Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Czernobog]

The difference is that you are not referring to writing new law to accommodate for technology that did not exist 100 years ago. You are talking about changing existing law in order to support your continued discrimination that certainly did exist 100 years ago.

Homosexuality was considered a perversion back when the marriage laws were written. I'm sure the lawmakers never thought perverts would ever consider wanting to marry. They are, after all quite different than opposite sex couples.

Certain states realized the mistake and voted on defining it.

I am sure you realize this.

Correct?

What you are "sure' of carries exactly zero legal weight. The fact still remains that the law said what it said, until you moralists shat yourselves over the fact that "the homos" were taking advantage of the damn law as if they were "real people", and ran off to your state congresses to have the laws altered to fit your personal moral opinions.

Slavery should still be legal?

Wouldn't want to change a law.

Specially not those left to the state aye?

So, you're saying that the law was changed, like with the 14th amendment, in order to expand civil liberties to people that had previously been denied those liberties? No? Then you're right. We wouldn't want to change those laws in the way that you are attempting to change them, because those changes would directly conflict with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

You deflect, the 14th was never intended to address same sex marriage. Homosexuals were considered mentally challenged, perverted.

So says you. However, since we already know from Loving v Virginia that the 14th most assuredly applies to marriage, and the courts have, thus far, ruled contrary to your statement, that your opinion of what the 14th does, and does not, apply to is erroneous.

 

[Czernobog]

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

And I see the 14th amendment that requires that everyone be treated equally under the law. And that right applies to federal, STATE, even local laws. So, while you do get to regulate marriage at a state level, you still have to do so in a way that treats everyone equally.

So Real Estate law is the same in all 50 states?

How exciting aye ?

Not only is equality is not the same as identical, but equality doesn't apply to how statutes are worded from state to datate, but how statutes are applied from person to person, regardless of what state the said statute is passed in. Wow...you're really not very good at this, are you?

 

[Czernobog]

My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.

This should be illegal

Nuff for me

Why?

The two demographic groups are nowhere close to being equal by biology. The law cannot change this TRUTH.

And marriage has nothing to do with biology, and your fanaticism cannot change THAT truth.

The two demographic groups therefor aren't closely related then

Thanks for the help

Actually they are both adult American citizens, so they are both guaranteed the exact same protection under the law.

And you're welcome.

 

[Czernobog]

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

My State's laws say marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. That means the homos that want to make it otherwise are wanting to redefine the legal definition of where rules related to marriage should exist.

Your state's definition is unconstitutional.

Not when the Constitution doesn't give the fedeovernment authority over marriage but reserves it to the State which made it.

Unfortunatly the constitution hasn't been able to prevent certain states from oppressing minorities, and the same chronic abusers seem to make up the old confederacy

Gays could always marry in all 50 states

What are you babbling about?

So could blacks, and whites before Loving v Virginia, so long as they married the people that bigots found acceptable. That logic didn't work then, and it doesn't work, now. It's about the ability to marry the person of your choosing, without outside interference.

 

[Czernobog]

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.

Quote for me where I said that. If you cannot debate without fabricating my positions, then you should just shut up, so you don't look stupid.

Puleeeezeeee, you support incest and polygamy, one might make an educated assumption as to why.

Makes you feel better?

In other words, you are making assumptions about my views, and just pulling shit out of your ass. Like I said, if you can't debate without making shit about about my positions, you should just shut up, instead of looking stupid.

 

[Czernobog]

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.

Quote for me where I said that. If you cannot debate without fabricating my positions, then you should just shut up, so you don't look stupid.

Puleeeezeeee, you support incest and polygamy, one might make an educated assumption as to why.

Makes you feel better?

Wrong. My argument using those as an example show how the same sex supporters claiming they believe in marriage equality quickly show their argument is for an agenda as they do exactly toward certain types of marriages they say is wrong if done toward same sex ones

Except your argument fails, when those of us who actually mean what we say, indicate that we aren't the least bit worried about incestuous, or polygamous marriage, either.

And, for the record, Conservative65, I don't "support" same sex marriage. I don't give a shit about same sex marriage, one way, or the other. What I support is every single American citizen being allowed to decide for their damn selves who they marry. I don't care if that is someone of the opposite sex. I don't care if it's someone of the same sex. I don't care if it's a mother, daughter, son, cousin, brother, or sister. It is their business, and I could really care less about their choices, as they do not affect my choices even a little bit.

 

[Seawytch]

My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.

Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

Then please explain the following Supreme Court rulings: Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

And I see the 14th amendment that requires that everyone be treated equally under the law. And that right applies to federal, STATE, even local laws. So, while you do get to regulate marriage at a state level, you still have to do so in a way that treats everyone equally.

There is no law I know of that says a homosexual can't get married. Since none exists, they are being treated equally.

And before the SCOTUS ruled on Loving, blacks and whites were not prevented from marrying either. New bigots, new target...same old arguments.

 

[Seawytch]

The difference is that you are not referring to writing new law to accommodate for technology that did not exist 100 years ago. You are talking about changing existing law in order to support your continued discrimination that certainly did exist 100 years ago.

Homosexuality was considered a perversion back when the marriage laws were written. I'm sure the lawmakers never thought perverts would ever consider wanting to marry. They are, after all quite different than opposite sex couples.

Certain states realized the mistake and voted on defining it.

I am sure you realize this.

Correct?

What you are "sure' of carries exactly zero legal weight. The fact still remains that the law said what it said, until you moralists shat yourselves over the fact that "the homos" were taking advantage of the damn law as if they were "real people", and ran off to your state congresses to have the laws altered to fit your personal moral opinions.

Slavery should still be legal?

Wouldn't want to change a law.

Specially not those left to the state aye?

So, you're saying that the law was changed, like with the 14th amendment, in order to expand civil liberties to people that had previously been denied those liberties? No? Then you're right. We wouldn't want to change those laws in the way that you are attempting to change them, because those changes would directly conflict with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

You deflect, the 14th was never intended to address same sex marriage. Homosexuals were considered mentally challenged, perverted.

It wasn't intended to address interracial marriage, marriage for prisoners or marriage for divorcees either...and yet was cited in SCOTUS rulings declaring marriage a fundamental right.

 

[Pop23]

Homosexuality was considered a perversion back when the marriage laws were written. I'm sure the lawmakers never thought perverts would ever consider wanting to marry. They are, after all quite different than opposite sex couples.

Certain states realized the mistake and voted on defining it.

I am sure you realize this.

Correct?

What you are "sure' of carries exactly zero legal weight. The fact still remains that the law said what it said, until you moralists shat yourselves over the fact that "the homos" were taking advantage of the damn law as if they were "real people", and ran off to your state congresses to have the laws altered to fit your personal moral opinions.

Slavery should still be legal?

Wouldn't want to change a law.

Specially not those left to the state aye?

So, you're saying that the law was changed, like with the 14th amendment, in order to expand civil liberties to people that had previously been denied those liberties? No? Then you're right. We wouldn't want to change those laws in the way that you are attempting to change them, because those changes would directly conflict with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

You deflect, the 14th was never intended to address same sex marriage. Homosexuals were considered mentally challenged, perverted.

So says you. However, since we already know from Loving v Virginia that the 14th most assuredly applies to marriage, and the courts have, thus far, ruled contrary to your statement, that your opinion of what the 14th does, and does not, apply to is erroneous.

Lol, do you think that, when the 14th was brought forth , that if it included the idea that same sex marriage would be included, it would pass?

That is the height of delusion.

 

[Pop23]

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.

Quote for me where I said that. If you cannot debate without fabricating my positions, then you should just shut up, so you don't look stupid.

Puleeeezeeee, you support incest and polygamy, one might make an educated assumption as to why.

Makes you feel better?

Wrong. My argument using those as an example show how the same sex supporters claiming they believe in marriage equality quickly show their argument is for an agenda as they do exactly toward certain types of marriages they say is wrong if done toward same sex ones

Except your argument fails, when those of us who actually mean what we say, indicate that we aren't the least bit worried about incestuous, or polygamous marriage, either.

And, for the record, Conservative65, I don't "support" same sex marriage. I don't give a shit about same sex marriage, one way, or the other. What I support is every single American citizen being allowed to decide for their damn selves who they marry. I don't care if that is someone of the opposite sex. I don't care if it's someone of the same sex. I don't care if it's a mother, daughter, son, cousin, brother, or sister. It is their business, and I could really care less about their choices, as they do not affect my choices even a little bit.

No one is stopping anyone from marrying.

 

[Pop23]

Homosexuality was considered a perversion back when the marriage laws were written. I'm sure the lawmakers never thought perverts would ever consider wanting to marry. They are, after all quite different than opposite sex couples.

Certain states realized the mistake and voted on defining it.

I am sure you realize this.

Correct?

What you are "sure' of carries exactly zero legal weight. The fact still remains that the law said what it said, until you moralists shat yourselves over the fact that "the homos" were taking advantage of the damn law as if they were "real people", and ran off to your state congresses to have the laws altered to fit your personal moral opinions.

Slavery should still be legal?

Wouldn't want to change a law.

Specially not those left to the state aye?

So, you're saying that the law was changed, like with the 14th amendment, in order to expand civil liberties to people that had previously been denied those liberties? No? Then you're right. We wouldn't want to change those laws in the way that you are attempting to change them, because those changes would directly conflict with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

You deflect, the 14th was never intended to address same sex marriage. Homosexuals were considered mentally challenged, perverted.

It wasn't intended to address interracial marriage, marriage for prisoners or marriage for divorcees either...and yet was cited in SCOTUS rulings declaring marriage a fundamental right.

No one is being denied the right to marry dummy.

 

[Pop23]

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.

Quote for me where I said that. If you cannot debate without fabricating my positions, then you should just shut up, so you don't look stupid.

Puleeeezeeee, you support incest and polygamy, one might make an educated assumption as to why.

Makes you feel better?

In other words, you are making assumptions about my views, and just pulling shit out of your ass. Like I said, if you can't debate without making shit about about my positions, you should just shut up, instead of looking stupid.

I'll leave looking stoopid up to the LGBTQ-LMNOP's

 

[DriftingSand]

Interesting article in the Federalist:

Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

Some quotes:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), an institution that has vigorously opposed gay marriage for some time now, conceded that the political battle over marriage is over. “As far as the civil law is concerned,” the Mormon Church admitted, “the courts have spoken.”

Personally, I don’t have any misgivings about same-sex marriage, mostly because I don’t believe it destabilizes society or family—although I suspect it will offer gay Americans far more stability. The policy debate is about over, anyway. These days, we should be more troubled by the persistent need to coerce and demean those who hold religious objections to gay unions into compliance. And if I were, say, a practicing Catholic, I could never accept that the sacrament of marriage could be redefined by judges, democracy, or anyone other than the Big Guy. This is neither homophobic nor does it undermine your happiness. In my small “l” libertarian utopia, people are free to enter into voluntary arrangements and others are free to believe that the participants of these arrangements may lead to eternal damnation.

The polygamy argument offends many gay-marriage advocates, who view it as an unfair and unnecessary distraction. But I’m not offering Santorum-style slippery slope arguments here. I don’t believe polygamy will be legalized. My sense is that the vast majority of Americans have little interest in shacking up with their sisters or entering into a ménage à trois (well, in its literal meaning, “a household of three,” at least). Rather, I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not—or any other type of marriage? If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like “the ideal union is between only two individuals” then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”

Sorry to hear that some spokesmen for the Mormon Church have caved in and have "accepted" gay marriage as inevitable. I'm not Mormon but I held their sense of family values in fairly high regard. Oh well ... que sera! The size of the overall Christian church is shrinking but the folks who remain are the hardcore Christians I prefer to associate with. In other words, quality is far more important to me that quantity. I'm not Catholic either but I appreciate the fact that they're still standing strong. Dead wood must be pruned for the tree to remain strong.

 

[DriftingSand]

What you are "sure' of carries exactly zero legal weight. The fact still remains that the law said what it said, until you moralists shat yourselves over the fact that "the homos" were taking advantage of the damn law as if they were "real people", and ran off to your state congresses to have the laws altered to fit your personal moral opinions.

Slavery should still be legal?

Wouldn't want to change a law.

Specially not those left to the state aye?

So, you're saying that the law was changed, like with the 14th amendment, in order to expand civil liberties to people that had previously been denied those liberties? No? Then you're right. We wouldn't want to change those laws in the way that you are attempting to change them, because those changes would directly conflict with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

You deflect, the 14th was never intended to address same sex marriage. Homosexuals were considered mentally challenged, perverted.

It wasn't intended to address interracial marriage, marriage for prisoners or marriage for divorcees either...and yet was cited in SCOTUS rulings declaring marriage a fundamental right.

No one is being denied the right to marry dummy.

Yup. Gays have ALWAYS had the right to marry. Just find someone of the opposite sex like normal folks and get married. Problem solved.

 

[Pop23]

Homosexuality was considered a perversion back when the marriage laws were written. I'm sure the lawmakers never thought perverts would ever consider wanting to marry. They are, after all quite different than opposite sex couples.

Certain states realized the mistake and voted on defining it.

I am sure you realize this.

Correct?

What you are "sure' of carries exactly zero legal weight. The fact still remains that the law said what it said, until you moralists shat yourselves over the fact that "the homos" were taking advantage of the damn law as if they were "real people", and ran off to your state congresses to have the laws altered to fit your personal moral opinions.

Slavery should still be legal?

Wouldn't want to change a law.

Specially not those left to the state aye?

So, you're saying that the law was changed, like with the 14th amendment, in order to expand civil liberties to people that had previously been denied those liberties? No? Then you're right. We wouldn't want to change those laws in the way that you are attempting to change them, because those changes would directly conflict with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

You deflect, the 14th was never intended to address same sex marriage. Homosexuals were considered mentally challenged, perverted.

It wasn't intended to address interracial marriage, marriage for prisoners or marriage for divorcees either...and yet was cited in SCOTUS rulings declaring marriage a fundamental right.

So Stevie Nicks MUST marry me!

Sweet!

Anyone else noticed how the stock market has taken a dump since the SCOTUS refused to hear the states appeals.

Just sayin

 

[Boss]

There are two problems with your reply.

First, how does "forcing you to live with homosexuals marrying" affect your personal morals in any way? Does it force you to believe that homosexuality is moral? Does it force you to marrya someone of the same sex? How does it change your personal morals whatsoever? If the answer is "They don't", then I am not forcing any moral position on you.

How does it affect your personal morals to say marriage is between a man and woman? Forcing me to accept gay marriage affects the society I have to live in. I don't want an amoral society or the problems that comes with one.

Second, I absolutely believe in moral boundaries; those boundaries end at your front door.

But you've already stated that you don't believe in moral boundaries, or at least, you don't believe we have the right to dictate those to others through law. Marriage has nothing to do with your front door. No one is banning homosexual relationships behind closed doors... if that ever happens, let me know, I'll be on your side.

There is no "freedom from religion." Don't even know where to tell you to go find that... Religion is found in virtually every human society on the planet. What WE have is "freedom OF religion." That means, my viewpoints are equally valid to yours, even if I am religious.

You know, I am so sick of this stupid defelction. You know perfectly well that the first amendment not only protects the right of every person to practice their personal religion without interference from the government, but also protects every person from being forced to live according to anyone else's religious moral code. That is "freedom from religion". It isn't a guarantee that you will never be exposed to religious thought; only that you will never be coerced into practicing any religion, or behaving in accordance with any religion's moral code.

Nonsense. There is no "freedom from religion." Virtually every law we have is rooted in someone's religious moral code, there is no way to filter out religious morality and still have civil society. We have laws against theft and murder... that's someone's religious code you are being forced to abide. So you have a silly and ridiculous argument with no merit.

You see, we have the inalienable right to self govern. This means, we have the right to establish laws, which are essentially "restrictions on liberty" within the confines of free civil society. Most of those parameters are derived (at some point) through morality generally found in religious teaching. But even if they weren't, we still have the inalienable freedom of religion, so we can also establish laws which are outright religiously-based, if that's what "the people" want.

Yes, we do. However those laws must conform to the liberties enumerated in the Constitution. We do not have unlimited freedom to pass any laws we see fit.

Sorry, but the only thing "enumerated" in the Constitution are the powers enumerated to government. We are endowed inalienable rights. We have the right to self-govern, meaning we have the right to establish the boundaries of our liberties as a society.

Really? So the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights guaranteed to the people? The 14th amendment is not a guarantee to the people? You're full of shit, and you know it. There are a number of rights guaranteed to every citizen of the United States. Your right to "self-govern", ends exactly there - self. You do not have the unlimited right to pass any law that you see fit, and expect that law to be enforced, simply by virtue of the fact that it was enacted by majority rule. I guarantee you will not find that in the Constitution.

Again, the only thing "enumerated" in the Constitution are the powers of government. Our freedom is unlimited, we simply decide on the boundaries of that freedom through a democratic process. That is self-government. The Bill of Rights is a list of inalienable rights the government can't impinge, or at least, aren't supposed to have the power to.

And you are correct, I don't have the right to pass any law I see fit and expect that law to be enforced. However, I DO have the right to petition for redress and lobby for any law I want to be passed, and if a large enough contingent agrees with me, such law can be passed. There is no restrictions on that, anything we please as a collective society can be made law of the land.

Now, the difference in you and I is, I understand we are part of a collective society who also have a voice, and sometimes we may have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do. You seem to not grasp that concept and think that you can use government or courts to force society to accept what you want, even if they don't want it.

Really? Because you seem awfully willing to force everyone to conform to your views on what makes a marriage, and on the "morality" of homosexuality. It would seem to me that the people who understand that "have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do," are the ones who, while they themselves, are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, are in favor of letting everyony - including homosexuals - enjoy all of the rights, and liberties of everyone else.

Go ahead. Tell me again about how it should not be allowed because of its "immorality", while still pretending to believe in liberty...

You seem to be confused here... you have said you want to make it law of the land that homosexuals can marry. I have advocated for civil unions and removing government from the position of dictating what marriage means to the individual.... Which one of us is trying to impose their moral view on the other???

That entirely depends. When you say that you advocate "civil unions", do you mean that you support this for homosexuals, or for everyone. So long as you support that for everyone, and you support relegating the "Marriage Certificate" to the same realm as the "Certificate of Baptism", and the "Certificate of Confirmation" - that is to say, a useless piece of paper, that has no meaning to anyone other than the Church that issued it, and has no value in civil government whatsoever - then sure, I am in full agreement with you. However, good luck getting the religious to agree with that. On the other hand, if you are suggesting that straights should get to have their "marriages" recognized by the state, while the Gays have to make due with "civil unions", then sorry. That is not equality.

Liberty-shmiberty! This is NOT about LIBERTY! There is no place on this planet or in this universe, where everybody gets to just do as they goddam-well-please! Every law, rule, code of the most rudimentary human tribe, is some kind of restraint, restriction or limitation of some form of "liberty" in some way. We do not have the "liberty" to run around naked hurling our shit at each other. It's just the way it is! In a civil society, freedoms and liberties are restricted and limited. In OUR society, we have the constitutional right to establish those boundaries.

I believe in liberty more than you! You want a court or government to mandate Gay Marriage. Period! That is what you want, and nothing less will do. I am opposed to government mandating anything! I want THE PEOPLE to have that liberty on their own, without government involved. Why is government getting to tell us what the hell "marriage" is? Why can't individuals have the liberty to decide that for themselves?

Bullshit. You obviously still have no understanding of the concepts of either "Liberty", or the "Law". The entire purpose of the Law is to protect me from you. Nothing more, nothing less. "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins." That applies not only to the limitation of my actions, but also to the limitation of your right to limit my action. If I am not doing you demonstrable harm, then any attempt from you to limit my behavior is a violation of my individual liberty.

Sorry but there are numerous laws which limit your actions regardless of whether or not you find harm in those actions. The purpose of law is to establish civil society. My right is the right to self-govern in a free democratic society where the government has enumerated power and my liberty is limited only by the laws the self-governing people have established.

What YOU want is a Fascist state, where your cronies in government can dictate how I live and what liberties I can have. You think that because your liberal movement has made some headway in the past couple of decades, this is a safe bet. You're willing to blindly turn your liberty over to government because you view government as the defender of liberal issues. You're fine with government mandating our liberty because right now, government is your friend. If the tables were ever turned, you'd literally be having a cow in the streets while standing on one ear. You're fine with a Fascist liberal state, you'd be totally opposed to a Fascist conservative or religious state.

 

[bodecea]

Interesting article in the Federalist:

Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

Some quotes:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), an institution that has vigorously opposed gay marriage for some time now, conceded that the political battle over marriage is over. “As far as the civil law is concerned,” the Mormon Church admitted, “the courts have spoken.”

Personally, I don’t have any misgivings about same-sex marriage, mostly because I don’t believe it destabilizes society or family—although I suspect it will offer gay Americans far more stability. The policy debate is about over, anyway. These days, we should be more troubled by the persistent need to coerce and demean those who hold religious objections to gay unions into compliance. And if I were, say, a practicing Catholic, I could never accept that the sacrament of marriage could be redefined by judges, democracy, or anyone other than the Big Guy. This is neither homophobic nor does it undermine your happiness. In my small “l” libertarian utopia, people are free to enter into voluntary arrangements and others are free to believe that the participants of these arrangements may lead to eternal damnation.

The polygamy argument offends many gay-marriage advocates, who view it as an unfair and unnecessary distraction. But I’m not offering Santorum-style slippery slope arguments here. I don’t believe polygamy will be legalized. My sense is that the vast majority of Americans have little interest in shacking up with their sisters or entering into a ménage à trois (well, in its literal meaning, “a household of three,” at least). Rather, I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not—or any other type of marriage? If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like “the ideal union is between only two individuals” then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”

Sorry to hear that some spokesmen for the Mormon Church have caved in and have "accepted" gay marriage as inevitable. I'm not Mormon but I held their sense of family values in fairly high regard. Oh well ... que sera! The size of the overall Christian church is shrinking but the folks who remain are the hardcore Christians I prefer to associate with. In other words, quality is far more important to me that quantity. I'm not Catholic either but I appreciate the fact that they're still standing strong. Dead wood must be pruned for the tree to remain strong.

It's pretty funny and poetic justice what has happened in Utah considering how much money the Mormon Church spent in California on Prop H8. Total poetic justice.

 

[bodecea]

What you are "sure' of carries exactly zero legal weight. The fact still remains that the law said what it said, until you moralists shat yourselves over the fact that "the homos" were taking advantage of the damn law as if they were "real people", and ran off to your state congresses to have the laws altered to fit your personal moral opinions.

Slavery should still be legal?

Wouldn't want to change a law.

Specially not those left to the state aye?

So, you're saying that the law was changed, like with the 14th amendment, in order to expand civil liberties to people that had previously been denied those liberties? No? Then you're right. We wouldn't want to change those laws in the way that you are attempting to change them, because those changes would directly conflict with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

You deflect, the 14th was never intended to address same sex marriage. Homosexuals were considered mentally challenged, perverted.

It wasn't intended to address interracial marriage, marriage for prisoners or marriage for divorcees either...and yet was cited in SCOTUS rulings declaring marriage a fundamental right.

So Stevie Nicks MUST marry me!

Sweet!

Anyone else noticed how the stock market has taken a dump since the SCOTUS refused to hear the states appeals.

Just sayin

Has Stevie Nicks consented to marry you?

 

[jillian]

My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.

Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

States have the right to make determinations about status. Their determinations, however, cannot be issued unequally. in other words, they must provide equal protection under the law. As marriage is a fundamental right (see Loving v Virginia as you were advised to do above) the right cannot be restricted unless the government has a good reason to do so. Bigotry is not only NOT a good reason, it is exactly what the Court would rule against. As you can see, the Court has allowed the Federal Circuits to strike down ban after ban. When one of the Circuits upholds the ban, the high Court will have to act to resolve disagreement between the Circuits. So, I think it's a pretty fair bet that you need to get used to not giving a rat's patoot about who consenting adults (who have nothing to do with you) love.

I always wonder why it's always the pretend small government types who want to stick their nose into others' most personal decisions but have nervous breakdown the minute they're not allowed to buy a 30 ounce soda.