Three Simple Questions No One Can Seem to Answer About Gay Marriage

[uscitizen]

California is "ultra liberal" with a Republican governor? This a JOKE right?

California Governor Jerry Brown is a Democrat, my dear. Sorry to inform you of this. California has not gone to a GOP candidate since Reagan's re-election 24 years ago and the state legislature is 64% Democrat. Yeah...California is ultra-liberal. Good ******* Christ Peach.

You forgot Arnie as Gov. I forgot the SECOND bad actor left office, but still know a large part of CA is very conservative. LA & SF are not the state. Nor is Michigan "ultra liberal"; Oregon is a liberal state in many ways. Not going for GHWB, DOLE, G the horrendous, and McCain does not make a state liberal.

LMAO, they so try to forget Ahnuld.
And the Ahnuld bill submitted by Orrin Hatch, so Ahnuld could become president

I just loved that entire soap episode.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Peach....you are about the only person in the world that is going to argue that California and Michigan are not liberal states.

Obama is certainly counting on it, particularly the latter.

 

[Zander]

California's State government is overwhelmingly Liberal and has been since the 1970's...

The California State Legislature currently has a Democratic majority, with the Senate consisting of 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans and the Assembly consisting of 52 Democrats and 28 Republicans. Except for the period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election (even while the governor's office has gone back and forth between Republicans and Democrats). The Senate has been in Democratic hands continuously since 1970.

California State Legislature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BluePhantom]

No shit.....good God almighty. Arguing that Cali is not liberal is like arguing that Pol Pot was a humanitarian

You wrote ULTRA liberal; this state removed Davis, a Democrat, from office, REMEMBER? California, like Florida, is a mix.

Peach....you are about the only person in the world that is going to argue that California and Michigan are not liberal states. Both are historically dominated by the Democratic party. After the 2010 GOP surge you may find occasional cases where the GOP has taken control of the state legislature. Wisconsin is a good example as is Michigan. But to suggest that they are suddenly not liberal states is ******* beyond hilarious. Shut the **** up and bring an argument that is even inside the ballpark as far as legitimacy.

Aside from the fact that Michigan's ban on gay marriage was in 2004 WAY before the GOP flood of 2010 as was Oregon's and specifically in Oregon a bill to simply recognize civil unions was buried in a state legislature completely dominated by liberals in 2005. Who the hell are you trying to kid?

 

[BluePhantom]

So thus far we have one guy (CCJ) who has basically said "there isn't a legal argument to be made" (I agree), one guy (Sgt) who tried but failed, and Peach who thinks that California, Oregon, and Michigan are not liberal states cuckoo. So far the batting average sucks.

 

[Peach]

No shit.....good God almighty. Arguing that Cali is not liberal is like arguing that Pol Pot was a humanitarian

You wrote ULTRA liberal; this state removed Davis, a Democrat, from office, REMEMBER? California, like Florida, is a mix.

Peach....you are about the only person in the world that is going to argue that California and Michigan are not liberal states. Both are historically dominated by the Democratic party. After the 2010 GOP surge you may find occasional cases where the GOP has taken control of the state legislature. Wisconsin is a good example as is Michigan. But to suggest that they are suddenly not liberal states is ******* beyond hilarious. Shut the **** up and bring an argument that is even inside the ballpark as far as legitimacy.

I tried, you are fixed on the idea California is "ultra liberal" despite other evidence. DEATH PENALTY, and a recent Republican Governor. On the questions: gay marriage goes outside party lines; see here a few pro Obama posters writing "whites" support gay marriage. Strongly held religious beliefs in faiths that condemn gay rights influence many.

Still, look at the states that allow gender equality in marriage; those should be the "ultra liberal" states. Yet, we there remains a mix; religious beliefs and biases die hard. In US history Kingfish Long is a good example of a politician who was the "working man's" friend, but held deeply ingrained hate towards some groups.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

I think that should read essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free WOMEN.

Are you equating black issue to a gay issue?

 

[BluePhantom]

Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

I think that should read essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free WOMEN.

Are you equating black issue to a gay issue?

8th Circuit Court of Appeals and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled that Loving v. Virginia applies to same-sex marriage (see OP). Thus far no court has ruled that it doesn't. Next.

 

[BluePhantom]

You wrote ULTRA liberal; this state removed Davis, a Democrat, from office, REMEMBER? California, like Florida, is a mix.

Peach....you are about the only person in the world that is going to argue that California and Michigan are not liberal states. Both are historically dominated by the Democratic party. After the 2010 GOP surge you may find occasional cases where the GOP has taken control of the state legislature. Wisconsin is a good example as is Michigan. But to suggest that they are suddenly not liberal states is ******* beyond hilarious. Shut the **** up and bring an argument that is even inside the ballpark as far as legitimacy.

I tried, you are fixed on the idea California is "ultra liberal" despite other evidence. DEATH PENALTY, and a recent Republican Governor. On the questions: gay marriage goes outside party lines; see here a few pro Obama posters writing "whites" support gay marriage. Strongly held religious beliefs in faiths that condemn gay rights influence many.

Still, look at the states that allow gender equality in marriage; those should be the "ultra liberal" states. Yet, we there remains a mix; religious beliefs and biases die hard. In US history Kingfish Long is a good example of a politician who was the "working man's" friend, but held deeply ingrained hate towards some groups.

Those that allow it are liberal states, but those who have banned it are both liberal and conservative...hence it is not only conservatives who oppose gay marriage. And just stop with the California is not liberal shit. I mean that argument is so far out of the realm of reality you are not even in the same galaxy let alone solar system.

 

[Peach]

California Governor Jerry Brown is a Democrat, my dear. Sorry to inform you of this. California has not gone to a GOP candidate since Reagan's re-election 24 years ago and the state legislature is 64% Democrat. Yeah...California is ultra-liberal. Good ******* Christ Peach.

You forgot Arnie as Gov. I forgot the SECOND bad actor left office, but still know a large part of CA is very conservative. LA & SF are not the state. Nor is Michigan "ultra liberal"; Oregon is a liberal state in many ways. Not going for GHWB, DOLE, G the horrendous, and McCain does not make a state liberal.

Arnie is not the governor dipshit. He took over for Gray David (a Democrat) and was elected primarily on name recognition. As far as Oregon I think I know better than you since I live here and you are going to suggest that Michigan is "conservative"? Peach you are making an ass of yourself on this argument.

Gray DAVIS Blue. I do know Oregon is liberal, if you consider left of Santorum "liberal".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

I think that should read essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free WOMEN.

Are you equating black issue to a gay issue?

8th Circuit Court of Appeals and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled that Loving v. Virginia applies to same-sex marriage (see OP). Thus far no court has ruled that it doesn't. Next.

Show me what court case give the right to same sex marriage?

 

[Peach]

Peach....you are about the only person in the world that is going to argue that California and Michigan are not liberal states. Both are historically dominated by the Democratic party. After the 2010 GOP surge you may find occasional cases where the GOP has taken control of the state legislature. Wisconsin is a good example as is Michigan. But to suggest that they are suddenly not liberal states is ******* beyond hilarious. Shut the **** up and bring an argument that is even inside the ballpark as far as legitimacy.

I tried, you are fixed on the idea California is "ultra liberal" despite other evidence. DEATH PENALTY, and a recent Republican Governor. On the questions: gay marriage goes outside party lines; see here a few pro Obama posters writing "whites" support gay marriage. Strongly held religious beliefs in faiths that condemn gay rights influence many.

Still, look at the states that allow gender equality in marriage; those should be the "ultra liberal" states. Yet, we there remains a mix; religious beliefs and biases die hard. In US history Kingfish Long is a good example of a politician who was the "working man's" friend, but held deeply ingrained hate towards some groups.

Those that allow it are liberal states, but those who have banned it are both liberal and conservative...hence it is not only conservatives who oppose gay marriage. And just stop with the California is not liberal shit. I mean that argument is so far out of the realm of reality you are not even in the same galaxy let alone solar system.

Back to the questions; whether liberal on many issues, those of certain faiths are dead set against gay equality. It was a Democratic Governor that signed Florida's gay marriage ban, when I was a child. As for CA, you may consider the death penalty "ultra liberal", I do not. CA is more to the left than much of the US, if that will ease your CA fixation. Still, gay rights cuts across political lines/labels when religious beliefs are involved.

 

[BluePhantom]

Are you equating black issue to a gay issue?

8th Circuit Court of Appeals and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled that Loving v. Virginia applies to same-sex marriage (see OP). Thus far no court has ruled that it doesn't. Next.

Show me what court case give the right to same sex marriage?

Ok Reb...go to the OP...see how the "8th Circuit Court of Appeals" and "9th Circuit Court of Appeals" are highlighted? That means they are links. Try clicking on them

 

[BluePhantom]

You forgot Arnie as Gov. I forgot the SECOND bad actor left office, but still know a large part of CA is very conservative. LA & SF are not the state. Nor is Michigan "ultra liberal"; Oregon is a liberal state in many ways. Not going for GHWB, DOLE, G the horrendous, and McCain does not make a state liberal.

Arnie is not the governor dipshit. He took over for Gray David (a Democrat) and was elected primarily on name recognition. As far as Oregon I think I know better than you since I live here and you are going to suggest that Michigan is "conservative"? Peach you are making an ass of yourself on this argument.

Gray DAVIS Blue. I do know Oregon is liberal, if you consider left of Santorum "liberal".

Oh now Oregon isn't liberal either...just in comparison to Santorum. ******* tool

 

[BuddyColt]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.


1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

My answers would be that the 14th Amendment was never legally ratified, so it means little to me as a constitutionalist.

The legal definition of a marriage is the "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." Singer v. Hara, 11Wash.APP. 247, 522 P.2d 1187, 1193

If a person has a Right to do something, they need not go to the government and forfeit that Right by asking for a license. The whole thing don't make a lot of sense to me.

You have a Right to join the church of your choice. Do you ask Uncle Scam for permission to join? No. Why? You have a Right to Freedom of Religion. So, why do you apply for a license to get married? You forfeit the Right by asking for permission. A license is defined as: The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission would be illegal, a trespass or a tort."

Rights predate even the Constitution. According to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Rights are bestowed upon us by our Creator (our God, whomever we deem that to be and in my case it was not Uncle Scam.) BTW, YES, the Declaration of Independence IS law and has been cited as authority by the courts in over a hundred cases. It is also at the head of the United States Code.

Moving right along, in order to show that rights predate the Constitution, a ruling over the Second Amendment makes it clear:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The courts have ruled the same, exact way (in that same decision above) as a matter of fact with respect to the First Amendment: "The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States."

Politicians cannot vote to give you Rights. You have them or you don't. It's up to you to stand up for them. But, you cannot change the definition of a legal concept with a popularity vote in the legislative branch of government. That's a judicial decision.

The real issue lies in finding out WHY gays want to marry. You can find a preacher, Notary, judge, or whatever you like to conduct a ceremony and declare yourself to be married. Where people screw up is believing that if they are married, it obligates employers to hire them and insurance companies to insure them, etc. If you join a church, does it automatically mean you can pray before the class if you are a teacher? No, the Right will not allow you to "impose" your beliefs on society - even if 100 percent of them already believe as you do. Once the Right is reduced to a privilege, Uncle Scam will be putting all manner of limitations on it. THAT is how they justify the separation of church and state... too many people don't know how to differentiate between a Right and a privilege.

A lot of people are standing on solid ground when they reject the notion that some people be given legal validation to stick their collective hands into privileges that are doled out by government (such as government jobs, validation so as to get insurance, benefits, etc.) and we have the founding fathers to use as a reference point there:

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Attributed to Thomas Jefferson

I think that fairly addresses your questions. You may not agree, but that's the way it looks from my vantage point.

 

[BluePhantom]

I tried, you are fixed on the idea California is "ultra liberal" despite other evidence. DEATH PENALTY, and a recent Republican Governor. On the questions: gay marriage goes outside party lines; see here a few pro Obama posters writing "whites" support gay marriage. Strongly held religious beliefs in faiths that condemn gay rights influence many.

Still, look at the states that allow gender equality in marriage; those should be the "ultra liberal" states. Yet, we there remains a mix; religious beliefs and biases die hard. In US history Kingfish Long is a good example of a politician who was the "working man's" friend, but held deeply ingrained hate towards some groups.

Those that allow it are liberal states, but those who have banned it are both liberal and conservative...hence it is not only conservatives who oppose gay marriage. And just stop with the California is not liberal shit. I mean that argument is so far out of the realm of reality you are not even in the same galaxy let alone solar system.

Back to the questions; whether liberal on many issues, those of certain faiths are dead set against gay equality. It was a Democratic Governor that signed Florida's gay marriage ban, when I was a child. As for CA, you may consider the death penalty "ultra liberal", I do not. CA is more to the left than much of the US, if that will ease your CA fixation. Still, gay rights cuts across political lines/labels when religious beliefs are involved.

Well confuckingratulations Peach...you finally got the ******* point of question #3. It's not a left/right issue even though the left insists on blaming the right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

First some basic givens:

A. Lemon v. Kurtzman establishes a three part test on whether a law is constitutional in regards to religion.

1) It must have a secular primary purpose
2) It can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) It can not result in excessive entanglement with religion​

This means that religion may not be used as the basis for law in the United States. If your argument is religious or relies on religious teaching or belief, it’s completely irrelevant.
.
.
B. Marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a “right”

Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Turner v. Safely: “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Zablocki v. Redhail: “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur: “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”​

No less than four times and at least once more that I know of, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a “right”
.
.
C. According to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution a citizen of the United States is entitled to equal protection under the law and equal access to the law. If a homosexual is a United States citizen they are protected by the 14th Amendment.

Section 1.
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.​

.
.
D. Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur and Loving v. Virginia, et. al. as well as the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have determined that same-sex marriage falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation. The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause."


The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:" ...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'..."

"We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does."​

.
.
E. No less than three ultra-liberal states have voted to ban gay marriage including California, Oregon, and Michigan by wide margins. In some of these liberal states even civil unions, domestic partnerships, and benefits related to domestic partnerships are banned. It is ridiculous to suggest that those bans passed in those states without significant support from Democrats.

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

1. Beats the **** out of me. Until you can explain why the government gets to deny equal protection to anyone just because they don't get married you are actually having the wrong debate in trying to argue this is about equal protection when it is about extending special government benefits to some people while still denying them to others. In other words, you are debating the wrong thing.
2. Still the wrong question.
3. That is actually a good question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Two questions legal, and one political.

Cowardice on the part of democrats, with regard to question three, the political question. Fear that if they come out ‘too strong’ in favor of same- sex couples’ access to marriage law they’d lose elections in more conservative jurisdictions.

Needless to say I have no issue with questions one and two; those denying same-sex couples’ access to marriage laws have no compelling reason to justify the prohibition, they have no evidence in support of said prohibition, and the prohibition is clearly motivated by animus alone.

In order for it to be cowardice you would have to point out the danger the Democrats would be in if they passed some sort of bill creating a federally mandated marriage that they wouldn't face from passing Obamacare.

Can't do that, can you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just for further evidence on question #3 it's worth noting that the guy making this argument and asking these questions has a Romney icon in his signature.

California is "ultra liberal" with a Republican governor? This a JOKE right?

No, but it does prove you are an idiot about the difference between a California Republican and a Texas Republican.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Answer to all three questions: Hate, born of FEAR, and ignorance.

Does that mean Democrats are homophobes?