not to be "vitriol" (or whatever word you used in that comment to me) but you were WAY WAY 100% cutter with short hair - just saying ;-) nice video otherwise *smooch*
"Domestic Partnerships", as stipulated in Family Code 297-297.5, are unaffected by Prop 8 and the purpose of those codes is to establish rights for same sex couples that are equal to that of married couples.
Prop 8 doesn't restrict any amendments to these codes other than the -official- use of the word "marriage". Nothing stops same sex couples from calling it marriage outside of the official documentation ; Freedom of speech.
I don't know how they do things up in Canada, but the Supreme Court has already ruled in previous cases (see: Brown v. Board of Education), that separate but equal is indeed not equal.
My province has had same sex marriages since June 2003.
In 2005 the Civil Marriage Act was passed by my national legislators, recognizing the rights of both same sex couples and religions to their beliefs. Such an act would have been preferable in California.
In regards to the case you've mentioned, it isn't a Californian case and isn't about same sex marriages. (cont)
(cont) The use of these racial cases as examples results in confusion as it implies that same sex couples are attempting to gain physical access to venues they don't have access to.
The opponents of Prop 8 failed to establish a "separation" that was tangible for the voters of that state and simply bashed religion, which killed the debate and resulted in Prop 8 passing.
Not to be a sadist but as Dan Savage said on the Colbert Report were just waiting for the older generation, the on the holding it against us, to die. Because our generation is the most open and accepting and doesn't care. So it will come shortly, it will, with in our lives, I have hope and that's stronger than anything!
I believe that Prop 8 passed because of the lack of media coverage, it just wasn't there. I recognized this fact before the election, but surely I was under the impression that California of all places would defeat a proposition like this, even without the media coverage. I guess it's going to take a few more years to achieve true equality.
Perhaps all this was because of the ridiculous need of some people to achieve a great milestone and at the same to take away, to sort of balance things out.
I agree with the crux of your argument in that government should not be in the business of granting marriages. Marriage is an institution that should be left to the churches. Since government wants to reward committed relationships, they should no longer do marriages and everyone in a committed relationship should be able to obtain a civil union. Marriage should be left to churches. Though the courts have not gone there yet, I see this a separation of church and state type issue.
You're confusing Arizona and Arkansas. But that's okay.
What drives me nuts about the Duggars is that they boast about how the older children are basically conscripted into serving as full-time nannies for the younger children and that the younger children are assigned bona fide laborious chores (e.g., carrying groceries) starting at age 3.
Sorry, but that's child abuse, and it's disgusting.
Totally agree. In Florida we fought to get the 41% needed to stop the amendment but lost.
Every major straight group opposed it from League of Women Voters to Firefighters. Bigotry won this round. On the positive side the Prop 8 loss woke up those who thought it was a done deal. The word marriage should be ban. All unions are civil unions. At the end of the church service they always say by the authority invested in me by the state. I agree marriage is a religious union. Civil is under law.
I'm not sure about the marriage ban, Flanole, but I do think that the namesake is hurting the cause a smidgen. I however, think that the label marriage should be kept because it's the understanding of it's full rights. "Civil Unions" are too easily blurred between state lines and national lines. Marriage is an international institution and restructuring it would be near impossible.
Hmm...i think that as civil institution it should still be referred to as "marriage." Different religions treat marriage differently, have different traditions, and different beliefs about it. In Christianity marriage is between you, your partner, and God. So how people define it as "religious" institution, when you don't even need a religious ceremony to be legally recognised as "married," kind of leads me towards just calling it marriage regardless of whether religion plays a role.
I don't think a porn star would be as literate for some reason. The prop was busted by mormon money as you know. The victory was won by the bankbook and the lying ads they ran. Remember, it was only in the late 70's that Homosexuality was taken of the list of mental illnesses. You are right, complacency killed the movement against 8. Funny, I hear a "Boom Chicka Bow wow..." when you flip your hair. =) Nick is back! (note: sound was iffy)
I know that progress takes time, but progress also takes effort and there was an egregious lack of it this go around. And now that Obama has been elected, I fear there will be even more complacency because the gay community will see him as a panacea, even though he's already said that GLTBQ rights are not at the forefront of his agenda or issues. We have a long way to go, Phil... way too long.
Except that this is not a slippery slope fallacy. It is refutation by counterexample. Learn the difference.
You said "love is all you need." I gave a few counterexamples of consensual marriage relations in which love is clearly an insufficient justification of legality. Learn about it.
Incestuous relationships put a risk for children who have genetic mutations, and therefore it creates a risk. With polygamist relationships, it opens up a whole door of new legal problems given the multiple spouses and is on a different level to two people.
While i'm not defending the "love is all you need comment," i felt the need to respond given your arrogant demeanor.
What if the incestuous couple are infertile? Your "risk" evaporates. I could make the same argument: gay couples tend not to have children, so they ought not to have the monetary benefits of marriage, which encourages the social unit best situated for having children.
And you've made my point on polygamy. You've basically conceded that his "love is all you need" comment is retarded.
I see no reason to deny marriage if they are inferile.
That argument you make is not yours, it comes from The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage, and is flawed. Marriages are not granted on the basis of whether or not the couple plans to have children, it is purely for the benefit of the couple. If you dont have children, you dont recieve the same benefits as a couple with children on your tax returns.. Your second piece is a strawman argument; I never said the couple had to be fertile.
So you won't deny incestuous marriages if infertile eh? Too bad for you it remains illegal in several states even if infertile. Your position is at odds with the law.
Nor is the argument you make yours. It comes from the Gay As Hell Case For Gay Marriage, and is flawed. Marriage is meant to encourage the "social[]...unit best situated" for having and raising children. CFEP v. Bruning. It is not "purely" for the benefit of the couple. Even Loving v. Virginia links marriage to procreation. Oops.
Just because it is illegal in several states is....irrelevant at best. That does nothing to invalidate gay marriage. The whole "procreation" argument is a bunch of hogwash anyway, regardless of any prior legal cases, until having children becomes an obligation of getting married, the argument is irrelevant. That is my opinion, and I'm sure if there hasn't already been a case that says you can't base a marriage's validity on fertility, then there will be one eventually.
one little executive order from obama when he takes office that state any state that discriminates against any one based on gender preference THEY GET NO FEDERAL FUNDING AT ALL
That's not the mentality you should be thinking at all. Thinking that Obama will be the be-all end-all to gltbq discrimination is incredibly wrong. We have to follow up with our contingency and make efforts locally to make change happen. We also thought that Clinton was going to be a new path for the GLTBQ community and all that happened was him throwing us under the bus with DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Just because we won a battle doesn't mean the war is even close to over.
HAHA, nice job at the beginning, but I STILL WANT A HAIR CUT! :p
As for prop 8, it is dumb...but the simple majority wasn't right....none of it matters as, as you said, marriage isnt a religious institution only...the churches have a right to say no, but the government doesnt have the right to say no as well
Like I said, it's not about what one person thinks is right. By law, the discriminatory tactics of Prop 8 are illegal. It'll just take awhile before we can take religion out of the institution that should already be separated by church and state
you're just saying that because you're gay. religion should be part of the state - this should be a flipping theocracy. Iran is doing pretty nicely, thankyouverymuch.
its 3 am, did you expect a serious reply? good night :p
I believe what he means is that Prop 8 violates the human right of two consenting adults to engage in marriage..unless there is a California law that forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, in which case the government discriminating against to whom they grant marriage licenses would have a shaky legal foundation considering that marriage is a civil institution, and he might have been referencing that.
Where does it say that there is such a "human right"? The state constitution? But Prop 8 amends the state constitution, under procedures provided by the state constitution itself. So unless you're claiming that the state constitution is illegal, I don't see how you can say that Prop 8 is itself "illegal."
Neither the US nor state constitutions outline human rights, they outline the limitations of the government. I am not claiming the Constitution is illegal, though it could very well be if California has laws against discrimination that protect sexual orientation, I was merely trying to clarify what Nick had said.
Limitations of government by definition delineate these rights. Why do you think it's called the Bill of Rights? Duh.
Your clarification collapses on itself because what he said was sheer rubbish. And in the hierarchy laws, the constitution invalidates any "laws against discrimination" that is contrary to what the constitution provides. Constitutional law is superior to statutory law. So what you're saying, I'm afraid, is based on a legally ass-backwards understanding of the law.
The Bill of Rights does not list all of the rights, it specifically says that in the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, I don't disagree that the California ban is legal, I was trying to clarify what Nick may have meant. Regardless of whether the process was legal or not does not make it a right to deny marriage to people who want to marry a partner of the same sex, and historically over time those sorts of rights do come into legal fruition.
LOL. That's not what you said earlier. What you said was that the Constitutional (which includes the Bill of Rights) "does not outline human rights." You were not making the claim that the BoR does not list all rights, which is a different claim altogether.
Historically the Supreme Court upheld the ban on polygamous marriage. So it's not obvious they tend to "come to fruition" at all. Nick was just bullshitting, so it's just as well you're not defending him.
How does that differ from what I said? The constitution and bill of rights do not list all of our rights.
It is a completely different legal matter as it involves multiple partners. Having multiple wives and having one partner of the same sex are different legal issues; having a partner of the same sex is on par with having a partner of the opposite sex, having multiple partners without limit and the obligations that go along with that is entirely different.
You said that the constitution does not outline rights. You did not say "does not outline ALL our rights." Those are two completely different things. One means that the BoR does not outline rights at all, the other means it doesn't outline all rights. You can't even admit it when you've been clearly, obviously , utterly proven to be wrong.
You're just being arbitrary and discriminating against bisexuals. LOL. Such a hypocrite.
Stop being such an idiot and trying to pervert semantics, I meant that it does not set limitations to our rights, and you know that is what the intent of my statement was.
Why do you feel the need to keep saying "ignorant" and "hypocrite," are you that immature and rude? I've said no such thing about you. You're being such a pompous douchebag when you're not even addressing what I say. You keep listing court cases as if that invalidates my opinion on what the law should be.
Pervert semantics? Sounds like you're trying to retroactively change the plain meaning of what you said so that you're not owned on it. You're the pervert.
Case law invalidates your bullshit legal claims. That's how the law works. If you have no precedent and no statutory law to the contrary, you're basically up shit creek without a paddle. You have no case.
So instead of babbling incoherently about the law, why not just admit you're a clueless douche out of his fucking depth. Yes? Yes.
Maybe if you werent an ignorant beast and actually paid attention to the purpose of my statement youd have understood the clear reason that i said the Constution does not outline our rights (i.e. it does not say here are your rights, these are the only ones) it is for the purpose of limiting the power of the federal government.
As for no precedent, Connecticut and Mass courts have ruled that gay marriage is legal. You are the one being the rude douche, but love you anyway <3
LOL! Now you're trying to change the meaning of what you said so that you're not more of an owned bitch than you already are. The BoR clearly "outlines" some rights but not others. It doesn't "outline" all rights, but it outlines some very important rights, you dimwit. Even assuming that the 9th Amdt is not a dead letter under current law (which it is), you're still wrong.
CT & MA are state courts, not federal courts. Since constitutions > precedent, they're irrelevant to Prop 8. Try again. :)
Ive not changed the meaning whatsoever. This is a done matter. What purpose would my statement serve other than saying that the constitution doesnt limit our rights?
You queried if the fact that gay marriage was a right was in the constitution, and I said that the constitution doesnt outline our rights. If you will reread my statement, that I meant it doesnt limit our rights is CLEAR. I apologise for the misunderstanding, but youre making something of nothing, and acting like a petty fool
Hilarious. Now you're minimizing your factual mistakes by accusing me of being "petty" when you couldn't be bothered to express yourself correctly? Right. Apaprently you may not be corrected. Any such correction is just pettiness, nevermind that you were clearly incorrect and had to rehash your statement and revise its plain meaning later. Did I already say you were ignorant?
Sklanger, can you please just read the original post? I'm being serious, this is what i meant. If you want to try and alter the meaning, go ahead, but I think if you just look at what you said, you'll understand the reason behind what I said. If you still disagree, then explain the purpose of my statement and how it is at all relevant if it wasn't in reference to our rights not being limited merely by not being listed in the constitution.
I forgot to say... it is certainly your right to be able to marry the consenting adult of your choice, and the reason it is important is not just because of the benefits granted to straight couples that are being denied to gay couples, but the fact that the lack of recognition says that as a society we accept second-class status for some of our citizens. To withhold those rights on the basis of sexual orientation is indeed discrimination, derived from homophobic bigotry, and shouldn't be allowed
Firstly, polygamous marriage is a completely different topic - multiple spouses is a completely different legal issue.
Secondly, while this argument may seem cliché, it was certainly the right of slaves to be free while it was sanctioned by the US Constitution. Just because a ban passed with a simple majority doesn't prove it is somehow not a right, that is a ridiculous argument and addresses nothing I said in my previous post.
Except that it is not "different" at all. A bisexual in love with a man and a woman will by definition have to be polygamous to fulfill both facets of her sexuality. A ban on polygamy will therefore discriminate against bisexuals. Why are you discriminating against bisexuals? Hypocrite.
The slaves were freed by the democratically enacted 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. I don't see you successfully amending the Constitution. Until you do, bans on gay marriage are not "illegal," period.
What rubbish. That is the most ridiculous argument, it is the same as saying that a straight person should be able to have multiple spouses of the opposite sex, or a gay person should be able to have multiple spouses of the same sex. Just because a person is bisexual doesnt have anything to do with polygamy. Stop being such a pompous ass. Furthermore, I am not the one who called the state bans illegal, though a federal ban WOULD be illegal; that is not a power of the federal government.
Wrong. The Supreme Court held the federal ban on polygamy constitutional in Reynolds v. United States. You truly are ignorant aren't you?
Bisexuality has everything to do with polygamy. Forcing a bisexual to choose only one aspect of her sexuality means forcing her to deny the other aspect of her BIsexuality by definition. You have no answer to this conundrum, so you're reduced to calling it "ridiculous" but not actually refuting it.
1) your first paragraph has nothing to due with my argument.
2) You are very immature.
3) By not allowing polygamy, it does not make bisexuals choose one aspect of their sexuality. Choosing one partner does not make them DENY their sexuality, they don't have a fundamental NEED to have a partner of BOTH the same and opposite sex, it merely means they are attracted to both, not that they need to have one of each, and otherwise they are somehow denying their sexuality. So yes, it is ridiculous
The 1st paragraph has everything to do with your false assertion that a federal ban on polygamy "would be illegal." Reynolds v. U.S. upheld just such a federal ban, so I'm just pointing out your factual confusion once again.
By denying polygamy, you're forcing the bisexual to choose only one side of her bisexuality. You're denying them one side of their BIsexuality inherent to what it means to be bisexual. You're discriminating against their orientation. As such, you're a hypocrite. :)
firstly, I never said a ban on polygamous marriage would be illegal. What I said was back in reference to nick's comment about the legality, and I said that the federal courts banning gay marriage would be against their historical role under the constitution. I was not in reference to polygamy. If you read "Furthermore, I am not the one who called the state bans illegal," i was clearly in reference to what Nick said, illiterate moron. <3
Then you're a bit of a retard who can't express himself with clarity. Since we were talking about polygamy, it was obvious that "state bans" refer to bans on polygamy, which was in the thread of conversation then. A result of your ignorance that states also ban polygamy, which proves my point that had you known, you wouldn't be expressing yourself so maladroitly, and confusing everyone else.
As to your second paragraph, I just explained why it is ridiculous. Bisexuality doesn't mean you have to have two partners of opposite sexes, bisexuals should have the right to choose any sex, but that doesn't mean having two partners at the same time is an intrinsic part of their bisexuality and having one makes them deny their sexuality as multiple partners is not a component of their sexuality. Can't you adjust for a statement I've made rather than repeating something?
You haven't explained anything. Bisexuality means an attraction to both sexes. And that means a bisexual who's in love with both a man and a woman, consistent with her own bisexual orientation, would by definition be in a polygamous relationship. Forcing her to be monogamous would necessarily deny one facet of her bisexuality -- either the male attraction facet or the female attraction facet.
You're trying to force a compromise on the bisexual's part, so you're discriminating, hypocrite. :)
Again, you miss the point. Being attracted to both sexes does not mean that by definition your sexual orientation requires you to be in a relationship with people of each sex; that is why virtually no bisexuals are also polygamous. Being attracted to both sexes does not mean you have to be in two SIMULTANEOUS relationships. This is such a huge statement of ignorance on your part that it literally has me laughing. Im not a hypocrite, youre just a dumbass <3
Actually it does. A bisexual attracted to a man and a woman by definition engages in polygamous relations. This is inherent in the meaning of bisexuality, you complete fool. Being attracted to both sexes means that the bisexual who is attracted to both a man and a woman is forced to choose ONE sex, contrary to her bisexual nature, to be attracted to. No bisexuals are polygamous? What bullshit. You're ignorant, and a hypocrite to boot. :)
Being attracted to each sex is different from having multiple relationships at the same time. I see what you mean, but it's a misunderstanding of what compromises a person's sexuality. Must you be in a relationship with a woman to be straight? Just because they are in a relationship with one sex, and not both sexes simultaneously does not mean they are compromising their sexuality. Dual relationships are not needed for one to be bisexual. I said "Virtually no," not "no", thanks for reading :)
Men don't have to be in a relationship with a woman to be straight, just as gays don't have to be in a relationship with men to be gay. So if gays are denied gay marriage, it doesn't mean they're compromising their sexuality. Hence no discrimination. Right? Either you accept this argument in the context of gay marriage AND polygamy, or you reject them both. Which is it?
You're arbitrarily discriminating against bisexuals who are polygamously fulfilling their bisexuality. You lose, retard. :)
UGH, Sklanger, you CLEARLY have no understanding of bisexuality. Denying someone marriage does not compromise their sexuality, they still have that sexuality just as strong as before, but it does discriminate. However, as I've said how many times now, HAVING MULTIPLE PARTNERS AT THE SAME TIME IS NOT PART OF BISEXUALITY, DOES IT SAY SO IN THE DEFINITION, NO. STOP BEING PURPOSELY IGNORANT TO AGRIVATE ME AND JUST SHUT UP, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT THAT STUPID, THIS TOPIC IS OVERRRRRR.
Actually it does. I said that a bisexual attracted to a man and a woman by definition engages in polygamous relations. This is inherent in the meaning of bisexuality, you complete fool. Being attracted to both sexes means that the bisexual who is attracted to both a man and a woman is forced to choose ONE sex, contrary to her bisexual nature, to be attracted to. No bisexuals are polygamous? What bullshit. You're ignorant, and a hypocrite to boot. :)
"Just because a ban passed with a simple majority doesn't prove it is somehow not a right"
Actually it does. Federal courts have held, for example, that same sex marriage is not a fundamental right under the Constitution, whereas traditional marriage is. You're owned. :)
Federal courts change opinions all the time, and are not the ultimate moral authority, I could give various cases where courts have ruled gay marriage is a right. In numerous countries this is the case; just because America is socially regressive at times does not make you right. Marriage between two consenting adults is indeed a right; again, youve failed to address anything Ive said. A Court decision doesn't make somethign right or wrong, and the law is fluid and changes constantly.
Federal courts hold what the law is now. No federal court has ruled that gay marriage is a fundamental right, so the prevailing legal consensus is clearly against you. Most countries in the world do not allow gay marriage. Just because a few morally decadent countries have legalized it does not make you right.
Marriage between two consenting adults of the opposite sex is a fundamental right. This is not the case for 2 adults of the same sex, and the law is clear on it. You have no case. :)
The majority has no basis to deny same-sex couples the right to marry as it harms nobody and interferes with no ones life. However, it is the duty of the courts to protect the ability of same-sex couples to marry against the will of the socially regressive majority. In order to integrate the gay community and allow for a more conservative lifestyle, marriage should be allowed, otherwise promiscuity and continuous preclusion of rights (such as visiting your partner in a hospital,etc) will remain
Except that the federal courts have indeed found that the majority has such a basis. "The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in steering procreation into marriage...we cannot conclude that the States justification lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests." CFEP v. Bruning.
There is no basis for allowing opposite sex marriage and not same sex marriage when homosexuals are naturally attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite. Federal courts cannot ban, nor legalise gay marriage at the national level, and therefore their opinion is legally irrelevant.
Actually they can, for purposes of federal law, determine if gay marriages are "marriages" and if they qualify for federal benefits that gays are bitching that they don't have. Are you this clueless? Not to mention that federal courts adjudicate gay marriage claims whenever they implicate federal or constitutional issues, like DOMA, the full faith and credit clause, the equal protection clause, or the due process clause. So of course they get to rule on it, duh!
You are ignorant. You responded to my comment correcting you on the fact that under federal law, gay marriage is not a "fundamental right." If it isn't a fundamental right, then it follows that federal courts may not invalidate bans on gay marriage with a rational basis to legitimate state interests, which would mean that federal courts effectively let such bans stand, which makes their rulings relevant. Stop trying to worm out of your misstatements of the law.
I'm not worming my way out of anything, you're twisting what I said. The reason federal courts let such bans stand is because it is not within their traditional role to regulate state marriage. Things not delegated to the federal government in the constitution are traditionally left up to the states. The courts letting a ban stand, because they do not traditionally regulate state marriage, is not the same as them having the ability to ban gay marriage.
More like you're twisting what I said. I did not say that it was not the states' traditional roles to regulate marriage. I said that the courts get to rule on whether state regulation of gay marriage is unconstitutional under the federal constitution, which means that they effectively validate or invalidate state bans on gay marriage.
Your response - that what federal courts hold as a matter of "fundamental right" is "irrelevant" to the validity of such bans - is therefore nonsense.
Actually no, the courts would not rule on whether state-regulation of gay marriage is unconstitutional. Marrige is GOVERNED BY STATE LAW. The state has that right, as decided under Pennoyer v. Neff. The Constitution leaves that power to the states. Therefore your argument that the Federal courts would ever rule on whether state regulation of gay marriage is unconstitutional is RIDICULOUS, and shows a complete IGNORANCE of the constitutional. OWNED.
You really are an imbecile aren't you? I never said that the marriage isn't governed by state law. I said that what federal courts rule on state regulation on marriage effectively validates or invalidates gay marriage -- banning or legalizing them as the case may be under the federal constitution, which is the supreme law of the land under the supremacy clause.
And federal courts may rule that state reg. of marriage is unconstitutional if it impinges on say, the 14th Amdt. Are you stupid?
Your save would hold true if I was indeed talking about something, such as the 14th amendment, was involved (i.e. where the Supreme law of the land was at odds with the state decision). Unfortunately for you, you said rule on whether state regulation of gay marriage is unconstitutional under the federal constitution You specifically said GAY MARRIAGE and federal constitution, which is exactly what I called you out on. The Supreme Court would never rule on that. Nice save, ignoramus, you failed
Yes. State regulation of gay marriage -- such as state bans on gay marriage -- may be invalidated under the 14th Amendment of the federal constitution. Meaning that federal courts get to rule on whether state regulation of gay marriage is unconstitutional under the provisions of the federal constitution.
Both Wilson v. Ake (a federal district court) and CFEP v. Bruning (the 8th circuit federal court of appeals) ruled on those very questions. You're the owned ignoramus. It's hilarious.
Wilson v. Ake. CFEP v. Bruning. Just two cases in which the federal courts ruled on the constitutionality of state regulations concerning gay marriage. Since they implicate federal questions such as equal protection under the 14th Amdt, federal jurisdiction obtains, and federal courts get to rule on it.
You're ignorant. And you're owned. I suggest you educate yourself before humiliating yourself further. :)
Not true as you followed your statement up with "which means that they effectively validate or invalidate state bans on gay marriage," which is not true. The issue at hand is whether states can or cannot ban/legalise gay marriage. The traditional power of the federal courts wouldn't allow them to make such a determination on whether a legalisation or ban is constitutional, as the constitution itself gives the states the right to ban or legalise it.
Secondly, you also claimed that federal courts may not legalize gay marriage as the converse of your assertion that they may not ban gay marriage. This is also wrong, since a finding of the legality of gay marriage and the illegality of bans on gay marriage under a federal court's equal protection analysis would "legalize" such marriages by definition. You're owned again. :)
Historically, the courts do not regulate state marriage. As such, it would go against their traditional role to overturn the California decision. if the courts found bans to be legal or illegal it would be under the constitution, which traditionally does not interfere in what the individual states do. Regardless, not meddling in a ban is not on par with the federal courts effectively banning gay marriage by allowing a ban in a state.
Allowing a ban in a state to stand IS effectively banning gay marriage. Are you retarded? If a court may effectively legalize gay marriage by invalidating such a state ban, it may also effectively caused such a ban to be legal -- i.e. effectively banning it. Either both are true, or neither are true. Be consistent, you idiot.
In any case, you do not dispute that what the courts do ARE relevant, contrary to your earlier bilge about how it isn't. So you're wrong. Again. :)
Are YOU retarded, is allowing Gay marriage in a state effectively legalising it? What an idiot.
Also, my point still stands that the federal courts will not ban or legalise gay marriage as it is an issue left with the states, so the federal government will not be interfering in Cali, mass, or wherever. That was my point, and no I'm not wrong, you're just illiterate.
Of course it is effectively legalizing it if one invalidates a state ban on gay marriage you braindead gaytard.
Your "point" which was originally issued as a response to my statement about the relevance of federal court rulings on gay marriage, is therefore irrelevant, and you're illiterate by your own lights. So not only are you wrong, you owned yourself. :)
You missed the point. My point was that mass and conn have both legalised gay marriage, yet the supreme court has done nothing, yet it has not effectively legalised gay marriage. Therefore, it allowing a gay marriage ban is not effectively banning gay marriage. get it?
also, yay, the homophobia comes out! Thanks for talking to little boys like me, sexy daddy! <333 Love you too!
hahaha, you obviously know im kidding, but can you chill out with the insults? You're making me throw some back :)
we should def seporate church and state!
CDT12177 2 years ago
Start taxing religions that want to be involved in politics.
garricksaro1380 2 years ago
not to be "vitriol" (or whatever word you used in that comment to me) but you were WAY WAY 100% cutter with short hair - just saying ;-) nice video otherwise *smooch*
VeronicaDeVore 3 years ago
I like the longer hair on him ^_^
MFDoyleIII 3 years ago
very nice xxx
olafb 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fags will burn for all of eternity, think about the next life, because it's eternal. U weirdos need to actually read the bible
smalltownamerican 3 years ago
Why? How do you know the bible is right?
rhysepoos 3 years ago
It has been proven
smalltownamerican 3 years ago
not everybody is christian
greatestXhits 3 years ago
hypocrit christians... don't you just love em.
"love thy neighbour" ... nice to see you've read the bible.
Meteaa 3 years ago
Sorry I am Hard of Hearing and am having a hard time understanding everything your saying. But thanks for posting none the less. HUGS & aloha.
alohalondon 3 years ago
"Domestic Partnerships", as stipulated in Family Code 297-297.5, are unaffected by Prop 8 and the purpose of those codes is to establish rights for same sex couples that are equal to that of married couples.
Prop 8 doesn't restrict any amendments to these codes other than the -official- use of the word "marriage". Nothing stops same sex couples from calling it marriage outside of the official documentation ; Freedom of speech.
canucktunes 3 years ago
I don't know how they do things up in Canada, but the Supreme Court has already ruled in previous cases (see: Brown v. Board of Education), that separate but equal is indeed not equal.
onelifexv 3 years ago
My province has had same sex marriages since June 2003.
In 2005 the Civil Marriage Act was passed by my national legislators, recognizing the rights of both same sex couples and religions to their beliefs. Such an act would have been preferable in California.
In regards to the case you've mentioned, it isn't a Californian case and isn't about same sex marriages. (cont)
canucktunes 3 years ago
(cont) The use of these racial cases as examples results in confusion as it implies that same sex couples are attempting to gain physical access to venues they don't have access to.
The opponents of Prop 8 failed to establish a "separation" that was tangible for the voters of that state and simply bashed religion, which killed the debate and resulted in Prop 8 passing.
canucktunes 3 years ago
Not to be a sadist but as Dan Savage said on the Colbert Report were just waiting for the older generation, the on the holding it against us, to die. Because our generation is the most open and accepting and doesn't care. So it will come shortly, it will, with in our lives, I have hope and that's stronger than anything!
g0LdBiZzLe 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fags will burn
smalltownamerican 3 years ago
I believe that Prop 8 passed because of the lack of media coverage, it just wasn't there. I recognized this fact before the election, but surely I was under the impression that California of all places would defeat a proposition like this, even without the media coverage. I guess it's going to take a few more years to achieve true equality.
Perhaps all this was because of the ridiculous need of some people to achieve a great milestone and at the same to take away, to sort of balance things out.
mikha1280 3 years ago
I agree with the crux of your argument in that government should not be in the business of granting marriages. Marriage is an institution that should be left to the churches. Since government wants to reward committed relationships, they should no longer do marriages and everyone in a committed relationship should be able to obtain a civil union. Marriage should be left to churches. Though the courts have not gone there yet, I see this a separation of church and state type issue.
wcso5931 3 years ago
You're confusing Arizona and Arkansas. But that's okay.
What drives me nuts about the Duggars is that they boast about how the older children are basically conscripted into serving as full-time nannies for the younger children and that the younger children are assigned bona fide laborious chores (e.g., carrying groceries) starting at age 3.
Sorry, but that's child abuse, and it's disgusting.
kipesquire 3 years ago
Yeah, I got a few things wrong in this video, I realized it after uploading but I didn't want to lose my passion in exchange for the facts.
As for the Duggar family, I'd have some strong words for Jim-Bob if I ever met him.
Thanks for the comment. :D
demonickalfun 3 years ago
nice video nick :D
rockstarpetey 3 years ago
Hey, thanks Pete. When are we going to see more from you?
demonickalfun 3 years ago
Totally agree. In Florida we fought to get the 41% needed to stop the amendment but lost.
Every major straight group opposed it from League of Women Voters to Firefighters. Bigotry won this round. On the positive side the Prop 8 loss woke up those who thought it was a done deal. The word marriage should be ban. All unions are civil unions. At the end of the church service they always say by the authority invested in me by the state. I agree marriage is a religious union. Civil is under law.
Flanole 3 years ago
I'm not sure about the marriage ban, Flanole, but I do think that the namesake is hurting the cause a smidgen. I however, think that the label marriage should be kept because it's the understanding of it's full rights. "Civil Unions" are too easily blurred between state lines and national lines. Marriage is an international institution and restructuring it would be near impossible.
demonickalfun 3 years ago
Hmm...i think that as civil institution it should still be referred to as "marriage." Different religions treat marriage differently, have different traditions, and different beliefs about it. In Christianity marriage is between you, your partner, and God. So how people define it as "religious" institution, when you don't even need a religious ceremony to be legally recognised as "married," kind of leads me towards just calling it marriage regardless of whether religion plays a role.
MGB1991 3 years ago
You had me at porn star
coollikeyodais 3 years ago
I can't tell you how glad I am that you're on my side.
dkatzism 3 years ago
Always my dear. Always :D
demonickalfun 3 years ago
O.O UR on washinton
ilovekiba139 3 years ago
I don't think a porn star would be as literate for some reason. The prop was busted by mormon money as you know. The victory was won by the bankbook and the lying ads they ran. Remember, it was only in the late 70's that Homosexuality was taken of the list of mental illnesses. You are right, complacency killed the movement against 8. Funny, I hear a "Boom Chicka Bow wow..." when you flip your hair. =) Nick is back! (note: sound was iffy)
Philinspaces 3 years ago
I'm aware of the sound. Haha.
I know that progress takes time, but progress also takes effort and there was an egregious lack of it this go around. And now that Obama has been elected, I fear there will be even more complacency because the gay community will see him as a panacea, even though he's already said that GLTBQ rights are not at the forefront of his agenda or issues. We have a long way to go, Phil... way too long.
demonickalfun 3 years ago
I love how you have the ending as "love will conquer all"
perfect.
ViolentServant 3 years ago
I think the Beatles said it best with, "Love is all you need"
demonickalfun 3 years ago
If love were all you need, consensual polygamy and consensual incestuous relationships would be legal.
sklanger 3 years ago
change your name to just plain skanky,sklanger
obamawill2008 3 years ago
Now now, Slander isn't needed. If he has to stoop to a slippery slope fallacy to feel correct, then we've already done our job.
demonickalfun 3 years ago
Except that this is not a slippery slope fallacy. It is refutation by counterexample. Learn the difference.
You said "love is all you need." I gave a few counterexamples of consensual marriage relations in which love is clearly an insufficient justification of legality. Learn about it.
sklanger 3 years ago
Incestuous relationships put a risk for children who have genetic mutations, and therefore it creates a risk. With polygamist relationships, it opens up a whole door of new legal problems given the multiple spouses and is on a different level to two people.
While i'm not defending the "love is all you need comment," i felt the need to respond given your arrogant demeanor.
MGB1991 3 years ago
What if the incestuous couple are infertile? Your "risk" evaporates. I could make the same argument: gay couples tend not to have children, so they ought not to have the monetary benefits of marriage, which encourages the social unit best situated for having children.
And you've made my point on polygamy. You've basically conceded that his "love is all you need" comment is retarded.
sklanger 3 years ago
I see no reason to deny marriage if they are inferile.
That argument you make is not yours, it comes from The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage, and is flawed. Marriages are not granted on the basis of whether or not the couple plans to have children, it is purely for the benefit of the couple. If you dont have children, you dont recieve the same benefits as a couple with children on your tax returns.. Your second piece is a strawman argument; I never said the couple had to be fertile.
MGB1991 3 years ago
So you won't deny incestuous marriages if infertile eh? Too bad for you it remains illegal in several states even if infertile. Your position is at odds with the law.
Nor is the argument you make yours. It comes from the Gay As Hell Case For Gay Marriage, and is flawed. Marriage is meant to encourage the "social[]...unit best situated" for having and raising children. CFEP v. Bruning. It is not "purely" for the benefit of the couple. Even Loving v. Virginia links marriage to procreation. Oops.
sklanger 3 years ago
Just because it is illegal in several states is....irrelevant at best. That does nothing to invalidate gay marriage. The whole "procreation" argument is a bunch of hogwash anyway, regardless of any prior legal cases, until having children becomes an obligation of getting married, the argument is irrelevant. That is my opinion, and I'm sure if there hasn't already been a case that says you can't base a marriage's validity on fertility, then there will be one eventually.
MGB1991 3 years ago
one little executive order from obama when he takes office that state any state that discriminates against any one based on gender preference THEY GET NO FEDERAL FUNDING AT ALL
howdoiquityou2006 3 years ago
That's not the mentality you should be thinking at all. Thinking that Obama will be the be-all end-all to gltbq discrimination is incredibly wrong. We have to follow up with our contingency and make efforts locally to make change happen. We also thought that Clinton was going to be a new path for the GLTBQ community and all that happened was him throwing us under the bus with DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Just because we won a battle doesn't mean the war is even close to over.
demonickalfun 3 years ago
HAHA, nice job at the beginning, but I STILL WANT A HAIR CUT! :p
As for prop 8, it is dumb...but the simple majority wasn't right....none of it matters as, as you said, marriage isnt a religious institution only...the churches have a right to say no, but the government doesnt have the right to say no as well
MGB1991 3 years ago 3
Like I said, it's not about what one person thinks is right. By law, the discriminatory tactics of Prop 8 are illegal. It'll just take awhile before we can take religion out of the institution that should already be separated by church and state
demonickalfun 3 years ago
you're just saying that because you're gay. religion should be part of the state - this should be a flipping theocracy. Iran is doing pretty nicely, thankyouverymuch.
its 3 am, did you expect a serious reply? good night :p
MGB1991 3 years ago
"By law, the discriminatory tactics of Prop 8 are illegal"
Explain.
sklanger 3 years ago
I believe what he means is that Prop 8 violates the human right of two consenting adults to engage in marriage..unless there is a California law that forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, in which case the government discriminating against to whom they grant marriage licenses would have a shaky legal foundation considering that marriage is a civil institution, and he might have been referencing that.
MGB1991 3 years ago
Where does it say that there is such a "human right"? The state constitution? But Prop 8 amends the state constitution, under procedures provided by the state constitution itself. So unless you're claiming that the state constitution is illegal, I don't see how you can say that Prop 8 is itself "illegal."
sklanger 3 years ago
Neither the US nor state constitutions outline human rights, they outline the limitations of the government. I am not claiming the Constitution is illegal, though it could very well be if California has laws against discrimination that protect sexual orientation, I was merely trying to clarify what Nick had said.
MGB1991 3 years ago
Limitations of government by definition delineate these rights. Why do you think it's called the Bill of Rights? Duh.
Your clarification collapses on itself because what he said was sheer rubbish. And in the hierarchy laws, the constitution invalidates any "laws against discrimination" that is contrary to what the constitution provides. Constitutional law is superior to statutory law. So what you're saying, I'm afraid, is based on a legally ass-backwards understanding of the law.
sklanger 3 years ago
The Bill of Rights does not list all of the rights, it specifically says that in the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, I don't disagree that the California ban is legal, I was trying to clarify what Nick may have meant. Regardless of whether the process was legal or not does not make it a right to deny marriage to people who want to marry a partner of the same sex, and historically over time those sorts of rights do come into legal fruition.
MGB1991 3 years ago
LOL. That's not what you said earlier. What you said was that the Constitutional (which includes the Bill of Rights) "does not outline human rights." You were not making the claim that the BoR does not list all rights, which is a different claim altogether.
Historically the Supreme Court upheld the ban on polygamous marriage. So it's not obvious they tend to "come to fruition" at all. Nick was just bullshitting, so it's just as well you're not defending him.
sklanger 3 years ago
How does that differ from what I said? The constitution and bill of rights do not list all of our rights.
It is a completely different legal matter as it involves multiple partners. Having multiple wives and having one partner of the same sex are different legal issues; having a partner of the same sex is on par with having a partner of the opposite sex, having multiple partners without limit and the obligations that go along with that is entirely different.
MGB1991 3 years ago
You said that the constitution does not outline rights. You did not say "does not outline ALL our rights." Those are two completely different things. One means that the BoR does not outline rights at all, the other means it doesn't outline all rights. You can't even admit it when you've been clearly, obviously , utterly proven to be wrong.
You're just being arbitrary and discriminating against bisexuals. LOL. Such a hypocrite.
sklanger 3 years ago
Stop being such an idiot and trying to pervert semantics, I meant that it does not set limitations to our rights, and you know that is what the intent of my statement was.
Why do you feel the need to keep saying "ignorant" and "hypocrite," are you that immature and rude? I've said no such thing about you. You're being such a pompous douchebag when you're not even addressing what I say. You keep listing court cases as if that invalidates my opinion on what the law should be.
MGB1991 3 years ago
Pervert semantics? Sounds like you're trying to retroactively change the plain meaning of what you said so that you're not owned on it. You're the pervert.
Case law invalidates your bullshit legal claims. That's how the law works. If you have no precedent and no statutory law to the contrary, you're basically up shit creek without a paddle. You have no case.
So instead of babbling incoherently about the law, why not just admit you're a clueless douche out of his fucking depth. Yes? Yes.
sklanger 3 years ago
Maybe if you werent an ignorant beast and actually paid attention to the purpose of my statement youd have understood the clear reason that i said the Constution does not outline our rights (i.e. it does not say here are your rights, these are the only ones) it is for the purpose of limiting the power of the federal government.
As for no precedent, Connecticut and Mass courts have ruled that gay marriage is legal. You are the one being the rude douche, but love you anyway <3
MGB1991 3 years ago
LOL! Now you're trying to change the meaning of what you said so that you're not more of an owned bitch than you already are. The BoR clearly "outlines" some rights but not others. It doesn't "outline" all rights, but it outlines some very important rights, you dimwit. Even assuming that the 9th Amdt is not a dead letter under current law (which it is), you're still wrong.
CT & MA are state courts, not federal courts. Since constitutions > precedent, they're irrelevant to Prop 8. Try again. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
Ive not changed the meaning whatsoever. This is a done matter. What purpose would my statement serve other than saying that the constitution doesnt limit our rights?
You queried if the fact that gay marriage was a right was in the constitution, and I said that the constitution doesnt outline our rights. If you will reread my statement, that I meant it doesnt limit our rights is CLEAR. I apologise for the misunderstanding, but youre making something of nothing, and acting like a petty fool
MGB1991 3 years ago
Hilarious. Now you're minimizing your factual mistakes by accusing me of being "petty" when you couldn't be bothered to express yourself correctly? Right. Apaprently you may not be corrected. Any such correction is just pettiness, nevermind that you were clearly incorrect and had to rehash your statement and revise its plain meaning later. Did I already say you were ignorant?
sklanger 3 years ago
Sklanger, can you please just read the original post? I'm being serious, this is what i meant. If you want to try and alter the meaning, go ahead, but I think if you just look at what you said, you'll understand the reason behind what I said. If you still disagree, then explain the purpose of my statement and how it is at all relevant if it wasn't in reference to our rights not being limited merely by not being listed in the constitution.
MGB1991 3 years ago
I forgot to say... it is certainly your right to be able to marry the consenting adult of your choice, and the reason it is important is not just because of the benefits granted to straight couples that are being denied to gay couples, but the fact that the lack of recognition says that as a society we accept second-class status for some of our citizens. To withhold those rights on the basis of sexual orientation is indeed discrimination, derived from homophobic bigotry, and shouldn't be allowed
MGB1991 3 years ago
Who says it is "certainly your right"? Nonsense. You're begging the question. It is precisely NOT your right after the passing of Prop 8.
There is no right to polygamous marriages either, just as there is no right to gay marriage post-prop 8.
sklanger 3 years ago
Firstly, polygamous marriage is a completely different topic - multiple spouses is a completely different legal issue.
Secondly, while this argument may seem cliché, it was certainly the right of slaves to be free while it was sanctioned by the US Constitution. Just because a ban passed with a simple majority doesn't prove it is somehow not a right, that is a ridiculous argument and addresses nothing I said in my previous post.
MGB1991 3 years ago
Except that it is not "different" at all. A bisexual in love with a man and a woman will by definition have to be polygamous to fulfill both facets of her sexuality. A ban on polygamy will therefore discriminate against bisexuals. Why are you discriminating against bisexuals? Hypocrite.
The slaves were freed by the democratically enacted 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. I don't see you successfully amending the Constitution. Until you do, bans on gay marriage are not "illegal," period.
sklanger 3 years ago
What rubbish. That is the most ridiculous argument, it is the same as saying that a straight person should be able to have multiple spouses of the opposite sex, or a gay person should be able to have multiple spouses of the same sex. Just because a person is bisexual doesnt have anything to do with polygamy. Stop being such a pompous ass. Furthermore, I am not the one who called the state bans illegal, though a federal ban WOULD be illegal; that is not a power of the federal government.
MGB1991 3 years ago
Wrong. The Supreme Court held the federal ban on polygamy constitutional in Reynolds v. United States. You truly are ignorant aren't you?
Bisexuality has everything to do with polygamy. Forcing a bisexual to choose only one aspect of her sexuality means forcing her to deny the other aspect of her BIsexuality by definition. You have no answer to this conundrum, so you're reduced to calling it "ridiculous" but not actually refuting it.
You know you're owned. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
1) your first paragraph has nothing to due with my argument.
2) You are very immature.
3) By not allowing polygamy, it does not make bisexuals choose one aspect of their sexuality. Choosing one partner does not make them DENY their sexuality, they don't have a fundamental NEED to have a partner of BOTH the same and opposite sex, it merely means they are attracted to both, not that they need to have one of each, and otherwise they are somehow denying their sexuality. So yes, it is ridiculous
MGB1991 3 years ago
The 1st paragraph has everything to do with your false assertion that a federal ban on polygamy "would be illegal." Reynolds v. U.S. upheld just such a federal ban, so I'm just pointing out your factual confusion once again.
By denying polygamy, you're forcing the bisexual to choose only one side of her bisexuality. You're denying them one side of their BIsexuality inherent to what it means to be bisexual. You're discriminating against their orientation. As such, you're a hypocrite. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
firstly, I never said a ban on polygamous marriage would be illegal. What I said was back in reference to nick's comment about the legality, and I said that the federal courts banning gay marriage would be against their historical role under the constitution. I was not in reference to polygamy. If you read "Furthermore, I am not the one who called the state bans illegal," i was clearly in reference to what Nick said, illiterate moron. <3
MGB1991 3 years ago
Then you're a bit of a retard who can't express himself with clarity. Since we were talking about polygamy, it was obvious that "state bans" refer to bans on polygamy, which was in the thread of conversation then. A result of your ignorance that states also ban polygamy, which proves my point that had you known, you wouldn't be expressing yourself so maladroitly, and confusing everyone else.
Blame yourself.
sklanger 3 years ago
As to your second paragraph, I just explained why it is ridiculous. Bisexuality doesn't mean you have to have two partners of opposite sexes, bisexuals should have the right to choose any sex, but that doesn't mean having two partners at the same time is an intrinsic part of their bisexuality and having one makes them deny their sexuality as multiple partners is not a component of their sexuality. Can't you adjust for a statement I've made rather than repeating something?
MGB1991 3 years ago
You haven't explained anything. Bisexuality means an attraction to both sexes. And that means a bisexual who's in love with both a man and a woman, consistent with her own bisexual orientation, would by definition be in a polygamous relationship. Forcing her to be monogamous would necessarily deny one facet of her bisexuality -- either the male attraction facet or the female attraction facet.
You're trying to force a compromise on the bisexual's part, so you're discriminating, hypocrite. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
Again, you miss the point. Being attracted to both sexes does not mean that by definition your sexual orientation requires you to be in a relationship with people of each sex; that is why virtually no bisexuals are also polygamous. Being attracted to both sexes does not mean you have to be in two SIMULTANEOUS relationships. This is such a huge statement of ignorance on your part that it literally has me laughing. Im not a hypocrite, youre just a dumbass <3
MGB1991 3 years ago
Actually it does. A bisexual attracted to a man and a woman by definition engages in polygamous relations. This is inherent in the meaning of bisexuality, you complete fool. Being attracted to both sexes means that the bisexual who is attracted to both a man and a woman is forced to choose ONE sex, contrary to her bisexual nature, to be attracted to. No bisexuals are polygamous? What bullshit. You're ignorant, and a hypocrite to boot. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
Being attracted to each sex is different from having multiple relationships at the same time. I see what you mean, but it's a misunderstanding of what compromises a person's sexuality. Must you be in a relationship with a woman to be straight? Just because they are in a relationship with one sex, and not both sexes simultaneously does not mean they are compromising their sexuality. Dual relationships are not needed for one to be bisexual. I said "Virtually no," not "no", thanks for reading :)
MGB1991 3 years ago
Men don't have to be in a relationship with a woman to be straight, just as gays don't have to be in a relationship with men to be gay. So if gays are denied gay marriage, it doesn't mean they're compromising their sexuality. Hence no discrimination. Right? Either you accept this argument in the context of gay marriage AND polygamy, or you reject them both. Which is it?
You're arbitrarily discriminating against bisexuals who are polygamously fulfilling their bisexuality. You lose, retard. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
UGH, Sklanger, you CLEARLY have no understanding of bisexuality. Denying someone marriage does not compromise their sexuality, they still have that sexuality just as strong as before, but it does discriminate. However, as I've said how many times now, HAVING MULTIPLE PARTNERS AT THE SAME TIME IS NOT PART OF BISEXUALITY, DOES IT SAY SO IN THE DEFINITION, NO. STOP BEING PURPOSELY IGNORANT TO AGRIVATE ME AND JUST SHUT UP, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT THAT STUPID, THIS TOPIC IS OVERRRRRR.
MGB1991 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually it does. I said that a bisexual attracted to a man and a woman by definition engages in polygamous relations. This is inherent in the meaning of bisexuality, you complete fool. Being attracted to both sexes means that the bisexual who is attracted to both a man and a woman is forced to choose ONE sex, contrary to her bisexual nature, to be attracted to. No bisexuals are polygamous? What bullshit. You're ignorant, and a hypocrite to boot. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
"Just because a ban passed with a simple majority doesn't prove it is somehow not a right"
Actually it does. Federal courts have held, for example, that same sex marriage is not a fundamental right under the Constitution, whereas traditional marriage is. You're owned. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
Federal courts change opinions all the time, and are not the ultimate moral authority, I could give various cases where courts have ruled gay marriage is a right. In numerous countries this is the case; just because America is socially regressive at times does not make you right. Marriage between two consenting adults is indeed a right; again, youve failed to address anything Ive said. A Court decision doesn't make somethign right or wrong, and the law is fluid and changes constantly.
MGB1991 3 years ago
Federal courts hold what the law is now. No federal court has ruled that gay marriage is a fundamental right, so the prevailing legal consensus is clearly against you. Most countries in the world do not allow gay marriage. Just because a few morally decadent countries have legalized it does not make you right.
Marriage between two consenting adults of the opposite sex is a fundamental right. This is not the case for 2 adults of the same sex, and the law is clear on it. You have no case. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
The majority has no basis to deny same-sex couples the right to marry as it harms nobody and interferes with no ones life. However, it is the duty of the courts to protect the ability of same-sex couples to marry against the will of the socially regressive majority. In order to integrate the gay community and allow for a more conservative lifestyle, marriage should be allowed, otherwise promiscuity and continuous preclusion of rights (such as visiting your partner in a hospital,etc) will remain
MGB1991 3 years ago
Except that the federal courts have indeed found that the majority has such a basis. "The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in steering procreation into marriage...we cannot conclude that the States justification lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests." CFEP v. Bruning.
You're bullshitting through nose hole as usual.
sklanger 3 years ago
There is no basis for allowing opposite sex marriage and not same sex marriage when homosexuals are naturally attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite. Federal courts cannot ban, nor legalise gay marriage at the national level, and therefore their opinion is legally irrelevant.
MGB1991 3 years ago
Actually they can, for purposes of federal law, determine if gay marriages are "marriages" and if they qualify for federal benefits that gays are bitching that they don't have. Are you this clueless? Not to mention that federal courts adjudicate gay marriage claims whenever they implicate federal or constitutional issues, like DOMA, the full faith and credit clause, the equal protection clause, or the due process clause. So of course they get to rule on it, duh!
You're ignorant. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
No, I am not ignorant, but you are immature.
I did not say the federal courts could not rule on marriage, I believe that I specifically have said that the federal courts cannot ban gay marriage.
MGB1991 3 years ago
You are ignorant. You responded to my comment correcting you on the fact that under federal law, gay marriage is not a "fundamental right." If it isn't a fundamental right, then it follows that federal courts may not invalidate bans on gay marriage with a rational basis to legitimate state interests, which would mean that federal courts effectively let such bans stand, which makes their rulings relevant. Stop trying to worm out of your misstatements of the law.
sklanger 3 years ago
I'm not worming my way out of anything, you're twisting what I said. The reason federal courts let such bans stand is because it is not within their traditional role to regulate state marriage. Things not delegated to the federal government in the constitution are traditionally left up to the states. The courts letting a ban stand, because they do not traditionally regulate state marriage, is not the same as them having the ability to ban gay marriage.
MGB1991 3 years ago
More like you're twisting what I said. I did not say that it was not the states' traditional roles to regulate marriage. I said that the courts get to rule on whether state regulation of gay marriage is unconstitutional under the federal constitution, which means that they effectively validate or invalidate state bans on gay marriage.
Your response - that what federal courts hold as a matter of "fundamental right" is "irrelevant" to the validity of such bans - is therefore nonsense.
sklanger 3 years ago
Actually no, the courts would not rule on whether state-regulation of gay marriage is unconstitutional. Marrige is GOVERNED BY STATE LAW. The state has that right, as decided under Pennoyer v. Neff. The Constitution leaves that power to the states. Therefore your argument that the Federal courts would ever rule on whether state regulation of gay marriage is unconstitutional is RIDICULOUS, and shows a complete IGNORANCE of the constitutional. OWNED.
MGB1991 3 years ago
You really are an imbecile aren't you? I never said that the marriage isn't governed by state law. I said that what federal courts rule on state regulation on marriage effectively validates or invalidates gay marriage -- banning or legalizing them as the case may be under the federal constitution, which is the supreme law of the land under the supremacy clause.
And federal courts may rule that state reg. of marriage is unconstitutional if it impinges on say, the 14th Amdt. Are you stupid?
sklanger 3 years ago
Your save would hold true if I was indeed talking about something, such as the 14th amendment, was involved (i.e. where the Supreme law of the land was at odds with the state decision). Unfortunately for you, you said rule on whether state regulation of gay marriage is unconstitutional under the federal constitution You specifically said GAY MARRIAGE and federal constitution, which is exactly what I called you out on. The Supreme Court would never rule on that. Nice save, ignoramus, you failed
MGB1991 3 years ago
Yes. State regulation of gay marriage -- such as state bans on gay marriage -- may be invalidated under the 14th Amendment of the federal constitution. Meaning that federal courts get to rule on whether state regulation of gay marriage is unconstitutional under the provisions of the federal constitution.
Both Wilson v. Ake (a federal district court) and CFEP v. Bruning (the 8th circuit federal court of appeals) ruled on those very questions. You're the owned ignoramus. It's hilarious.
sklanger 3 years ago
Wilson v. Ake. CFEP v. Bruning. Just two cases in which the federal courts ruled on the constitutionality of state regulations concerning gay marriage. Since they implicate federal questions such as equal protection under the 14th Amdt, federal jurisdiction obtains, and federal courts get to rule on it.
You're ignorant. And you're owned. I suggest you educate yourself before humiliating yourself further. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
Not true as you followed your statement up with "which means that they effectively validate or invalidate state bans on gay marriage," which is not true. The issue at hand is whether states can or cannot ban/legalise gay marriage. The traditional power of the federal courts wouldn't allow them to make such a determination on whether a legalisation or ban is constitutional, as the constitution itself gives the states the right to ban or legalise it.
MGB1991 3 years ago
Secondly, you also claimed that federal courts may not legalize gay marriage as the converse of your assertion that they may not ban gay marriage. This is also wrong, since a finding of the legality of gay marriage and the illegality of bans on gay marriage under a federal court's equal protection analysis would "legalize" such marriages by definition. You're owned again. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
Historically, the courts do not regulate state marriage. As such, it would go against their traditional role to overturn the California decision. if the courts found bans to be legal or illegal it would be under the constitution, which traditionally does not interfere in what the individual states do. Regardless, not meddling in a ban is not on par with the federal courts effectively banning gay marriage by allowing a ban in a state.
MGB1991 3 years ago
Allowing a ban in a state to stand IS effectively banning gay marriage. Are you retarded? If a court may effectively legalize gay marriage by invalidating such a state ban, it may also effectively caused such a ban to be legal -- i.e. effectively banning it. Either both are true, or neither are true. Be consistent, you idiot.
In any case, you do not dispute that what the courts do ARE relevant, contrary to your earlier bilge about how it isn't. So you're wrong. Again. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
Are YOU retarded, is allowing Gay marriage in a state effectively legalising it? What an idiot.
Also, my point still stands that the federal courts will not ban or legalise gay marriage as it is an issue left with the states, so the federal government will not be interfering in Cali, mass, or wherever. That was my point, and no I'm not wrong, you're just illiterate.
MGB1991 3 years ago
Of course it is effectively legalizing it if one invalidates a state ban on gay marriage you braindead gaytard.
Your "point" which was originally issued as a response to my statement about the relevance of federal court rulings on gay marriage, is therefore irrelevant, and you're illiterate by your own lights. So not only are you wrong, you owned yourself. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
You missed the point. My point was that mass and conn have both legalised gay marriage, yet the supreme court has done nothing, yet it has not effectively legalised gay marriage. Therefore, it allowing a gay marriage ban is not effectively banning gay marriage. get it?
also, yay, the homophobia comes out! Thanks for talking to little boys like me, sexy daddy! <333 Love you too!
hahaha, you obviously know im kidding, but can you chill out with the insults? You're making me throw some back :)
MGB1991 3 years ago
i agree with you
gearhead291 3 years ago 2
you look great babe
gearhead291 3 years ago 2
first comment
luv you !
gearhead291 3 years ago 2