What's new
By:

Appellate court rules on Prop 8

To coin a phrase, I'll move on when I want to not when you tell me too. Besides I find it entertaining to point out what most of all ready know.
 
Ms Tree said:
Thankfully some people who were not black cared about civil rights. Thankfully some men cared enough about women's suffrage.

I bet Nancy Reagan did not care too much about stem cell research until she found out it may have helped her husband. I bet Cheney felt much the same way you do about equal rights for homosexuals, at least until he found out his daughter was gay.

I try to care about all peoples rights regardless of whether or not the rights affect me or not.
Click to expand...

White Republicans were those "some people".....

Suffrage

Except Catholics when the government walks all over Church and State.
 
delldude said:
White Republicans were those "some people".....

Suffrage

Except Catholics when the government walks all over Church and State.
Click to expand...

Kind of like the Tittle to old "Carbon Footprint" Al Gore's book title "An Inconvenient Truth" How dare you come on here confusing decent innocent folks with facts? :lol: :lol:

Now then let's review. There are no such things as "Gay Rights"! Life Styles don't have rights, Skin Color has no rights. INDIVIDUALS have rights. All INDIVIDUALS have rights conferred upon them by their Creator. Those rights are equal and unalienable.

This is defined in our Founding Documents and the concept of Natural Law & our Creator. So one question we might ask is "Does Homosexuality violate Natural Law?" If we look to our Creator instead of the concept of Natural then law a different question arises. "Is Homosexuality sanctioned by our Creator". If you go throughout the world and review the texts defining every major religion there is not one that condones it.

Since Property rights are a function of the States and Marriage is essentially a contract involving property and a business like partnership the Federal Government should have no role in the decisions of the 50 states to redo their contract Law.
 
SparrowHawk said:
Kind of like the Tittle to old "Carbon Footprint" Al Gore's book title "An Inconvenient Truth" How dare you come on here confusing decent innocent folks with facts? :lol: :lol:

Now then let's review. There are no such things as "Gay Rights"! Life Styles don't have rights, Skin Color has no rights. INDIVIDUALS have rights. All INDIVIDUALS have rights conferred upon them by their Creator. Those rights are equal and unalienable.

This is defined in our Founding Documents and the concept of Natural Law & our Creator. So one question we might ask is "Does Homosexuality violate Natural Law?" If we look to our Creator instead of the concept of Natural then law a different question arises. "Is Homosexuality sanctioned by our Creator". If you go throughout the world and review the texts defining every major religion there is not one that condones it.

Since Property rights are a function of the States and Marriage is essentially a contract involving property and a business like partnership the Federal Government should have no role in the decisions of the 50 states to redo their contract Law.
Click to expand...


That might be why the legal argument has nothing to do with gay rights but rather equal rights. The gay rights tern is just a way to label it for the conservative right so they know not to like it.

The COTUS does not base it's decisions on your god or any other god (I like Venus, she was hot) so move on. The 14th is more than likely what will decide this issue and there is nothing ion the COTUS to justify marriage discrimination.

The SCOTUS has already stated in several cases that marriage is a fundamental right so that ship has sailed. The idea that equal rights for citizens should be up to the states and a popularity vote is not what this country is about. Marriage involves far more than just property rights. It involves a commitment to someone(s) you love. It involves POA for a person when they are sick. It involves raising children and guardianship in case someone passes away. It is about far more than just property.
 
Ms Tree said:
That might be why the legal argument has nothing to do with gay rights but rather equal rights. The gay rights tern is just a way to label it for the conservative right so they know not to like it.

The COTUS does not base it's decisions on your god or any other god (I like Venus, she was hot) so move on. The 14th is more than likely what will decide this issue and there is nothing ion the COTUS to justify marriage discrimination.

The SCOTUS has already stated in several cases that marriage is a fundamental right so that ship has sailed. The idea that equal rights for citizens should be up to the states and a popularity vote is not what this country is about. Marriage involves far more than just property rights. It involves a commitment to someone(s) you love. It involves POA for a person when they are sick. It involves raising children and guardianship in case someone passes away. It is about far more than just property.
Click to expand...

Will these gays be eligible for free contraception under Obama's decree?

If not, how are we going to deal with this usurping of equal rights under the Constitution?

Law of nature and natures God...... :unsure:
 
Ms Tree said:
The SCOTUS has already stated in several cases that marriage is a fundamental right so that ship has sailed. The idea that equal rights for citizens should be up to the states and a popularity vote is not what this country is about. Marriage involves far more than just property rights. It involves a commitment to someone(s) you love. It involves POA for a person when they are sick. It involves raising children and guardianship in case someone passes away. It is about far more than just property.
Click to expand...

Yes they indeed have. Now since marriage is defined at minimum as two people. That means the rights are conferred upon Individuals NOT Groups. If you strip away any and all religious covenants you are left with?? Basic Contract or tort law. States define tort laws, not the Federal Governent
 
That's all fine and dandy but this is a Federal issue. The SCOTUS will determine the legal definition of marriage and I am willing to bet the farm that marriage will be a right afforded to all.
 
UtterlyUdder said:
Heh! I am dyed in the wool Conservative! I was merely correcting "Ms Tree" when she said Ted Olsen was Ronald Reagan's solicitor general.
Click to expand...


Oopps. Sorry about that. I knew he was the solicitor of a republican pres but I guess I got them mixed up.
 
"You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."
Barry Goldwater
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ms Tree
Prop 8 over turned in CA
18 19 20
Replies
290
Views
31K
delldude
delldude
Ms Tree
RNC is off to a great start wasting money and time.
Replies
6
Views
862
dapoes
dapoes
700UW
Iam Going Back To Court
2 3
Replies
40
Views
4K
sentrido
sentrido
eolesen
SCOTUS Ruling on Agency Fee: Future Impact?
2
Replies
15
Views
2K
signals
signals
snapthis
  • Locked
What's the matter with proving citizenship to vote?
11 12 13
Replies
182
Views
22K
Glenn Quagmire
Glenn Quagmire

Latest posts

Back
Top