User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 4:39:05 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i've dedicated my life to destroying heterosexual marriage for sure. so many brothers and sisters have. systematically destroying heterosexual marriage is exactly what letting carl and bob say "i do" is doing in this country. that's why sally and tim just got divorced. because of those destroying heterosexual marriage. and those worshipping at the altar of the single mother. peace be upon her name. destroying heterosexual marriage is not happening because of decreasing economic relevance of marriage. or because heterosexuals can't seem to stay married half the time. destroying heterosexual marriage is due to secret homo agents infiltrating every nook and cranny. tim cheated on sally because of homos. and sally cheated on tim because of homos. and all the little kiddies will suffer because of homos. destroying heterosexual marriage will certainly be the death of america as you imagine it used to be. destroying heterosexual marriage will be the death of us all. big scary homos everywhere. good thing we have strong, clenching and grinding men to protect us with their brave words from homosexual marriage and the homosexual agenda. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So they are forcing me to marry a man? It's a states rights issue. I agree. I just don't really get how some of you guys get your panties in a bunch over something like this. Unless I'm failing to see how this negatively affects people. marriage is about children. the same groups who dedicated their lives destroying the concept of heterosexual marriage are the ones pushing homosexual marriage. You like a bunch of fucked up bastards running around collecting welfare, this is just moving towards more of the same. Being a single mother used to carry a stigma. now its a hero/victim that we, as a society, must embrace, worship and honor (and subsidize) Keep on keeping on. i've dedicated my life to destroying heterosexual marriage for sure. so many brothers and sisters have. systematically destroying heterosexual marriage is exactly what letting carl and bob say "i do" is doing in this country. that's why sally and tim just got divorced. because of those destroying heterosexual marriage. and those worshipping at the altar of the single mother. peace be upon her name. destroying heterosexual marriage is not happening because of decreasing economic relevance of marriage. or because heterosexuals can't seem to stay married half the time. destroying heterosexual marriage is due to secret homo agents infiltrating every nook and cranny. tim cheated on sally because of homos. and sally cheated on tim because of homos. and all the little kiddies will suffer because of homos. destroying heterosexual marriage will certainly be the death of america as you imagine it used to be. destroying heterosexual marriage will be the death of us all. big scary homos everywhere. good thing we have strong, clenching and grinding men to protect us with their brave words from homosexual marriage and the homosexual agenda.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 5:00:02 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dat Supremacy Clause. Gun control? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 5:01:51 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The US Constitution provides for equal protection for all citizens in regards to all laws. It prevents tyranny of the majority which is simply passing laws that are popular and have a lot of support, but infringe on the rights of a minority of citizens. Until you get the US Constitution amended to exempt marriage laws from that equal protection clause or have The US Constitution define marriage as a union between a man and woman, gay marriage is going to be allowed. No one who can read, can possibly come to any other conclusion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
(AP) May 10, 2014 Little Rock AR A judge on Friday struck down Arkansas' ban on same-sex marriage. Pulaski Cty Circuit Judge Chris Piazza declared AR's state constitution ban, unconstitutional. State Attorney General Dustin McDaniel's office said he would appeal the ruling and asked Judge Chris Piazza to suspend the ruling during that process. "We respect the Court's decision, but, in keeping with the Attorney General's obligation to defend the state constitution, we will appeal," spokesman Aaron Sadler said. Arkansas' state constitution was amended and ratified by state voters in 2004 to limit marriage to only between man and woman. I guess I am confused I was under the impression that the constitution itself is the basis for law not a judge's interpretation of some higher law... The Arkansas State legislature needs to impeach him immediately and appoint another judge in his place and set aside his ruling as being unfounded. The voters can decide to amend their constitution if they so desire, until then the judiciary can pound sand. The US Constitution provides for equal protection for all citizens in regards to all laws. It prevents tyranny of the majority which is simply passing laws that are popular and have a lot of support, but infringe on the rights of a minority of citizens. Until you get the US Constitution amended to exempt marriage laws from that equal protection clause or have The US Constitution define marriage as a union between a man and woman, gay marriage is going to be allowed. No one who can read, can possibly come to any other conclusion. Sorry if my reply confused you.... Had this been a Federal Judge there might be some validity to their ruling. This was STATE JUDGE ruling on the STATE Constitution, they don't get to declare the constitution unconstitutional this choice is not in their decision set. This is not a law they were assessing to see if it was constitutional, this was an amendment made by the citizens of Arkansas and codified in their Constitution. Creating law by fiat is a sure way to destroy this country and is tyrannical even if the tyrant wears black robes. I could give a shit about gay marriage, I do care when the basic compacts that govern us as a nation are shredded at will without due process. The only process that should allow the current constitution to be amended is another amendment nullifying the first, anything else leads down a very dark path. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 5:14:19 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry if my reply confused you.... Had this been a Federal Judge there might be some validity to their ruling. This was STATE JUDGE ruling on the STATE Constitution, they don't get to declare the constitution unconstitutional this choice is not in their decision set. This is not a law they were assessing to see if it was constitutional, this was an amendment made by the citizens of Arkansas and codified in their Constitution. Creating law by fiat is a sure way to destroy this country and is tyrannical even if the tyrant wears black robes. I could give a shit about gay marriage, I do care when the basic compacts that govern us as a nation are shredded at will without due process. The only process that should allow the current constitution to be amended is another amendment nullifying the first, anything else leads down a very dark path. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
(AP) May 10, 2014 Little Rock AR A judge on Friday struck down Arkansas' ban on same-sex marriage. Pulaski Cty Circuit Judge Chris Piazza declared AR's state constitution ban, unconstitutional. State Attorney General Dustin McDaniel's office said he would appeal the ruling and asked Judge Chris Piazza to suspend the ruling during that process. "We respect the Court's decision, but, in keeping with the Attorney General's obligation to defend the state constitution, we will appeal," spokesman Aaron Sadler said. Arkansas' state constitution was amended and ratified by state voters in 2004 to limit marriage to only between man and woman. I guess I am confused I was under the impression that the constitution itself is the basis for law not a judge's interpretation of some higher law... The Arkansas State legislature needs to impeach him immediately and appoint another judge in his place and set aside his ruling as being unfounded. The voters can decide to amend their constitution if they so desire, until then the judiciary can pound sand. The US Constitution provides for equal protection for all citizens in regards to all laws. It prevents tyranny of the majority which is simply passing laws that are popular and have a lot of support, but infringe on the rights of a minority of citizens. Until you get the US Constitution amended to exempt marriage laws from that equal protection clause or have The US Constitution define marriage as a union between a man and woman, gay marriage is going to be allowed. No one who can read, can possibly come to any other conclusion. Sorry if my reply confused you.... Had this been a Federal Judge there might be some validity to their ruling. This was STATE JUDGE ruling on the STATE Constitution, they don't get to declare the constitution unconstitutional this choice is not in their decision set. This is not a law they were assessing to see if it was constitutional, this was an amendment made by the citizens of Arkansas and codified in their Constitution. Creating law by fiat is a sure way to destroy this country and is tyrannical even if the tyrant wears black robes. I could give a shit about gay marriage, I do care when the basic compacts that govern us as a nation are shredded at will without due process. The only process that should allow the current constitution to be amended is another amendment nullifying the first, anything else leads down a very dark path. So state judges can't rule on federally protected rights? When did they make that change? LOL! State constitutions are, like all state legislation, restrained to comply with the bill of rights. There should be a hell of a lot more state laws struck down for being unconstitutional, and putting a federally unconstitutional law in a state constitution shouldn't do anything to protect it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 5:58:12 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So state judges can't rule on federally protected rights? When did they make that change? LOL! State constitutions are, like all state legislation, restrained to comply with the bill of rights. There should be a hell of a lot more state laws struck down for being unconstitutional, and putting a federally unconstitutional law in a state constitution shouldn't do anything to protect it. Please quote for me in the US Constitution the part on marriage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 6:09:36 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys have to look at the bright side the can't reproduce so that mean less liberals born every year They'll just amplify the recruitment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 6:18:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So they are forcing me to marry a man? i don't see where they require you to do anything.....ohhhhh....and until you can procreate with a person of the same sex it ain't marriage.....it's a civil union....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 6:22:19 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please quote for me in the US Constitution the part on marriage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So state judges can't rule on federally protected rights? When did they make that change? LOL! State constitutions are, like all state legislation, restrained to comply with the bill of rights. There should be a hell of a lot more state laws struck down for being unconstitutional, and putting a federally unconstitutional law in a state constitution shouldn't do anything to protect it. Please quote for me in the US Constitution the part on marriage. Please read the 9th Amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 7:01:05 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please read the 9th Amendment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So state judges can't rule on federally protected rights? When did they make that change? LOL! State constitutions are, like all state legislation, restrained to comply with the bill of rights. There should be a hell of a lot more state laws struck down for being unconstitutional, and putting a federally unconstitutional law in a state constitution shouldn't do anything to protect it. Please quote for me in the US Constitution the part on marriage. Please read the 9th Amendment. You understand that the 9th amendment would argue that the state retains the right to make law in areas not specifically delegated to the federal government, marriage being an example of such an area. In other words, the 9th amendment argues against your position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 7:12:54 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You understand that the 9th amendment would argue that the state retains the right to make law in areas not specifically delegated to the federal government, marriage being an example of such an area. In other words, the 9th amendment argues against your position. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So state judges can't rule on federally protected rights? When did they make that change? LOL! State constitutions are, like all state legislation, restrained to comply with the bill of rights. There should be a hell of a lot more state laws struck down for being unconstitutional, and putting a federally unconstitutional law in a state constitution shouldn't do anything to protect it. Please quote for me in the US Constitution the part on marriage. Please read the 9th Amendment. You understand that the 9th amendment would argue that the state retains the right to make law in areas not specifically delegated to the federal government, marriage being an example of such an area. In other words, the 9th amendment argues against your position. You're thinking of the 10th. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 7:29:07 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're thinking of the 10th. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So state judges can't rule on federally protected rights? When did they make that change? LOL! State constitutions are, like all state legislation, restrained to comply with the bill of rights. There should be a hell of a lot more state laws struck down for being unconstitutional, and putting a federally unconstitutional law in a state constitution shouldn't do anything to protect it. Please quote for me in the US Constitution the part on marriage. Please read the 9th Amendment. You understand that the 9th amendment would argue that the state retains the right to make law in areas not specifically delegated to the federal government, marriage being an example of such an area. In other words, the 9th amendment argues against your position. You're thinking of the 10th. The 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This is a simple statement that the rights called out in the Constitution are not taken to be exhaustive. So there are rights that the people retain that are not specifically called out in the Constitution. However, it's hard to see that this much of a defense of the right to gay marriage. The people do not retain unlimited rights, for example there are numerous criminal acts that are generally agreed upon that we do not have the right to commit by virtue of the 9th amendment. For example, embezzlement is not addressed in the Constitution, but no one agrees that the people retain a right to embezzlement simply by virtue of the Constitution's silence on the issue. So, the 9th amendment says that we retain nebulous rights that are not specially addressed in the Constitution, so the question is how are these rights defined? The answer is in the next amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I've always read the 9th and 10th amendments as a pair that were written specially so that the other eight amendments in the Bill of Rights should not be read to be the limiting case of the rights of the people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 7:34:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. The state subsidizes marriage to encourage couples to have children. The continuation of SS benefits for surviving spouses is the primary example. Now, get rid of social security and have people be able to pass on their wealth to whomever they want would be better. but we don't do this. we steal peoples money and then allocate it as the state sees fit for its social engineering purposes. 2. marriage, adoption, the newly found lesbian who wants custody of her kids. Two lesbians "married" would have the same weight as the father and his new bride for custody (who are we kidding, the woman wins no matter what) The state gets involved with marriage because of children and the importance of having well adjusted ones entering into society. Children are best raised by a mother and a father. not a transgender, not one mommy having a mullet, a beer gut and riding a harley. not one man called steve and another man called shirley who is waiting for "her" state approved sex change. gays want to live together and live their lives. good on 'em. don't give a shit. but do we now subsidize that, or subject children to a substandard familial model in the name of political correctness? I non-concur. How long have we heard the lie that children from single parent homes do just as well as two parent? They can't even tell that lie anymore. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The fact that homosexuals want to be married, and are unable to have children, affects heterosexual marriage how? I want to understand this. Lol. Is your issue that they call it marriage, or that it becoming more accepted in society that they are gay? I don't care who wants to be married, or who wants to fuck who. I personally find it disgusting, but it doesn't affect me in anyway. Less gayness on TV would be better but, I rarely watch TV and I can always switch the channel to some non-gay shit. 1. The state subsidizes marriage to encourage couples to have children. The continuation of SS benefits for surviving spouses is the primary example. Now, get rid of social security and have people be able to pass on their wealth to whomever they want would be better. but we don't do this. we steal peoples money and then allocate it as the state sees fit for its social engineering purposes. 2. marriage, adoption, the newly found lesbian who wants custody of her kids. Two lesbians "married" would have the same weight as the father and his new bride for custody (who are we kidding, the woman wins no matter what) The state gets involved with marriage because of children and the importance of having well adjusted ones entering into society. Children are best raised by a mother and a father. not a transgender, not one mommy having a mullet, a beer gut and riding a harley. not one man called steve and another man called shirley who is waiting for "her" state approved sex change. gays want to live together and live their lives. good on 'em. don't give a shit. but do we now subsidize that, or subject children to a substandard familial model in the name of political correctness? I non-concur. How long have we heard the lie that children from single parent homes do just as well as two parent? They can't even tell that lie anymore. I don't give a shit about these children being in Lesbian/Gay homes. If they gay/lesbian couples weren't adopting these kids to have their little families, it would be an even bigger burden on state budgets, and I'm not sure the kids would be much better off in foster care / CPS. I doubt a high percentage of these lesbian couple pay for the expense to "get pregnant". Probably mostly adoptions. As for subsidizing Lesbian families through tax incentives for marriage... I'm far less worried about those tax breaks than the money we dole out in welfare to the FSA. What percentage of Americans are we talking about in regard to Lesbian/Gay families, and how much do you really think these tax breaks for them and their children/ marriage will cost? You can't think it would be a significant amount of money to the US Gov... Lol. It would be such a infinitesimally small percentage of US Tax revenues that it is laughable. It is obvious that your true motivations are moral/religious, not a financial burden on the US taxpayer. Again, I don't give a shit what they do. I don't care about the moral aspect of their behavior. It's none of my business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 7:38:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't give a shit about these children being in Lesbian/Gay homes. If they gay/lesbian couples weren't adopting these kids to have their little families, it would be an even bigger burden on state budgets, and I'm not sure the kids would be much better off in foster care / CPS. I doubt a high percentage of these lesbian couple pay for the expense to "get pregnant". Probably mostly adoptions. As for subsidizing Lesbian families through tax incentives for marriage... I'm far less worried about those tax breaks than the money we dole out in welfare to the FSA. What percentage of Americans are we talking about in regard to Lesbian/Gay families, and how much do you really think these tax breaks for them and their children/ marriage will cost? You can't think it would be a significant amount of money to the US Gov... Lol. It would be such a infinitesimally small percentage of US Tax revenues that it is laughable. It is obvious that your true motivations are moral/religious, not a financial burden on the US taxpayer. Again, I don't give a shit what they do. I don't care about the moral aspect of their behavior. It's none of my business. Do you give a shit about a state's constitution which expresses the will of the people as expressed through their representatives being overturned by a single man? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 7:41:06 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you give a shit about a state's constitution which expresses the will of the people as expressed through their representatives being overturned by a single man? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't give a shit about these children being in Lesbian/Gay homes. If they gay/lesbian couples weren't adopting these kids to have their little families, it would be an even bigger burden on state budgets, and I'm not sure the kids would be much better off in foster care / CPS. I doubt a high percentage of these lesbian couple pay for the expense to "get pregnant". Probably mostly adoptions. As for subsidizing Lesbian families through tax incentives for marriage... I'm far less worried about those tax breaks than the money we dole out in welfare to the FSA. What percentage of Americans are we talking about in regard to Lesbian/Gay families, and how much do you really think these tax breaks for them and their children/ marriage will cost? You can't think it would be a significant amount of money to the US Gov... Lol. It would be such a infinitesimally small percentage of US Tax revenues that it is laughable. It is obvious that your true motivations are moral/religious, not a financial burden on the US taxpayer. Again, I don't give a shit what they do. I don't care about the moral aspect of their behavior. It's none of my business. Do you give a shit about a state's constitution which expresses the will of the people as expressed through their representatives being overturned by a single man? A single man enforcing the federal Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 7:44:18 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you give a shit about a state's constitution which expresses the will of the people as expressed through their representatives being overturned by a single man? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't give a shit about these children being in Lesbian/Gay homes. If they gay/lesbian couples weren't adopting these kids to have their little families, it would be an even bigger burden on state budgets, and I'm not sure the kids would be much better off in foster care / CPS. I doubt a high percentage of these lesbian couple pay for the expense to "get pregnant". Probably mostly adoptions. As for subsidizing Lesbian families through tax incentives for marriage... I'm far less worried about those tax breaks than the money we dole out in welfare to the FSA. What percentage of Americans are we talking about in regard to Lesbian/Gay families, and how much do you really think these tax breaks for them and their children/ marriage will cost? You can't think it would be a significant amount of money to the US Gov... Lol. It would be such a infinitesimally small percentage of US Tax revenues that it is laughable. It is obvious that your true motivations are moral/religious, not a financial burden on the US taxpayer. Again, I don't give a shit what they do. I don't care about the moral aspect of their behavior. It's none of my business. Do you give a shit about a state's constitution which expresses the will of the people as expressed through their representatives being overturned by a single man? Meh. I actually voted against Gay marriage in my state, but I only did it to piss off liberals.  I don't really care that much either way.
But in theory, I do care if State law violates Federal Law. I knew my state's ban on gay marriage would be stopped by injunction eventually. It was. I have yet to have it affect my life in any way. Go figure. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 7:44:38 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[ The 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This is a simple statement that the rights called out in the Constitution are not taken to be exhaustive. So there are rights that the people retain that are not specifically called out in the Constitution. However, it's hard to see that this much of a defense of the right to gay marriage. The people do not retain unlimited rights, for example there are numerous criminal acts that are generally agreed upon that we do not have the right to commit by virtue of the 9th amendment. For example, embezzlement is not addressed in the Constitution, but no one agrees that the people retain a right to embezzlement simply by virtue of the Constitution's silence on the issue. So, the 9th amendment says that we retain nebulous rights that are not specially addressed in the Constitution, so the question is how are these rights defined? The answer is in the next amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I've always read the 9th and 10th amendments as a pair that were written specially so that the other eight amendments in the Bill of Rights should not be read to be the limiting case of the rights of the people. Then why does it say the people at the end of the 9th, rather than the states? Easy, because the states dont have rights. They have powers that their people grant them. Only people have rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 7:46:09 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A single man enforcing the federal Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't give a shit about these children being in Lesbian/Gay homes. If they gay/lesbian couples weren't adopting these kids to have their little families, it would be an even bigger burden on state budgets, and I'm not sure the kids would be much better off in foster care / CPS. I doubt a high percentage of these lesbian couple pay for the expense to "get pregnant". Probably mostly adoptions. As for subsidizing Lesbian families through tax incentives for marriage... I'm far less worried about those tax breaks than the money we dole out in welfare to the FSA. What percentage of Americans are we talking about in regard to Lesbian/Gay families, and how much do you really think these tax breaks for them and their children/ marriage will cost? You can't think it would be a significant amount of money to the US Gov... Lol. It would be such a infinitesimally small percentage of US Tax revenues that it is laughable. It is obvious that your true motivations are moral/religious, not a financial burden on the US taxpayer. Again, I don't give a shit what they do. I don't care about the moral aspect of their behavior. It's none of my business. Do you give a shit about a state's constitution which expresses the will of the people as expressed through their representatives being overturned by a single man? A single man enforcing the federal Constitution. Well, that's debatable isn't it? Or do you believe that every judicial decision handed down "defends the Constitution"? Certainly no court, state or federal came to that conclusion for hundreds of years in this country's history. Or does the meaning of the Constitution evolve over time? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 7:50:57 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then why does it say the people at the end of the 9th, rather than the states? Easy, because the states dont have rights. They have powers that their people grant them. Only people have rights. Because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are to be interpreted in their entirety. If we consider the 9th in isolation as you suggest then individual people could decide what rights they retain. Therefore, I could decide that I retain the right to take your stuff. What you suggest is anarchy which none of the founders believed in. They believed that the people maximized their rights by setting up civil government, first at the local and state level and then at the federal level to accomplish those few things that could not be done by the states themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 8:18:06 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How? The federal government is not dictated by the Constitution to determine who marries whom and that therefore, by the 10th amendment, is the purview of the states. Given this, the federal government has no business getting involved with who marries whom, yes? Let's look at it again: So, by this text, if you cannot show me in the Constitution where marriage is regulated by the federal government, it is the bailiwick of the states, yes? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It doesn't empower the government. It empowers the people to do almost anything. More importantly, it answers your question about the constitution and why it doesn't matter if it mentions a thing. RIght, so if the people do not want to do something that is not given as a duty to the federal government, then the federal government has no business telling them to do or not to do it, yes? Non sequitur How? The federal government is not dictated by the Constitution to determine who marries whom and that therefore, by the 10th amendment, is the purview of the states. Given this, the federal government has no business getting involved with who marries whom, yes? Let's look at it again: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So, by this text, if you cannot show me in the Constitution where marriage is regulated by the federal government, it is the bailiwick of the states, yes? States issue, until a state attempts to discriminate against a citizen based on gender. Then The Constitution protects the citizen from this discriminatory law of the state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 8:20:10 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bottom line is this - we have lost this fight. It's over. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 8:28:07 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The bottom line is this - we have lost this fight. It's over. This. The problem is how this has been "lost". I would be fine if the mood of the people had lead the way and individual states had changed their laws through the legislative process. Instead our "betters" in the judiciary and Hollywood have decided to drag the country in the direction they see fit. We have seen judicial overreach and bullying from the setters of pop culture. I suppose if you agree with their position that might be fine with you, but beware the day when these same forces decide to take the country in a direction that you don't want to go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 8:32:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is how this has been "lost". I would be fine if the mood of the people had lead the way and individual states had changed their laws through the legislative process. Instead our "betters" in the judiciary and Hollywood have decided to drag the country in the direction they see fit. We have seen judicial overreach and bullying from the setters of pop culture. I suppose if you agree with their position that might be fine with you, but beware the day when these same forces decide to take the country in a direction that you don't want to go. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The bottom line is this - we have lost this fight. It's over. This. The problem is how this has been "lost". I would be fine if the mood of the people had lead the way and individual states had changed their laws through the legislative process. Instead our "betters" in the judiciary and Hollywood have decided to drag the country in the direction they see fit. We have seen judicial overreach and bullying from the setters of pop culture. I suppose if you agree with their position that might be fine with you, but beware the day when these same forces decide to take the country in a direction that you don't want to go. No I look at how The Constitution is supposed to protect each citizen and how all laws should apply equally with no deference as to gender. With that in mind, I can't find a way for states to prohibit gay marriage in The Constitution. It really is that simple. It doesn't matter what is popular or what mood people are in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 8:34:49 PM EDT
[#23]
In this thread "living, breathing" types out themselves.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 8:35:18 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, that's debatable isn't it? Or do you believe that every judicial decision handed down "defends the Constitution"? Certainly no court, state or federal came to that conclusion for hundreds of years in this country's history. Or does the meaning of the Constitution evolve over time? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't give a shit about these children being in Lesbian/Gay homes. If they gay/lesbian couples weren't adopting these kids to have their little families, it would be an even bigger burden on state budgets, and I'm not sure the kids would be much better off in foster care / CPS. I doubt a high percentage of these lesbian couple pay for the expense to "get pregnant". Probably mostly adoptions. As for subsidizing Lesbian families through tax incentives for marriage... I'm far less worried about those tax breaks than the money we dole out in welfare to the FSA. What percentage of Americans are we talking about in regard to Lesbian/Gay families, and how much do you really think these tax breaks for them and their children/ marriage will cost? You can't think it would be a significant amount of money to the US Gov... Lol. It would be such a infinitesimally small percentage of US Tax revenues that it is laughable. It is obvious that your true motivations are moral/religious, not a financial burden on the US taxpayer. Again, I don't give a shit what they do. I don't care about the moral aspect of their behavior. It's none of my business. Do you give a shit about a state's constitution which expresses the will of the people as expressed through their representatives being overturned by a single man? A single man enforcing the federal Constitution. Well, that's debatable isn't it? Or do you believe that every judicial decision handed down "defends the Constitution"? Certainly no court, state or federal came to that conclusion for hundreds of years in this country's history. Or does the meaning of the Constitution evolve over time? He has a very liberal and activist interpretation of the constitution. Want your choices validated? Just say read the 9th amendment. Lulz |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 8:37:40 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No I look at how The Constitution is supposed to protect each citizen and how all laws should apply equally with no deference as to gender. With that in mind, I can't find a way for states to prohibit gay marriage in The Constitution. It really is that simple. It doesn't matter what is popular or what mood people are in. And the libertarian in me has a great deal of sympathy for that position. But having a few judges declare that is simply not how this country was created to operate. After all, we had a constitutional amendment to end slavery. We didn't just have a few judges declare that it was unconstitutional. Your position is really opening up a can of worms to have the judiciary find all sorts of new rights, some of which you will certainly not agree with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 8:45:54 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriousness question. Why do you want to be married? I can can tell tell you I married to give legitimacy to an offspring. It's kind of a religious tradition we Christians sometimes do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As I have said here before, as much as I am for gay marriage, (and in fact will be gay married in less than a year) and would hope all states would adopt it, I do not like the Federal Gvt. forcing states to accept it.  Seriousness question. Why do you want to be married? I can can tell tell you I married to give legitimacy to an offspring. It's kind of a religious tradition we Christians sometimes do. And if you didn't or could'nt for some reason after the fact have those legitimate offspring - you would have divorced right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 8:52:46 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And if you didn't or could'nt for some reason after the fact have those legitimate offspring - you would have divorced right? That's a rather weak counter argument. A male - female coupling can in theory result in issue, even if not in a given particular case. A male - male or female - female coupling can not even in theory result in issue. These categories therefore differ in kind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 8:55:41 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the libertarian in me has a great deal of sympathy for that position. But having a few judges declare that is simply not how this country was created to operate. After all, we had a constitutional amendment to end slavery. We didn't just have a few judges declare that it was unconstitutional. Your position is really opening up a can of worms to have the judiciary find all sorts of new rights, some of which you will certainly not agree with. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No I look at how The Constitution is supposed to protect each citizen and how all laws should apply equally with no deference as to gender. With that in mind, I can't find a way for states to prohibit gay marriage in The Constitution. It really is that simple. It doesn't matter what is popular or what mood people are in. And the libertarian in me has a great deal of sympathy for that position. But having a few judges declare that is simply not how this country was created to operate. After all, we had a constitutional amendment to end slavery. We didn't just have a few judges declare that it was unconstitutional. Your position is really opening up a can of worms to have the judiciary find all sorts of new rights, some of which you will certainly not agree with. I've been contemplating thread about how SCOTUS Justices are sometimes on the winning side and sometimes on the losing side and it doesn't matter overall and it is more ideology that the actual words in the document. As long as 5 of them agree, it is now the law and they are right and people here will say "it's the law, man. End of discussion. Contact your Rep if you don't like it". People will go to prison and or possible die over those votes even though 4 of them could be "wrong" on the next issue. I wanted to touch on Congress pretty much just passes whatever they want and don't really care or even appear to consider the Constitution when writing new legislation. They totally defer to SCOTUS. They just wait on SCOTUS to rule if it is challenged. I haven't formulated the best terminology to get my point across yet, so I'm waiting. I might do it on the next 5-4 vote on an important issue. From your response, you totally understand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 9:07:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a rather weak counter argument. A male - female coupling can in theory result in issue, even if not in a given particular case. A male - male or female - female coupling can not even in theory result in issue. These categories therefore differ in kind. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And if you didn't or could'nt for some reason after the fact have those legitimate offspring - you would have divorced right? That's a rather weak counter argument. A male - female coupling can in theory result in issue, even if not in a given particular case. A male - male or female - female coupling can not even in theory result in issue. These categories therefore differ in kind. No, he said he got married to give legitimacy to an offspring. Therefore, no off spring why stay married? Perhaps love, you enjoy someone's company, or you want to be with someone you are compatible with? These are reasons many Gays want to and have gotten married. Prolly just like that guy too. Point being, he made up a facetious argument to make a point. We all know that is not the only reason he got married, but he said it, and lied, to condemn gay marriage. Btw. Gays - as in male - male and female - female couplings can adopt. I know someone who did...hey, straight couples can adopt too.... Wow there is do much in common / in kind here I am just amazed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 9:14:02 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, he said he got married to give legitimacy to an offspring. Therefore, no off spring why stay married? Perhaps love, you enjoy someone's company, or you want to be with someone you are compatible with? These are reasons many Gays want to and have gotten married. Prolly just like that guy too. Point being, he made up a facetious argument to make a point. We all know that is not the only reason he got married, but he said it, and lied, to condemn gay marriage. Btw. Gays - as in male - male and female - female couplings can adopt. I know someone who did...hey, straight couples can adopt too.... Wow there is do much in common / in kind here I am just amazed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And if you didn't or could'nt for some reason after the fact have those legitimate offspring - you would have divorced right? That's a rather weak counter argument. A male - female coupling can in theory result in issue, even if not in a given particular case. A male - male or female - female coupling can not even in theory result in issue. These categories therefore differ in kind. No, he said he got married to give legitimacy to an offspring. Therefore, no off spring why stay married? Perhaps love, you enjoy someone's company, or you want to be with someone you are compatible with? These are reasons many Gays want to and have gotten married. Prolly just like that guy too. Point being, he made up a facetious argument to make a point. We all know that is not the only reason he got married, but he said it, and lied, to condemn gay marriage. Btw. Gays - as in male - male and female - female couplings can adopt. I know someone who did...hey, straight couples can adopt too.... Wow there is do much in common / in kind here I am just amazed. The point you missed is that your counter argument essentially accuses your opponent of making a "category error" (look it up). I simply pointed out that male - female couplings vs. same sex couplings are indeed separate categories because they possess separate attributes. Now, you can argue for same sex marriage on other basis, but not on the counter argument that you presented. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 9:22:26 PM EDT
[#31]
Bring on the polygamy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 9:58:25 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what you are saying is, heterosexuals ruined the institution of marriage, and homosexual marriage is really a sidebar issue? I agree with you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So they are forcing me to marry a man? It's a states rights issue. I agree. I just don't really get how some of you guys get your panties in a bunch over something like this. Unless I'm failing to see how this negatively affects people. marriage is about children. the same groups who dedicated their lives destroying the concept of heterosexual marriage are the ones pushing homosexual marriage. You like a bunch of fucked up bastards running around collecting welfare, this is just moving towards more of the same. Being a single mother used to carry a stigma. now its a hero/victim that we, as a society, must embrace, worship and honor (and subsidize) Keep on keeping on. I agree with you. People who do not respect traditional family values have ruined the institution of marriage, homosexual marriage is a symptom of moral degradation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 9:59:45 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys have to look at the bright side the can't reproduce so that mean less liberals born every year They adopt...children from 3rd world countries. LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 10:03:28 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WTF is the point of a stable home or a monogamous sexual relationship except for children?????? I mean I guess because society says thats what you should do, but its utterly pointless to have a stable monogamous relationship except to protect children. If you are not investing in any kind of genetic future just do whatever, who cares about stability or monogamy???? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If they said "encourage more stable homes and monogamous sexual relationships" WTF is the point of a stable home or a monogamous sexual relationship except for children?????? I mean I guess because society says thats what you should do, but its utterly pointless to have a stable monogamous relationship except to protect children. If you are not investing in any kind of genetic future just do whatever, who cares about stability or monogamy???? Its all a part of tradition. LOL!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 10:05:27 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i've dedicated my life to destroying heterosexual marriage for sure. so many brothers and sisters have. systematically destroying heterosexual marriage is exactly what letting carl and bob say "i do" is doing in this country. that's why sally and tim just got divorced. because of those destroying heterosexual marriage. and those worshipping at the altar of the single mother. peace be upon her name. destroying heterosexual marriage is not happening because of decreasing economic relevance of marriage. or because heterosexuals can't seem to stay married half the time. destroying heterosexual marriage is due to secret homo agents infiltrating every nook and cranny. tim cheated on sally because of homos. and sally cheated on tim because of homos. and all the little kiddies will suffer because of homos. destroying heterosexual marriage will certainly be the death of america as you imagine it used to be. destroying heterosexual marriage will be the death of us all. big scary homos everywhere. good thing we have strong, clenching and grinding men to protect us with their brave words from homosexual marriage and the homosexual agenda. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So they are forcing me to marry a man? It's a states rights issue. I agree. I just don't really get how some of you guys get your panties in a bunch over something like this. Unless I'm failing to see how this negatively affects people. marriage is about children. the same groups who dedicated their lives destroying the concept of heterosexual marriage are the ones pushing homosexual marriage. You like a bunch of fucked up bastards running around collecting welfare, this is just moving towards more of the same. Being a single mother used to carry a stigma. now its a hero/victim that we, as a society, must embrace, worship and honor (and subsidize) Keep on keeping on. i've dedicated my life to destroying heterosexual marriage for sure. so many brothers and sisters have. systematically destroying heterosexual marriage is exactly what letting carl and bob say "i do" is doing in this country. that's why sally and tim just got divorced. because of those destroying heterosexual marriage. and those worshipping at the altar of the single mother. peace be upon her name. destroying heterosexual marriage is not happening because of decreasing economic relevance of marriage. or because heterosexuals can't seem to stay married half the time. destroying heterosexual marriage is due to secret homo agents infiltrating every nook and cranny. tim cheated on sally because of homos. and sally cheated on tim because of homos. and all the little kiddies will suffer because of homos. destroying heterosexual marriage will certainly be the death of america as you imagine it used to be. destroying heterosexual marriage will be the death of us all. big scary homos everywhere. good thing we have strong, clenching and grinding men to protect us with their brave words from homosexual marriage and the homosexual agenda. WOW!! That's the most I've ever seen you type. You must really hate straight people. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 10:10:07 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You forgot Benghazi. eta //sarcasm// Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How much time and money is wasted on this stupid shit?  Appealing state DOMAs, rounding up cattle in the desert, or amnesty for illegals. It is all the same...time and money wasted on stupid shit. You forgot Benghazi. eta //sarcasm// Benghazi isn't even worth mentioning on a list of time wasters. Pfft. only Republicans care about the death of an ambassador that was left to die in a hostile country full of peaceful people.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 10:13:57 PM EDT
[#37]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2014 10:29:23 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This is a simple statement that the rights called out in the Constitution are not taken to be exhaustive. So there are rights that the people retain that are not specifically called out in the Constitution. However, it's hard to see that this much of a defense of the right to gay marriage. The people do not retain unlimited rights, for example there are numerous criminal acts that are generally agreed upon that we do not have the right to commit by virtue of the 9th amendment. For example, embezzlement is not addressed in the Constitution, but no one agrees that the people retain a right to embezzlement simply by virtue of the Constitution's silence on the issue. So, the 9th amendment says that we retain nebulous rights that are not specially addressed in the Constitution, so the question is how are these rights defined? The answer is in the next amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I've always read the 9th and 10th amendments as a pair that were written specially so that the other eight amendments in the Bill of Rights should not be read to be the limiting case of the rights of the people. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> Please quote for me in the US Constitution the part on marriage. Please read the 9th Amendment. You understand that the 9th amendment would argue that the state retains the right to make law in areas not specifically delegated to the federal government, marriage being an example of such an area. In other words, the 9th amendment argues against your position. You're thinking of the 10th. The 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This is a simple statement that the rights called out in the Constitution are not taken to be exhaustive. So there are rights that the people retain that are not specifically called out in the Constitution. However, it's hard to see that this much of a defense of the right to gay marriage. The people do not retain unlimited rights, for example there are numerous criminal acts that are generally agreed upon that we do not have the right to commit by virtue of the 9th amendment. For example, embezzlement is not addressed in the Constitution, but no one agrees that the people retain a right to embezzlement simply by virtue of the Constitution's silence on the issue. So, the 9th amendment says that we retain nebulous rights that are not specially addressed in the Constitution, so the question is how are these rights defined? The answer is in the next amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I've always read the 9th and 10th amendments as a pair that were written specially so that the other eight amendments in the Bill of Rights should not be read to be the limiting case of the rights of the people. Hm... good point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 4:58:28 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hm... good point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You understand that the 9th amendment would argue that the state retains the right to make law in areas not specifically delegated to the federal government, marriage being an example of such an area. In other words, the 9th amendment argues against your position. You're thinking of the 10th. The 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This is a simple statement that the rights called out in the Constitution are not taken to be exhaustive. So there are rights that the people retain that are not specifically called out in the Constitution. However, it's hard to see that this much of a defense of the right to gay marriage. The people do not retain unlimited rights, for example there are numerous criminal acts that are generally agreed upon that we do not have the right to commit by virtue of the 9th amendment. For example, embezzlement is not addressed in the Constitution, but no one agrees that the people retain a right to embezzlement simply by virtue of the Constitution's silence on the issue. So, the 9th amendment says that we retain nebulous rights that are not specially addressed in the Constitution, so the question is how are these rights defined? The answer is in the next amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I've always read the 9th and 10th amendments as a pair that were written specially so that the other eight amendments in the Bill of Rights should not be read to be the limiting case of the rights of the people. Hm... good point. The 9th limits the Fed Gov. All following Amendments are use of the 9th Amendment. You'll be happy to know Va, Fl and 5 other States had no part in the17th Amendment. In the Federalist Papers, there was debate whether to even include a BoRs because of fear it would limit it to the original 8 Amendments. Madison and Hamilton. Thus the 9th Amendment. This judge and judgment is full on leftwing progressive bench legislation.. Like all the recent federal judgments on what the radical left call homosexual marriage.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 4:59:44 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In this thread "living, breathing" types out themselves. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 5:24:52 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A single man enforcing the federal Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't give a shit about these children being in Lesbian/Gay homes. If they gay/lesbian couples weren't adopting these kids to have their little families, it would be an even bigger burden on state budgets, and I'm not sure the kids would be much better off in foster care / CPS. I doubt a high percentage of these lesbian couple pay for the expense to "get pregnant". Probably mostly adoptions. As for subsidizing Lesbian families through tax incentives for marriage... I'm far less worried about those tax breaks than the money we dole out in welfare to the FSA. What percentage of Americans are we talking about in regard to Lesbian/Gay families, and how much do you really think these tax breaks for them and their children/ marriage will cost? You can't think it would be a significant amount of money to the US Gov... Lol. It would be such a infinitesimally small percentage of US Tax revenues that it is laughable. It is obvious that your true motivations are moral/religious, not a financial burden on the US taxpayer. Again, I don't give a shit what they do. I don't care about the moral aspect of their behavior. It's none of my business. Do you give a shit about a state's constitution which expresses the will of the people as expressed through their representatives being overturned by a single man? A single man enforcing the federal Constitution. So you have no problem with other peoples morality being shoved down your throat. as long as you agree. typical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 5:25:17 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The point you missed is that your counter argument essentially accuses your opponent of making a "category error" (look it up). I simply pointed out that male - female couplings vs. same sex couplings are indeed separate categories because they possess separate attributes. Now, you can argue for same sex marriage on other basis, but not on the counter argument that you presented. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And if you didn't or could'nt for some reason after the fact have those legitimate offspring - you would have divorced right? That's a rather weak counter argument. A male - female coupling can in theory result in issue, even if not in a given particular case. A male - male or female - female coupling can not even in theory result in issue. These categories therefore differ in kind. No, he said he got married to give legitimacy to an offspring. Therefore, no off spring why stay married? Perhaps love, you enjoy someone's company, or you want to be with someone you are compatible with? These are reasons many Gays want to and have gotten married. Prolly just like that guy too. Point being, he made up a facetious argument to make a point. We all know that is not the only reason he got married, but he said it, and lied, to condemn gay marriage. Btw. Gays - as in male - male and female - female couplings can adopt. I know someone who did...hey, straight couples can adopt too.... Wow there is do much in common / in kind here I am just amazed. The point you missed is that your counter argument essentially accuses your opponent of making a "category error" (look it up). I simply pointed out that male - female couplings vs. same sex couplings are indeed separate categories because they possess separate attributes. Now, you can argue for same sex marriage on other basis, but not on the counter argument that you presented. No, no category error. Also, you are completely missing the point and/or not adressing it. He LIED to make his point and I called him on it. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 5:27:36 AM EDT
[#43]
Judges are Lawyers ----> Lawyers are liberal Democrats -----> Democrats love Cock.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 5:33:07 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So they are forcing me to marry a man? Do they even have to use force? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 5:34:09 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
coast to coast legal faggotry will be the law of land by the end of Hillary's second term. as will legal dope....  Cause for celebration for the progressives who infest GD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 5:44:29 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bring on the polygamy. Use Gay Logic to defend any form of marriage: 1) You can't legislate who people love. 2) Did I vote on your marriage? 3) My God thinks I am fabulous. 4) We want to miserable too. 5) You are making Ellen sad. 6) "Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Homophobia's Polgyamyphobia got to go!" 7) "Out of the Closets King size beds and into the Streets" 8) Gay Polygamy marriage won't lead to dog marriage. Its a very facile argument to make to justify literally anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 5:52:53 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Article IV, Section 1: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Which means a wedding certificate from Vermont is a wedding certificate in this state. Making an amendment banning gay marriage from another state is a violation of the Constitution. Amendment 10 does not apply. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So they are forcing me to marry a man? It's a states rights issue. I agree. I just don't really get how some of you guys get your panties in a bunch over something like this. Unless I'm failing to see how this negatively affects people. edit yes I agree that the state should be deciding Then you should understand why those of us that take the Constitution seriously get our "panties in a bunch": Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Article IV, Section 1: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Which means a wedding certificate from Vermont is a wedding certificate in this state. Making an amendment banning gay marriage from another state is a violation of the Constitution. Amendment 10 does not apply. States may draw reasonable distinctions and exceptions and they do. For example, having a hunting license in SC does not give me permission to hunt in Georgia. Would you argue that that is a violation of the Constitution? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 5:58:15 AM EDT
[#48]
I don't like porn. I think its degrading and generally ridiculous.but you know what? If adults decide its their thing, I can piss and mom about it, but it's their right. It doesnt affect my life except maybe in an abstract way than doesn't justify making it illegal. Gay marriage is the same way. It might make you feel a little icky (ha..or maybe it doesn't and that's the issue) but that's not enough to make a law that deeply affects others lives. On a personal level, gay sex is unattractive to me. Overtly gay guys that lisp and get all weird annoy me. Lesbians that go over the top with the manly stuff? Same thing..But not any more than white trash neck beards bug me. Having to turn on the TV and seeing some dude with no teeth catching turtles? Seeing some dude that's been married 5 times getting paid big bucks for some twisted version of celebrity. Ridiculous. But..not grounds for making it legal. Freedom. Crazy shit, huh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 6:03:42 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
marriage is about children. the same groups who dedicated their lives destroying the concept of heterosexual marriage are the ones pushing homosexual marriage. You like a bunch of fucked up bastards running around collecting welfare, this is just moving towards more of the same. Being a single mother used to carry a stigma. now its a hero/victim that we, as a society, must embrace, worship and honor (and subsidize) Keep on keeping on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So they are forcing me to marry a man? It's a states rights issue. I agree. I just don't really get how some of you guys get your panties in a bunch over something like this. Unless I'm failing to see how this negatively affects people. marriage is about children. the same groups who dedicated their lives destroying the concept of heterosexual marriage are the ones pushing homosexual marriage. You like a bunch of fucked up bastards running around collecting welfare, this is just moving towards more of the same. Being a single mother used to carry a stigma. now its a hero/victim that we, as a society, must embrace, worship and honor (and subsidize) Keep on keeping on. So infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry? What about post menopausal women? Yeah, marriage ain't about children. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2014 6:16:57 AM EDT
[#50]
America is over, sorry.
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
