MT judge rules against gay couples seeking rights

[Shadow]

Mean spirited bastards.

Right. The judge should have just made up law right on the spot.

I don't understand WHY anyone would want to take this away from them. Is it that much to ask for? No.

Because the Bible says so.
Who cares about the US Constitution?

Gay rights are in the Constitution?

I was wondering where in the Bible it said they shouldn't be allowed to make healthcare decisions and given joint filing their taxes privilages.

 

[Samson]

Mob rule??

Where in the U.S. is this happening???

In most courtrooms. Judges know if they don't get "tough on crime," the voters are going to get tough on THEM, and their opportunistic asses could well be on the street come the next judicial election cycle. So they pander to the mob mentality.

Yeah, let's not let what the public believes is right get in the way of sentencing.

 

[xsited1]

Absolutely. The federal government has been trampling all over them lately

Yeah, that damn federal government. We all thought when they got done in Selma, Alabama in the 1960's, that would be the end of it, but it looks like they're starting up again.

When are those bastards going to leave us states alone so we can practice as much institutionalized bigotry as we want?

Most blacks hate it when people try to align their heroic civil rights struggle with the gay perverts agenda.

True! Of course you'd have to know quite a few blacks to understand that there is latent homophobia in the black community and will be for some time to come.

 

[George Costanza]

Mob rule??

Where in the U.S. is this happening???

In most courtrooms. Judges know if they don't get "tough on crime," the voters are going to get tough on THEM, and their opportunistic asses could well be on the street come the next judicial election cycle. So they pander to the mob mentality.

Yeah, let's not let what the public believes is right get in the way of sentencing.

Unfortunately, what the public "believes" isn't always the proper way for the criminal justice system to handle the administration of criminal justice.

Heck, using your logic here, lynch mobs could come back into vogue on the theory that hanging the suspect on the spot is just fine, since that's what the mob "believes" is the best thing to do.

 

[TheBrain]

In most courtrooms. Judges know if they don't get "tough on crime," the voters are going to get tough on THEM, and their opportunistic asses could well be on the street come the next judicial election cycle. So they pander to the mob mentality.

Yeah, let's not let what the public believes is right get in the way of sentencing.

Unfortunately, what the public "believes" isn't always the proper way for the criminal justice system to handle the administration of criminal justice.

Heck, using your logic here, lynch mobs could come back into vogue on the theory that hanging the suspect on the spot is just fine, since that's what the mob "believes" is the best thing to do.

Yep, many seem to want to throw out all legal opinions. Heck even up in the TSA thread going on, people are screaming that the SCOTUS has it wrong in allowing pat downs. Amazing that people think their smarter than people who have trained all their lives on the subject of the COTUS.

 

[rdean]

Republicans hate gays. Nothing new here folks. Move along.

 

[George Costanza]

I'm white and I hate it: What did people with Negroid features ever do to be deserved to be compared with Queers?

Blacks aren't behavorial deviants, they are simply carrying more melatonin.

Nothing bigoted here . . .

(Apologies if I missed a sarcasm smiley somewhere in this post. But I sure don't think I saw one.)

Please stop calling those who believe homosexuality is a choice bigots. A bigot is someone who hates someone else for who they are. Not all people who believe homosexuality is a choice hate those who choose it.

There is a logical fallacy in your argument here - when I have more time, I will hunt it down. In fact, now that I look at your statement here more closely, you may have utilized two logical fallacies.

People who hate homosexuals merely because they are homosexuals, are bigots. That is a simple fact, and I will label such people as bigots whenever I see them spouting their bigotry. Arguing that homosexuality is a choice is a convenient rationalization to justify bigotry against homosexuals.

You say, "Not all people who believe homosexuality is a choice hate those who choose it." I find that a rather strange statement. I have yet to see a person who is not opposed to homosexuality who also claims that gender preference is a choice. The only reason for arguing that it is a choice, is to then proceed to the next logical step, which is an argument that, since it is a choice, those who choose it are morally corrupt, because, underlying all of the preliminary argument on this point, is the belief that homosexuality is wrong.

Where do you stand on this issue? Do you think that homosexuality is wrong? Do you feel that gays should be allowed to marry? Do you feel that gays should be afforded all of the rights and privileges afforded to heterosexual married couples? And, at the same time, do you think that homosexuality is a choice?

 

[TheBrain]

Nothing bigoted here . . .

(Apologies if I missed a sarcasm smiley somewhere in this post. But I sure don't think I saw one.)

Please stop calling those who believe homosexuality is a choice bigots. A bigot is someone who hates someone else for who they are. Not all people who believe homosexuality is a choice hate those who choose it.

There is a logical fallacy in your argument here - when I have more time, I will hunt it down. In fact, now that I look at your statement here more closely, you may have utilized two logical fallacies.

People who hate homosexuals merely because they are homosexuals, are bigots. That is a simple fact, and I will label such people as bigots whenever I see them spouting their bigotry. Arguing that homosexuality is a choice is a convenient rationalization to justify bigotry against homosexuals.

You say, "Not all people who believe homosexuality is a choice hate those who choose it." I find that a rather strange statement. I have yet to see a person who is not opposed to homosexuality who also claims that gender preference is a choice. The only reason for arguing that it is a choice, is to then proceed to the next logical step, which is an argument that, since it is a choice, those who choose it are morally corrupt, because, underlying all of the preliminary argument on this point, is the belief that homosexuality is wrong.

Where do you stand on this issue? Do you think that homosexuality is wrong? Do you feel that gays should be allowed to marry? Do you feel that gays should be afforded all of the rights and privileges afforded to heterosexual married couples? And, at the same time, do you think that homosexuality is a choice?

You are entirely incorrect on this George. It is ENTIRELY possible to oppose homosexuality without hating those who choose to be homosexuals. I oppose bank robbery, I don't hate bank robbers.

Yes, it is my belief that homosexuality is a choice. Yes I realize there is an entire argument that can be made either way, and I doubt we would influence each other either way on that one, so let's just avoid that for now, shall we.

Now, understanding that I believe homosexuality is a choice and a choice that I don't condone, you should also know that I do not hate those who choose to be homosexual, nor do I condone taking away any of their rights for doing so.

Marriage is tricky, I don't think the government should have a damned thing to do with marriage. I think that some independent entity should be allowed to marry gays if they so wish. My Church certainly wouldn't sanctify such a marriage, but I doubt that sanctity would matter to gays anyway. I certainly don't care if a gay church recognizes my marriage.

I am FOR allowing them to serve in the military, I don't see it hindering their ability to do their jobs.

So , I have conclusively proven that a person can believe that homosexuality is a choice without being bigoted about it. I sincerely doubt I am alone. In fact I know I am not.

So, I ask again, kindly stop referring to anyone who believes that homosexuality is a choice as a bigot.

Oh, I forgot to address one issue. I DO absolutely believe that for tax and other governmental issues a gay marriage should be recognized equally as a straight marriage. Contract law doesn't care about the sexual orientation of the parties involved.

 

[Gadawg73]

Please stop calling those who believe homosexuality is a choice bigots. A bigot is someone who hates someone else for who they are. Not all people who believe homosexuality is a choice hate those who choose it.

There is a logical fallacy in your argument here - when I have more time, I will hunt it down. In fact, now that I look at your statement here more closely, you may have utilized two logical fallacies.

People who hate homosexuals merely because they are homosexuals, are bigots. That is a simple fact, and I will label such people as bigots whenever I see them spouting their bigotry. Arguing that homosexuality is a choice is a convenient rationalization to justify bigotry against homosexuals.

You say, "Not all people who believe homosexuality is a choice hate those who choose it." I find that a rather strange statement. I have yet to see a person who is not opposed to homosexuality who also claims that gender preference is a choice. The only reason for arguing that it is a choice, is to then proceed to the next logical step, which is an argument that, since it is a choice, those who choose it are morally corrupt, because, underlying all of the preliminary argument on this point, is the belief that homosexuality is wrong.

Where do you stand on this issue? Do you think that homosexuality is wrong? Do you feel that gays should be allowed to marry? Do you feel that gays should be afforded all of the rights and privileges afforded to heterosexual married couples? And, at the same time, do you think that homosexuality is a choice?

You are entirely incorrect on this George. It is ENTIRELY possible to oppose homosexuality without hating those who choose to be homosexuals. I oppose bank robbery, I don't hate bank robbers.

Yes, it is my belief that homosexuality is a choice. Yes I realize there is an entire argument that can be made either way, and I doubt we would influence each other either way on that one, so let's just avoid that for now, shall we.

Now, understanding that I believe homosexuality is a choice and a choice that I don't condone, you should also know that I do not hate those who choose to be homosexual, nor do I condone taking away any of their rights for doing so.

Marriage is tricky, I don't think the government should have a damned thing to do with marriage. I think that some independent entity should be allowed to marry gays if they so wish. My Church certainly wouldn't sanctify such a marriage, but I doubt that sanctity would matter to gays anyway. I certainly don't care if a gay church recognizes my marriage.

I am FOR allowing them to serve in the military, I don't see it hindering their ability to do their jobs.

So , I have conclusively proven that a person can believe that homosexuality is a choice without being bigoted about it. I sincerely doubt I am alone. In fact I know I am not.

So, I ask again, kindly stop referring to anyone who believes that homosexuality is a choice as a bigot.

Oh, I forgot to address one issue. I DO absolutely believe that for tax and other governmental issues a gay marriage should be recognized equally as a straight marriage. Contract law doesn't care about the sexual orientation of the parties involved.

If I was a homosexual I would prefer you hate me than to compare me to a bank robber.
Your argument is absurd.

 

[George Costanza]

You are entirely incorrect on this George. It is ENTIRELY possible to oppose homosexuality without hating those who choose to be homosexuals. I oppose bank robbery, I don't hate bank robbers.

I don't buy it. It sounds good, but I don't buy it. I would submit that most people both oppose bank robbery and hate bank robbers. I know I do. What about child molesters? Do you have the same compassion for child molesters, hating only what they do but not them?

Let's say your statement here is genuine, and that you truly do hate homosexuality but not homosexuals. Looks to me as if you are fully prepared to screw the hell out of gays as they try to exist on the same level as other members of society. I would guess this is because you oppose homosexuality in general. But what about the homosexuals (whom you do not hate at all) as individuals? What do you say to them - too bad; sorry, old sport, it isn't YOU that I hate but, rather, what you ARE that I have a real problem with?

With all due respect, I don't buy it.

 

[TheBrain]

You are entirely incorrect on this George. It is ENTIRELY possible to oppose homosexuality without hating those who choose to be homosexuals. I oppose bank robbery, I don't hate bank robbers.

I don't buy it. It sounds good, but I don't buy it. I would submit that most people both oppose bank robbery and hate bank robbers. I know I do. What about child molesters? Do you have the same compassion for child molesters, hating only what they do but not them?

Let's say your statement here is genuine, and that you truly do hate homosexuality but not homosexuals. Looks to me as if you are fully prepared to screw the hell out of gays as they try to exist on the same level as other members of society. I would guess this is because you oppose homosexuality in general. But what about the homosexuals (whom you do not hate at all) as individuals? What do you say to them - too bad; sorry, old sport, it isn't YOU that I hate but, rather, what you ARE that I have a real problem with?

With all due respect, I don't buy it.

With all due respect, you see what you want to see. I have clearly said that although I don't approve of homosexuality and I think it's a choice, I don't hate those who choose it. End of discussion, unless you would like to further attempt to read what is in my heart.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mean spirited bastards.

Right. The judge should have just made up law right on the spot.

Because the Bible says so.
Who cares about the US Constitution?

Gay rights are in the Constitution?

Where in the Constitution does it distinguish between gay and straight?
Where is there any mention of marriage or a definition of it under equal protection of the law?
The US Constitution is a document founded on the rights of the people and tells the government WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.

It cannot discriminate against protected classes of people when granting priviliges and immunities to its people.
People who seek same-sex marriage are not one of those protected classes; further, as everyone has the same limitation, the prohibition against gay marriage does not discriminate against anyone

 

[M14 Shooter]

I just read the case and these are the facts:
The State of Montana grants same sex couples the exact same benefits as straight couples in all government jobs.
The Montana Supreme Court, where this case is now headed on appeal, ruled that the state university system's past policy of barring any benefits to same sex couples that straight couples get violated the equal protection of the Montana Constitution.
The judge in his ruling noted sympathy for the same sex couples but noted that the Constitutional Marriage Provision barred a ruling in their favor.
Bottom line and my take is the separation of powers does not allow the judge to make any other ruling.
"This court finds plaintiffs proposals, although appealing, to be unprecendented and uncharted in Montana law".
A conservative Judge in favor of the plaintiffs but going by the law as it should be done.

Correct.
Under the law, same sex couples need not be married to gain the same benefits that opposite-sex couples can only receive when married. This discriminates agianst opposite-sex couples who are not married.

 

[Gadawg73]

Right. The judge should have just made up law right on the spot.
Gay rights are in the Constitution?

Where in the Constitution does it distinguish between gay and straight?
Where is there any mention of marriage or a definition of it under equal protection of the law?
The US Constitution is a document founded on the rights of the people and tells the government WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.

It cannot discriminate against protected classes of people when granting priviliges and immunities to its people.
People who seek same-sex marriage are not one of those protected classes; further, as everyone has the same limitation, the prohibition against gay marriage does not discriminate against anyone

True if everyone was prohibited from marriage.
Marriage is a civil contract only. The only way any government can prohibit is by contract.
How come gays can not get the contract and straights can?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where in the Constitution does it distinguish between gay and straight?
Where is there any mention of marriage or a definition of it under equal protection of the law?
The US Constitution is a document founded on the rights of the people and tells the government WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.

It cannot discriminate against protected classes of people when granting priviliges and immunities to its people.
People who seek same-sex marriage are not one of those protected classes; further, as everyone has the same limitation, the prohibition against gay marriage does not discriminate against anyone

True if everyone was prohibited from marriage.
Marriage is a civil contract only. The only way any government can prohibit is by contract.
How come gays can not get the contract and straights can?

You arent addressing the issue.
Everyone has the same limitations regarding marriage.
As such, no one is discriminated against.
:shrug:

 

[Gadawg73]

It cannot discriminate against protected classes of people when granting priviliges and immunities to its people.
People who seek same-sex marriage are not one of those protected classes; further, as everyone has the same limitation, the prohibition against gay marriage does not discriminate against anyone

True if everyone was prohibited from marriage.
Marriage is a civil contract only. The only way any government can prohibit is by contract.
How come gays can not get the contract and straights can?

You arent addressing the issue.
Everyone has the same limitations regarding marriage.
As such, no one is discriminated against.
:shrug:

Where is it written there should be any limitations on marriage?
Where is marriage defined by the Constitution?
Used to be marriage between the races was a "limitation".
That was wrong too.
Religion is what disagrees with it. Religion has no place in contract law or government.
Let gays bet married. Doesn't affect my or anyone's marriage.
The problem with America now is everyone wants government to stop everyone else from doing something hat bothers no one.
Everyone needs to mind their own business. Gay marriage is a non issue.

 

[Gadawg73]

It cannot discriminate against protected classes of people when granting priviliges and immunities to its people.
People who seek same-sex marriage are not one of those protected classes; further, as everyone has the same limitation, the prohibition against gay marriage does not discriminate against anyone

True if everyone was prohibited from marriage.
Marriage is a civil contract only. The only way any government can prohibit is by contract.
How come gays can not get the contract and straights can?

You arent addressing the issue.
Everyone has the same limitations regarding marriage.
As such, no one is discriminated against.
:shrug:

Here we have energy problems, fighting 2 wars, the economy sucks, the deficit and debtis staggering, education is failing, health care costs are bankrupting Americans, we need tax reform, we need to eliminate pork spending, businesses are failing, infrastructure is decaying and 117 other important issues need addressing and all of a sudden many Americans and you come forward and state "No, those issues need to go on the back burner. We must stop gay marriage as that is a priority issue."
With all these important issues that need addressing you are going to ease our minds and solve all of our problems by coming out strongly with a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage.
How fitting for you to want to use The United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the PRESERVATION of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people, gay folks, what THEY CAN NOT DO, rather than TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.

What a crock of shit. Anyone with a brain knows that gay marriage has no affect on this country and that this would be the first time the Constitution TOOK rights away from anyone.
It is maybe 193rd on the priority list. Tell you what, get back to ya in 2029 when things maybe a little better and then we will waste maybe 4 hours on the gay marriage issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

True if everyone was prohibited from marriage.
Marriage is a civil contract only. The only way any government can prohibit is by contract.
How come gays can not get the contract and straights can?

You arent addressing the issue.
Everyone has the same limitations regarding marriage.
As such, no one is discriminated against.
:shrug:

Where is it written there should be any limitations on marriage?
Where is marriage defined by the Constitution?
Used to be marriage between the races was a "limitation".

The -state- created the legal institution of marriage, and can therefore define it however it wants, so long as it doesn't discriminate against anyone when offering the priviliege.
In that regard, everyone is under the same restriction, and therefore no one is discriminated against.
:shrug:

 

[M14 Shooter]

True if everyone was prohibited from marriage.
Marriage is a civil contract only. The only way any government can prohibit is by contract.
How come gays can not get the contract and straights can?

You arent addressing the issue.
Everyone has the same limitations regarding marriage.
As such, no one is discriminated against.
:shrug:

Here we have energy problems, fighting 2 wars, the economy sucks, the deficit and debtis staggering, education is failing, health care costs are bankrupting Americans, we need tax reform, we need to eliminate pork spending, businesses are failing, infrastructure is decaying and 117 other important issues need addressing and all of a sudden many Americans and you come forward and state "No, those issues need to go on the back burner. We must stop gay marriage as that is a priority issue."

False premise, that all of these things cannot be sufficiently addressed at the same time.

How fitting for you to want to use The United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the PRESERVATION of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people, gay folks, what THEY CAN NOT DO, rather than TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.

Seems I've read somewhere the Constitution specifies that a state cannot discriminate against protected classes of people when granting priviliges and immunities to its people.

People who seek same-sex marriage are not one of those protected classes; further, as everyone has the same limitation, the prohibition against gay marriage does not discriminate against anyone

What a crock of shit. Anyone with a brain knows that gay marriage has no affect on this country and that this would be the first time the Constitution TOOK rights away from anyone.

Marriage, as a legal institution, isnt a right - it is a privilege granted by the state.

 

[Gadawg73]

You arent addressing the issue.
Everyone has the same limitations regarding marriage.
As such, no one is discriminated against.
:shrug:

Where is it written there should be any limitations on marriage?
Where is marriage defined by the Constitution?
Used to be marriage between the races was a "limitation".

The -state- created the legal institution of marriage, and can therefore define it however it wants, so long as it doesn't discriminate against anyone when offering the priviliege.
In that regard, everyone is under the same restriction, and therefore no one is discriminated against.
:shrug:

I believe that the states can legislate a marriage contract.
But I also believe it can be challenged, and defeated as the interracial ban was, on equal protection under the law.
Ted Olson, long time Republican, has challenged this in California and will challenge it in every state.
These laws will eventually go just as the interracial marriage laws did.
The sooner the better as they are a waste of time.
Hate to tell you there my man but the state CAN NOT define marriage anyway it wants.
That case was lost 40 years ago.