Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Reading comp is fine, bro. I don't agree with you is the problem.You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. By the way, you, like gay folks are free to marry someone of the same sex. Nothing special about that.Cool story, bro.Are you fucking serious??!! THAT would be the destruction of marriage. People just would not do it.Divorce should be outlawed. You pledge "till death do you part" and that's it. FOREVER.
They had the same restriction placed on them as everyone else.
•
When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.
In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.
Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.
One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)
Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage
On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).
Windsor is the other case referred to aboveTwo landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)
It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)
The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)
We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”
We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59
A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
I believe they are seeking special rights. They can get married just like everyone else.
How am I getting pissy? By not caring if you believe what I wrote?I couldn't care less if you believed it, Rice.I don't have a link. I have knowledge inside my brain.Link?
After the 13th Amendment, Democrats played games with the law. They said, OK, you are free, but you are not citizens and you don't get the rights of citizens.
Which is what led to the 14th and 15th Amendments.
Look it up for yourself. Or not. I couldn't care less.
I’ve been trying to look it up and I haven’t found anything that says blacks couldn’t marry after the 13 Amendment.
Sorry if the knowledge inside your head isn’t conclusive enough for me. No doubt it’s my fault.
My world does not revolve around what you do or do not believe.
Heck, go ahead and believe the exact opposite. I'm sure the 14th and 15th Amendments were all about nothing.
YOU made the assertion. I can’t find a source to support it, and you refuse to. And you’re going to get pissy over it?
What I am talking about was before this. Not a restriction on inter-racial marriage, but a restriction on marriage period. Heck, restrictions on race mixing had been around long before that and are the reason for our differential problems here compared to abroad. You can pretty much than the British and Democrats for that. Filthy British. Filthy Democrats.Cool story, bro.Are you fucking serious??!! THAT would be the destruction of marriage. People just would not do it.Divorce should be outlawed. You pledge "till death do you part" and that's it. FOREVER.
They had the same restriction placed on them as everyone else.
•
When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.
In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.
Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.
One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)
Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage
On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).
Windsor is the other case referred to aboveTwo landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)
It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)
The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)
We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”
We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59
A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
I believe they are seeking special rights. They can get married just like everyone else.
It used to be that the right to marriage was restricted to couples of the same race. Damn those mixed-race couples for wanting special rights!
Damn, man, don't you get it?I would like to sincerely apologize for any marriage that may have been ruined by me getting married to my husband.
Damn, man, don't you get it?I would like to sincerely apologize for any marriage that may have been ruined by me getting married to my husband.
When you got married, it did't ruin my marriage. It ruined my chance of ever getting married.
......but if you ever get divorced............
Damn, my eyes hit immediately on "awesome" cook" and you can only imagine my chagrin when I realized it did,t say what I first thought it said.Damn, man, don't you get it?I would like to sincerely apologize for any marriage that may have been ruined by me getting married to my husband.
When you got married, it did't ruin my marriage. It ruined my chance of ever getting married.
......but if you ever get divorced............
I am quite the catch. Urbane, handsome, an awesome cook, and most of all...humble. lol
Why would I need to do that?And yet, even when black people could legally marry, mixed-race marriages were illegal.
Look up Loving v. Virginia.
Divorce is more destructive. However, sanctity is most likely long gone prior to divorce.
Would you kindly expand on that thought?Only same sex people should be allowed to call it marriage.
They won't get it. If anyone's marriage is ruined, they ruined it themselves. They just need something to blame it on instead of taking responsibility.I would like to sincerely apologize for any marriage that may have been ruined by me getting married to my husband.
Actually, you don't seem to be aware of much at all.Why would I need to do that?And yet, even when black people could legally marry, mixed-race marriages were illegal.
Look up Loving v. Virginia.
I'm well aware of it.
What the fuck are you talking about? Did he marry the guy that you were after?Damn, man, don't you get it?I would like to sincerely apologize for any marriage that may have been ruined by me getting married to my husband.
When you got married, it did't ruin my marriage. It ruined my chance of ever getting married.
......but if you ever get divorced............
Straight people have screwed up so many marriages that they should no longer be able to use the word, and should be called “temporary unions” for the first 10 years.Would you kindly expand on that thought?Only same sex people should be allowed to call it marriage.
Straight people have screwed up so many marriages that they should no longer be able to use the word, and should be called “temporary unions” for the first 10 years.Would you kindly expand on that thought?Only same sex people should be allowed to call it marriage.
