Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
the law in our country says you're wrong....but you're entitled to your opinion
Drudge: 1 JUDGE VOIDS 7,000,000 VOTERS...
- Thread starter DamnYankee
- Start date
the law in our country says you're wrong....but you're entitled to your opinion
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
No such thing as traditional marriage- are you loony?
Does it please you that one man usurped the wishes of all those voters?
Duh...
My point is for those who are for "traditional" marriage. The reality is "traditionally" the government had nothing to do with marriage, it was a thing of the church until very recently history-wise.
My bet is you think I believe something that I don't. Can you tell me what you think my opinion is on this?
Anyway gay people are already married, and very "traditionally" through churches. We should recognize their 1st Amendment rights to practice their religions and "recognize" them as equal to any other marriage or we should be even smarter and get government out of the business of trying to protect the "sanctity" of anything at all.
But the state does recognize some marriages and confers benefits to those persons recognized as married. As long at the state recognizes marriages and confers benefits to married people, it has to do so in a manner that violates the Constitution of the United States.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
yes, he followed the law and fundamental rights are not up to voters...if they were, we would still have segregated schools and segretated marriages in some states...
unfortunately for you, the law is clear
1. marriage is a fundamental right
2. fundamental rights are not to be put to vote
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
It explains how liberal judges interpolated other liberal judges interpretations, but it doesn't describe how CA voters violated the 14th Amendment.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Again, no one is stopping a gay man from marrying a consenting woman.
They are asking for legal rights, not the right to the ceremony, you know this is the underlying issue, right. they want to be able to cover their partner under their insurance plans, to be able to adopt and have legal rights in medical situations. You know, those kinds of things! They just want to be 'normal', whatever that is?
California voters did not let them have equal rights! It is that simple. It is wrong.It explains how liberal judges interpolated other liberal judges interpretations, but it doesn't describe how CA voters violated the 14th Amendment.
Yeah, but what you think it is reflects in your post. You are a dimwit because you argue with people who largely agree with you based on assumptions of their opinion rather than what they say. I simply speak to my audience. In this case those people who want to "protect traditional marriage"...
It is a very real truth that gay people across the nation are "traditionally" married as much as any other couple with a license. They are just refused the benefits that are assigned with that license. This, IMO, is a first Amendment violation. They pick and choose which of these "marriages" are good and bad based on "morality" rather than individual liberty. Instead we should reject government interference in such things entirely. That we meekly accept this 'authority' over what is fundamentally and "traditionally" a religious institution shows we have lost sight of what this place is supposed to be about. It isn't "freedom" to be given government's "blessing" on things it shouldn't be involved in...
After careful scientific study, the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile were caused by faults newly discovered and created from 2001 to 2008.....Well, count the ones in Mass. So far I believe that it caused the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile...And that we'll soon be able to blame our next blizzard on those heathens.
They are all refered to by Obama as......."Bush's Fault"....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
now SM will engage in circular reasoning the rest of the thread....
the issue is letting the same gender people marry....is that too difficult to comprehend? its like you arguing against loving by saying, no one is stopping a black man marrying a black woman...
fact remains...marriage is a fundamental right, if the same gender wants to obtain the same license that opposite genders get, which is called marriage under our laws, then you cannot deny them their due process and must afford them equal protection of the laws....
using your logic, you support a ban on homosexuals driving
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
It explains how liberal judges interpolated other liberal judges interpretations, but it doesn't describe how CA voters violated the 14th Amendment.
so all those scotus cases about marriage were all liberal judges? you might want to rethink your position....
and it explains it perfectly....if the voters of california made it a law that homosexuals can't obtain a drivers license....are you actually claiming a judge cannot overturn that law simply because voters approved the law?
And it is a huge one, and very dangerously unstable! Thanks for pointing this out! and finally realizing the problem in your own little liturgical literation
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Again, no one is stopping a gay man from marrying a consenting woman.
Well, no one gives a shit about two gay people getting "married" in a "church." It's about the rights and obligations conferred by the state.
And states have long been neck deep in marriage so your gobbledygook about "freedom" and all that is just nonsense.
I understand your position full well, I just think it is impractical and historically ignorant.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The CA law forbids you from marring a another man as well Yurt. How is that discrimination?
Exactly, why don't people understand this, they will marry or unite in a court house or at their homes, they just want legal rights as a couple! The ones Bud and I enjoy!
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You stumbled on part of an analogy here Yurt. Queers aren't allowed to marry just as the blind aren't allowed to drive, because they are not qualified.