NY activist judges allow same sex marriage

[Avatar4321]

<blockquote>Amendment 14

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. <b>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws</b>.</blockquote>

Nothing extreme about it, unless you consider the Constitution to be an extremist document. It applies to all, or it applies to none. Get over it.

No state has deprived any person of life liberty or property without due process of the law or denied any person equal protection of the laws. As such has not happened your quotation here is irrelevant and you are shown to be intellectually lacking.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hmmm....So, anybody who disagrees with your perversely self-righteous and distorted world view hates America. You are so full of crap your eyes are brown. Beside that, you really are a sick, bitter piece of work.

Actually Bully i think he was just critisizing you for hating America. It had nothing to do with your disagreement with him. It has everything to do with your continual attacks on the foundations of American society and your clear contempt for the American people and the Constitutional Process.

 

[Avatar4321]

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002053.html

Is this a joke or is this serious?

Edit: (How sad has this world become that I seriously have to ask that question)

 

[Johnney]

Is this a joke or is this serious?

Edit: (How sad has this world become that I seriously have to ask that question)

im hoping it a joke.

 

[Bullypulpit]

No state has deprived any person of life liberty or property without due process of the law or denied any person equal protection of the laws. As such has not happened your quotation here is irrelevant and you are shown to be intellectually lacking.

Same-gender couples are denied the same benefits, rights, responsibilites and protections under the law that traditional couples enjoy, and they are being denied these benfits and protections without due process. The rational for denying them these benefits is no different than the rationale put forth to justify anti-miscegenation laws, which were all finally overturned in 1967.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Actually Bully i think he was just critisizing you for hating America. It had nothing to do with your disagreement with him. It has everything to do with your continual attacks on the foundations of American society and your clear contempt for the American people and the Constitutional Process.

Actually, it has everything to do with my disagreement with him, and even with yourself. What you percieve as "continual attacks on the foundations of American society", are only criticisms of your narrow, fear-blinkered view of the world. You and OCA, as well as several others here, have so much energy bound up in an essentially fear based view of the world, that when anyone who is not so shackled by fear questions that world view, you lash out at them. You accuse them of hating that which you cannot even see clearly. It is why you accuse me of hating America. And, you...could...not...be...more...wrong.

<blockquote>Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. - Matthew 7:5</blockquote>

 

[Annie]

Is this a joke or is this serious?

Edit: (How sad has this world become that I seriously have to ask that question)

Sorry, I usually remind everyone that Scrappleface is satire. I thought it appropriate commentary on this topic.

 

[Avatar4321]

Same-gender couples are denied the same benefits, rights, responsibilites and protections under the law that traditional couples enjoy, and they are being denied these benfits and protections without due process. The rational for denying them these benefits is no different than the rationale put forth to justify anti-miscegenation laws, which were all finally overturned in 1967.

Bully you can claim that all you want but everyone has the same rights regardless. Becuase we dont let gays create brand new rights that dont exist doesnt mean they dont have the same rights as everyone else right now.

 

[Gem]

Bullypulpit,

This particular point in the gay marriage debate simply doesn't hold water. Homosexuals and Heterosexuals have the same "right" under the current law: to marry a member of the opposite sex.

If a heterosexual was permitted to marry another heterosexual of the SAME SEX...but homosexuals were not, THEN rights would be being denied. If a homosexual was not permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex, THEN rights would be being denied.

The proposal of gay marriage is not about granting a right that some people already have...but rather is about creating an entirely different, new right for people...the right to marry someone of the same sex.

 

[Avatar4321]

Bullypulpit,

This particular point in the gay marriage debate simply doesn't hold water. Homosexuals and Heterosexuals have the same "right" under the current law: to marry a member of the opposite sex.

If a heterosexual was permitted to marry another heterosexual of the SAME SEX...but homosexuals were not, THEN rights would be being denied. If a homosexual was not permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex, THEN rights would be being denied.

The proposal of gay marriage is not about granting a right that some people already have...but rather is about creating an entirely different, new right for people...the right to marry someone of the same sex.

You know by saying this Bully will just accuse you of being afraid and oppressing those poor gay people who cant get new rights created for them.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You know by saying this Bully will just accuse you of being afraid and oppressing those poor gay people who cant get new rights created for them.

No rights are being created...Existing ones are simnply being extended to all. We are, or at least we were, an inclusive society, where all could enjoy equal protection under the law.

 

[Gem]

Bully,

How would you explain the decision to be inclusive for couples but not polygamists. All of the same arguments you and others have used here...a right being denied, being inclusive, their choice not ours, interracial marriage, etc. etc. can hold true for polygamists as well. How will you explain to them that your grand notion of being an inclusive society under the law doesn't refer to them?

Oh...and you're still wrong about the whole "rights" issue.

A right is EXTENDED...if it is given to people who didn't have it before. If people not born in this nation were not permitted to marry here...and they were given that right...the right to get married to a person of the opposite sex would be EXTENDED to them.

If there has never been a precedent of same-sex marriage being legal, if it was something that has never been formally recognized by our nation before...if it is new...which gay-marriage being legal in the US would be....then it is a NEW right.

Not extending the right, Bully....making a new one. Now we can discuss whether or not that new right makes sense...but it isn't an extension of the old right....because the old right is the right to marry someone of the opposite sex....the new right would be the right to marry someone of the same sex.

 

[Johnney]

Bully,

How would you explain the decision to be inclusive for couples but not polygamists. All of the same arguments you and others have used here...a right being denied, being inclusive, their choice not ours, interracial marriage, etc. etc. can hold true for polygamists as well. How will you explain to them that your grand notion of being an inclusive society under the law doesn't refer to them?

Oh...and you're still wrong about the whole "rights" issue.

A right is EXTENDED...if it is given to people who didn't have it before. If people not born in this nation were not permitted to marry here...and they were given that right...the right to get married to a person of the opposite sex would be EXTENDED to them.

If there has never been a precedent of same-sex marriage being legal, if it was something that has never been formally recognized by our nation before...if it is new...which gay-marriage being legal in the US would be....then it is a NEW right.

Not extending the right, Bully....making a new one. Now we can discuss whether or not that new right makes sense...but it isn't an extension of the old right....because the old right is the right to marry someone of the opposite sex....the new right would be the right to marry someone of the same sex.

still trying to figure out why they feel the need to turn marriage into a circus. ive stated it before and ill say it again. if they hadnt of been so "in your face and down your throat" about the whole were gay and you have to accept it thing, then, imo, things would have probably been different. ease into it subtly so its not as noticable

 

[Gem]

Well, firstly, homosexual couples who wish to marry out of love and a desire to be wed, and their supporters, rather than people who are trying to "rock the system," do not feel that they are making a circus out of marriage. They feel that they are fighting for something they should be allowed to do because they are U.S. citizens who should be entitled to the same rights and privledges as other U.S. citizens.

Whether or not you agree with homosexuality, the desire to marry the person you love with your friends and family there to publically support you as you do so, should be a familiar desire for most people.

You don't have to agree with them, you don't have to like homosexuality.
But the large number of people who support gay marriage are not out to destroy society...they feel that they are fighting for what is right. Now, you can feel that they are right or wrong...but if we are trying to start from sqaure one...its better to start at an honest square one: People who are fighting for gay marriage believe that they are fighting for the rights of fellow Americans to marry the person they love. People who are against gay marriage feel that it would be detrimental to our society to allow gay marriages.

We can have a lengthy conversation about what I've written already, I'm sure...but here's my main gripe with the pro-gay marriage side of this debate....

What I have an issue with are people who consider any objection, or even a person asking questions about gay marriage, as a sign of bigotry and hatred.

I believe that any time the nation is considering making a change that would alter forever the way things have been done in that nation since its inception...it should be a decision made with hesitancy and consideration. Not because I hate the people pushing for the decision...but because I want to be fully aware of the possible ramifications of such a decision.

The homosexual community has made a serious blunder, in my opinion, in allowing its supporters to define any discussion or debate over gay marriage to be labled as hate speech against gays, screaming, "BIGOT" and "HOMOPHOBE!," rather than saying, "We welcome a discussion about the pros and cons of gay marriage, because we feel that when that conversation is over, the majority of Americans will see, as we do, that allowing two people who are in love to marry will be good for our society, rather than bad."

Now, obviously, people like OCA and Pale Rider and many others can not be swayed. Their opinions are well-formed and deeply felt, and must be respected as much as the next persons. However, the gay community alienated many "moderates" in the past few years...and I agree with you, it will be an uphill climb for them to gain the popular support they seek.

 

[Annie]

Well, firstly, homosexual couples who wish to marry out of love and a desire to be wed, and their supporters, rather than people who are trying to "rock the system," do not feel that they are making a circus out of marriage. They feel that they are fighting for something they should be allowed to do because they are U.S. citizens who should be entitled to the same rights and privledges as other U.S. citizens.

Whether or not you agree with homosexuality, the desire to marry the person you love with your friends and family there to publically support you as you do so, should be a familiar desire for most people.

You don't have to agree with them, you don't have to like homosexuality.
But the large number of people who support gay marriage are not out to destroy society...they feel that they are fighting for what is right. Now, you can feel that they are right or wrong...but if we are trying to start from sqaure one...its better to start at an honest square one: People who are fighting for gay marriage believe that they are fighting for the rights of fellow Americans to marry the person they love. People who are against gay marriage feel that it would be detrimental to our society to allow gay marriages.

We can have a lengthy conversation about what I've written already, I'm sure...but here's my main gripe with the pro-gay marriage side of this debate....

What I have an issue with are people who consider any objection, or even a person asking questions about gay marriage, as a sign of bigotry and hatred.

I believe that any time the nation is considering making a change that would alter forever the way things have been done in that nation since its inception...it should be a decision made with hesitancy and consideration. Not because I hate the people pushing for the decision...but because I want to be fully aware of the possible ramifications of such a decision.

The homosexual community has made a serious blunder, in my opinion, in allowing its supporters to define any discussion or debate over gay marriage to be labled as hate speech against gays, screaming, "BIGOT" and "HOMOPHOBE!," rather than saying, "We welcome a discussion about the pros and cons of gay marriage, because we feel that when that conversation is over, the majority of Americans will see, as we do, that allowing two people who are in love to marry will be good for our society, rather than bad."

Now, obviously, people like OCA and Pale Rider and many others can not be swayed. Their opinions are well-formed and deeply felt, and must be respected as much as the next persons. However, the gay community alienated many "moderates" in the past few years...and I agree with you, it will be an uphill climb for them to gain the popular support they seek.

I have a funny take on this. Too many of my ex's family were gay, both men and women. Hey there were also a couple of millionaires and murderers thrown in, very stange genetics indeed, without dealing with the paranoids and obsessives. Some very interesting folk, many of which could have been pegged switch hitting from very young age. I don't think they had a 'say' on which team they were playing on. That doesn't mean that I think they should be able to 'marry' their significant other, on the other hand, they didn't choose it, as much as were drafted.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Well, firstly, homosexual couples who wish to marry out of love and a desire to be wed, and their supporters, rather than people who are trying to "rock the system," do not feel that they are making a circus out of marriage. They feel that they are fighting for something they should be allowed to do because they are U.S. citizens who should be entitled to the same rights and privledges as other U.S. citizens.

I wrote an article on the subject a year ago, wherein some homosexual couples are actually opposed to gay marriage on the grounds they do not need it to legitimize their relationship.

http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/civilunions/i/GayMarIssue.htm


In their case, they live in a state where they are afforded pretty much the same rights asa married couple.

Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

I don't think they had a 'say' on which team they were playing on. That doesn't mean that I think they should be able to 'marry' their significant other, on the other hand, they didn't choose it, as much as were drafted.

Well, if they didn't choose it - as in an african american can't choose being black - then why can't they be afforded the same protections under the law as straight couples?

A

 

[Annie]

Well, if they didn't choose it - as in an african american can't choose being black - then why can't they be afforded the same protections under the law as straight couples?

A

Doesn't fit the parameters. I for one, have no problem with women being exempt from combat and probably the draft. On the other hand, there are exceptions. I acknowledge and say they don't matter. Shi* for those that fall within, but the laws need to be made for the 'majority.'

 

[Bullypulpit]

Doesn't fit the parameters. I for one, have no problem with women being exempt from combat and probably the draft. On the other hand, there are exceptions. I acknowledge and say they don't matter. Shi* for those that fall within, but the laws need to be made for the 'majority.'

No, dear, laws need to be made for ALL.

 

[Annie]

No, dear, laws need to be made for ALL.

Exactly Bully. Since there is no 'all' laws are for the majority. There are woment that are capable of what was addressed, but they are few and far. So they will be ignored, not fair, but reality.