Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Conservative65]

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.

Wrong. It addressed RACE. People like you with a very loose interpretation have deemed it otherwise.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Someone that has no clue about the Constitution has no business advising someone that does to do anything.

You left out something about striking down the ban. It was done by left wing, activists, ****** loving Liberal judges.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

States have the right to define marriage.

It's not the personal decisions that people make that bothers me. It's people like you thinking the ones I make have to suit you and the rest of the faggots.

As far as the 30 ounce soda, the problem there is the same people who support such a ban are the same ones that say they believe in freedom and choice then do those bans justifying it as they are looking out for the people. While you may not be able to do the math, I can buy two at 16 oz which adds up to 32 total.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

So you don't give a shit about anything. That fits because you aren't worth one either.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

See how the delusional justify their delusions?

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

The same sex marriage supporters are the ones who claim that two consenting adults should marry even if they are of the same gender because not allowing it is somehow violating their rights. However, the same ones justify how type sof marriage they disagree with shouldn't be allowed all the while claiming they support equality.

No one is doing that. Show me where I was have claimed that I "disagree" with incestuous, or polygamous marriage. The only claim that I have made is that there is no one demanding the "right" of polygamous, or incestuous marriage in the United States, so there is no one on who's behalf to demand those rights. You are trying to force a fight for rights for people who do not exist.

Your claim about no one demanding one of those types of marriages is false. If, as you say, those people don't exists, why are there laws prohibiting something you say no one wants? Governmental bodies didn't just think of writing them out of the blue.

 

[jillian]

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.

Someone that has no clue about the Constitution has no business advising someone that does to do anything.

You left out something about striking down the ban. It was done by left wing, activists, ****** loving Liberal judges.

moron, the ban in texas was struck down by a bush appointee.

and now go take your own advice because you don't have a clue about constitutional construction.

now please run along and bother someone else.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Someone that has no clue about the Constitution has no business advising someone that does to do anything.

You left out something about striking down the ban. It was done by left wing, activists, ****** loving Liberal judges.

moron, the ban in texas was struck down by a bush appointee.

and now go take your own advice because you don't have a clue about constitutional construction.

now please run along and bother someone else.

What I don't do is look at the Constitution in the faulty manner in which you exists.

When you have the ability to make me run along, do so. Until then, I don't work for a ***** like you, therefore, you tell me nothing about how or what I should do.

 

[jillian]

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.

Someone that has no clue about the Constitution has no business advising someone that does to do anything.

You left out something about striking down the ban. It was done by left wing, activists, ****** loving Liberal judges.

moron, the ban in texas was struck down by a bush appointee.

and now go take your own advice because you don't have a clue about constitutional construction.

now please run along and bother someone else.

What I don't do is look at the Constitution in the faulty manner in which you exists.

When you have the ability to make me run along, do so. Until then, I don't work for a ***** like you, therefore, you tell me nothing about how or what I should do.

faulty? you mean the way real judges to?

thanks for your expert advice.

again, i'd suggest you actually learn something because you clearly don't know anything about this particular subject.

big man though... .at least in your own imagination. but i guess someone who feels threatened by other people loving each other really is pretty insecure about his own sexuality.

 

[Pop23]

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.

I hate to keep finishing sentences, but you failed to add (insert this prior to the hand clapping)

.....and how the US Government sent troops into the Utah territory to insure marriage remained between one man and one woman.

Always happy to hep ya folks complete your thought process

 

[Pop23]

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.

Someone that has no clue about the Constitution has no business advising someone that does to do anything.

You left out something about striking down the ban. It was done by left wing, activists, ****** loving Liberal judges.

moron, the ban in texas was struck down by a bush appointee.

and now go take your own advice because you don't have a clue about constitutional construction.

now please run along and bother someone else.

What I don't do is look at the Constitution in the faulty manner in which you exists.

When you have the ability to make me run along, do so. Until then, I don't work for a ***** like you, therefore, you tell me nothing about how or what I should do.

faulty? you mean the way real judges to?

thanks for your expert advice.

again, i'd suggest you actually learn something because you clearly don't know anything about this particular subject.

big man though... .at least in your own imagination. but i guess someone who feels threatened by other people loving each other really is pretty insecure about his own sexuality.

Judges are just as likely to be enablers as anyone else.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Gays have always been allowed to marry

You're just being goofy again

 

[Pop23]

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?

Sadly no

But you're all invited to the wedding!

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Right...that must be why you bigoted ***** keep winning in court...

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Wrong. It addressed RACE. People like you with a very loose interpretation have deemed it otherwise.

The 14th was cited in Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safely (as was the fundamental right to marry). Those two cases had nothing to do with race. Look them up and square them with your "states rights" claim.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Yup...the ultimate irony.

 

[jillian]

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.

I hate to keep finishing sentences, but you failed to add (insert this prior to the hand clapping)

.....and how the US Government sent troops into the Utah territory to insure marriage remained between one man and one woman.

Always happy to hep ya folks complete your thought process

since you don't understand EQUAL protection... were non-mormons allowed multiple spouses?

no?

dismissed.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Would you please stop re-writing history to suit your agenda. Marriage in this Country has always been between a man and a woman. There are no examples of same sex people applying for marriage licenses AS same sex couples prior to the past 20 years.

For a large chunk of our history, women couldn't own property in their own names.

Because something has always been a certain way isn't a good enough reason.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Wrong. It addressed RACE. People like you with a very loose interpretation have deemed it otherwise.

The 14th was cited in Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safely (as was the fundamental right to marry). Those two cases had nothing to do with race. Look them up and square them with your "states rights" claim.

I guess you'll fail at every effort to show how same sex marriage is a right. Not one person has ever been denied the right to marry.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

I hate to keep finishing sentences, but you failed to add (insert this prior to the hand clapping)

.....and how the US Government sent troops into the Utah territory to insure marriage remained between one man and one woman.

Always happy to hep ya folks complete your thought process

since you don't understand EQUAL protection... were non-mormons allowed multiple spouses?

no?

dismissed.

I understand equal. Your problem is that if same sex couples aren’t allowed to marry, it’s unequal but if same sex couples are and types you don’t like aren’t you still consider that equal. F*ck off hypocrite.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From whence are YOU presuming this authority? I bet it's the same place.

I'm not that's the point. I am insisting that my personal moral views have absolutely no authority over the actions of anyone else, and neither do yours. No one's does. That is the point of the freedom from religion - no one gets to demand that anyone else live in accordance with one's personal moral views.

Well sure you are! You are trying to force me to live with homosexuals marrying. And now you reveal that it's because you basically believe in no moral boundaries whatsoever. Doesn't really matter how perverse or sick it might be, you don't think we have the right to impose our moral views.

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.

But now... aren't the seculars always claiming human morality is some sort of primal trait that doesn't base itself in religion? That atheists and god-haters are fully capable of being moral without a God? Here we see a clear example of what sort of "morality" is acceptable, or becomes acceptable quickly, as you remove moral boundaries and confront taboos.

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.

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???

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?

Of course there's freedom from religion.

This post is an example of some of the worst manifestations of religion, and why our Constitution prohibits its codification.

Our Constitution states government can't establish a religion. Religion is codified in every law that exists.

Again, "Freedom From Religion" is a concept which doesn't exist in the Constitution, or in any other civilized society that I am aware of.

I agree with this last part.

If the 1st protects the free exercise of religion, there isn't any reason why the US senate can't have a Xmas tree or the ten commandments on a statue in the lobby...as long as the government doesn't pay for it.

Whether government pays for it or not is irrelevant.

The First Amendment also prohibits the establishment of religion, thus protecting citizens' from religion as codified in secular law. This also manifests with the Constitution' prohibition of re

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.

The 14th Amendment was intended to protect the rights of all persons in the United States to be afforded due process and equal protection of the law by the states and local jurisdictions.

To enact measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to a state's marriage that law they are eligible to participate in violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which is why such measures are being invalidated by the court in accordance with the Amendment's original intent.