The use of the 14th Amendment by gays for gay marriage can't be used

[drsmith1072]

WOW I honestly am beginning to believe that all of these posters are the same person posting the same moronic talking points under diffrerent names after it embarasses itself under a previous name

So basically you're a moron or everyone else is. So you went with the only option available to you, everyone else is. I'd reconsider your position...

Way to cherry pick and show just how lame and dishonest you can be. Face it your talking point has been spewed and questioned and not one of you has presented anything of substance to support it.

Repeating them over and over again doesn't make them true.

Oh and here is the rest of my post that you ran away from

They all present the same arguments over and over again with nothing of substance to support their spin. This one is parroting the previously stated talking point that it's not discrimination because they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Funny how the first few who attempted this BS are no longer posting in the thread isn't it?


The fact that it is exclusive and not inclusive is the problem.
One relationship is actually recognoized by the government for tax and spousal rights purposes and therefore counts as more than another. Seems to be a pretty basic violation of equal protection and any state that limits recognition of marriage to being just between a man and a woman violates the "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" part of the 14th.

BTW how can they marry "the exact same people?" Wouldn't that be polygamy? LOL

I love that last part where you look like a fool after getting called out for claiming they can marry "the exact same people". LOL

 

[CryingKoala]

There are far simpler solutions to all those problems then "marriage."

Who the hell are you kidding?

Do you know what kind of contracts, testamentary equivalents and whatnot needed to approximate the same kind of default situations that marriage brings?

Obviously not.

All of those "solutions" require a ton of legal assistance. In other words, if you are rich its not a problem.

Btw The sledgehammer is useful.

 

[drsmith1072]

Partisan opinions?.....Really.........So, provide that record and prove me wrong.....You don't seem to be able too?

Gee, I wonder why that might be?

So now I have to prove you wrong?? But that was not your poistion in the response prior to this one where you demand that I prove my claim about you blaming obama for teh drop nor was it your position in the "trivialize" thread so why the hypocrisy?

What, all you've got is deflection and no record to show?

And, why don't you just show where I blamed Obama for that first drop?......You're making the claim, prove it. Failure to do so only proves yet again you're a hack.

Now, where's that record?

Why is is that others must prove their claims even as you demand that they must prove you wrong??

You made the claims where is your proof??

I admit that the MSNBC message board no longer exists so I cannot prove what you once said even though you and I both know that you did so i concede and retract my claim about how you blamed obama for the drop in the stock market.

Now where is the proof of YOUR claims??

I've made claims that are absolutely true.

PROVE IT! Show HOW they are TRUE.

Laid out that Obama doesn't have a record to point to that shows he has a handle on the siuation. That nothing he's done, or failed to provide leadership on, shows he's had success getting the fiscal house in order. Shows that unemployment hasn't dropped. Shows that jobs creation is happening. Shows that he's tackled the meat and potato's that caused the downgrade he was warned of months ago.

Now, why can't you address those issues, and prove me wrong on anything i've clamed?

Your spinning and deflecting only makes you look weak.

Now, prove me wrong.....Show us where he's been successful in turning this economy around. Show us the record that disputes my claims.

Funny, but I have yet to see even one Obamabot provide one.....Like you, it's nothing but spin and deflection, in an attempt to avoid his lack of leadership, and failings like the plague.

Saying it does NOT make it so. and the burden of proof is on YOU. I don't have to prove you wrong hypocrite. You have provided nothing of substance to back up your claims and I am fine with that. Are you? LOL

Next you will try to change the subject and then 4+ pages later you will be claiming that you already did prove it when you haven't.

 

[Seawytch]

drsmithtroll is intentionally deflecting, he's ok for "discriminating" against incestuous relationships and polygamists but is pro-gay, he's a hypocrite arguing for selective equality like the people he calls "bigots."

LOL says the troll who incorrectly used the word obfuscate in a lame attempt to troll me and then disappeared after being called out for it. LOL

So since you are back I will ask you once again to explain your claims about me and show HOW i am deflecting??

The morons like you, who are bringing up incest and polygamy and are trying to muddy the waters by bringing in topics that have NO bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage or not are the dishonest hacks.

I have made no argument for or against the legalization of polygamy or incest but have stated based on the facts that they have no bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage.

In your attempts to claim that I have made such arguments you are only exposing yourself as a LIAR.

Good job loser. LOL

The thread is about the 14th Amendment Drsmithtroll, using the logic you're using for gays, the same can be said for polygamists and incest couples, put things in proper context instead of trolling and deflecting.

And they could. The groups you mentioned could challenge restrictions on their marrying. Those opposed must provide a compelling state interest in continuing to prevent those marriages and their argument must be reasonable (and I am talking about precedent here).

Bans on gay marriage are losing in court because those opposed do not have reasonable arguments against it.

 

[Seawytch]

Well isn't that special. Its all well and good for you until a married person dies, has custody issues or owns property jointly. Then it becomes a government matter. Marriage is a legal shorthand which creates default positions in a lot of legal issues concerning a couple. There is more to justify its nature as a government defined institution than anything else.

There are far simpler solutions to all those problems then "marriage."

OMG, if you need to pound in a brad, what are you going to do without a sledge hammer!!!! Yeah, good argument that. Not.

Simpler? Nope. Takes lawyers and huge cost to the individuals to get a fraction of the protections that civil marriage provides.

 

[Seawytch]

And if you can get 51% of the population to agree with you on that, that's the way it should be.

There should be no need for this, it is a basic human right, something that is lost on many right wingers.

There is absolutely a need for this. If something is not covered under the Fedral Constitution and the States Constitution then it has to be voted on at the ballot, and if 51% vote yay, then the measure is in. If not, then it isn't.
*Note: California has voted on this multiple times, and even though it has been voted down the leftists keep trying to use judges to legislate gay rights from the bench.

To start with, we don't vote on civil rights.

And California has only voted once. Were we to go back to the polls, gay marriage would pass in CA.

 

[drsmith1072]

drsmithtroll is intentionally deflecting, he's ok for "discriminating" against incestuous relationships and polygamists but is pro-gay, he's a hypocrite arguing for selective equality like the people he calls "bigots."

LOL says the troll who incorrectly used the word obfuscate in a lame attempt to troll me and then disappeared after being called out for it. LOL

So since you are back I will ask you once again to explain your claims about me and show HOW i am deflecting??

The morons like you, who are bringing up incest and polygamy and are trying to muddy the waters by bringing in topics that have NO bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage or not are the dishonest hacks.

I have made no argument for or against the legalization of polygamy or incest but have stated based on the facts that they have no bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage.

In your attempts to claim that I have made such arguments you are only exposing yourself as a LIAR.

Good job loser. LOL

The thread is about the 14th Amendment Drsmithtroll, using the logic you're using for gays, the same can be said for polygamists and incest couples, put things in proper context instead of trolling and deflecting.

So your argument is basically the exact same BS slippery slope argument that mike was presenting that in no way explains with any form of susbstance how the 14th amendment does not apply. Got it. You instead would like to distract and deflect because you have no valid argument to show that the 14th does not apply? Is that it??
Because IF you have a valid argument explaining HOW and WHY it does not apply instead of the scare tactics that it must lead to other forms of marriage argument then please present it.

Otherwise please stop wasting everyones time with your bs deflections that have NO bearing on whether the 14th amendment applies to same sex marriage or not.

Thanks for the spin down rightwing talking point lane.

 

[drsmith1072]

LOL says the troll who incorrectly used the word obfuscate in a lame attempt to troll me and then disappeared after being called out for it. LOL

So since you are back I will ask you once again to explain your claims about me and show HOW i am deflecting??

The morons like you, who are bringing up incest and polygamy and are trying to muddy the waters by bringing in topics that have NO bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage or not are the dishonest hacks.

I have made no argument for or against the legalization of polygamy or incest but have stated based on the facts that they have no bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage.

In your attempts to claim that I have made such arguments you are only exposing yourself as a LIAR.

Good job loser. LOL

The thread is about the 14th Amendment Drsmithtroll, using the logic you're using for gays, the same can be said for polygamists and incest couples, put things in proper context instead of trolling and deflecting.

And they could. The groups you mentioned could challenge restrictions on their marrying. Those opposed must provide a compelling state interest in continuing to prevent those marriages and their argument must be reasonable (and I am talking about precedent here).

Bans on gay marriage are losing in court because those opposed do not have reasonable arguments against it.

And this slipperry slope argument is one of them. It in no way shape or form shows how or why the 14th amendment does not apply to same sex marriage but it is quite colorful and distracting language that they know will scare some people off and that is the only real reason why they would make such arguments.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well isn't that special. Its all well and good for you until a married person dies, has custody issues or owns property jointly. Then it becomes a government matter. Marriage is a legal shorthand which creates default positions in a lot of legal issues concerning a couple. There is more to justify its nature as a government defined institution than anything else.

There are far simpler solutions to all those problems then "marriage."

OMG, if you need to pound in a brad, what are you going to do without a sledge hammer!!!! Yeah, good argument that. Not.

Under Estate Tax law a surviving can claim up to $500,000 as a exemption for the sale of a residence for up two years following the death of a spouse. ($500,000 being twice the single exemption rate.) This is achieved for the cost of about $50 for a marriage license.


So what is the far simpler solution that doesn't cost more than $50 which allows a spouse to take a married exemption, something that cannot be duplicated under contract law for non-spouses?



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

And California has only voted once. Were we to go back to the polls, gay marriage would pass in CA.

I believe it was twice: Prop 22 (2000) and Prop 8 (2008).


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Under Estate Tax law a surviving can claim up to $500,000 as a exemption for the sale of a residence for up two years following the death of a spouse. ($500,000 being twice the single exemption rate.) This is achieved for the cost of about $50 for a marriage license.


So what is the far simpler solution that doesn't cost more than $50 which allows a spouse to take a married exemption, something that cannot be duplicated under contract law for non-spouses?



>>>>

At least unlike your friends who think writing a contract is far more work then getting married, you did raise and actual difference and I hadn't addressed it so it's a fair question. On this one, I oppose the death tax. Liberals support it. Liberals support gay marriage. Liberals suddenly don't want gays to have to pay the death tax, oops, contradiction.

So I'm going to agree to let them off the hook for the death tax for gays? I don't think so. Let's let EVERYONE off the death tax and that will include gay couples then.

 

[Wicked Jester]

So now I have to prove you wrong?? But that was not your poistion in the response prior to this one where you demand that I prove my claim about you blaming obama for teh drop nor was it your position in the "trivialize" thread so why the hypocrisy?





Why is is that others must prove their claims even as you demand that they must prove you wrong??

You made the claims where is your proof??

I admit that the MSNBC message board no longer exists so I cannot prove what you once said even though you and I both know that you did so i concede and retract my claim about how you blamed obama for the drop in the stock market.

Now where is the proof of YOUR claims??

I've made claims that are absolutely true.

PROVE IT! Show HOW they are TRUE.

Laid out that Obama doesn't have a record to point to that shows he has a handle on the siuation. That nothing he's done, or failed to provide leadership on, shows he's had success getting the fiscal house in order. Shows that unemployment hasn't dropped. Shows that jobs creation is happening. Shows that he's tackled the meat and potato's that caused the downgrade he was warned of months ago.

Now, why can't you address those issues, and prove me wrong on anything i've clamed?

Your spinning and deflecting only makes you look weak.

Now, prove me wrong.....Show us where he's been successful in turning this economy around. Show us the record that disputes my claims.

Funny, but I have yet to see even one Obamabot provide one.....Like you, it's nothing but spin and deflection, in an attempt to avoid his lack of leadership, and failings like the plague.

Saying it does NOT make it so. and the burden of proof is on YOU. I don't have to prove you wrong hypocrite. You have provided nothing of substance to back up your claims and I am fine with that. Are you? LOL

Next you will try to change the subject and then 4+ pages later you will be claiming that you already did prove it when you haven't.

You're a fuckin' joke, lmao!

Unemployment is 9.1%.....Job growth has not improved. Obama's failed on that front...FACT!....Unless you can show the record that states otherwiise.....Can you?

Obama did not balance the budget....Fact....prove otherwise.....can you?

Obana did not cut the debt, it exploded....FACT!....Prove otherwise....Can you?

Obama did not cut the deficit, once again, BOOOOOM!.....FACT!....Prove otherwise...Can you?

Obama did not rein in spending, he ramped it up....FACT!....Prove otherwise....Can You?

Food Stamp use has steadily risen....FACT....Prove otherwise......Can You?

The stimulus failed. Nothings changed, it's only getting worse.......FACT.....Prove otherwise.....Can you?

He rammed an unpopular albatross of a healthcare bill down our throats, that's panning out to be a future jobs kiiler, particularly among small business....Not to mention, the constitutional aspect where rulings that it is unconstitutional are coming down the pike, and aleady have come down the pike.......FACT!......Prove otherwise.......Can you?

The downgrade happened on his watch. He was warned it was coming months ago. He did nothing......It's on his ass, he's the president.......FACT!.....Prove otherwise.....Can you.

This is all being reported on every damn day....What do you do, just stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen to what's going on whenever Obama's failings are reported by left and right media?

Come on man, if i'm wrong, prove it......Quit deflecting and show us that record that proves me wrong.......Show us how he can prove his actions and leadership turned this economy around, and he is fully on top of things.

What are you affraid, the TRUTH?

 

[Texanmike]

Do you ever tire and being a dishonest cowardly hack who has to put words into the mouths of others in order totry and make a point??

How is being that dishonest even as you engage in attacking me personally considered "civil" in your mind??

I am using "obfuscating" where it applies because bass tried to apply it where it did not apply. Funny how he disappeared after I pointed that out to him, made him look even more foolish than usual and then another troll chimes right back in the pick up right where he left off.

BTW I have explained my position on HOW the 14th and the constitution applies but here are a few examples of your "explanations".



So where in there did you explain how it does not apply?? Not there?? Hmm?

Here is another perhaps you can show it here.



Nope. That is you making the slippery slope, "gateway marriage" argument where you also try to put words into my mouth.
So, What about this one which is shorter but pretty much sums up every other argument that you have made, is it there?



Nope there you were just make the usual usubstantiated claim. imagine that.


So where is this substantive argument that you claim to have made?

There is no gateway argument here. Or maybe you are making one. I'm not for the legalization of pot, I'm for the legalization of all drugs because you should not be arrested for what's in your blood. I'm saying that if this is an all encompassing argument, that anyone can get married, then it should include incest. Its not a gateway argument, just let the states decide. Hell I even argued that the DOMA was unconstitutional (even though it gives a lot of 'conservatives' what they want).

Putting words into my mouth again. BTW I noticed that you failed to respond to your own words and show how and when you substantiated your claims. Imagine that. You are arguing that one should lead to the other and so on in a desperate attempt to make the "slippery slope" argument. Denying it even as you continue to amke such argument won;t change the fact that you are making "slippery slope" arguments.

Lets get this straight. A slipper slope argument is an argument in which one party threatens the other with terrible potential consequences if situation A happens. If A happens then OMG no B will happen. That is not the construct of my argument. I am not arguing that I don't want same sex marriage, I'm arguing that I want the states to be able to decide. I don't care if you marry your mom, hell keep it in the family. YOU are the one that is threatened by the slippery slope. In order for the slippery slope to apply, I would have to be presenting it in order to generate fear. Clearly I am not doing that. If there is anyone putting words into anyone's mouth it is you that are putting words into my mouth. I have never approached this from "I don't want same sex marriage because I don't want incest" hell, most states (37) have some variation or form of incest. The POINT is that the STATE gets to decide what it will consider a legal marriage and the federal government doesn't have a say in it.

repeated the claim with no substance as per usual. That is how you have presented your "argument" throughout this thread. You make a statement and then go into other types of relationship you think should be allowed instead of addressing how the 14th does not apply.

How much study have you done with regards to original intent in the Constitution? Just curious what your background is on it. Have you read Madison's notes? Jefferson's letters? It is not assumed that the federal government has authority, it is assumed that it does NOT have authority until the States grant such an authority. In fact, without the guarantee that there would be a bill of rights there would have been no Constitution ratified. Of the original 12 proposed 10 were ratified. The States created the federal government to grant certain authority to a central power and they did not approach the idea of ratification with the intention of granting the federal government all powers not listed in the Constitution.That is what the 10th amendment is all about. That is what the enumeration of powers is all about.

again with your BS definitoin of discriminating. I have asked for the source of the definition multiple times and you have failed to provide one every time you were asked. Why is that? How is limiting something, like marriage, to only a few people not discrimination??

Why don't we look at that the authors of the 14th amendment used as their basis for discrimination?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude[/b[

Now before you go all "the definition has changed" on me, that is not sufficient. You must look at what the authors agreed to. Original intent is important, in fact, it is paramount. Take for example the 19th amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Same right and new definition of discrimination. If you want to apply a new definition of a protected class you should outline it in the Constitution. "Gay" is not a protected class. Simply being gay does not offer you any special protection under the Constitution.

Instead of telling me how wrong I am, why don't you tell me WHY I am wrong? (hint: you might look to stare decisis -- by the way its a dumb precedent but its your best argument)

that is your problem you seem to see you "telling" someone something as substantiating your argument when it is NOT.

You assume the Constitution tells us what the federal government cannot do... the Constitution tells us what the federal government can do. If there is going to be a federal intervention then it should be in the form of an amendment. If 75% of the states cannot agree to give the authority to the federal government then it doesn't have the authority.

is that supposed to make sense??

There is no "everyone must be able to marry anyone they choose" protection.

i'm sorry but when you go out of your way to make shite up and attribute it to me so you can frame my argument and create counterpoints to things I never said so you can claim I am wrong based on your works of fiction that goes above and beyond mere disagreement.

I'm not going out of my way to make shit up. I have never said "you said". I have tried to draw a logical conclusion to what you are saying... If you say A + 1 = 5 and I assume A = 4 then I am saying so. Maybe I should just ask for clarification instead of telling you what I think you're saying. When I say things like "if you say this about same sex marriage then you must also consider it for incestuous marriage" I'm not saying "you said xxx" I'm saying that the logical conclusion of your first statement is the second. You saying "you're making a slippery slope argument" however, is putting words in my mouth. Here, let me revise it and ask the question: How do you draw the distinction between telling someone they cannot marry someone of the same gender and telling someone they cannot marry someone of the same branch of the family tree? I can only assume that when you say that the reason is because you find incest to be objectionable but same sex marriage to be acceptable. If that is not the case then please explain, other than social acceptability, why the two are different.

You claim it's not the intention but that is the only intention available because they have NO bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage or not. Throwing them in only serves to muddy the waters, obfuscate, confuse the debate by introducing topics that have no bearing but only serve to distract.
Then your NEW "gateway" argument is even more absurd and a strawman. No one is arguing that the states licenses don't count or that they should be replaced by federal licenses. The argumnet is that they should only be issued fairly and equally.

See. How is that not putting words in my mouth. Aren't you doing the same thing? You're really asking for me to show you how I don't see it that way. Who gets to decide what the intent of the message is? The sender or the receiver? Seriously man... it is NOT a gateway argument.

It is not a straw man argument. If you are saying that individual states do not have the authority to determine what the eligibility requirements are to constitute a license then why bother to have a state license? Now look, if you are going to define sexual orientation as a protected class then do so in the Constitution. That is part of the reason an amendment, one way or the other, would make sense. Put the whole argument to bed once and for all.

If you allow preference (sexual or otherwise) to become a protected class though, then you do start down a slipper slope argument don't you? Race/sex are external features, hard to NOT notice them. Preference? Because Steve likes Barry suddenly he has some sort of protection? That is what you are asserting.

I'm not throwing them in to muddy the waters. I'm throwing them in because I see them as the same. You are telling a person who they can and cannot marry -- I fail to see the difference.

Hell, why not join me in calling for the government to get the hell out of marriage? If you do that then there is no need for this petty argument. End the tax and all other advantages to being married and let it be a civil thing. The whole marriage debate is a waste of our time. I don't care who marrys who... hell Mr. Ed could talk, let him get hitched for all I care. The argument is the perfect example of why the government should be out of the marriage industry period. Instead of solving our debt problem and cutting spending, we're arguing about who can marry who? Seriously? WHAT THE HELL? This stuff doesn't matter if the debt gets to 30T and the credit rating hits BBB. Who cares if you can get married if you interest rates are 30%.

You don't like me, or my argument I get that... but it is made in good faith; we just disagree.

Mike

The sad thing is that even though you see the inequality

again putting words in my mouth you still argue against applying equality claiming that the 14th doesn't apply while failing to show how. A married opposite sex couple has certian rights and priveledges that same sex partners do not have or qualify for so how is that NOT a violation of the 14th amendment?
[/Quote]

You are exactly right about the bolded part. I am FINE with that statement. The solution is not to interfere with the states actions, it is to pare back the federal actions. Stop the tax loopholes for married people. The 14th amendment isn't violated by the definition of marriage, it is violated by the tax laws period. End the rights and privileges for married people period. I've advocated that almost this entire thread.

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

[/QUOTE]

I've read it. I just disagree. I agree that we should not discriminate against single people (or people without children though).

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

One more note about why I want an amendment. Ideally, I would have an amendment that would have government out of marriage entirely but if I can't get that there should be an amendment to finally create some sort of consensus. Part of the reason an amendment is so hard to pass is that the founding fathers was the belief that if you couldn't get 3/4 the states to agree to give the federal government a specific power then it was not something necessary. Tuller worked in the 20th century to change the amendment process to a simple majority but failed because even as late as the early 1900's it was understood why we had this process and he never achieved his goals. I think you are proposing an informal amendment which is fundamentally contrary to the idea of a Constitutional Republic. If you are going to allow a change in culture to change the limits of government without explicit permission from the states then there really is no need for the Constitution or Constitutional amendments.

DrS when we disagree I think largely it results from a fundamental disagreement on the limits and reasons for the Constitution. There are times that it definitely doesn't work in my favor as far as what I would like to see in a society. The net result though, is that we have a federal government that is (supposed to be) limited in power. Changing the meaning of the Constitution with the times is a dangerous precedent that we set a long time ago and it opens up debates like this one because in reality our privileges should (and I believe are for the most part) protected. Things like the patriot act are allowed to happen because the citizenship of this country did not hold their representatives to the oaths they took upon entering office. The net result of our failure to function as a Constitutional Republic are the discussions we're having right at this minute. We should not be attempting to weave and dodge our way into making the Constitution stretch to make it fit our desires; that precedent is what got us to where we are at. We should have dealt with the issues at the state level and required of our government that if they were going to take an authority (FDA/EPA - etc) that they get permission from the States. What you would find if we had held them accountable to that is that the things we need (some sort of FDA/EPA) would be included but we wouldn't have the redundancies (USDA) and usurpations of our liberties. This matter would best be settled by an amendment and until it is it should be handled at the state level because sexuality is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, neither is marriage mentioned in the BoR or anywhere in the C.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Under Estate Tax law a surviving can claim up to $500,000 as a exemption for the sale of a residence for up two years following the death of a spouse. ($500,000 being twice the single exemption rate.) This is achieved for the cost of about $50 for a marriage license.


So what is the far simpler solution that doesn't cost more than $50 which allows a spouse to take a married exemption, something that cannot be duplicated under contract law for non-spouses?



>>>>

At least unlike your friends who think writing a contract is far more work then getting married, you did raise and actual difference and I hadn't addressed it so it's a fair question. On this one, I oppose the death tax. Liberals support it. Liberals support gay marriage. Liberals suddenly don't want gays to have to pay the death tax, oops, contradiction.

So I'm going to agree to let them off the hook for the death tax for gays? I don't think so. Let's let EVERYONE off the death tax and that will include gay couples then.

That's not the "death tax", it's an exemption for a tax that would normally be applicable so in actuality the exemption is the exact opposite of the death tax. The exemption applies to the sale of property owned by a single individual (the surviving spouse is single after the passing of the other spouse) and the tax derived on the income generated as profit on the sale.

Just say'n.


>>>>

 

[Bass v 2.0]

There should be no need for this, it is a basic human right, something that is lost on many right wingers.

There is absolutely a need for this. If something is not covered under the Fedral Constitution and the States Constitution then it has to be voted on at the ballot, and if 51% vote yay, then the measure is in. If not, then it isn't.
*Note: California has voted on this multiple times, and even though it has been voted down the leftists keep trying to use judges to legislate gay rights from the bench.

To start with, we don't vote on civil rights.

And California has only voted once. Were we to go back to the polls, gay marriage would pass in CA.

I remember just a few years back when homosexuals thought that the polls they were reading proved that most Americans were for gay marriage only to be stumped in Mississippi when 86% of the people here voted *AGAINST* gay marriage and they had the nerve afterwards to say they were shocked that 86% of people would vote against it, the same in other southern states.

 

[Wicked Jester]

There is absolutely a need for this. If something is not covered under the Fedral Constitution and the States Constitution then it has to be voted on at the ballot, and if 51% vote yay, then the measure is in. If not, then it isn't.
*Note: California has voted on this multiple times, and even though it has been voted down the leftists keep trying to use judges to legislate gay rights from the bench.

To start with, we don't vote on civil rights.

And California has only voted once. Were we to go back to the polls, gay marriage would pass in CA.

I remember just a few years back when homosexuals thought that the polls they were reading proved that most Americans were for gay marriage only to be stumped in Mississippi when 86% of the people here voted *AGAINST* gay marriage and they had the nerve afterwards to say they were shocked that 86% of people would vote against it, the same in other southern states.

Hey, we had this boards most infamous lezbo sporting a California flag with rainbow colors in her avatar. Obviously thinking that this is some kind o' gay state.......Completely ignorant of the fact that the gay marriage BS has been rejected twice by the voters, and will be again.

It's a states issue period. Let the perv's move to NY if they want to play their twisted game of Ozzie and Ozzie, or Harriet and Harriet.....Whatever their twisted case may be.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hey, we had this boards most infamous lezbo sporting a California flag with rainbow colors in her avatar. Obviously thinking that this is some kind o' gay state.......Completely ignorant of the fact that the gay marriage BS has been rejected twice by the voters, and will be again.

It's a states issue period. Let the perv's move to NY if they want to play their twisted game of Ozzie and Ozzie, or Harriet and Harriet.....Whatever their twisted case may be.

Fortunately the Constitution and Supreme Court disagree with you. Because our rights are inalienable, and per the rule of law, the majority may not decide who will and who will not have his rights; one’s rights are not subject to majority approval.

The 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states, it enjoins the states from violating the rights of their citizens and denying them equal access to, and equal protection of, the law.

Consequently this it’s not a ‘states’ rights’ issue, the states have no authority to preempt citizens’ rights, it is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause, the 14th Amendment, and Constitutional case law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

See in support: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

 

[WorldWatcher]

There is absolutely a need for this. If something is not covered under the Fedral Constitution and the States Constitution then it has to be voted on at the ballot, and if 51% vote yay, then the measure is in. If not, then it isn't.
*Note: California has voted on this multiple times, and even though it has been voted down the leftists keep trying to use judges to legislate gay rights from the bench.

To start with, we don't vote on civil rights.

And California has only voted once. Were we to go back to the polls, gay marriage would pass in CA.

I remember just a few years back when homosexuals thought that the polls they were reading proved that most Americans were for gay marriage only to be stumped in Mississippi when 86% of the people here voted *AGAINST* gay marriage and they had the nerve afterwards to say they were shocked that 86% of people would vote against it, the same in other southern states.

Mississippi's Amendment 1 was on the ballot in 2004 as a result of Same-sex Civil Marriage becoming legal in Massachusetts. The ballot initiatitives in 2000 & 2004 resulting in the slew of anti-same-sex Civil Marriage laws were placed on the ballots by social authoritarians wanting to block equal treatment of same-sex couples under Civil Marriage laws and not placed there by supporters reading the polls. (In fact I can't think of any marriage initiative to date placed on the ballot by supporters of Same-sex Civil Marriage, it's always been opponents. I think Maine will be the first next year if they make the cutoff of signatures.)

There were no polls in 2004 showing that a majority (or even a plurality) of Americans supported Same-sex Civil Marriage. The first national polls showing such didn't occur until 2011. Years AFTER Mississippi voted.

The trend lines are unmistakable, support for Same-sex Civil Marriage is growing, opposition to Same-sex Civil Marriage is declining. While "86%" is touted because of the high number, the reality is that the last two votes on Same-sex Civil Marriage would have had a different outcome with only a 2-3% change in voter response. Maine will be interesting to watch next year. In 2009 Maine's Question 1 blocked Civil Marriage equality after being passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. The measure passed by only 2.75%. With the trend being toward more acceptance of Same-sex Civil Marriage it will be interesting to see if they have a shot at in 2012 of becoming the first State to approve of Same-sex Civil Marriage at the ballot box.

That would be a major game changer.



>>>>

 

[Bass v 2.0]

To start with, we don't vote on civil rights.

And California has only voted once. Were we to go back to the polls, gay marriage would pass in CA.

I remember just a few years back when homosexuals thought that the polls they were reading proved that most Americans were for gay marriage only to be stumped in Mississippi when 86% of the people here voted *AGAINST* gay marriage and they had the nerve afterwards to say they were shocked that 86% of people would vote against it, the same in other southern states.

Mississippi's Amendment 1 was on the ballot in 2004 as a result of Same-sex Civil Marriage becoming legal in Massachusetts. The ballot initiatitives in 2000 & 2004 resulting in the slew of anti-same-sex Civil Marriage laws were placed on the ballots by social authoritarians wanting to block equal treatment of same-sex couples under Civil Marriage laws and not placed there by supporters reading the polls. (In fact I can't think of any marriage initiative to date placed on the ballot by supporters of Same-sex Civil Marriage, it's always been opponents. I think Maine will be the first next year if they make the cutoff of signatures.)

There were no polls in 2004 showing that a majority (or even a plurality) of Americans supported Same-sex Civil Marriage. The first national polls showing such didn't occur until 2011. Years AFTER Mississippi voted.

The trend lines are unmistakable, support for Same-sex Civil Marriage is growing, opposition to Same-sex Civil Marriage is declining. While "86%" is touted because of the high number, the reality is that the last two votes on Same-sex Civil Marriage would have had a different outcome with only a 2-3% change in voter response. Maine will be interesting to watch next year. In 2009 Maine's Question 1 blocked Civil Marriage equality after being passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. The measure passed by only 2.75%. With the trend being toward more acceptance of Same-sex Civil Marriage it will be interesting to see if they have a shot at in 2012 of becoming the first State to approve of Same-sex Civil Marriage at the ballot box.

That would be a major game changer.



>>>>

In Mississippi gay marriage will always be voted down, these were the people of the state who voted against gay marriage, the people, not social authoritarians voting, don't side step, its funny how the polls never match the votes.