PDA

View Full Version : Republican NY Senator Roy McDonald's Defense Gay Marriage



MR2-Sooner86
6/17/2011, 03:27 PM
"You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing," McDonald, 64, told reporters.
"You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, f*ck it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing.
"I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I'm trying to do the right thing, and that's where I'm going with this." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/16/new-york-gay-marriage_n_878358.html)

tommieharris91
6/17/2011, 03:33 PM
You read huffpo?

MR2-Sooner86
6/17/2011, 03:37 PM
You read huffpo?

I read a little bit of everything. This was just the link used at one of the other forums I browse.

3rdgensooner
6/17/2011, 03:43 PM
This reminds me of another article I saw recently where a Republican is calling out fellow Republicans: http://blog.cagle.com/2011/06/the-party-of-lincoln-needs-to-look-in-the-mirror/

nighttrain12
6/17/2011, 08:17 PM
If he is so disgusted with his job then he should just quit.

soonerloyal
6/17/2011, 08:20 PM
See, some Publicans are worth somethin'.

MR2-Sooner86
6/25/2011, 06:29 AM
Republican-led State Senate passes law to allow gay marriage in New York (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110625/ts_nm/us_gaymarriage_newyork#mwpphu-container)


ALBANY, New York (Reuters) – Governor Andrew Cuomo made same-sex marriages legal in New York on Friday, a key victory for gay rights ahead of the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

New York will become the sixth and most populous U.S. state to allow gay marriage. State senators voted 33-29 on Friday evening to approve marriage equality legislation and Cuomo, a Democrat who had introduced the measure, signed it into law.

"This vote today will send a message across the country. This is the way to go, the time to do it is now, and it is achievable; it's no longer a dream or an aspiration. I think you're going to see a rapid evolution," Cuomo, who is in his first year of office, told a news conference.

"We reached a new level of social justice," he said.

Same-sex weddings can start taking place in New York in 30 days, though religious institutions and nonprofit groups with religious affiliations will not be compelled to officiate at such ceremonies. The legislation also gives gay couples the right to divorce.

"I have to define doing the right thing as treating all persons with equality and that equality includes within the definition of marriage," Republican Senator Stephen Saland said before the bill was passed. He was one of four Republicans to vote for the legislation.

Cheers erupted in the Senate gallery in the state capital Albany and among a crowd of several hundred people who gathered outside New York City's Stonewall Inn, where a police raid in 1969 sparked the modern gay rights movement.

"It's about time. I want to get married. I want the same rights as anyone else," Caroline Jaeger, 36, a student, who was outside the Stonewall Inn.
But New York's Catholic bishops said they were "deeply disappointed and troubled" by the passage of the bill.

"We always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love. But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman," the state's Catholic Conference said in a statement.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an advocate for gay marriage who lobbied state lawmakers in recent weeks, said the vote was an "historic triumph for equality and freedom."

"Together, we have taken the next big step on our national journey toward a more perfect union," he said in a statement.

ELECTION ISSUE

President Barack Obama, who attended a fund-raiser in New York on Thursday for Gay Pride Week, has a nuanced stance on gay issues. Experts say he could risk alienating large portions of the electorate if he came out strongly in favor of such matters as gay marriage before the 2012 elections.
During the 2008 election, Obama picked up important support from Evangelicals, Catholics, Latinos and African-Americans, some of whom oppose gay marriage, which has become a contentious social issue being fought state-by-state.

In California a judge last year overturned a ban on gay marriage, but no weddings can take place while the decision is being appealed. It could set national policy if the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.
Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, and Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois and New Jersey approved civil unions. The first legal same-sex marriages in the United States took place in Massachusetts in 2004.

But gay marriage is banned in 39 states.

In New York a recent Siena poll found 58 percent of New Yorkers support gay marriage, while nationally the U.S. public is nearly evenly split, with 45 percent in favor and 46 percent opposed, according to a Pew Research poll released last month.

New York City's marketing and tourism group NYC & Company said it was gearing up to turn the city into "the gay weddings destination." "The new legislation is good news for the City's $31 billion travel and tourism industry," said NYC & Company Chief Executive George Fertitta.

New York's Democrat-dominated Assembly voted 80-63 in favor of gay marriage last week and passed the amended legislation on Friday 82-47.
A key sticking point had been over an exemption that would allow religious officials to refuse to perform services or lend space for same-sex weddings. Most Republicans were concerned the legal protection was not strong enough, so legislative leaders worked with Cuomo to amend his original bill.

"God, not Albany, settled the definition of marriage a long time ago," said Senator Ruben Diaz Sr., a Pentecostal minister and the only Democrat to vote against the measure.

However, fears of a slew of litigation arising from a possible religious exemption to New York's proposed same-sex marriage law are not borne out by experience with similar laws in other states, legal experts say.

bigfatjerk
6/25/2011, 07:24 AM
Why is our government involved in marriage anyway? Isn't marriage a church thing therefor the government shouldn't be involved. A lot of people say we can't pray in school or in other public events for the same reason of separation of church and state why should marriage be any different? Just because you might make a mistake and marry the wrong person? That never happens.

StoopTroup
6/25/2011, 08:22 AM
Why is our government involved in marriage anyway? Isn't marriage a church thing therefor the government shouldn't be involved. A lot of people say we can't pray in school or in other public events for the same reason of separation of church and state why should marriage be any different? Just because you might make a mistake and marry the wrong person? That never happens.

No. Marriage is a legal contract and the States all require the person marrying two people to be licensed and to follow the rules behind the licensing.

Now.....since NY has now passed a law to allow gay Marriage and doesn't require you to be a resident of NY to get married.....any US Citizen can go to NY and get hitched and return to their State Legally married. Now....If Oklahoma wants to get in on some of these licensing fees....they should push to do the same as NY so that they can marry off as many Texans as possible and reap the dough in. :D

http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Vince+Young+Mack+Brown+Florida+Atlantic+v+Sn46x6AU 7Ltl.jpg

47straight
6/25/2011, 09:41 AM
Once again, fundamentalist mormons are denied the right to marry whomever they want when the crusaders were promising equal rights for all citizens to marry whomever they want.

GKeeper316
6/25/2011, 09:58 AM
Once again, fundamentalist mormons are denied the right to marry whomever they want when the crusaders were promising equal rights for all citizens to marry whomever they want.

everyone knows mormons don't matter.

StoopTroup
6/25/2011, 09:58 AM
Once again, fundamentalist mormons are denied the right to marry whomever they want when the crusaders were promising equal rights for all citizens to marry whomever they want.

What good would 100 Dudes marrying each other do?

Viking Kitten
6/25/2011, 10:12 AM
Well for starters, the shopping that would ensue to fulfill the wedding registry could single-handedly pull this country out of the recession.

StoopTroup
6/25/2011, 10:13 AM
:D

Gandalf_The_Grey
6/25/2011, 10:24 AM
Comparing a dude wanting to marry 20 chicks to a dude wanting to marry another dude is asinine. As is comparing marriage to some animal...which undoubtedly will come very soon. The second argument that it should be a church thing. Does all of you married straight folks agree to give up all those government tax perks they receive from their government? When the government originally got into the marriage business...the Constitution is quite clear. If you apply a set of rules to one group...you have to apply them equally to all groups. For straight people to get married..they have to be of legal age and be able to sign a certificate of wedding. Now, you can't make it more difficult for the gays to get married than straights...that is unconstitutional. Us straight people, in my opinion, need to STFU. We have done more to damage the "sacred" nature of marriage than gays could ever do.

soonercoop1
6/25/2011, 10:38 AM
My guess since he's from NY that he is worried that as a RINO he is an endangered species that won't receive federal protection.

JohnnyMack
6/25/2011, 11:00 AM
Us straight people, in my opinion, need to STFU.

You're straight. Seriously? I mean that's cool, I just thought....never mind.

KABOOKIE
6/25/2011, 12:01 PM
So, what's next? Brothers and sisters? Moms and sons? Yeah maybe not in the near future but, as that RINO said, "we will evolve there as a society soon enough." :rolleyes:

crawfish
6/25/2011, 12:04 PM
I say, make gay marriage legal - and make gay divorce illegal.

That'll show em.

Gandalf_The_Grey
6/25/2011, 01:16 PM
You're straight. Seriously? I mean that's cool, I just thought....never mind.

You are thinking of Dumbledore ;)

picasso
6/25/2011, 01:27 PM
See, some Publicans are worth somethin'.

Oh yes, because the opposite side is sooooooooooooooooo frickin' perfect.

JohnnyMack
6/25/2011, 01:29 PM
Oh yes, because the opposite side is sooooooooooooooooo frickin' perfect.

I guess I don't get why something as fundamental as equal rights for our citizens has to be reduced to taking sides.

picasso
6/25/2011, 01:30 PM
I guess I don't get why something as fundamental as equal rights for our citizens has to be reduced to taking sides.

Are you talking to me? I could care less if gays get married. I was talking about Loyal's constant party line bull$hit here.

Chuck Bao
6/25/2011, 01:32 PM
No. Marriage is a legal contract and the States all require the person marrying two people to be licensed and to follow the rules behind the licensing.

Now.....since NY has now passed a law to allow gay Marriage and doesn't require you to be a resident of NY to get married.....any US Citizen can go to NY and get hitched and return to their State Legally married. Now....If Oklahoma wants to get in on some of these licensing fees....they should push to do the same as NY so that they can marry off as many Texans as possible and reap the dough in. :D

http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Vince+Young+Mack+Brown+Florida+Atlantic+v+Sn46x6AU 7Ltl.jpg

I LOVE THIS IDEA! Just think about the business potential for marriage chapels near Ardmore and Durant. I image the Chickasaw and Choctaw casinos would be very happy to provide a Christian or Native American service in a package deal. Dang StoopTroup, this idea of yours has some legs (and some balls). Spek!

soonercruiser
6/25/2011, 01:50 PM
My guess since he's from NY that he is worried that as a RINO he is an endangered species that won't receive federal protection.

THIS
:D

Bourbon St Sooner
6/25/2011, 01:54 PM
I LOVE THIS IDEA! Just think about the business potential for marriage chapels near Ardmore and Durant. I image the Chickasaw and Choctaw casinos would be very happy to provide a Christian or Native American service in a package deal. Dang StoopTroup, this idea of yours has some legs (and some balls). Spek!

I think your business model here would prove to be pretty fruitless. We all know gay people don't really want to be married. After all, they're smarter than us heteros.

soonercruiser
6/25/2011, 01:57 PM
No. Marriage is a legal contract and the States all require the person marrying two people to be licensed and to follow the rules behind the licensing.

Now.....since NY has now passed a law to allow gay Marriage and doesn't require you to be a resident of NY to get married.....any US Citizen can go to NY and get hitched and return to their State Legally married. Now....If Oklahoma wants to get in on some of these licensing fees....they should push to do the same as NY so that they can marry off as many Texans as possible and reap the dough in. :D


And, of course, Oklahoma should want to be more like NY and CA!
:rolleyes:
Thank GOD.....NOT!

I just love how all you regressives just adore the thought of "evolving" away from moral black & whites!
May GOD have mercy on your souls!
:P

DIB
6/25/2011, 02:14 PM
The government cannot force a church to wed same sex couples. This law only effects the granting of marriage licences. Ergo, this is not a church issue, it is a purely civil issue. If we can expand the civil rights of a minority without impairing the rights of the majority, why wouldn't we.

These types of issues are what's killing the Republican party. We should be the party of the people vs the government, not morality vs liberty.

bigfatjerk
6/25/2011, 02:17 PM
The government cannot force a church to wed same sex couples. This law only effects the granting of marriage licences. Ergo, this is not a church issue, it is a purely civil issue. If we can expand the civil rights of a minority without impairing the rights of the majority, why wouldn't we.

These types of issues are what's killing the Republican party. We should be the party of the people vs the government, not morality vs liberty.
Neither party is for the people or they wouldn't even hold marriage services in churches or they wouldn't allow churches to be conducted by pastors. To me this shouldn't be a civil issue it should be completely a church issue. Most churches won't even allow gay marriage anyway but to me the state shouldn't be issuing any marriages because it's not like they have had better results.

JohnnyMack
6/25/2011, 02:20 PM
Are you talking to me? I could care less if gays get married. I was talking about Loyal's constant party line bull$hit here.

How transcedent of you.

DIB
6/25/2011, 02:27 PM
Neither party is for the people or they wouldn't even hold marriage services in churches or they wouldn't allow churches to be conducted by pastors. To me this shouldn't be a civil issue it should be completely a church issue.

Then your fight is not to stop the state from granting licences to homosexuals; it is to stop the granting of all marriage licences. What about businesses providing benefits to spouses? How will a business know whether a marriage is valid? Will churches develop a judicial branch to adjudicate disputes and divorces? What if a church thinks that homosexual marriage is valid in the eyes of God and performs the service, would you oppose it?

bigfatjerk
6/25/2011, 02:36 PM
I think solving the tax system also helps out the business providing benefits to spouses by getting rid of all subsidies through going to the fair tax. I think most churches can provide records of a service taking place on whatever date and verify that with a certificate or license. And if you can prove that a marriage took place and have a license from the church that would be enough to solve any dispute through the court system. I think 99% of churches anyway no matter what the law is won't have gay marriages. But all you need is that 1%

DIB
6/25/2011, 02:49 PM
I think solving the tax system also helps out the business providing benefits to spouses by getting rid of all subsidies through going to the fair tax. I think most churches can provide records of a service taking place on whatever date and verify that with a certificate or license. And if you can prove that a marriage took place and have a license from the church that would be enough to solve any dispute through the court system. I think 99% of churches anyway no matter what the law is won't have gay marriages today. But all you need is that 1%

What churches are you talking about? Are you only referring to Christian churches? They aren't the only ones that perform marriage services. In fact, nearly every religion has some form of marriage. Do you not think those should be valid? Or would you accept the local Wiccan coven granting a marriage license to all comers? You are fooling yourself, if you don't think a rash of gay friendly churches and chapels won't be opening up in NY. There is just too much money to be made.


The problem I see with your line of reasoning is that you can't withhold rights from one group while you fight to take rights away from another group. You have to give the same rights to both or take away the same rights from both, but you can't do it half way. This is a states rights issue. Every state should have the right to decide who it grants licenses to. As long as the federal government stays out of it and states don't try to force churches to perform services that are against their belief, then I am fine with it.


And marriage has been as much a civil contract as a religious one for a very long time. It is impossible to separate the two. Even if you fix the tax system and get rid of spousal benefits, you still have issues of child custody, shared property and inheritance. If every church/religious organization creates their own license, then family court gets bogged down in arguing the validity of the license, instead of the facts of the case.

SanJoaquinSooner
6/25/2011, 02:54 PM
Neither party is for the people or they wouldn't even hold marriage services in churches or they wouldn't allow churches to be conducted by pastors. To me this shouldn't be a civil issue it should be completely a church issue. Most churches won't even allow gay marriage anyway but to me the state shouldn't be issuing any marriages because it's not like they have had better results.

There's a long way to go to disconnect marriage from legal considerations.

For example, if it's purely a church issue, then is it OK for Chuck's partner to acquire a spousal green card since Chuck is a U.S. citizen - as easily as if he were a female?

Would Chuck and his partner be able to file joint tax returns?

Would legal aspects of debt, assets, inheritance, etc. be treated the same?



On a less serious note, what about two love birds who want to get married on The Love Boat? Shouldn't the captain be able to marry them, even though The Love Boat is not a church?

yermom
6/25/2011, 03:08 PM
Neither party is for the people or they wouldn't even hold marriage services in churches or they wouldn't allow churches to be conducted by pastors. To me this shouldn't be a civil issue it should be completely a church issue. Most churches won't even allow gay marriage anyway but to me the state shouldn't be issuing any marriages because it's not like they have had better results.

so now i have to get married in a church? this deal gets worse all the time!

yermom
6/25/2011, 03:09 PM
the church ceremony is just fun pretend time anyway. you still have to file paperwork with the state, no?

87sooner
6/25/2011, 03:18 PM
the church ceremony is just fun pretend time anyway. you still have to file paperwork with the state, no?

speaking of fun pretend time...
when da gays ask for God's blessing on their "marriage".

Chuck Bao
6/25/2011, 03:24 PM
I think your business model here would prove to be pretty fruitless. We all know gay people don't really want to be married. After all, they're smarter than us heteros.

Okay now then, there is pr0n and there is reality. Some queers want to be married and have always wanted to be married or at least get the state to recognize a civil union and the state department and other states to recognize it as well. Despite what you may hear, it is not gay pride parade and Mardi Gras every day.

yermom
6/25/2011, 03:25 PM
speaking of fun pretend time...
when da gays ask for God's blessing on their "marriage".

why do they need to?

87sooner
6/25/2011, 03:37 PM
why do they need to?

did i say they need to?

Chuck Bao
6/25/2011, 03:55 PM
why do they need to?

Well, I haven't decided on the format of the Baptist-Buddhist marriage ceremony yet. That's a bit tricky.

A couple years ago, I did try to arrange the whole engagement thingyabob, but that didn't catch on and maybe the idea was a little before its time with no real reason to fly to Europe or Iowa to get it knotted if it didn't really matter.

My idea is that we would have a Thai kick boxing (Muay Thai) bout at one of the major arenas in Bangkok and the winner of the bout could decide whether to propose or not. If the winner decided yes and the opponent prove worthy enough then the winner would get down on one knee and propose to his battered foe (probably me) and place a solid gold ring on his/my finger. Otherwise, the winner could equally choose to dance around and punch the air.

As marriage proposes go, yeah I know that is pretty damn lame. But, the whole "you gonna fight me for it" is pretty much appropriate for a very masculine relationship.

I had already bought two solid gold rings, but that is probably testing fate and a bit too presumptuous to get a few minor negative karma points.

picasso
6/25/2011, 04:01 PM
How transcedent of you.

You're awesome. Talking about citizenship and all the while having a stupid sig that you know is offensive to many folks on here.

Rock on.

Blue
6/25/2011, 05:00 PM
You're awesome. Talking about citizenship and all the while having a stupid sig that you know is offensive to many folks on here.

Rock on.

It's that "Liberal Tolerance."

AlboSooner
6/25/2011, 05:31 PM
Polygamy and polyandry should soon follow in NY. NO one on the side of reason can make an argument pro gay marriage and against polygamy/polyandry.

My Opinion Matters
6/25/2011, 05:38 PM
Polygamy and polyandry should soon follow in NY. NO one on the side of reason can make an argument pro gay marriage and against polygamy/polyandry.

lol.

nighttrain12
6/25/2011, 07:40 PM
I blame this law passing on (not all but too many) heterosexuals making a mockery of their own marriages. An outrageous divorce rate, no fault divorce laws, TV shows glamourizing spouses cheating. The standards of what a marriage should be have been lowered immensely including with this new law.

I'm proud to say though that my parents (a man and a woman) just celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary.

My Opinion Matters
6/25/2011, 08:11 PM
Married straight guy here.

If the lens in which you observe the world is so murky that you expect all marriage everywhere to conform to your expectations of what it should be then you're kind of a twat, and also probably a big, fat homophobe.

AlboSooner
6/25/2011, 09:05 PM
Lol. What irony!

Gandalf_The_Grey
6/26/2011, 12:48 AM
Polygamy and polyandry should soon follow in NY. NO one on the side of reason can make an argument pro gay marriage and against polygamy/polyandry.


Are you serious or just being sarcastic? If you can't see the difference in two legal age people getting married and a man marrying 23 women, then you can't be helped. Polygamy/Polyandry would absolutely wreck the tax codes, you would have to re-write vast sections of IRS areas. Gay..no adjustment would be needed. One is a bureaucratic nightmare and a moral thing..the other is merely a moral thing. Which after the us straights have absolutely raped the privilege of getting married, we don't have a moral high ground to stand on. You mean to tell me Chuck Bao can't marry a man he has loved for a very long time but Elizabeth Taylor can marry 10 guys she cares nothing about....

Blue
6/26/2011, 12:58 AM
Who gives a crap what the govt and "liberal progressives" think about morality? It's like asking medical advice from a garbage man.

SanJoaquinSooner
6/26/2011, 01:25 AM
Polygamy and polyandry should soon follow in NY. NO one on the side of reason can make an argument pro gay marriage and against polygamy/polyandry.

Prohibition of gay marriage discriminates with respect to gender, violating the equal protection clause. John can marry Jane but Jill can't due to her gender. With respect to marrying Jane, the law treats John and Jill differently solely on the basis of gender.

Whereas, the law treats everyone the same in its prohibition of polygamy. It is not an equal protection issue.

QED

Chuck Bao
6/26/2011, 02:05 AM
Polygamy and polyandry should soon follow in NY. NO one on the side of reason can make an argument pro gay marriage and against polygamy/polyandry.

You just know every time this subject is brought up that someone will try to equate same-sex marriage to polygamy or marriage to pets and farm animals. It really is a push-button issue that gets some people really stirred up. And, we all already know some politicians are shameless.

Maybe the loving parents suspected something all along when little Steven preferred the arts over sports or when he was offering advice on color coordination of the house decor or preferred roman movies over cowboy movies. So, no big surprise in what happens later. But, sending out wedding invites to friends and family is just too much for two people who spent their lives together and desperately want a few grandkids to spoil as they adjust to getting older. I can see that.

So, I am patient and accept advances one small step at a time.

But, DOMA does need to be repealed.

MR2-Sooner86
6/26/2011, 06:14 AM
Funny that polygamy/polyandry was brought up because that was allowed in the Bible. So was incest and family relations. That's perfectly fine and moral.

Gays getting married though? It'll rip our society apart.

AlboSooner
6/26/2011, 08:14 AM
I knew the pseudo-tolerance would wax its sophistry and deny the same tolerance to polygamy and polyandry. At OU I remember taking an anthrolopgy class and learning about polygamous people in the US. Three college educated people loved each other and wanted to share a marriage.

It was not one guy marrying 23 chicks. It was a well-thought marriage between three people who loved each other. People can come up with many reasons to be against gay marriage, and they can come up with many reasons to be against polygamous marriage. The point is, there is no Logical framework to deny one and allow the other. Many arguments against polygamy, died the death of a thousand qualifications.

Maybe when Hollywood gets of the polygamy bandwagon we will wear the mask of "tolerance" and allow polygamy/polyandry.

JohnnyMack
6/26/2011, 08:48 AM
Funny that polygamy/polyandry was brought up because that was allowed in the Bible. So was incest and family relations. That's perfectly fine and moral.

Gays getting married though? It'll rip our society apart.

Yeah but Jesus never got married, never laid with a woman and spent his days hanging out with a bunch of other single young men. NTTAWWT.

yermom
6/26/2011, 10:22 AM
i've never understood the government's problem with polygamy, especially when they went after the Mormons, there was no welfare or complicated tax codes back then, right?

assuming that we are talking about consenting adults, and not 14 year olds.

47straight
6/26/2011, 02:20 PM
the Constitution is quite clear. If you apply a set of rules to one group...you have to apply them equally to all groups.


Unless the group is fundamentalist mormon. Then they can't marry who they want.

47straight
6/26/2011, 02:24 PM
Are you serious or just being sarcastic? If you can't see the difference in two legal age people getting married and a man marrying 23 women, then you can't be helped. Polygamy/Polyandry would absolutely wreck the tax codes, you would have to re-write vast sections of IRS areas. Gay..no adjustment would be needed. One is a bureaucratic nightmare and a moral thing..the other is merely a moral thing. Which after the us straights have absolutely raped the privilege of getting married, we don't have a moral high ground to stand on. You mean to tell me Chuck Bao can't marry a man he has loved for a very long time but Elizabeth Taylor can marry 10 guys she cares nothing about....

Are you serious or just being sarcastic? If you can't see the difference between a man and a woman getting married and a man marrying a man, then you can't be helped.

Stop forcing your moral beliefs on other people, mormophobe.

47straight
6/26/2011, 02:29 PM
Prohibition of gay marriage discriminates with respect to gender, violating the equal protection clause. John can marry Jane but Jill can't due to her gender. With respect to marrying Jane, the law treats John and Jill differently solely on the basis of gender.

Whereas, the law treats everyone the same in its prohibition of polygamy. It is not an equal protection issue.

QED

Prohibition does not discriminate with respect to gender, and does not violate the equal protection clause. John can only marry opposite gender, and Jill has the same restriction. With respect to marrying opposite gender, the law treats John and Jill the same on the basis of gender.

QED.*







*47straight has only used QED as a form of satire. 47straight does not support the normal use of QED in discussions because it's an ultra-****** move.

DIB
6/26/2011, 02:36 PM
Prohibition does not discriminate with respect to gender, and does not violate the equal protection clause. John can only marry opposite gender, and Jill has the same restriction. With respect to marrying opposite gender, the law treats John and Jill the same on the basis of gender.

QED.*







*47straight has only used QED as a form of satire. 47straight does not support the normal use of QED in discussions because it's an ultra-****** move.

Prohibition does not discriminate with respect to race, and does not violate the equal protection clause. Jim is black and Bill is white. Jim can only marry his own race, and Bill has the same restriction. With respect to marrying the opposite race, the law treats Jim and Bill the same on the basis of race.

DIB
6/26/2011, 02:39 PM
Prohibition does not discriminate with respect to gender, and does not violate the equal protection clause. John can only marry opposite gender, and Jill has the same restriction. With respect to marrying opposite gender, the law treats John and Jill the same on the basis of gender.

QED.*







*47straight has only used QED as a form of satire. 47straight does not support the normal use of QED in discussions because it's an ultra-****** move.

Prohibition does not discriminate with respect to race, and does not violate the equal protection clause. Jim is black and Bill is white. Jim cannot use a water fountain designated for the opposite race, and Bill has the same restriction. With respect to drinking at water fountains of the opposite race, the law treats Jim and Bill the same on the basis of race.

My Opinion Matters
6/26/2011, 02:41 PM
Why would any straight person give a damn about gay people getting married anyway? Being against gay marriage is like being against someone putting ranch dressing on their pizza. Maybe it seems icky to you, some people might even say it's in bad taste; but ultimately why do you give a damn? Oh no! Someone put ranch dressing on their pizza! Consequences will never be the same!

People that are against gay marriage are faggits.

DIB
6/26/2011, 02:42 PM
Why would any straight person give a damn about gay people getting married anyway? Being against gay marriage is like being against someone putting ranch dressing on their pizza. Maybe it seems icky to you, some people might even say it's in bad taste; but ultimately why do you give a damn? Oh no! Someone put ranch dressing on their pizza! Consequences will never be the same!

People that are against gay marriage are faggits.

PEOPLE THAT PUT RANCH ON PIZZA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE PIZZA!!!!!!!!!!!

Mongo
6/26/2011, 02:45 PM
wait.... if you ranch up your pizza, you support or dont support gay marriage?

My Opinion Matters
6/26/2011, 02:46 PM
I agree, it's pretty disgusting. If you were to ask me which was worse between putting ranch on pizza, and putting my peener in some dude's wormhole...well, I'd have to think about it.

My Opinion Matters
6/26/2011, 02:47 PM
wait.... if you ranch up your pizza, you support or dont support gay marriage?

We all know where you stand on this issue, now go pick up my dry cleaning.

DIB
6/26/2011, 02:47 PM
I agree, it's pretty disgusting. If you were to ask me which was worse between putting ranch on pizza, and putting my peener in some dude's wormhole...well, I'd have to think about it.

What about dipping a peener in ranch?

My Opinion Matters
6/26/2011, 02:48 PM
What about dipping a peener in ranch?

The dog seems to enjoy it when I do that.

Mongo
6/26/2011, 02:49 PM
what about just dipping the crust in ranch?

Mongo
6/26/2011, 02:49 PM
We all know where you stand on this issue, now go pick up my dry cleaning.

no. we arent married.



yet

My Opinion Matters
6/26/2011, 02:50 PM
what about just dipping the crust in ranch?

Pizza crust or the other kind of crust?

DIB
6/26/2011, 02:51 PM
Pizza crust or the other kind of crust?

wormhole crust?

My Opinion Matters
6/26/2011, 02:51 PM
wormhole crust?

Yeah, that kind.

Mongo
6/26/2011, 02:52 PM
Pizza crust or the other kind of crust?

cinnamon ring crust?

My Opinion Matters
6/26/2011, 02:52 PM
cinnamon ring crust?

Yeah, that kind.

My Opinion Matters
6/26/2011, 02:53 PM
Way to fag up a gay marriage thread, fags.

picasso
6/26/2011, 02:56 PM
Why would any straight person give a damn about gay people getting married anyway? Being against gay marriage is like being against someone putting ranch dressing on their pizza. Maybe it seems icky to you, some people might even say it's in bad taste; but ultimately why do you give a damn? Oh no! Someone put ranch dressing on their pizza! Consequences will never be the same!

People that are against gay marriage are faggits.

Why should you care how somebody else cares about anything?

My Opinion Matters
6/26/2011, 02:59 PM
Why should you care how somebody else cares about anything?

I don't; and my not caring doesn't limit any other adult, tax-paying citizen's civil rights.

47straight
6/26/2011, 02:59 PM
C'mon man. That line of reasoning was rejected as far back as Loving.


Except the 14th amendment was specifically aimed at such racial inequality laws.

47straight
6/26/2011, 03:00 PM
Prohibition does not discriminate with respect to race, and does not violate the equal protection clause. Jim is black and Bill is white. Jim can only marry his own race, and Bill has the same restriction. With respect to marrying the opposite race, the law treats Jim and Bill the same on the basis of race.

Except the 14th amendment was specifically crafted against this.

picasso
6/26/2011, 03:00 PM
I don't; and my not caring doesn't limit any other adult, tax-paying citizen's civil rights.

Well in that case you need to cut those who oppose gay marriage some slack. They need love too ya know.

47straight
6/26/2011, 03:00 PM
Why would any straight person give a damn about gay people getting married anyway? Being against gay marriage is like being against someone putting ranch dressing on their pizza. Maybe it seems icky to you, some people might even say it's in bad taste; but ultimately why do you give a damn? Oh no! Someone put ranch dressing on their pizza! Consequences will never be the same!

People that are against gay marriage are faggits.

So you will also stand with me in favor of plural marriage?

My Opinion Matters
6/26/2011, 03:04 PM
So you will also stand with me in favor of plural marriage?

Maybe. But you're not standing behind me.

DIB
6/26/2011, 03:13 PM
Except the 14th amendment was specifically aimed at such racial inequality laws.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The equal protection clause does not just apply to race

soonerloyal
6/26/2011, 04:34 PM
Are you talking to me? I could care less if gays get married. I was talking about Loyal's constant party line bull$hit here.


As opposed to your constant whateveritis? I have some medicated talcum powder for your sore hiney.

47straight
6/26/2011, 04:35 PM
So why make the argument that it would apply to polygamy?



I don't know. Maybe find someone who made that argument and ask them.


Reading comprehension.

47straight
6/26/2011, 04:37 PM
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The equal protection clause does not just apply to race



I'll believe you're actually and consistently for a textualist reading of the Constitution right after I believe you're actually and consistently for allowing people to marry whoever they want.

picasso
6/26/2011, 07:04 PM
As opposed to your constant whateveritis? I have some medicated talcum powder for your sore hiney.

Sore? Not at all. I think it's sad.

SanJoaquinSooner
6/26/2011, 08:05 PM
*47straight has only used QED as a form of satire. 47straight does not support the normal use of QED in discussions because it's an ultra-****** move.

Not as ultra-****** as stating: "NO one on the side of reason can make an argument..."

You may not agree with my argument, but it is based on reason.

47straight
6/27/2011, 12:28 AM
Not as ultra-****** as stating: "NO one on the side of reason can make an argument..."

You may not agree with my argument, but it is based on reason.


SanJoaquinSooner is a ****** for initiating QED into this discussion. He is also a ****** for putting words into my mouth.


QED.

47straight
6/27/2011, 12:39 AM
My reading comprehension is just fine. Possibly your writing style leaves something to be desired, but that looked like a pretty clear statement that you thought that if the equal protection clause applies to gay marriage then it applies to polygamy.

Maybe it's that uncited, misstated assertion of the Constitution that I was reacting to that leaves something to be desired.

SanJoaquinSooner
6/27/2011, 01:03 AM
SanJoaquinSooner is a ****** for initiating QED into this discussion. He is also a ****** for putting words into my mouth.


QED.

I quoted you. I didn't put words into your mouth.

47straight
6/27/2011, 01:45 AM
I quoted you. I didn't put words into your mouth.


http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3272463&postcount=44


"QED."

SanJoaquinSooner
6/27/2011, 07:13 AM
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3272463&postcount=44


"QED."

My apologies. THen it should be clear to you the QED was directed at Albo for throwing down the argument gauntlet, not you.

picasso
6/27/2011, 03:15 PM
Loyal, sorry for being so hard on you. I guess if I was left leaning I'd be ambarrassed by some of those guys too.
I know when I lived in New Mexico I cringed whenever I saw David Walters in the paper.