Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[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.

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

Yeah, you know that was the argument used in Loving v Virginia, right? it didn't work then, either. A person has the right to marry whomever they wish, without judgement, or interference from anyone else - so long as both parties are consenting adults, that is. And you already know this. Thank you for playing...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“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.”


But you don't understand equal protection jurisprudence, or the law in general, for that matter.

Disallowing same-sex couples to marry violates their equal protection rights because they're currently eligible to enter into a marriage contract exactly as marriage law is currently written – unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

That's not the case should three or more persons wish to marry, as there is currently no state law that can accommodate such a configuration. And because there is no law in existence allowing three or more persons to marry, there is no civil rights violation.

Consequently, there is no 'hypocrisy.'

 

[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.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

That's a flat out lie. I have said, repeatedly, that I also support incestuous marriage, and polygamy. How is it that you have not understood that, every time I've said it? Actually bolding the words was an attempt to help you understand the idiocy of your position. I can see that this may be impossible...

You said you support the concept. There's a difference you seem to stupid to grasp. Perhaps it's because you've been cornholed too many times.

Yes, there is a difference. In order to "fight for that right", there would need to be someone who is being denied that right, so that a lawsuit could be filed on their behalf. You know...a person who is claiming that their right to do something is being denied? Do we have one of those? Do you know anyone who wants to marry a relative, and is being told they can't, and wants to file suit? How about someone who wants to marry more than one spouse, and being told they can't, and wants to file suit? No? Then just how do you suggest that I should "show my support" for either of those rights, beyond saying that, if someone did sue for such a right I would support them?

One of us seems to be overly obsessed with cornholing anyway...

 

[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.

Guess what? It didn't apply to blacks marrying whites, either, until it did. Kinda cool how that works. When the guarantee of equal protection is offered, it ends up applying to people that the original authors of the guarantee never dreamed it would apply to...

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Wrong. It addressed MARRIAGE. People like you who would like to justify your discrimination have tried, and failed, to deem it otherwise.

 

[Boss]

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.

Same sex couples are not allowed to get a marriage license for the same reason they can't get a plumber's license, they don't qualify or meet the criteria. You continue your lie as if we've established that homosexual partnerships are marriages and that has never been established.

A homosexual person has the same access to the marriage license as anyone else. You are wanting to change marriage to include something marriage does not include, and what's more, you're acting as if that is already a settled fact. The 14th simply doesn't give anyone the right to pervert the meaning of words to include that which it doesn't include so they can claim an "equality" bias. If it did, then when someone decided they wanted to **** little kids, they'd simply change 'marriage' to mean that. All it would ever take is someone jumping up and down, screaming their rights have been violated.

 

[Czernobog]

No one is stopping anyone from marrying who they want.

I added the part you keep forgetting. Oh! Wait! Adding that part is what would make your statement a lie, isn't it. Okay. Saying the same thing over, and over doesn't make it any less pointless.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Well, at least you're honest about it. "You have the right to marry anyone you want - so long as we approve. That's liberty isn't it???"

 

[Pop23]

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.

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? 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

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.

I disagree, the thought would have never crossed their minds. Homosexuals were considered mentally incompetent

 

[Boss]

Yeah, you know that was the argument used in Loving v Virginia, right? it didn't work then, either. A person has the right to marry whomever they wish, without judgement, or interference from anyone else - so long as both parties are consenting adults, that is. And you already know this. Thank you for playing...

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

You can't marry "whomever you wish without judgment or interference from anyone else" and you admit that. As soon as it pops out of your mouth, you have to apply the caveat "so long as..." Therefore, we see there are criteria to marriage that is applied. You forgot to mention... so long as both are legal age... so long as both are not immediately related... so long as both are living... so long as both are not already married... so long as the fee is paid in full to the clerk... in some states, I think you still have to provide a blood test. So, Loving certainly did not establish that anyone can marry whomever they please without judgement or interference from anyone else.

I think it's a real dangerous precedent to set when we start allowing "whatever" to be a right.

 

[Czernobog]

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 marry 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.

Wrong. Saying, "marriage is between a man and woman" only, prevents me from having the personal liberty to marry the person whom I love, and choose to spend the rest of my life with. Not allowing you to tell other people who that cannot marry, on the other hand, affects no one. Your "society" is nothing more than a collection of individuals. Besides you didn't say that i was forcing The only "problems" that come with an amoral society is that you do not get to make rules for anyone based on your personal moralistic views. Fortunately, for the rest of us, we have the Constitution to prevent you from creating your Theocratic Utopia. Hate it for ya.

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.

Marriage has everything to do with my front door, with my personal life, with my partner. Allow me to list for you the many ways that Marriage affects my family, and are within my front door:
Tax Benefits

• Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
• Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
• Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
• Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

• Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
• Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

• Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
• Applying for joint foster care rights.
• Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
• Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

• Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
• Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

• Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
• Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
• Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

• Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
• Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
• Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
• Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
• Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
• Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

So, please do not insult my intelligence by suggesting to me that denying me the right to marry the person I love has nothing to do with my front door.

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.

That is a logical fallacy. Simply because the same concepts are found in two different sources, you cannot presume that the one came about because of the other. The entire reason the framers of the Constitution added the first amendment, is because they foresaw religious zealots such as yourself attempting to do exactly what you just did, and presume a religious source for civil law.

Of course it is possible to separate religious morality from civil society. You do this simply by remembering the purpose of civil law - to protect me from you. That is not a religious, or even a moral purpose; it is a simple matter of self-preservation. Using your example, no one really thinks that murder is wrong. In fact, because man is a violant, vindictive, vicious creature, almost everyone can think of, at least, one, or two people that they are certain would make the world a better place, if they were just allowed to relieve those people of the need to breathe. However, everyone who is not mentally ill is rather fond of the practice of breathing themselves. Hence, I don't want you killing me. therefore, as a matter of self- preservation, we all agree that killing each other is not allowed, and that doing so will result in unpleasant consequences for anyone violating that rule we all agreed to. No great moral code here, just simple self-preservation. The same is true of every universal civil rule, whether it be theft, or assault, or any thing else. The very simple principle - which carries absolutely no morality at all - is protecting me from you.

The only reason anyone ever bothered trying to justify these rules with a religious code is because in addition to being violent, vindictive, and vicious, man is also superstitious. As such, the clever ones who wanted power realized that the easiest way to justify their edicts was to wrap them in superstition. You see, there is no reason at all for you to abide by anything I say . However, when I am able to convince you that "God" said it, wellll...suddenly these edicts of mine are incontestable. After all, they were of divine origin!!!

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, some of you decided that not only was it your responsibility to protect me from you, but it was your responsibility to protect me from myself. Guess what? Not only is that not your responsibility; it is not even your prerogative, and every time you pass some stupid morality law, all you manage to do is violate the individual liberties of the very people you think you are protecting.

Please do us all a favor. Quit trying to protect us, and mind your own ******* business. We are not children, and we do not need you to make our decisions for us.

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.

No, you don't. Actually, yes...yes you do. All you have to do is, first, vote to get rid of the Constitution, and the constraints that the Constitution puts on you, and your compatriots, in terms of passing laws. however, so long as you wish to be part of the United States, you have no choice but to accept those constraints. Which means that you do not get to pass laws that infringe on the rights of others, no matter how much you would like to.

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.

You're tight. The purpose of law is to establish a civil society- not a "moral" one, but a civil one.
That is not your right. Your right to self-govern ends at my right to self determination. This is why our society included a list of recognized rights that you are not allowed to violate with those laws that you wish to enact.

Now, if you don't like those restrictions, by all means, leave. Find a country, or create a country, that does not put those restrictions on your right of "self-governance".

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.

That's laughable! I'm the one insisting that you do not get to use the government to tell people how they get to live, and you accuse me of being the fascist. That stupid ad hominem is not even worthy of a response.

Moving on...

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Really? So, someone destroys your silly little "Look! You're all hypocrites!" argument, and your reaction is an ad hominem. ...pathetic...

 

[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.

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.

Cite them. Cite one person who has petitioned the court for the right to marry a close relative, or more than one spouse. No? that would be because you are full of shit.

 

[Seawytch]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

 

[Czernobog]

Yeah, you know that was the argument used in Loving v Virginia, right? it didn't work then, either. A person has the right to marry whomever they wish, without judgement, or interference from anyone else - so long as both parties are consenting adults, that is. And you already know this. Thank you for playing...

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

You can't marry "whomever you wish without judgment or interference from anyone else" and you admit that. As soon as it pops out of your mouth, you have to apply the caveat "so long as..." Therefore, we see there are criteria to marriage that is applied. You forgot to mention... so long as both are legal age... so long as both are not immediately related... so long as both are living... so long as both are not already married... so long as the fee is paid in full to the clerk... in some states, I think you still have to provide a blood test. So, Loving certainly did not establish that anyone can marry whomever they please without judgement or interference from anyone else.

I think it's a real dangerous precedent to set when we start allowing "whatever" to be a right.

I didn't forget shit. all of those other "so long as..." are moralistic bullshit that should not apply. The constitution applies to adult citizens of the United States. Consent applies directly to the amoral concept of protecting me from you. You do not get to do things without my consent. Non-adults are not, by definition, capable of giving consent. Therefore marrying a non-adult is an attack on them. You can keep trying to make this about morality all you want, but that is why you will keep losing.

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

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

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.

I disagree, the thought would have never crossed their minds. Homosexuals were considered mentally incompetent

WERE. As WERE blacks at one time. As WERE women at one time. As WERE Asians at one time.

 

[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.

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.

Activist "Justices" does not "justice," make. If America is to retain any true sense of justice then Congress shall rein in Federal Judges who step beyond their bounds. When the vote of the People, by the People, and for the People is overruled by a single, sycophant judge then an injustice has taken place.

 

[Pop23]

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

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.

I disagree, the thought would have never crossed their minds. Homosexuals were considered mentally incompetent

WERE. As WERE blacks at one time. As WERE women at one time. As WERE Asians at one time.

Dummy, they are races.

Homosexuality is not a race.

 

[Pop23]

Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with this. In that case, people were being denied the right to do something others could do on the basis of race. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to do what others can do, no state issues licenses on the basis of whether or not you are homosexual. I am heterosexual, the same laws apply to me, I can't marry someone of the same gender.... that isn't marriage.

Wrong!

Blacks and whites were not denied the right to marry either...they just couldn't marry each other. You really don't see how your argument is exactly like this one?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

And the groups functioned EXACTLY the same when mixed. Jesus you are thick.

They, the group that comprises opposite sex couplings, are responsible for every human being that ever walked the planet.

Net human life resulting from same sex coupling..........




Wait for it..........



Wait for it............



ZERO

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Same sex couples are not allowed to get a marriage license for the same reason they can't get a plumber's license, they don't qualify or meet the criteria. You continue your lie as if we've established that homosexual partnerships are marriages and that has never been established.

A homosexual person has the same access to the marriage license as anyone else. You are wanting to change marriage to include something marriage does not include, and what's more, you're acting as if that is already a settled fact. The 14th simply doesn't give anyone the right to pervert the meaning of words to include that which it doesn't include so they can claim an "equality" bias. If it did, then when someone decided they wanted to **** little kids, they'd simply change 'marriage' to mean that. All it would ever take is someone jumping up and down, screaming their rights have been violated.

You're the one who keeps lying. The requirements for marriage were two adults. That was it. There were no other requirements until 1993, when 32 states all changed the language of their statutes, adding the phrase "one man, one woman". So, you can call it "perverting" the meaning all you want, but that doesn't make it so, and the actual history of how all this has come about is a matter of record, so I don't know who you think you are fooling.