Gay Marriage

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

How can you be so clueless as not understand how this country works?  

 
It works kinda like this.
 

“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” Nancy Pelosi
 
"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the 'stupidity of the American voter' or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.” Jonathan Gruber
 
“This is the most transparent administration in history,” Obama

 
How about discussing fast and furious then talking about Obama disarming the border patrol over "safety" issues. That is a good topic.
 
How about the government spreading the word for millions of illegal children to come into the country to make a way for their parents to get here. Dream act FTW. I am sure this has nothing to do with the Democrats securing future voters. Why don't we call this what it really is, human trafficking. 
 

 
Tell me again how the government is supposed to work Ms Tree.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Is that the Love Train?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAjTQQHfW7g

 

[Ms Tree]

It's not. He is making up lies to push his atheist agenda. 700UW and Ms Tree, the two biggest liars on this board.
 
Only a moron would compare the suppression of blacks in this country to a bunch of sexual deviants trying to force a cultural change.
 
Mark my words, if you offered gays a civil union that had all contractual rights of marriage the left would turn their noses up at it. This has nothing to do with marriage, this has to do with them trying to use the government to impose a cultural change on the citizens of the United States.
 
This is nothing more than widespread manipulation.

Yes it is.  No he is not making it up.  The right for people to marry is covered by the same amendment that says anyone can buy a house where ever they want.  Anyone can buy a car and drive, anyone can go to a public school, ... etc.  These are all protected by the 14th.  Have you ever even read the Constitution?
 
Only a right wing bigot can justify the denial of rights to a segment of society solely based on their religious based hatred of them.  Give me one legal reason how they are different that justifies them being denied equal rights.  Just one.
 
No it has to do with seperate but equal which is against the law.  Unless that civil union contract applies to everyone it is not a solution.

 

[Ms Tree]

 
It works kinda like this.
 
 
How about discussing fast and furious then talking about Obama disarming the border patrol over "safety" issues. That is a good topic.
 
How about the government spreading the word for millions of illegal children to come into the country to make a way for their parents to get here. Dream act FTW. I am sure this has nothing to do with the Democrats securing future voters. Why don't we call this what it really is, human trafficking. 
 

 
Tell me again how the government is supposed to work Ms Tree.

 
How about you start a thread on that/  The title of this one is 'gay marriage'.  So the topic being discussed is ... well ... gay marriage.  Funny how that works.  I am sorry that you cannot come up with a single legal argument (6th circuit could not even do it).  All you can do is try and distract from the topic being discussed here.  

 

[delldude]

How can you be so clueless as not understand how this country works?  According to your POV, the blacks in this country still might not have equal rights had the courts not intervened.  Basic human rights do not get put up for a vote.  That is not how this country operates.  The majority of people do not get to dictate the rights of the minority.  Were a city to pass a law that banned the KKK it would be in violation of the COTUS.  To ban a segment of society from entering into a simple civil contract is a violation of the law.  The Supreme Court and all the lower courts (with the exception of the 6th) understand this.  

 
I'll give you the fact that Constitutionally, gays do have equal protection rights as afforded to married couples.
However, redefining marriage is not a Constitutional issue and should be worked out by the states.

 

[EastUS1]

No it has to do with seperate but equal which is against the law.

 
The generally historical assumption of marriage is that of a woman and man who will produce and raise offspring for countless thousands of years. That the ability to produce children is certainly not the case for even many hetero couples fails to diminish that societal assumption. Given that gay marriages are definably incapable of producing offspring; where's the truly "equal" part supposedly weigh in? How, without even the potential ability to bring children into being, can such unions be reasonably seen as "equal"?
 
I've not the slightest personal concern for how anyone chooses to find love, so long as others aren't harmed in the process, and no children or helpless animals are involved, of course. Life's too short for such nonsense in my thinking, but a society that opts to define a bonding of any given two people as marriage goes against much in the way of what must be seen as evolutionary sanity. Enforceable civil contracts can be readily drawn up by any two individuals to demonstrate and codify their mutual committment. Why the sudden need to term any such a marriage, and exactly what true gains to society are had from doing so? Don't even start with personal rights and freedom, since you're on record in several areas espousing the notion of additional government intrusion into people's lives, gun "registration" being but one. If it's not about personal freedom, and you're clearly happy to cheerlead for both "the law" and government assaults on individual liberty,..well...what IS all this really about?
 
How should the term marriage be defined? What are the essential elements needed to define it? These are questions not even asked by many anymore. If, as purely an extreme and utterly absurd example, the next time I adopt a dog or cat, I whimsically wish to term it a "marriage"...? Again; what "should" be the needed elements for determining what constitutes a "marriage"?
 
Sigh!...Perhaps it's just time to strike out any/all laws regarding marriage and leave folks to draw up whatever civil contracts best suits them. If we're nowadays so intent on having for ourselves a "Brave New World", well...might as well jettison all previous notions from established human history while we're at it. What could even possibly go wrong?
 
Umm...While we're at this redefining marriage thing, well, why stop there? I was thinking that we should reasonably reexamine the legal term "murder" since I'm sure a great many would be far less bored with sports if they could watch gladiators slaughter each other in contemporary stadiums, rather than simply seeing people throw, kick or hit various balls around. Diluted precedent exists by way of boxing/etc already. What say you? Why not swords, shields and spears and to the death versus just a knockout? Why should any of us limit the behaviors of others through limited, provincial concepts of what constitutes "murder." Who are you to suppress anyone's fervent desires for love and self expression? 😉

 

[Ms Tree]

The issue before the courts has to do with the civil marriage contract. Seeing as there is nothing in the civil contract regarding children the argument is moot. This is a legal question of equality. The civil marriage contract is a legal contract between people that affords certain rights to the parties of the contract. There is no state interest and no legal principle to deny any two (or more) from entering into the contract.
 
The civil contracts that you speak of are not equal to marriage contracts. There are countless rights associated with a marriage contract that are not afforded to civil unions. Aside from that the courts have already said once that separate is not equal. Society places a value of some sort on the word 'marriage'. Seeing that there is no copy right or patent on the word anyone can use it. More over, if two people have a civil union that is equal to marriage in every single way what do you think they will say when asked about their relationship? They will say they are married. They will not say that they have a civil union. Aside from the terminology being cumbersome, it is also very sterile. The word 'married' has a clear meaning of love and commitment. That is what they want. They want equality.
 
An individual may define the word any way they choose. It's a free country. Legally, the definition changes. Marriage used to be an exchange of property. The woman was given (“who gives away this woman ….”) to the man as a piece of property. Marriage were used to form alliances and to consolidate power. Royal families married each other to the point that their genetic viability came into question. Now, western marriage is one based on love between a man and woman. If the court takes the case and renders a decision in Jun of 2015, the legal definition of marriage will change yet again. Legally, the only requirements should be consent of all parties involved. Aside from that I do not see where government needs to be concerned about it.
 
First smart thing you have said in a long time. State should not be in the business of deciding who can share their lives with who. Funny thing is even if states were to stop issuing marriage licenses and only issue civil union contracts everyone will still say they are married. So what have you accomplished except waste a bunch of tax payer money for the states to design new contracts.
 
Ask all the people you want what they clean their ear with. Most will say a Q-tip, not a cotton swab. Kleenex, Coke, are just a few other examples of words that have a specific meaning but have used to label the general product. It's marriage. I am married. Got married by a JP at a beautiful B&B. Not a single religious reference. I still consider my self married.
 
Now you have gone off the deep end as you are apt to do. Most people would not consent to being murdered so there is that issue. Now if they do consent to some sort of match to the death I guess that would be up to them. At that point it would not be murder. It does pose an interesting legal argument. Since many in this country cannot even wrap their heads around the idea of euthanasia/assisted suicide I do not see how they could wrap their heads around a match to the death. By the way, is there a demand out there to redefine the term murder? I have not seen any legal challenges in the courts. Of course there are a hand full (OK a whole bunch) of challenges to the denial of marriage equality.
 
Perhaps you should file a case in the court of your choosing and see what happens. I'll write a Amicus brief on your behalf asking for your right to participate in one if you think it will help.  

 

[EastUS1]

....Seeing as there is nothing in the civil contract regarding children the argument is moot. This is a legal question of equality. The civil marriage contract is a legal contract between people that affords certain rights to the parties of the contract. There is no state interest and no legal principle to deny any two (or more) from entering into the contract.
 
The civil contracts that you speak of are not equal to marriage contracts. ...... Seeing that there is no copy right or patent on the word anyone can use it.

 
So which is it?...Merely a civil contract or, through reasons of established societal acceptance, something presumably more, especially since: "Seeing that there is no copy right or patent on the word anyone can use it....."?
 
Still eagerly awaiting ANY actual definition for what reasonably now constitutes a "marriage"....?
 
"Now if they do consent to some sort of match to the death I guess that would be up to them. At that point it would not be murder." Yet it would still be grossly illegal and defined as murder, (even if not by you apparently) but in any case; you're perfectly fine with restrictions on people's rights there? Why is that? Why not champion a long-overdue campaign for people to have the right to, with mutual consent, fight each other to the death as they please? Whether discussing marriage or murder, well; "Seeing that there is no copy right or patent on the word anyone can use it....."?
 
"This is a legal question of equality." Seriously?.."equality"? OK then: Show us all the very first example of any gay couple in all of history independently forming and birthing a child....? Where's the true "equality" to be found?

 

[Ms Tree]

This is not an either/or question. Legally it is a contract. No different than a contract to procure services, buy a house or anything else. How each individual chooses to define that contract for them selves if of no interest to the state.
 
Definition – contract between two or more individuals that conveys certain rights. Not sure what more you want.
 
You conveniently left out the part about there needing to be a legal challenge to the law or perhaps you just ignored the parts that do not fit your POV. Why not? If society wants it and the people consent what right is it of the state to tell the people no? I personally do not condone such behavior but so long as it does not affect me, what right do I have to deny the right to die to someone else? Where do you get the right (aside from arrogance) to tell others how to lead their life?
 
Again, I will try and write slowly. There is nothing in the wording of a marriage license that addresses children. Nothing. The equality being argued in front of the courts is only regarding the legal right to enter into a marriage contract.
 
As an aside. Show me any example of a 90 year old couple independently forming a child. Should they be denied the right to marry based on your requirement?

 

[EastUS1]

This is not an either/or question. Legally it is a contract. No different than a contract to procure services, buy a house or anything else. How each individual chooses to define that contract for them selves if of no interest to the state.
 
Definition – contract between two or more individuals that conveys certain rights. Not sure what more you want.
 
You conveniently left out the part about there needing to be a legal challenge to the law or perhaps you just ignored the parts that do not fit your POV. Why not? If society wants it and the people consent what right is it of the state to tell the people no? I personally do not condone such behavior but so long as it does not affect me, what right do I have to deny the right to die to someone else? Where do you get the right (aside from arrogance) to tell others how to lead their life?
 
Again, I will try and write slowly. There is nothing in the wording of a marriage license that addresses children. Nothing. The equality being argued in front of the courts is only regarding the legal right to enter into a marriage contract.
 
As an aside. Show me any example of a 90 year old couple independently forming a child. Should they be denied the right to marry based on your requirement?

 
"Why not? If society wants it and the people consent what right is it of the state to tell the people no?" Fully fair. Why not simply leave it to the voters then?
 
"Show me any example of a 90 year old couple independently forming a child."  I can't, nor can you produce ANY example of a gay couple, in ALL of human history EVER doing so. "perhaps you just ignored the parts that do not fit your POV."? Seriously, is the best you can even try to offer in rebuttal to that obvious truth,...just some hypothetical 90 year olds? 😉
 
"Again, I will try and write slowly." I've always assumed that you do write very slowly, and you were sorely missed at the latest MENSA chapter meeting, btw...Must be because your not a local. Continue with your assinine assumptions of personal "intelligence" though, as well as embracing your vast reserves of life experience...We all need good laughs from time to time. 🙂

 

[Ms Tree]

 
"Why not? If society wants it and the people consent what right is it of the state to tell the people no?" Fully fair. Why not simply leave it to the voters then?
 
"Show me any example of a 90 year old couple independently forming a child."  I can't, nor can you produce an example of a gay couple, in ALL of human history doing so. Seriously, is the best you can even try to offer in rebuttal to that obvious truth some hypothetical 90 year olds? 😉
 
"Again, I will try and write slowly." I've always assumed that you do write very slowly, and you were sorely missed at the latest MENSA meeting, btw... 🙂

If you are talking about marriage, civil rights are not something that get voted on in this country,  The majority does not get the right to deny equal rights to the minorities.  The COTUS is quite clear about this.  Rights must be equal for all.  
 
Missed the point yet again.  I do not care about the child birthing capabilities of the parties involved in a marriage.  That is your hang up, not mine.  I am simply looking at the marriage equality fight as a legal one.  Never mentioned children.  Don't care about it.
 
It's not a hypothetical.  You are the one who said one of the basic tenants of marriage should be the ability to reproduce.  The 90 yr old couple can no more reproduce than the gay couple.  The only difference is that you hate gays, you do not hate 90 yr old heterosexual couples.  This issue is moot seeing as child bearing capabilities are not addressed in any state on any marriage license
 
I try and write slowly for those who have a hard time following along.  It appears I am unable to write slow enough for you to grasp some very basic and fundamental concepts of US law.  Perhaps someone in your old age home can explain it.  

 

[EastUS1]

 The only difference is that you hate gays, you do not hate 90 yr old heterosexual couples.
 
Perhaps someone in your old age home can explain it.

 
It would seem from your latest missive that it's you who host all the prejudice, at least certainly against your elders....? 😉
 
I'm curious though; from exactly what part of the deranged little ride in Fantasyland you twirl around on could you even come up with the bizarre notion that I "hate gays"? Was it perhaps from my earlier obsrvation that: "I've not the slightest personal concern for how anyone chooses to find love, so long as others aren't harmed in the process, and no children or helpless animals are involved, of course"...?
 
Ms Tree: "I try and write slowly for those who have a hard time following along." Stop fretting yourself with such kindness, since one would have to put all gears in full reverse to even attempt to match your "speed" during even your best bursts of brilliance. 🙂

 

[Ms Tree]

 
It would seem from your latest missive that it's you who host all the prejudice, at least certainly against your elders....? 😉
 
I'm curious though; from exactly what part of the deranged little ride in Fantasyland you twirl around on could you even come up with the bizarre notion that I "hate gays"? Was it perhaps from my earlier obsrvation that: "I've not the slightest personal concern for how anyone chooses to find love, so long as others aren't harmed in the process, and no children or helpless animals are involved, of course"...?
 
Ms Tree: "I try and write slowly for those who have a hard time following along." Stop fretting yourself with such kindness, since one would have to put all gears in full reverse to even attempt to match your "speed". 🙂

You are the one wanting to put a child bearing test on marriage, not me.
 
Your willingness to deny them equal rights was a tip off.  
 
Sounds about right.  You seem to be going backwards at full speed any way.  
 
Do you have any legal argument for denying equal rights or is it only this made up crap?  If you do have one may be you can share that with the lawyers arguing to defend 'traditional marriage' in court because they are losing virtually every case they argue.  They really need your help for with out it .... all is lost.

 

[EastUS1]

You are the one wanting to put a child bearing test on marriage, not me.
 
Your willingness to deny them equal rights was a tip off.  
 

 
1) Yes. Given that the societal business of coupling up, throughout ALL of human history's been preeminently supposed for the purpose of a family, as in producing and raising children, that no rational person could even begin to pretend otherwise now.
 
2) Ah!...I see. Sigh! So ANY reasoned objections to your utter nonsense, especially those that don't immediately, agreeably and harmoniously resonate within the hollow chamber of your skull, MUST of course, represent "hate"?  WOW! Given that you're clearly suffering such a deficit in logical processing ability, and thus thought of any kind...I'm now forced to actually feel a bit sorry for you, and will leave your clearly struggling excuse for a "mind" in peace for the moment.

 

[Ms Tree]

Child bearing can occur out side of marriage. I am not aware of a single legal argument presented to the courts which has had anything to do with children. Certainly not a argument hat has won a case.

Reasoned objection? Where? You should tell the lawyers. They need your help.