Don't leave the Gays out!!!!

[okie52]

Gay rights groups pushing to be included in immigration reform bill
Published April 24, 2013
Associated Press

Frustrated at being left out of an immigration overhaul, gay rights groups are pushing to adjust a bipartisan Senate bill to include gay couples. But Democrats are treading carefully, wary of adding another divisive issue that could lose Republican support and jeopardize the entire bill.

Both parties want the bill to succeed. Merely getting to agreement on the basic framework for the immigration overhaul, which would create a long and costly path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million people in the U.S. illegally, was no small feat for senators. And getting it through a divided Congress is still far from a done deal.

Even so, gay rights groups, their lobbyists and grass-roots supporters are insisting the deal shouldn't exclude bi-national, same-sex couples -- about 28,500 of them, according to a 2011 study from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law. They're ramping up a campaign to change the bill to allow gay Americans to sponsor their partners for green cards, the same way straight Americans can. Supporters trekked to the Capitol to make their case at senators' offices on Wednesday.

"Opponents will be proposing amendments that, if passed, could collapse this very fragile coalition that we've been able to achieve," Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said last week at the unveiling of the bill. He said the eight senators from both parties who crafted the legislation are committed to voting against changes that could kill it.

For Democrats, it's a precarious position to be in. Democratic senators overwhelmingly support gay marriage -- all but three are now on the record voicing their support -- and two dozen of them this year backed a separate bill called the Uniting American Families Act to let gays sponsor their partners independent of a comprehensive immigration overhaul.

But the party's senators are still bruised from an agonizing defeat on gun control this month. And few seem eager to inject divisive issues that might sink their best prospects for a major legislative victory this year and a potential keystone of President Barack Obama's legacy.

"Any amendment which might sink the immigration bill, I would worry about," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said in a brief interview, adding that he had yet to decide whether an amendment for gays and lesbians would meet that yardstick.

Support from both Hispanics and gays was critical to Obama's re-election, and his overwhelming advantage among Hispanics was a major factor prompting Republicans to warm to immigration overhaul almost immediately after. But now, one community's gain on the immigration front could be to the other's detriment.

"As you continue to add other issues to the immigration discussion, it's going to make it more challenging," said Sen. John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican.

Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, has committed to offering an amendment to the bill to allow gay citizens to sponsor their partners, said Ty Cobb, an attorney and lobbyist with the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. Another Democratic senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, pledged in a Judiciary hearing on the bill Monday to do "everything we can" to adjust the bill.

But even if the amendment makes it through the Senate, it faces a tougher path if and when the bill moves to the Republican-controlled House. GOP leaders there have been defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, though Obama has said it is unconstitutional. And while Obama supports same-sex marriage, his administration has shown little appetite for forcing the issue while the immigration overhaul's prospects are still shaky.

"No one will get everything they want from it, including the president. That's the nature of compromise. But the bill is largely consistent with the principles he has laid out repeatedly," Obama spokesman Jay Carney said last week. A White House spokesman declined to answer further questions about the issue.

Some Democrats argue privately that with the Supreme Court poised to rule on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the government from giving federal marriage benefits to gay couples, the issue could soon be moot. Still, even if the high court strikes the law down, it would only bring partial relief; only couples married in the nine states that recognize gay marriages would probably be eligible.
The issue has generated an intense advocacy campaign, with gay rights organizations and Hispanic groups such as the National Council of La Raza squaring off with religious interests such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which sent a letter to Obama telling him including the provision could jeopardize the whole bill.

At the Human Rights Campaign, four of its seven federal lobbyists are engaged in pushing lawmakers to back such an amendment. Immigration Equality, another group supporting the provision, said it was bringing more than 60 families from 24 states to the Capitol on Wednesday to ask lawmakers to offer their support.

And Log Cabin Republicans, a gay conservative group, is making a pro-business pitch with potential GOP supporters, arguing that including gay couples would allow U.S. companies to retain the best talent instead of forcing good workers to leave the U.S. to be with their partners.

Such may be the case for Paul Coyle, a 45-year-old partner in a Chicago law firm, who has spent the past 10 years in a long-distance relationship with his partner in Toronto. At first, the two men would take turns flying back and forth, he said, until immigration officials cracked down, making it harder for his partner to enter the U.S. Now Coyle flies to Canada every other week, wondering each time whether it would be cheaper and more rewarding to pack up his law practice and move to Canada.

"It's emotionally draining. It's financially draining, and every time he comes to the U.S., there's the risk he won't get let back in," Coyle said. "But when you're in love, you just take the risk, because it's worth it."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/24/gay-rights-groups-pushing-to-be-included-in-immigration-reform-bill/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Interna l+-+Politics+-+Text%29#ixzz2RPsngRJP

I support the gays being included in this bill. What heartless bastard would want to separate Paul Coyle from his partner?

[Soonerjeepman]

umm...I'll be the heartless bastar*

[okie52]

umm...I'll be the heartless bastar*

You'd let 11,000,000 illegals become citizens and not let Paul's lover?

[XingTheRubicon]

and two weeks later doughboy was murdered

[KantoSooner]

If the federal government recognizes gay marriage, as it seems increasingly likely they will, Paul and his boyfriend need only go to a jurisdiction that allows gay marriage, get legally married and then the feds will be bound to treat them like any other married couple.
I'm not sure I'd support risking a real immigration overhaul for something that has an easy workaround.

[okie52]

If the federal government recognizes gay marriage, as it seems increasingly likely they will, Paul and his boyfriend need only go to a jurisdiction that allows gay marriage, get legally married and then the feds will be bound to treat them like any other married couple.
I'm not sure I'd support risking a real immigration overhaul for something that has an easy workaround.

Heh...I would.

[Soonerjeepman]

You'd let 11,000,000 illegals become citizens and not let Paul's lover?

nope..don't want any of it~

Looks like they already tackled that further up in the article anyways...the homo thing.

[okie52]

nope..don't want any of it~

Looks like they already tackled that further up in the article anyways...the homo thing.

Well I would certainly hate for anything to derail this worthy bill.

[Soonerjeepman]

lol...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

21st Century = Twilight Zone = Democrat Control

[okie52]

Unfortunately Rush, there are a number of pubs that are willing to sell out.

[ouwasp]

I was about to post something in response... but figured I'd be better served by going back to my former pattern of trying to not go to homo threads. I'm so sick of the pervasiveness of this perversion.

A fellow I work with said it was getting bad on the NSU campus in Tahlequah; his son said he has to ask which team a girl plays for before he asks them for a date. Guess there are a lot of "LUGs" (lesbian until graduation) in Cherokee County.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Unfortunately Rush, there are a number of pubs that are willing to sell out.Yeah we all know that. But, without the pressure by the Left(democrats) and the MSM, Public Schools, Entertainment industry, those republicans wouldn't even dream of it on their own, to enact all the nonsense that has come about since '06, when the democrats grabbed the nation by the cajones, and have had it since. The '12 election has sealed the fate of our nation for prolly at least a generation.

[okie52]

Sure, the vast majority of dems are going to support amnesty but that wouldn't make any difference if the pubs in the House voted against it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Sure, the vast majority of dems are going to support amnesty but that wouldn't make any difference if the pubs in the House voted against it.We're screwed. There will be 11-20 whatever millions of new democrat voters before the '14 elections. It will get rammed through one way or another.

[OU_Sooners75]

My opinion? Those gays can take their agenda and shove it up their bums! You want a lifetime with a partner? Go for it, but it isn't marriage! You want your gay lover to be a citizen? Then do it by the way of the law and stop trying to force Americans (which the vast majority is not gay) into a decision in allowing you and your unGodly lifestyle to dictate immigration.

[ouwasp]

Now, 75, you know darn well they'd probably enjoy having the agenda shoved up their bums...

[OU_Sooners75]

Yeah they probably would...hence the reason they need to do that. LOL

Gays and their agenda can go jump off the Empire State Building for all I care!

Its amazing the Gays are not rallying to get gay conceal carry licenses together!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Its amazing the Gays are not rallying to get gay conceal carry licenses together!in the name of efficiency there oughta be a bill for conceal-carry combined gay marriage licenses, or at least gay marriage-weapon registrations combined. It could include pressure cookers and abnormally long nails.

[Chuck Bao]

I think that I agree with Kanto. If DOMA is overturned by the Supreme Court this summer, I had assumed that the US State Department and overseas embassies would automatically start recognizing same-sex marriages where and when they are legal and afford them the same consideration as heterosexual marriages. Maybe I was wrong in assuming this, because the failure of our representatives to repeal DOMA still confounds me.

Besides Kanto’s post, it seems that you guys are trying awfully hard not to understand.

Okay, I’ve heard it said many times that anyone who marries a foreign national is a “loser” as they weren’t able to find a suitable mate from their own home country first. That always seemed like a stupid comment, in my opinion, especially for some Americans living a good portion of their lives overseas. Anyway, it is a slippery slope if the state gets more involved in designating “losers” and evaluating their potential marriageable material, irrespective of national borders.

Under the current system, I think we are talking about Americans who have to choose either living in the country of their birth or with their life partner. I know that I have mentioned this before and my experiences at a particular US embassy.

It astounds me that some may think that by just bringing this topic up is essentially up your bunghole. Or, we have the standard: “you put your willy where?”. The concept of “Life partner” is not going to sink in to the so-called traditional marriage people anytime soon, so I don’t know why I bother.

[okie52]

I think that I agree with Kanto. If DOMA is overturned by the Supreme Court this summer, I had assumed that the US State Department and overseas embassies would automatically start recognizing same-sex marriages where and when they are legal and afford them the same consideration as heterosexual marriages. Maybe I was wrong in assuming this, because the failure of our representatives to repeal DOMA still confounds me.

Besides Kanto’s post, it seems that you guys are trying awfully hard not to understand.

Okay, I’ve heard it said many times that anyone who marries a foreign national is a “loser” as they weren’t able to find a suitable mate from their own home country first. That always seemed like a stupid comment, in my opinion, especially for some Americans living a good portion of their lives overseas. Anyway, it is a slippery slope if the state gets more involved in designating “losers” and evaluating their potential marriageable material, irrespective of national borders.

Under the current system, I think we are talking about Americans who have to choose either living in the country of their birth or with their life partner. I know that I have mentioned this before and my experiences at a particular US embassy.

It astounds me that some may think that by just bringing this topic up is essentially up your bunghole. Or, we have the standard: “you put your willy where?”. The concept of “Life partner” is not going to sink in to the so-called traditional marriage people anytime soon, so I don’t know why I bother.

Chuck....I hope the gays demands **** up this ****ty bill. I hope women stick an equal rights amendment in it along with additional abortion rights. Maybe we can get some additional welfare benefits throw in along with some new affirmative action measures. Perhaps sneak in an assault weapons ban.

[yermom]

My opinion? Those gays can take their agenda and shove it up their bums! You want a lifetime with a partner? Go for it, but it isn't marriage! You want your gay lover to be a citizen? Then do it by the way of the law and stop trying to force Americans (which the vast majority is not gay) into a decision in allowing you and your unGodly lifestyle to dictate immigration.

what does your god have anything to do with any of this again?

[KantoSooner]

It's a failure to recognize that marriage is a legal concept as well as a religious one. You can have a legal marriage, and the rights that flow from that with absolutely no impact whatsoever on any religion or religiously defined marraige. No church is bound to marry gays, no clergyman is forced to perform any ceremony.
But, I'd be comfortable with recognition of same sex marrriages. and in this case, that would mean receiving spousal consideration in relation to immigration.

P.S. if you want to torpedo the immigration bill (is it a bill, yet?) you'll get more traction hammering on 'securing the border'. That little clause is going to be a monster to define, defend, apply or do anything else with. And on it hangs the whole rest of the dealio.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I think that I agree with Kanto. If DOMA is overturned by the Supreme Court this summer, I had assumed that the US State Department and overseas embassies would automatically start recognizing same-sex marriages where and when they are legal and afford them the same consideration as heterosexual marriages. Maybe I was wrong in assuming this, because the failure of our representatives to repeal DOMA still confounds me.

On what grounds?

The only thing that's even close to unconstitutional is Section III, and that's only if one applies Loving v. Virginia as precedent. And while that sounds amazingly argumentative and I do realize you have a legitimate horse in this race, the fact is that DOMA's overturning by the SCOTUS does more harm than good. Here's my take from the beginning which'll hopefully shed some light as to why I think blasting DOMA out of the water is a BAD thing.

Section II is the anchor that addresses the constitutional trainwreck. It establishes exemption from Full Faith and Credit and addresses the X Amendment needs of the powers of the States and the people. Regardless of one's beliefs on this issue, it simply fact that marriage is a state level institution, managed, dictated, and licensed by the States, therefore by this basic principle marriage as a concept is undeniably a State's rights concern. Therefore to prevent Full Faith and Credit dictating to states that have passed constitutional language explicitly forbidding the practice and vice versa, a Full Faith and Credit exemption MUST be in place, the X Amendment MUST be preserved (due to lacking establishment of this power being specifically delegated to the Federal Government, therefore being a power of the States and/or people), and the States left to figure out what is most appropriate for its citizens.

But here's the caveat. The ol' XIV Amendment kicks in about the deprivation of life, liberty, and property and that whole equal protection mess. One would think, "Hey, that right there says it all. There is no equal protection, therefore by virtue of the XIVth, DOMA is toast!" But here comes LBJ's penstroke, our friend, the Civil Rights Act of '64 which establishes federally recognized protected classes to which consistently equal protection is applied as a guideline to these federally defined classes of people. So in essence, the Civil Rights Act is neutering the XIVth's application in this argument because for all rights and purposes, homosexuals (other than in the federal workplace in harassment language) are NOT a class defined and protected by the Civil Rights Act. Which leads to my point.

DOMA being stricken wholly is a HUGE mistake. It will be one of the last bullets in the head of state's rights as this is CLEARLY, INARGUABLY a state's rights issue. And for homosexuals, it's the completely wrong tree to be barking up. We've seen in multiple decisions that Section III will probably fall before the SCOTUS but the true position that will have the most balancing effect is preservation of DOMA, therefore preserving the X Amendment, keeping well established state's rights in place, but also ADDING homosexuals as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act which enables the XIVth to kick in, makes Loving v. Virginia applicable, strikes state language prohibiting the act as unconstitutional, but allows the States to establish whatever mechanic they desire that works for their people. To simply strike DOMA is a legislative and judicial nightmare that opens the spectre of Full Faith and Credit where legal marriages and state constitutionally prohibited actions carry equal weight resulting in court battle after court battle and NOTHING changing. Continuation of the status quo.

DOMA is the gatekeeper in all this. Strike DOMA and you pitch a legislative and judicial hand grenade into the mix instead of working towards common sense goals that allow the States to preserve their rights, allow the States to dictate their methods, all while addressing the overarching concept of Full Faith and Credit, the Xth, and XIVth Amendments.

[Midtowner]

The argument in this case is that homosexuals are in fact a suspect class, but that's not the end of it. The argument follows that even if homosexuals are not a suspect class, there's no rational basis for discriminating against them. Section II is totally and completely unconstitutional (I predict) as a federal statute cannot abrogate the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

You've got some of your history wrong. Strict scrutiny and suspect classification didn't come from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it might have been made statute instead of case law, but suspect classification goes back to Korematsu--a case involving Japanese internment camps during WWII. Right now we're not even talking about strict scrutiny in the decisions of the Circuit Courts. One Circuit has held homosexuals not to be a quasi-suspect class (subject to intermediate scrutiny) and another has held them to be a quasi suspect class. This will be decided by the SCOTUS, ultimately, so talking about it as if to say you are right and everyone else is wrong is just ignorant.

While marriage is something which is clearly a state's right, it is also a citizen's right to be treated equally under the law. There is a conflict of authorities on whether, even absent DOMA, one state would be required to substitute another state's statutes which were in conflict with its own with regard to marriage. There's a long history of, for example, prior to Loving v. Virginia, states not recognizing same sex unions in other states. To that extent, DOMA might just be superfluous. The federal government can't abrogate constitutional principles by statute though. This should be resolved in the courts.

DOMA is no gatekeeper. It doesn't keep the feds from legislating regarding marriage. The fact that the Constitution doesn't give the feds any arguable power in that area is what keeps them from regulating marriage. States are still bound by the 14th Amendment, etc., and we'll see what comes out of the Court. The courts might figure it out for us. Maybe not this time--I think there's still a good chance this case gets bounced on standing.

[Soonerjeepman]

Okay, I’ve heard it said many times that anyone who marries a foreign national is a “loser” as they weren’t able to find a suitable mate from their own home country first. That always seemed like a stupid comment, in my opinion, especially for some Americans living a good portion of their lives overseas. Anyway, it is a slippery slope if the state gets more involved in designating “losers” and evaluating their potential marriageable material, irrespective of national borders.

WTH? never heard that...



It astounds me that some may think that by just bringing this topic up is essentially up your bunghole. Or, we have the standard: “you put your willy where?”. The concept of “Life partner” is not going to sink in to the so-called traditional marriage people anytime soon, so I don’t know why I bother.

don't know why you bother either~

[okie52]

It's a failure to recognize that marriage is a legal concept as well as a religious one. You can have a legal marriage, and the rights that flow from that with absolutely no impact whatsoever on any religion or religiously defined marraige. No church is bound to marry gays, no clergyman is forced to perform any ceremony.
But, I'd be comfortable with recognition of same sex marrriages. and in this case, that would mean receiving spousal consideration in relation to immigration.

P.S. if you want to torpedo the immigration bill (is it a bill, yet?) you'll get more traction hammering on 'securing the border'. That little clause is going to be a monster to define, defend, apply or do anything else with. And on it hangs the whole rest of the dealio.

I'm sure securing the border and pathway to citizenship will be the biggest hurdles. Even Everify will cause many consternation over its implementation. But every little amendment that is added will often create more fractures for those supporting the measure. And that, to me, is a good thing.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

On what grounds?

The only thing that's even close to unconstitutional is Section III, and that's only if one applies Loving v. Virginia as precedent. And while that sounds amazingly argumentative and I do realize you have a legitimate horse in this race, the fact is that DOMA's overturning by the SCOTUS does more harm than good. Here's my take from the beginning which'll hopefully shed some light as to why I think blasting DOMA out of the water is a BAD thing.

Section II is the anchor that addresses the constitutional trainwreck. It establishes exemption from Full Faith and Credit and addresses the X Amendment needs of the powers of the States and the people. Regardless of one's beliefs on this issue, it simply fact that marriage is a state level institution, managed, dictated, and licensed by the States, therefore by this basic principle marriage as a concept is undeniably a State's rights concern. Therefore to prevent Full Faith and Credit dictating to states that have passed constitutional language explicitly forbidding the practice and vice versa, a Full Faith and Credit exemption MUST be in place, the X Amendment MUST be preserved (due to lacking establishment of this power being specifically delegated to the Federal Government, therefore being a power of the States and/or people), and the States left to figure out what is most appropriate for its citizens.

But here's the caveat. The ol' XIV Amendment kicks in about the deprivation of life, liberty, and property and that whole equal protection mess. One would think, "Hey, that right there says it all. There is no equal protection, therefore by virtue of the XIVth, DOMA is toast!" But here comes LBJ's penstroke, our friend, the Civil Rights Act of '64 which establishes federally recognized protected classes to which consistently equal protection is applied as a guideline to these federally defined classes of people. So in essence, the Civil Rights Act is neutering the XIVth's application in this argument because for all rights and purposes, homosexuals (other than in the federal workplace in harassment language) are NOT a class defined and protected by the Civil Rights Act. Which leads to my point.

DOMA being stricken wholly is a HUGE mistake. It will be one of the last bullets in the head of state's rights as this is CLEARLY, INARGUABLY a state's rights issue. And for homosexuals, it's the completely wrong tree to be barking up. We've seen in multiple decisions that Section III will probably fall before the SCOTUS but the true position that will have the most balancing effect is preservation of DOMA, therefore preserving the X Amendment, keeping well established state's rights in place, but also ADDING homosexuals as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act which enables the XIVth to kick in, makes Loving v. Virginia applicable, strikes state language prohibiting the act as unconstitutional, but allows the States to establish whatever mechanic they desire that works for their people. To simply strike DOMA is a legislative and judicial nightmare that opens the spectre of Full Faith and Credit where legal marriages and state constitutionally prohibited actions carry equal weight resulting in court battle after court battle and NOTHING changing. Continuation of the status quo.

DOMA is the gatekeeper in all this. Strike DOMA and you pitch a legislative and judicial hand grenade into the mix instead of working towards common sense goals that allow the States to preserve their rights, allow the States to dictate their methods, all while addressing the overarching concept of Full Faith and Credit, the Xth, and XIVth Amendments.

I don't see states being able to deny 14th amendment rights because of the 10th amendments. And I don't think you need "homosexuals" to be designated a protected class.

A legally married woman did not receive spousal inheritance tax benefits whereas others do. The law applies differently to her. She might be a "homosexual" but that is irrelevant. She legally married a woman. She shouldn't be denied benefits just because she is a woman and not a man.

There have been many "homosexuals" who have married the opposite sex and have received spousal inheritance tax benefits when theri spouse died. It's not really about "homosexuality."

[Midtowner]

I don't see states being able to deny 14th amendment rights because of the 10th amendments. And I don't think you need "homosexuals" to be designated a protected class.

A legally married woman did not receive spousal inheritance tax benefits whereas others do. The law applies differently to her. She might be a "homosexual" but that is irrelevant. She legally married a woman. She shouldn't be denied benefits just because she is a woman and not a man.

There have been many "homosexuals" who have married the opposite sex and have received spousal inheritance tax benefits when theri spouse died. It's not really about "homosexuality."

The facts most of these cases deal with are the right to marry. Courts look at narrow issues as presented and at least the SCOTUS case doesn't (to my knowledge) contemplate things like intestate succession or tax benefits.

[Turd_Ferguson]

What's wrong with some overweight hairy dude stick'n his tiny peener in another dudes dirty brown hole and saying I love you because you let me do this until he finds the next guy that will let him stick his little peener in his brown hole and he says I love you because you let me do this until he finds the next guy...

[Midtowner]

Same thing that's wrong with a heterosexual individual with multiple partners...

You know, straight folks do it in the butt too. You have this strange fixation with anal. Compensating much?

[OU_Sooners75]

what does your god have anything to do with any of this again?


What does the atheist bullcrap have to do with any of it?

Face it, marriage was and is a religious doctrine. It was called marriage before the formation of this nation and many others. And it doesn't matter which god the people of the time worshiped. Marriage has been coined by religious sects all over the world well before people decided they longed for a relationship of the same sex.

Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc, all covet marriage between one man and one woman.

If gays want to be life partners and be recognized by the law of the land, that is up to the government to decide. However, it should never be called marriage!

[OU_Sooners75]

It's a failure to recognize that marriage is a legal concept as well as a religious one. You can have a legal marriage, and the rights that flow from that with absolutely no impact whatsoever on any religion or religiously defined marraige. No church is bound to marry gays, no clergyman is forced to perform any ceremony.
But, I'd be comfortable with recognition of same sex marrriages. and in this case, that would mean receiving spousal consideration in relation to immigration.

P.S. if you want to torpedo the immigration bill (is it a bill, yet?) you'll get more traction hammering on 'securing the border'. That little clause is going to be a monster to define, defend, apply or do anything else with. And on it hangs the whole rest of the dealio.

I'm not comfortable with it. Neither is the religious sects of Judaism, Islam, Hindu, or any other religious sect. And guess what? There are far more people of a certain faith than atheist, and dang sure a lot more than gays.

Civil unions...fine...but they should not have the same term as those of a spiritual faith that has came up with the laws of marriage to begin with!

And for the record...homosexuality is not a civil right. It is a life style! And should not be protected as a civil right!

Drug usage is a life style, dang sure doesn't fit into the realm of civil liberties!

[MR2-Sooner86]

Social conservatives should listen to Jefferson.

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Gay people getting married does not affect your life at all. I've yet to hear the argument that it does.

[yermom]

What does the atheist bullhit have to do with any of it?

Face it, marriage was and is a religious doctrine. It was called marriage before the formation of this nation and many others. And it doesn't matter which god the people of the time worshiped. Marriage has been coined by religious sects all over the world well before people decided they longed for a relationship of the same sex.

Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc, all covet marriage between one man and one woman.

If gays want to be life partners and be recognized by the law of the land, that is up to the government to decide. However, it should never be called marriage!

"marriage" means a lot of things. some cultures married ****ing ghosts. give me a break. you don't have to even leave your bible to see ****ed up examples of marriage.

[yermom]

Social conservatives should listen to Jefferson.

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Gay people getting married does not affect your life at all. I've yet to hear the argument that it does.

but it's icky!

[OU_Sooners75]

"marriage" means a lot of things. some cultures married ****ing ghosts. give me a break. you don't have to even leave your bible to see ****ed up examples of marriage.

And which cultures are those? First I have ever heard of it. If you want to blow smoke someone's way, at least make it credible.

And you don't have to take your eyes off the TV to see how screwed up this nation is becoming because people have no faith in religion anymore.

That said, I am not here to persuade you to God. I am commenting here because a very small minority is wanting to make a lifestyle into a civil right.

[OU_Sooners75]

Social conservatives should listen to Jefferson.

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Gay people getting married does not affect your life at all. I've yet to hear the argument that it does.

Try reading some studies of homosexuality and then come back and tell me that it won't affect things like the cost of insurance and other stuff.

For starters, Gays are more likely to contract HIV (then later AIDS) than a heterosexual monogamy couple.

[yermom]

And which cultures are those? First I have ever heard of it. If you want to blow smoke someone's way, at least make it credible.

And you don't have to take your eyes off the TV to see how screwed up this nation is becoming because people have no faith in religion anymore.

That said, I am not here to persuade you to God. I am commenting here because a very small minority is wanting to make a lifestyle into a civil right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_marriage_(Chinese)

lots of cultures allow polygamy, what about that? Muslims, Jews and Mormans didn't seem to have a problem with that until recently.

and you really think religion predates homosex?

you have a source for that?

[OU_Sooners75]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_marriage_(Chinese)

lots of cultures allow polygamy, what about that? Muslims, Jews and Mormans didn't seem to have a problem with that until recently.

and you really think religion predates homosex?

you have a source for that?



Yeah, called the bible...a pretty good historical book.

You may fear to believe in the truth of God's word, thats fine. But I can dang sure guarantee you even in your "darwin" way of thinking, that Man has been heterosexual and having faith long before homosexuality.

Prove without a shadow of doubt against it, and I may contemplate removing my faith from God.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

The facts most of these cases deal with are the right to marry. Courts look at narrow issues as presented and at least the SCOTUS case doesn't (to my knowledge) contemplate things like intestate succession or tax benefits.

Her case is one of two before the supreme court - the other being California's Prop 8.

[StoopTroup]

What boat did the Southern Baptists come to America? The Nina? The Pinta? The Santa Maria? Hmmmm....probably not the Santa Maria. So we have or down to two....

[yermom]

Yeah, called the bible...a pretty good historical book.

You may fear to believe in the truth of God's word, thats fine. But I can dang sure guarantee you even in your "darwin" way of thinking, that Man has been heterosexual and having faith long before homosexuality.

Prove without a shadow of doubt against it, and I may contemplate removing my faith from God.

i think we are done here

[MR2-Sooner86]

Try reading some studies of homosexuality and then come back and tell me that it won't affect things like the cost of insurance and other stuff.

For starters, Gays are more likely to contract HIV (then later AIDS) than a heterosexual monogamy couple.

Oh we're going the insurance route? So you agree with Bloomberg's soda ban and other laws on food to combat obesity? How about the talked about gun insurance? The public good over the individual and all.

What you're arguing for is government "saving us from ourselves."


Prove without a shadow of doubt against it, and I may contemplate removing my faith from God.

Fallacy: burden of proof.

One more before we're done.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/03/28/5y4ajape.jpg

[OU_Sooners75]

i think we are done here


I too would be done if I had no faith!

[OU_Sooners75]

Oh we're going the insurance route? So you agree with Bloomberg's soda ban and other laws on food to combat obesity? How about the talked about gun insurance? The public good over the individual and all.

What you're arguing for is government "saving us from ourselves."



Fallacy: burden of proof.

One more before we're done.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/03/28/5y4ajape.jpg

So in all your drivel, yet again, you present no facts.

Homosexuality leads to a lot of different health concerns. And given the same protections under law as heterosexual married couples, it will raise insurance costs for all.

But please, give me some more of your clueless drivel and pictures.

[OU_Sooners75]

What boat did the Southern Baptists come to America? The Nina? The Pinta? The Santa Maria? Hmmmm....probably not the Santa Maria. So we have or down to two....

Here is a quote that has been around for over 2000 years:

"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake."
-Matthew 24:9

Pretty fitting for your post. :)

[Midtowner]

So in all your drivel, yet again, you present no facts.

Homosexuality leads to a lot of different health concerns. And given the same protections under law as heterosexual married couples, it will raise insurance costs for all.

But please, give me some more of your clueless drivel and pictures.

Heterosexual couples drive up the costs for everyone. Do you know what babies, especially premature ones cost??

[MR2-Sooner86]

So in all your drivel, yet again, you present no facts.

Compared to the guy grasping at straws to try to defend his homophobia, I think I'm doing alright.


Homosexuality leads to a lot of different health concerns. And given the same protections under law as heterosexual married couples, it will raise insurance costs for all.

Like? If they're both healthy, what's the problem?

You mentioned AIDS. If you sleep around, your chance of getting AIDS increases both for homo and heterosexual people. Are you say two homosexuals without AIDS will magically increae their odds if they sign a marriage license? Are you say homosexuals aren't as faithful, will sleep around and catch AIDS that way?

The odds of a homosexual going out, having unprotected sex and possibly catching AIDS remains the same regardless if he can get married or not. If two homosexuals are living together, married or not, and one of them has AIDS, I'm pretty sure he'll seek treatment whether they're married or not.

Now if you want to bring in the "public health/insurance" stance, you'll probably get upset when a Bloomberg says your activity is a burden to others.

Are you also in favor of banning tanning salons? Skin cancer is bad.

How about all tobacco products because lung and mouth cancer are bad?

Alcohol is one of the major contributors to health problems in this country so you for banning it?

Obesity leads to heart problems so I guess you're for special zoning to limit fast food restaurants in a town?

How about we limit the contact in all football? Several children die each year from football and the broken bones and concussions are in the thousands. Let's take that strain off of our healthcare system.

I'm sure you're for gun control. Can't have anymore Sandy Hooks, right?

Sports cars are dangerous too. Who needs over 200 horsepower in a car? Let's ban and regulate that down to keep 75 happy.


But please, give me some more of your clueless drivel and pictures.

http://i.imgur.com/Xg6cA.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/2ruE8.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/H6wuK.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg

Why don't you try to love these people instead of hate them? Oh we can't do that because that's something Christ would do (http://homeofglory.tumblr.com/post/24798909304/gaymarriage).

[ouwasp]

If the homosexuals would just get the heck out of the headlines, I'd be happier with them. I'll "get over it" when they quit shoving their "alternative lifestyle" in my face. Nothing on Earth can convince me the homosexual condition is normal.

[olevetonahill]

Same thing that's wrong with a heterosexual individual with multiple partners...

You know, straight folks do it in the butt too. You have this strange fixation with anal. Compensating much?

So yer sayin YOU like it up the A? Ya perverted bastard. :bi_polo:

[Midtowner]

So yer sayin YOU like it up the A? Ya perverted bastard. :bi_polo:

Pegging and anal sex are part of many heterosexual individuals' bedroom behavior. Some prefer swings and chains and such. Not me personally, but if it floats your boat or whatnot, why would I GAS what other people put where?

[cleller]

What I find hard to believe is these polls that say 53% of Americans support gay marriage. Sure doesn't seem that way in most of Oklahoma.

Another good question to let states decide. (try to restrain yourselves from the slavery issue)

I don't imagine there's anything in the constitution about necrophilia, insider trading, or possession of mercury, but there are laws about that stuff, too.

[olevetonahill]

Heterosexual couples drive up the costs for everyone. Do you know what babies, especially premature ones cost??

Not much. When ya Kill em to save a Puppy.

[olevetonahill]

Pegging and anal sex are part of many heterosexual individuals' bedroom behavior. Some prefer swings and chains and such. Not me personally, but if it floats your boat or whatnot, why would I GAS what other people put where?

so YOU like it swung up yer Anal s ? Yer a sick little Puppy Which is OK

[OU_Sooners75]

Compared to the guy grasping at straws to try to defend his homophobia, I think I'm doing alright.



Why don't you try to love these people instead of hate them? Oh we can't do that because that's something Christ would do (http://homeofglory.tumblr.com/post/24798909304/gaymarriage).

Maybe if you learned what scripture says, you would know this..."God does not hate sinners, but condemns sin." And the bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. And therefore Christians believe that homosexuality should not be shoved down our throats.

That being said, I do not hate gays. I have a disdain for their lifestyle.

And since it is a lifestyle, it is not a civil liberty or civil right.

Genesis 1: Be fruitful and multiply.
You cannot be either if you are a homosexual.

And in the New Testament. The rock of which Christianity bases it's strongest opinion against homosexuality:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense [sic] of their error which was meet."
-Romans 1:26-27

[olevetonahill]

GOD said, in the 11th Commandment !

DO NOT TAKE IT UP YERAZZ

[Blue]

Don't care if MR2 and Yermom get married and don't care if the govt says its A-OK. What I do care about is the day they sue a church bc the pastor won't marry them. And they will bc they cant help themselves. Liberals arent happy just getting their way, no. Theyll bust your door down and sue you if you dont agree.

And its ashame. Yermom is good people and Ive always liked his posts, but lately both sides are getting too polarized too even put that crap aside and just be. And I'm just as guilty of it. I'm starting to actually loathe libs and their way of thinking and I have to constantly check that bc it aint right. Hate the idea, not the person.

[OU_Sooners75]

What I find hard to believe is these polls that say 53% of Americans support gay marriage. Sure doesn't seem that way in most of Oklahoma.

Another good question to let states decide. (try to restrain yourselves from the slavery issue)

I don't imagine there's anything in the constitution about necrophilia, insider trading, or possession of mercury, but there are laws about that stuff, too.

Don't forget there are laws that make it illegal to have sex with your sister or you siblings or any other member of your immediate family.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Don't care if MR2 and Yermom get married

He's not my type. He's not as hot as you.

Personally, I want to see the government 100% out of marriage. That probably won't happen so we must legalize all voluntary contracts.

With that said I believe in property rights and any church should be free to perform whatever ceremony they wish, free from any legal consequences. If they don't want to do it, that's their right.

Any association that’s voluntary should be permissible in a free society.

"Well what about incest!?"

If you truly believe in liberty and a free society, then yes. Just because you don't like it or find it repulsive doesn't mean you have the right to dictate it. Also, you can quote the Bible all you want but it's as useful as quoting the Quran. The first amendment prohibits us from being a theocracy. We're a representative republic.

Now obviously if the child is under 18 that's a different story but two, legal, consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anybody else.

I look at it this way:
Are you willing to use government force on it?

I don't care enough to put a gun to a gay couple and say, "what you're doing is wrong and you can't marry."
I don't care enough to put a gun to a family practicing incest and say, "what you're doing is wrong. Stop."
I don't care enough about those that practice beastality to put a gun to their head and say, "what you're doing is wrong. Stop."
I don't care enough about polygamist to put a gun to them and say, "what you're doing is wrong and you can't marry."

There is not a single bit of evidence out there that gays or anybody else with different sexual preferences physically harms anybody not participating.

A straight couple lives in your neighborhood. They're just like anybody else. They go to work. They do yard work. They take out the garbage. That's all you know and as far as you know they're good citizens.
A gay couple lives in your neighborhood. They're just like anybody else. They go to work. They do yard work. They take out the garbage. That's all you know and as far as you know they're good citizens.
A single guy lives in your neighborhood. He's the same as the gay and straight couple. He works on his house, goes to work and as far as you know he's a good citizen.

The straight couple, gay couple and the single guy all like to reenact Star Wars with light saber dildos. You can fill in the details yourself.

The single guy and straight couple, in the privacy of their own homes, are not harming anybody or breaking any laws.

The gay couple, according to many on here, are second class citizens simply by who they are. Just because of who they are, they are denied rights that many others get to enjoy.

The straight couple could perform the exact same acts. Because the husband allows his wife to give him a prostate massage, it's fine. A man allowing another man to do it is all of a sudden wrong?

I hear about husbands sodomizing their wives all the time. It's legal. Two men though is illegal?

"Well....what about pedophiles!?"

Children are not considered a legally consenting adult. This is why children can't sign contracts, loans or other legal documents. A marriage license is a contract.

"Well...they could marry their dog!"

A dog is not a citizen of the United States who can enter into a contract. In the United States, dogs are considered property.

[Midtowner]

What I find hard to believe is these polls that say 53% of Americans support gay marriage. Sure doesn't seem that way in most of Oklahoma.

Another good question to let states decide. (try to restrain yourselves from the slavery issue)

I don't imagine there's anything in the constitution about necrophilia, insider trading, or possession of mercury, but there are laws about that stuff, too.

In which of those scenarios is the state government denying equal protection under the law to different people because of their sexual orientation?

[Midtowner]

Maybe if you learned what scripture says, you would know this..."God does not hate sinners, but condemns sin." And the bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. And therefore Christians believe that homosexuality should not be shoved down our throats.

That being said, I do not hate gays. I have a disdain for their lifestyle.

And since it is a lifestyle, it is not a civil liberty or civil right.

Genesis 1: Be fruitful and multiply.
You cannot be either if you are a homosexual.

And in the New Testament. The rock of which Christianity bases it's strongest opinion against homosexuality:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense [sic] of their error which was meet."
-Romans 1:26-27

Who cares what that thing says?

The Bible is not a set of laws. We are not like Iran, we don't base our laws on a holy book.

[Blue]

All fine MR2. I'm closer to Libertarian myself but again I see this going in the direction of legal action against the church. I mean thats where we are headed. But hey, Our book never said it would be easy. As a matter of fact we've had it pretty good here in the ol USA.

[Blue]

Who cares what that thing says?

The Bible is not a set of laws. We are not like Iran, we don't base our laws on a holy book.

Our country was founded "In God we trust." But don't worry your atheist utopia is not far from fruition. And its getting better every day out there.

[OU_Sooners75]

You can do as you wish. But marriage is a sacred religious doctrine and been for thousands of years. Until recently, it has never been assimilated with homosexuality.

here is a good Idea...hold a special vote on gay marriage around the nation. the results from each state dictate what happens in that state.

But do not make it a law simply because a large minority wish for it to be a law!

[yermom]

in god we trust is from the 1950s

[OU_Sooners75]

Who cares what that thing says?

The Bible is not a set of laws. We are not like Iran, we don't base our laws on a holy book.

I care what it says and so does over 1 billion other people world wide.

You are very naive if you do not believe this nation was not founded on Christian beliefs.

[Blue]

in god we trust is from the 1950s

Do I really have to go pull out quote after quote from our founding fathers? Do I really need to copy and paste the history of British libs who loved big govt just like you and thus our protestant forefathers braved an ocean and disease to get away from?

[yermom]

Do I really have to go pull out quote after quote from our founding fathers? Do I really need to copy and paste the history of British libs who loved big govt just like you and thus our protestant forefathers braved an ocean and disease to get away from?

you are the one that put that specific phrase in quotes

the Brits were libs now?


“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82


“ Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.“ – Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82


“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” -- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808)

[OU_Sooners75]

Blue, its not worth it.

yermom and others that fight for equal rights for those that already have rights under the law, but want more, wont change until they lay on their death bed.

They were likely raised in some sort of Christian home and know of Jesus and God. But they choose to forget and disbelieve. But when times get tough and bleak they will ask God for forgiveness through His Son, Jesus Christ. And God will forgive them.

Free Will is like that.

[OU_Sooners75]

you are the one that put that specific phrase in quotes

the Brits were libs now?

So Thomas Jefferson is the only one you can quote?

[yermom]

i don't care to look for more, really.

luckily him and his friends didn't want to see the American theocracy that you and your ilk have been pushing for years.

the Constitution didn't set up a pure democracy for this very reason

[Blue]

Jefferson that ol black sheep...heh. Smart man though.

[OU_Sooners75]

i don't care to look for more, really.

luckily him and his friends didn't want to see the American theocracy that you and your ilk have been pushing for years.

the Constitution didn't set up a pure democracy for this very reason

Outside of this issue, I havent pushed my beliefs on anyone...and even on this issue I am not pushing them on anyone. Simply standing up for my beliefs.

Like I said, you will have to answer to your Creator someday. I just hope and PRAY that you are ready when you have to.

[Blue]

i don't care to look for more, really.

luckily him and his friends didn't want to see the American theocracy that you and your ilk have been pushing for years.

the Constitution didn't set up a pure democracy for this very reason

Man Yermon nobody wants a Theocracy. I just want the govt to protect my shores, pave the roads, and give me an opportunity to grow a business (and thats really my responsibility, just dont tax the crap out regulate the crap out of me).

The atrocities done in Christs name in the past are ashame. I don't see First Baptist Church of Yukon lining up for jihad any time soon.

[OU_Sooners75]

Man Yermon nobody wants a Theocracy. I just want the govt to protect my shores, pave the roads, and give me an opportunity to grow a business (and thats really my responsibility, just dont tax the crap out regulate the crap out of me).

The atrocities done in Christs name in the past are ashame. I don't see First Baptist Church of Yukon lining up for jihad any time soon.

^This

[yermom]

and you want the government to deny gays rights that straight people have, like in the case before the Supreme Court regarding estate taxes on same sex partners

the 83 year old widow is required to pay $300k+ in taxes a straight person wouldn't have to pay because of DOMA

can you justify that without pushing your religious on couples like this one?

[cleller]

In which of those scenarios is the state government denying equal protection under the law to different people because of their sexual orientation?

Does the constitution protect sexual orientation? Is it mentioned? Has the Supreme Court yet interpreted and ruled that the 14th Amendment equal protection clause applies to gay marriage?

You're the lawyer, but I think the answer to both is no.

The Supreme Court can make what ever ruling they feel like, been going on for 250 years. Doesn't mean they are correct, they get overtuned by later courts constantly. Its meaningless.

Or they can stay out of it, and let citizens decide what best represents their community. I think the latter should occur, as it is more democratic, (for yermom) and representative. The country has always held those values up pretty high. Letting the court decide is much more theocratic.

There's always gonna be someone who thinks they need "equal protection" because they want to build a too-big or too-small house on their lot, own a certain type of gun, or ingest a particular substance.

[yermom]

maybe we should decide everything American Idol style

[C&CDean]

maybe we should decide everything American Idol style

No, Gangnam style!!1!

[KantoSooner]

Yeah, called the bible...a pretty good historical book.

You may fear to believe in the truth of God's word, thats fine. But I can dang sure guarantee you even in your "darwin" way of thinking, that Man has been heterosexual and having faith long before homosexuality.

Prove without a shadow of doubt against it, and I may contemplate removing my faith from God.

Woo Hoo!
Okay, go to Australian Aborigines. Absolute dead bang known that their healers were mostly gay. This was approximately 35,000 years before present to about 100 years ago. Predates even the old testament by something like 30,000 years.
What do I win?
In all seriousness: keep your faith. And keep it yours. In what way does it protect you, or your faith or do honor to your deity to deny other people, who do not share your particular sect the right to live decent lives?
It's one of those 'mysteries' I suppose.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

the American theocracy that you and your ilk have been pushing for years.

yawn. what a crock. your fears are of the wrong people.

[cleller]

maybe we should decide everything American Idol style

Yes. Except use a system that is already in place, and agreed upon. Representation, or the voting booth. Who could find fault with that?

[MR2-Sooner86]

There's always gonna be someone who thinks they need "equal protection" because they want to build a too-big or too-small house on their lot, own a certain type of gun, or ingest a particular substance.

It'd be funny if it weren't coming from a cop.

There's a reason we're a representative republic and not a democracy. Democracy is polling a lynch mob.

It took 25 years for public opinion to catch up to the court's decision.

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr070816i.gif

Our Constitution was set up to protect the individual. It's the individual that's unique. It's the individual that needs protection from the mobs and masses.

[cleller]

Guess we should we strike the preamble with its "We the people" nonsense and move to something else like "The Supreme Tribunal"

Let the government appoint our Deciders to protect us from ourselves, and get in line.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Guess we should we strike the preamble with its "We the people" nonsense and move to something else like "The Supreme Tribunal"

Let the government appoint our Deciders to protect us from ourselves, and get in line.

"Remember when we withheld rights from a certain group of people, who weren't harming anybody, and the world became a better place?" - No One Ever

[cleller]

"Remember when we withheld rights from a certain group of people, who weren't harming anybody, and the world became a better place?" - No One Ever

Subjective.

Just another excuse to let a group of non-elected rulers make decisions for us all. Another encroachment. Makes the next steps seem easier.

Maybe you like having your decisions come from a politburo. I'll stick to a ballot.

[OU_Sooners75]

Woo Hoo!
Okay, go to Australian Aborigines. Absolute dead bang known that their healers were mostly gay. This was approximately 35,000 years before present to about 100 years ago. Predates even the old testament by something like 30,000 years.
What do I win?
In all seriousness: keep your faith. And keep it yours. In what way does it protect you, or your faith or do honor to your deity to deny other people, who do not share your particular sect the right to live decent lives?
It's one of those 'mysteries' I suppose.

So those healers were wanting to marry men of their tribes?

You win a big bag of fail!

[OU_Sooners75]

Like I said before.

Bring up to a vote of the people. And whatever the results in each state, then that is what the state does.

If a state votes by popular vote that their marriage laws are to include gays...then do it. However if the vote says only heterosexual couples can marry, then that is what that state's law is.

We shouldnt allow the voice of the very few encroach on the voice of the many. So bring it to vote!

[MR2-Sooner86]

Subjective.

Just another excuse to let a group of non-elected rulers make decisions for us all. Another encroachment. Makes the next steps seem easier.

Maybe you like having your decisions come from a politburo. I'll stick to a ballot.

"Decisions for us all."

You afraid if gay marriage passes you won't be able to help yourself and will wake up one morning next to a trucker you met in Vegas?

How does gay marriage affect you again? As Jefferson put it, "if it neither breaks my legs or picks my pocket," so what business is it of yours? Oh yeah, you don't like it and you feel you have the authority to force your views onto others. Ignoring that whole "liberty" thing the Constitution was founded on.

So you still upset about blacks sitting at the front of the bus?

[OU_Sooners75]

"Decisions for us all."

You afraid if gay marriage passes you won't be able to help yourself and will wake up one morning next to a trucker you met in Vegas?

How does gay marriage affect you again? As Jefferson put it, "if it neither breaks my legs or picks my pocket," so what business is it of yours? Oh yeah, you don't like it and you feel you have the authority to force your views onto others. Ignoring that whole "liberty" thing the Constitution was founded on.

So you still upset about blacks sitting at the front of the bus?

Please tell me what liberty is being discriminated?

Gay is a chosen lifestyle, and is not inherited.

[yermom]

Yes. Except use a system that is already in place, and agreed upon. Representation, or the voting booth. Who could find fault with that?


Like I said before.

Bring up to a vote of the people. And whatever the results in each state, then that is what the state does.

If a state votes by popular vote that their marriage laws are to include gays...then do it. However if the vote says only heterosexual couples can marry, then that is what that state's law is.

We shouldnt allow the voice of the very few encroach on the voice of the many. So bring it to vote!

maybe you should read some Madison.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

our government is designed to resist exactly what you are saying.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Please tell me what liberty is being discriminated?

Gay is a chosen lifestyle, and is not inherited.

I could go with the "pursuit of happiness approach" but I think I'll go with "property."

As a free individual you own your body and the product of your labor (wealth).

Homosexuals are discriminated against simply for who they choose to love. What gives the government, or anybody for that matter, the power to try to legislate love?

Since homosexuals don't conform to a certain segment of the population's beliefs, more of their wealth (property) is seized. This was the same for interracial couples. It's also where state's first marriage licenses came from. Interracial marriage was considered bad, and illegal, but if couples paid a tax for a marriage license, they could get married. They were discriminated against, their property (wealth) confiscated unjustly and treated unequally. The Supreme Court later said that was unconstitutional.

Either remove the tax codes for all people who want to live as a couple, leveling the playing field, or stop excessively taxing somebody due to what you find "bad."

"Well they choose to live that way!"

Science says otherwise but let's assume that premise. If that's the case, people choose to accumulate more wealth, above the national average, so taxes on income, luxury items and 401Ks is justified because people chose to do that.

[ouwasp]

Like I've said, I believe the homosexual life to be absolutely wrong. And I don't care for the young people to be influenced into experimenting into this disgusting "lifestyle".

But I also have enough of a Libertarian streak in me to think: If a person wants to wallow in that crap, that's their foolish choice.

The thing that has been getting to me lately is how much of the homo stuff has been dominating the news cycles! If, as pop culture asserts, being perverted is no big deal... then stop trumpeting the crap! Because it's normal and no big deal, right? Guess the homo agenda has become the trendy thing to pump.

They will regret it someday.

[cleller]

"Decisions for us all."

You afraid if gay marriage passes you won't be able to help yourself and will wake up one morning next to a trucker you met in Vegas?

How does gay marriage affect you again? As Jefferson put it, "if it neither breaks my legs or picks my pocket," so what business is it of yours? Oh yeah, you don't like it and you feel you have the authority to force your views onto others. Ignoring that whole "liberty" thing the Constitution was founded on.

So you still upset about blacks sitting at the front of the bus?

That's mostly incoherent, and irrelevant to the discussion. Now you're trying to inject race into a topic where its never been discussed as some kind of lame tactic. Its pathetic.
I could respond with something like: "What? Are you still upset the jews and indians were not wiped out in the ethnic cleansing?" You know, equally applicable.

I'm not trying to force my views on anyone. I don't think that holds true for you. I'm supportive of the law, contrary to you. That makes me the villain?

I'm opposed to a politburo forcing its views on me, and our country. Surprised you're not. I guess you're probably fine with this tribunal deciding when its agents can enter your home, take you property, liberty, and anything else they decide. How can anyone be comfortable with that? I think it must be this "statism" thing. Sounds like something out of Germany circa 1939.

I'm just advocating letting the people decide, nothing more. You seem intent on allow a handful of appointees make "decisions for us all".

How can anyone oppose a ballot box? Hate to imagine a day like that, no matter how much you'd like it.

[MR2-Sooner86]

That's mostly incoherent, and irrelevant to the discussion. Now you're trying to inject race into a topic where its never been discussed as some kind of lame tactic. Its pathetic.
I could respond with something like: "What? Are you still upset the jews and indians were not wiped out in the ethnic cleansing?" You know, equally applicable.

I'm not trying to force my views on anyone. I don't think that holds true for you. I'm supportive of the law, contrary to you. That makes me the villain?

I'm opposed to a politburo forcing its views on me, and our country. Surprised you're not. I guess you're probably fine with this tribunal deciding when its agents can enter your home, take you property, liberty, and anything else they decide. How can anyone be comfortable with that? I think it must be this "statism" thing. Sounds like something out of Germany circa 1939.

I'm just advocating letting the people decide, nothing more. You seem intent on allow a handful of appointees make "decisions for us all".

How can anyone oppose a ballot box? Hate to imagine a day like that, no matter how much you'd like it.

Your whole premiss is based on a single fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

Again, a reason we're a representative republic and not a democracy. I know, you wish you and your buddies could just force others into your worldview with a lynch mob mentality but luckily there were provisions put into the Constitition to help fight that.

I just find it funny you compare Nazi Germnay and Soviet Russia to allowing other people to live their lives the way they want to without interfering with others. In other words, you believe the promotion of liberty is a form of oppression.

http://i.imgur.com/KF1u3.jpg

[cleller]

More nonsense. I've already stated I'm in favor or representation on the issue. You're trying to hide the fact that you support state rule in this instance because it is at odds with your other half baked ideas.

I'll make it simple. Who do you feel should decide this issue?
The People via either representation or direct vote, or The State?

Just to show its not a trick question, I'll give my answer: the people.

How about you?

[MR2-Sooner86]

More nonsense. I've already stated I'm in favor or representation on the issue. You're trying to hide the fact that you support state rule in this instance because it is at odds with your other half baked ideas.

I'll make it simple. Who do you feel should decide this issue?
The People via either representation or direct vote, or The State?

Just to show its not a trick question, I'll give my answer: the people.

How about you?

It's not up to me, the people or the state. It's about the individual. As long as they aren't violating the non-aggression principle, I could care less.

If they aren't violating anybody then I'll always side with the individual and individual liberty.

How should the issue be handled though? Allow people to live their lives the way they see fit.

The funny thing is you're kicking and screaming that it's oppression when the matter at hand doesn't affect you or is even about you. You just want to strong arm others into your belief system because you feel you have some moral authority over others.

Don't like my critique? Present to me your argument where two homosexuals living down the street, that are legally married, promotes agression against you that alters the way you live without your consent.

"I don't like it" is not an answer. How does it affect your right to life, personal liberty, or property (wealth)?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Subjective.

Just another excuse to let a group of non-elected rulers make decisions for us all. Another encroachment. Makes the next steps seem easier.

Maybe you like having your decisions come from a politburo. I'll stick to a ballot.

No one is trying to decide for YOU to be in a same sex marriage.

[cleller]

It's not up to me, the people or the state. It's about the individual. As long as they aren't violating the non-aggression principle, I could care less.

If they aren't violating anybody then I'll always side with the individual and individual liberty.

How should the issue be handled though? Allow people to live their lives the way they see fit.

The funny thing is you're kicking and screaming that it's oppression when the matter at hand doesn't affect you or is even about you. You just want to strong arm others into your belief system because you feel you have some moral authority over others.

Don't like my critique? Present to me your argument where two homosexuals living down the street, that are legally married, promotes agression against you that alters the way you live without your consent.

"I don't like it" is not an answer. How does it affect your right to life, personal liberty, or property (wealth)?


No one is trying to decide for YOU to be in a same sex marriage.

Cut the dodging. I've never tried to impose my belief on anyone, that's completely false. All I ever asked was why this question shouldn't be decided by the people rather than the courts. For some reason allowing the will of the people to decide rankles you.

If you're unable to decide whether you believe the people or the state should be the determiner, leave the issue the way it sits then. Can't imagine why you're unable to decide on something so basic.

So what's left to complain about?

[yermom]

lots of states did. doma violates that.

[Midtowner]

Bring up to a vote of the people. And whatever the results in each state, then that is what the state does.

We tried that once. I believe a civil war was a result.

(your people lost)

[MR2-Sooner86]

Cut the dodging.

Says the guy who can't answer how gays negatively impact his life.


I've never tried to impose my belief on anyone, that's completely false.

Except you are. You support the polling of a lynch mob to use the force of government to go into the privacy of other people's homes and tell them how to live their lives.


All I ever asked was why this question shouldn't be decided by the people rather than the courts.

Except we're not a democracy. I figured that'd be basic civics 101 and easy to understand.

For example the first amendment protects all free speech, especially the unpopular kind. Going by your logic if 51% of the country doesn't like a piece of literature we should just have a big book burning in the town square.

That's not how representative republics work no matter how badly you want it to.


For some reason allowing the will of the people to decide rankles you.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

I mean if we had it your way, as shown above, interracial marriage wouldn't have been legal until the 1990s.

You're probably still upset about the Scopes Monkey Trial.


If you're unable to decide whether you believe the people or the state should be the determiner, leave the issue the way it sits then. Can't imagine why you're unable to decide on something so basic.

I gave my answer. You just didn't like it. People's personal lives inside the privacy of their own homes should be no prerequisite to entering, voluntarily, a legal contract.

You have yet to present any evidence why it should be and how it affects you one way or another.


So what's left to complain about?

I'm not complaining. Then again I'm not the one trying to stick my nose into other people's private lives.

[cleller]

You can face the facts or keep up the sidewinding. I see you googled "democracy vs republic" for the Ben Franklin quote, though you failed to cite him.
This is a big subject right now, and the way it is governed will be decided either thru court ruling or the voice of the people. I haven't said anything negative about gays or gay marriage, only questioned how the issue should be decided. Yet you, the supporter, can't contain yourself from making jokes about gays, truckers, and Vegas.

I've stated why I am against a court ruling. We are a representative republic, so I stated at the outset that I believe our representatives are an acceptable voice of the people. If you want to abstain from the process with the "none of my business" routine, you should abstain from the discussion as well, as you've elected to remove yourself. If nothing is done, gay marriage will not move forward. Accept that without complaint.

The reality is the issue is bound for a decision. Should it be decided by a handful of non-elected federal officials? I believe the voice or the people should be heard (thru representation, legislation or ballot), and be decisive in the matter. DO YOU??

(this is where you fail to answer, because you want the Feds to make and enforce the law via courts without representation, but you are duplicitous don't want to admit it.)

[OU_Sooners75]

We tried that once. I believe a civil war was a result.

(your people lost)

God your an idiot!

[olevetonahill]

God your an idiot!

Now Bro, Tell me, WHAT was yer 1st Clue?:very_drunk:

[yermom]

You can face the facts or keep up the sidewinding. I see you googled "democracy vs republic" for the Ben Franklin quote, though you failed to cite him.
This is a big subject right now, and the way it is governed will be decided either thru court ruling or the voice of the people. I haven't said anything negative about gays or gay marriage, only questioned how the issue should be decided. Yet you, the supporter, can't contain yourself from making jokes about gays, truckers, and Vegas.

I've stated why I am against a court ruling. We are a representative republic, so I stated at the outset that I believe our representatives are an acceptable voice of the people. If you want to abstain from the process with the "none of my business" routine, you should abstain from the discussion as well, as you've elected to remove yourself. If nothing is done, gay marriage will not move forward. Accept that without complaint.

The reality is the issue is bound for a decision. Should it be decided by a handful of non-elected federal officials? I believe the voice or the people should be heard (thru representation, legislation or ballot), and be decisive in the matter. DO YOU??

(this is where you fail to answer, because you want the Feds to make and enforce the law via courts without representation, but you are duplicitous don't want to admit it.)

the feds already passed a stupid law, now the courts are looking at it.where do you get this from?

[Midtowner]

God your an idiot!

*you're.

--and no, you're just like the morons who fought interracial marriage, the end of Jim Crow and the end of slavery.

[OU_Sooners75]

the feds already passed a stupid law, now the courts are looking at it.where do you get this from?

what law? I dont recall the legislature passing any gay rights bill.

[OU_Sooners75]

*you're.

im still waiting for you to pick a side and stay on it.

Your a freaking tool.

[yermom]

what law? I dont recall the legislature passing any gay rights bill.

DOMA removes rights. that's what this is about. the government doesn't recognize marriages recognized by the states. wants estate taxes.

these are usually talking points from small government lovers, but not when the Bible is involved

[Midtowner]

im still waiting for you to pick a side and stay on it.

Your a freaking tool.

What do you mean? I've stated that from the legal side, you nor I, nor anyone know how the courts will rule.

You're on the wrong side of history. The last time we had a social issue like this, public opinion was very slow to change. This graph shows 1958 through recent.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Public_opinion_of_interracial_marriage_in_the_Unit ed_States.png/800px-Public_opinion_of_interracial_marriage_in_the_Unit ed_States.png

This poll only shows 18 years. You gonna join the Klan and start burning crosses like your forefathers? Think that'll slow the tide of inevitable change? Or maybe..just maybe, you can accept that a lot of folks want to express their love for one another, it doesn't affect you and just accept it?

http://80couches.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/gay-marriage-trend.jpg

[OU_Sooners75]

DOMA removes rights. that's what this is about. the government doesn't recognize marriages recognized by the states. wants estate taxes.

these are usually talking points from small government lovers, but not when the Bible is involved

Again, what legislation has been past for gay rights?

A very few minority wants to say that being gay is human nature and therefore should be protected as civil liberties. Many say no, being gay is a chosen lifestyle, so cannot be afforded protection.

Do we no persecute against the lifestyle of doing drugs? What about the lifestyle of being a pedophile? What about the lifestyle of being an alcoholic? Heck, we even persecute against those that choose a lifestyle of smoking cigarettes.

[Midtowner]

Oh please tell us, what is this "homosexual lifestyle" you're referring to?

[OU_Sooners75]

What do you mean? I've stated that from the legal side, you nor I, nor anyone know how the courts will rule.

You're on the wrong side of history. The last time we had a social issue like this, public opinion was very slow to change. This graph shows 1958 through recent.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Public_opinion_of_interracial_marriage_in_the_Unit ed_States.png/800px-Public_opinion_of_interracial_marriage_in_the_Unit ed_States.png

This poll only shows 18 years. You gonna join the Klan and start burning crosses like your forefathers? Think that'll slow the tide of inevitable change? Or maybe..just maybe, you can accept that a lot of folks want to express their love for one another, it doesn't affect you and just accept it?

http://80couches.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/gay-marriage-trend.jpg

This isnt about race, so stop making trying to make the same connection.
This isn't about the right of marriage between a man and a woman. So stop trying to make the same connection.

[cleller]

the feds already passed a stupid law, now the courts are looking at it.where do you get this from?

What I am putting forth is that this is not an issue for the Supreme Court to be the sole decider. They can rule on paperwork all they like, but shouldn't have the authority to change a centuries old institution, by finding fault in the DOMA wording.

What is so distasteful about the will of the people? If so many support it as in these graphs and polls indicate, you should be anxious to allow the people some decision making ability.

[Midtowner]

This isnt about race, so stop making trying to make the same connection.
This isn't about the right of marriage between a man and a woman. So stop trying to make the same connection.

It is about race. Maybe you don't like to be called an ignorant bigot, but that's what you are. This is about ignorant bigots such as yourself making classifications, be they racial or sexual and imposing your dated world views on others. Interracial marriage, homosexual marriage, what is the difference? Change is inevitable, some folks will resist and history will regard you as the same as the folks who fought to keep Jim Crow.

[MR2-Sooner86]

You can face the facts or keep up the sidewinding. I see you googled "democracy vs republic" for the Ben Franklin quote, though you failed to cite him.

Except it's a misquote. The word "lunch" wasn't popular until 1820, after Franklin's death. The phrase came from a L.A. Times article in 1992 and over time was credited to Franklin.

Happy to educate you as always.


This is a big subject right now, and the way it is governed will be decided either thru court ruling or the voice of the people. I haven't said anything negative about gays or gay marriage, only questioned how the issue should be decided. Yet you, the supporter, can't contain yourself from making jokes about gays, truckers, and Vegas.

Seeing as how one of the homosexuals on this board strongly supports me by positively repping my comments in this thread, I'm not too worried.

I've made gay jokes before and will continue to. I mean they're just so fabulous!
I've replaced "stupid" in a sentence with "gay" before. I know, sounds gay, but I like to cut down on syllables when possible.

No matter how @ssholish I'll get though, I'm still in favor of them living their lives how they please without interference and will stand up for their individual liberty.

Free individuals in a free society shouldn't be worried about what's in a religious text. This isn't a theocracy like Saudia Arabia.


I've stated why I am against a court ruling. We are a representative republic, so I stated at the outset that I believe our representatives are an acceptable voice of the people. If you want to abstain from the process with the "none of my business" routine, you should abstain from the discussion as well, as you've elected to remove yourself. If nothing is done, gay marriage will not move forward. Accept that without complaint.

Checks and balances were put into the Constitution for this very reason. Then again this is coming from a guy who would like to repeal the 17th amendment.

You're against the court ruling because you like the law. Just come out and say it. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be in such an uproar about it.

I seem to remember last week many Democrats going "most of the country wants gun control" when that Senate bill failed. Republicans were then making the same arguments I'm making.

Funny how "the voice of the people" doesn't matter when it's an issue you support.

Just like the D.C. gun law, this is a bad law too. The thing is you haven't provided, and haven't even attempted, to try to defend it by saying how it'll affect you.


The reality is the issue is bound for a decision. Should it be decided by a handful of non-elected federal officials? I believe the voice or the people should be heard (thru representation, legislation or ballot), and be decisive in the matter. DO YOU??

District of Columbia v. Heller


(this is where you fail to answer, because you want the Feds to make and enforce the law via courts without representation, but you are duplicitous don't want to admit it.)

I'm all for repealing bad laws. This is a bad law.

Again, can you tell me how it's a good law?

[OU_Sooners75]

Oh please tell us, what is this "homosexual lifestyle" you're referring to?

Lifestyle, as in being they chose to be gay.

Just as you choose to do drugs, smoke cigs, or drink alcohol.

[XingTheRubicon]

How 'bout anyone can marry, but only working people can vote.

[OU_Sooners75]

It is about race. Maybe you don't like to be called an ignorant bigot, but that's what you are. This is about ignorant bigots such as yourself making classifications, be they racial or sexual and imposing your dated world views on others. Interracial marriage, homosexual marriage, what is the difference? Change is inevitable, some folks will resist and history will regard you as the same as the folks who fought to keep Jim Crow.

Good Lord....being gay is not a race, it is a sexual lifestyle!

I understand you like to be on the opposite side of everything...but you seriously cannot be this freaking naive.

And you're wrong on something. I am not fighting against the gays in that they shouldnt be afforded some rights in their lifestyle. I am saying to leave the doctrine of marriage to be between one man and one woman. The way God intended it to be.

If they choose to want to have rights as a couple living together, then by all means, call it civil union....but not marriage.

The gay community already has the Bill of Rights.

America is becoming the modern day Sodom and Gommorah

[SoonerorLater]

*you're.

--and no, you're just like the morons who fought interracial marriage, the end of Jim Crow and the end of slavery.

Since you are interested in correct gammar and punctuation, please be advised that you shouldn't put a period after you're. Periods only go after complete sentences.

[cleller]

I seem to remember last week many Democrats going "most of the country wants gun control" when that Senate bill failed. Republicans were then making the same arguments I'm making.

Funny how "the voice of the people" doesn't matter when it's an issue you support.


This is the only part of your reply that was on topic, and its false also. We've all seen the items posted here suggesting that a majority is forming in support of gay marriage, yet you are inferring the opposite. I'm fine with the "voice of the people" on gun control issues also.

Where do you get these untruths, just make up stuff? I have no interest in appealing the 17th Amendment.

I don't know why you put the DC vs Heller thing in there. If you are saying the law in question there was bad, I agree. If you are trying to say it someway relates to gay marriage, I don't agree.

I've explained over and over how it affects me. It is governing by decree rather than representation. The numbers are on your side, why do you not believe our country should decide?

[yermom]

so why does DOMA need to override state laws that have been voted on by the people in that state?

[cleller]

so why does DOMA need to override state laws that have been voted on by the people in that state?

I don't think it should. If the states vote in favor, so be it. But let them vote, and lived with it before a SC court ruling throws out a blanket that all states will feel obliged to crawl under.

[yermom]

I don't think it should. If the states vote in favor, so be it. But let them vote, and lived with it before a SC court ruling throws out a blanket that all states will feel obliged to crawl under.

this is them trying to crawl out from under one

[Midtowner]

If you'd have just let the states vote on what they want, we'd still have slavery.

[OU_Sooners75]

If you'd have just let the states vote on what they want, we'd still have slavery.

Thats the most ignorant comment to date for you.

[OU_Sooners75]

When we allow the courts of this nation to create laws, instead of enforcing them, then we no longer need a legislative branch.

[Midtowner]

When we allow the courts of this nation to create laws, instead of enforcing them, then we no longer need a legislative branch.

That's a pretty ignorant comment, but I've come to expect that from you.

[jkjsooner]

When we allow the courts of this nation to create laws, instead of enforcing them, then we no longer need a legislative branch.

By and large, people believe the courts are "creating laws" when and only when they disagree with the ruling.

In a common law system courts do play a large role. Many rulings can be interpreted by one side or the other as "creating laws." Most people I know in the legal community consider the "legistlating from the bench" argument to be absurd.

In our system all of the ins and outs concerning a law are not spelled out by the legislative branch. Much of the details are left to the executive and judicial branches. This can be seen as creating laws but it's been that way going back to the English system.

Here's a bit from wikipedia.


In common law legal systems (connotation 2), the common law (connotation 1) is crucial to understanding almost all important areas of law. For example, in England and Wales and in most states of the United States, the basic law of contracts, torts and property do not exist in statute, but only in common law (though there may be isolated modifications enacted by statute). As another example, the Supreme Court of the United States in 1877,[31] held that a Michigan statute that established rules for solemnization of marriages did not abolish pre-existing common-law marriage, because the statute did not affirmatively require statutory solemnization and was silent as to preexisting common law.

In almost all areas of the law (even those where there is a statutory framework, such as contracts for the sale of goods,[32] or the criminal law),[33] legislature-enacted statutes generally give only terse statements of general principle, and the fine boundaries and definitions exist only in the common law (connotation 1).

[olevetonahill]

Thats the most ignorant comment to date for you.

Not even close my friend, NOT even close.

[OU_Sooners75]

That's a pretty ignorant comment, but I've come to expect that from you.

Yeah, you should. Considering everything that flows from you is pretty ignorant and splenetic, any comment anyone makes is ignorant to a self loathing prick.

[OU_Sooners75]

By and large, people believe the courts are "creating laws" when and only when they disagree with the ruling.

In a common law system courts do play a large role. Many rulings can be interpreted by one side or the other as "creating laws." Most people I know in the legal community consider the "legistlating from the bench" argument to be absurd.

In our system all of the ins and outs concerning a law are not spelled out by the legislative branch. Much of the details are left to the executive and judicial branches. This can be seen as creating laws but it's been that way going back to the English system.

Here's a bit from wikipedia.

When the high court says it is unconstitutional for something is one thing. However, instead of saying it is legal for something when the laws say differently, is creating a law or ignoring the law passed by our representatives in congress.

I understand checks and balances, completely. It is one of many things that makes living in this nation beautiful. But instead of a court saying that the law doesn't exist on the books because "we say so" is a different matter.

And when they strike down a law, that is essentially what they are doing. Instead, they should either go by the law of the land or suggest that a law they find to be unconstitutional to be ratified.

[Midtowner]

Yeah, you should. Considering everything that flows from you is pretty ignorant and splenetic, any comment anyone makes is ignorant to a self loathing prick.

A self loathing straight man... is that a thing?

[yermom]

When the high court says it is unconstitutional for something is one thing. However, instead of saying it is legal for something when the laws say differently, is creating a law or ignoring the law passed by our representatives in congress.

I understand checks and balances, completely. It is one of many things that makes living in this nation beautiful. But instead of a court saying that the law doesn't exist on the books because "we say so" is a different matter.

And when they strike down a law, that is essentially what they are doing. Instead, they should either go by the law of the land or suggest that a law they find to be unconstitutional to be ratified.

i'm missing something here. what does ratify mean?

there are ~10 states where gay marriage is legal. the Defense of Marriage Act undoes that on a federal level, for what reason? because of religious belief?

how would you suggest two contradictory laws be handled?

[OU_Sooners75]

i'm missing something here. what does ratify mean?

there are ~10 states where gay marriage is legal. the Defense of Marriage Act undoes that on a federal level, for what reason? because of religious belief?

how would you suggest two contradictory laws be handled?

ratify, ratified, ratification: To approve and give formal sanction to; confirm.

Well by constitution, federal law trumps state law doesnt it?


However, the way I think it really needs to be handled is the federal law be repealed. And each state sends it to a vote of the people of their state.

[FaninAma]

"Remember when we withheld rights from a certain group of people, who weren't harming anybody, and the world became a better place?" - No One Ever
I usually agree with you but when you advocate oversight by a bunch of judges appointed for life being able to negate the legislature you are periously close to supporting a judicial oligarchy which would be fine if they truly adhered to Constitutional principles in making their rulings but they don't and we have seen the effects of judicial overreaching.

Self-determination includes the right to make mistakes and learn from those mistakes in order to grow as a society.

[cleller]

Assume the court were to everything is fine for two men/women to marry. Have we had the argument yet on whether that would open the door for cousins, siblings, or even parents and their children to marry?

They could all be considered consenting adults. In the age of contraception/sterilization you could argue the danger of deformed kids could be removed.

[yermom]

ratify, ratified, ratification: To approve and give formal sanction to; confirm.

Well by constitution, federal law trumps state law doesnt it?


However, the way I think it really needs to be handled is the federal law be repealed. And each state sends it to a vote of the people of their state.

right, so why would they ratify something they thought was unconstitutional?

maybe you accidentally a word

[olevetonahill]

Ima thinkin a few of ya prolly need to Get ya some councilin to overcome yer fear of the Gays.(Psst, I heered that dont rub off, jes sayin)
Couple more of ya should just go ahead and come on out the closet.

[Midtowner]

Assume the court were to everything is fine for two men/women to marry. Have we had the argument yet on whether that would open the door for cousins, siblings, or even parents and their children to marry?

Ah yes, the 'ol slippery slope argument... and purdy soon, folks'll be marrying chickens and cows too!

As for incest, that's one the courts can deal with just the same. There is probably a good health reason not to allow the marriage of say, a brother and a sister.


They could all be considered consenting adults. In the age of contraception/sterilization you could argue the danger of deformed kids could be removed.

True, if sterile, I'd have less of a problem with incestuous marriages.

[cleller]

Ah yes, the 'ol slippery slope argument... and purdy soon, folks'll be marrying chickens and cows too!

As for incest, that's one the courts can deal with just the same. There is probably a good health reason not to allow the marriage of say, a brother and a sister.



True, if sterile, I'd have less of a problem with incestuous marriages.

Now is the time to refer back to your graphs about inter-racial marriage. At one time, of course, the idea was completely outlandish, just as marriage among two people of the same sex. You're fighting against your own logic. Maybe your are leaning toward racial intolerance. (note how ridiculous it would sound to come out calling you a bigot.)

At one time there would have been plenty of health experts and courts that would have found inter-racial or gay marriage to be an unhealthy exercise. By extending this equal protection, there is no good reason a woman should not be allowed to marry any man (or woman) she wants. Brothers, fathers, uncles, sons, sisters, mothers etc not excluded.

It could also bring into question equal protection and age. The judgement that two men or women,people of different race, or relatives should not marry is all based upon judgments that some could contend are arbitrary or based upon assumption. Why is a person that is 6570 days old automatically more able to make decisions for himself that one who is 6569 days old?

Shouldn't there be a test of some sort? Plenty of 15 year olds are as intelligent and mature as some 18 year olds. Why shouldn't they have the same protections and liberties?

[Soonerjeepman]

Ima thinkin a few of ya prolly need to Get ya some councilin to overcome yer fear of the Gays.(Psst, I heered that dont rub off, jes sayin)
Couple more of ya should just go ahead and come on out the closet.

neither, just don't think it's normal or moral. You're startin to sound like those libs! LOL. I don't agree with the lifestyle for reasons I've stated. Has nothing to do with "fear" or jealousy, that's what the libs always use to try and make those of us that disagree with it feel guilty about our stance~ ;-)

[KantoSooner]

So those healers were wanting to marry men of their tribes?

You win a big bag of fail!

Actually, yes. They 'married' men, known as 'berdashes' as I recall, in the technical literature, who literally took the roll of women. Dress, habits, jobs, the works. Obviously they could not reproduce, but, in the limited observations made prior to obliteration of hte culture, it would appear that such men were quite often siblings of the leading man or woman of that generation.
Something similar existed in Europe through late medieval times in which a younger brother of the king would be made Archbishop of the church. Not allowed to father children (officially), but far from being powerless in his own right and quite handy, in the event the king got killed when it came to championing the interests of his nephews....or arranging marriages for his nieces.

[jkjsooner]

Assume the court were to everything is fine for two men/women to marry. Have we had the argument yet on whether that would open the door for cousins, siblings, or even parents and their children to marry?

They could all be considered consenting adults. In the age of contraception/sterilization you could argue the danger of deformed kids could be removed.

I should leave this up to the attorneys but I'll weigh in. The courts often look if one party (or the state) has a compelling reason for their actions. There is clearly a compelling scientific reason to forbid marriages between closely related persons. No court would force the states into allowing siblings to marry for this reason.

For example, our sexes are treated differently in many respects (different bathrooms, different clothing requirements for obscenity, etc.) and the courts usually find that there's a compelling reason to allow these.


I'm going to weigh in my personal opinion. One can argue that being a homosexual is a choice and simply a preference. If you buy that argument, I don't see there being a strong argument that this is discrimination or that homosexuality is even a proper class of humans to be protected. Afterall, if I prefer pot to alcohol I could make an argument that I'm discriminated based on my inherent preference to pot. You can define a subset of such people and argue that they are being discriminated against.

However, I believe a better argument is that gay marriage is sex discrimination. I can marry Jane but my lesbian friend Rachel can't. Rachel is being discriminated based on her sex (being female). The only reason she can't do what I can do is because she is female.

If the courts bought this argument it would be a matter of applying existing laws to this situation. This is what the courts do. For whatever reason, this argument has been made but in general this hasn't been what's swayed the courts.

[jkjsooner]

At one time there would have been plenty of health experts and courts that would have found inter-racial or gay marriage to be an unhealthy exercise.

They were wrong and made those assumptions using flimsy sociological reasoning.

Marriage between siblings is a simple matter of genetics. They share many of the same genes and thus otherwise improbable recessive diseases or defects are much more likely to occur.

As far as science goes these are not even comparable.


Why is a person that is 6570 days old automatically more able to make decisions for himself that one who is 6569 days old?

Sometimes you have to just draw the line. It isn't perfect but unless you have a better alternative it's just the way it has to be.

In a lot of cases (such as statuatory rape) not only is there a line but there's another requirement that the offender has to be so many years older than the victim. For example, in most jurisdictions a guy who is one day older than the girl can't be charged with statuatory rape.

[Midtowner]

Shouldn't there be a test of some sort? Plenty of 15 year olds are as intelligent and mature as some 18 year olds. Why shouldn't they have the same protections and liberties?

They're called emancipated minors.

--it's kind of a thing already.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I just want to note that you guys spent a whole weekend discussing gays.

[cleller]

They were wrong and made those assumptions using flimsy sociological reasoning.

Marriage between siblings is a simple matter of genetics. They share many of the same genes and thus otherwise improbable recessive diseases or defects are much more likely to occur.

As far as science goes these are not even comparable.



Sometimes you have to just draw the line. It isn't perfect but unless you have a better alternative it's just the way it has to be.



It obviously didn't seem flimsy at the time. Who knows how we'll all feel after 50 more years of "progress"?

If a woman was to have a tubal ligation, etc, there could be no reason to say she can't marry whomever she wants.

It does boil down to drawing a line. However, every time a line gets drawn, someone wants to erase it.

[Midtowner]

If a woman was to have a tubal ligation, etc, there could be no reason to say she can't marry whomever she wants.

As long as the other person is a consenting adult, I don't see any rational reason why she shouldn't be able to marry 'em.

You have to ask the questions--why are we drawing that line/what purpose does it serve. If you can't answer in a way which doesn't involve Jesus Christ being your Lord and savior, we don't need to draw that line.

[cleller]

They're called emancipated minors.

--it's kind of a thing already.

A thing that requires a person to petition a court, then jump thru whatever hoops that particular judge wants to set for the person to establish they are self-sufficient. Nothing standard. The same person could get wildly different rulings from different judges or jurisdictions.
That's hardly equal protection.

[Midtowner]

A thing that requires a person to petition a court, then jump thru whatever hoops that particular judge wants to set for the person to establish they are self-sufficient. Nothing standard. The same person could get wildly different rulings from different judges or jurisdictions.
That's hardly equal protection.

Heh... True that, but once it gets submitted to a judge/jury/finder of fact, we have a little tradition in this country of trusting the outcome.

We have appellate courts to deal with the effups after all.

[jkjsooner]

If a woman was to have a tubal ligation, etc, there could be no reason to say she can't marry whomever she wants.

Yep, and I don't think there would be a compelling reason to keep them from getting married in that situation.

I want to throw up for saying that but if they're consenting adults and they can't reproduce then leave 'em be.


Edit: I believe non-genetically related siblings can marry in a lot of places. Assuming that they became siblings at early ages, that is just as creepy.

Now, if you were 16 and your dad remarried to a women who had a hot 16 year old daughter that's a different matter. All bets are off.

[jkjsooner]

I think there should be a poll. At the time they met, what age would two people have to be for it to be appropriate for the brother to hit on his new (genetically unrelated) sister?

[olevetonahill]

I think there should be a poll. At the time they met, what age would two people have to be for it to be appropriate for the brother to hit on his new (genetically unrelated) sister?

6 months or less. What I win.