@sdarms111 he is handsome for a butt fucker.. isn't he..!! who would guess that he eats and makes love to poop.. well fucks poop as gays are incapable of love.
@robtish you filthy shit eating queer ..In a study published in the January 1996 issue of Developmental Psychology, London researchers Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker found that children raised by a homosexual parent were much more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior themselves. Thats because you faggots rape kids..a child molester is 17 times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual. 3Larry Burtoft, The Social Significance of Homosexuality: 64, 90.
@myhairyscapegoat Wow... somebody has some seriously twisted fantasies. I suspect he turned you down and you didn't take it too well. That's OK honey, someone will come along, just keep trying.
Forgive my stupidity, but how do you do the animations, moving graphics around and then put them on the same frame as the video of you? It's very effective.
The *best* part of this video is that within hours of the Prop 8 judgement Brian Brown of NOM issued a video BEGGING for money. Rob, you've really got their number!
I'm Steven and I am gay. My boyfriend was complaining about the state of my hole so I recently had it bleached. My friends and my boyfriend love it and I am really happy with the extra attention I am getting!
kenballer00 Just so you know, and unlike you, there is proof, theory, history and science to this that is -very- well known by 90% of the world (american's are the other 10%. Go educational system!) that homosexual behavior is a result of overpopulation of any and all particular breeds. So is suicide, and mass diseases, especially in Mycobacterium spp. and plague bacterium. So before you spit out about cultural influences, best acknowledge the scientific views too.
HAHAHA... that is damn right: These are the people who have no other skills to do real honest work. I've worked with far too many christians and they are stupid, lazy and incompetent, and in spite of that - they're arrogant!
So, they do well in work environments where their deviancy and personality disorders come in handy -- like religious organizations fighting "culture wars".
This would be a great point if America was a democracy and not a democratic republic. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, that's why we need representation for all tax payers in the government so that we can legislate abhorrent, but popular practices out of our system of government.
Yeah right!... I'll send money for that cause when as my good friend Flo the waitress used to say "When Donkeys Fly"... Seriously, what a bunch of JACKASSES.
@mistergarth What are you talking about? This video has better production values than most Vlogs on Youtube. The message is what matters, not the audio quality (which you can hear perfectly well!)
Good job! Of course there is no valid argument. Fear mongering and lies don't hold up well in court because you must actually have proof of what you say.
no the state or the defendants do not have to prove any of the claims they made because the burden of proof is on you. you see sexual orientation is not a suspect or quasi-suspect class which would require a compelling state interests and therefore, some type of evidence or proof. all that is required is a rational basis which entails making a philosophical claim or argument that can be logically understood and only some basis in reality not Proof
You dumb blow hard know it all idiot, we're going to stuff proposition 8 up your ass! Go fuck your self, and before you tell someone whom they may, or may not marry, kill yourself!
@kenballer00 Once Vaughn Walker is finished with his legal opinion, you'll never vote on my marriage rights again, and you can't do a god-damn thing about it!
SCOTUS may rule against us, but they'll just be setting up the need for another embarrassing reversal later on, as with Bowers v. Hardwick. We gays aren't going away, and this issue isn't going away either because we're right.
Lawrence v. Texas: "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."
in addition, the same majority in Lawerence vs. Texas and Romer vs. Evans that ruled that homosexuals had a human right to sodomize also said that the decision does not reach up to same sex marriage and this case happened in 2003. so it doesn't look like there is five justices according to this quote by Kennedy:
"The present case......does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."
Glancing over the four! cases you mentioned in response to my one, I see a trend. The cracks in the case law used against us are widening. Romer said we can't be denied protection. Lawrence nixed "sodomy" laws--one less reason to deny us marriage under Baker. You can't keep discriminating against us forever just because you've done it before. The ashheap of history awaits opinions and attitudes such as yours.
OH PLEASE, Even if the U.S. supreme court overturns Baker or the country establishes gender neutral marriage into our constitution, same sex couples still would not and cannot be married because it is impossible by nature. there is no such thing as gay marriage. what societies, religions, and governments (including our country) call "marriage" actually flows from our very human nature. it is a relationship that we apply the word "marriage" to, but the relationship is what comes first
Yes, I totally understand. And regardless of what judges rule, women will never be voters.
Seriously, you need to understand that CIVIL marriage, like "voter," is a legal concept defined by the government. And...if you believe that marriage is a religious concept rather than a legal concept, well, plenty of churches are willing to marry gay couples. So either way, you lose. Sorry.
U.S. Federal constitutional law has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE procreation into a stable environment where there is two biological married parents. something same sex couples cannot do.
@kenballer00 Protect marriage? Puhlease. With a 50 percent divorce rate, rampant domestic violence, Las Vegas drive-through chapels, and I wanna-marry-a-really-rich-guy reality TV shows, there's no way gays could trash marriage the way straight people have. -- Good Times / Santa Cruz County News
@kenballer00 Baker was not federally reviewed so you are ignorant, mistaken, or lying. Loving was tossed out because there was no reason that white and nonwhite marriage should be prohibited so you are ignorant, mistaken, or lying. Murphy dealt with voter registration not involving a state of the union so you are ignorant, mistaken, or lying.
since the Baker case was on MANDATORY appellate review, A "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is a decision on the merits that is binding in cases Hicks v. Miranda. they clearly outline that summary decisions are in fact decisions on the merits that are binding on all lower FEDERAL courts.
Therefore, the same-sex union as a constitutional right argument was so frivolous to them the U.S. supreme court rejected it without any further review
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535, (1942)"
SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA , 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
the quote i just showed you was from the Skinner v. Oklahoma U.S. supreme court case that the Loving court mentioned right after the quote they said to make it apparent what they meant. its also the same quote or portion of case that the Minnesota and U.S supreme court used in their justification for rejecting gay marriage. so it is not just one judge but multiple supreme court justices in multiple eras of American history that understand the purpose of marriage and definition of it
@kenballer00 A fact of reality that Prop8 proponents will not admit or talk about: There are millions of kids brutalized & abused by their natural, biological, 1man1woman parents.
My x-wife had biological mom & dad who sexually abused her &her sis. Then on to abusive foster homes.
Kids need an environment where they are safe loved-Period-They do not care if it's two moms! or two dads! Kids of s/s cpls do as well or bettr than of "traditional" cpls. There's 20+ years of documentation of this.
@kenballer00 With current technology same-sex marriage PROMOTES procreation, and there is no proof what-so-ever that one needs a mother and father to care for them to become psychologically stable productive members in society. If this were true, why do the vast majority of single parents raise good children that are just as emotionally solid as children raised by a mother and father. Although, I suppose your ignorance of grammar should have been an indication of your ignorance to thought.
same sex couples cannot procreate accidently but its always intended which is a obvious difference. Plus, Almost Every study demonstrates that children from two biological married parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement compared to kids in single parent homes and others
@kenballer00 No, the only intention of having sex with the same gender is for intimacy and pleasure, obviously they cannot procreate through this means. Also, note that I said emotionally, socially single parent homes may not have access to larger funds because of the lack of two incomes. But please tell me what is morally wrong with two people of the same-sex getting married and having children like everyone else.
We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights down the future or have marriage recognition within the U.S. from other countries without actually legally performing them in the U.S. , that means if a same sex couple gets legally married in Canada and comes back to the U.S. to have it recognized but not performed i am all for it. This would solve your problem and give you the title marriage without having the state force us to accept your corrupted worldview
@kenballer00 How does that make any sense? You are okay with homosexual couples getting married in Canada, and then coming back to the United States, but against having this conducted here? America was a nation founded on freedom, specifically religious freedom. I find it horrific and idiotic how Christians continue to force their beliefs on America. Also, you support homosexual civil unions but not marriage? Is that insignificant word really that important?
@kenballer00 Secondly, please tell me what is wrong with homosexuality. It causes no harm to society, so why are you so against it? If your beliefs are to not engage in homosexual acts, then do not, but don't make everyone else subscribe to them. That is just arrogant and selfish. Lastly, I wonder why Christians are so against homosexuality, when in the Bible (New Testament) it promotes sexism. Why do they not fight for lessening woman's rights? Because they know it's wrong.
OH PLEASE, nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
@kenballer00 Actually, it is the opposite. Gays are not (generally) allowed to express attraction in Church, if they do they are most likely thrown out. Also, when you enter this "public sphere" of Civil unions, it has nothing to do with people's opinions (which pertaining to sexuality, often come from the Church), it has to do solely with people's rights.
Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy.
@kenballer00 "Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else". Nor do they want special rights, they want equal rights. So, specifically, what do you support?
How would allowing same sex couples to marry change what marriage is for everybody else? Be specific. Also, are you going to address my previous questions?
@xlanciferionx YES teachers are suppose to teach the truth but not their political opinions or the promotion of somebody else's way of living or social issues of life especially at FIVE years old. we are not talking about homosexuality but gay marriage or redefining marriage into the PUBLIC sphere. promoting gay marriage IS promoting a political opinion and therefore indoctrination:
How is teaching children that some kids have same sex parents a "political opinion?"
"into the PUBLIC sphere"
Marriage has always been in the public sphere. Ergo, any changes to it are going to be to the public sphere.
"promoting...indoctrination"
In that vein, so is teaching children about abolitionists, women's suffrage, or the civil rights movement, and showing the ills of those that opposed them, which is done all the time in schools.
@kenballer00 If you took a vote during the 1800s, on whether that slaves should be given freedom, the majority of people would have voted not to. Although the majority was against Lincoln's decision, he allowed this because their rights were not being met.
allowing the infertile or old couples to get married does not infringe on the state's objectives to promote the definition of marriage but for same sex couples it does
@kenballer00 And how many children are being raised by "two biological married parents"? A small minority. So why not "protect" marriage by making divorce illegal.
@WellConditioned We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights (including federal) down the future or marriage recognition elsewhere without having to redefining marriage for everyone as i said to xlanciferionx
Bullshit. That's just a stall tactic, and it would still deny same sex couples of their basic human right to marriage. No matter what, civil unions will always deny same sex couples the right to marriage, and thus, are not equal.
You said: "Almost Every study demonstrates that children from two biological married parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement compared to kids in single parent homes and others"
The words "almost every" must mean something different where you come from, because I can't find ANY objective, scientific studies that demonstrate what you claim. Basically, I'm making fun of you.
@kenballer00 No I saw your other comments, but they just further show that you don't get the legal concept of marriage. The religious aspect is a preference and not the natural understanding of marriage.
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis....This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation"
In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
"...the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure
foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement"
The point of all the quotes is that traditional marriage is a SECULAR reality as well as a common held religious belief, so there is no religious encroachment in civil matters here
it is you and gay activists who are trying to use the government or law to super impose their will and convoluted idea of equality, civil rights, and liberty not the other way around
@kenballer00 Sure, but look at the date on the quote you just posted. Don't you think that the morality behind social and political improvement has become more sophisticated in recent years as to not exclude individuals from basic human rights? And we are not trying to impose our will, but rather reverse the existing religious encroachment that has come from your "convoluted" ideas of equality, civil rights, and liberty.
OH PLEASE, gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children which the state promotes according to over a centuries worth of federal constitutional law. what your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense
@kenballer00 Okay now you just stopped making sense (as if you made any sense before). If "common sense" to you is not allowing two people of the same sex to have a loving relationship that is awarded the same rights as heterosexual couples... then it's obviously not worth sitting here and trying to help you see through your blindness. I will, however, help you on a journey to ban marriage for infertile people. Since they can't rear children they obviously shouldn't marry. It's common sense!
Again, nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
@kenballer00 Which is exactly what we are fighting for... Religious marriage doesn't matter. It's personal. But Civil marriage is what matters. And when that is defined by religious opinion it's a problem. When you subtract all the religious evidence against civil marriage there are literally no compelling arguments against gay marriage in the legal sense. "Marriage" is just a word, and legally defining it by the religious understanding of it is wrong and unfair.
the state is not there to issue love licenses. the main purpose of civil marriage is to PROMOTE procreation and rearing of kids. we don't allow same sex marriage for the same reason we don't allow incest and polygamy. this is why its a privilege, hence the word "license", because the state does have a right to discriminate against those type of relationships for legitimate state interests and not against interracial marriage because it affirms marriage ( loving v. Virginia/baker v. nelson)
@kenballer00 What about couples (both homo and hetero) that adopt? What about two married females who use a sperm donor? Two males who use a surrogate? A hetero couple that uses in vitro? In all of those scenarios, children are created and/or raised. Therefore, granting gay marriages would be in the state's interest because it creates an environment in which children can be raised.
Exactly, and thats why We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights (including adoptoin rights) down the future or have marriage recognition within the U.S. from other countries without actually legally performing them in the U.S. , that means if a same sex couple gets legally married in Canada and comes back to the U.S. to have it recognized but not performed i am all for it which would give you the title of marriage as well
That's fucking retarded. If you don't have a problem with it happening outside of the US and being recognized inside the US, then why would it matter where they got married? Seriously. Fucking retarded.
YES i am for civil unions, and gay marriage in a religious and legal sense. HOWEVER, i am against redefining what marriage is to just two people. There is a difference. when a state legally performs gay marriages within jurisdiction, the state makes no distinction between traditional marriage and gay marriage. According to the state, Marriage is marriage.The government starts to rearrange businesses, media, and schools according to that definition
You would choose to degrade the very institution that you wish to protect by removing the one thing that sets it apart from any other contract, its uniqueness of being the only contract to combine households? Retarded.
"no distinction"
By recognizing out of country SSM's, the distinction is already removed. So, again, why would it matter where they get married?
"rearrange"
How so? Be specific. I don't see the logical connection there.
in Connecticut (i think New hampshire as well) lawmakers both in the House (vote 100-44) and in the Senate (vote 28-7) agreed to repeal all the old marriage laws and fully replace them with genderless quotes and all references to marriage will be fully gender-neutral. This did not and does not happen in New york and New Mexico where they recognize out of state marriages. But just think about it. D.C. had out of state recognition and civil unions but redefine marriage anyways.
Big fucking deal. This has nothing to do with anything that I've asked.
Recognizing SSM's from outside of the country redefines marriage. It's no longer one man and one woman, since marriages between same sex couples would be recognized. So, why would it matter where they get married, if you're just going to recognize it anyhow?
How would same sex marriage rearrange businesses, schools, and media?
"Recognizing SSM's from outside of the country redefines marriage."
NO ITS DOES NOT. D.C is a perfect example as well as New york. gay activists would not be fighting right now to redefine marriage in New york and the opponents would not be fighting back if that were the case
"all marriages are between one man and one woman, and there are no other types of marriages recognized, correct? "
In D.C., it use to be between a man and a woman as well as recognize ,but not perform, gay marriages from out of state and have civil unions
Now, marriage is define as just between Two people and have or will start to repeal old laws or situations that says marriage is between a man and a woman just like other states and countries
Okay...so then, marriage has been redefined in D.C., contrary to what you claimed. I think you should take some time to read over what you write. You can't even keep your claims consistent. I'll take this sudden reversal of position as a retraction of your claim.
Still waiting for you to address my main question regarding why location matters. Also, it would be nice if you'd address my response regarding how business, schools, and media would be rearranged, but it's not of any importance, at this time. We can address that after you've shown how location matters. Not that you can show how it does, but I'm willing to humor the idea.
the question now becomes how does the state go about promoting the meaning of marriage. one way they is through the school's curriculum using taxpayer's money to support these public institutions and the media like TV. the other way is through terminology like changing books, laws, etc. that deal with gender specific terms. lastly, business are changed to fit the standards of the state by making certain symbols. with having marriage recognition out of state, none of this would be the case
What? Not one thing in this post is based upon fact. What changes are made that rearrange how business is done, by law? What changes are made that rearrange the schools? Since when does the government have a say in what the media portrays? Repeating your assertions in different words doesn't equate to answering the question.
Also, I'm still waiting for an answer to the first question that I had asked. Why does location matter, when outside marriages are recognized anyhow?
In 2006 the Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children
The schools are there to educate and prepare children for society. Homosexuals exist within society. The schools have a duty to teach the children this simple fact of life. How is teaching children that homosexuals exist rearranging the schools?
@xlanciferionx E Harmony, which is a private company run by a Christian, was forced to accommodate gay individuals preferences when it comes to dating services in California
Homosexual married couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.
No, it wasn't. They chose to launch a partner site, as a motion to settle out of court in NJ. The CA case was dismissed. Do your research.
"adopt children"
So can unwed homosexuals. Just as unwed heterosexuals can too. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with adoption.
"Catholic Charities"
In MA. They did this to avoid the law. They take government funding. They had other choices, like not taking public funds. The Mormons do it. Why can't they?
51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to ensure that:
(D) Family health and child development, including the LEGAL and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
Okay, big fucking deal. There is still no rearranging necessary, nor shown. You're zilch for five, on claims backed by truth and logic. During your research, did you even bother to ask yourself how any of this was the government rearranging any of these things, or even if there was a "rearrangement" to begin with? Also, still waiting on how location matters. Are you going to address our original topic, or concede the point?
also, i want to clarify what i mean by "rearrange". Some of it is pressured by the state rather than it be forced and this pressure come from gay activists would use the law to promote their definition of marriage once its legal. here watch the 4:20 mark and up of this video to see what i mean:
watch?v=0eM6Dr4siFA
lastly, i don't know what you are talking about when you ask "does location matters". Clarify.
You're elaborating on the claim, but not showing how there is any rearrangement. I'm not going to watch a video, when you can just show HOW these things are rearranged, by explaining it. If you don't understand what you're talking about, how do you expect others to understand?
"Clarify"
I'll break it down kindergarten simple for you, in another post.
"In that vein, so is teaching children about abolitionists, women's suffrage, or the civil rights movement, "
well if you can prove that gay marriage is a civil, human, and equal right, then i will concede your point but you have done that yet and prove that its a matter of fact rather than opinion
"In that vein, so is teaching children about abolitionists, women's suffrage, or the civil rights movement, "
well if you can prove that gay marriage is a civil, human, and equal right, then i will concede your point but you have done that yet and prove that its a matter of fact rather than opinion
"if a same sex couple gets legally married in Canada and comes back to the U.S. to have it recognized but not performed i am all for it which would give you the title of marriage"
To clarify this, our location is the US. You're okay with same sex marriage being done outside of our location, and still being considered a marriage. You are not okay with same sex marriage being performed in our location. Correct?
If they can still be legally married, why does location matter?
if gay marriages are performed and recognized by the within the jurisdiction their in of the U.S., The state starts to promote a different definition of marriage and you agree on this: "Marriage has always been in the public sphere. any changes to it are going to be to the public sphere"
But, if gay marriages are not performed within the U.S. but only recognized by the state coming from another state or country that does perform them within jurisdiction, the state will not redefine marriage
No. The defining characteristic of marriage, a contract that binds to households, does not change. Promoting stable relationships have grown to be the reason for marriage, over the years, starting with the granting of the right to own property being given to women. The state will still be promoting stable relationships.
@xlanciferionx if a same sex couple goes to Canada to get legally married and comes back to a state that recognizes gay marriage but does not perform them like New york, Yes they will still hold the status of marriage as long as they don't divorce
Then, by your own admission, the definition of marriage is changed. So, why would it matter if they were allowed to do so within their own location?
"on the contrary..."
On the contrary, the fact that there have been changes at all to marriage, means that it does change with society. Our society has changed. Our institutions should reflect this. Same sex couples should have the same basic human rights, since they are humans.
I do agree that the definition of who would enter into it would be redefined, but the state would still be promoting what it has promoted for well over a century and a half.
"not redefine marriage"
So, there will be no same sex couples that hold the status of married. Correct? If that's not, then the definition has been changed, per your own admission.
Either way, this isn't a compelling reason to withhold a basic human right. Definitions change with society.
on the contrary, federal constitutional law has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE procreation into a monogamous environment where there is two biological married parents.
So, the infertile, regardless of circumstance, cannot marry. There is a test for procreative ability and will. Is this correct? If not, then that is a flawed argument. That would mean that the ignorance of procreative inability or unwillingness is rather arbitrary, and a couple only need have the appearance, at the most basic informational level, of the heterosexual archetype. That is arbitrary discrimination. Based on that logic, any group can be excluded, even you.
i never said civil marriage was just there for procreation, but its to PROMOTE and MENTALLY encourage citizens to focus their natural feelings to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer way within stable relationships using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them in the best place, which means allowing the infertile to marry doesn't infringe on these objectives because these examples don't change the definition or the fact that a man and a woman can achieve this
A man and a woman can achieve this. So can a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a man and multiple women, or woman and multiple men.
"responsible"
Sorry, but how is it less responsible for same sex couples to have children? After all, they actually have to want the child enough to shell out the cash for the alternatives.
Besides, none of your other information even matters. If you are okay with the government recognizing outside marriages between same sex couples, then none of your arguments regarding promotion or redefining marriage are relevant. None of it would make a lick of sense, even if we were to accept your premise, due to the government's actions of redefining marriage.
"..... Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment"
"Cast in this light, the claim that the federal government may also have an interest in treating all same-sex couples alike, whether married or unmarried, plainly cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny."
Later on, it states:
"It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which [this court] could discern a relationship to legitimate [government] interests.”
To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification.
"As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
You have your cases. I have mine. The only difference is that mine is directly dealing with the topic of discussion.
"none of your other information even matters. If you are okay with the government recognizing outside marriages between same sex couples"
i thought we moved on from this. i told you that the state does not redefine marriage if it only recognizes gay marriage not performed them and gay activists know it. There's a difference. this is why location matters. Then you started to make the claim that gay marriage is a civil right and thats when started to bring court cases to refute it
Then, you thought wrong. You have not shown that the definition remains the same. Clearly, if the state is recognizing marriages that it previously didn't recognize, then the definition is changed. By all means, demonstrate how it isn't changed, when same sex couples can have the status of married, just like m/f couples.
"a difference"
What is it? Why would it matter, if they can have the status of married, anyhow? Did you honestly think this through?
D.C. recognized gay marriages from outside their jurisdiction before they legalized and performed them within it and when they did start to or about to legalize them the government told Catholic Dioceses that they would have to adopt their kids to same sex couples and i think other reasons as well but i cannot remember. so this is one example of the difference i was talking about
You do realize that Catholic Charities receives government funding, right? As such, they're bound by government regulations for receiving that money. They could have continued carrying out business, had they chose to do so. The choices were to no longer receive government funding, or follow government regulations against discrimination. Sorry, but requiring someone to follow regulations is hardly a change, or a difference in how things are done. Try again.
but it is an example of change that affects other people one way or another and thats my point. Government funds promote that new definition of marriage that is from taxpaying citizens. The Catholic church is no longer able to take state funds while staying true to their convictions and thats the difference whether you think its a compelling difference or not is irrevelant to the point i am making
Same sex couples, and homosexuals, are taxpaying citizens as well. Don't ignore that. If you're going to get state funding, then you're serving the state, and your religious convictions take a b
I love you.
roosterbare 1 year ago
This guy is so good looking straight guys stare at him
sdarms111 1 year ago
@sdarms111 he is handsome for a butt fucker.. isn't he..!! who would guess that he eats and makes love to poop.. well fucks poop as gays are incapable of love.
myhairyscapegoat 9 months ago
@robtish you filthy shit eating queer ..In a study published in the January 1996 issue of Developmental Psychology, London researchers Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker found that children raised by a homosexual parent were much more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior themselves. Thats because you faggots rape kids..a child molester is 17 times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual. 3Larry Burtoft, The Social Significance of Homosexuality: 64, 90.
myhairyscapegoat 9 months ago
@myhairyscapegoat Wow... somebody has some seriously twisted fantasies. I suspect he turned you down and you didn't take it too well. That's OK honey, someone will come along, just keep trying.
sdarms111 9 months ago
Comment removed
verysoliy 7 months ago
@verysoliy Ummm, no thanks
sdarms111 7 months ago
@myhairyscapegoat you must be a christian. I can always tell cause christians are the complete opposite of christ. anything but christlike
mkrulic517439 7 months ago
You, sir, are a gentleman, scholar, and a hero. Bra-fucking-vo
soccermomd00d 1 year ago
"doubloons". nice one. will you go on a date with me? mom would love you.
cherrydog9 1 year ago 2
youre a fag i cant tell cause there s som feces stuck in your teeth
tonykeywest08 1 year ago
@tonykeywest08 Keep it up, you bigot. You're losing, anyway, and your grandkids will be embarrassed by you.
OonaCanute 1 year ago 2
@OonaCanute Just ignore him. He has the intellect of a 12 year-old boy.
xothegirlz 1 year ago
yur hot
jeremimi 1 year ago
we all know how this case is going to end, justice kennedy, a supporter of love and equality, will end the hate (doma)
sunshine79768 1 year ago
Forgive my stupidity, but how do you do the animations, moving graphics around and then put them on the same frame as the video of you? It's very effective.
enzocerusico 1 year ago
The *best* part of this video is that within hours of the Prop 8 judgement Brian Brown of NOM issued a video BEGGING for money. Rob, you've really got their number!
dogdidit 1 year ago
today is the end of prop H8 and the begaining of the end of doma, today equality and love wins... this is good for the world
sunshine79768 1 year ago 9
@sunshine79768
Actually, the beginning of the end for the DOMA was July 8, 2010. However, this is just another nail in that oh, so beautiful coffin.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
I'm Steven and I am gay. My boyfriend was complaining about the state of my hole so I recently had it bleached. My friends and my boyfriend love it and I am really happy with the extra attention I am getting!
verysoliy 7 months ago
kenballer00 Just so you know, and unlike you, there is proof, theory, history and science to this that is -very- well known by 90% of the world (american's are the other 10%. Go educational system!) that homosexual behavior is a result of overpopulation of any and all particular breeds. So is suicide, and mass diseases, especially in Mycobacterium spp. and plague bacterium. So before you spit out about cultural influences, best acknowledge the scientific views too.
AchaiaDustt 1 year ago
*cracks up* This is great XD I love sarcastic people.
AchaiaDustt 1 year ago
I'm in love with you, Peter Barber Gallagher-Sprigg. :]
CyberSword13 1 year ago
I LOVE these videos. Keep making them!
CyberSword13 1 year ago
<3 I love that you're still making these videos. :)
sarabethbrooks 1 year ago
This. Was. FANTASTIC!
TheRobynmorin94 1 year ago
HAHAHA... that is damn right: These are the people who have no other skills to do real honest work. I've worked with far too many christians and they are stupid, lazy and incompetent, and in spite of that - they're arrogant!
So, they do well in work environments where their deviancy and personality disorders come in handy -- like religious organizations fighting "culture wars".
southernred8 1 year ago
I love you!!!
WaltersMama 1 year ago
Great video
rayhames 1 year ago
Your videos are awesome Rob. I would love to see these start coming more often from you.
bryanperf 1 year ago
Gag. Anything out of context could mean something else. Get a life, people. It's called democracy.
kuabci 1 year ago
@kuabci "It's called democracy."
This would be a great point if America was a democracy and not a democratic republic. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, that's why we need representation for all tax payers in the government so that we can legislate abhorrent, but popular practices out of our system of government.
pageboythehumanist 1 year ago
@pageboythehumanist I think you mean that's why we need individual rights enforced by courts. That's what counters the wolves outvoting the sheep.
xobear 1 year ago
@xobear Right, that too. xD
pageboythehumanist 1 year ago
Ha ha this is great
legacyspy 1 year ago
Yeah right!... I'll send money for that cause when as my good friend Flo the waitress used to say "When Donkeys Fly"... Seriously, what a bunch of JACKASSES.
BarryDMoss 1 year ago
"Everyone knows that reality has a liberal bias." -Colbert
==================================
"Gay marriage isn't what fucked up your marriage.
Your marriage is fucked up because you fucked it
up." -Wanda Sykes (paraphrase)
GlassAgate 1 year ago 24
This is very well observed
unplumbedgibbon 1 year ago
ROB FOR THE WIN!
That was AWESOME dude!
TezQuetz 1 year ago
An accurate, succinct, funny summary of the Prop 8 trial. I'm gonna show it to my friends. Thanks, Rob!
xobear 1 year ago
Grades: A for content; C- for engineering. Get a lapel microphone, for starters!
mistergarth 1 year ago
@mistergarth What are you talking about? This video has better production values than most Vlogs on Youtube. The message is what matters, not the audio quality (which you can hear perfectly well!)
bearchewtoy75 1 year ago
Thanks Rob/Peter, that made my morning. Especially after watching "8 - The Moron Proposition" last night.'
There may be no logic in hate, but there sure is a lot of power.
Bradshawful 1 year ago
NOM posted this on their Facebook page and now they're CRYING about it
iamwhoiamwhoiammark2 1 year ago
@iamwhoiamwhoiammark2 Of course they are. They know they're gonna lose round one of the Prop 8 trial.
bearchewtoy75 1 year ago
@iamwhoiamwhoiammark2 Which YT page? I didn't see anything. I just want to see what they're saying.
bearchewtoy75 1 year ago
Rob, you are so smart....and oh-so-totally HAWT! ;o)
MacMorrighan 1 year ago
Wow, reality is sad.
Those anti-gay idiots won, and that's just awful.
Doom2Guy 1 year ago
Good job! Of course there is no valid argument. Fear mongering and lies don't hold up well in court because you must actually have proof of what you say.
jackson23220 1 year ago 14
@jackson23220
no the state or the defendants do not have to prove any of the claims they made because the burden of proof is on you. you see sexual orientation is not a suspect or quasi-suspect class which would require a compelling state interests and therefore, some type of evidence or proof. all that is required is a rational basis which entails making a philosophical claim or argument that can be logically understood and only some basis in reality not Proof
kenballer00 1 year ago
You dumb blow hard know it all idiot, we're going to stuff proposition 8 up your ass! Go fuck your self, and before you tell someone whom they may, or may not marry, kill yourself!
sftenderloin 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Once Vaughn Walker is finished with his legal opinion, you'll never vote on my marriage rights again, and you can't do a god-damn thing about it!
sftenderloin 1 year ago 2
@sftenderloin
its just going to get appealed and eventually get back to the U.S supreme court to get rejected again
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
SCOTUS may rule against us, but they'll just be setting up the need for another embarrassing reversal later on, as with Bowers v. Hardwick. We gays aren't going away, and this issue isn't going away either because we're right.
Lawrence v. Texas: "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."
xobear 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Actually it's "the public sphere of CIVIL marriage" where we have a *right* to marriage because of the Equal Protection Clause.
xobear 1 year ago 2
@xobear
in addition, the same majority in Lawerence vs. Texas and Romer vs. Evans that ruled that homosexuals had a human right to sodomize also said that the decision does not reach up to same sex marriage and this case happened in 2003. so it doesn't look like there is five justices according to this quote by Kennedy:
"The present case......does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Glancing over the four! cases you mentioned in response to my one, I see a trend. The cracks in the case law used against us are widening. Romer said we can't be denied protection. Lawrence nixed "sodomy" laws--one less reason to deny us marriage under Baker. You can't keep discriminating against us forever just because you've done it before. The ashheap of history awaits opinions and attitudes such as yours.
xobear 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@xobear
OH PLEASE, Even if the U.S. supreme court overturns Baker or the country establishes gender neutral marriage into our constitution, same sex couples still would not and cannot be married because it is impossible by nature. there is no such thing as gay marriage. what societies, religions, and governments (including our country) call "marriage" actually flows from our very human nature. it is a relationship that we apply the word "marriage" to, but the relationship is what comes first
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Yes, I totally understand. And regardless of what judges rule, women will never be voters.
Seriously, you need to understand that CIVIL marriage, like "voter," is a legal concept defined by the government. And...if you believe that marriage is a religious concept rather than a legal concept, well, plenty of churches are willing to marry gay couples. So either way, you lose. Sorry.
robtish 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@robtish
HAHAHAHA..... Are you kidding me?
U.S. Federal constitutional law has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE procreation into a stable environment where there is two biological married parents. something same sex couples cannot do.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
You do of course realize that nothing in your reply addressed what I said.
robtish 1 year ago 9
@robtish
Ok, then what are you trying to say ?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@robtish Well.. Kinda proves the video, doesn't it? XD
AchaiaDustt 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Protect marriage? Puhlease. With a 50 percent divorce rate, rampant domestic violence, Las Vegas drive-through chapels, and I wanna-marry-a-really-rich-guy reality TV shows, there's no way gays could trash marriage the way straight people have. -- Good Times / Santa Cruz County News
heartlessxocean 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Baker was not federally reviewed so you are ignorant, mistaken, or lying. Loving was tossed out because there was no reason that white and nonwhite marriage should be prohibited so you are ignorant, mistaken, or lying. Murphy dealt with voter registration not involving a state of the union so you are ignorant, mistaken, or lying.
Llantha 1 year ago
@Llantha
since the Baker case was on MANDATORY appellate review, A "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is a decision on the merits that is binding in cases Hicks v. Miranda. they clearly outline that summary decisions are in fact decisions on the merits that are binding on all lower FEDERAL courts.
Therefore, the same-sex union as a constitutional right argument was so frivolous to them the U.S. supreme court rejected it without any further review
kenballer00 1 year ago
@Llantha
From Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535, (1942)"
SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA , 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Again, you need to read the whole thing and try to understand the concept of "compelling state interest."
Llantha 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Llantha
read what? what are you talking about?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@Llantha
read what?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@Llantha
the quote i just showed you was from the Skinner v. Oklahoma U.S. supreme court case that the Loving court mentioned right after the quote they said to make it apparent what they meant. its also the same quote or portion of case that the Minnesota and U.S supreme court used in their justification for rejecting gay marriage. so it is not just one judge but multiple supreme court justices in multiple eras of American history that understand the purpose of marriage and definition of it
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 A fact of reality that Prop8 proponents will not admit or talk about: There are millions of kids brutalized & abused by their natural, biological, 1man1woman parents.
My x-wife had biological mom & dad who sexually abused her &her sis. Then on to abusive foster homes.
Kids need an environment where they are safe loved-Period-They do not care if it's two moms! or two dads! Kids of s/s cpls do as well or bettr than of "traditional" cpls. There's 20+ years of documentation of this.
southernred8 1 year ago
@southernred8
civil unions with adoption rights can take care of the problem
kenballer00 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 With current technology same-sex marriage PROMOTES procreation, and there is no proof what-so-ever that one needs a mother and father to care for them to become psychologically stable productive members in society. If this were true, why do the vast majority of single parents raise good children that are just as emotionally solid as children raised by a mother and father. Although, I suppose your ignorance of grammar should have been an indication of your ignorance to thought.
flekhes 1 year ago
@flekhes
same sex couples cannot procreate accidently but its always intended which is a obvious difference. Plus, Almost Every study demonstrates that children from two biological married parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement compared to kids in single parent homes and others
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 No, the only intention of having sex with the same gender is for intimacy and pleasure, obviously they cannot procreate through this means. Also, note that I said emotionally, socially single parent homes may not have access to larger funds because of the lack of two incomes. But please tell me what is morally wrong with two people of the same-sex getting married and having children like everyone else.
flekhes 1 year ago
@flekhe
We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights down the future or have marriage recognition within the U.S. from other countries without actually legally performing them in the U.S. , that means if a same sex couple gets legally married in Canada and comes back to the U.S. to have it recognized but not performed i am all for it. This would solve your problem and give you the title marriage without having the state force us to accept your corrupted worldview
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 How does that make any sense? You are okay with homosexual couples getting married in Canada, and then coming back to the United States, but against having this conducted here? America was a nation founded on freedom, specifically religious freedom. I find it horrific and idiotic how Christians continue to force their beliefs on America. Also, you support homosexual civil unions but not marriage? Is that insignificant word really that important?
flekhes 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Secondly, please tell me what is wrong with homosexuality. It causes no harm to society, so why are you so against it? If your beliefs are to not engage in homosexual acts, then do not, but don't make everyone else subscribe to them. That is just arrogant and selfish. Lastly, I wonder why Christians are so against homosexuality, when in the Bible (New Testament) it promotes sexism. Why do they not fight for lessening woman's rights? Because they know it's wrong.
flekhes 1 year ago
@flekhes
OH PLEASE, nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Actually, it is the opposite. Gays are not (generally) allowed to express attraction in Church, if they do they are most likely thrown out. Also, when you enter this "public sphere" of Civil unions, it has nothing to do with people's opinions (which pertaining to sexuality, often come from the Church), it has to do solely with people's rights.
flekhes 1 year ago
@flekhes
Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 "Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else". Nor do they want special rights, they want equal rights. So, specifically, what do you support?
flekhes 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"redefine what marriage is for everybody else"
How would allowing same sex couples to marry change what marriage is for everybody else? Be specific. Also, are you going to address my previous questions?
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@xlanciferionx YES teachers are suppose to teach the truth but not their political opinions or the promotion of somebody else's way of living or social issues of life especially at FIVE years old. we are not talking about homosexuality but gay marriage or redefining marriage into the PUBLIC sphere. promoting gay marriage IS promoting a political opinion and therefore indoctrination:
watch?v=kiZE9UoiDDs
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"political opinions..."
How is teaching children that some kids have same sex parents a "political opinion?"
"into the PUBLIC sphere"
Marriage has always been in the public sphere. Ergo, any changes to it are going to be to the public sphere.
"promoting...indoctrination"
In that vein, so is teaching children about abolitionists, women's suffrage, or the civil rights movement, and showing the ills of those that opposed them, which is done all the time in schools.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@kenballer00 If you took a vote during the 1800s, on whether that slaves should be given freedom, the majority of people would have voted not to. Although the majority was against Lincoln's decision, he allowed this because their rights were not being met.
flekhes 1 year ago
@kenballer00 The truth is Christians just do not like people that are different; It is as simple as that.
flekhes 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Ken, please provide links to those studies. They generally don't look at same-sex couples AT ALL.
robtish 1 year ago 5
@kenballer00 Infertile couples can't procreate either.
CyberSword13 1 year ago
@CyberSword13
what's your point?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Marriage isn't about procreation, it is about love.
CyberSword13 1 year ago
@CyberSword13
according to society, YES marriage is about love but according to the state , its mainly about procreation
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 So wait, old couples and infertile couples don't get tax benefits, health benefits, etc... because they can't reproduce?
CyberSword13 1 year ago
@CyberSword13
allowing the infertile or old couples to get married does not infringe on the state's objectives to promote the definition of marriage but for same sex couples it does
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 And how many children are being raised by "two biological married parents"? A small minority. So why not "protect" marriage by making divorce illegal.
EPRVa62 1 year ago
@kenballer00 ...and this is a reason to deny same-sexed couples a civil contract because.....
WellConditioned 1 year ago
@WellConditioned We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights (including federal) down the future or marriage recognition elsewhere without having to redefining marriage for everyone as i said to xlanciferionx
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"We can always make sure that civil unions..."
Bullshit. That's just a stall tactic, and it would still deny same sex couples of their basic human right to marriage. No matter what, civil unions will always deny same sex couples the right to marriage, and thus, are not equal.
"...without having to redefining..."
It's already redefined.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Only if "Almost Every" means "Not a single" where you come from.
paulthegeek 1 year ago
@paulthegeek
what are you talking about?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
You said: "Almost Every study demonstrates that children from two biological married parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement compared to kids in single parent homes and others"
The words "almost every" must mean something different where you come from, because I can't find ANY objective, scientific studies that demonstrate what you claim. Basically, I'm making fun of you.
paulthegeek 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulthegeek
do you want me to give you the link to what i am saying?
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulthegeek
do you want me to give you a link to what i am saying?
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulthegeek
do you want me to give you a link to what i am saying?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 How is marriage impossible by nature? it is a legal contract, not a natural occurrence...
GenoWorld 1 year ago
@GenoWorld
you did not read both my comments that were linked together that answered your question
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 No I saw your other comments, but they just further show that you don't get the legal concept of marriage. The religious aspect is a preference and not the natural understanding of marriage.
GenoWorld 1 year ago
@G
U.S. supreme court decision in Baker v. Nelson:
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis....This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation"
kenballer00 1 year ago
@GenoW
In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
"...the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure
foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement"
kenballer00 1 year ago
@GenoWorld
The point of all the quotes is that traditional marriage is a SECULAR reality as well as a common held religious belief, so there is no religious encroachment in civil matters here
it is you and gay activists who are trying to use the government or law to super impose their will and convoluted idea of equality, civil rights, and liberty not the other way around
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Sure, but look at the date on the quote you just posted. Don't you think that the morality behind social and political improvement has become more sophisticated in recent years as to not exclude individuals from basic human rights? And we are not trying to impose our will, but rather reverse the existing religious encroachment that has come from your "convoluted" ideas of equality, civil rights, and liberty.
GenoWorld 1 year ago
@GenoWorld
OH PLEASE, gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children which the state promotes according to over a centuries worth of federal constitutional law. what your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Okay now you just stopped making sense (as if you made any sense before). If "common sense" to you is not allowing two people of the same sex to have a loving relationship that is awarded the same rights as heterosexual couples... then it's obviously not worth sitting here and trying to help you see through your blindness. I will, however, help you on a journey to ban marriage for infertile people. Since they can't rear children they obviously shouldn't marry. It's common sense!
GenoWorld 1 year ago
@GenoWorld
Again, nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Which is exactly what we are fighting for... Religious marriage doesn't matter. It's personal. But Civil marriage is what matters. And when that is defined by religious opinion it's a problem. When you subtract all the religious evidence against civil marriage there are literally no compelling arguments against gay marriage in the legal sense. "Marriage" is just a word, and legally defining it by the religious understanding of it is wrong and unfair.
GenoWorld 1 year ago
@Gen
the state is not there to issue love licenses. the main purpose of civil marriage is to PROMOTE procreation and rearing of kids. we don't allow same sex marriage for the same reason we don't allow incest and polygamy. this is why its a privilege, hence the word "license", because the state does have a right to discriminate against those type of relationships for legitimate state interests and not against interracial marriage because it affirms marriage ( loving v. Virginia/baker v. nelson)
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 What about couples (both homo and hetero) that adopt? What about two married females who use a sperm donor? Two males who use a surrogate? A hetero couple that uses in vitro? In all of those scenarios, children are created and/or raised. Therefore, granting gay marriages would be in the state's interest because it creates an environment in which children can be raised.
GenoWorld 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@GenoWorld
Exactly, and thats why We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights (including adoptoin rights) down the future or have marriage recognition within the U.S. from other countries without actually legally performing them in the U.S. , that means if a same sex couple gets legally married in Canada and comes back to the U.S. to have it recognized but not performed i am all for it which would give you the title of marriage as well
without redefining marriage
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 You are officially CRAZY!!! Thumbs up if you agree :)
GenoWorld 1 year ago 9
@GenoWorld
crazy about what? be rational
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
That's fucking retarded. If you don't have a problem with it happening outside of the US and being recognized inside the US, then why would it matter where they got married? Seriously. Fucking retarded.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@xlanciferionx
YES i am for civil unions, and gay marriage in a religious and legal sense. HOWEVER, i am against redefining what marriage is to just two people. There is a difference. when a state legally performs gay marriages within jurisdiction, the state makes no distinction between traditional marriage and gay marriage. According to the state, Marriage is marriage.The government starts to rearrange businesses, media, and schools according to that definition
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"YES i am for"
You would choose to degrade the very institution that you wish to protect by removing the one thing that sets it apart from any other contract, its uniqueness of being the only contract to combine households? Retarded.
"no distinction"
By recognizing out of country SSM's, the distinction is already removed. So, again, why would it matter where they get married?
"rearrange"
How so? Be specific. I don't see the logical connection there.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@xlanciferionx
in Connecticut (i think New hampshire as well) lawmakers both in the House (vote 100-44) and in the Senate (vote 28-7) agreed to repeal all the old marriage laws and fully replace them with genderless quotes and all references to marriage will be fully gender-neutral. This did not and does not happen in New york and New Mexico where they recognize out of state marriages. But just think about it. D.C. had out of state recognition and civil unions but redefine marriage anyways.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Big fucking deal. This has nothing to do with anything that I've asked.
Recognizing SSM's from outside of the country redefines marriage. It's no longer one man and one woman, since marriages between same sex couples would be recognized. So, why would it matter where they get married, if you're just going to recognize it anyhow?
How would same sex marriage rearrange businesses, schools, and media?
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@xlanciferionx
"Recognizing SSM's from outside of the country redefines marriage."
NO ITS DOES NOT. D.C is a perfect example as well as New york. gay activists would not be fighting right now to redefine marriage in New york and the opponents would not be fighting back if that were the case
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"NO ITS DOES NOT"
So, in D.C., all marriages are between one man and one woman, and there are no other types of marriages recognized, correct?
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@xlanciferionx
"all marriages are between one man and one woman, and there are no other types of marriages recognized, correct? "
In D.C., it use to be between a man and a woman as well as recognize ,but not perform, gay marriages from out of state and have civil unions
Now, marriage is define as just between Two people and have or will start to repeal old laws or situations that says marriage is between a man and a woman just like other states and countries
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"In D.C., it use to be..."
Okay...so then, marriage has been redefined in D.C., contrary to what you claimed. I think you should take some time to read over what you write. You can't even keep your claims consistent. I'll take this sudden reversal of position as a retraction of your claim.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@kenballer00 [continued]
Still waiting for you to address my main question regarding why location matters. Also, it would be nice if you'd address my response regarding how business, schools, and media would be rearranged, but it's not of any importance, at this time. We can address that after you've shown how location matters. Not that you can show how it does, but I'm willing to humor the idea.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
the question now becomes how does the state go about promoting the meaning of marriage. one way they is through the school's curriculum using taxpayer's money to support these public institutions and the media like TV. the other way is through terminology like changing books, laws, etc. that deal with gender specific terms. lastly, business are changed to fit the standards of the state by making certain symbols. with having marriage recognition out of state, none of this would be the case
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
What? Not one thing in this post is based upon fact. What changes are made that rearrange how business is done, by law? What changes are made that rearrange the schools? Since when does the government have a say in what the media portrays? Repeating your assertions in different words doesn't equate to answering the question.
Also, I'm still waiting for an answer to the first question that I had asked. Why does location matter, when outside marriages are recognized anyhow?
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@xlanci
In 2006 the Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"the schools"
The schools are there to educate and prepare children for society. Homosexuals exist within society. The schools have a duty to teach the children this simple fact of life. How is teaching children that homosexuals exist rearranging the schools?
xlanciferionx 1 year ago 2
@xlanciferionx E Harmony, which is a private company run by a Christian, was forced to accommodate gay individuals preferences when it comes to dating services in California
Homosexual married couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"E Harmony"
No, it wasn't. They chose to launch a partner site, as a motion to settle out of court in NJ. The CA case was dismissed. Do your research.
"adopt children"
So can unwed homosexuals. Just as unwed heterosexuals can too. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with adoption.
"Catholic Charities"
In MA. They did this to avoid the law. They take government funding. They had other choices, like not taking public funds. The Mormons do it. Why can't they?
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@xlanciferionx
California has marriage in the curriculum:
51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to ensure that:
(D) Family health and child development, including the LEGAL and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"California has marriage in the curriculum"
Okay, big fucking deal. There is still no rearranging necessary, nor shown. You're zilch for five, on claims backed by truth and logic. During your research, did you even bother to ask yourself how any of this was the government rearranging any of these things, or even if there was a "rearrangement" to begin with? Also, still waiting on how location matters. Are you going to address our original topic, or concede the point?
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@xlanciferionx
also, i want to clarify what i mean by "rearrange". Some of it is pressured by the state rather than it be forced and this pressure come from gay activists would use the law to promote their definition of marriage once its legal. here watch the 4:20 mark and up of this video to see what i mean:
watch?v=0eM6Dr4siFA
lastly, i don't know what you are talking about when you ask "does location matters". Clarify.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"Some of it is pressured..."
You're elaborating on the claim, but not showing how there is any rearrangement. I'm not going to watch a video, when you can just show HOW these things are rearranged, by explaining it. If you don't understand what you're talking about, how do you expect others to understand?
"Clarify"
I'll break it down kindergarten simple for you, in another post.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xlanciferionx
"In that vein, so is teaching children about abolitionists, women's suffrage, or the civil rights movement, "
well if you can prove that gay marriage is a civil, human, and equal right, then i will concede your point but you have done that yet and prove that its a matter of fact rather than opinion
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xlanciferionx
"In that vein, so is teaching children about abolitionists, women's suffrage, or the civil rights movement, "
well if you can prove that gay marriage is a civil, human, and equal right, then i will concede your point but you have done that yet and prove that its a matter of fact rather than opinion
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Per you:
"if a same sex couple gets legally married in Canada and comes back to the U.S. to have it recognized but not performed i am all for it which would give you the title of marriage"
To clarify this, our location is the US. You're okay with same sex marriage being done outside of our location, and still being considered a marriage. You are not okay with same sex marriage being performed in our location. Correct?
If they can still be legally married, why does location matter?
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
if gay marriages are performed and recognized by the within the jurisdiction their in of the U.S., The state starts to promote a different definition of marriage and you agree on this: "Marriage has always been in the public sphere. any changes to it are going to be to the public sphere"
But, if gay marriages are not performed within the U.S. but only recognized by the state coming from another state or country that does perform them within jurisdiction, the state will not redefine marriage
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"promote a different definition of marriage"
No. The defining characteristic of marriage, a contract that binds to households, does not change. Promoting stable relationships have grown to be the reason for marriage, over the years, starting with the granting of the right to own property being given to women. The state will still be promoting stable relationships.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@xlanciferionx if a same sex couple goes to Canada to get legally married and comes back to a state that recognizes gay marriage but does not perform them like New york, Yes they will still hold the status of marriage as long as they don't divorce
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"they will still hold the status of marriage"
Then, by your own admission, the definition of marriage is changed. So, why would it matter if they were allowed to do so within their own location?
"on the contrary..."
On the contrary, the fact that there have been changes at all to marriage, means that it does change with society. Our society has changed. Our institutions should reflect this. Same sex couples should have the same basic human rights, since they are humans.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@kenballer00 [continued]
I do agree that the definition of who would enter into it would be redefined, but the state would still be promoting what it has promoted for well over a century and a half.
"not redefine marriage"
So, there will be no same sex couples that hold the status of married. Correct? If that's not, then the definition has been changed, per your own admission.
Either way, this isn't a compelling reason to withhold a basic human right. Definitions change with society.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
on the contrary, federal constitutional law has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE procreation into a monogamous environment where there is two biological married parents.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"procreation"
So, the infertile, regardless of circumstance, cannot marry. There is a test for procreative ability and will. Is this correct? If not, then that is a flawed argument. That would mean that the ignorance of procreative inability or unwillingness is rather arbitrary, and a couple only need have the appearance, at the most basic informational level, of the heterosexual archetype. That is arbitrary discrimination. Based on that logic, any group can be excluded, even you.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
i never said civil marriage was just there for procreation, but its to PROMOTE and MENTALLY encourage citizens to focus their natural feelings to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer way within stable relationships using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them in the best place, which means allowing the infertile to marry doesn't infringe on these objectives because these examples don't change the definition or the fact that a man and a woman can achieve this
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
A man and a woman can achieve this. So can a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a man and multiple women, or woman and multiple men.
"responsible"
Sorry, but how is it less responsible for same sex couples to have children? After all, they actually have to want the child enough to shell out the cash for the alternatives.
Also, I'm still waiting on how location matters.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@kenballer00 [continued]
Besides, none of your other information even matters. If you are okay with the government recognizing outside marriages between same sex couples, then none of your arguments regarding promotion or redefining marriage are relevant. None of it would make a lick of sense, even if we were to accept your premise, due to the government's actions of redefining marriage.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@xlanciferionx
"..... Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment"
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Per Gill v. Office of Personnel Management:
Congress, by premising
eligibility for these benefits on marriage in the first instance, has already made the determination
that married people make up a class of similarly-situated individuals, different in relevant respects from the class of non-married people.
[to be continued]
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@kenballer00 [continued]
"Cast in this light, the claim that the federal government may also have an interest in treating all same-sex couples alike, whether married or unmarried, plainly cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny."
Later on, it states:
"It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which [this court] could discern a relationship to legitimate [government] interests.”
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@kenballer00 [continued]
More from Tauro's judgment:
To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@kenballer00 [continued]
"As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
You have your cases. I have mine. The only difference is that mine is directly dealing with the topic of discussion.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@xlancif
"none of your other information even matters. If you are okay with the government recognizing outside marriages between same sex couples"
i thought we moved on from this. i told you that the state does not redefine marriage if it only recognizes gay marriage not performed them and gay activists know it. There's a difference. this is why location matters. Then you started to make the claim that gay marriage is a civil right and thats when started to bring court cases to refute it
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
"i thought..."
Then, you thought wrong. You have not shown that the definition remains the same. Clearly, if the state is recognizing marriages that it previously didn't recognize, then the definition is changed. By all means, demonstrate how it isn't changed, when same sex couples can have the status of married, just like m/f couples.
"a difference"
What is it? Why would it matter, if they can have the status of married, anyhow? Did you honestly think this through?
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@xlanciferionx
D.C. recognized gay marriages from outside their jurisdiction before they legalized and performed them within it and when they did start to or about to legalize them the government told Catholic Dioceses that they would have to adopt their kids to same sex couples and i think other reasons as well but i cannot remember. so this is one example of the difference i was talking about
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
You do realize that Catholic Charities receives government funding, right? As such, they're bound by government regulations for receiving that money. They could have continued carrying out business, had they chose to do so. The choices were to no longer receive government funding, or follow government regulations against discrimination. Sorry, but requiring someone to follow regulations is hardly a change, or a difference in how things are done. Try again.
xlanciferionx 1 year ago
@xlanciferionx
but it is an example of change that affects other people one way or another and thats my point. Government funds promote that new definition of marriage that is from taxpaying citizens. The Catholic church is no longer able to take state funds while staying true to their convictions and thats the difference whether you think its a compelling difference or not is irrevelant to the point i am making
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
Same sex couples, and homosexuals, are taxpaying citizens as well. Don't ignore that. If you're going to get state funding, then you're serving the state, and your religious convictions take a b