Page 36 of 49 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 485

Thread: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

  1. #351
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    19 states have constitutional bans not just on same sex marriage, but on civil unions and domestic partnerships. The reality is that the same sex marriage opponents drew blood first.
    The existence of such bans against gay civil unions and domestic partnerships came about not as an attack, but as a defense.

    Not long ago this past century when the strategy of gay leaders to ludicrously redefine marriage was put into tactical execution, the first vanguard in defense of marriage recognized how events would likely unfold. They realized that though the first onslaught on marriage would surely fail, the impetus for creation of or modifications to civil unions in support of the 14th Amendment would legitimize committed gay couple relationships, and thereby such would function as a closer base by which a subsequent attack on marriage might more easily win the war.

    The first vanguard in defense of marriage reasoned that the reality of the age-old adage "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" was most certainly at play here .. and so they acted to institute bans on gay civil unions and domestic partnerships, thereby not giving "'em an inch".

    Was that the the right thing for the first vanguard in defense of marriage to do?

    It's debatable.

    But, their behavior is easy to understand: their cultural tradition to which they were endeared -- marriage, "between a man and a woman as husband and wive", by instrinsic rationally unconjecturable definition, was under attack. They feared, in this land of increasing liberal influence, that if they didn't put up the best defense that they could, taking into consideration likely possibilities, they would lose their valuable, meaningful institution.

    Clearly, the first vanguard in the defense of marriage did not draw first blood as revisionsists "carelessly" claim.

    The gay leaders back then, agreeing to employ a quick-fix invasive thievery of a time-honored institution of straight people by definition, without question fired the first salvo.


    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    They have denied same sex couples anything even comparable to marriage across this country.
    Yes, they did -- some of them -- and for the understandable reason I just presented.

    Gay leaders have only themselves to blame for that, as they callously pooh-poohed an entire large class of innocent people in their invasive thievery attempt to ludicrously redefine marriage into an oxymoron.

    These leaders thereby declared war on an entire segment of innocent people in the population, a very large segment of innocent people.

    They were likely not really surprised at all by the very strong defense these innocent people undertook.


    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    They pushed through the Defense of Marriage Act which established a federal definition of marriage.
    Actually, that's not true with regard to "they". The first vanguard in defense of marriage did not enact DOMA.

    DOMA was championed by a subsequent group of people that was larger in size and comprehensive in power.

    Understandably, DOMA was passed by a landslide of both Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate, greatly supported and signed by President Clinton.

    Also, DOMA did not establish a federal definition of marriage. DOMA merely clarified relevant words as appropriate in statutes. DOMA was a defense against gay leaders' invasive thievery attempts to ludicrously redefine marriage into something it was not. Restipulating the one and only definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" was simply required protocol, and in no way "established" a "federal" definition of marriage.


    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    And you want to rant and rave about compromise?
    Thus, I'm sure you'll see that, when the revisionist history is removed, it's the ranting and raving of gay leaders that's unjustified, since they attacked first in their attempt to invasively steal what, by intrinsic foundational definition, they had no right to.

    As for compromise, no, uniquly named civil unions for committed gay couples, Prop 8 supporters say, for the purpose of creating equal legal protection, is not a compromise at all -- it is a long-overdue right thing that needs to be done.

    It is important to remember that for the word "compromise" to be applicable, gays would have to have even a slight valid claim to use of the word "marriage" .. and, since they simply do not have any valid claim on a word which has one and only one meaning -- "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" -- the one and only definition of marriage from its inception through the centuries up to and including now, the word "compromise" as used here is simply completely inapplicable.


    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    You want to accuse liberals and gay rights advocates on trampling on a definition when the other side has gone so far as to deny even civil unions to same sex couples?
    Well .. yes. And that's because the two -- the waring act of said "trampling" and the understandable secured defense of denying civil unions in some states -- are most certainly and understandablly connected.

    Gay leaders executed a strategy of unconscionable act of invasive thievery on the cultural institution of marriage without regard to those that would harm or perhaps also to the consequences to their own cause of their egregious action.

    Gay leaders didn't "ask" if they could be included, and though the answer would still most certainly have been "no", if gay leaders had then behaved honorably in both asking and accepting that answer, marriage defenders in some states might not have spent energy putting up a defense where no attack seemed likely.

    Again, gay leaders have only themselves to blame here .. and gay leaders feigning obliviousness to the most certain reaction in some states in defense of marriage won't garner any respect.


    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    What the hell world are you living in when a traditional definition of a word has more value than basic equal rights?
    The world where invasive thievery is not tolerated, and is "rewarded", understandably, by the kind of self-defeating roadblocks to equal protection that strategy was sure to erect.

    Again, gay leaders have only themselves to blame.

    They fired the first salvo in a war where they attempted to invade and steal something they had no right to steal.

    Seriously, gay leaders can't really expect much sympathy for being wounded when they drew first blood.

    And, there is no either-or here with regard to "traditional definition" of a word and "basic equal rights".

    Marriage is what it is, "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". If that is removed .. it's no longer marriage. The word marriage must include it's fundamental identifier .. or it ceases to exist. When a word, marriage, is the foundation of a cultural tradition that for centuries brought deep meaning to its participants, re-writing its definintion is simply a ludicrous notion.

    "Equal rights" for commited gay couples, however, meaning equal rights under the law according to the 14 Amendment for committed gay couples, and marriage being what it is -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife -- are not mutually exclusive.

    A "specially uniquely-named" civil union contract for committed gay couples, with the same equal rights under the law afforded the "marriage" contract for straight couples, solves the problem, with both types of contracts existing at the same time.

    Gay leaders would do well to admit to their wrongful initial tact, apologize, request a truce, and ask everyone, gay and straight, to work tirelesslly in every state to enact such legal contracts for committed gay couples.

    My guess is that they would thereby greatly increase their chances of getting what they really want: equal protection under the law -- legitimized status for committed gay couples.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  2. #352
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,128

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    The existence of such bans against gay civil unions and domestic partnerships came about not as an attack, but as a defense.
    Rhetoric. You aren't defending anything but a tradition.
    Not long ago this past century when the strategy of gay leaders to ludicrously redefine marriage was put into tactical execution, the first vanguard in defense of marriage recognized how events would likely unfold. They realized that though the first onslaught on marriage would surely fail, the impetus for creation of or modifications to civil unions in support of the 14th Amendment would legitimize committed gay couple relationships, and thereby such would function as a closer base by which a subsequent attack on marriage might more easily win the war.
    Oh goody. We went right to conspiracy theory and malicious intent.

    The first vanguard in defense of marriage reasoned that the reality of the age-old adage "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" was most certainly at play here .. and so they acted to institute bans on gay civil unions and domestic partnerships, thereby not giving "'em an inch".
    Or maybe the more likely explanation is they saw homosexuality as a sin and tried to establish that no legal recognition of such relationships should occur.

    Was that the the right thing for the first vanguard in defense of marriage to do?
    Nope.

    It's debatable.
    No it isn't. You can try, but it isn't.

    But, their behavior is easy to understand: their cultural tradition to which they were endeared -- marriage, "between a man and a woman as husband and wive", by instrinsic rationally unconjecturable definition, was under attack. They feared, in this land of increasing liberal influence, that if they didn't put up the best defense that they could, taking into consideration likely possibilities, they would lose their valuable, meaningful institution.
    They argued the gays were out to molest the children, lower the age of consent, and destroy the moral fabric of society. What America have you been living in for the last two decades?

    Clearly, the first vanguard in the defense of marriage did not draw first blood as revisionsists "carelessly" claim.
    Dude, homosexuality was declared a mental illness for half a century until it became clear that there was no evidence to back up that argument. Am I "revisioning" history that gays were institutionalized and subjected to electo shock therapy and other such "therapies"? The only person who is a revisionist here is you.

    The gay leaders back then, agreeing to employ a quick-fix invasive thievery of a time-honored institution of straight people by definition, without question fired the first salvo.
    By seeking legal recognition and protections for their relationships? Oh good lord! What a horrible thing for them to do!



    I can't stand to stomach the rest of your drivel and stupidity. How bout you start providing some actual evidence to support your accusations and demonization of the gay rights movement. It seems to me that you are little more than a religious bigot and historical revisionist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  3. #353
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    A few points for you, Angel.
    You shouldn't play with points, Spike -- you never know when one might come whizzing back at the heart of your matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    First, the claim of "one man and one woman" as a historical context for marriage is simply not accurate.
    Your point is dull, that is to say, false.

    Marriage has always been, by definition, "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    As I stated previously:
    Historical tiny anecdotal occurrances of ignorant or brash violations do not in any way change the definition of marriage.
    It's ludicrous to think otherwise.

    I mean, from your perspective, all the exceptional cases of murder that have occurred over time would mean that murder can be included in the list of generally acceptable human behavior, simply because murder happens as a "tiny anecdotal occurance of ignorant or brash violation" in the realm of human behavior.

    Ludicrous.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    This comes up in just about every thread on SSM.
    And understandably so, since it's the truth gay leaders are hoping will be ignored.

    Why the very phrases "SSM", "same-sex marriage", "gay marriage", are all oxymoronic by nature.

    They were coined and employed by gay leaders and function over time to get minds accustomed to the "idea" as if it wasn't oxymoronic.

    After enough time has passed, gay leaders are hoping many will not see these phrases as the oxymorons they truly are .. and they think that then their invasive thievery will more likely succeed.

    Why even you here use the phrase "SSM" as if it isn't the oxymoron it most certainly is.

    Mind-control is a lot easier to effect than you might have thought .. obviously.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    One man and many women is likely the most common historical form of marriage. So, the appeal to history does not hold water.
    With "most likely" being 99.999999+ percent of the time, hence the definition of marriage being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" from the get-go thru now.

    That reality holds a lot of foundational water.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Second, the supposed "right" of heterosexuals to define marriage how they choose is necessarily unequal protection, since homosexuals are denied that same right. Not that such a right actually exists in the first place, but even if it did, it would not be equal application of the law.
    "Heterosexuals" didn't define marriage -- people did, reflecting what marriage truly was -- "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" --, and who knows what the sexual preference makeup of such lexicographers were through the ages.

    So no "unequal protection" applies here. The word marriage is what it is: "bewteen a man and a woman as husband and wife". Anything else, historically speaking, isn't marriage.

    You can't deem as rational an attempt to redefine words, especially those at the heart of a millenia-old cultural tradition, and then inappropriately appeal to "in the name of correcting unequal protection" just to suit quick fix needs.

    That's irrational.

    As to "the right to define", yes, it's rather absurd to think that anyone has the right to redefine a word like marriage. Words are defined to mean what they are, which occurs naturally in cultures, the process of which is not a matter of "rights". Marriage is between a man and a woman as husband and wife, so defined because marriage and marriage alone so describes the matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Third, the compromise of civil unions. American law long since holds that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Equal access to marriage for any couple, regardless of gender, is the only way to actually apply the law equally to everyone.
    Civil unions are not a compromise -- they are the one and only correct respectful approach to solving the equal protection problem for committed gay couples.

    "Separate but equal", as cemented by Brown v. Board, basically means that "separate often really means not equal". This does not, of course, ludicrously mean that separate "always" means "not equal".

    In Brown v. Board it was ruled that the very pre-defined words "school" and "student" and "classroom" and the like, the substantive relevance of the case, made no implication about White v Black, and therefore, due to the much lower funding of the Black schools, such segregation was found to result in unequal "schools", unequally educated "students", as a result of unequally lower caliber "classrooms" in Black schools. Thus "separate but equal" was rightly applied in this case to end school segregation.

    But the substantive relevant word "marriage" is completely about straight couples, by definition. When it comes to "marriage", "separate but equal" is foundationally inapplicable .. hence your first pointy thing's attempt at revisionist history. That's why gay leaders are so committed to their use of oxymornic terms like "SSM", "same-sex marriage", and "gay marriage" in their attempt to persuade people falesly that marriage has historically meant something other than "a man and a woman as husband and wife". If they can't convince people their revisionist history is the case, their application of the "separate but equal" test fails.

    There are, of course other examples where the "separate but equal" test for discrimination is inapplicable.

    It is inapplicable to let high school boys claim discrimination for not being allowed to be on the "girls' basketball team" and shower with the girls.

    It is inapplicable to let cat owners claim discrimination for not being allowed to enter their cat in a "dog show".

    And the list goes on.

    In all of the disallowed applications of "separate but equal", the substantive nature of the case is judiciously examined, and if "separate" still truly means "equal", the separation is allowed with respect to the 14th Amendment.

    Now I know that liberals and many so-called "progressives" ideologically prefer a less intelligent more ideological application of "separate but equal" .. which is why so many social conservatives ask, "what's next -- four men and a woman being called a marriage, or the end of separate public showers at public pools for men and women?". True, those are literal absurdities, but they make the point that an inappropriate thoughtless almost carte-blanche application of the "separate but equal" test is ludicrous .. despite what gay leaders would like to think.

    It is simply not a violation of the "separate but equal" test to allow gays to have a separate coined word for their committed couples that truly describes the relationship with respect to its gay nature, with complete legal equality under the law, "under the law" being the key point of the 14th Amendment.

    That's why separate high school boys and girls teams are allowed, girls can't be forced to shower with boys in one "equal" shower room, dog owners aren't forced to allow cat owners to enter their cats in their dog shows, etc. Boys have their own teams and showers and cat owners can enter their cats in a .. wait for it .. .. cat show .. .. none of which is a violation of the "separate but equal" test because the test is not substantively applicable in these matters.

    Due to the very defined meaning of marriage being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", the "separate but equal" test is inapplicable here, as otherwise the word marriage would cease to exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    And that's all there is to it, luv.
    Attachment 67122190
    Oh, there might be a little more to it .. such as Buffy always liked me best .. and "luv", well, come to think of it, she loved me, and never really loved you, did she Spike?!
    Buffy-and-Angel-buffy-the-vampire-slayer-23103914-300-400.jpg
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  4. #354
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,984

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    I see what you're insinuating here. Nasty.

    Activist judges aren't "irrelevant." Count me among those who oppose judges who try to legislate from the bench. You might like this at the moment because of the issue, but if the judges are legislating for an issue which you oppose, you won't feel the same, I'll bet.

    It's not the issue, you see; it's the principle, which isn't just "relevant." It's Constitutionally essential for all three branches to do their jobs within Constitutional restraints.
    Their job is to decide if laws are constitutional or not. That is exactly what they are doing.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #355
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Their job is to decide if laws are constitutional or not. That is exactly what they are doing.


    Watch the SCOTUS overturn their decision
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  6. #356
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Patrick View Post
    Do you have proof of this? Have you met many kids raised in a gay household to see how they turned out? Or is this purely speculation on your part?
    Whether you like it or not your mother had a roll in your development that a man can not copy....That is a fact of life.........
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  7. #357
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Read my post. It would be about the HUNDREDTH time I've posted something like it to you. If it doesn't show equal benefit... WHICH IT DOESN'T, it's not discrimination. It's not EQUAL, NP.
    That is a matter of opinion my friend. I believe if gays are allowed to marry then so should they.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  8. #358
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,984

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Watch the SCOTUS overturn their decision
    If they do, it will only be another few years til the SCOTUS overturns their own previous decision. The only way this argument will end and have no more cases reach the SCOTUS is if same sex marriage is allowed or there is a Constitutional Amendment in place banning same sex marriage. With same sex marriage getting more and more support every day, it is unlikely that there is truly enough support for a Constitutional Amendment against it.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #359
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Wrong, as usual. All research demonstrates that your post above is invalid. NP, you can have your beliefs, but understand that you beliefs, from a logical and research standpoint, are incorrect.
    Its common sense. Can a man breastfeed a child...We are getting off topic here but it is my opinion gays should be allowed to adopt as a last resource.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  10. #360
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    So you're saying that no two gay men or women can raise a child that turns out better than Hitler/Mason/Pol Pot/Stalin?

    That Homosexuals are INCAPABLE of raising a child that is better than the WORST heterosexual raised child?

    Do you realize just how insane you sound?


    So you think that two otherwise normal gays with good jobs and stable lives cannot raise a child better then a crack addicted abusive father paired with an alcoholic mother who's constantly prostituting herself out to pay the basic bills?

    A $5 donation bet to this site says YOU WILL NOT ANSWER THAT

    You can always pull out bad examples but the good examples out weigh the bads ones a million to one.........The best way to raise a child is with a mother and father. It is hard enough to raise them that way as it is.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

Page 36 of 49 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •