Minn passes gay marriage

[Yurt]

There is no evidence that the people chose this. Again it was imposed by the legislature. The people will have to do what the French are doing. Take direct action.

lol

yeah..because our government is just like the french government

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What do you think the large Muslim population there thinks about this?

How is that in any way relevant?

Same-sex couples have always had equal protection rights with regard to accessing marriage law, since before the Federal government, since before the Constitution. That’s the nature of inalienable rights.

That certain states refuse to acknowledge that right is the issue.

And Minnesota is poised to comply with the 14th Amendment, to their credit.

Other states, unfortunately, will be compelled to do so in the courts, such as California.

that is simply not true. show me one example where they had equal protection.

your argument about inalienable rights falls flat, as no other goverment acknowledged those rights, thus, same sex couples have not been able to marry. further, given marriage has, for the most part, been a construct granted from the state, your argument falls flat.

You don’t understand.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage, one law available to all.

An inalienable right is a right which manifest as a consequence of being human (for theists often referred to as ‘god-given’). Inalienable rights predate the Federal government and Constitution, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

The 14th Amendment codifies the doctrine of inalienable rights, in this case the right to equal protection (access) of the law.

The voters of California, therefore, never had the authority to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, as their effort was absent a rational basis, did not attempt to realize a legitimate legislative end, and was motivated solely by animus toward homosexuals.

Whether one has his Constitutional rights or not isn’t subject to majority rule, nor does one forfeit this rights as a consequence of his state of residence.

These are settled and accepted principles of our Constitutional Republic.

Consequently, it’s not a matter of same-sex couples being ‘allowed’ to marry; rather, it’s an issue of same-sex couples being un-Constitutionally denied a right they’ve always possessed as persons within the United States, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

 

[Yurt]

How is that in any way relevant?

Same-sex couples have always had equal protection rights with regard to accessing marriage law, since before the Federal government, since before the Constitution. That’s the nature of inalienable rights.

That certain states refuse to acknowledge that right is the issue.

And Minnesota is poised to comply with the 14th Amendment, to their credit.

Other states, unfortunately, will be compelled to do so in the courts, such as California.

that is simply not true. show me one example where they had equal protection.

your argument about inalienable rights falls flat, as no other goverment acknowledged those rights, thus, same sex couples have not been able to marry. further, given marriage has, for the most part, been a construct granted from the state, your argument falls flat.

You don’t understand.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage, one law available to all.

An inalienable right is a right which manifest as a consequence of being human (for theists often referred to as ‘god-given’). Inalienable rights predate the Federal government and Constitution, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

The 14th Amendment codifies the doctrine of inalienable rights, in this case the right to equal protection (access) of the law.

The voters of California, therefore, never had the authority to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, as their effort was absent a rational basis, did not attempt to realize a legitimate legislative end, and was motivated solely by animus toward homosexuals.

Whether one has his Constitutional rights or not isn’t subject to majority rule, nor does one forfeit this rights as a consequence of his state of residence.

These are settled and accepted principles of our Constitutional Republic.

Consequently, it’s not a matter of same-sex couples being ‘allowed’ to marry; rather, it’s an issue of same-sex couples being un-Constitutionally denied a right they’ve always possessed as persons within the United States, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

where does marriage come from? who grants the license?

some inalienable entity or the government?

your "settled and accepted principles" are from our government, not inalienable.

you fail to grasp the concept of rights.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no evidence that the people chose this. Again it was imposed by the legislature. The people will have to do what the French are doing. Take direct action.

lol

yeah..because our government is just like the french government

If the government imposes same sex marriage it will be doing exactly what the French government did.

 

[bodecea]

WATCH: Simon Fights Back Tears During Gay Marriage Debate - Hopkins, MN Patch
Steve Simon, Minnesota Lawmaker, Fights Back Tears During Gay Marriage Speech (VIDEO)

"How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?"

Mr and Mrs Michelle Bachmann must be apoplectic.

Good for Simon and good for Minnesota.

I would expect Mr Bachmann is secretly cheering and measuring his divorce options with the Mrs.

 

[bodecea]

What do you think the large Muslim population there thinks about this?

Probably the same at the other RW overly religious group there thinks about it.

Bummer.

 

[Katzndogz]

WATCH: Simon Fights Back Tears During Gay Marriage Debate - Hopkins, MN Patch
Steve Simon, Minnesota Lawmaker, Fights Back Tears During Gay Marriage Speech (VIDEO)

"How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?"

Mr and Mrs Michelle Bachmann must be apoplectic.

Good for Simon and good for Minnesota.

I would expect Mr Bachmann is secretly cheering and measuring his divorce options with the Mrs.

Because all men are secretly gay, right?

 

[bodecea]

There is no evidence that the people chose this. Again it was imposed by the legislature. The people will have to do what the French are doing. Take direct action.

And your direct action would be?????

 

[bodecea]

WATCH: Simon Fights Back Tears During Gay Marriage Debate - Hopkins, MN Patch
Steve Simon, Minnesota Lawmaker, Fights Back Tears During Gay Marriage Speech (VIDEO)


Mr and Mrs Michelle Bachmann must be apoplectic.

Good for Simon and good for Minnesota.

I would expect Mr Bachmann is secretly cheering and measuring his divorce options with the Mrs.

Because all men are secretly gay, right?

No. But a lot of homophobes are. It's a cover. We've got a few here on these boards too.

 

[Katzndogz]

What do you think the large Muslim population there thinks about this?

They're measuring the ropes.

 

[bodecea]

What do you think the large Muslim population there thinks about this?

They're measuring the ropes.

How interesting. Are you selling the rope?

Personally, I'd like to see what happens to gay bashers these days. I suspect they might find the wrong end of a gun soon.

 

[Seawytch]

There is no evidence that the people chose this. Again it was imposed by the legislature. The people will have to do what the French are doing. Take direct action.

And your direct action would be?????

I asked the same question in another thread. I think she is trying to hint, in the most pussyfied way, that she will resort to violence as some nutters have done in France. Big talk on an anonymous board.

 

[boilermaker55]

Oh, absolutely just like the right wing group always has some hidden agenda once they have ran on the platform of jobs. But once in office it is all about voting issues and women's rights.
Don't try to make yourselves sound so high and mighty about the issues that really need addressing in this country.

Or, we can ignore this deliberate attempt to divert us from the bigger issues facing our nation.

 

[bodecea]

There is no evidence that the people chose this. Again it was imposed by the legislature. The people will have to do what the French are doing. Take direct action.

And your direct action would be?????

I asked the same question in another thread. I think she is trying to hint, in the most pussyfied way, that she will resort to violence as some nutters have done in France. Big talk on an anonymous board.

Yes...I saw that. And I notice how she ran away from you. She's not so tough, is she?

 

[Seawytch]

WATCH: Simon Fights Back Tears During Gay Marriage Debate - Hopkins, MN Patch
Steve Simon, Minnesota Lawmaker, Fights Back Tears During Gay Marriage Speech (VIDEO)


Mr and Mrs Michelle Bachmann must be apoplectic.

Good for Simon and good for Minnesota.

I would expect Mr Bachmann is secretly cheering and measuring his divorce options with the Mrs.

Because all men are secretly gay, right?

No...but ones that sound like Rip Taylor and run reparative therapy clinics probably are...

Barbarians need to be disciplined...(direct Marcus Bachman quote)

 

[bodecea]

I would expect Mr Bachmann is secretly cheering and measuring his divorce options with the Mrs.

Because all men are secretly gay, right?

No...but ones that sound like Rip Taylor and run reparative therapy clinics probably are...

Barbarians need to be disciplined...(direct Marcus Bachman quote)

So, I can see the dominatrix in her alright.......lol....and her husband just screams "BOTTOM!!!!"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

that is simply not true. show me one example where they had equal protection.

your argument about inalienable rights falls flat, as no other goverment acknowledged those rights, thus, same sex couples have not been able to marry. further, given marriage has, for the most part, been a construct granted from the state, your argument falls flat.

You don’t understand.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage, one law available to all.

An inalienable right is a right which manifest as a consequence of being human (for theists often referred to as ‘god-given’). Inalienable rights predate the Federal government and Constitution, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

The 14th Amendment codifies the doctrine of inalienable rights, in this case the right to equal protection (access) of the law.

The voters of California, therefore, never had the authority to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, as their effort was absent a rational basis, did not attempt to realize a legitimate legislative end, and was motivated solely by animus toward homosexuals.

Whether one has his Constitutional rights or not isn’t subject to majority rule, nor does one forfeit this rights as a consequence of his state of residence.

These are settled and accepted principles of our Constitutional Republic.

Consequently, it’s not a matter of same-sex couples being ‘allowed’ to marry; rather, it’s an issue of same-sex couples being un-Constitutionally denied a right they’ve always possessed as persons within the United States, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

where does marriage come from? who grants the license?

some inalienable entity or the government?

your "settled and accepted principles" are from our government, not inalienable.

you fail to grasp the concept of rights.

You continue to fail to understand.

States enact laws, such as marriage law.

The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause requires the states to allow all persons access to all of their laws, including marriage law.

Equal protection rights are inalienable, not subject to majority rule.

The rule of law is predicated on the Constitution, due process, and judicial review, not ‘the government.’

In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

California's Proposition 8, as with Colorado’s Amendment 2, clearly fails to realize this fundamental Constitutional requirement to be determined valid, and is consequently offensive to the Constitution.

 

[Katzndogz]

What do you think the large Muslim population there thinks about this?

They're measuring the ropes.

How interesting. Are you selling the rope?

Personally, I'd like to see what happens to gay bashers these days. I suspect they might find the wrong end of a gun soon.

If I had the rope franchise in muslim Minnesota I'd be almost as happy as if I had it in Michigan.

You have inadvertently hit on the solution. It might well be solved by the business end of a gun. Depending on who is holding it. Ask Lawrence King.


In France gays are getting beaten. In England they are burned to death. Hanged throughout the middle east. Not because they are gay. They should be left in peace. But, when they start controlling what others think and do it is time to fight back with whatever it takes. That is what will happen and is happening.

 

[Yurt]

There is no evidence that the people chose this. Again it was imposed by the legislature. The people will have to do what the French are doing. Take direct action.

lol

yeah..because our government is just like the french government

If the government imposes same sex marriage it will be doing exactly what the French government did.

you have it backwards. the government grants marriage licenses.

i would prefer the government not and instead only grant civil unions.

why is it so hard for you to understand that a marriage is nothing but a contract under our current laws? why do you want to deny people the equal right to contract?

 

[bodecea]

They're measuring the ropes.

How interesting. Are you selling the rope?

Personally, I'd like to see what happens to gay bashers these days. I suspect they might find the wrong end of a gun soon.

If I had the rope franchise in muslim Minnesota I'd be almost as happy as if I had it in Michigan.

You have inadvertently hit on the solution. It might well be solved by the business end of a gun. Depending on who is holding it. Ask Lawrence King.


In France gays are getting beaten. In England they are burned to death. Hanged throughout the middle east. Not because they are gay. They should be left in peace. But, when they start controlling what others think and do it is time to fight back with whatever it takes. That is what will happen and is happening.

I think you will find the results of fighting gays in the streets will not be what you desire.

There's an old saying..."Give me six lesbians with pool cue sticks and I can conquer the world."