done if we had access to it 15 years ago was save a lot of money. Instead of paying thousands of dollars for my spouse to legally adopt our children and change her name, a $75 marriage license would have taken care of the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

It's great you compromise. You deserve husband of the year for staying married when you don't want to. What makes you a dick is wanting to deny those same rights, benefits and privileges to gay couples who want to care for their spouses like you do.

Civil marriage has enabled you to sponge off others. That's really the bottom line here. All the crap about civil rights and liberties etc is just smokesreen.
I was wrong. There are 3 arguments for gay marriage:
1) Gays are really oppressed black people c.1965
2 We're winning in the courts
3) Give us the money.

There is really only one argument

Same gender couples deserve to be treated under the law, exactly the same as my wife and I are.

 

[Skylar]

Well there's nothing to ***** about in this thread since judges haven't been making law when it come to gays and lesbians being able to civilly marry each other.

Of course they have. Dont be silly.

Please give us the name of one of those laws.

Ignoring legislatures and enacting government gay marriage

Those legislatures or the People, simply don't retain the Power to deny and disparage those privileges and immunities to the citizens in the several States, without changing our Constitution, to allow it.

Which amendment does the SCOTUS have the power to make life fair when the legislature doesn't? I can't find that one?

Strawman.

 

[Syriusly]

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

He understands it. He just hates it.

Shall we honor the founders' belief that women shouldn't have the right to vote?

Did things get better or worse after they got that right?

WTF? lol

Kind of the same with all the black crime. If my ancestors knew it was going to turn out this bad, they would of picked the cotton themselves.

Just sayin

-Geaux

So you equate women being able to vote with black crime?

WTF?

 

[Skylar]

Heterosexual marriage is an entirely different thing. Sure, we compromise sometimes. But when something is that much more important to my partner, I do it her way. She does the same for me.

Also known as comprimise.....

 

[Skylar]

He understands it. He just hates it.

Shall we honor the founders' belief that women shouldn't have the right to vote?

Did things get better or worse after they got that right?

WTF? lol

Kind of the same with all the black crime. If my ancestors knew it was going to turn out this bad, they would of picked the cotton themselves.

Just sayin

-Geaux

So you equate women being able to vote with black crime?

WTF?

Like I said.....half assed, second tier arguments. They know what's coming.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would require her to grasp the concept of heterosexual marriage where you can put your partner's interest before your own and do something you don't want because it's more important to your partner. She isn't capable of putting someone else's needs before her own. She sees a relationship as a negotiation and compromise, and if something is important to her she demands her way and if she doesn't get it shows them the door.

Heterosexual marriage is an entirely different thing. Sure, we compromise sometimes. But when something is that much more important to my partner, I do it her way. She does the same for me. If you're with the right person, that is a far better system than splitting everything down the middle. That is beyond her comprehension, and she keeps telling us that. She got the government validation she craves, but she is just playing the part of a "spouse." She doesn't comprehend what it means.

So you want to pretend to know what Sea's marriage is like, just like she assumed she knew about your marriage.

You are both wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Yes, Grown adults should stay out of others bedrooms. But that is not the case when you have two homosexual men or women who adopt orphaned children and teach them homosexuality.

Homosexuals are demanding government intervention, it is that simple.

No- its just that your viewpoint is simple and wrong.

Two homosexual men or two homosexual women who step up and adopt children abandoned by the children's natural parents are teaching them how to be good people- not how to be homosexuals.

You apparently would prefer that those children not be adopted, but remain abandoned and without families, to ultimately be abandoned by the system as the age out of the system.
.

You lost your argument, you just made it personal and about your beliefs.

You are describing the children as abandoned, why would you bring your personal feelings into this discussion while attempting to portray all orphaned children as abandoned. The simple answer is that facts do not support your feelings on this topic.

Yes, when you describe children in Orphanages as abandoned, and reiterate that theme throughout your post, it simply shows you have zero understanding of what happens in people's lives.

You should excuse your assumptions and emotions from this discussion, it does not help your argument at all.

Since gays have been adopting kids for decades and having their own, you don't actually have an argument. The simple fact is our children are fine and if you're really that worried about gays adopting your kids, you'd make alternate arrangements.

I

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Yes, Grown adults should stay out of others bedrooms. But that is not the case when you have two homosexual men or women who adopt orphaned children and teach them homosexuality.

Homosexuals are demanding government intervention, it is that simple.

No- its just that your viewpoint is simple and wrong.

Two homosexual men or two homosexual women who step up and adopt children abandoned by the children's natural parents are teaching them how to be good people- not how to be homosexuals.

You apparently would prefer that those children not be adopted, but remain abandoned and without families, to ultimately be abandoned by the system as the age out of the system.
.

You lost your argument, you just made it personal and about your beliefs.

You are describing the children as abandoned, why would you bring your personal feelings into this discussion while attempting to portray all orphaned children as abandoned. The simple answer is that facts do not support your feelings on this topic.

Yes, when you describe children in Orphanages as abandoned, and reiterate that theme throughout your post, it simply shows you have zero understanding of what happens in people's lives.

You should excuse your assumptions and emotions from this discussion, it does not help your argument at all.

Since gays have been adopting kids for decades and having their own, you don't actually have an argument. The simple fact is our children are fine and if you're really that worried about gays adopting your kids, you'd make alternate arrangements.

Yes, homosexual men have been adopting 4 year old boys, for years as you say, teaching them the homosexual lifestyle. I call that abuse.

Yes- I can see why you would object to homosexual men adopting these boys abandoned by their parents

They first fostered 18 years ago. Then, the idea of two men adopting a child was uncommon, which is partly what led them to foster when, due to Andrew's experience with children with special needs, they were asked if they would look after a boy with severe disabilities. "He wasn't expected to live to his first birthday, although he eventually lived until he was seven and a half," says Andrew.

The death of a child will always be traumatic, but Andrew and David felt compelled to continue.

"He'd taught us so much and we'd developed so many skills … we thought, we can't just leave it. We've got to do something with this knowledge. That's when we decided to carry on fostering children with profound disabilities and terminal conditions."


The couple contacted Credo Care, an organisation that specialises in disability foster placements. Shortly after, Armand arrived.

"He arrived in March, 10 years ago," explains David. Born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, six-year-old Armand had lived in hospital for most of his short life. A wheelchair user, he has severe learning disabilities, a tracheotomy and is fed through a Peg [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy].

"He came to us when he was six and was the first one to arrive. Four months later, we had an emergency phone call, asking us if we'd take a boy from Derby. Luke arrived that afternoon. He was 12 and had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In those days he could shuffle around, but now, he's totally … well, the disease has got hold of his body. He's 22 now. He's a great lad, he really is. He's brilliant."

A couple of months after Luke joined the household, the couple were asked to take Steven, who was five and had cerebral palsy and learning difficulties. They have looked after the three boys ever since. Two years ago, they adopted a little girl. Sadly, she wasn't well and didn't live long.

"We had 17 wonderful months," says David. "She was three when she died. It was just 10 days after the adoption was completed, and it was very sudden, so … we haven't gone down that road again," he adds, choosing his words carefully to describe what must have been a devastating experience.

Gay foster carers I love every minute of it Life and style The Guardian

 

[Syriusly]

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would have to be untrue.

I agree, it is basically true except for your butt hurt telling me how I feel. Don't go into psychology, you suck at it. As I keep telling you I'm not a hypocrite, I'm following my values because my values are that if something is more important to my spouse I do it her way. That is as you continually tell us beyond your capability. You get your way or you compromise or you show them the door. Doing it their way isn't part of your world.

Yes Kaz, so honorable of you to stay married to your wife when you don't want to. We get it. Big sacrifice on your part to take those tax breaks...that you want to deny gay couples.

LOL, I don't want to pay taxes that I oppose in the first place, I keep saying I think taxes should be flat and marriage irrelevant to the taxes. You don't want to pay taxes that you support. You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

And YOU call ME a hypocrite...

In other words- she wants to be treated legally the same as you and your wife- and you resent that she and her partner will be able to get the same 'tax benefits' as you enjoy.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm saying exactly what I said. That the constitutional amendments and statutory restrictions that declared marriage marriage was only one man and one woman were almost universally created after Hawaiian civil union recognition. And such were explicit attempts to prevent gays from entering into the union of marriage.

Prop 8 being in 2008 wasn't some random coincidence. Gays being excluded from marriage wasn't some mysterious unintended consequence. It was the purpose of the amendment.

I didn't say you didn't mean what you said, I said you were playing word games with what I said. I talked about the people who created marriage, they were not thinking about gay marriage at all. Wasn't in their mind. Never occurred to them government would recognize that as marriage. I agreed gay sodomy laws were directed at gays.

You came back with that wasn't true and you started with Hawaii in 1991. So, you either think government marriage did not exist before 1991 or you are playing word games. You tell me...

BTW, I got a government marriage in 1988, so I'm pretty sure government marriage was pre-1991...

People may have not been thinking about the possibility of homosexuals marrying when marriage was legally created in California, but people were specifically excluding the possibility of homosexuals marrying when they passed laws against same gender marriage:


On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict scrutiny and same-sex couples' access to marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The court found that two statutes barring same-sex marriage in California, one enacted in 1977 by the legislature and the other in 2000 by state voters (Proposition 22), were unconstitutional. The decision was the first in the United States to establish sexual orientation as asuspect classification.[2] On June 4, 2008, the court denied a request for rehearing and a request to put a hold on the ruling, affirming that the decision would take effect as scheduled.[3] The writ of mandate directing the state government to comply with the ruling and grant same-sex marriages was issued by the Superior Court of California on June 19, 2008.[4]

And then my fellow citizen's changed our Constitution specifically to ensure that homosexuals could not legally marry.

Californians passed 2 laws, and one Amendment from 1977 on to prevent homosexuals from marrying- those laws were directed specifically at homosexuals.

From 1991 to 2008, you're headed the wrong direction...

Oh we have already arrived at the right destination.

People in love are getting married.

Equivocation

No- celebration- people in love are getting married.

You object to that- I celebrate it.

 

[Syriusly]

Please give us the name of one of those laws.

Ignoring legislatures and enacting government gay marriage

Those legislatures or the People, simply don't retain the Power to deny and disparage those privileges and immunities to the citizens in the several States, without changing our Constitution, to allow it.

Which amendment does the SCOTUS have the power to make life fair when the legislature doesn't? I can't find that one?

Judicial review can be considered necessary and proper simply because our federal Congress cannot always tell the difference between the common defense and the common offense, or any Thing more nuanced than that.

It's not in the Constitution, they took it in Marbury v. Madison, and it's not a basis to change laws or make up laws they don't like.

Please provide an example of a law that the Supreme Court has made up?

 

[Syriusly]

No- its just that your viewpoint is simple and wrong.

Two homosexual men or two homosexual women who step up and adopt children abandoned by the children's natural parents are teaching them how to be good people- not how to be homosexuals.

You apparently would prefer that those children not be adopted, but remain abandoned and without families, to ultimately be abandoned by the system as the age out of the system.
.

You lost your argument, you just made it personal and about your beliefs.

You are describing the children as abandoned, why would you bring your personal feelings into this discussion while attempting to portray all orphaned children as abandoned. The simple answer is that facts do not support your feelings on this topic.

Yes, when you describe children in Orphanages as abandoned, and reiterate that theme throughout your post, it simply shows you have zero understanding of what happens in people's lives.

You should excuse your assumptions and emotions from this discussion, it does not help your argument at all.

Since gays have been adopting kids for decades and having their own, you don't actually have an argument. The simple fact is our children are fine and if you're really that worried about gays adopting your kids, you'd make alternate arrangements.

I

No- its just that your viewpoint is simple and wrong.

Two homosexual men or two homosexual women who step up and adopt children abandoned by the children's natural parents are teaching them how to be good people- not how to be homosexuals.

You apparently would prefer that those children not be adopted, but remain abandoned and without families, to ultimately be abandoned by the system as the age out of the system.
.

You lost your argument, you just made it personal and about your beliefs.

You are describing the children as abandoned, why would you bring your personal feelings into this discussion while attempting to portray all orphaned children as abandoned. The simple answer is that facts do not support your feelings on this topic.

Yes, when you describe children in Orphanages as abandoned, and reiterate that theme throughout your post, it simply shows you have zero understanding of what happens in people's lives.

You should excuse your assumptions and emotions from this discussion, it does not help your argument at all.

Since gays have been adopting kids for decades and having their own, you don't actually have an argument. The simple fact is our children are fine and if you're really that worried about gays adopting your kids, you'd make alternate arrangements.

Yes, homosexual men have been adopting 4 year old boys, for years as you say, teaching them the homosexual lifestyle. I call that abuse.

You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't make it true.

Yes, when you say its good that 4 year old children are adopted into a homosexual family/lifestyle, that does not make it true.
.

It is good when 4 year old children who have been abandoned by their parents are adopted into a family- regardless of whether that family is a single mom or dad, a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would require her to grasp the concept of heterosexual marriage where you can put your partner's interest before your own and do something you don't want because it's more important to your partner. She isn't capable of putting someone else's needs before her own. She sees a relationship as a negotiation and compromise, and if something is important to her she demands her way and if she doesn't get it shows them the door.

Heterosexual marriage is an entirely different thing. Sure, we compromise sometimes. But when something is that much more important to my partner, I do it her way. She does the same for me. If you're with the right person, that is a far better system than splitting everything down the middle. That is beyond her comprehension, and she keeps telling us that. She got the government validation she craves, but she is just playing the part of a "spouse." She doesn't comprehend what it means.

I told you homosexuality was rooted in narcissism

You say lots of crap.

 

[Silhouette]

It is good when 4 year old children who have been abandoned by their parents are adopted into a family- regardless of whether that family is a single mom or dad, a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple.

I supposed using your reasoning, it's better when a 4 year old is adopted by wolves, or even a pedophile...better than being abandoned, right?

 

[kaz]

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge

No, I do because of what you keep telling me to do in my marriage. Or is this yet another overt hypocrisy you practice? I should not assume you act how you tell me to act?

 

[kaz]

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would have to be untrue.

I agree, it is basically true except for your butt hurt telling me how I feel. Don't go into psychology, you suck at it. As I keep telling you I'm not a hypocrite, I'm following my values because my values are that if something is more important to my spouse I do it her way. That is as you continually tell us beyond your capability. You get your way or you compromise or you show them the door. Doing it their way isn't part of your world.

Yes Kaz, so honorable of you to stay married to your wife when you don't want to. We get it. Big sacrifice on your part to take those tax breaks...that you want to deny gay couples.

LOL, I don't want to pay taxes that I oppose in the first place, I keep saying I think taxes should be flat and marriage irrelevant to the taxes. You don't want to pay taxes that you support. You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

And YOU call ME a hypocrite...

Single people aren't denied access to them if they marry, gays are. If you don't buy a house, you don't get the credit. If you don't buy energy efficient appliances you don't get the tax credit. If you don't own a private jet you don't get the private jet credit. Start a flat tax thread.

You want the high taxes, you are a flaming hypocrite to turn around and evade them. Why just because you paired off should you not pay the taxes you advocate other people pay? Doing things like getting family insurance rates is one thing, but you don't pay the taxes you stick on other people. That is just flat out hypocrisy. I advocate low taxes, I don't think singles should pay higher taxes, but I don't think I should either.

 

[Seawytch]

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge

No, I do because of what you keep telling me to do in my marriage. Or is this yet another overt hypocrisy you practice? I should not assume you act how you tell me to act?

I haven't told you to DO anything other than, instead of asking gays why they want to marry, ask yourself and your civilly married wife.

I'm even wishing you luck in your "battle" to get rid of the marriage benefits you and millions of straights (and a few thousand gays) enjoy. Let us know how it goes.

 

[Skylar]

Slander would have to be untrue.

I agree, it is basically true except for your butt hurt telling me how I feel. Don't go into psychology, you suck at it. As I keep telling you I'm not a hypocrite, I'm following my values because my values are that if something is more important to my spouse I do it her way. That is as you continually tell us beyond your capability. You get your way or you compromise or you show them the door. Doing it their way isn't part of your world.

Yes Kaz, so honorable of you to stay married to your wife when you don't want to. We get it. Big sacrifice on your part to take those tax breaks...that you want to deny gay couples.

LOL, I don't want to pay taxes that I oppose in the first place, I keep saying I think taxes should be flat and marriage irrelevant to the taxes. You don't want to pay taxes that you support. You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

And YOU call ME a hypocrite...

Single people aren't denied access to them if they marry, gays are. If you don't buy a house, you don't get the credit. If you don't buy energy efficient appliances you don't get the tax credit. If you don't own a private jet you don't get the private jet credit. Start a flat tax thread.

You want the high taxes, you are a flaming hypocrite to turn around and evade them. Why just because you paired off should you not pay the taxes you advocate other people pay? Doing things like getting family insurance rates is one thing, but you don't pay the taxes you stick on other people. That is just flat out hypocrisy. I advocate low taxes, I don't think singles should pay higher taxes, but I don't think I should either.

I don't see her calling for any lower tax burden than any other married couple.

 

[Seawytch]

Slander would have to be untrue.

I agree, it is basically true except for your butt hurt telling me how I feel. Don't go into psychology, you suck at it. As I keep telling you I'm not a hypocrite, I'm following my values because my values are that if something is more important to my spouse I do it her way. That is as you continually tell us beyond your capability. You get your way or you compromise or you show them the door. Doing it their way isn't part of your world.

Yes Kaz, so honorable of you to stay married to your wife when you don't want to. We get it. Big sacrifice on your part to take those tax breaks...that you want to deny gay couples.

LOL, I don't want to pay taxes that I oppose in the first place, I keep saying I think taxes should be flat and marriage irrelevant to the taxes. You don't want to pay taxes that you support. You want to **** single people then get out of those taxes.

And YOU call ME a hypocrite...

Single people aren't denied access to them if they marry, gays are. If you don't buy a house, you don't get the credit. If you don't buy energy efficient appliances you don't get the tax credit. If you don't own a private jet you don't get the private jet credit. Start a flat tax thread.

You want the high taxes, you are a flaming hypocrite to turn around and evade them. Why just because you paired off should you not pay the taxes you advocate other people pay? Doing things like getting family insurance rates is one thing, but you don't pay the taxes you stick on other people. That is just flat out hypocrisy. I advocate low taxes, I don't think singles should pay higher taxes, but I don't think I should either.

Gays will still want to marry...even if you take away the tax breaks...or give them to everyone. Go for it. Best of luck.

 

[Skylar]

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge

No, I do because of what you keep telling me to do in my marriage. Or is this yet another overt hypocrisy you practice? I should not assume you act how you tell me to act?

I haven't told you to DO anything other than, instead of asking gays why they want to marry, ask yourself and your civilly married wife.

I'm even wishing you luck in your "battle" to get rid of the marriage benefits you and millions of straights (and a few thousand gays) enjoy. Let us know how it goes.

I'm kinda curious. If kaz wants marriage benefits like lower taxes stripped from all married couples.....why doesn't he just pay the higher taxes that people filing individually would pay?

You don't have to file jointly.

 

[Skylar]

It is good when 4 year old children who have been abandoned by their parents are adopted into a family- regardless of whether that family is a single mom or dad, a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple.

I supposed using your reasoning, it's better when a 4 year old is adopted by wolves, or even a pedophile...better than being abandoned, right?

Only if you equate a single mom, single dad, homosexual couple or heterosexual couple with 'wolves'.

An argument I don't think most rational people would join you in.