Gay marriage is not Constitutional [W:13]

Since both groups are protected. Gay people can not be discriminated against for being gay (not hiring you for being gay, not letting you in a bar since you are gay). Religion rights says you can do whatever you wish as long as it breaks no major laws (No rape, killing, stealing in name of religion). It also says you cant be forced to follow another persons beliefs if you don't believe in it. Like we cant force everyone to attend Jewish ceremony since some of us are Jewish. However you are free to if you wish.There was a case of a female not wedding gays since she did not believe in homosexuality. Now technically she did not break the law, and this should still fall in her religious rights. Since while we are allowed to practice homosexuality we are not allowed to force anyone to agree with it. Just like Christians can not force people to go to church and worship god, according to separation of church and state. As well as that most officials who are actually considered able to wed people are religious officials which means its mostly a religious practice. If this is the case, we should not be forcing them to follow another persons believe as long as its not doing something like murder, killing, stealing.. That sort of stuff in the name of religion. Forcing religious officials to marry gays is the same as forcing someone to read bible scriptures in school. This debate decides who gets more power "Gays" or "religious people". Most people who are allowed to marry wed others are religious officials and there is very few people who are not religious figures, who allowed to perform these ceremonies. Which makes marriage mostly are religious practice.

MisterLogical said:

Since both groups are protected. Gay people can not be discriminated against for being gay (not hiring you for being gay, not letting you in a bar since you are gay). Religion rights says you can do whatever you wish as long as it breaks no major laws (No rape, killing, stealing in name of religion). It also says you cant be forced to follow another persons beliefs if you don't believe in it. Like we cant force everyone to attend Jewish ceremony since some of us are Jewish. However you are free to if you wish.There was a case of a female not wedding gays since she did not believe in homosexuality. Now technically she did not break the law, and this should still fall in her religious rights. Since while we are allowed to practice homosexuality we are not allowed to force anyone to agree with it. Just like Christians can not force people to go to church and worship god, according to separation of church and state. As well as that most officials who are actually considered able to wed people are religious officials which means its mostly a religious practice. If this is the case, we should not be forcing them to follow another persons believe as long as its not doing something like murder, killing, stealing.. That sort of stuff in the name of religion. Forcing religious officials to marry gays is the same as forcing someone to read bible scriptures in school. This debate decides who gets more power "Gays" or "religious people". Most people who are allowed to marry wed others are religious officials and there is very few people who are not religious figures, who allowed to perform these ceremonies. Which makes marriage mostly are religious practice.

Click to expand...

Might wanna check that again

MisterLogical said:

Since both groups are protected. Gay people can not be discriminated against for being gay (not hiring you for being gay, not letting you in a bar since you are gay). Religion rights says you can do whatever you wish as long as it breaks no major laws (No rape, killing, stealing in name of religion). It also says you cant be forced to follow another persons beliefs if you don't believe in it. Like we cant force everyone to attend Jewish ceremony since some of us are Jewish. However you are free to if you wish.There was a case of a female not wedding gays since she did not believe in homosexuality. Now technically she did not break the law, and this should still fall in her religious rights. Since while we are allowed to practice homosexuality we are not allowed to force anyone to agree with it. Just like Christians can not force people to go to church and worship god, according to separation of church and state. As well as that most officials who are actually considered able to wed people are religious officials which means its mostly a religious practice. If this is the case, we should not be forcing them to follow another persons believe as long as its not doing something like murder, killing, stealing.. That sort of stuff in the name of religion. Forcing religious officials to marry gays is the same as forcing someone to read bible scriptures in school. This debate decides who gets more power "Gays" or "religious people". Most people who are allowed to marry wed others are religious officials and there is very few people who are not religious figures, who allowed to perform these ceremonies. Which makes marriage mostly are religious practice.

Click to expand...

You might want to wait until you are older and actually know what you are talking about before you post on this topic again. Its almost has if you got the majority of your post factually wrong on purpose.

This thread is FAIL

MisterLogical said:

Since both groups are protected. Gay people can not be discriminated against for being gay (not hiring you for being gay, not letting you in a bar since you are gay). Religion rights says you can do whatever you wish as long as it breaks no major laws (No rape, killing, stealing in name of religion). It also says you cant be forced to follow another persons beliefs if you don't believe in it. Like we cant force everyone to attend Jewish ceremony since some of us are Jewish. However you are free to if you wish.There was a case of a female not wedding gays since she did not believe in homosexuality. Now technically she did not break the law, and this should still fall in her religious rights. Since while we are allowed to practice homosexuality we are not allowed to force anyone to agree with it. Just like Christians can not force people to go to church and worship god, according to separation of church and state. As well as that most officials who are actually considered able to wed people are religious officials which means its mostly a religious practice. If this is the case, we should not be forcing them to follow another persons believe as long as its not doing something like murder, killing, stealing.. That sort of stuff in the name of religion. Forcing religious officials to marry gays is the same as forcing someone to read bible scriptures in school. This debate decides who gets more power "Gays" or "religious people". Most people who are allowed to marry wed others are religious officials and there is very few people who are not religious figures, who allowed to perform these ceremonies. Which makes marriage mostly are religious practice.

Click to expand...

Though, in certain aspects I would form the argument a little differently, I think that that is a fair estimate of the dilemma and quality of our momentary solution.

AGENT J said:

You might want to wait until you are older and actually know what you are talking about before you post on this topic again. Its almost has if you got the majority of your post factually wrong on purpose.

Click to expand...

I am sure you actually believe that. The fellow might have used unlawyerly language. But it says something very true. Of course, you dislike the content.

beefheart said:

This thread is FAIL

Click to expand...

At least he is honest.

joG said:

1.)I am sure you actually believe that.
2.)The fellow might have used unlawyerly language. But it says something very true.
3.) Of course, you dislike the content.

Click to expand...

1.) of course since im honest an objective I simply go by the facts, rights, laws, court cases and the constitution that make it that way
2.) no most of it is actually factually false including the title :shrug:
3.) what content? trying not making stuff up and your posts wont fail as bad and quickly.
facts, rights, laws, court cases and the constitution > you
LMAO

I do not see how you can say its objectively wrong to be gay or how that is related to anything said in the above post.

Usually the state laws provide any recognized member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.), or a judge, a court clerk, and justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage. However in some states even the clergy must be first certified or licensed. I will now post what CLERGY means.
cler·gy
ˈklərjē/Submit
noun
the body of all people ordained for religious duties, especially in the Christian Church

There is more than one religion that is in fact against gay marriage. So to legalize gay marriage and say that all religious officials must wed gays is technically going against that persons religious rights. Now we all have rights. We are suppose to not be discriminated against for being Gay, religious, a female/male, and those sort of things. Yet this issue seems to be taking something from both sides. Its not really as simple as most people would believe since if you look at it from the laws point of view both groups should be protected.

Perform Marriage Ceremony » Officiants Requirements » by State If you read for each state its mostly religious officials who are allowed to wed people. So technically they could make a case for not wanting to wed someone under religious rights.



https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

They also argued for the removal of "Dont ask, Dont tell" Since it was discriminating against gay people.

You also don't really prove your case. Simply insulting someone since you don't agree with them does not prove anything. It proves you are petty.

MisterLogical said:

I do not see how you can say its objectively wrong to be gay or how that is related to anything said in the above post.

Usually the state laws provide any recognized member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.), or a judge, a court clerk, and justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage. However in some states even the clergy must be first certified or licensed. I will now post what CLERGY means.
cler·gy
ˈklərjē/Submit
noun
the body of all people ordained for religious duties, especially in the Christian Church

There is more than one religion that is in fact against gay marriage. So to legalize gay marriage and say that all religious officials must wed gays is technically going against that persons religious rights. Now we all have rights. We are suppose to not be discriminated against for being Gay, religious, a female/male, and those sort of things. Yet this issue seems to be taking something from both sides. Its not really as simple as most people would believe since if you look at it from the laws point of view both groups should be protected.

Perform Marriage Ceremony » Officiants Requirements » by State If you read for each state its mostly religious officials who are allowed to wed people. So technically they could make a case for not wanting to wed someone under religious rights.



https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Also "Dont ask, dont tell" was removed since they believed it was discriminating against gay people. So there is a lot of things you can claim discrimination for.

You also don't really prove your case. You just kind of say "This is dumb" which proves nothing.

Click to expand...

Seriously kid, stop you're already behind and this post was worse than the first one

Who said its objectively wrong to be gay? Nobody
Religion factually has nothing to do with legal marriage
there is NOTHING "unconstitutional" about marriage"
NOBODY has said that all religious officials must wed gays??? Im guessing your about 14 and foreign because what you are saying doesnt even make sense and isnt happening
NOBODY religious is being discriminated against because of SSM
Religion is not in danger and is already being protected

now please just stop because that's two post that were simply factually wrong based on facts, rights, laws and the constitution. You are severely uneducated on this particular topic. What you claim is factually wrong and it is simply not happening in america. LMAO

You again do not really give any real case, just mindless insults which shows you are not very educated and so have no room calling anyone a child. I thought this was a debate forum not a playground. If this is really how you discuss things you should go back to preschool so the teachers can show you how to present yourself. I also already presented evidence proving the point already. It in fact does if a Minister can legally wed someone. Also there has been cases about religious officials not wanting to wed gay people and getting in trouble for it. Which I thought would arise sooner or later. Though this issue has been going on for awhile anyways and I never think it will stop being an issue. The simple reason being that no one is ever going to completely agree. Kentucky clerk Kim Davis JAILED for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses | Daily Mail Online It can be considered a violation according to the amendment.
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Which could be used as a defense if someone really wanted to push it.

MisterLogical said:

1.) You again do not really give any real case
2.) just mindless insults which shows you are not very educated and so have no room calling anyone a child. I thought this was a debate forum not a playground. If this is really how you discuss things you should go back to preschool so the teachers can show you how to present yourself.
3.) I also already presented evidence proving the point already.
4.) It in fact does if a Minister can legally wed someone.
5.) Also there has been cases about religious officials not wanting to wed gay people and getting in trouble for it.
6.) Which I thought would arise sooner or later.
7.) Though this issue has been going on for awhile anyways and I never think it will stop being an issue. The simple reason being that no one is ever going to completely agree. 8.)Kentucky clerk Kim Davis JAILED for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses | Daily Mail Online It can be considered a violation according to the amendment.
Amendment I
8.)Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
9.)Which could be used as a defense if someone really wanted to push it.

Click to expand...

1.) Theres nothing to give a case to since you are factually wrong. It is YOU that has to prove your claims. You are incapable of doing so , so unless you do you got NOTHING
2.) I didnt insult you, you are in fact a child, thats obvious. Look at your response here. Its more proof.
3.) no actually you havent provided any "evidence" repeating factually wrong statments and supporting the with illogical opinions about things that are factually not happening is not evidence
4.) no, it in fact does not. LOTS of people can wed somebody if they apply for the permits and licens they need. religion factually has nothig to do with legal marrieag. that fact will never change.

WOuld you like proof? SURE

can one get married with no religion involved? yep
is religion required in a marriage contract? nope
does religion have any power what so ever over legal marriage? nope

5.) posting lies wont help your failed post it only further exposes them, There have been ZERO cases for priest or minsters getting in legal trouble for not doing gay weddings in church. ZERO. disagree post the factual links, you wont cause tou cant cause its a lie.

6.) its never happened so you thought wrong

7.) no its never happened so it hasnt been going on for a while. what country do you live in?

yes that criminal was jailed for breaking the law . . her religion had nothgin to do with it. Thank you for further proving you do not know about this subject.


8.) very good good thing congress didnt do that, in fact what you quoted was what was used the many many many court case that ruled in favore of equal rights for gays. See further proof you dont have any clue about this topic. Did you even know that?

9.) no it cant, name the law that wa made that does what you claim, i cant wait to read it

Seriously, you need to study up because you dont understand this topic. Maybe when you are older and understand the rights of my country more you will but not yet.

Facts, laws, rights, court cases and the constitution all prove you wrong . . remind us what you have on your side? NOTHING LMAO

MisterLogical said:

Since both groups are protected. Gay people can not be discriminated against for being gay (not hiring you for being gay, not letting you in a bar since you are gay). Religion rights says you can do whatever you wish as long as it breaks no major laws (No rape, killing, stealing in name of religion). It also says you cant be forced to follow another persons beliefs if you don't believe in it. Like we cant force everyone to attend Jewish ceremony since some of us are Jewish. However you are free to if you wish.There was a case of a female not wedding gays since she did not believe in homosexuality. Now technically she did not break the law, and this should still fall in her religious rights. Since while we are allowed to practice homosexuality we are not allowed to force anyone to agree with it. Just like Christians can not force people to go to church and worship god, according to separation of church and state. As well as that most officials who are actually considered able to wed people are religious officials which means its mostly a religious practice. If this is the case, we should not be forcing them to follow another persons believe as long as its not doing something like murder, killing, stealing.. That sort of stuff in the name of religion. Forcing religious officials to marry gays is the same as forcing someone to read bible scriptures in school. This debate decides who gets more power "Gays" or "religious people". Most people who are allowed to marry wed others are religious officials and there is very few people who are not religious figures, who allowed to perform these ceremonies. Which makes marriage mostly are religious practice.

Click to expand...

I can't make heads or tails of this.

Again your personal attacks are not proving anything. You have presented nothing proving your case, just stating that you are right and I am wrong over and over. Your argument is "Its true since I say so". Religion can in fact be involved in marriage. Also there would not be a debate about it if there was not religion somehow involved in marriage? If there was no involvement there would be no debate. Which means you are saying the debate does not really exist. Which it is very apparent it does.

MisterLogical said:

Again your personal attacks are not proving anything. You have presented nothing proving your case, just stating that you are right and I am wrong over and over. Which means everything you say is hogwash. You also do not know how to read since I just explained what a clergy was and yes religious officials can in fact wed people. Your argument is "Its true since I say so". Religion can in fact be involved in marriage. Also there would not be a debate about it if there was not religion somehow involved in marriage? If there was no involvement there would be no debate. Which means you are saying the debate does not really exist.

Click to expand...

Translation: you still cant support any of the lies you posted or back up and of the claims that got destroyed and you are now dodging. Thats what i thought, let us know when you can, THanks!

Clergy can wed people cause they get a license to do so like everybdoy else they cant wed people just because they are clergy LMAO FAIL
I never said religion cant be involved in marriage, again posting lies doesnt help your failed post, i said religion factually has nothing to do with legal marriage.

Legal marriage and religious marriage are separate things. Sometimes people do them together but they are in fact separate things.

You post fails and gets destroyed again.
Facts, laws, rights, court cases and the constitution all prove you wrong

MisterLogical said:

Again your personal attacks are not proving anything. You have presented nothing proving your case, just stating that you are right and I am wrong over and over. Your argument is "Its true since I say so". Religion can in fact be involved in marriage. Also there would not be a debate about it if there was not religion somehow involved in marriage? If there was no involvement there would be no debate. Which means you are saying the debate does not really exist. Which it is very apparent it does.

Click to expand...

You've misunderstood the situation. You do not have a right to force your religious interpretations onto other sovereign Americans. Marriage is a fundamental human right and not something only meant for straight christians. I'm sorry that equal rights upsets you, but you're just going to have to learn to deal with it because it's not going away. If you feel differently, please quote specifically where in the constitution it says YOU have the right to force your religion on others.

This woman is not in jail for refusing to sign some papers, she's in jail because she actively prevented OTHER CLERKS who were willing to sign the licenses from signing them. Would you be ok with it if a muslim clerk blocked all christian marriages in a county?

MisterLogical said:

I do not see how you can say its objectively wrong to be gay or how that is related to anything said in the above post.

Usually the state laws provide any recognized member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.), or a judge, a court clerk, and justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage. However in some states even the clergy must be first certified or licensed. I will now post what CLERGY means.
cler·gy
ˈklərjē/Submit
noun
the body of all people ordained for religious duties, especially in the Christian Church

There is more than one religion that is in fact against gay marriage. So to legalize gay marriage and say that all religious officials must wed gays is technically going against that persons religious rights. Now we all have rights. We are suppose to not be discriminated against for being Gay, religious, a female/male, and those sort of things. Yet this issue seems to be taking something from both sides. Its not really as simple as most people would believe since if you look at it from the laws point of view both groups should be protected.

Perform Marriage Ceremony » Officiants Requirements » by State If you read for each state its mostly religious officials who are allowed to wed people. So technically they could make a case for not wanting to wed someone under religious rights.



https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

They also argued for the removal of "Dont ask, Dont tell" Since it was discriminating against gay people.

You also don't really prove your case. Simply insulting someone since you don't agree with them does not prove anything. It proves you are petty.

Click to expand...

Very few in the U.S. advocate forcing religious officials to conduct any ceremony they oppose. Clergy can refuse to perform marriage services for any reason, including race and religion. This doesn't change any rules that govern clergy and who they can refuse to marry.

MisterLogical said:

Again your personal attacks are not proving anything. You have presented nothing proving your case, just stating that you are right and I am wrong over and over. Your argument is "Its true since I say so". Religion can in fact be involved in marriage. Also there would not be a debate about it if there was not religion somehow involved in marriage? If there was no involvement there would be no debate. Which means you are saying the debate does not really exist. Which it is very apparent it does.

Click to expand...

Religion can be involved in marriage, but that is separate from legal marriage. Clergy can sign legal marriage licenses as a matter of convenience. They are free to refuse to sign that paper if they wish, and just do a religious ceremony, then the couple can choose to get the legal marriage or not without that clergy.

MisterLogical said:

You again do not really give any real case, just mindless insults which shows you are not very educated and so have no room calling anyone a child. I thought this was a debate forum not a playground. If this is really how you discuss things you should go back to preschool so the teachers can show you how to present yourself. I also already presented evidence proving the point already. It in fact does if a Minister can legally wed someone. Also there has been cases about religious officials not wanting to wed gay people and getting in trouble for it. Which I thought would arise sooner or later. Though this issue has been going on for awhile anyways and I never think it will stop being an issue. The simple reason being that no one is ever going to completely agree. Kentucky clerk Kim Davis JAILED for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses | Daily Mail Online It can be considered a violation according to the amendment.
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Which could be used as a defense if someone really wanted to push it.

Click to expand...

She is not a clergy member, and even if she were, issuing marriage licenses from the state is a government act, not a religious act, so she has no right to refuse to do so for some certain couples (who meet the legal requirements) nor for all couples since one of the duties of her office, her job is to issue state marriage licenses. If she is unable to separate personal marriage (where religious marriage falls) from legal marriage then she needs to resign.

joG said:

I am sure you actually believe that. The fellow might have used unlawyerly language. But it says something very true. Of course, you dislike the content.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a kid in high school to me too. Needs to take Freshman composition and Junior technical writing in college after high school graduation.

RabidAlpaca said:

Marriage is a fundamental human right and not something only meant for straight christians . . . it's not going away.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court referred to marriage as a fundamental right in several cases, but they all involved the marriage of one man and one woman. There was no reason whatever, at least until two months ago, to think the Court was referring to any other form. Maybe, before long, we can expect a decree from one of the legislators on the Court that some part of the Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to incestuous marriage, or polygamy.

I don't think it's likely that the flagrantly unconstitutional dictate by Anthony Kennedy and his four fellow lawmakers will be nullified any time soon, but neither you nor anyone else has any way of knowing that "it's not going away." The Supreme Court is, and was always meant to be, by far the weakest of the three branches of the federal government. Both Congress and the president have a number of ways available to them to check the Court, and they have used some of them in the past. I've written about that in detail in other threads here.

At the end of his dissenting opinion in Obergefell, Justice Scalia very pointedly noted that the Court has no way to enforce its decisions, and must rely on the Executive and the states to do that. The popular support for same-sex marriage that had been growing might sour, if the proponents of the homosexual agenda continue to try to push religious believers around. Tolerating a lifestyle you consider immoral or sinful is one thing. Having people who follow that lifestyle try to force you to celebrate it, against your beliefs, is something else again.

I think I got cancer from the first post.

MisterLogical said:

Since both groups are protected. Gay people can not be discriminated against for being gay (not hiring you for being gay, not letting you in a bar since you are gay). Religion rights says you can do whatever you wish as long as it breaks no major laws (No rape, killing, stealing in name of religion). It also says you cant be forced to follow another persons beliefs if you don't believe in it. Like we cant force everyone to attend Jewish ceremony since some of us are Jewish. However you are free to if you wish.There was a case of a female not wedding gays since she did not believe in homosexuality. Now technically she did not break the law, and this should still fall in her religious rights. Since while we are allowed to practice homosexuality we are not allowed to force anyone to agree with it. Just like Christians can not force people to go to church and worship god, according to separation of church and state. As well as that most officials who are actually considered able to wed people are religious officials which means its mostly a religious practice. If this is the case, we should not be forcing them to follow another persons believe as long as its not doing something like murder, killing, stealing.. That sort of stuff in the name of religion. Forcing religious officials to marry gays is the same as forcing someone to read bible scriptures in school. This debate decides who gets more power "Gays" or "religious people". Most people who are allowed to marry wed others are religious officials and there is very few people who are not religious figures, who allowed to perform these ceremonies. Which makes marriage mostly are religious practice.

Click to expand...

I think to summarize this, for a government to actually support separation of church and state AND promote religious liberty, the Government should not perform any function wherein a religious conflict could reasonably arise. The reason for this is that the existence of a job that conflicts with the adherence to religious beliefs is, by design, discriminatory to applicants of that religion, and where a conflict is unavoidable there should be an exemption in place to accommodate (like conscientious objectors in wartime).

matchlight said:

The Supreme Court referred to marriage as a fundamental right in several cases, but they all involved the marriage of one man and one woman. There was no reason whatever, at least until two months ago, to think the Court was referring to any other form. Maybe, before long, we can expect a decree from one of the legislators on the Court that some part of the Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to incestuous marriage, or polygamy.

I don't think it's likely that the flagrantly unconstitutional dictate by Anthony Kennedy and his four fellow lawmakers will be nullified any time soon, but neither you nor anyone else has any way of knowing that "it's not going away." The Supreme Court is, and was always meant to be, by far the weakest of the three branches of the federal government. Both Congress and the president have a number of ways available to them to check the Court, and they have used some of them in the past. I've written about that in detail in other threads here.

At the end of his dissenting opinion in Obergefell, Justice Scalia very pointedly noted that the Court has no way to enforce its decisions, and must rely on the Executive and the states to do that. The popular support for same-sex marriage that had been growing might sour, if the proponents of the homosexual agenda continue to try to push religious believers around. Tolerating a lifestyle you consider immoral or sinful is one thing. Having people who follow that lifestyle try to force you to celebrate it, against your beliefs, is something else again.

Click to expand...

At no point during any of this did you give a single reason why we should deny rights to minority groups you don't like. All American citizens are supposed to have equal representation under the law, and states who actively prevented citizens from entering into marriage contracts with each other was clearly unconstitutional.

I'll never understand what kind of hate someone must have to try to deny other minority groups rights that they themselves enjoy. Respect the rights of your fellow Americans and recognize that this has no effect on your life whatsoever. Equal rights for all.