Gay Marriage

[SparrowHawk]

A fundamental right is the right to live as you choose.

A second fundamental right is the protection of private property.

Since these rights are conferred upon us by our Creator (Whomever you believe that to be) at birth they can not be taken away by Government.

There are no "Gay Rights" only the rights of individuals. This is the Fundamental Government needs to get out of the marriage business and focus on the Private Property Rights of all citizens

 

[Dog Wonder]

An insect much like lice, one gets from participating in homosexual acts.

Sodamite, a little bug that gets in your orange Fanta.

 

[700UW]

http://www.wcnc.com/news/politics/Suit-cites-urgency-to-overturn-NC-gay-marriage-ban-254594441.html

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

None, he is completely irrational. He's just a bigoted homophobe.

Right out of the liberal playbook. Everything that goes against your agenda is irrational. Anybody that does not agree with you is a bigot. Get some new material.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Ms Tree, you bring COTUS up about every three posts. You are starting to sound like a broken record. To argue everything that is not specifically mentioned by COTUS should be legal is a fool’s argument. COTUS by its very nature is a flawed document. That is why it is amendable. 
 
You are ignoring the FACT that traditionally marriage has been in the domain of STATE law, not federal. The gays know if they put it to a state vote they could never get their agenda off the ground so they are seeking to have the Federal Government impose something they know society would never accept. 
  
You make the argument that banning of gay marriage is based on morality and not law. Laws reflect the values that society holds as a collective entity.  
 
The fact is the Federal Government has taken it upon themselves to redefine the concept of marriage against the peoples will. They seek to have appointed judges instead of elected officials make the decision. THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[Dog Wonder]

THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Take your daily constitutional. You will feel better.

 

[delldude]

That is painfully obvious. I'd just like to see how he gets from A to B with out using the COTUS. At least he did not use the worn out pedophile/beastiality argument...... yet.

 
Dude...you keep bringing up the COTUS.....I found some very interesting information I know you are either overlooking or misrepresenting for your own narrative.
 
Like LLLLL said, the gay movement is trying bypass the COTUS and the states rights clause......I'm very anxious to see SCOTUS stick this.
 

 
My state can discriminate against gay folks who want to marry?
It certainly can. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits individual states from defining marriage any way they choose. One state may embrace marriage between two people of the same sex; another state may recognize only heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman; a third state could even choose to legalize polygamy if it wishes.

Currently most states have not legalized gay marriage. Those that have include Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont, plus Washington, D.C.

Doesn't the Fourteenth Amendment's "Equal Protection" clause challenge this reading?
No. The Fourteenth Amendment, to this end, guarantees three things: 1) that states do not pass laws that exclude specific individuals and groups (i.e. banning a gay man from marrying a woman); 2) that states follow due process (no application in this case); and 3) that states apply the law equally to, and enforce it equally against, all citizens (i.e. pursuit and due process of crimes and civil liability involving a gay individual, whether the perpetrator or the victim, equal to that applied to acts involving a straight individual). None of these points compels states to change their definitions of marriage.

How can gay marriage be legalized in my state?
Gay marriage can be legalized through 1) changing state law and/or the state constitituion or 2) ratification of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.tenthamendment.net/home/gay-same-sex-marriage-constitution.asp

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Right out of the liberal playbook. Everything that goes against your agenda is irrational. Anybody that does not agree with you is a bigot. Get some new material.

 
I'm sorry something sh*tty happened to you to make you this way.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I'm sorry something sh*tty happened to you to make you this way.

To some it's called Morals, Values & Ethics. Concepts most Liberals aren't familiar with. Another two are Principle and Integrity.

When you have those traits it's far easier to agree to disagree while defending your viewpoint zealously.

I understand the argument people of faith have. I respect the place from which it comes. I DO NOT agree with it for the very simple reason being that we are nota theocracy.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

I'm sorry something sh*tty happened to you to make you this way.

[SIZE=10.5pt]You are a treasure trove of clichés. [/SIZE]

 

[Ms Tree]

Ms Tree, you bring COTUS up about every three posts. You are starting to sound like a broken record. To argue everything that is not specifically mentioned by COTUS should be legal is a fool’s argument. COTUS by its very nature is a flawed document. That is why it is amendable. 
 
You are ignoring the FACT that traditionally marriage has been in the domain of STATE law, not federal. The gays know if they put it to a state vote they could never get their agenda off the ground so they are seeking to have the Federal Government impose something they know society would never accept. 
  
You make the argument that banning of gay marriage is based on morality and not law. Laws reflect the values that society holds as a collective entity.  
 
The fact is the Federal Government has taken it upon themselves to redefine the concept of marriage against the peoples will. They seek to have appointed judges instead of elected officials make the decision. THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 
You do not seem to understand anything about the US government.  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. 
 
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.  No chit Cpt Obvious.  So is real estate law, building codes, smoking laws and nearly everything else.  As I pointed out above, the state may pass laws as they see fit.  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.  
 
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.
 
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.  Denying marriage equality falls into the same category.  It's a violation of the 14th.  Also, if you take the time to read the COTUS, morality is not mentioned in the document.  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?
 
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.  
 
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.

 

[Ms Tree]

To some it's called Morals, Values & Ethics. Concepts most Liberals aren't familiar with. Another two are Principle and Integrity.

When you have those traits it's far easier to agree to disagree while defending your viewpoint zealously.

I understand the argument people of faith have. I respect the place from which it comes. I DO NOT agree with it for the very simple reason being that we are nota theocracy.

 
Is forcing religious dogma on people moral and ethical?  As you said we are not a theocracy right?  Remind me again who is trying to force their religious beliefs on others?

 

[delldude]

 
You do not seem to understand anything about the US government.  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. 
 
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.  No chit Cpt Obvious.  So is real estate law, building codes, smoking laws and nearly everything else.  As I pointed out above, the state may pass laws as they see fit.  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.  
 
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.
 
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.  Denying marriage equality falls into the same category.  It's a violation of the 14th.  Also, if you take the time to read the COTUS, morality is not mentioned in the document.  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?
 
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.  
 
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.

 
Where is it written about marriage in your sacred COTUS?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

[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]

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Is forcing religious dogma on people moral and ethical?  As you said we are not a theocracy right?  Remind me again who is trying to force their religious beliefs on others?

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.