Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

Fenton said:

No, the traditional and fundamental definition of a marriage is centered around a Family unit that includes a Mother and Father and Children.

Click to expand...

No, actually the traditional definition is centered around property and prestige and power.

Fenton said:

Two Gay men deprive a child of a Mother,two Gay women deprive a child of a Father.

Click to expand...

Gender is irrelevant when raising a child.

Fenton said:

Sorry, but there is a Good reason Gay Marriage hasn't been Socially acceptable for much of Recorded human history and then some.

Click to expand...

Actually it was quite accepted in many cultures and regions. Anti-SSM folks just refuse to acknowledge those unions as "traditional marriages".

Fenton said:

Your Opinions are meaningless.

Click to expand...

And yours are not? :lamo:

Fenton said:

Oh and 30 activist Judges disagree with me. So what ?

Click to expand...

I've noticed that whenever a judge upholds a ruling that people like they are just "doing what's right", while those judges that make decisions that they don't like then those judges are always "activist judges". :roll: Sorry Fenton but there are more judges than just those ruling on gay marriage that has stated time and again that marriage is a fundamental right. You cannot fault these judges for upholding that ruling and applying the 14th amendment to it. If you have a problem with it then you need to get rid of the 14th Amendment. GL on that.

BTW, I find it hilarious that you think that 30 people who are well versed in laws are all wrong and "activist judges" and somehow you know better than them.

Fenton said:

You're rights aren't being denied if its currently ILLEGAL to marry someone of the same Sex.

Click to expand...

You don't know what it means to deny a Right do you? The government denies rights by making those Rights illegal. Something which the government is not allowed to do. Which is why all these judges have been striking down anti-SSM laws all every single time that it comes up before them.

Fenton said:

You dont like the Law ? Tough cookies.

Click to expand...

As we are seeing over and over with those laws being struck down by the courts.... Tough cookies to you. After all, it IS the law that they can strike down unconstitutional laws.

WCH said:

Bottom line is marriage is a solemn promise before God between one man and one woman so, nothing was denied. And nothing was 'allowed'. It's not for the state to have a say in the matter

"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Two men or two women can not be "one flesh" no matter how politically correct you or anyone else thinks it can be.

Click to expand...

In your opinion, marriage is a promise to God. That is not true within the laws of the US. Legal marriage has absolutely nothing to do with God.

Fenton said:

Sure there are many different types of Families which include single parents, but whats best for Children are a Father and a Mother.

That ideal definition of a Family unit has been targeted not only by Gay activist but by Feminist also.

It should be celebrated and revered, just like it has for millenia all over the world.

Isolated and distinct cultures all coming to the same conclusion and now a small activist minority is demanding that the age old example of a Family unit and a Marriage be changed.

And that anyone who believes in that age old definition should be targeted and ostracized.

Its absurd !

You can see the kind of damage that the destruction of the Family unit can cause.

Look at any inner city area in America.

Click to expand...

What is best for children is having loving parents. Two is preferred due to the increase in resources and time that two parents can provide to children as compared to only having one parent. The sexes/genders of those parents is not important because their is nothing specifically about their sex/gender that is that important in raising children that it cannot be provided by another source.

WCH said:

Bottom line is marriage is a solemn promise before God between one man and one woman so, nothing was denied. And nothing was 'allowed'. It's not for the state to have a say in the matter

"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Two men or two women can not be "one flesh" no matter how politically correct you or anyone else thinks it can be.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, words written in a book by man to control other men are really valid forms of arguments. :roll: Not. Sorry but organized religion is a bunch of crap. No one actually knows Gods feelings on the matter. But I would bet that since God created everything on this Earth, which would including homosexuals, he's not adverse to homosexual marriages. But hey, you go ahead and continue to follow a book written by men who wanted nothing more than power and control. It matters not since in this country religion has no say in denying peoples Rights.

roguenuke said:

In your opinion, marriage is a promise to God. That is not true within the laws of the US. Legal marriage has absolutely nothing to do with God.

Click to expand...

'Legal' marriage is a creation of the State. It has nothing to do with traditional marriage.

WCH said:

'Legal' marriage is a creation of the State. It has nothing to do with traditional marriage.

Click to expand...

Traditional marriage is in fact nothing like what we have today. There are lots of types of marriages and your personal view of it has no real legal authority over every other marriage.

Kal'Stang said:

No, actually the traditional definition is centered around property and prestige and power.



Gender is irrelevant when raising a child.



Actually it was quite accepted in many cultures and regions. Anti-SSM folks just refuse to acknowledge those unions as "traditional marriages".



And yours are not? :lamo:



I've noticed that whenever a judge upholds a ruling that people like they are just "doing what's right", while those judges that make decisions that they don't like then those judges are always "activist judges". :roll: Sorry Fenton but there are more judges than just those ruling on gay marriage that has stated time and again that marriage is a fundamental right. You cannot fault these judges for upholding that ruling and applying the 14th amendment to it. If you have a problem with it then you need to get rid of the 14th Amendment. GL on that.

BTW, I find it hilarious that you think that 30 people who are well versed in laws are all wrong and "activist judges" and somehow know better than them.



You don't know what it means to deny a Right do you? The government denies rights by making those Rights illegal. Something which the government is not allowed to do. Which is why all these judges have been striking down anti-SSM laws all every single time that it comes up before them.



As we are seeing over and over with those laws being struck down by the courts.... Tough cookies to you. After all, it IS the law that they can strike down unconstitutional laws.

Click to expand...

Property and power ? Huh ?

So peasants and the impoverished weren't allowed to marry each other ?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

And Gender is highly relevent in marriage. Has been for thousands of years. Just because a small group of activist bullies who say otherwise doesn't discount a millenia of Historical precedent.

And yes, there are activist judges, they exist and being "well versed" in Law doesn't mean they're not ignoring or misapplying the law.

I live in Texas, a State that has yet to be overrun by the activist that seek out to destroy millenia old sacred institutions.

So no, its not tough cookies for me.

roguenuke said:

Traditional marriage is in fact nothing like what we have today. There are lots of types of marriages and your personal view of it has no real legal authority over every other marriage.

Click to expand...

Then by definition those would not be "Traditional".

Fenton said:

Then by definition those would not be "Traditional".

Click to expand...

Traditional marriages very rarely happen in the US to begin with so traditional marriage means absolutely nothing in this argument. In truth, few, if any, that are against same sex marriages are actually for "traditional marriage". They are simply for their form of marriage.

Kal'Stang said:

Oh yes, words written in a book by man to control other men are really valid forms of arguments. :roll: Not. Sorry but organized religion is a bunch of crap. No one actually knows Gods feelings on the matter. But I would bet that since God created everything on this Earth, which would including homosexuals, he's not adverse to homosexual marriages. But hey, you go ahead and continue to follow a book written by men who wanted nothing more than power and control. It matters not since in this country religion has no say in denying peoples Rights.

Click to expand...

Religious doctrine is more rock solid than anything the State ever concocted. It's time tested and IMO everlasting compared to most States that last a couple of hundred years then self-destruct. Which, if this country continues down the road it's on, will surely also do.

But hey, whatever you want to put your 'faith' in.

WCH said:

Religious doctrine is more rock solid than anything the State ever concocted. It's time tested and IMO everlasting compared to most States that last a couple of hundred years then self-destruct. Which, if this country continues down the road it's on, will surely also do.

But hey, whatever you want to put your 'faith' in.

Click to expand...

Religious doctrine changes all the time. Just a few decades ago, several religions were against interracial marriages. And many were also against divorce, to the point where those who divorced and/or remarried could not be a part of the church. Those things changed. Many religions have changed their positions on many issues throughout the years, decades, centuries. Including their position on marriage.

roguenuke said:

Religious doctrine changes all the time. Just a few decades ago, several religions were against interracial marriages. And many were also against divorce, to the point where those who divorced and/or remarried could not be a part of the church. Those things changed. Many religions have changed their positions on many issues throughout the years, decades, centuries. Including their position on marriage.

Click to expand...

Not being a member of an organized religion, my beliefs have seldom wavered.

BTW: church doctrine may evolve but, the word of God as put forth in the Holy Bible, has not.

Fenton said:

Property and power ? Huh ?

So peasants and the impoverished weren't allowed to marry each other ?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

And Gender is highly relevent in marriage. Has been for thousands of years. Just because a small group of activist bullies who say otherwise doesn't discount a millenia of Historical precedent.

And yes, there are activist judges, they exist and being "well versed" in Law doesn't mean they're not ignoring or misapplying the law.

I live in Texas, a State that has yet to be overrun by the activist that seek out to destroy millenia old sacred institutions.

So no, its not tough cookies for me.

Click to expand...

A good portion of Texas supports same sex marriage being made legal.

The Polling Center: Texans' View of Gay Marriage Shifts | The Texas Tribune

And the "civil union" question is pointless. Nothing else gives the same rights/recognition as marriage. Only marriage is recognized by the federal government, and the entire bans are bound to be ruled unconstitutional before these states vote to remove their restrictions just on civil unions or other partnerships that aren't named "marriage".

Oh, and a judge has struck down the same sex marriage ban in Texas.

Judge strikes down Tex. same-sex marriage ban, paving way for shift in conservative state - The Washington Post

WCH said:

Not being a member of an organized religion, my beliefs have seldom wavered.

BTW: church doctrine may evolve but, the word of God as put forth in the Holy Bible, has not.

Click to expand...

Your beliefs have only existed since you were in your early childhood (if that). That would make them pretty much younger the US, by a lot.

roguenuke said:

Your beliefs have only existed since you were in your early childhood (if that). That would make them pretty much younger the US, by a lot.

Click to expand...

Never been a Statist either.

WCH said:

Never been a Statist either.

Click to expand...

Oookaay...? And what the heck does that have to do with what was being discussed?

Interpretation of that Holy Bible is what makes religion, religion. It's what gives you your beliefs. It has changed with religions and within religions and it varies greatly between individuals.

Fenton said:

Property and power ? Huh ?

So peasants and the impoverished weren't allowed to marry each other ?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

Wrong, again. Even the peasants tried to marry into higher stations. I said no where that peasant's couldn't marry. There are many differing degrees of power and to a peasant even one extra pig more than they had before was an improvement.

Fenton said:

And Gender is highly relevent in marriage. Has been for thousands of years. Just because a small group of activist bullies who say otherwise doesn't discount a millenia of Historical precedent.

Click to expand...

Obviously gender is not relevant as we currently have hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians getting married across the world.

Fenton said:

And yes, there are activist judges, they exist and being "well versed" in Law doesn't mean they're not ignoring or misapplying the law.

Click to expand...

Are you a lawyer? If not (which is likely) then how would you know that they are misapplying the law? Because you say so? Please explain to me how they are misapplying the law. Does the 14th Amendment not say

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

??

How would you, a person that is not versed in any law apply that?

Or wait, you're argument is based on RELIGION....again, sorry but religion has no say in whether Rights are applied equally or not.

Fenton said:

I live in Texas, a State that has yet to be overrun by the activist that seek out to destroy millenia old sacred institutions.

Click to expand...

Try again.....

Marriage[edit]

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Texas

On February 26, 2014, Judge Orlando Luis Garcia, of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, found that Texas's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.[14] On April 23, 2014, Judge Barbara Nellermoe, of the 45th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, found that Texas's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.[15] Both cases are being appealed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.[16][17]

Click to expand...

LGBT Rights in Texas

Fenton said:

So no, its not tough cookies for me.

Click to expand...

Yep, tough cookies for you.

WCH said:

Religious doctrine is more rock solid than anything the State ever concocted. It's time tested and IMO everlasting compared to most States that last a couple of hundred years then self-destruct. Which, if this country continues down the road it's on, will surely also do.

But hey, whatever you want to put your 'faith' in.

Click to expand...

Yes, organized religion often does outlast governments. But it doesn't last forever. Ex: Zues

Fenton said:

Then by definition those would not be "Traditional".

Click to expand...

Are you trying to change the meaning of "traditional" now? Do you realize that even in the few short years (relatively speaking) that the US has been around it has changed at least twice?

WCH said:

Not being a member of an organized religion, my beliefs have seldom wavered.

BTW: church doctrine may evolve but, the word of God as put forth in the Holy Bible, has not.

Click to expand...

Your "holy bible" was written by men. Not God. And yes, it has changed. No longer do people follow everything in the bible. If they did then we'd still have slavery and we wouldn't have separation of church and state. But that aside take a look at the old testament, then take a look at the new, then again take a look at the newest edition of the bible. It's changed, lots.

WCH said:

Well Liberal do have many monikers...Socialists, Progressives, Communists, Marxists etc.

Did you say you were from Canada?

Click to expand...

Yes, I am, and those 'monikers' have their own meanings.
You don't have much respect for proper use of English, do you. But that's kind of a conservative thing too, isn't it. Anything that isn't conservative is liberal, and anything you like about liberalism is conservative. I see it as another example of the cult of ignorance that prevails in much of your society.
Look at it this way, when anyone says they hope the people in a communist or socialist country would get more freedom, do they say they hope the regime becomes more conservative? Or do they hope it becomes more liberal? When the USSR fell apart, it was because the old-guard conservative communists had passed on and a more liberal leadership style emerged.

roguenuke said:

A good portion of Texas supports same sex marriage being made legal.

The Polling Center: Texans' View of Gay Marriage Shifts | The Texas Tribune

And the "civil union" question is pointless. Nothing else gives the same rights/recognition as marriage. Only marriage is recognized by the federal government, and the entire bans are bound to be ruled unconstitutional before these states vote to remove their restrictions just on civil unions or other partnerships that aren't named "marriage".

Oh, and a judge has struck down the same sex marriage ban in Texas.

Judge strikes down Tex. same-sex marriage ban, paving way for shift in conservative state - The Washington Post

Click to expand...

The Washington Post ?

I asked for a Objective poll and there is no way the "majority" of Texans support Gay marriage.

Hell, Prop 8 passed in California, a very Blue State

Kal'Stang said:

Wrong, again. Even the peasants tried to marry into higher stations. I said no where that peasant's couldn't marry. There are many differing degrees of power and to a peasant even one extra pig more than they had before was an improvement.



Obviously gender is not relevant as we currently have hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians getting married across the world.



Are you a lawyer? If not (which is likely) then how would you know that they are misapplying the law? Because you say so? Please explain to me how they are misapplying the law. Does the 14th Amendment not say

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

??

How would you, a person that is not versed in any law apply that?

Or wait, you're argument is based on RELIGION....again, sorry but religion has no say in whether Rights are applied equally or not.



Try again.....



LGBT Rights in Texas



Yep, tough cookies for you.

Click to expand...

LOL !!

So you found another activist judge that supports your opinion ?

Shock !

All the wacko activist Liberal judges in the World cant redefine whats essential a age old social tennant.

A institution thats survived the ages up until a small minority of crazy activist, who use the premise of "equal rights" while they target and malign those who disagree with them decided it needed to be changed .

Fenton said:

The Washington Post ?

I asked for a Objective poll and there is no way the "majority" of Texans support Gay marriage.

Hell, Prop 8 passed in California, a very Blue State

Click to expand...

Barely passed, 6 years ago, with a lot of misinformation being put out. Then overturned.

Find an "objective poll" that says differently about Texas and the view of same sex marriage now (as in not 2005 when Texas voted to put that ban in place). A lot has changed in the past decade, particularly the last few years, when it comes to same sex marriage.

That poll is just as valid as any that you could find.

roguenuke said:

Oookaay...? And what the heck does that have to do with what was being discussed?

Interpretation of that Holy Bible is what makes religion, religion. It's what gives you your beliefs. It has changed with religions and within religions and it varies greatly between individuals.

Click to expand...

Do I need to define statist?

Guess I had good Sunday school teachers because my opinions have basically remained the same or strenghtened.