Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say heterosexuals have a right to marriage so...hand over that marriage license now, kiddo.
And no where does it say homosexuals have a right to marriage. It's a social issue, therefore society gets to speak and vote on it as the Constitution would suggest.
You are flat our wrong. They were ruled unconstitutional in California, Vermont, and Hawaii.
Has Prop 8 been ruled unconstitutional? Vermont and Hawaii... I would expect nothing less from those states, of course they would substitute what is lawful for their liberal moral system. It was challenged here in TN too and many other states, and they found it to be constitutional in court.
Realize this: the contention is that it is not constitutional. The constitutionality of it is in question right now else we wouldn't be having this conversation. I don't care how many religious nutjobs supported it: the courts will have the final say.
The courts will have their final say, and those who declare its unconstitutional largely do it to force their morality upon others. I saw no problem before the California elections with any group saying it was unconstitutional to have on the ballot. You deal with things like that before the election, not afterwards when you don't get your way. They lost in the popular election, so now they are turning to plan B, legislating from the bench. Where was the homosexual rights outcry when they thought about putting Prop 8 on the ballot? Everyone thought it would pass in liberal California so there was no objection.
If you find my apt description of the anti-gay marraige base to be personally insulting, take it up with a mod. I'm tired of hearing your whining about how butthurt you feel about the descriptions of the people you align yourself with. As to the actual substance of the above quote, the state may not extend privileges to a group of people without giving equal access to those institutions which confer those privileges. You keep falling back on an argument that was settled by the SCotUS in Loving v Virginia and Sharp v Perez.
I find your description of religious individuals and anti-gay marriage supporters to be bigoted and offensive. All I am asking for is a rational debate free from insults and offensive language. I have great respect for you as an individual and poster, and I feel debates should be rational and insult free. Forgive me if I am whining or act "butthurt," I just want a logical and rational debate. There is another place for users to flame as they please, and it isn't here.
That also sounds like the persecution and separation philosophy of every other dying cult in history.
Christianity isn't a "dying cult." Western nations are becoming increasingly secular, but many other parts of the world are seeing a boom in Christianity (like in Africa).
First, I think you need to learn what the word bigotry actually means. Secondly, do I detect a little angst at having the same denial of your rights turned back on you that you seem to be perfectly ok with denying me? The irony in that is just thick.
Homosexuals don't have the right to exalt their relationship as equal to marriage when the populace has voted and decided that it isn't marriage. I believe they have a right to legal status. but not to call their relationship/union marriage, because it isn't marriage.
And once again you cry "boo-hoo you're a bigot because you won't accept my bigotry". :roll:
[/quote]
No, I'm merely exposing the hypocrisy. The ones interjecting bigotry are those who want to blanket every anti-gm supporter as a bigot and close their eyes to their own bigotry through forcing their definition of marriage on others.
