- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
back up link: National gay rights group to file W.Va. lawsuit* - News - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -[h=1]Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va.’s ban on same-sex marriage[/h]A national gay rights organization sued the state of West Virginia over its ban on same-sex marriages Tuesday, declaring its Defense of Marriage Act a violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
New York-based Lambda Legal filed the complaint in U.S. District Court in Huntington on behalf of three same-sex couples and the child of one couple. It filed a similar lawsuit last month challenging Virginia’s ban on gay marriages.
In the West Virginia case, Lambda Legal argues the state’s ban unfairly discriminates against same-sex couples and their children. The organization says its clients are denied the legal sanction, societal respect, financial protections and other support that marriage gives to heterosexual couples.
The group also contends the law violates constitutionally guaranteed rights to equal protection under the law and sends a message that gay men, lesbians and their children are second-class citizens “without any compelling, important or even legitimate justification.”
I figured it would be the case. Now the pro-gay rights people need to recognize a few of these are going to fail before biased partisan judges. Eventually the supreme court will have tio make a true decision on this, and they have already showed that equality is more important than allowing people to vote other's rights away. I would have to say the courts were going to be the only place that would have done it for the whole US anyway considering how backwards the majority is in some states.
I figured it would be the case. Now the pro-gay rights people need to recognize a few of these are going to fail before biased partisan judges. Eventually the supreme court will have tio make a true decision on this, and they have already showed that equality is more important than allowing people to vote other's rights away. I would have to say the courts were goiong to be the only place that would have done it for the whole US anyway considering how backwards the majority is in some states.
There may also be some cases that do pass because of pro-gay activist judges as well that are so deranged in their hateful stance on "equality" that they would reverse the legal will of the people and impose their own inappropriate view of marriage upon a state.
always funny to read deranged, hateful and equality in the same sentence, VERY telling.
its not a legal will if its found to be discriminatory and violate equality, sorry. SO the only factual thing being imposed in THAT case would be equality. Makes me proud discrimination is losing and that equality and human rights is winning.
You will still be free to think, feel, preach what ever you like, just like people think, feel, preach that minorities are a lesser, women are a lesser, interracial marriage is real marriage etc etc. All those inequalities lost just like this one will. Its only a matter of time, id say 5 years max, after that those that dont like equality can move to russia.
There may also be some cases that do pass because of pro-gay activist judges as well that are so deranged in their hateful stance on "equality" that they would reverse the legal will of the people and impose their own inappropriate view of marriage upon a state using their status as a judge to unfairly impose their will upon the people.
1.)Just saying, there are some on the pro-SSM side that are literally deranged in their thinking
2.) toss out grand judgments about their opposition and would violate the rights of states and voters to push their view of "equality" upon everyone.
3.) What I think is telling is when people think those who disagree shouldn't be allowed to have a vote or legal voice
4.) especially considering that traditional marriage is the legal default and has been for hundreds of years with the issue of SSM being a change in policy
5.) instead of some new epiphany on "equality" that needs legal action with laws as written today.
6.)SSM is not like interracial marriage, that's a very very weak straw-man and slander tactic that is constantly tossed around in these threads.
7.)Let me know when sexuality is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as protected like race is (and don't try and use the fallacy that it's illegal gender discrimination to ban SSM).
8.) It's special interests
9.)that largely push these bans and violate the established law and default law of traditional marriage.
Just saying, there are some on the pro-SSM side that are literally deranged in their thinking, toss out grand judgments about their opposition and would violate the rights of states and voters to push their view of "equality" upon everyone.
What I think is telling is when people think those who disagree shouldn't be allowed to have a vote or legal voice, especially considering that traditional marriage is the legal default and has been for hundreds of years with the issue of SSM being a change in policy instead of some new epiphany on "equality" that needs legal action with laws as written today.
SSM is not like interacial marriage, that's a very very weak straw-man and slander tactic that is constantly tossed aorund in these threads. Let me know when sexuality is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as protected like race is (and don't try and use the fallacy that it's illegal gender discrimination to ban SSM). It's special interests that largely push these bans and violate the established law and default law of traditional marriage. I would say what Russia is doing is far more similar to what many on the pro-SSM side wants with using the government to chip away the rights and laws of dissenting individuals when they essentially argue that people have no right to vote on their views regarding marriage and that now, given some kind of social epiphany, SSM must be a default rule of law without a Constitutional amendment when traditional marriage has been default and legal for hundreds of years.
If you think equality is the work of a deranged activist judge then you probably think discrimination and prejudice are rights that come with no consequences. It is odd that you would expect things like fairness and equality in a system that promotes prejudice and inequality, but maybe the problem in your case is not within other people, but rather within yourself?
you have to understand, for some people, its only EQUAL RIGHTS if they say so or they like it, otherwise its not. Just like minority rights, womens rights and interracial marriage. All the same failed arguments.
I do understand, but the thing that amazes me is the glaring obvious hole in the logic. If you promote inequality even for your own gain at some point those systems that are more powerful than you will use that same weakness against you. By promoting their unfairness you promote the weakness that will allow them to be unfair to you. It is sort of like how the patriot act came back around to bite republicans in the ass with spying. Yes, it is all great while you are in control, but when your opponents get a hold of it it will be used by them to bite you in the ass. Which is why fairness even though it may not allow you to be prejudiced against others is important because it will not allow others to be unfair against you. I just do not get why they cannot see that point despite a world full of instances where it is proven to happen 100 percent of the time. I would never dream of endorsing a ban on christianity, and I even want christianity to have it's own voice in the world for it's opwn promotion and not the denegration of others. I want it to be protected no matter how often it causes others harm. I want the actions that hurt others to be punished, but not the ideas because I know when you start judging those ideas and eliminating them it will eventually be used on ideas I agree with. Ther WBC is a bunch of assholes and I would not mind if they got run over by a truck by accident. however, i would never seek to ban their words or their ideas from the public's eye.
Even on this issue, i think marriage is a huge sham. i do not believe in obne person forever, though i could see one person for a period of time. I thibnk marriage laws suck. I do not want to spend money on all the divorce drama. I hate that we have funded an area where lawyers swim freely in a pond of depraivity and immorality. But I have seen it help people and make them happy. I have seen the joy tghat comes from it even if it ends tragically later. I do not want to ban it even though it clearly destroys lives sometimes. I do not know why gays want it, and i think as more of them get married it will destroy more of their lives, but I am not going to stop them from getting married. I am actually glad they have those days of happiness even if it makes the fall harder. I hate church, but I am glad it is there for those people who live for it every week. How much of a scumbag would I be if I said no you cannot have church because that is my word. It does not mean I won't rant about it as that serves another purpose, but I do not expect those people to like me for ranting about it and i certainly would never vote to ban it from happening on church property every single sunday. I do not even mind the idea that some white supremists want to set up a white only town in the middle of nowhere where no one else lives. I do not think they should kick anyone else out, but if you want to live in white only land and syhut the door then do it, just when you come out be pleasant because the rest of the world is not that way. As long as most areas and no needed areas are public for everyone i am fine with private areas having private rules.
and there you have it, this is what some will never get . . . .
but your words wil go ignored and be twisted and said but but but that different blah blah blah
yet tomorrow just like yesterday reality agrees with you and not them
However, if we never fought against that stupidity we would never know how important that point of view is. Perhaps it is in understanding why our opponents are so opposed to it we discover the reasons why we fight so hard for it and how necessary it is to fight for it. Sorry, I found my shipment of enlightenment last sunday and I am probably going to be talking a bit wacky until i lose it again. It was totally hanging out on the back of my head and i had to see it for myself.
There may also be some cases that do pass because of pro-gay activist judges as well that are so deranged in their hateful stance on "equality" that they would reverse the legal will of the people and impose their own inappropriate view of marriage upon a state using their status as a judge to unfairly impose their will upon the people.
Just saying, there are some on the pro-SSM side that are literally deranged in their thinking, toss out grand judgments about their opposition and would violate the rights of states and voters to push their view of "equality" upon everyone. What I think is telling is when people think those who disagree shouldn't be allowed to have a vote or legal voice, especially considering that traditional marriage is the legal default and has been for hundreds of years with the issue of SSM being a change in policy instead of some new epiphany on "equality" that needs legal action with laws as written today.
SSM is not like interacial marriage, that's a very very weak straw-man and slander tactic that is constantly tossed aorund in these threads. Let me know when sexuality is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as protected like race is (and don't try and use the fallacy that it's illegal gender discrimination to ban SSM). It's special interests that largely push these bans and violate the established law and default law of traditional marriage. I would say what Russia is doing is far more similar to what many on the pro-SSM side wants with using the government to chip away the rights and laws of dissenting individuals when they essentially argue that people have no right to vote on their views regarding marriage and that now, given some kind of social epiphany, SSM must be a default rule of law without a Constitutional amendment when traditional marriage has been default and legal for hundreds of years.
There is no right of any state to discriminate against its citizens, gay or straight, unless they can show a legitimate state interest being furthered in doing so, no matter what laws it is that are discriminatory.
Just saying, there are some on the pro-SSM side that are literally deranged in their thinking
There is no right of any state to discriminate against its citizens, gay or straight, unless they can show a legitimate state interest being furthered in doing so, no matter what laws it is that are discriminatory.
Understatement of the century
So the state shouldn't discriminate against any sexual fetishes right?
SSM is not like interacial marriage, that's a very very weak straw-man and slander tactic that is constantly tossed aorund in these threads. Let me know when sexuality is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as protected like race is (and don't try and use the fallacy that it's illegal gender discrimination to ban SSM). It's special interests that largely push these bans and violate the established law and default law of traditional marriage. I would say what Russia is doing is far more similar to what many on the pro-SSM side wants with using the government to chip away the rights and laws of dissenting individuals when they essentially argue that people have no right to vote on their views regarding marriage and that now, given some kind of social epiphany, SSM must be a default rule of law without a Constitutional amendment when traditional marriage has been default and legal for hundreds of years.
since when did homosexuality become a "sexual fetish"
your post fails as usual
1.)It's always been a fetish
It certainly isn't genetic
1.) interesting so sexual orientation is now a fetish according to you. Link and facts to back that up please, we'd love to read it
2.) well you cant say certainly" because that would make you wrong. Theres no evidence that shows orientation is or is not genetic. again if you have some facts that say orientation is in fact not gentic (not that it matters) we like to read that too.
I love when you prove how vastly uneducated on this topic you are.
It's always been a fetish
It certainly isn't genetic
Homosexuality is a fetish
There is no gay gene
That's the science. Not my problem you are anti science.
Carry on with your Gay Thumper thread
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?