Texas SC rules state does NOT have to give benefits to homosexual "couples"

[Coyote]

So in the years it takes for it to be resolved "democratically" i.e. By the white majority...a segment of our population must continue to live under segregation.

How bad was it really? Considering especially how how much groups tend to self segregate anyway.

You should ask someone who had to endure it. Ask them about the constant daily humiliations it meant, the degradation of human dignity. The lack of choice and freedom.

 

[Dr Grump]

Why not?

Wouldn't that have had more meaning if it were the result of the better / more Constitutional arguments winning the majority of the hearts and minds of the people?

Fox guarding the hen house and all that....

 

[Chuz Life]

So in the years it takes for it to be resolved "democratically" i.e. By the white majority...a segment of our population must continue to live under segregation.

How bad was it really? Considering especially how how much groups tend to self segregate anyway.

You should ask someone who had to endure it. Ask them about the constant daily humiliations it meant, the degradation of human dignity. The lack of choice and freedom.

We're there any white people fighting against Segregation? Yes or no?

What races were the judges that overturned it?

 

[Coyote]

So in the years it takes for it to be resolved "democratically" i.e. By the white majority...a segment of our population must continue to live under segregation.

How bad was it really? Considering especially how how much groups tend to self segregate anyway.

You should ask someone who had to endure it. Ask them about the constant daily humiliations it meant, the degradation of human dignity. The lack of choice and freedom.

We're there any white people fighting against Segregation? Yes or no?

What races were the judges that overturned it?

Not sure what that has to do with what I just said

 

[Seawytch]

All Texas is doing, is sending a message that "equal protection of the law" is not a State responsibility; slackers.

Only a libtard would conclude that receiving benefits is tantamount to "equal protections."

I might start to believe you tards actually give a shit about "equal rights" when you start standing up for those being denied to children in the womb.

Maybe.

Legally married straight couples are granted benefits. By what logic do you deny the same benefits to legally married gay couples?

The question is (I think being raised by Texas) is whether or not "gay couples" can "legally marry" in the first place.

Sorry, Skippy, you're too late for that.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

And, of course we all know that the SCOTUS IS infallible and never ever reverses itself. Don't we?

Oh it has...but when the court does "reverse itself", it doesn't do it to take rights away from people.

You're not getting the gay marriage genie back in the bottle.

 

[Kondor3]

That's discrimination at the govt level. I ain't down for that shit.
Same certificate but don't get Same employment benefits? Nice. How leftist of you guys.

It is resistance against tyranny, so I'm down for it.

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

It is not trampling of rights to advance an agenda.

It is denying legal standing to sexual deviants and perverts (a.k.a. homosexuals)... reversing the forcibly-imposed agenda of the Gay Mafia.

 

[Kondor3]

...You're not getting the gay marriage genie back in the bottle.

Please continue to believe that.

 

[Seawytch]

...You're not getting the gay marriage genie back in the bottle.

Please continue to believe that.

I don't just believe it, I know it.

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

 

[TNHarley]

That's discrimination at the govt level. I ain't down for that shit.
Same certificate but don't get Same employment benefits? Nice. How leftist of you guys.

It is resistance against tyranny, so I'm down for it.

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

There is no "right" for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, anymore than there is a "right" for a woman to abort her child. The liberals have invented these "rights" but they aren't from the Constitution, they are from the imagination of people who have declared enmity against God and nature.

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That is closer to tyranny than giving marriage rights to a couple queers.

I see your point and I agree with it for the most part. However, I think this is Texas's way of sending the message that "Gay marriage" is not (or at least was not) a Constitutional right. This move tells me that they WANT it to be challenged and they want the Gay Marriage issue to be revisited by the SCOTUS. Like an earlier member said.... It's much the same as it is with Roe v Wade.

I think i see your point as well.
Like, is them getting married legal in the first place. SC power and such.

 

[danielpalos]

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

There is no "right" for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, anymore than there is a "right" for a woman to abort her child. The liberals have invented these "rights" but they aren't from the Constitution, they are from the imagination of people who have declared enmity against God and nature.

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That is closer to tyranny than giving marriage rights to a couple queers.

I see your point and I agree with it for the most part. However, I think this is Texas's way of sending the message that "Gay marriage" is not (or at least was not) a Constitutional right. This move tells me that they WANT it to be challenged and they want the Gay Marriage issue to be revisited by the SCOTUS. Like an earlier member said.... It's much the same as it is with Roe v Wade.

All Texas is doing, is sending a message that "equal protection of the law" is not a State responsibility; slackers.

Only a libtard would conclude that receiving benefits is tantamount to "equal protections."

I might start to believe you tards actually give a shit about "equal rights" when you start standing up for those being denied to children in the womb.

Maybe.

Equality is a social term not a capital term; no wonder y'all on the right wing, are just clueless and Causeless.

Stop complaining about social services for the poor, right wingers.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's discrimination at the govt level. I ain't down for that shit.
Same certificate but don't get Same employment benefits? Nice. How leftist of you guys.

It is resistance against tyranny, so I'm down for it.

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

It is not trampling of rights to advance an agenda.

It is denying legal standing to sexual deviants and perverts (a.k.a. homosexuals)... reversing the forcibly-imposed agenda of the Gay Mafia.

Why are you so upset and threatened by gays having rights that you can take for granted? They are just people who are more like the rest of us than different. What happened to you to make you so angry and obsessive . I can only conclude that you are by virtue of the fact that you are even here on this topic. Is there something about you that we should know that would help us to understand you? It might be helpful to let it out. Most people who are secure in their lives and identities do not have the need to lash out at others and demean and marginalize them, when they have done nothing to you.

 

[Chuz Life]

It is resistance against tyranny, so I'm down for it.

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

There is no "right" for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, anymore than there is a "right" for a woman to abort her child. The liberals have invented these "rights" but they aren't from the Constitution, they are from the imagination of people who have declared enmity against God and nature.

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That is closer to tyranny than giving marriage rights to a couple queers.

I see your point and I agree with it for the most part. However, I think this is Texas's way of sending the message that "Gay marriage" is not (or at least was not) a Constitutional right. This move tells me that they WANT it to be challenged and they want the Gay Marriage issue to be revisited by the SCOTUS. Like an earlier member said.... It's much the same as it is with Roe v Wade.

I think i see your point as well.
Like, is them getting married legal in the first place. SC power and such.

And to have all of that mandated by the courts, as well.


Exactly.

 

[Chuz Life]

There is no "right" for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, anymore than there is a "right" for a woman to abort her child. The liberals have invented these "rights" but they aren't from the Constitution, they are from the imagination of people who have declared enmity against God and nature.

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That is closer to tyranny than giving marriage rights to a couple queers.

I see your point and I agree with it for the most part. However, I think this is Texas's way of sending the message that "Gay marriage" is not (or at least was not) a Constitutional right. This move tells me that they WANT it to be challenged and they want the Gay Marriage issue to be revisited by the SCOTUS. Like an earlier member said.... It's much the same as it is with Roe v Wade.

All Texas is doing, is sending a message that "equal protection of the law" is not a State responsibility; slackers.

Only a libtard would conclude that receiving benefits is tantamount to "equal protections."

I might start to believe you tards actually give a shit about "equal rights" when you start standing up for those being denied to children in the womb.

Maybe.

Equality is a social term not a capital term; no wonder y'all on the right wing, are just clueless and Causeless.

Stop complaining about social services for the poor, right wingers.

Ummm.

How capitalistic is the abortion "cause" fuctard?

 

[TNHarley]

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

There is no "right" for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, anymore than there is a "right" for a woman to abort her child. The liberals have invented these "rights" but they aren't from the Constitution, they are from the imagination of people who have declared enmity against God and nature.

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That is closer to tyranny than giving marriage rights to a couple queers.

I see your point and I agree with it for the most part. However, I think this is Texas's way of sending the message that "Gay marriage" is not (or at least was not) a Constitutional right. This move tells me that they WANT it to be challenged and they want the Gay Marriage issue to be revisited by the SCOTUS. Like an earlier member said.... It's much the same as it is with Roe v Wade.

I think i see your point as well.
Like, is them getting married legal in the first place. SC power and such.

And to have all of the mandated by the courts, as well.


Exactly.

But i still have a problem though. Considering the Federal govt is involved, shouldnt it automatically be equal to everyone? The govt gives you a lot of entitlements for being married.
It also blows my mind how gay marriage had to be "legalized" in the first place. What kind of fascist would say no?
IDK the govt should have NEVER gotten involved with marriage in the first place.

 

[Chuz Life]

Only a libtard would conclude that receiving benefits is tantamount to "equal protections."

I might start to believe you tards actually give a shit about "equal rights" when you start standing up for those being denied to children in the womb.

Maybe.

Legally married straight couples are granted benefits. By what logic do you deny the same benefits to legally married gay couples?

The question is (I think being raised by Texas) is whether or not "gay couples" can "legally marry" in the first place.

Sorry, Skippy, you're too late for that.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

And, of course we all know that the SCOTUS IS infallible and never ever reverses itself. Don't we?

Oh it has...but when the court does "reverse itself", it doesn't do it to take rights away from people.

You're not getting the gay marriage genie back in the bottle.

If all heteros don't have an absolute right to marry... then neither do gays.

Can you marry your sister?

Can a Gay marry their sister or their brother?

Why not?

 

[Chuz Life]

There is no "right" for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, anymore than there is a "right" for a woman to abort her child. The liberals have invented these "rights" but they aren't from the Constitution, they are from the imagination of people who have declared enmity against God and nature.

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That is closer to tyranny than giving marriage rights to a couple queers.

I see your point and I agree with it for the most part. However, I think this is Texas's way of sending the message that "Gay marriage" is not (or at least was not) a Constitutional right. This move tells me that they WANT it to be challenged and they want the Gay Marriage issue to be revisited by the SCOTUS. Like an earlier member said.... It's much the same as it is with Roe v Wade.

I think i see your point as well.
Like, is them getting married legal in the first place. SC power and such.

And to have all of the mandated by the courts, as well.


Exactly.

But i still have a problem though. Considering the Federal govt is involved, shouldnt it automatically be equal to everyone? The govt gives you a lot of entitlements for being married.
It also blows my mind how gay marriage had to be "legalized" in the first place. What kind of fascist would say no?
IDK the govt should have NEVER gotten involved with marriage in the first place.

I don't have time for a lengthy answer but it is not fascism to recognize or incentivise the "model" for a family that best builds the foundation of a family... and by extension, society as a whole.

Marriage is a qualified right. That means to exercise the right, you have to meet certain qualifications. Like I said. . . Can a Gay marry their brother or sister?

Can any of us?

Why not?

What "fascist" would say no?

 

[mdk]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

 

[Chuz Life]

The government has the right to decide / define the qualifications for marriage.

They may or may not decide to broaden it to include Gay unions... but they don't (or didnt) have to.

 

[Chuz Life]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

 

[mdk]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

Americans have always used the courts to challenge laws that they feel treat them unfairly. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, queers will cotinue to marry despite all your foot-stomping.