- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Boom! Beat me to the punch.
Loving vs Va was all about race discrimination not sexual orientation
Boom! Beat me to the punch.
Loving vs Va was all about race discrimination not sexual orientation
Reading your posts is a challenge and even harder because you don't comprehend what your reading. Hypothetically speaking if there was a law you didn't agree with would you obey it.(for crying out loud) The religious belief that homosexuality is a sin is quite clear all over the bible and to ask a Christian to set a side they're beliefs for deviate behavior is intolerant.
No, actually is it the malcontents like you and other supporters of SSM
Race is a protected class. Laws saying that races can only marry their own race are unconstitutional.
Gender is a protected class. Laws saying that you have to marry a specific gender are unconstitutional.
There are no laws that say homosexuals (sexual orientation) can not marry.
There ARE laws that say a man and a man (gender) can not marry.
The hardcore cons keep buying their own BS. Even many of the red states are seeing the light.
The SC has never ruled on the definition of marriage allowing the states to do that. They have had numerous opportunities to do so and have declined. They have always been partial to the state decisions on their own laws and have remain loyal to that opinion allowing the number of states to pass SSM decisions. That is where this issue belongs and always has belonged, not in the courts. You tell me why it is so important to overturn centuries of common law and the basics of the Bible and Christianity starting with Genesis where Adam and Eve were created and a wife mentioned. What possible benefit could a SS Couple get out of the term marriage that they couldn't get out of a Civil Union or Domestic Partnership? Why do a small vocal minority deserve this much attention on an issue that isn't in the Constitution?
Red states are being forced by the courts to do something they disagree with and that is the problem.
Would Christ refuse to feed a homosexual?
Yes, race is a protected class, the issue was a man and a woman wanting to get married in Va. They met the laws of the state but were denied based upon race. That is why it was overturned, has nothing to do with SSM
Yes, there are laws against SSM, those laws are being changed int he states and that is where the issue belongs. You change the laws in 50 states, so be it, but stay out of the courts. As it stands right now, in TX you have the same rights as I have, to marry someone of the opposite sex that will have you. No discrimination, state law
So the courts forced the AZ gov to veto that bill? Who knew?
Yes, race is a protected class, the issue was a man and a woman wanting to get married in Va. They met the laws of the state but were denied based upon race. That is why it was overturned, has nothing to do with SSM
Yes, there are laws against SSM, those laws are being changed int he states and that is where the issue belongs. You change the laws in 50 states, so be it, but stay out of the courts. As it stands right now, in TX you have the same rights as I have, to marry someone of the opposite sex that will have you. No discrimination, state law
The courts are there specifically for this purpose. Their JOB is to determine the constitutionality of laws.
I see you didn't respond to the FACT the gender is a protected class, and laws against same sex marriage are based on GENDER since no state bans a homosexual (sexual orientation) from getting married.
At one time states had marriage laws regarding the race you were allowed to marry. They were found to be unconstitutional through the courts doing their job.
Loving v Virginia held that marriage is a fundamental right.
And whenever I hear that silly argument, "you have the same rights as I have, to marry someone of the opposite sex..."
I think of this:
The bill that was vetoed had nothing to do with marriage
No, it doesn't.and the bill that was vetoed mirrors Federal law. You have no idea what you are talking about again as you read the headlines but not the story
Loving v Virginia held that marriage is a fundamental right.
And whenever I hear that silly argument, "you have the same rights as I have, to marry someone of the opposite sex..."
I think of this:
Except the words of the people who crafted it said the same-sex photography case their motivation. Try again.
No, it doesn't.
I agree - the silly arguments made by social cons are nothing but temper tantrums, because they know, like so many of their causes, they find themselves on the wrong side of history.So where does it stop, daughters marrying their sister, brothers marrying their brother, family members marrying other blood relatives. You people have no idea what you are doing and that is what is sad, all because of a selfish desire to have a title that you don't deserve and simply want attention. Civil unions work, domestic partnerships work, but no, this is nothing more than a temper tantrum
Wow, getting desperate now,
equating marriage which is common law to eating which is a requirement to live.
Yes, race is a protected class, the issue was a man and a woman wanting to get married in Va. They met the laws of the state but were denied based upon race. That is why it was overturned, has nothing to do with SSM Yes, there are laws against SSM, those laws are being changed int he states and that is where the issue belongs. You change the laws in 50 states, so be it, but stay out of the courts. As it stands right now, in TX you have the same rights as I have, to marry someone of the opposite sex that will have you. No discrimination, state law
I agree - the silly arguments made by social cons are nothing but temper tantrums, because they know, like so many of their causes, they find themselves on the wrong side of history.
Another CON not understand how our system works... if the courts didn't use the Constitution as a yardstick for laws states pass there would be little if any real social progress, such as racial equality. The Courts look at laws and determine if they pass Constitutional muster.
It isn't a simple matter of citizens of a state can pass a bad law and we are done... other citizens can challenge that law IN COURT and redress their grievances.
It works both ways as the recent Heller decision overturned a law that had been 'sacred' since 1976, enacted in response to a crack epidemic, not to keep righteous folks from having weapons (funny how the CONs love to ignore why a ban can to be)
As a law since 1976 was overturned (and should have been) so to shall SSM bans/definitions of marriage as hetro only and 'defending hetro marriage' be history...
Show me marriage or sexual orientation in the Constitution. How does not being married affect a SSM couple and thus subject to protection under the Constitution. The state of TX authorizes civil unions and domestic partnerships. You seem to want what you want and ignore state or common law trying to force your opinions and views on others and putting into the Constitution that which isn't there
It is a right guaranteed to two people of the opposite sex. Loving vs Va was a civil rights issue having to do with race.
History has a way of repeating itself and the temper tantrum you and others are throwing are going to back fire on you. We are a nation of laws and the Arizona law invoked religious freedom which is in the Constitution. You and your ilk have no business telling a private business that has their own money invested in that business who they can or cannot serve. Let the market decide and let these screwballs that refuse to serve a particular religious or other groups to go out of business because of all the lost business.