We're Getting Married!

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Homosexual threads sure brings in the conservatives, it looks like.

I show up for the humor of watching two groups of retards argue over who should be able to tell the other what they can and can't do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

JROC SAID:

“Homosexuals are not a separate class of people..”

Incorrect.

Homosexuals constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections.

The Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans recognized this fact when it upheld the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, which sought to deny gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws:

“We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .

Just as states may not deny gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, so too does the 14th Amendment prohibit the states from denying gay Americans access to marriage laws.

JROC SAID:

“states are supposed to define marriage not some all powerful Judge.”

Judges aren't 'defining' anything – they are correctly and appropriately, consistent with settled, accepted, and established 14th Amendment jurisprudence, invalidating state laws that deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, the same marriage law available to opposite-sex couples, unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

JROC SAID:

“Gay people want special rights separate and apart from everyone else.”

Wrong.

Gay Americans already have the right to enter into marriage contracts, the issue concerns the states seeking to deny them that right in violation of the Constitution, where such laws exist “not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do.” ibid.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Question for all:

Are citizens of the USA allowed to hold beliefs that are contrary to the current politically correct list of beliefs?

Yes

Should they be punished for not being politically correct in their speech and beliefs?

No.

However they may be found in violation of certain laws of that speech and beliefs translate into action that violate the law.

The gay marriage issue is but a symptom of a much larger and more dangerous issue----loss of freedom.

I support maximum freedom:

1. Government entities recognizing the rights of two law abiding, tax paying, consenting, adults to enter into Civil Marriage if they choose to do so.

2. The repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business entities.

>>>>​

maximum freedom would not care about how many people got married.

Correct, maximum freedom depends on the choice being the individuals (barring a compelling government interest) and not simply being banned by the government. Whether that means equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples being able to enter in to equally recognized Civil Marriage or for private business owners being able to exercise rights of property and association and being able to reject any customers for whatever reason.



>>>>

 

[Redfish]

Question for all:

Are citizens of the USA allowed to hold beliefs that are contrary to the current politically correct list of beliefs?

Should they be punished for not being politically correct in their speech and beliefs?

The gay marriage issue is but a symptom of a much larger and more dangerous issue----loss of freedom.

You're not being punished drama queen. Free speech runs two directions.

yes it does. But you want to ban any speech that does not support your position. You want to demonize anyone who does not buy into your "I was born this way" bullshit.

You are the height of intolerance and bigotry.

 

[Redfish]

LOL and you don't think polygamists would have the SAME argument?

I think you KNOW they would, but admitting that would open your argument up to Redfish's slippery slope argument

I don't care what you think about polygamy- you can go file suit tomorrow arguing that you should be able to marry your wife- and her sister and her brother- and I would applaud your right to file suit.

But it has nothing to do with wanting a same gender couple to have the same legal ability to marry as my wife and I had.

Just a strawman created by those who oppose same gender marriage- just as it was used as a strawman to support bans on mixed race marriages.

the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same. Thats what you fools cannot seem to grasp.

The legal arguments for mixed race marriage are the same? You are opposed to mixed race marriages? Who put you all in charge of who can and can't get married?

No, they are not the same. interracial marriage involves one man and one woman of different races.

It is not analogous to two women, two men, or multiples of both sexes.

You defend gay marriage on discrimination and equality arguments--------exactly the same ones can, and will, be made for all forms of polygamy.

Aren't these your very own words? It seems you were responding to Syriusly and his last statement was
"just as it was used as a strawman to support bans on mixed race marriages".

Interracial marriages involve one man and one woman of different races, but not too long ago there were some who didn't think they should be allowed.....same bigoted and unwarranted fear exhibited as there is with your idea that polygamy will become a trend. And if the problem of polygamy starts cropping up, we will deal with it at the time.....if there are more people who are against it, which I'm sure there will be, it won't be a problem.

Then you don't understand the breadth of the issue

The issue is "Should the government be allowed to define marriage?"

If the answer is no then it is no

That is your issue- not mine- nor is it the issue being argued in court.

Same gender couples are not arguing that governments cannot 'define' marriage- i.e. regulate who can get married- what they are arguing is that laws which prevent same gender couples from marrying violate their Constitutional rights to equal treatment under the law, and that states cannot articulate a compelling state interest in restricting their right to marry.

LOL and you don't think polygamists would have the SAME argument?

I think you KNOW they would, but admitting that would open your argument up to Redfish's slippery slope argument

I don't care what you think about polygamy- you can go file suit tomorrow arguing that you should be able to marry your wife- and her sister and her brother- and I would applaud your right to file suit.

But it has nothing to do with wanting a same gender couple to have the same legal ability to marry as my wife and I had.

Just a strawman created by those who oppose same gender marriage- just as it was used as a strawman to support bans on mixed race marriages.

gay is not a race. Get over that bullshit

My point on polygamy, which you seem incapable of understanding, is that if gay marriage is sanctioned based on claims of discrimination and inequality, then there is absolutely no argument that can be brought against polygamists who will claim discrimination and inequality, and they will have a valid legal precedent in gay marriage.

I don't really give a shit if gays call their relationships a 'marriage'. Thats not the societal danger, the danger is where it will go from there. The ACLU is already gearing up for a case for polygamy.

Is that really where you want our society to go?

the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same. Thats what you fools cannot seem to grasp.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Hey SeaBytch, you found proof that I wasn't born a Christian yet??

 

[Redfish]

Hey SeaBytch, you found proof that I wasn't born a Christian yet??

LOL, but she is sure that she was born lesbian. Couldn't have anything to do with not being asked to the 7th grade dance. Gayness is a way to not have to deal with normal heterosexual relationships. Ever notice that most lesbians are ugly?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Thank you for conceding that you can no more prove you were born gay than I can prove I was born a Christian by deflecting though.

I can prove that you are not born a Christian because you have to make a profession of faith in order to be considered a follower of Christ, and the unborn can't talk. I was born heterosexual, I didn't have to choose between being heterosexual or homosexual, so why would you think that homosexuals get to choose?

Very good points.

And what the phobes ignore is that it really doesn't matter whether or not one is born hetero or homosexual.

Either way, its their business and others need to take care of their own backyard.

The rabid RWs are pro-ginormous government and they want control over other people's personal lives and they can't even take care of their own lives. If they had their way, we would all have video cameras in our bedrooms.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Hey SeaBytch, you found proof that I wasn't born a Christian yet??

LOL, but she is sure that she was born lesbian. Couldn't have anything to do with not being asked to the 7th grade dance. Gayness is a way to not have to deal with normal heterosexual relationships. Ever notice that most lesbians are ugly?

I'm not making it personal, I'm asking her to use logic.

She says peer pressure shouldn't be used to try to force gays to be straights, so I'm asking her, if she can't prove that Christians aren't born Christians, why does she believe peer pressure should be utilized to change them?

Of course it's a logic trap that she can't figure out , so she won't even try.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Homosexual threads sure brings in the conservatives, it looks like.

We certainly see a lot of sexual insecurity ^^^ from the RW phobes.

 

[Geaux4it]

So how did the honeymoon go?

Got aids yet?

-Geaux

Are you an example of right-wing? Sure have a lot of hate for people that in no way affect you.....must suck to be right-wing?

If it impacts society, it impacts me.

Good thing society didn't go homo when Adam was say... 15. Would be a pretty small world today, no?

-Geaux

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Syriusly]

I don't care what you think about polygamy- you can go file suit tomorrow arguing that you should be able to marry your wife- and her sister and her brother- and I would applaud your right to file suit.

But it has nothing to do with wanting a same gender couple to have the same legal ability to marry as my wife and I had.

Just a strawman created by those who oppose same gender marriage- just as it was used as a strawman to support bans on mixed race marriages.

the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same. Thats what you fools cannot seem to grasp.

The legal arguments for mixed race marriage are the same? You are opposed to mixed race marriages? Who put you all in charge of who can and can't get married?

No, they are not the same. interracial marriage involves one man and one woman of different races.

It is not analogous to two women, two men, or multiples of both sexes.

You defend gay marriage on discrimination and equality arguments--------exactly the same ones can, and will, be made for all forms of polygamy.

Aren't these your very own words? It seems you were responding to Syriusly and his last statement was
"just as it was used as a strawman to support bans on mixed race marriages".

Interracial marriages involve one man and one woman of different races, but not too long ago there were some who didn't think they should be allowed.....same bigoted and unwarranted fear exhibited as there is with your idea that polygamy will become a trend. And if the problem of polygamy starts cropping up, we will deal with it at the time.....if there are more people who are against it, which I'm sure there will be, it won't be a problem.

That is your issue- not mine- nor is it the issue being argued in court.

Same gender couples are not arguing that governments cannot 'define' marriage- i.e. regulate who can get married- what they are arguing is that laws which prevent same gender couples from marrying violate their Constitutional rights to equal treatment under the law, and that states cannot articulate a compelling state interest in restricting their right to marry.

LOL and you don't think polygamists would have the SAME argument?

I think you KNOW they would, but admitting that would open your argument up to Redfish's slippery slope argument

I don't care what you think about polygamy- you can go file suit tomorrow arguing that you should be able to marry your wife- and her sister and her brother- and I would applaud your right to file suit.

But it has nothing to do with wanting a same gender couple to have the same legal ability to marry as my wife and I had.

Just a strawman created by those who oppose same gender marriage- just as it was used as a strawman to support bans on mixed race marriages.

gay is not a race. Get over that bullshit

My point on polygamy, which you seem incapable of understanding, is that if gay marriage is sanctioned based on claims of discrimination and inequality, then there is absolutely no argument that can be brought against polygamists who will claim discrimination and inequality, and they will have a valid legal precedent in gay marriage.

I don't really give a shit if gays call their relationships a 'marriage'. Thats not the societal danger, the danger is where it will go from there. The ACLU is already gearing up for a case for polygamy.

Is that really where you want our society to go?

the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same. Thats what you fools cannot seem to grasp.

Gay is not a race- but the legal arguments are exactly the same.

That is what you fools cannot seem to grasp.

I don't care what you think about polygamy- you can go file suit tomorrow arguing that you should be able to marry your wife- and her sister and her brother- and I would applaud your right to file suit.

But it has nothing to do with wanting a same gender couple to have the same legal ability to marry as my wife and I had.

Just a strawman created by those who oppose same gender marriage- just as it was used as a strawman to support bans on mixed race marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

Hey SeaBytch, you found proof that I wasn't born a Christian yet??

LOL, but she is sure that she was born lesbian. Couldn't have anything to do with not being asked to the 7th grade dance. Gayness is a way to not have to deal with normal heterosexual relationships. Ever notice that most lesbians are ugly?

Ever notice that most homophobes have never dated a real live woman?

And are still living with their parents?

Homophobia is their way to compensate for their own lack of social skills and personal success.

Homosexuals may or may not be born homosexuals- but homophobic bigots choose to be bigots.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Hey SeaBytch, you found proof that I wasn't born a Christian yet??

LOL, but she is sure that she was born lesbian. Couldn't have anything to do with not being asked to the 7th grade dance. Gayness is a way to not have to deal with normal heterosexual relationships. Ever notice that most lesbians are ugly?

Ever notice that most homophobes have never dated a real live woman?

And are still living with their parents?

Homophobia is their way to compensate for their own lack of social skills and personal success.

Homosexuals may or may not be born homosexuals- but homophobic bigots choose to be bigots.

oh shut up

You're as bigoted as they are.

 

[Jroc]

Homosexuals are not a separate class of people..states are supposed to define marriage not some all powerful Judge. I think drug addicts and drunks should be a protected class, separate and apart from the non addicted. You don't make any sense where does it end? Your sexual desires should not define who you are. Gay people want special rights separate and apart from everyone else. Soon it'll discrimination not to let a cross dresser work cross dressed .There are no absolutes anymore with you liberals. Federal Judges said Dread Scott was not a person.... Doesn't make it so

Use your Google. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safely.

And yes, gays are a "class of people"....there has been a SCOTUS ruling. (Romer v Evans)

Name these "special rights".

The right to marry the same gender is a special right, which has never before been in this country, and like i said, i could give a shit about some politician (AKA Judges) personal opinion. Gays are are "separate class" bullshit. your'e not special because your a women who likes other women sexually

Oh...so marrying someone of another race is a "special right" then?

How is it "special"? You can marry someone of the same gender too.

Um, you do realize that sex is just the fringe benefit, right? We love and cherish our spouses just like you do.

Have sex with 5 women at one time who cares. Being gay is not a race get over it

No, it is not a race but it is an immutable trait. (We'll wait while you look up what that is)

I only have sex with my legal spouse, thanks..

Bisexuals should be allowed one spouse of each gender to be totally fair...Drunks and drug addicts have certain genes which make them more at risk to be addicts so what?

 

[Jroc]

Do we have freedom of thought and belief? Are we allowed to hold beliefs contrary to those dictated by the government? Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is one man and one woman.

Gives gays a legal vehicle to commit to each other with all the rights and priviledges of a man/woman marriage, Fine, do it. But it will never be a marriage.

We have it, it's called marriage and we can do it in over 35 states now.

yeah, you do. Funny how when the people of california were allowed to vote their views on it, they voted it down twice.

No matter how you try to spin it, gay marriage is NOT a constitutional issue. It is a societal issue and as such, society as a whole should decide.

You don't get to vote on Civil Rights. The people of Mississippi might want to vote to ban interracial marriage again. They don't get to.

No matter how much you want to deny it, gay marriage bans are failing....because they are Unconstitutional.

"don't vote on civil rights" Really? Was not the constitution adopted by a majority vote of the representatives of the states? Were not the state representatives elected by majority vote? Are not our statutes put in place my majority vote in state and federal legislatures? Was not prohibition put in place and repealed by majority vote? Was not the civil rights act made law by majority vote of congress?

Of course we vote on civil rights. To say otherwise is just plain stupid.

Back to this? Prop 8 was unconstitutional. It's as simple as that.

Says some liberal appeals court judges who are nothing but political hacks The Supreme court never ruled prop 8 unconstitutional, although all non originalist judges are political hacks anyway

 

[Jroc]

JROC SAID:

“Homosexuals are not a separate class of people..”

Incorrect.

Homosexuals constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections.

The Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans recognized this fact when it upheld the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, which sought to deny gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws:

“We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .

Just as states may not deny gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, so too does the 14th Amendment prohibit the states from denying gay Americans access to marriage laws.

JROC SAID:

“states are supposed to define marriage not some all powerful Judge.”

Judges aren't 'defining' anything – they are correctly and appropriately, consistent with settled, accepted, and established 14th Amendment jurisprudence, invalidating state laws that deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, the same marriage law available to opposite-sex couples, unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

JROC SAID:

“Gay people want special rights separate and apart from everyone else.”

Wrong.

Gay Americans already have the right to enter into marriage contracts, the issue concerns the states seeking to deny them that right in violation of the Constitution, where such laws exist “not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do.” ibid.

JROC SAID:

“Homosexuals are not a separate class of people..”

Incorrect.

Homosexuals constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections.

The Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans recognized this fact when it upheld the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, which sought to deny gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws:

“We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .

Just as states may not deny gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, so too does the 14th Amendment prohibit the states from denying gay Americans access to marriage laws.

JROC SAID:

“states are supposed to define marriage not some all powerful Judge.”

Judges aren't 'defining' anything – they are correctly and appropriately, consistent with settled, accepted, and established 14th Amendment jurisprudence, invalidating state laws that deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, the same marriage law available to opposite-sex couples, unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

JROC SAID:

“Gay people want special rights separate and apart from everyone else.”

Wrong.

Gay Americans already have the right to enter into marriage contracts, the issue concerns the states seeking to deny them that right in violation of the Constitution, where such laws exist “not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do.” ibid.

Homosexuals are not a a separate class of people genius. Are bisexuals separate? are transsexuals separate? are heterosexuals separate? every American is protected equally under the constitution, because they are Americans, not because they are a separate 'class" You liberals and your stupid, made up, classes and like I said, most judges are nothing but political hacks appointed by politicians to push a political agenda.

 

[Listening]

Gays and lesbians can of course marry a person of the opposite sex there is no inequality there, and if you can show me were the discussion and ratification of the 14th amendment they spoke about gay "marriage" I'd like you to point that out to me, ok? These judges have no authority to overturn the state constitutions. There inequality there.

Gay Americans cannot marry someone of the same sex, however, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, where same-sex couples are indeed eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

As for the Framers of the 14th Amendment:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

And Federal courts may in fact invalidate state measures repugnant to the Founding Document, as authorized by Article VI of the Constitution.

Such a statement is laughable and probably came from the biggest bastard the court ever knew: William O. Douglas.

To assume he somehow spoke with knowledge, much less a dispassionate POV, is to ignore reality.

"Greater Freedom".....

Tell me again why I can't own a nuclear bomb ? That would be greater freedom.

Oh wow! I guess next you're going to tell us you're a Christian.....

You look pretty stupid even when you've not been drinking.

Sorry that such a reminder upsets you so much......I guess I must be wrong....you sure don't act like one....

You guess ? I can assure you that you are rarely right.

 

[Syriusly]

Hey SeaBytch, you found proof that I wasn't born a Christian yet??

LOL, but she is sure that she was born lesbian. Couldn't have anything to do with not being asked to the 7th grade dance. Gayness is a way to not have to deal with normal heterosexual relationships. Ever notice that most lesbians are ugly?

Ever notice that most homophobes have never dated a real live woman?

And are still living with their parents?

Homophobia is their way to compensate for their own lack of social skills and personal success.

Homosexuals may or may not be born homosexuals- but homophobic bigots choose to be bigots.

oh shut up

You're as bigoted as they are.

Guess I was hitting a little too close to home for you to handle

Ever notice that most homophobes have never dated a real live woman?

And are still living with their parents?

Homophobia is their way to compensate for their own lack of social skills and personal success.

Homosexuals may or may not be born homosexuals- but homophobic bigots choose to be bigots