Gay Marriage

[Dog Wonder]

You have done nothing to change my perception.

What would?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

What would?

Are you asking that as a serious question or are you trying to be funny?

 

[Ms Tree]

 

[SIZE=9pt]Ms Tree, on 15 Apr 2014 - 1:32 PM, said:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]You do not seem to understand anything about the US government.  [/SIZE]
 
First off if you read the COTUS is does not grant any rights.  
 
The COTUS is a document that limits the power of government.  
 
Secondly I have never made an argument that anything not mentioned in the COTUS should be legal.  
 
The only argument I have made and continue to make is that any laws passed by the states must treat all individuals equally and that they cannot violate the limitations set forth in the COTUS. 
 
I understand it just fine. President Obama and Micheal Bloomberg are the ones who need to read it (both figureheads in the libtard army). Obamacare and the soda ban were both gross violations of COTUS.
 
It grants the right to bear arms. I guess you need to go back and read it again.
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]No, you only bring it up over and over and over and over again while trying to present yourself as the leading authority, even though it is obvious to everyone on this forum you don't know what the hell you're talking about.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]Marriage is not a right granted by COTUS. It is and always has been the domain of state law. [/SIZE] 
[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Ms Tree, on 15 Apr 2014 - 1:32 PM, said:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]To argue that traditional marriage (what ever that happens to be) is the domain of the state is like arguing that the sun is hot.  [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]They cannot pass laws that violate the COTUS as CA and 18 other states have found out, that violate the COTUS.  The 14th amendment is very clear about what is and is not allowed.  [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]Then why are we having this conversation?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]The whole argument with the 14th amendment has to do with what they call the "Full Faith and Credit Clause". (It has NOTHING to do with the legalities of equality as you so like to argue, that is just you showing your ignorance and liberal programming) This clause states contracts must be honored from state to state.  So any contract signed in California (for example) would have to be recognized in the other 49 states.  [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]Let’s look at this a little deeper. Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996. This act let states define marriage however they wanted to.  DOMA was designed to conflict with the Full Faith and Credit Clause; it was nothing more than a Trojan Horse to push an agenda for gay marriage.  In short DOMA was designed with the intent to fail and deliver a path to legalization of gay marriage across the United States.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]DOMA was nothing more than a hit job designed by liberals to produce the outcome it is producing now. It is no accident that Clinton advocated DOMA's repeal years later.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]You claim yourself to have masterful knowledge of the law. The truth is you know just enough to make yourself look stupid.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Ms Tree, on 15 Apr 2014 - 1:32 PM, said:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]I am amused that people like you always like to use the term 'traditional' when you speak of marriage and only wish to refer to the tradition of man and woman, but ignore the 'tradition' of female ownership, property exchange, alliances ... etc which were also part of 'traditional' marriage.  I think we should pass a law bringing back traditional marriage.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]People like me? You mean people that do not buy into the liberal B.S.?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]Traditional marriage only has ONE definition in this country.  [/SIZE]
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_United_States
[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]1.   [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]Maynard v. Hill[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt], 125 U.S.[/SIZE] 190 (1888) Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]2.   [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]Meyer v. Nebraska[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt], 262 U.S.[/SIZE] 390 (1923) The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]3.   [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt], 316 U.S.[/SIZE] 535 (1942) Marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man” and “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]Keep spreading your lies.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Ms Tree, on 15 Apr 2014 - 1:32 PM, said:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]Denying women the right to vote, own property were once considered moral.  So was ownership of slaves.  That does not make the moral code of the time right.  [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Denying marriage equality falls into the same category.  [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]It's a violation of the 14th. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt] Also, if you take the time to read the COTUS, morality is not mentioned in the document. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt] If we come to a time where a majority of the people thing gun ownership is immoral and wish to ban it is that OK with you?[/SIZE]
 
I agree with you.
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]No it does not.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]No it is not. You just think that because you have fallen for the liberal propaganda.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]Laws reflect the values that society holds as a collective entity.  I stated that before and you stated you agreed. So why even bring it up now.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Right to bear arms is specifically named as a Constitutional right. Gay marriage is not. In fact marriage itself is not even mentioned.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Ms Tree, on 15 Apr 2014 - 1:32 PM, said:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]No it's not unconstitutional because that is the way the COTUS was written.  Have you ever read the bloody thing?  Article III covers it pretty well if you want to take a look.  If you want to try and change the COTUS to make it illegal go ahead and have at it but to argue that the current system is unconstitutional is simply wrong because if you read the COTUS, this is how it it was designed.  [/SIZE]
 
The majority of the current system bans gay marriage. Even the states that do allow it are being challenged in court. Sell whatever lie you want but the fact is the Federal Government has sought to deny the decision of one of the basic building blocks of our society from the will of the people.
 
[SIZE=9pt]Ms Tree, on 15 Apr 2014 - 1:32 PM, said:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]I am not sure what kind of marriage you are referring to (I assume it is religious marriage) but no courts or legislation have passed any laws dictating how religious institutions conduct their marriages or how they define them.  The COTUS clearly prohibits such actions and guarantees the right of religious institutions to conduct their religious affairs as they see fit.  The only laws being addressed are those that apply to the civil definition of marriage and all the rights and benefits that apply to the civil contract called marriage.  Religion has nothing to do with the civil contract and denying access to the civil marriage contract is a violation of the COTUS.  Prop 8 and all the rest of those laws were/are a violation of the COTUS and that is why they are being struck down.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]That is your liberal programmed version of it. The fact is if DOMA had not been introduced in the 90's we would not be having this conversation. DOMA was nothing more than a means to force an agenda on the American people and deny them their right to vote.[/SIZE]
 

 
Go read the COTUS.  Read the 2nd Amendment.  It does not say what you think it does.  The 2nd does not grant the right to bear arms.  The 2nd prevents the government from infringing upon that right.
 
I don’t know what the COTUS says but you think it grants the right to bear arms.  Hilarious.
 
As I already said, marriage along with nearly all other laws are the domain of the state.  The State cannot pass a law that violates the COTUS. 
 
We are having this conversation because people like you cannot separate religious marriage from civil marriage.
 
The 14th amendment issue that applies is the equal protection clause not faith and credit.
 
We were never talking about DOMA.  DOMA was bad law from day one.  It was a compromise that was just biding time till the populace matured enough to accept equality for homosexuals. 
 
You say homosexuality is a choice and have no proof.  You say homosexuality is a mental illness and have no proof.  And I look stupid.  Sure.  Whatever you say Einstein.
 
Is that the traditional marriage where women had no rights and the father gave her away like property?  Regardless of how you wish to define marriage, it is about to be expanded to include same sex marriage.
 
Then I guess I fell for the same propaganda as the various courts which struck down the laws in several states.  I’m good with that.  Equal protection clause is very clear.
 
I bring it up because the morality of the populace can be on the wrong side of the law as it is in this case.
 
Read the COTUS some time.  The right to bear arms is considered a natural right.  The 2nd prevents the government from infringing upon that right.  The right to drive a car, own a house, go to school and anything else you can think of are not enumerated in the COTUS.  Those ‘rights’ caould be restricted by government so long as the restrictions apply to everyone equally.  A state could not pass a law that restricts just Lutherans from buying cars. 
 
Yep.  You are right.  A majority of the states do not allow marriage equality.  The few states that have decided to fight it can have at it.  The writing is on the wall in bright neon letters.  They will lose the argument.
 
The will of the people is irrelevant.  The will of the people thought slavery was OK.  The will of the people thought it was OK to prevent interracial marriage …  Equal rights are not a voting issue.
 
Marriage equality was going to happen DOMA or not.  May have taken a bit longer but it was going to happen.  The generations growing up now do not harbor the hatred and animus that you have.  It was going to happen.

 

[Ms Tree]

Neither is attacking religion, which you do with alarming regularity. I have mentioned before that I believe the only reason you support gay marriage is because it supports your own agenda of debasing Christian fundamentalism (though ALL religions that I know of have marriage ceremonies).  You have done nothing to change my perception. 

Yea yea.  What ever.  I don't care about religion.  Practice what ever faith you want just leave it out of the public sector.
 
I support equality for gays because of what my family went through.  It is very personal for me.  I do not have any illusions about changing the mind of someone like you.  I take solace in the fact that you are now in the minority and your minority is becoming more irrelevant every day.  In just a hand full of years, 18 states allow marriage equality with more around the corner.  Buh Bye.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

The will of the people is irrelevant.  

Now you are showing your true colors. 
 
You just made my case why the liberal philosophy is so dangerous. Rule by government instead of the people.
 
 

Go read the COTUS.  Read the 2nd Amendment.  It does not say what you think it does.  The 2nd does not grant the right to bear arms.  The 2nd prevents the government from infringing upon that right.
 
I don’t know what the COTUS says but you think it grants the right to bear arms.  Hilarious.

 
I have heard both versions as being widely accepted. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.
 
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm
 
The National Rifle Association, which has the Second Amendment (minus the militia clause) engraved on its headquarters building in Washington, insists that the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms. 
 
One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias
 
http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_saf-hal.html
 
The Supreme Court has held that "when we do have evidence that a particular law would have offended the Framers, we have not hesitated to invalidate it on that ground alone." Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm. of Rev., 460 U.S. 575, 583-84 n.6 (1983)
It is precisely because the framers wanted to promote a well regulated militia composed of the populace at large that they insisted that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Concern for the militia does not logically negate recognition of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Far from being mutually exclusive, the militia and this right sustain each other.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Are you asking that as a serious question or are you trying to be funny?

You wouldn't know the difference.

 

[Ms Tree]

 
[SIZE=10.5pt]DOMA was nothing more than a hit job designed by liberals to produce the outcome it is producing now. It is no accident that Clinton advocated DOMA's repeal years later.[/SIZE]
 
 

 
I know history is not your strong suit but you might want to look into who controlled Congress in 1996 when DOMA was passed.  DOMA was introduced by Bob Barr (House) and Don Nickles (Sentate).  They were what are called republicans.  Since republicans controlled Congress they controlled what got introduced on the floor.  It was a joint effort to screw over the homosexuals.  So if you are going to claim that DOMA was a planned failure you need look no father than your own party for introducing and passing the bill. 

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

You wouldn't know the difference.

Lol!

 

[delldude]

Now you are showing your true colors. 
 
You just made my case why the liberal philosophy is so dangerous. Rule by government instead of the people.
 
 
 
I have heard both versions as being widely accepted. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.
 
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm
 
The National Rifle Association, which has the Second Amendment (minus the militia clause) engraved on its headquarters building in Washington, insists that the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms. 
 
One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias
 
http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_saf-hal.html
 
The Supreme Court has held that "when we do have evidence that a particular law would have offended the Framers, we have not hesitated to invalidate it on that ground alone." Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm. of Rev., 460 U.S. 575, 583-84 n.6 (1983)
It is precisely because the framers wanted to promote a well regulated militia composed of the populace at large that they insisted that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Concern for the militia does not logically negate recognition of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Far from being mutually exclusive, the militia and this right sustain each other.

 
Don't worry LLLLL, right out of the COTUS, specifically stating
 

 
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 
Sure as hell looks like it says  I have a right to bears arms.....and the gov't can't infringe on that right
 
Somebody better check with their prof about that lecture.......

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

 
I know history is not your strong suit but you might want to look into who controlled Congress in 1996 when DOMA was passed.  DOMA was introduced by Bob Barr (House) and Don Nickles (Sentate).  They were what are called republicans.  Since republicans controlled Congress they controlled what got introduced on the floor.  It was a joint effort to screw over the homosexuals.  So if you are going to claim that DOMA was a planned failure you need look no father than your own party for introducing and passing the bill. 

I read the same information. You forgot to mention that:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
He now supports same-sex marriage,opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, contending it is a violation of states' rights, and supports the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
 
Barr seems to make a habit of flip flopping
 
Barr would later reverse his position on medical marijuana, joining MPP as a lobbyist five years later. In a June 4, 2008, interview with Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report, Barr confirmed that he now supports ending marijuana prohibition, as well as the War on Drugs for which he once vehemently fought. In 2009, he was hired by the MPP to lobby to successfully overturn the amendment that he authored.
 
Then there is this
 
In 1999, during Clinton's impeachment trial, Hustler publisher Larry Flynt offered money to anyone who could provide evidence that a prominent Republican had engaged in an extramarital affair. According to the American Journalism Review, investigators for Flynt said that Barr was "guilty of king-size hypocrisy". In accordance with his public offer: Flynt subsequently paid a sum of money to Gail Barr after she had made an affidavit. Investigators reported that Barr invoked a legal privilege during his 1985 divorce proceeding, so he could refuse to answer questions on whether he'd cheated on his second wife with the woman who is now his third."
 
Sounds like someone who puts no value on marriage to me. 
 
The truth of the matter is he was sympathetic to "the agenda" the whole time. The liberals just needed someone "on the other side" that would back their play. It's called backroom (or possibly back door) politics.
 
Don Nickles backed it because he was taken for a fool by a charlatan. 
 
You call Barr a Republican, I call him a [SIZE=11pt]saboteur and a liberal sympathizer. [/SIZE]

 

[Ms Tree]

Geez.  Will you at least try and stick to a single argument instead of changing your mind every time you get painted in to a corner?
 
This is what you said.
 
 

DOMA was nothing more than a hit job designed by liberals to produce the outcome it is producing now. It is no accident that Clinton advocated DOMA's repeal years later.

 

That statement has already been prove patently false.
 
The Law was proposed by two republicans in a republican controlled Congress.  The RNC platform endorsed the law in 1996 by saying "We reject the distortion of [anti-discrimination] laws to cover sexual preference, and we endorse the Defense of Marriage Act to prevent states from being forced to recognize same-sex unions."  The law passed the Senate by a vote of 85-14 and the House by 342-67.  The only no votes were democrats.  All republicans in both chambers voted for the bill with the exception of Ray Gunderson who happened to be the only openly gay republican in Congress.
 
To argue that this law was designed by liberals is beyond stupid.  This was a conservative bill that was supported by dems in both chambers and signed into law by Clinton.  This was at the very least a cooperative effort with republicans leading the way since they were in charge of both chambers at the time.  
 
Whether or not people changed their mind after the fact is irrelevant to the argument that you presented.  Republican controlled Congress passed the bill.  Whether or not you think the two Congressmen who proposed the bill were turn coats or not is irrelevant to the argument because every single republican in both chambers with the exception of Gunderson voted for the bill.  The foundation of the bill was supported by the RNC in their platform.  
 
So if you want to blame DOMA for the landslide that is occurring now you need to look at the RNC because they own this bill lock stock and barrel.  

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Haters gon' hate

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Geez.  Will you at least try and stick to a single argument instead of changing your mind every time you get painted in to a corner?
 
This is what you said.
 
 
 
That statement has already been prove patently false.
 
The Law was proposed by two republicans in a republican controlled Congress.  The RNC platform endorsed the law in 1996 by saying "We reject the distortion of [anti-discrimination] laws to cover sexual preference, and we endorse the Defense of Marriage Act to prevent states from being forced to recognize same-sex unions."  The law passed the Senate by a vote of 85-14 and the House by 342-67.  The only no votes were democrats.  All republicans in both chambers voted for the bill with the exception of Ray Gunderson who happened to be the only openly gay republican in Congress.
 
To argue that this law was designed by liberals is beyond stupid.  This was a conservative bill that was supported by dems in both chambers and signed into law by Clinton.  This was at the very least a cooperative effort with republicans leading the way since they were in charge of both chambers at the time.  
 
Whether or not people changed their mind after the fact is irrelevant to the argument that you presented.  Republican controlled Congress passed the bill.  Whether or not you think the two Congressmen who proposed the bill were turn coats or not is irrelevant to the argument because every single republican in both chambers with the exception of Gunderson voted for the bill.  The foundation of the bill was supported by the RNC in their platform.  
 
So if you want to blame DOMA for the landslide that is occurring now you need to look at the RNC because they own this bill lock stock and barrel.  

I stand by what I said.

 

[Ms Tree]

Absolutely amazing.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]